Peter, agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. The fetish with the scrum is destroying the running game as teams bulk up to win soft scrum penalties.
.
Huge men that can’t play 80 minutes. Soon there will be 2 entire packs required for a game — where there will be 7 sub forwards and an 8th that can play as a back. (Saffas are already going this way.)
.
Smaller (aka tier 2 nations) will never be able to compete as they might rely on speed and guile which they can manage for 40 or 50 minutes , but as they tire themselves the new pack will come on fresh.
.
Reserves / bench has occured to make it safe for the front row, but now it has become abused by coaches so that now they have become technical replacements and safety is a secondary issue. (Remember the days when a forward would only come off on a stretcher?)
.
And the big men still slow the game down at every opportunity, walking to scrums, lineouts etc. We had to introduce a damn clock because they were abusing it. (Remember the days when forwards RAN to scrums and lineouts and they were over in 30 seconds.)
.
There is a simple easy fix for this.
.
1 / Scrums only for knockons and when a ball cannot be played in a ruck or maul.. Stop allowing the calling of scrums for penalties, free kicks; ball kicked dead & lineout throws not straight, (yes a free kick, like 7s) forward pass, etc…how can you call a scrum for a mark in the 22 for ffs! A Scrum is won and still a penalty applies because the prop put their hand or knee on the ground. Absurd.
.
2/ Abolish all technical scrum penalties and change them to free kicks. Totally absurd that a knock can result in a penalty and three points result. The advantage is, you get the vballnote: Foul play penalties still apply.
.
Make those changes will speed the game back up and the big fellas will be run off their feet, allowing more smaller mobile players to return to the game. in other words a game for all sizes, not just paying lip service.
.
If it remains as is and deteriorates to 8 reserve forwards – a second pack – tier twos will fall further behind, and Australia rugby will be absolutely killed. Aussies have too many other pro football choices to watch.

Don’t need to be Kiwis, There are also a whole lot of Aussies that want to see the Wallabies and Australian union fail. They tend to be the followers of the other football codes.

But that is almost irrelevant. The game of rugby in Australia itself has too many disparate selfish parties who only care about themselves. Schools, clubs, regions, states.

And on that note, if you want to divide and fracture rugby even further, just bring back Alan Jones.

I have been both taught and coached by AJ — I have not met a more divisive person. You’re either with him or agin him.

Just what Australian rugby needs.

I realised that “Wills” might be mistaken for the other Wills (that have caused so much pain and suffering to people) therefore the AFL Premiership trophy should be named as:

The Tom Wills Cup

Barassi was one of the greats, and I’m sure that there are a lot of names that could also be justified.

For me there is only one. A great athlete, friend of the indigenous, larriken, a man who was both both brilliant and flawed. And a man that every single player of Australian Rules football owes a debt. The founder of the game: Tom Wills.

The Wills Cup.

Yes that works also.

First test is a coin toss.
Remaining tests: Loser of the previous game chooses. In the event of a draw…
Drawn test: non-chooser of the previous game gets choice.

This certainly gives the team that lost the previous test a chance to redeem itself — and not be able to blame losing the toss in the next test.

Thanks Jeff. Nice idea.

In a series this could be a solution. Let’s say there are 5 tests.

For the first match there is always a toss. Lets say team A wins it and gets first choice to bat or bowl
For the second match – no toss – team B, the team that did NOT win the toss in the first match gets to choose.
For the third match – no toss, team A gets to choose
For the fourth match – no toss, Team B gets the choice

At this point it’s all even, 2 choices apiece. So in an even series of 4 matches it would be 2:2. But in an odd number of game such as a 5 match series:

For the fifth and final match, there is another coin toss.

For me that is about as fair as it can be which one way or the other it will always be 2:3. It doesn’t guarantee a pitch won’t be doctored, but it does even out the advantage of the importance of winning the toss.

Is Gareth Edwards the greatest rugby player of all time?

The answer for me is… Yes!

I had the good fortune to meet Sir Gareth around 10 years ago, along with Sean Fitzpatrick, David Campese and dual international Jonathon Davies. I was also fortunate to be invited to dinner and be flanked by “the Prince” & “Campo”. It is a memory that will last with me forever — that an being able to sit for a while in the legendary Spitfire. I have a photo of the Prince and I on my Linkedin Profile.

As a kid watching Wales through the 70s — who can forget the 73 Barbarians V ABs and “That Try” that showed how the game of rugby could be played — I am happy to concede that for me he is the greatest player that I ever watched!

And… he’s a bloody good bloke!

It seems to me that so much of this could be avoided if they practised what Jesus taught.. “Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone.”

But of course, these saints would want to take it literally, while ignoring, tats, working on the sabbath & mammon…

HI BF, yes sorry that wasn’t as clear as it could be, but yes, hand and arm (but not shoulder) And with Tompkins, it appeared to come off his wrist.
.
When I first played there was a “Technical Knock-on” . It occurred if, when attempting to catch a ball it bounced off the chest, went forward, but was still caught before it hit the ground. Scrum. (A law long gone)

Allow the advantage so that the non a-offending team can regather after the knock on by the defender and maybe able to go on the attack again. Currently after an attempted intercept the attackers stop playing, throw hands up in the air and yell at the ref…

But let’s keep knock-on advantages short a phase or two.

The advantage law came about because in the old days every knock on was an immediate scrum. There was no possibility of the other team being able to capitalize on the knock on as it wasn’t in the Laws. So the Advantage Law was created, but now it continues for far too long and after several phases usually walk 40 metres back across the field to have a scrum. If no obvious and immediate advantage then let’s have the big boys have a go at each other.

I definitely don’t want the kick to go dead or touch in goal, that would be the worst possible outcome after a length of the field counter attack.

But if the chasers could force a touch down in goal by tackle or just pressure, that’s a goal line drop out and more often than not a chance to counter attack from the 50m or if shorter have a drop goal attempt straight back at them.

I don’t want to see the mind numbing one out hit ups inside our half that result in a turnover or penalty.

It is also because of the Wallabies lack of discipline. We need to play field position and stay as far away from our own goal posts as possible. We we’re very very lucky against Scotland.

I know this French team will attack from anywhere, but I’d rather see them have to run 80m to score than 30.

Anyway, it’s not going to happen. I think we will need to play this game at Sanctuary Ground at Lourdes to win.

Against the French we need to go big, the biggest we can. I’d start Skelton and then look for speed to finish the game out.
.
But one thing that puzzles me is that we have Reece Hodge who has one of the biggest boots in the game and we have the 50:22 Law and yet we hardly even try to exploit it.
.
For mine I’d start Hodge, When we’re in our half, I’d position Hodge somewhere between the centre of the field and the 15m lines and tell him to kick the ball as far as he can toward the corner posts (but not kick it dead) .
.
With a little luck it would break over the touchline for a 22:50 throw in… or if we have decent chasers pressure the receiver in a corner which could result in a tackle or fumble or, who knows.
.
Kicking into the corner also means a return kick will have a narrow angle and that would likely give us a net gain, and the ability to counter attack. As well as forcing the winger and full back back so we can run it from the counter.
.
Or the opposition is offside from the kick and pressured into error to force some 3 point shots (Early on, please take the points on offer, if a kick is inside the 15 m lineout and 10 m lines.)
.
Get the score on the board, then go back and do it again. Play the game in their half — well into their half.
.
On that note, can we have some decent touch finders on penalty kicks please. I’ve seen 14 year olds kick with better accuracy and distance.

JM, I’m more for any attempt that results in a knock on equals a scrum, but I’m ok with that too. An obvious knock down straight to the ground, with no attempt to catch at all.

Otherwise…. “Knock on.. ” “advantage… ” “no advantage, scrum, attackers ball.”

I just want to see the game played, not players stopping to argue their case to the ref, nor endless trips to the TMO to decide if the player could catch it or not, whether there was defence, or cover defence, or any other factors they can toss into the mix.

Can we just play the game??

IMO more hated are penalties from scrums for technical (not dangerous) infringements.

Agreed! IMO, the only penalty in a scrum should be for foul play. Everything else is a free kick with no option for a scrum. One way to dramatically simplify and also speed up the game.

Hi Joshua, With all due respect. It’s not up to viewers, spectators or even players 5 or 25 metres away. He was the ref and he was in the position to make the call.
.
And he did. The ref knew the law and made the correct call and in real time… full credit to him
.
The problem in this instance is almost every player had forgotten sports rule #1. Play to the whistle.
.
But in this instance it wasn’t a knock on. The ref absolutely nailed it, Tompkins (eventually) played on and scored, while the Wallabies stood around waving their arms and telling the ref what the decision should be. I’d prefer players to STFU and just play.
.
I agree that the law the ‘intercept’ situation needs to be looked out. Do we change the interpretation to deliberate knock down rather than knock on? Then it *might* apply to Tompkins. He makes a play at it, but is he really in a position to catch it? But regardless we’re still looking to intent and complicating the game further. I want to see the game with less laws and interpretations and exceptions
.
I’m coming to the position as I mentioned elsewhere….
.
The team with the ball has the options. They decide to pass or run or kick. In my opinion it’s a poor pass if the opposition can get their hand to it.
.
I now believe the deliberate knock on should go. The call should be; Advantage, play on … no advantage… scrum.
.
That then clears up this whole mess. Now if the ball comes off a defenders hand the attackers stop and are calling straight for the penalty — like the Wallabies did in Wales — instead of playing the game. That alone is good enough reason to drop the law.
.
But this still wouldn’t apply to Wright’s pass and Tompkins attempt. It was not a knock on, it was play on.
.
You’d need to change the whole knock-on law. To simplify the law — to how it is more or less interpreted — it would be something like this:
.
If the ball comes off the hand and lands in front of the player it’s a knock on.
If the ball comes off the hand and lands behind the player it’s a knock back.
.
For what it’s worth , when I was reffing a school team a similar situation occurred. The pass was in front of a player, he reached to pull it back to him (with his outside hand – he couldn’t use two hands) but it glanced off his hand, travelled backwards, landed on the ground near his foot and as it landed, he kicked it up the field. Everyone stopped, but the player who’d kicked it forward. He scored and their team won on that final score.
.
At no point did the ball travel forward off the hand. I copped a heap off flak from parents of the losing team (and even some from the winning team!) telling me “It wasn’t a kick, you missed the knock-on before the kick”. Trying to tell them it wasn’t a knock on was pointless… In their opinion it had landed on the ground in front of him, therefore it was a knock on.
.
In hindsight I should have called it a knock on, no advantage, scrum. 100% of the people there would have been satisified.
.
Rugby is a funny game sometimes.

–COMMENT DELETED—

The last time I saw a deliberate knock down was David Campese way back in the 80s. I think it was the All Blacks. It was obviously deliberate. He made absolutely no attempt to catch the ball. He open handed palm down knocked it down and was penalised.

Since then we’ve gone palm up is intercept attempt, while palm down is a penalty.

An now if you don’t regather it’s a penalty, and sometimes a penalty try with card.

The team with the ball has the options. They decide to pass or run or kick. In my opinion it’s a poor pass if the opposition can get their hand to it.

Rugby…. the game where every law has an exception…

That’s true Dr, it was an unusual circumstance.. the ball came backward out of the hand, landed in front of the player and bounced backward. Therefore no knock on.

We’ve become accustomed to the ball being touched by the hand, landing in front of a player and nearly always being considered a knock on. But to be a knock-on, somewhere in the equation the ball has to travel forward.

I know some people consider that if it lands behind the player, then that that is not a knock on. But it is still a knock on if the ball lands behind the player and bounces forward.

The ref made the correct call. But no one would have argued if he’d called it a knock on because it came off the hand and hit the ground in front of the player.

Is there a specific reason why some players don’t have a half each?

I would think that first 10 minutes after half time, is a perfect time for a player like a half to really make an impact, while the first half players are still getting up to speed.

Surely they’re fit enough to go the full 40+ to finish.

Sheek,

Just ease them into it with the suggestion that the scrum is abysmal and has to go. But there needs to be ‘something’ to replace, or it just becomes like touch (that’ll get em 😉 when a ball is lost forward. Then tell them about the scrimmage line for the forwards, and the contest starts immediately the ball is released to the half back and it’s open season on the half….

Once you’ve sold them on a scrimmage, then dip the toe in with the forward pass …. “What do you think if….

As they say “sell ’em the sizzle…”

Cheers!

Sheek,

As we know, the league scrum is a pointless anachronism and has been for some time so yes, just ditch it. But there needs to be a way to restart play with some way to concentrate forwards ideally in a meaningful contest or it’s just like a penalty with 13 players spread across the field.

Therefore a line of scrimmage makes perfect sense for a restart. (I assume it would be centre field?) 5 aside balances the line – 2 either side of the ‘hooker’

There could be a non scrimmage line position for a forward, eg lock could become a ‘rover’ – still in the scrimmage area, but with the ability to move within back and forth etc behind the ‘scrim’ line.

Even if League just adopted that and the game would be so much better — the push and shove of forwards trying to splatter the ‘half’ would be way more interesting than 12 players having a group hug.

And for the first tackle, a forward pass. That is radical!

I’m assuming the receiver starts onside behind the scrimmage line. It would really open up the game tactically. Together it would really really make the “scrim” something to look forward to, instead of being “heading to the fridge time”. I really like both those ideas.

Question. Could a team also have the option to call a ‘scrim’ after a penalty kick into touch? (While still keeping a tap restart.)

What a game that would to take to the US! They’d get it in an instant. Do you know Russell Crowe by any chance??

Mate, if I was still coaching those kids, I’d be trying it at the first session!

Cheers!

Hi Sheek,

yes that was my understanding of the early days of rugger… Most of the players hacking at the ball (ie kicking shins). With a few standing out. The whole mass meandered around. When / if it emerged it was kicked up field. It was never passed or run with, but getting it to the goal line gave you a try at goal to score points with a kick through the posts.

I reads somewhere that Association football in the early days — when captains used to ref the game — was similar . The split more or less occurred because one group wanted the ball kicked off the ground without handling it, while the other were ok to pick it up and then kick it. But never to each other. But running with it in hand? a definite no-no!

And Yes.. it’s called a mark because you had to mark the ground with your heel while calling mark at the same time — even when I played it was part of the game. I had one pedantic ref disallow a mark as a kid because the ground was too hard to actually make a mark with my heel even though I did hit the ground with my heel!

I believe it was aboriginals who gave Aussie Rules the spectacular aerial mark based on a type of keepings off game played with a stuffed possum skin called marngrook.

Yes Aus rugby has always had to compete with other contact sports like league and rules — one game much less technical and easier to understand. The other with weird or seemingly no rules, like a shoulder charge on a player without the ball is ok… but pushing in the back of a player with the ball is not.

I think the US would quickly adapt to the simplicity of League… I’d explain this, ” In American football a team gets 4 downs to make 10 yards. In league, there are six tackles per sequence and a tackle is like a down. After a tackle, there is a 4 man scrimmage – two from each side. And no stopping the game after a tackle, it’s immediate play on. Instead of a quarterback, we call them a dummy half that decides what happens with the ball after its played through the legs to start the next one. If after the six tackles the team with the ball hasn’t scored, the other team gets the use of the ball and this repeats until someone scores.”

Now try and explain union in an “elavator pitch” to a person who’s only watched American football. Take the stairs…

For variety I would sometime use league when coaching. The kids loved it. And we played a lot of touch too– especially for warm up. We won the first tournament we ever entered against a club made up of Aussies and Brits. 1-0 with 10 seconds to go. League is great for teaching kids the basics. Touch is great for ball handling and to try stuff without the pressure of being flattened.

I played league for my first few seasons U10-12 before playing union. I was a far better tackler than everyone else in the team and always ran straight with the ball. I also think that was a reason Oz teams were good ball handlers and basics. As kids, particularly in the bush, we played league at their public schools on a Wednesday arvo and club on a Saturday before heading off to the big smoke to boarding school and playing union.

Anyway better let you go!

Mate, when / if I ever make it back to Sydney, I’d love to catch up.

Sheek,

In ’74, that was Anto, a smart player and a great bloke. The whole family are. I met their mum a few times as well. As he was 2 years senior to me and in a different house he would have had no idea who I was.

I played with his brother, PM also a great bloke. Unfortunately, in ’76 he was injured in the May hols and we lost him for the entire season. He was an exceptional outside back, quick and elusive. As an athlete; 100m & hurdles and a very good tennis player.

I imagine the bus gig is (usually) a lot of fun. .. & I could tell you some stories about what went on in the 200+ acres of bush that we had at the back of the school! Lots of places to hide.

I’m semi retired as well and live OS. For a while I was sub teaching and coaching rugby at an international school that had a lot of American students. They loved rugby! I found the best convertors were the basketballers & ice hockey players — they had vison, understood the need for speed, and loved the contact.

If I was recruiting for rugby in the US I’d be looking for kids who had fallen through the college cracks and not quite good enough to get a collage sports scholarship — kids who were good basketballers and also played a little HS football. I think the funniest line I had from one of the kids was when I asked why at training he just stopped and looked at the ball and didn’t pick it up and score as the line was wide open. He replied, “You mean I can run with the ball? I’ve played American football for 8 years and never once touched it in a game.”

God help us if the US ever gets serious about Rugby.

I was told that on the schoolboys tour that Mark didn’t want to play a mid week game so his twin Glen took the field. No one knew. My friend was playing worked it out when he called a new move they’d worked on the day before and Glen just looked blankly at him — he didn’t know the call. Then the penny dropped! “You’re Glen, not Mark!”