The RWC is over, what would you change?

[cockneyrock]

I have made no secret of where my loyalties/interests lie with regard to the 2 codes of Rugby, however, on a serious note, there is an interesting Paul Ackford article in today’s Daily Telegraph in which David Kirk (the only New Zealand captain to lift the Webb Ellis Cup); Nick Mallett (former Springbok player and Italy's new boss), Fabien Galthie (Captained France captain in the 2003 World Cup) and Paul Ackford all look back on this years RWC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/10/21/srnewz121.xml

A number of interesting issues are raised, not least of which is that they general consensus is that 'Defensive Rugby Rules OK'. Galthie raises the point that France concentrated on defence against NZ and won, equally England concentrated on defence against France and won. Kirk points out that NZ have been criticised for not playing defensive enough.

There are some elements of 'sorer grapes' in the article, particularly from Kirk, however, I think it does highlight a major issue with RU particularly in a high profile tournament such as the RWC in that the game has drifted to favour the team defending, ie. kick for territory and force the opposition to commit more players in the ruck, let them wear themselves out retaining possession and wait for the error (ie force the penalty). Up steps your kicker and take the points!

My suggestions for what they are worth are as follows:

1. Reduce the number of infringements that a penalty kick at goal can be taken for (force the attacking team to quick tap, or kick for touch and throw the lineout).

2. Reduce the number of points for a penalty goal to 2 points.

3. Reduce the number of points for a drop goal to 1.

4. Seriously consider the unthinkable and reduce the number of players to 13. I know, I know, a bit of the RL fan in me coming out, however, even Kirk agreed that there is not enough space on the park and frankly his suggestion of increasing the pitch size is just plan stupid. I can just see all the clubs and national stadiums in the world being rebuilt to accommodate that idea!!

Anyway, I'm sure some of you will have comments of your own both about what I have written and what you would like to see.

No doubt about it, the 2007 Rugby Union World Cup did have a great atmosphere, excellent attendance for all games and great viewing figures, however, I am in agreement with Ackford et al, the style of Rugby played was pretty boring (and I say that in all seriousness and without my RL hat on).

Serious thread asking a serious question. Please don't lower it into a RU -v- RL class war, I've tried not to.

Oh, and by the way, its wasn't a try so give it up, we lost.

[rugby then work]

My suggestions for what they are worth are as follows:

1. Reduce the number of infringements that a penalty kick at goal can be taken for (force the attacking team to quick tap, or kick for touch and throw the lineout).

2. Reduce the number of points for a penalty goal to 2 points.

3. Reduce the number of points for a drop goal to 1.

4. Seriously consider the unthinkable and reduce the number of players to 13. I know, I know, a bit of the RL fan in me coming out, however, even Kirk agreed that there is not enough space on the park and frankly his suggestion of increasing the pitch size is just plan stupid. I can just see all the clubs and national stadiums in the world being rebuilt to accommodate that idea!!

Oh, and by the way, its wasn't a try so give it up, we lost.

1. Making more offences punishable by a free kick rather than a penalty will increase the attractiveness of those offences to a defending side. Exactly which infringements were you thinking of?

2. Again this makes committing an infringement more attractive than allowing quick ball at a ruck etc.

3. This one I totally agree with.

4. The game is Rugby Union and is played by 15 players, dropping the flankers would change the game to much for me.

As I posted straight after the game, the points weren't on the board so get on with the game.

I think that the laws of the game aren't to far away from being right, the problems start with the way they are interpreted and applied by the referee's. Defending teams seem to get away with being offside at the ruck all the time, the offside line is the back foot not the centre of the ruck, a small point some may say but this makes a huge difference to a defenders ability to make a hit around the fringes or to put pressure on the attacking 9 /10.

[propersplitbrainme]

The result in the final?

[Sospan]

Anyway, I'm sure some of you will have comments of your own both about what I have written and what you would like to see.



I would like to see a plate type competition introduced for the teams that didn't make the Q/F, this would give the lesser teams a great opportunity to bridge the gap between, 9th seed and 20th seed. It would also give the fans some midweek rugby to watch during the last 3 weeks. cast your minds back to the Ireland Georgia game, a plate event would give countries like Georgia something to battle for as well as some well deserved financial reward. This Competition could be taken away from the host city and taken to outlying areas where International rugby is rarely seen.

With regards to the laws of the game, I think increasing the yellow card infringments would open up the game somewhat.

Oh and lastly I would like to the main tournament tinkered with so a team that played 2 decent games isn't able to reach the final !:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[cockneyrock]

1. Making more offences punishable by a free kick rather than a penalty will increase the attractiveness of those offences to a defending side. Exactly which infringements were you thinking of?

2. Again this makes committing an infringement more attractive than allowing quick ball at a ruck etc.

3. This one I totally agree with.

4. The game is Rugby Union and is played by 15 players, dropping the flankers would change the game to much for me.

As I posted straight after the game, the points weren't on the board so get on with the game.

I think that the laws of the game aren't to far away from being right, the problems start with the way they are interpreted and applied by the referee's. Defending teams seem to get away with being offside at the ruck all the time, the offside line is the back foot not the centre of the ruck, a small point some may say but this makes a huge difference to a defenders ability to make a hit around the fringes or to put pressure on the attacking 9 /10.


Can't do the flashy Quote thing so, for the benifit of someone with only a fraction of the understanding of the miriad of rules in RU, please could you expand on the following:

1. How cwould having to defend an attacking lineout potentially inside your own 22 make committing infingements more attractive?

2. Not sure what you mean't by this point? How does reducing the number of points for a penalty have an impact of how quick you play the ball?

3. Glad we agree on something! :PDT_Xtremez_30:

4. Each to their own. Just made the point because i thought it was laughable that Kirk would rather suggests that £Billions were spent on rebuilding staia rather than suggesting that RU reduced to 13 to create space.

[cockneyrock]

I would like to see a plate type competition introduced for the teams that dint make the Q/F, this would give the lesser teams a great opportunity to bridge the gap between, 9th seed and 20th seed. It would also give the fans some midweek rugby to watch during the last 3 weeks. cast your minds back to the Ireland Georgia game, a plate event would give countries like Georgia something to battle for as well as some well deserved financial reward. This Competition could be taken away from the host city and taken to outlying areas where International rugby is rarely seen.

Oh and lastly I would like to the main tournament tinkered with so a team that played 2 decent games isn't able to reach the final !:PDT_Xtremez_42:

Fare one (or two)

[propersplitbrainme]

Oh and lastly I would like to the main tournament tinkered with so a team that played 2 decent games isn't able to reach the final !:PDT_Xtremez_42:

Agree, Argentina deserved to be in the final far more than SA.

However, what you are talking about happens in all KO cup competitions, the only solution is a league format from start to finish.

[Get Tae]

If I was English i would want to change...........the pitch (cause it was slippy), the ref and the vid ref (cause they didnt give the try), the ref again (cause he didnt give a pen for the foot over the dead ball line), the ref (SA capt blocking), the SA team (cause they beat us) and the England team (cause they didnt win and now all we have to do is moan we was robbed!).:PDT_Xtremez_15:

Appart from that it was all good.:PDT_Xtremez_31:

[Sospan]

Agree, Argentina deserved to be in the final far more than SA.

However, what you are talking about happens in all KO cup competitions, the only solution is a league format from start to finish.

I agree, my comment was only in jest, the only other option would be a super 8 type affair but the timescales would simply not be practical.

[cockneyrock]

I agree, my comment was only in jest, the only other option would be a super 8 type affair but the timescales would simply not be practical.

I think the current format of league followed by knockout is fine. As you suggest, introduce a plate competition to keep the interest of the public and the minows. However, the key think is to ensure that the seeding is accurate. I am no expert, however, I have heard it mentioned a number of times in the RU press that the seeding for this year's RWC was based on the results of the 2003 tournament! Surely it should be based on current form in which case England should have been seeded somewhere around 8th. I have no idea how this would have affected to pools at the beginning of the tournament, however, if there is any truth in this suggestion it needs to change.

[gemarriott]

I'd like to see the lineout changed again maybe even turningthe clock back so that teams can really compete to win the ball.

No lifting,
No constant switching position in the line,
no delaying the throw
2 clear straight lines with a metre between and the ball thrown doewn the middle.

[rugby then work]

Can't do the flashy Quote thing so, for the benifit of someone with only a fraction of the understanding of the miriad of rules in RU, please could you expand on the following:

1. How cwould having to defend an attacking lineout potentially inside your own 22 make committing infingements more attractive?

2. Not sure what you mean't by this point? How does reducing the number of points for a penalty have an impact of how quick you play the ball?

3. Glad we agree on something! :PDT_Xtremez_30:

4. Each to their own. Just made the point because i thought it was laughable that Kirk would rather suggests that £Billions were spent on rebuilding staia rather than suggesting that RU reduced to 13 to create space.



1. You wouldn't have an attacking lineout. A team awarded a penalty has the option to kick for touch and throw into the lineout (or kick for goal or elect to scrum with the put in). If the infringement was reduced from a penalty to a free kick (where there is no option to kick for goal) and the attacking team kicks for touch the defending team would have the put in. A side may well think that committing such an offence is better than allowing the opposition the ball.

2. Giving away 3pts by killing the ball at a ruck is a better option than allowing the opposition quick ball with the chance to score 5 or 7. If the value of a penalty is reduced to 2pts the option becomes even more attractive.

[FOMz]

The seem to want to cater for the 'football mentality' fan with these proposed changes - what a load of tosh.

RTW - Spot on mate, well said.

[Sospan]

I'd like to see the lineout changed again maybe even turningthe clock back so that teams can really compete to win the ball.



That comment doesn't stand in my book, how many lineouts did SA win against the head last night ?

[cockneyrock]

The seem to want to cater for the 'football mentality' fan with these proposed changes - what a load of tosh.

RTW - Spot on mate, well said.

So what you are suggesting is that Rugby Union is a game for rugby people. The whole point of professional sport is entertainment. If the casual observer has no idea what the hell is going on because the ball is either being hoofed down the field or buddled forward in a maul before a penalty is given away, how will the game expand. I hear that the code is really struggling in Australia with the Australian public voting with their feet, the ARU loosing money and NSW getting their worst spectator figures ever. They are doing this out of bordom because to the casual observer RU is not entertaining (it is something like the 5th of 6th popular sport in Aus behind AFL, NRL, Cricket, Soccerand arguably could even fall behind other fringe sports such as Tennis, Basketball and baseball). I would hate to see Australia become 'bit players' in the game. All I am suggesting is that the hype and PR will only carry professional sport so far, unless there is spectical that can be enjoyed by any observer the game will struggle to retain casual support as has been seen in Australia.

[cockneyrock]

Looks like the IRB are ahead of me:

Stellenbosch Laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6165032.stm)

I think they look like a vaste improvement on the current laws. Should leed to far more open enjoyable games without the penalty and kick fest that blights RU at the moment. Hope they come in for the next RWC.

Your thoughts?

[rugby then work]

I like the 5m rule for players not in the scrum and think that could be extended to include rucks. I also like the idea that a player entering a ruck from onside (through the gate) should be able to handle the ball, that should encourage teams to play the ball away quickly rather than leave the ball at the back foot while the backs set themselves for a planned move. Not so sure about the dropping penalties to free kicks for the reasons I gave before and though they are saying that a maul can be collapsed without safety issues I'm not so sure.

[wgaf]

The Stellenbach experiment was designed and progressed by people from the southern hemisphere. It started coming to fruition after England won the 2003 world cup. It was and still is nothing more than sour grapes from certain countries who couldn't compete with more robust forwards.
The biggest loser internationaly from this would be teams who rely on forwards to create platforms, i.e. Argentina.
Contrary to what that report leads you to believe it does not have IRB official backing yet. It was one of about 4 or 5 experiments commisioned by several unions all with their own agenda.
I'm not saying that some of the rules don't need changing, some obviuosly do. However as rtw has mentioned, collapsing a maul can have some very serious consequences. It comes across to me as bl00dy dangerous and unecessary.

[auchtermuchty]

1. Reduce the number of infringements that a penalty kick at goal can be taken for (force the attacking team to quick tap, or kick for touch and throw the lineout).

2. Reduce the number of points for a penalty goal to 2 points.

3. Reduce the number of points for a drop goal to 1.

4. Seriously consider the unthinkable and reduce the number of players to 13. I know, I know, a bit of the RL fan in me coming out, however, even Kirk agreed that there is not enough space on the park and frankly his suggestion of increasing the pitch size is just plan stupid. I can just see all the clubs and national stadiums in the world being rebuilt to accommodate that idea!!

1. I actually like this one but would change it so that a resultant kick to touch would obtain an attacking lineout (as is stated above - not the current situation)

2. Why if you have already addressed it in point one. If the opposition do something so blatantly stupid that a penalty is given, they deserve to be punished!

3. I like this one too - only because as a ref I'm never in the correct position for them!:PDT_Xtremez_42:

4. Would rather see it dropped to 14 by losing a centre, then when a scrum/lineout is called the guys with the dancing feet will have the room to show them off. Dropping the flankers would not result in this open space from set play, in effect nothing would change.

I do not believe that the LAWS of this game are sacrosanct. As I have stated before on other threads, the laws we use now are completely different from the laws of 100 years ago. It is the same with everything.......

EVOLVE OR DIE!

[Chilliboy]

One idea I heard a while back was to increase the value of a penalty goal once the penalty count reached a certain point. eg 3 points for the first 10 penalties then 5 points. It would certainly reduce the amount of penalties a team would be prepared to give away.

One solution to free up some space is to insist that loose forwards bind properly onto a scrum, full arm and shoulder minimum rather than fingernails.

Also to cut down on the persistant killing of the ball when you are two scores or more ahead add another option for the penalty, teams taking a tap penalty are awarded a single point. This way the lead is reduced, the clock is not run down by kicks at goal, kicks for touch or scrums and any team giving away three penalties in succession will find themselves three points (and probably a player) to the worse.

If the scrum is de-powered what is the point of specialist front rowers, we may as well have a couple of flankers or centres either side of the hooker. I seem to remember France had a prop and hooker sent off in the 5N and we still had competetive scrums.

[Tin basher]

If the desire is to see the ball in the hands of the backs more often and less in the middle of a ruck or maul how about limiting kicks from hand to within your own 22. This way teams will have to run the ball more often and may promote a more open flowing game. The technical complexity of forward play within a ruck or maul which may well appeal to the die hard rugby buff the in depth knowledge of the rules is not wide spread. I find reasons for the awarding of certain penalties totally baffing at times. You can't play the ball on the floor for example but you can assist rearwards using your hands for some one not steeped in the game this is to say the least a bit confusing and there are other examples

[wolfy]

I like the 5m rule for players not in the scrum and think that could be extended to include rucks. I also like the idea that a player entering a ruck from onside (through the gate) should be able to handle the ball, that should encourage teams to play the ball away quickly rather than leave the ball at the back foot while the backs set themselves for a planned move. Not so sure about the dropping penalties to free kicks for the reasons I gave before and though they are saying that a maul can be collapsed without safety issues I'm not so sure.

Like yourself the argument behind being allowed to collapse a maul is not a something I would like to see come in. As far as the ruck is concerned I think you could stay with the current laws with the exception of tightening up the going over the top law. Then to speed up play you adopt the use or loose it law as in mauls.

[cockneyrock]

Looks like the laws are already set to change as a result of the trials of the Stellenbosch Laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6136244.stm). It looks like the Aussies, Kiwis and Boks have agreed to play both next year's Super 14 and Tri-nations (http://sportal.co.nz/default.aspx/rugby-union-news-display/rugby-set-for-law-changes-37370)under the new laws. Expect the IRB to follow suit some time next year (probably before the start of the 2008/09 Premiership).

[wolfy]

Looks like the laws are already set to change as a result of the trials of the Stellenbosch Laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6136244.stm). It looks like the Aussies, Kiwis and Boks have agreed to play both next year's Super 14 and Tri-nations (http://sportal.co.nz/default.aspx/rugby-union-news-display/rugby-set-for-law-changes-37370)under the new laws. Expect the IRB to follow suit some time next year (probably before the start of the 2008/09 Premiership).

Typical, the maul law changes will suit most southern hemisphere teams, as they were constantly collapsing during the RWC but seem to get away with a lot. Its also typical that they get a whole seasons worth of the new laws before the northern hemisphere, or am i just being a bit cynical.

[cockneyrock]

Typical, the maul law changes will suit most southern hemisphere teams, as they were constantly collapsing during the RWC but seem to get away with a lot. Its also typical that they get a whole seasons worth of the new laws before the northern hemisphere, or am i just being a bit cynical.

I think you are really. AUS, SA and NZ don't like the rules, they agree to change them so that is their call. The IRB still need to decide which way they want to go, however, givent the dire state that RU is in in Aus and the fact that a change in laws may raise interest in the game, can you see the IRB allowing Aus to "wither on the vine"?

[wolfy]

I think you are really. AUS, SA and NZ don't like the rules, they agree to change them so that is their call. The IRB still need to decide which way they want to go, however, givent the dire state that RU is in in Aus and the fact that a change in laws may raise interest in the game, can you see the IRB allowing Aus to "wither on the vine"?

It just seems that the northern hemisphere always has to follow, why can't it lead for a change. The other point is that we tend to think of Aus being a long term power in rugby, in reality they only became a real force in the late 70's. So what are we going to do next, non contested scrums because the aussies can't scrummage FFS

[cockneyrock]

It just seems that the northern hemisphere always has to follow, why can't it lead for a change. The other point is that we tend to think of Aus being a long term power in rugby, in reality they only became a real force in the late 70's. So what are we going to do next, non contested scrums because the aussies can't scrummage FFS

The Aussies have been pushing for it since 2003!! Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on what side of the fence you sit on) their lobbying has fallen on deaf ears (as you would expect in the Northern Hemisphere)