Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Laws Question. Ask here! 2016 Laws changes Post #113

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    You'll be wanting to award a try when the ball "breaks the plane of the Goal Line" next.

    Or maybe pushing back the Goalposts to the Dead-ball Line.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Piquet View Post
      You'll be wanting to award a try when the ball "breaks the plane of the Goal Line" next.

      Or maybe pushing back the Goalposts to the Dead-ball Line.
      I was thinking cheerleaders, helmets, franchises, blockers and being allowed to pass the ball forward sometimes. Come to think of it, we already have that!

      Comment


        #33
        Indeed we do.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
          Could a mod merge this into the laws thread in rugby in praxis??? This is ideal topic for that thread?????
          MOD - Done.

          Don't mind most of those proposals...
          Cheers for that and sorry, I should have seen this thread before starting a new one.


          Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
          I know it may sound silly, but I'd like to move all conversions for tries towards the centre of the posts. The idea of the conversion having to match the location of the touchdown of the ball is lovely, but, for some reason seems antiquated in my mind. Let a try stand out for itself. Goes against all I know as the game, but maybe time to move on.
          Don't like that idea at all. It removes a major dimension of try scoring (and defending) in that a score near the posts is more valuable than a score out wide. For example, Kieran Read sprinting the length of the field to stop Kearney waltzing under the posts 2 years ago. That piece of intelligence and work rate for his team cost us the match and I think that should still be worth something.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Corcíoch View Post
            I like them all to one degree or another..... It's obvious that they are trying to promote a certain type of game, or at least increase the emphasis on a certain type of game.

            However while it's a worthy idea it does nothing to challenge the primary obstacle to such a playing style in the modern game......SPACE.

            Lack of space is the primary obstacle, especially at Test level, to dynamic running Rugby geared towards try scoring..... Open play, off the cuff exciting play.

            As opposed to up the jumper 9/ 10 man rugby playing for Penalty after Penalty or just winning by scoring penos
            As axel said previously the amount of subs that can now be made is a factor. Players who are tiring are just replaced & as a result games no longer open up in the latter stages.
            Why don't world rugby have a look at this. Fair enough 3 front rows compulsary but why on earth is their 5 subs for the remaining 12 players. I have no problem with 8 subs sitting on the bench as injury cover or to make tactical changes. But the no. of permanent subs that can come into the game could probably be reduced. (a nice side benefit might be that Toulon need to recruit less galacticos to pack their bench and leave one or two for everyone else)

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Corcíoch View Post
              I like them all to one degree or another..... It's obvious that they are trying to promote a certain type of game, or at least increase the emphasis on a certain type of game.

              However while it's a worthy idea it does nothing to challenge the primary obstacle to such a playing style in the modern game......SPACE.

              Lack of space is the primary obstacle, especially at Test level, to dynamic running Rugby geared towards try scoring..... Open play, off the cuff exciting play.

              As opposed to up the jumper 9/ 10 man rugby playing for Penalty after Penalty or just winning by scoring penos
              Yeah, totally agree.
              One big change they should really consider imho, is to reduce the playing number to 13 a side, by removing the 2 flankers. This would hugely increase space, reduce tackles and open up the game massively imho.

              A small change they could consider, it's to have the defending scrum half having to stay either behind the last foot of the scrum on his own side, or maybe even, 5 metres back with the rest of the defending backs. This would open more space than most would anticipate imho, as it would allow every attacking 8,9&10 to pick which side of a scrum to attack without any opposing scrum half immediately limiting their options. It would be a good and an easy law modification imho.
              ____________________________________________
              Munster were great when they were Munster.

              alas they are just north munster now.......
              ____________________________________________

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Daithi View Post
                Yeah, totally agree.
                One big change they should really consider imho, is to reduce the playing number to 13 a side, by removing the 2 flankers. This would hugely increase space, reduce tackles and open up the game massively imho.

                A small change they could consider, it's to have the defending scrum half having to stay either behind the last foot of the scrum on his own side, or maybe even, 5 metres back with the rest of the defending backs. This would open more space than most would anticipate imho, as it would allow every attacking 8,9&10 to pick which side of a scrum to attack without any opposing scrum half immediately limiting their options. It would be a good and an easy law modification imho.
                Hmmm they already did that... Its called rugby LEAGUE...

                Comment


                  #38
                  Law clarification on kicking ball out of the hands of an opponent

                  http://www.arlb.ie/wp-content/upload...ion-7-2015.pdf

                  Good to see this as potential for injury is huge and it can be quite dangerous at times...

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Taran View Post
                    I know it may sound silly, but I'd like to move all conversions for tries towards the centre of the posts. The idea of the conversion having to match the location of the touchdown of the ball is lovely, but, for some reason seems antiquated in my mind. Let a try stand out for itself. Goes against all I know as the game, but maybe time to move on.
                    I don't see any need to move all conversions. It makes kicks easier. That shouldn't be needed. The try does stand for itself. Teams who dot the ball down under the posts are rewarded with an easier kick. Don't see anything wrong with that

                    Originally posted by Daithi View Post
                    Yeah, totally agree.
                    One big change they should really consider imho, is to reduce the playing number to 13 a side, by removing the 2 flankers. This would hugely increase space, reduce tackles and open up the game massively imho.

                    A small change they could consider, it's to have the defending scrum half having to stay either behind the last foot of the scrum on his own side, or maybe even, 5 metres back with the rest of the defending backs. This would open more space than most would anticipate imho, as it would allow every attacking 8,9&10 to pick which side of a scrum to attack without any opposing scrum half immediately limiting their options. It would be a good and an easy law modification imho.
                    I disagree about removing flankers. They add a lot to the game and its better with them there.
                    Don't think scrumhalves should be back further from scrum than they are. You would see size of players go up with both of your suggestions IMO and that certainly isn't needed

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Hope this is the right place to ask this question....

                      When a penalty is awarded and the opposing team has to retreat 10m, does that mean that the penalty taker can't be tackled within that 10 metre space (if it's run rather than kicked)? If yes and when a penalty is awarded within 10m of the try line why can't that just be run in unopposed...which never happens...?!

                      Maybe the law says you must retreat 10m ....but can then run towards the man with the ball..once he kicks it? But then you don't get that 10 metre breathing space...?

                      Comment


                        #41
                        You don't have to retreat any further than the try.

                        If you retreat 10, once the penalty is tapped, you can move forward and tackle.

                        If you're within 10m of the penalty kick, you must retreat 10 before tackling

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Paddy Whac View Post
                          You don't have to retreat any further than the try.

                          If you retreat 10, once the penalty is tapped, you can move forward and tackle.

                          If you're within 10m of the penalty kick, you must retreat 10 before tackling
                          aha ...that clears it up...thanks. ��

                          .....and here was me thinking I'd spotted a glaring gap in the rules...! ��

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by ormond lad View Post

                            I disagree about removing flankers. They add a lot to the game and its better with them there.
                            Don't think scrumhalves should be back further from scrum than they are.
                            You would see size of players go up with both of your suggestions IMO and that certainly isn't needed
                            What leads you to the conclusion that players would get bigger if there were no flankers ?
                            or if the opposing scrum half had to stay behind a scrum to stay on side??
                            ____________________________________________
                            Munster were great when they were Munster.

                            alas they are just north munster now.......
                            ____________________________________________

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Daithi View Post
                              What leads you to the conclusion that players would get bigger if there were no flankers ?
                              or if the opposing scrum half had to stay behind a scrum to stay on side??
                              Agreed, I think it would reduce the size of the players as it would place greater emphasis on aerobic fitness.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post
                                Agreed, I think it would reduce the size of the players as it would place greater emphasis on aerobic fitness.
                                Perhaps but Daithis other point about defending scrum half doesn't help things. Wouldn't create so much extra space that it would be worthwhile a change.
                                I don't think we should remove flankers as it would change a huge amount around breakdown and open play...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X