Comp to trial new laws

[GIGS20]

Whoah! This is risky for the next international season. It's fortunate that the only International series of note will be the Tri-Nations, I assume this will also ne played under the new laws, otherwise nobody will have a clue what they're doing.

I'd expect the Big three to be voting in favour in April, it looks a lot like the big prop is an endangered species in the bottom half of the world, thank god we're sitting on three (Maybe Four) of the most mobile props in the comp (and a couple of hookers that aren't mugs either)

Another plus, Our S14 Front Row have played the entire ARC without much interruption at all (Apart from Gus, Troy missed a bit through injury as well)

How do you think this will affect team selections next year?

[Darren]

It was this possiblily that was the driver behind some of the questions I asked Matt to ask Matt http://thewholeforce.com/showthread.php?t=10291

[Ecky]

No need for matching numbers, nor any limit to numbers, in a lineout seems to be a good one to me.

The "hands in the ruck" ELV seems to cause the most confusion - to players and referees. Basically the player needs to have arrived through the gate and remain on his feet and then he can get the pill with his hands. The players in the ARC seemed to have some funny ideas about what constitutes being on their feet.

I also would like to see the offside line for this tackle and post-tackle phase (not really a "ruck" any more) to be right across the field. At the moment a tackle's offside line is right there at the tackle and, if it never turns into a ruck, that's it. (I've mentioned it before and it's happened again in both RWC semis that the refs are applying a ruck offside law even when it's not a ruck)

[James]

Whoah! This is risky for the next international season. It's fortunate that the only International series of note will be the Tri-Nations, I assume this will also ne played under the new laws, otherwise nobody will have a clue what they're doing.

I'd expect the Big three to be voting in favour in April, it looks a lot like the big prop is an endangered species in the bottom half of the world, thank god we're sitting on three (Maybe Four) of the most mobile props in the comp (and a couple of hookers that aren't mugs either)

Another plus, Our S14 Front Row have played the entire ARC without much interruption at all (Apart from Gus, Troy missed a bit through injury as well)

How do you think this will affect team selections next year?

I expect AJ to make the Force first XV and then go on to play for, and captain, the Wallabies.

[prop53]

Well lets play it for Television eh, it does not matter about the principles of Rugby so long as the viewers get their money worth. Why not also get rid of of Union altogether and just play Super League?. Change yes sometimes but not to see more of the pouncy boy backs more in the picture then they already are. Two words
PROPS RULE.
SAVE IT fOR THE GAME

[GIGS20]

Save the whales!

[gustafsl]

So when Northern Hemisphere teams come to play down here are we allowed to say that we are playing with the new rules? Or does it have to be played under regular IRB rules. If that is the case, then surely the Tri-Nations would have to be played under IRB rules as well, since they are internationals. Could be a way to get the new rules on the international level. SANZAR should make a stand and say they aren't going to play any more tests unless it is under the new rules (if that is the way they decide to go).

[The InnFORCEr]

SANZAR should make a stand and say they aren't going to play any more tests unless it is under the new rules (if that is the way they decide to go).

I think that is what they are holding the iRB too. If we use ELV's in Super 14/Tri Nations (which the iRB want to see done), then all incoming tourists will also play those new rules. If not we won't trial them in S14/3N.

[gustafsl]

Good.

Guess someone has to try it out so the best time is probably right now when the World Cup has ended. Guessing the IRB will assess it after Super 14/Tri Nations, then if they decide to bring it in they'll do it world wide for a year and then decide after that whether it is permanent. So the decision would be made two years before the next world cup and give teams enough time to get used to it.

I really hope they do bring in some of the new rules but not all of them. My two favourite are the no kicking out on the full if you pass it back into your 22 and minor infringments are a free kick. Although I'd like to see it ammended so you have all the options except a kick at goal. Then teams could still kick for touch and have a 5 metre line out, but they couldn't get 3 easy points for minor infractions. I don't like the hands allowed in the ruck and collapsing of mauls. Why stop at mauls and allow collapsing of scrums??

[Flamethrower]

While they are changing things why don't they look at the scoring system.
Leave try and conversion as it is but change penalties and drop goals to one point. That would force teams into scoring tries not just waiting for the other team to screw up within range. Drop goals would then be used as game breakers to win a drawn game not to amass a winning score.

[Em-Forcer]

…at what cost? Certainly we'll quickly see a move to lighter, more mobile front rowers, and to me, that signals the beginning of the slippery slope that the Mungos took. The end of that slope is a game where the front rowers are SO mobile, they can no longer sustain the pressure of a real scrum (evidence of this already appearing in Australian rugby) and therefore the scrum is abandoned as a contest and becomes a gathering of the forwards in one area for a restart.

I think it's important that the effect of the laws be researched adequately, this research must SPECIFICALLY address the components of our game which make it unique in the world of modern, professional sport. Rugby caters to a wider range of body shapes than any other. Don't stuff with the distinctives of our game!

Totally agree with you, GIGST!

Since these bigger, more powerful blokes disappear, we start to see that the line outs are not as safe, we just don't have the blokes to lift 120 KG 2m guys up in the air to catch the ball.
It's not good enough to be "nippy" anymore because you don't have all these massive blokes to run around neither do you have these long gangly types to confuse with fancy footwork. I think Mr 96 Kg that you really don't have enough power to play this game, perhaps something more suited to your frame.....have you ever thought of ballet?

... and those locks and hookers too - now they're obsolete - there's a lot of lifting in ballet!!!

[wilko]

I agree with GIGST we need the diversity in the team. Every player has his place. What ever changes you make teams adapt, that's what they do. Give it a few years and they'll be changing again. A running game may look more exciting but they'll just be higher scoring games with still one winner.

[GIGS20]

Yep, I think I'll make a "Save the Props" tee shirt

[JediKnight]

Why do we need change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

A lot could be solved by ensuring proper jerseys are worn, especially by the front row. If a key part of the game is for the props to bind on to each other, why would the IRB allow them to wear jerseys that are designed to make it difficult to get a hold of?! IMHO, that would solve many of the scrum resets.

[shasta]

I'd like to see it ammended so you have all the options except a kick at goal.

If the line-out option is allowed, the quick tap and go will not be used so much. But on balance I think that's still a better way to go. They've already virtually killed off the quick tap option under the standard laws ,in both rugby codes anyway.

I'm unconvinced about the "new" ruck - yet.

They need to get rid of the collapsing the maul trial immediately. Why would you want a change that introduces more injury risk?

Having said that I've never really liked the situation that exists now. I want to see a contest for possession at all phases and the rolling maul too often does not allow that.

Maybe there is some merit in not allowing a second, third.........pod of ball carriers to split from the original maul. IMO this allows the front players from the original maul to obstruct defenders by "holding on". It would be difficult to police, so maybe it should simply not be allowed.

Happy with all the other trial laws.