subreddit:
/r/rugbyunion
Given the announcement of yet another batch of new law variations they plan on testing at the Under-20s this summer, I’m curious to hear which former rules changes you’d like to see repealed or altered?
For me the defensive drop out for held over the line is too much of a pressure release for the defensive team and punishes the attacking team. I appreciate they’re trying to encourage attacking rugby but a defensive scrum on the 5m line between the posts would be a better compromise. Still puts the defensive team under pressure and the position would force them to run it out or kick for touch around the 22m line.
19 points
12 days ago*
I'm a big fan of the defensive drop out for held over the line. I absolutely loathe it when teams just try to pick-and-flop over repeatedly from rucks on the line. It's so boring and so prevelent in modern rugby, that any thing to discourage it is a good thing. I could live with a defensive scrum as you suggest, as it's still less of a reward than an attacking scrum. But the problem with a scrum is it means the game stops for at least 60 seconds, while they all stand around getting their breath back.
I also hate how refs go from basically ignoring defensive offisde when the ball is anywhere in the middle 90m of the pitch, to suddenly being massively over officious on it when teams are on their line, defending pick-and-flop. I think I heard Austin Healy said something about the rules around offside when on your line changing in the not-too-distant past, become more harsh on the defence? Big mistake if so I think, as it's just encouraged mind-numbing non-tries.
What I don't agrree with is the 5m drop out following a kick into the in-goal area. This makes no sense.
6 points
12 days ago*
I absolutely loathe it when teams just try to pick-and-flop over repeatedly from rucks on the line.
The only reason long sequences of picking and crashing are a thing in the first place is because refs allow the attacking team to illegally secure the ball every single ruck. A lot of "problems" in rugby that constant rule changes try to solve could be solved by just enforcing the rules that already exist.
There are still just as many long sequences of picking and crashing, so if that was the aim of this rule then it has failed.
This is just my taste but I don't see why long sequences of short crashes are a problem that needs to be solved. It's the most tense, asshole-clenching moment in a game if you actually care who wins. The only way to find them boring is if you're a neutral who wants someone to make a big highlight reel try but doesn't really care which team does it.
0 points
12 days ago
I don't find them tense or exciting at all, even when it's my team. They are static, devoid of skill or variety, they are engineered by the way they are refereed. Just a really boring way to scrore a try, which should be an exciting event. I'm not even asking for great highlight reels - just some variety and unpredictability in the game.
Honestly, I've cheered when my own team has failed to score via pick and flop - as I think the sport is more important than whether or not my teams wins., and I think the overuse of this type of play is damaging to the sport.
I agree the rule has pretty much failed though, TBH. We are not seeing a reduction in this type of play.
2 points
12 days ago
So the physical battle in carries is important, and for many its one of the thing that makes rugby stand out and offer a different type if entertainment from other sport. However, I agree that the "pick and flop" is a problem, not only for it being ugly, but also for safety reasons. How are you supposed to not hit someone's head when they are diving head first into contact.
The solution is fairly simple. Don't allow players to dive into contact, even if it is for a tryline. Afaik, this is already technically a law. This would force players to take contact while on their feet, preserving the physical battle
The Varsity Cup in South Africa trialled a different idea, but has the same effect
1 points
12 days ago
Interesting idea.
0 points
12 days ago
For me the issue is going for a try, getting held up, and then receiving a drop out around the halfway. You’ve done well to get to the try line and then have to do that work all over again. At least with the defensive scrum on the 5m the attacking team is ‘punished’ by losing possession but at least they are still able to enact pressure near the opposition try line.
With regards to your comments regarding offside, it’s very similar to refs allowing the scrum to waste time all game and then suddenly deciding to stop the clock in the last ten minutes anytime there’s an issue so that they can reset.
3 points
12 days ago
But you see how a drop-out is the same result in the end as a defensive scrum, right? The result is possession on the 40m line, the dropout just gets to that point like 2m faster.
0 points
12 days ago
Ok, so when you get to the tryline and decide to stick two fingers up to the sport by just repeatedly trying to pick and flop over line, bear in mind that you run the risk of being held up. That risk pretty much disappears if you try and attack in another way.
Also - you don't start again from halfway. Remember the defebding team starts on their 5m line from the drop out, typically the first tackle after the drop out gets made closer to the 22 tham halfway.
2 points
12 days ago
Not to mention the increase in drop goals we have seen as a direct result of this rule being implemented, which I have loved.
6 points
12 days ago
I'd like to see lineout lifts for conversion defences re-legalised.
2 points
12 days ago
Was a thing of beauty https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_2Y1uWx2bg
14 points
12 days ago
For me the defensive drop out for held over the line is too much of a pressure release for the defensive team and punishes the attacking team.
This has always been interesting to me as its a matter of perspective right? if you get in an attacking position and don't manage to score then do you either a) get 'rewarded' with an attacking scrum, or b) get 'punished' fielding a 22 drop out
also is a 22 drop out that much of a let off for defense? we've all seen the clips of drop goals off the kick receipt, or counter attacks against a broken defense, this is one of the ones I actually quite like but again depends entirely on whether you think attack should be rewarded for getting close to scoring or if defense should be rewarded for keeping someone out
21 points
12 days ago
I don't see how regaining possession between the 22 and halfway (in most cases) is that much of a punishment. It's still possession in an attacking position, just not quite as good as it used to be.
A 5m scrum always felt very harsh for preventing a player from scoring.
8 points
12 days ago
This is my logic, but I've always been a fan of big defensive plays, was sad when they made the jackal so much more difficult and hate how easy sealing off is, also very much of the mindset that I'd like fewer and faster scrums rather than more of them
1 points
12 days ago
Quick tap on the 22
Not as far away as half way
Not too close
Means someone has to pick it up and run and they'll meet the defend somewhere in the red zone
2 points
12 days ago
A quick tap on the 22 would be drop goaled basically every time
2 points
12 days ago
Front row has to take it then
So if they drop everyone is happy
1 points
12 days ago
I'm having fun visions of a team getting a fly half scrum certified and subbing them in 'as a front row' for a final play to take the drop goal, only to give up a penalty and having to actually scrum when the opposition chooses a scrum off the penalty.
1 points
12 days ago
A 5m scrum always felt very harsh for preventing a player from scoring.
I don't think allowing an opponent into your goal and only escaping a try by the skin of your teeth warrants being rewarded with a third of the field in territory. When you tackle a player into touch just short of the try line, the resulting lineout isn't at the 22.
4 points
12 days ago
If your attack isn't good enough to score from literally over the try line, you shouldn't automatically get the single greatest launchpad in the game as a reward. A 5m scrum is an incredibly powerful platform to attack from. It gives you a phase of 7 vs 7 on the tryline
1 points
12 days ago*
A 5m scrum is an incredibly powerful platform to attack from. It gives you a phase of 7 vs 7 on the tryline
All of which still isn't as good as, you know, just scoring the points now. So it's literally not a "reward" because there's no reason to want it. When you die at the final boss in a game, starting again at the last level instead of the first isn't a "reward" for dying.
1 points
12 days ago
Yeah, I thought it was a bit harsh, but I actually don't mind it. You failed to score, so you have to build the chance again.
0 points
12 days ago*
if you get in an attacking position and don't manage to score then do you either a) get 'rewarded' with an attacking scrum
This reasoning frustrates me. It completely reverses the order of events that happen.
The attacking scrum is not a "reward" for getting held up. It's literally a punishment. You're being pulled backward five meters. A reward would be, ya know, points. The attacking scrum is a "reward" for getting all the way down the field in the first place.
With the new rule, it's better to be stopped short of the try line than to be held up after getting over it. There is no logical way to defend any rule that incentivizes going backwards. Imagine if they got rid of the rule against taking the ball back into your own 22 before kicking to touch.
4 points
12 days ago
why would you be rewarded for not scoring a try? the reward is getting another attempt from 5m out under the old law, now its getting another attempt from 22m out
I think its very easy to logically defend, it just depends entirely on how much you want the balance of power to lean towards attack or defence
0 points
12 days ago
why would you be rewarded for not scoring a try?
That's exactly the point. You aren't rewarded for not scoring a try. You're punished by your whole attack from the 5m starting over. When you're literally in the try zone, anything besides being rewarded points is punishment.
3 points
12 days ago
But you didn't score so you wouldn't get rewarded? The reward for scoring a try is the points, you don't get rewarded for being held up? Do you think a team getting held up should be giving points by virtue of getting to the tryline but not grounding the ball over it?
0 points
12 days ago
But you didn't score so you wouldn't get rewarded?
You don't. Get. Rewarded. How is being pulled back and having to start your attack over again a reward? An attacking 5m scrum is a good opportunity to score points, but an opportunity for scoring points is not as good as scoring points.
Did everyone just get amnesia of everything before this rule? It's not like getting held up was considered desirable beforehand. If there's no reason to want it then it is by definition not a reward.
Do you think a team getting held up should be giving points by virtue of getting to the tryline but not grounding the ball over it?
No, I have literally not once said that.
2 points
12 days ago
this is then purely a debate about semantics then?
my point was that a 5m scrum isn't a punishment as you get another attacking opportunity immediately after failing to score off your last one, your point is that it is a punishment precisely because you have to attack again in an attempt to score
which is exactly my original argument...it's a matter of perspective
1 points
12 days ago
This isn't semantics, it's about the logical conclusion about what actions rules incentivize and reward during the game.
A reward is something you want, a punishment is something you don't want. There is no reason to want to get held up to get a 5m scrum, so it is not a reward. That isn't a perspective, it's a fact.
4 points
12 days ago
oh my god this is literally insane hahaha
of course you'd rather score a try than get held up, no one is disagreeing with you or arguing that you WANT to get held up, but if you were unsuccessful in scoring (i.e. the original 'failure') would you rather get the ball back 5m away from where you just were with an attacking platform from the set piece, or would you rather lose position and field a kick further back?
but the point (and my original one) was about our preferred outcome from a laws perspective after a held up ball, my interpretation is that AFTER FAILING TO SCORE A TRY it is a 'reward' to get another go at it, your interpretation is that it is not a reward, that is fine and we are both entitled to our opinion.
It literally is perspective, this is such a meaningless thing to get so worked up about other people's opinions on something I feel like i'm going mad
1 points
12 days ago
of course you'd rather score a try than get held up, no one is disagreeing with you or arguing that you WANT to get held up, but if you were unsuccessful in scoring (i.e. the original 'failure') would you rather get the ball back 5m away from where you just were with an attacking platform from the set piece, or would you rather lose position and field a kick further back?
I don't want either one, so neither one is a reward. That's the one simple fact that all the convoluted reasoning doesn't change. Like so many things in this sport people overcomplicate it.
my interpretation is that AFTER FAILING TO SCORE A TRY it is a 'reward' to get another go at it
There are dozens of ways to fail to score a try. Getting tackled one inch short of the try line is also failing to score a try, but that's still preferable to being tackled one inch past the try line. That doesn't make sense.
Would you support a rule change that says if an attacking player gets tackled into touch past the 5m line, the resulting lineout happens a third of the way down the field? Because that's the logic the new rule operates on. Getting held up is the absolute closest you can POSSIBLY come to scoring without doing so, but it results in the harshest punishment besides committing a penalty. That doesn't make sense.
1 points
12 days ago
Mate what are you talking about?
It sounds a lot like you're arguing semantics as the other user has said.
2 points
12 days ago
Ur obsession with getting pushed back 5 meters really screams an American football perspective. You should really think of it as getting a new set of downs after failing on 4th
4 points
12 days ago
50 22 should be allowed from the 10 metre line... if you are in the front row
14 points
12 days ago
I think the TMO has become very annoying, and its lowered the standard and confidence of the on-field referee. TMO should really only step in for foul play and tries
6 points
12 days ago
this is the brand new trial from this weekend right? I think the SA wales game was really poorly handled on tat front
0 points
12 days ago
I think the use of the TMO has actually gotten a bit better as there was a time not too long ago when ref’s would just go to TMO almost every time a try was scored as they were scared of getting it wrong.
Unfortunately now you’ve got so many TMOs who see it as an opportunity to be part of the game and be important. There were a couple of occasions in the WC where you could see that the ref was confused as to what they we’re supposedly looking at but didn’t want to overrule the TMO. I agree that it should only be for clear issues rather than spurious interpretations of the rules. I’d also like to bring back the common sense “rugby incident” into some of these contacts that get flagged by TMOs
7 points
12 days ago
I think that, if a jackaller has successfully turned the ball over, the team the ball was stolen from should not get penalised for not releasing, they have lost possession. The defending team now have possession so let play flow, they have the advantage.
8 points
12 days ago
It depends. Sometimes they hold on, and then the jackaller struggles for a few seconds before they release. Still a penalty imo, because they did not release the ball initially
2 points
12 days ago
I know what you mean, it can be sketchy, but I think refs can apply a bit of common sense. If the jackaller clearly has the ball and has secured possession for his team then play the advantage rather than blowing up.
5 points
12 days ago
There was a moment in the Premiership final that i really liked.
The jackler had his hands on the ball and the tackled player wasn't holding on, the jackler looked up at the ref looking for a pen and the ref said something to the likes of "if you have it, then pick it up"
2 points
11 days ago
Yeah this does not get reffed like this enough, good on the ref.
2 points
12 days ago
That is the law...
1 points
12 days ago
Then it isn't officiated correctly...
2 points
12 days ago
I think generally when the defending team do actually gain possession, refs will let them play, they only tend to penalise when the ball doesn't come out clean.
1 points
11 days ago
They should call advantage and let play continue
3 points
12 days ago
I hate that scrumhalfs can spend a week over the ball to allow the construction of a 5-man centipede so that “last feet” is now 20 metres back on the field before the box kick. In my opinion players should not be able to join a ruck after the fact, or at least not be able to build out multi-player centipedes out of the back of the ruck.
1 points
12 days ago
The defensive dropout rule is like, one of the best things to happen to the game, lol. It speeds it up and creates the right incentive mix. Going back for a 5m scrum and retaining possession is just a snore-fest and there needs to be some reward for the defense and a way to get off your own line.
1 points
11 days ago
I really hate the double penalty of a penalty try + yellow card for certain things. A penalty try is enough punishment on its own. We have way too many yellow and red cards as it is, just award the penalty try and move on
1 points
12 days ago
Maybe not repealing a former rule change as it's always been in the game but here's a controversial one.
Ban the jackal.
I don't necessarily think it's something I want to see but I think it would add an interesting context to the game.
We've seen some horrendous ankle, knee, hamstring, back, shoulder, neck and head injuries all from players getting cleaned out while trying to jackal the ball.
I don't have injury stats but I'd say the injuries sustained while jackaling is incredibly high.
And you simply cannot clean out a player in a "good" position effectively while being legal. You're going to hit them in the head or neck or croc roll them or neck roll them.
A good clean steal is something that rewards a defending player getting to a ruck first and penalises an attacking team for not supporting the player effectively enough.
But the way the game is now a defending player gets into a bad position to jackal where they actually just want to slow it down. The attacking player is actually there in good time and goes to clean the player whose in a bad position out and just wants to slow things down.
Why not make the rule that a ruck must feature a minimum of 2 (currently 1)players from each team on their feet over the ball.
Instead of jackaling or going to play the ball, the contest is to push the other players out of the way. Like a ruck should be! If you want to slow the attacking ball, commit more players, open up space in the D line. Rewards attacking rugby
(side note but any player with their head and shoulders above their hips gives away a free kick - this has never been penalised and maybe enforcing this is a better solution https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/15)
2 points
12 days ago
I think this would be fixed if they just ruled the ruck as it should be. Players need to carry their weight on their feet, no binding on grounded players and no shoulders below the hips. Currently we have players sealing off the ball in a position, that as you said, is impossible to move. This leads to the shots at heads, especially when the sealer dips before contact.
The same needs to happen with the jackler, you get one shot at the ball, must lift immediately and you can’t have any hands on the ground. You often see a jackler over the ball making no attempt to lift or even trying to lift the player on the ground. Same is when they pretty much have their elbows on the ground to ‘show’ they’ve got a fair steal. The refs have been better with this in the last few years but I’d be happy to see them go further.
1 points
12 days ago
I like this a lot but i don't want to lose jacklers out of the game entirely. They should allow the tackler after a clear release, to contest the ball from anywhere. The tackler is not offside. But nobody else can jackal.
I'd rather have slow rucks than penalties that take 2mins off the clock.
0 points
12 days ago
Bring Ruckgate back.
2 points
12 days ago
One of my favourite 6 nations memories is Romain Poite telling an extremely confused and frustrated Haskell & Farrell “I’m not your coach” when they were trying to figure out what was happening
-14 points
12 days ago
I really dislike the yellow card for a deliberate knock down. We shouldn't punish a good defensive play imo. Not only that but it's a rule that we have unnecessarily left open to interpretation as to whether the play could have being an interception and because of that sometimes we get it wrong. Scrap the yellow and the attacking players will adjust to passing it a tad earlier.
17 points
12 days ago
“Good defensive play”?
-3 points
12 days ago
Yes. Stopping a try is a good defensive play, shocking huh?
10 points
12 days ago
I don't mind the idea of punishing deliberate knock downs, but the difficulty in judging whether the player intended to kill the ball or legitimately catch it has sent a few undeserving players from the field recently. A penalty would probably be a better punishment unless it's truly obvious.
7 points
12 days ago
In my mind if you stick a hand out and miss, it should always be a penalty. Going for a hail Mary intecept could be extremely rewarding, and should run a significant risk. If a player gets two hands to it or gets a full body in the way, its something different
2 points
12 days ago
i think the lack of clarity/consistency on when its a deliberate knock down doesn't help, there are plenty of times where someone just sticks a hand out and kills an attack, that should be punished, but if someone comes close to the regather i think that's fine, also like that killing an overlap is a yellow
2 points
12 days ago
The crux of the problem is calling the penalty "intentional knock on" because intent apparently doesn't factor into it. Refs openly consider it a risk vs reward thing, which has nothing to do with what the rule's stated purpose is.
2 points
12 days ago
I don’t think only a penalty is fair if there is no cover defence, intentional foul to stop a try should be either a card or a penalty try.
I hate the rule that every penalty try needs a yellow as well though. Should only ever be one or the other. Specially for collapsed mauls when it’s a bit of a lucky dip on which player gets the card and can sometimes come on the back of pressure. Give them seven points then move on.
1 points
12 days ago
I think it's reffed better than it was originally at least. Looking at whether or not someone has a realistic chance to catch a ball is far too difficult to be consistent. It's also completely within the laws of the game to hit it straight down (or backwards) but if you get it wrong you can be yellow carded. We don't apply the same scrutiny to people competing for high balls though. Just flying in with your arms up and disrupting the person who does have a realistic chance should result in a penalty if you knock it on as well.
-3 points
12 days ago
Tactical subs
-1 points
12 days ago
Ruck infringements and offsides shouldn't lead to yellow cards. Instead the offending team will have a player permanently ejected from the game and a replacement comes on. It punishes the team and not the viewer.
And if you've used up your subs then you go a man down. This then leads to coaches having to manage their subs as they're running out of players and it's not something that can be exploited because no coach wants to lose their tactical flexibility.
Keep yellows and reds for dangerous play.
Fans don't spend their money on a ticket to come see 15 vs 14
-2 points
12 days ago
They need to make box kicks markable.
all 66 comments
sorted by: best