Rule Change

[Utility Player]

I have been thinking about a rule change for a while now and after seeing Cameron Smith pack in at lock for a scrum last night thought I would ask the learned folk on the forum what they thought.

It seems that the game has become too predictable and that a blueprint of 5 hit ups and a kick with a good chase is repeated time after time.

I have heard Bill Harrigan say on the radio that it has come too far to get the contest back into the srum and that means in 99.9% of cases the side feeding the srum gets possession.

So I was thinking why not make the scrum feed decided by the video referee pushing a button. As players walked to the scrum the logo of the side who's feed it is could flash up on the scoreboard and over the full 80 minutes they should even out.

I think teams would get a lot more chances in their oppositions red zone and that it would make games more exciting. It would also lessen the discrepancies over strips and forward passes.

Players would not be afraid to try passes in their own half because there is fifty fifty chance they would get the ball back if a knock on or dropped ball occurs.

Wingers & fullbacks would not be able to let kicks dribble out because they might not get the feed.

Anyway just a thought.

 

[Fro]

How does the video ref decide this? randomly??

most of the posters on here reckon the refs have it in for us already, can you imagine the uproar if there was the perception that this was biased also.

Sorry UP, this one is full of holes.

 

[DVS Matt]

that is without a doubt one of the craziest ideas i have ever heard. Just for that i'm going to smite you

 

[Utility Player]

How does the video ref decide this? randomly??

Yes, surley they could come up with a tamper proof computer program that would pick one team or the other.

 

[Dan]

I think taking more things away from video refs is the idea.

The rule changes I have heard that I think would help are as follows

- Whomever forms the scrum has to stay in the scrum (so if you have wingers and centres packing in to stop the clock, then they have to stay there, but the opposition can put their normal players in. I bet you if you had forwards vs wingers in the scrum there would be pushing. Imagine if you halfback formed the scrum to stop the clock in hooker or as a prop. The opposition then has a prop against your half back and someone else from your team has to feed the scrum, possibly this could result in a prop feeding the scrum

- You don't get a conversion attempt if you score off of a kick. So tries where you score from a kick within the 20 metre red zone are only 4 pointers, but if you score by spreading it through the hands, you get a chance at an extra 2 points

- Video Ref. Only gets 1 slow motion look and 3 normal speed looks.
- Video Ref can only judge on grounding and offside (no looking at obstruction, knock-ons etc - unless occurred in grounding the bal. However ref can tell the on ground ref there is was a knock on and the on ground ref can over rule video ref)
That would put a greater onus on the ref to make real time calls and the shocking obstruction calls that in real time are fine but in slow motion look silly would be eliminated

- Video Ref - Ref's call is abolished and benefit of the doubt is given in those cases
- On Ground Ref can over rule video ref

No more going upstairs for strips/knock-ons. Have to be called in real time

- Bring back the penalty for walking off the mark

I think some of those have a lot of merit to them and would increase the flow and competition of the game.

Some where that needs a good look is ruck infringements there needs to be a whole new way of policing this because it is making the game so slow and silly with constant penalties

I think there is also grounds for a cap on penalties per game before a player is sent off

Say 5 penalties for ruck infringements per team, and a player goes for 10 minutes

Dan

 

[Ryan]

that is without a doubt one of the craziest ideas i have ever heard. Just for that i'm going to smite you

Matty - Gold !

 

[Utility Player]

[quote author=DVS Matt link=topic=178254.msg194557#msg194557 date=1219708874]
that is without a doubt one of the craziest ideas i have ever heard. Just for that i'm going to smite you

Matty - Gold !

Any reasons as to why?



[/quote]

 

[DSM5]

It's as silly as the proposed rule having the defending team take the ball back to the twenty after fielding a grubber in their in-goal.  No reward for short tactical in-goal kicks.  Leave it as it is is my opinion.  The scrum thing is a misread of the purpose of scrums.  Their purpose is to reset the play, taking six defenders out of the defensive line and giving the backs some room to play.  Maybe the change where the dummy half must pass the ball rather than just take the ball up is worth a thought. 

 

[Fro]

the problem with the dummy half having to pass it DSM is that the markers will know that he has to pass it thereby they dont need to worry about him and will just run at the guy about to take the ball.

I do agree that the scrum these days is less about the contest and more about opening up the field

 

[Biscuits]

these are the changes i would like to see;

1.if you defuse a bomb anywhere inside your 10 metres (not just in-goal) you get a 20 restart.

2.A total change of the penalty system. If you are attacking and the ref catches the markers not square, or the defence not back 10, or laying on too long etc...instead of blowing a penalty he simply calls "markers not square-six again" .No easy metres from a kick for touch and if you have momentum you get to keep that momentum. On the flip side if the attacking team offends then play would be started with a tap to the opposing team. Any foul play either side of the ball results in a penalty allowing a kick for touch.

3.markers only reqired to have one shoulder square. the 2 markers could the be off-set with one having his left shoulder square and the other his right shoulder. This will mean players can get off the tackled player a little sooner without fear of being caught out, and will also reduce dummy-half running.

 

[Jethro]

Just bring back the traditional scrum & also bring back the opposition marker being allowed to rake for the ball in the play the ball.

 

[Canteen Worker]

Some good suggestions there Biscuits. I like the idea of the contest at the play the ball! I reckon a 50/20 rule would be good as it would open the field up even more than present.

 

[DSM5]

Jethro, no.  Why give the team that has knocked on, for example, the chance to regain the ball.  And raking was always primitive, although if my memory serves me well Ian Roberts raked a ball against St George in the 1996 grand final and we scored.  I think it was against St George.  Ian Roberts was a specialist at raking, amongst other things.  And, Oh yeah, he was a great player.

 

[Jethro]

Jethro, no.  Why give the team that has knocked on, for example, the chance to regain the ball.  And raking was always primitive, although if my memory serves me well Ian Roberts raked a ball against St George in the 1996 grand final and we scored.  I think it was against St George.  Ian Roberts was a specialist at raking, amongst other things.  And, Oh yeah, he was a great player.

Well, the way that scrums are now it's a joke. If they are not going to make them a contest like they were originally designed then why bother having them at all. All that they are is a big time waster in today's game. You may as well just do away with them & just do a tap the ball play. As far as raking goes, I'm still all for it as it still puts a bit of the foot back into football & makes it more of a contest for the ball & opens up more competition. If you manage to rake it your way then it's to your teams advantage but if you miss it then there is no great loss to the way things are now.

 

[Utility Player]

Jethro, no.  Why give the team that has knocked on, for example, the chance to regain the ball. 

[quote author=DSM5 link=topic=178254.msg194593#msg194593 date=1219736856]
Because it would encorage expansive play, instead of the boring 5 hit ups kick, dont do anything flash in your own 30 in case you turn over possession play that we have now.

 

[DSM5]

Utility Player, I don't get this last post.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Why not just police the rules we have at the moment. Every year they decide to have a crackdown on a certain aspect of play, whilst conveniently forgetting other rules, so of course the game evolves with the way the referee polices it.

One of the biggest blights on the game is the wrestle in the tackle, which has come about because we had virtually evolved to touch footy status with the speed of the ruck and submission in tackles. We have plenty of existing rules in place which will slow the ruck down for the attacking side without the need for the defensive side to wrestle. It's just a matter of them deciding to police it.

* Penalise attacking sides for not playing the ball square, and on the mark. All this walking forward and sideways to disadvantage the markers is farkin rubbish, blow the whistle and penalise them FFS. It's no good the clowns with the whistle yelling out that they have shortened the ten by walking off the mark, big farkin deal they have achieved their objective of taking the markers out of play.
* Penalise the attacking side if the player playing the ball lays a hand on the marker. It's against the rules plain and simple, but they choose to allow the markers to be molested every ruck. Ditto if the marker touches the attacking player.
* Penalise the attacking side for not getting to their feet (both) before playing the ball. All this putting the ball on the ground and pushing yourself up and over as a play the ball is bull$hit.
* Bring back the raking for the ball by the marker. It'll soon stop the above play if you cop a size 12 set of studs in the top of your hand as you put the ball down to push yourself up off the ground. You'll have to get right to your feet and take some care with the ball so that it isn't raked.

If they chose to apply the rules we have then the ruck would naturally have to slow down somewhat if play the balls had to be performed properly, thus allowing the defensive side a little respite and less need for the wrestle. Put the onus on the attacking side in the ruck.

And will someone please tell Gallop, or Finch, or whoever reviews the rules, to get rid of the double movement rule. Stupidest rule in the book and for the life of me I can't see why we have it. Anywhere else on the field you can fight in the tackle and scrounge every inch on the ground, but get tackled 1 inch from the line and you have to freeze every muscle for fear of double movement. If you can get the ball across the line before the ref calls tackle then it's a try in my book, who gives a flying whether the arm carrying the ball has touched the ground or not. It'll get rid of so many contentious subjective video ref calls.

 

[Dan]

Totally agree on the last point there mate

 

[Utility Player]

Utility Player, I don't get this last post.

You were saying why give a team that knocks on a chance to regain possession, and I was saying that it would encourage more expansive play in your own half.

 

[Dan]

Biscuits I like your 1st and 2nd rule changes I think they would work a treat.