Possible Rule Changes - Good News

[Mint Condition]

Maybe it's not as many people would like, but it's probably beyond our expectations from the IRB and these mooted changes are heading in the right direction IMO.

IRB may reduce penalties
By Bret Harris and AAP
January 23, 2004

THE International Rugby Board will consider reducing the chances of penalty goals deciding big games by awarding free-kicks for technical offences.

The move was discussed at the IRB's three-day conference in Auckland, which recommended few changes after last year's World Cup.

IRB chairman Syd Millar said the consensus of the world's top rugby minds, which included Wallabies coach Eddie Jones, was that the game was in good shape.

The same conference four years ago introduced changes on the tackle laws following confusion over interpretations during the 1999 World Cup, but Millar said few changes were expected this time.

"I don't have too many problems with the game and therefore we don't expect too many changes," Millar said yesterday.

But he said some technical offences that currently led to penalties might become free-kicks.

"It's a bit unfair to lose a Test match because of a technical offence, so what we have agreed to do is look at whether some of what are now penalties may become free-kicks rather than penalties," Millar said.

Jones notched a win with a proposal that players could not throw the ball back from a scrum inside the 22-metre line and then kick it out on the full, a move Millar said would speed up the game.

"You have to either play it or kick it from where you are, but you can't put it back inside the 22," Millar said.

"What we're trying to do really is not destroy the game we have and not produce a designer game, but to maintain a fair contest for the ball and to produce as many options as we can. That's what the laws should be about, giving the players and coaches options."

One area of dispute was over replacement of injured players, with some delegates calling for an interchange system.

Jones, who even managed to have a cup of coffee with his English rival Clive Woodward, described the conference as "very positive".

"Everyone agreed the game is in good shape," Jones said. "It was an endorsement of the game being played now."

Jones said the issue of the tackler rolling away was discussed.

"We spoke about obstruction and basically people agreed that the way it is being refereed at the moment is pretty good," Jones said.

Woodward believed the game's laws were fine as they were although interpretation needed work. He said laws on decoy runners did not need to be changed, just tightened.

 

[Iverson]

Its good they are thinking about things.

I agree with them that the game is in good shape. The laws are almost perfect, and its just a case of doing some minor tweaking here and there.

But he said some technical offences that currently led to penalties might become free-kicks.

Quite true in some cases. Penalties awarded at scrums can be so hash especially when you have the ball. Free-kicks in some instances would be better that full blown penalties.

Jones notched a win with a proposal that players could not throw the ball back from a scrum inside the 22-metre line and then kick it out on the full, a move Millar said would speed up the game.

"You have to either play it or kick it from where you are, but you can't put it back inside the 22," Millar said.

That imo would be a positive move for the game. It will mean a few less lineouts in each game and just means we will get a bit more action.

Overall its very positive that we are seening talk about improving the game. I like to hear more talk on helping the minnows, as they are really important.

 

[Dipper]

If they're going to downgrade certain offences from penalties to free kicks that's fair enough but they have to make referees more willing to wave the yellow cards around.

The whole balancing act of 3 points for a pen & a possible 7 for a try is trying to make it so that it's not worth giving away penalties, if some of those pens then become free kicks then sides are more likely to infringe to stop tries being scored against them ,which is obviously what we don't want, so the refs have got to become very tough on the offenders,

Also I've come round to the view that the drop goal could go down to 1 pt, I'm sick of the number of times we get into good positions & then take the cheap option.

If we don't have that to fall back I'm sure we'll socre lot more tries, with 1 pt on offer you'd still get the situations like the wC at the end of the game just not people taking pot shots after 2 minutes.

 

[Mint Condition]

Dipper, I'm kind of half way on the drop goal issue, 2 points for mine.

I do think that some drop goals are very entertaining though, namely those that aren't taken as an option after endless yet non-successfull attacks on the line, but those which are scored from about 40+ metres from the goal line.

I wouldn't mind if from that distance they stayed 3, or even became 4.

I definately agree on being stricter with the yellow cards, but I think the infringements that will change from penalties to free kicks will be minor, very technical things, that players often commit accidently.

 

[Iverson]

Drop goals are good, its just depends on how you view them. I think to me its a sign of mental weakness of a team. To attempt a DG is like admitting you lack creativity and you don't believe you are good enough to score tries (ie England). But hey, its an act that does give rugby diversity like no other sport.

I think though a few rule changes are needed.

Like for dg's, if you miss and the ball goes passed the end goal, you can either do a 22 dropout or elect for a scrum at the place of the dg attempt.

Same for penalty kicks, if you miss and the ball goes passed the end goal you can either do a 22 dropout or elect for a scrum at the place of the kick.

A fair catch should have a time limit of say 10sec maximum. So guys take ages to kick and they usually wait yonks for their team members to come on side.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Mint Condition
[B
I definately agree on being stricter with the yellow cards, but I think the infringements that will change from penalties to free kicks will be minor, very technical things, that players often commit accidently. [/B]

Yeah but what's accidental, they already do things & pretend they couldn't help it, like the tackler lying on the ball carrier & making out likes he's stuck there by the players following in or people collapsing scrums that are under pressure, or dare I say it even Campo's knock on in 1991.


Your mate Stepehn Jones said in yesterday's paper that it will lead to less tries, he said that you'd be better off giving 5 points for a penalty & then nobody would infringe on purpose to stop a try being conceded.

He said that waving more yellow cards is all well & good in theory but that referees are already inconsistant & lack the courage to give a s many as they should.

He brought up a point that is one of my hobby horses as well, originally the red card was meant for serious foul play & the yellow card was meant for professional rule breaking, killing the ball offside ect.
He said that you rarely see red for serious foul play unless it's very serious, instead the refs brandish yellow which isn't what it was meant for (basically they're copying soccer) & also rather than dishing out yellow early on for professional stuff they still give the players laods of 'warnings'.

I just hope they stop people like Andre Watson stopping people scrummaging, I don't understand why there's people out there that don't want to let sides gain the proper advantage from a dominant scrum anymore.


PS Iverson a bit harsh on England over the DG thing, I think it's less that we can't score tries & more that we have this attitude where we try to keep racking up the points till we get a decent lead & then we try to cut lose.
Personally I think it's bit negative & that's why I'd like to see the DG downgraded so that we try to make our territory & possession count.
Paradoxically I think if the DG was downgraded it would actually help us.

 

[Iverson]

Originally posted by DIPPER
PS Iverson a bit harsh on England over the DG thing, I think it's less that we can't score tries & more that we have this attitude where we try to keep racking up the points till we get a decent lead & then we try to cut lose.

Spot on. I think it was that warm up game against France last year that England racked up an 18pt lead (all from penalties) before they even starter to think about tries. Like you said its a negative attitude and I think dull to watch. Personally I prefer sides that take some risks as that creates excitment.

Your mate Stepehn Jones said in yesterday's paper that it will lead to less tries, he said that you'd be better off giving 5 points for a penalty & then nobody would infringe on purpose to stop a try being conceded.

Thats already been tried, albeit 100yrs ago.

Maybe one thing that should be tried that hasn't is to add another ref on the field. If you have two refs maybe players will find it harder to cheat in some circumstances.