Discussion:
Multiple law change closer to implemetation
(too old to reply)
Brad Anton
2006-03-28 04:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Looks like the writing's on the wall

http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/27/1143441081716.html
"The most important rugby match played over the weekend was at Stellenbosch
University between two "guinea pig" teams of students playing under new
rules - the Stellenbosch Laws - devised under the auspices of the IRB by Rod
Macqueen (coach of the 1999 World Cup Wallabies), Pierre Villepreux
(France), Richie Dixon (Scotland) and Ian McIntosh (South Africa).
The experiment is being managed by Paddy O'Brien (NZ), a former Test referee
and now the IRB's referees manager. The brief for the group was to devise a
simpler, shorter and more effective set of laws while retaining the
essential features of rugby. The group also wants to quicken up the game and
take the subjectiveness out of referees' decision making.

Danie Craven, the most powerful rugby administrator from the 1950s through
to the 1970s, once told me the laws of rugby were wrong because they were
too complicated and too long. He used teams of students at Stellenbosch to
test out his own theories. So it is appropriate that the Stellenbosch Laws
should be trialled at his university.

The main Stellenbosch Laws are:

1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.

2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.


3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.

4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).

5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.

6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.

I had the chance last week of watching videos with Rod Macqueen of incidents
from the trial matches at Stellenbosch. After the players became accustomed
to the new laws - and, just as importantly, to the opportunities they open
up - play became very lively. Continuity flourished. The players learnt to
stop tucking the ball under their body (the Bob Dwyer ploy) when they were
tackled. Instead, they started placing it well back from the tackle.

The most contentious issue is the use of hands in the ruck. The proposed law
is simpler, taking about 30 laws out of the rule book. It allows referees to
concentrate on the essential issues, offside and foul play.

Many gurus have called for this over the years. I saw a game at TG Milner
field more than 20 years ago where laws devised by Scott Johnson, the new
Wallabies backs coach, were played. Handling in the ruck was one of about a
dozen new rules Johnson proposed. My memory is that the rucks were cleared
more effectively than they are now.

After the Stellenbosch Laws have been trialled in a 20-match competition, a
review will be presented to the IRB with the expectation that new,
simplified laws will be put into play in 2008.

The ARU is thinking of using the Stellenbosch Laws in September's inaugural
Australian Provincial Championship tournament. It should. Virtually every
innovation to make rugby open, athletic and clever has come from the
southern hemisphere. The Stellenbosch Laws follow this proud tradition."

Brad
--
.
Uncle Bully
2006-03-28 06:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
Great. This is what a real contest is about.
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Great. Never understood why mismatching numbers was a penalisable offence.
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Great. The get out of jail free 22 rule always sucked.
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
Great. For most offences is too big a reward. Free kicks are heaps better.
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
This is the only one I'm not sure about, but it'll probably work out ok.
While rolling mauls are good, I can live without them in the name of faster
play.
Post by Brad Anton
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary
responsibility, like a football touch judge, of policing the offside
lines.
Meh, like that will change anything.

This all sounds good to me. Can't wait to see it in action.
Brad Anton
2006-03-28 06:06:03 UTC
Permalink
--
.
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
Great. This is what a real contest is about.
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at
any time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Great. Never understood why mismatching numbers was a penalisable offence.
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Great. The get out of jail free 22 rule always sucked.
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
Great. For most offences is too big a reward. Free kicks are heaps better.
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
This is the only one I'm not sure about, but it'll probably work out ok.
While rolling mauls are good, I can live without them in the name of
faster play.
Post by Brad Anton
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary
responsibility, like a football touch judge, of policing the offside
lines.
Meh, like that will change anything.
This all sounds good to me. Can't wait to see it in action.
Likewise.
Brad
Scott Lemon
2006-03-28 09:18:51 UTC
Permalink
"Uncle Bully" <***@optushome.com.au.Remove> wrote in message news:4428cd9f$0$7532$***@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Great. The get out of jail free 22 rule always sucked.
So, if you have a scrum just out of the 22 the halfback can't pass it back
to the kicker standing in the 22? (or he can, you just can't gain any
ground?) Gives too much advantage to the attacking team if you ask me.

<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
This is the only one I'm not sure about, but it'll probably work out ok.
While rolling mauls are good, I can live without them in the name of
faster play.
Definitely don't like this one. I'd hate to see the rolling maul go, it
removes another differentiator between union and league. I like the
specialist skills of union forwards, as opposed to the homogenous blandness
of league "forwards"
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 09:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Great. The get out of jail free 22 rule always sucked.
So, if you have a scrum just out of the 22 the halfback can't pass it back
to the kicker standing in the 22?
Of course he can. The kicker can't boot it straight out of play again.

(or he can, you just can't gain any
Post by Scott Lemon
ground?) Gives too much advantage to the attacking team if you ask me.
Not convinced it will. The attacking team has to balance the need to
drop players back to run any kick back, or pressure the opposition
backline to prevent them running the scrum ball. If the wings drop too
far back, it opens space out wide, if they don't drop quickly enough,
then a good chase could catch the fullback isolated deep in his own
territory.
Post by Scott Lemon
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
This is the only one I'm not sure about, but it'll probably work out ok.
While rolling mauls are good, I can live without them in the name of
faster play.
Definitely don't like this one. I'd hate to see the rolling maul go, it
removes another differentiator between union and league. I like the
specialist skills of union forwards, as opposed to the homogenous blandness
of league "forwards"
Agreed. The art of the rolling maul is not one I'd like to see
disappear. As it only takes one player to collapse a maul it will
result in a more crowded defensive line.

Later,
Sean
Scott Lemon
2006-03-29 10:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by Scott Lemon
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out,
the lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Great. The get out of jail free 22 rule always sucked.
So, if you have a scrum just out of the 22 the halfback can't pass it
back to the kicker standing in the 22?
Of course he can. The kicker can't boot it straight out of play again.
(or he can, you just can't gain any
Post by Scott Lemon
ground?) Gives too much advantage to the attacking team if you ask me.
Not convinced it will. The attacking team has to balance the need to drop
players back to run any kick back, or pressure the opposition backline to
prevent them running the scrum ball. If the wings drop too far back, it
opens space out wide, if they don't drop quickly enough, then a good chase
could catch the fullback isolated deep in his own territory.
Hmmm...on the other hand, look at how first fives kick out of defence these
days, they've almost always got a speedy flanker or inside back coming from
a flat line bearing down on him, and more often than not is only just
getting a kick away. Rather than a lineout midway 22 and halfway (or better,
if you've got an Evans or Carter on your side), you're going to have a lot
of defensive lineouts right on your own goalline. Too easy for the attacking
team to put everything into blitzing the first five.
Dave (SA)
2006-03-29 17:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Great. The get out of jail free 22 rule always sucked.
So, if you have a scrum just out of the 22 the halfback can't pass it back
to the kicker standing in the 22? (or he can, you just can't gain any
ground?) Gives too much advantage to the attacking team if you ask me.
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
This is the only one I'm not sure about, but it'll probably work out ok.
While rolling mauls are good, I can live without them in the name of
faster play.
Definitely don't like this one. I'd hate to see the rolling maul go, it
removes another differentiator between union and league. I like the
specialist skills of union forwards, as opposed to the homogenous blandness
of league "forwards"
I am sure there was a day not that long ago when the maul could be collapsed
I remember the 1980 Lions tour of SA.
Maul collapsing was a tactic used
That was a good series

I like the rule. Maul offences cause lots of penaties

My problem with a rolling mauls there does not appear to be a good,
legitimate way to stop it. The defending side have to keep running back
behind the last line of feet

Think about it this way
In a maul the attacking side is carrying the ball
Tackling as I am surew we will all agree is a major component of rugby union
Why shouldn't the ball carrier get tackled? Real question

The new law will reduce offences, be fairer on the defending side and
force the attacking side to clear the ball a bit faster

It won'r make it like league. The rucks are still there, just people can
use their hands

I am in favour of all the above rule changes
Dave (SA)
2006-03-29 17:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Great. The get out of jail free 22 rule always sucked.
So, if you have a scrum just out of the 22 the halfback can't pass it back
to the kicker standing in the 22? (or he can, you just can't gain any
ground?) Gives too much advantage to the attacking team if you ask me.
<snip>
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
This is the only one I'm not sure about, but it'll probably work out ok.
While rolling mauls are good, I can live without them in the name of
faster play.
Definitely don't like this one. I'd hate to see the rolling maul go, it
removes another differentiator between union and league. I like the
specialist skills of union forwards, as opposed to the homogenous blandness
of league "forwards"
About the Maul rule

Rod McQueens explanation follows

“The collapsing of the maul is always a 50/50 decison because referees
don’t know who the guilty player was,” said Macqueen. “We want to allow
players to bring the maul down, which will force teams to be more
skilful when they set up a maul.”

Make sense?
Geoff Muldoon
2006-03-28 07:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
Players on the ground can use their hands? Tackler doesn't have to
release? Shirley Knott? Must be an overly simple explanation, only those
on their feet? But they should be able to continue to grab for it after
the ruck has formed, yes.
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
OK, so what.
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Excellent addition of the pass back to the relatively recent "no run back
into 22" law change.
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
And hopefully long-arm ones for repeat professional short-arm
infringements?
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
Hmm, is this a potential safety issue?
Post by Brad Anton
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.
Oh god.


GM
Brian Elmegaard
2006-03-28 06:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Muldoon
Players on the ground can use their hands? Tackler doesn't have to
release? Shirley Knott? Must be an overly simple explanation, only those
on their feet? But they should be able to continue to grab for it after
the ruck has formed, yes.
So it's not just because I am not fluent in English that I don't
understand this.

This doesn't even mention this change afaics:
http://www.planet-rugby.com/Off_The_Field/Laws_And_Referees/story_49675.shtml
Post by Geoff Muldoon
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
Hmm, is this a potential safety issue?
At least it's recently that we started lifting opponents' legs in the
loose scrum in Denmark. You have to learn to be prepared for it.
--
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.web.mek.dtu.dk/Staff/be/be.html
http://www.rugbyklubben-speed.dk
Marco
2006-03-28 07:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Seems stupid and pointless.
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
This is good.
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
Including not releasing the ball?
Expect 80 minutes of rucks and 0-0 scores.
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
Dangerous.
Post by Brad Anton
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.
Nothing much.
Uncle Bully
2006-03-28 08:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
It will reduce all the silly penalties, and possibly replace them with free
kicks. This can only speed things up.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Seems stupid and pointless.
What is stupid is countless penalties because one side didn't count every
single player in every single lineout and confirm whether the half was part
of the lineout or not. This will speed up all the pointless stoppages at
lineout time.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
This is good.
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
Including not releasing the ball?
Expect 80 minutes of rucks and 0-0 scores.
If the ball doesn't come out, it is a free kick to the defence. I don't
think too many ball runners will be holding on to the ball. This will speed
up play immensely.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
Dangerous.
Not really. Half of the mauls get collapsed anyway, the other half don't get
picked up.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary
responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.
Nothing much.
Marco
2006-03-28 11:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times.
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
It will reduce all the silly penalties, and possibly replace them with free
kicks. This can only speed things up.
Och, well, I consider key for the speeding up of the game stopping
kickers from having the time to say a prayer, fart and stare at the
posts for ages. What about a wee simple rule as no place kicks - use
drop kicks instead?
Anyway, I think that hands in the rucks will make said rucks AGES
longer. And boring for the viewer.
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Seems stupid and pointless.
What is stupid is countless penalties because one side didn't count every
single player in every single lineout and confirm whether the half was part
of the lineout or not. This will speed up all the pointless stoppages at
lineout time.
Aye.
Well.
Indifferent.
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
Including not releasing the ball?
Expect 80 minutes of rucks and 0-0 scores.
If the ball doesn't come out, it is a free kick to the defence. I don't
think too many ball runners will be holding on to the ball. This will speed
up play immensely.
Better a free kick than a penalty kick, at least you get the lineout!
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
Dangerous.
Not really. Half of the mauls get collapsed anyway,
I'd go with a 10%, and it IS dangerous for the guys mauling...
Brad Anton
2006-03-28 10:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
Including not releasing the ball?
Expect 80 minutes of rucks and 0-0 scores.
Not releasing the ball will result in a scrum to the team who went into the ruck without the ball -
I think this rule change will see much faster ball production.
Brad
rick boyd
2006-03-28 11:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
I don't think so. The incentive is to move the ball out quickly before
everyone gets their sticky mitts on it.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Seems stupid and pointless.
What, the law, or the change? Stoppages for technical offences such as
lineout numbers that neither advantage or disadvantage either side seem
stupid and pointless to me.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
This is good.
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
Including not releasing the ball?
Expect 80 minutes of rucks and 0-0 scores.
Expect the game to flow more as prolonged stoppages for time-consuming
place kicks are eliminated. Expect teams to select and play more
positively, as the option of playing negative, destructive rugby and
winning on pressured-based penalties is removed.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
Dangerous.
Oh bollocks. It's just what happens now most of the time anyway. Rolling
mauls are just a mobile obstructions. Sack 'em and play the ball where
it can be contested.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.
Nothing much.
Christ. This is a worry. I can't wait until rugby gets Hawkeye and the
ref gets computer analysis through his earpiece to help him.

Getting more interfering grandstanders involved is not a good move.

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 11:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
I don't think so. The incentive is to move the ball out quickly before
everyone gets their sticky mitts on it.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Seems stupid and pointless.
What, the law, or the change? Stoppages for technical offences such as
lineout numbers that neither advantage or disadvantage either side seem
stupid and pointless to me.
As does penalising a team for not straight when they throw it down the
opponents side of the lineout.

Later,
Sean
Uncle Bully
2006-03-28 19:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by rick boyd
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
I don't think so. The incentive is to move the ball out quickly before
everyone gets their sticky mitts on it.
Post by Marco
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Seems stupid and pointless.
What, the law, or the change? Stoppages for technical offences such as
lineout numbers that neither advantage or disadvantage either side seem
stupid and pointless to me.
As does penalising a team for not straight when they throw it down the
opponents side of the lineout.
Or not straight when the opposition don't even contest the lineout..
didds
2006-03-28 23:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Marco
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
I don't think so. The incentive is to move the ball out quickly before
everyone gets their sticky mitts on it.
I don;t actualkly have a problem with Rick's assertion here.

But I do have a question ... why doesn't this happen already then when
the ball is fundamentally protected from such action? ie if such an
action is clearly beneficial why doesn;t it happen now?


didds
rick boyd
2006-03-29 00:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by didds
Post by rick boyd
Post by Marco
This will DEFINITELY make the game slower, with everyone competing for
the ball in the ruck.
I don't think so. The incentive is to move the ball out quickly before
everyone gets their sticky mitts on it.
I don;t actualkly have a problem with Rick's assertion here.
But I do have a question ... why doesn't this happen already then when
the ball is fundamentally protected from such action? ie if such an
action is clearly beneficial why doesn;t it happen now?
It does a lot of the time. Quick rucks are the very best way to recycle
possession after the tackle and whip it out quick while the defence is
in disarray. Slowing down the ball in the ruck to prevent this advantage
has become an art form in itself.

Because the ball is fundamentally protected from the opposition's hands,
and real rucks using the feet don't really happen any more, the ruck has
become a perfect place to hide the ball, and realign your attack if it
is the attack and not the defence that is in disarray.

Allowing hands in ruck
- legitimises a lot of what is happening now anyway, particularly by the
side in possession (which referees seem to ignore),
- makes rucks a more even contest for possession,
- returns the contest for possession to rucks which the original
designers of rugby intended, where rucks were supposed to take place by
two groups of men standing over the ball and using their feet, but have
now inevitably bcome two groups of men lying on the ground
- gives an added incentive to the side in possession to use the ball
quickly and spin it out even if their attack is in disarray, which is
their own fault after all (thereby giving the defence a deserved
advantage).

-- rick boyd
Martyn W
2006-03-28 07:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/27/1143441081716.html
"The most important rugby match played over the weekend was at Stellenbosch
University between two "guinea pig" teams of students playing under new
rules - the Stellenbosch Laws - devised under the auspices of the IRB by Rod
Macqueen (coach of the 1999 World Cup Wallabies), Pierre Villepreux
(France), Richie Dixon (Scotland) and Ian McIntosh (South Africa).
The experiment is being managed by Paddy O'Brien (NZ), a former Test referee
and now the IRB's referees manager. The brief for the group was to devise a
simpler, shorter and more effective set of laws while retaining the
essential features of rugby. The group also wants to quicken up the game and
take the subjectiveness out of referees' decision making.
Danie Craven, the most powerful rugby administrator from the 1950s through
to the 1970s, once told me the laws of rugby were wrong because they were
too complicated and too long. He used teams of students at Stellenbosch to
test out his own theories. So it is appropriate that the Stellenbosch Laws
should be trialled at his university.
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.
I had the chance last week of watching videos with Rod Macqueen of incidents
from the trial matches at Stellenbosch. After the players became accustomed
to the new laws - and, just as importantly, to the opportunities they open
up - play became very lively. Continuity flourished. The players learnt to
stop tucking the ball under their body (the Bob Dwyer ploy) when they were
tackled. Instead, they started placing it well back from the tackle.
The most contentious issue is the use of hands in the ruck. The proposed law
is simpler, taking about 30 laws out of the rule book. It allows referees to
concentrate on the essential issues, offside and foul play.
Many gurus have called for this over the years. I saw a game at TG Milner
field more than 20 years ago where laws devised by Scott Johnson, the new
Wallabies backs coach, were played. Handling in the ruck was one of about a
dozen new rules Johnson proposed. My memory is that the rucks were cleared
more effectively than they are now.
After the Stellenbosch Laws have been trialled in a 20-match competition, a
review will be presented to the IRB with the expectation that new,
simplified laws will be put into play in 2008.
The ARU is thinking of using the Stellenbosch Laws in September's inaugural
Australian Provincial Championship tournament. It should. Virtually every
innovation to make rugby open, athletic and clever has come from the
southern hemisphere. The Stellenbosch Laws follow this proud tradition."
Brad
--
.
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
Scott Lemon
2006-03-28 09:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martyn W
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
<snip>
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
I don't get what they're trying to do, effectively removing the rolling
maul. If I wanted to watch rugby league I'd go watch it.
rick boyd
2006-03-28 12:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
I don't get what they're trying to do, effectively removing the rolling
maul. If I wanted to watch rugby league I'd go watch it.
Rolling mauls aren't that frequent anyway. Half of them get collapsed,
accidentally or deliberately, and the game stops again.

Have the maul, and get possession out of it. No need to move some fat
bugger 30 metres downfield with the ball in his grap and seven other fat
buggers in front of him preventing the contest for possession. The
rolling maul is what's contrary to the spirit of rugby, not abolishing it.

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 12:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Scott Lemon
I don't get what they're trying to do, effectively removing the
rolling maul. If I wanted to watch rugby league I'd go watch it.
Rolling mauls aren't that frequent anyway. Half of them get collapsed,
accidentally or deliberately, and the game stops again.
Have the maul, and get possession out of it. No need to move some fat
bugger 30 metres downfield with the ball in his grap and seven other fat
buggers in front of him preventing the contest for possession. The
rolling maul is what's contrary to the spirit of rugby, not abolishing it.
Is this your definition of the 'spirit of rugby' or the IRB's?

Scrums would also appear to contravene it by the above logic...

Later,
Sean
rick boyd
2006-03-28 13:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Is this your definition of the 'spirit of rugby' or the IRB's?
Mine, but then you already knew that.
Post by Sean Byrne
Scrums would also appear to contravene it by the above logic...
They key to law changes is to improve the game without altering the
intrinsic nature of rugby's unique features. We don't want to eliminate
the ruck or the maul as continually contested possession is a basic
feature of rugby. But we do want to improve both those areas to stop
them being used negatively.

The scrum is one of the original features of rugby and like lineouts, it
has special considerations. The initial contest for possession in the
scrum takes place at the put in, or it used to. Once the ball is hooked
the contest for possession does not center on the ball but in the entire
scrum contest. It is possible to wheel the scrum, shunt it, and fragment
it totally, and win back possession.

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 14:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
Is this your definition of the 'spirit of rugby' or the IRB's?
Mine, but then you already knew that.
Post by Sean Byrne
Scrums would also appear to contravene it by the above logic...
They key to law changes is to improve the game without altering the
intrinsic nature of rugby's unique features. We don't want to eliminate
the ruck or the maul as continually contested possession is a basic
feature of rugby. But we do want to improve both those areas to stop
them being used negatively.
I see the teamwork and the skill required to progress a rolling maul as
a positive.

The fact that it commits opposition forwards is another positive.
Post by rick boyd
The scrum is one of the original features of rugby and like lineouts, it
has special considerations. The initial contest for possession in the
scrum takes place at the put in, or it used to. Once the ball is hooked
the contest for possession does not center on the ball but in the entire
scrum contest. It is possible to wheel the scrum, shunt it, and fragment
it totally, and win back possession.
All of the above also applies to a rolling maul.

Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2006-03-28 22:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
I see the teamwork and the skill required to progress a rolling maul as
a positive.
The fact that it commits opposition forwards is another positive.
It is not without assets. But to my mind they are outweighed by the
liabilities. It directly prevents the continued contest for possession,
a key rugby tenet, and reduces the contest to a sixteen-man
pushing-and-shoving-and-wrestling contest, with the side preventing
access to the ball always having the initiative, and the defending side
continually at risk of conceding a penalty when in reality it is the
side in possession that is transgressing the spirit of the game.
Post by Sean Byrne
All of the above also applies to a rolling maul.
The scrum is a structured set piece and the ball in never carried in it.

But your suggestion has merit. If a maul ever starts to roll, it should
be halted and a scrum awarded to the side in possession.

-- rick boyd
Brent Hadley
2006-03-28 23:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
I see the teamwork and the skill required to progress a rolling maul as
a positive.
The fact that it commits opposition forwards is another positive.
It is not without assets. But to my mind they are outweighed by the
liabilities. It directly prevents the continued contest for possession,
a key rugby tenet, and reduces the contest to a sixteen-man
pushing-and-shoving-and-wrestling contest, with the side preventing
access to the ball always having the initiative, and the defending side
continually at risk of conceding a penalty when in reality it is the
side in possession that is transgressing the spirit of the game.
Post by Sean Byrne
All of the above also applies to a rolling maul.
The scrum is a structured set piece and the ball in never carried in it.
But your suggestion has merit. If a maul ever starts to roll, it should
be halted and a scrum awarded to the side in possession.
So you add more stoppages to the game?

Anyway, didn't we kind of have that rule before 92? And it got axed?
Not quite the same, I know, but still a retrograde manouever IMO.

Cheers

Brent
rick boyd
2006-03-29 00:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent Hadley
So you add more stoppages to the game?
Anyway, didn't we kind of have that rule before 92? And it got axed?
Not quite the same, I know, but still a retrograde manouever IMO.
If collpasing the maul becomes legal, there's going to be an stoppage
anyway. The incentive will definitely be there for attacking sides to
use maul ball quickly. They can pick and drive if they want to and
create a series of mauls or rucks, and probably make better progress
than a rolling maul anyway.

-- rick boyd
The Green Phantom
2006-03-28 23:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
I see the teamwork and the skill required to progress a rolling maul
as a positive.
The fact that it commits opposition forwards is another positive.
It is not without assets. But to my mind they are outweighed by the
liabilities. It directly prevents the continued contest for possession,
a key rugby tenet, and reduces the contest to a sixteen-man
pushing-and-shoving-and-wrestling contest, with the side preventing
access to the ball always having the initiative, and the defending side
continually at risk of conceding a penalty when in reality it is the
side in possession that is transgressing the spirit of the game.
Have to take issue here Rick. Some teams can do it and some can't.
Who, for example, would have bet on Scotland doing it to England this year?

If you can do it then why should it be any less of a weapon in your
armoury than a good drop-kicker or an exceptional scrum-half say? It's
not as though a team concede a goal, kick-off only to see the ball
disappear into a maul only to re-emerge over the try line (ad infinitum).

regards

The Green Phantom
rick boyd
2006-03-29 14:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Have to take issue here Rick. Some teams can do it and some can't. Who,
for example, would have bet on Scotland doing it to England this year?
If you can do it then why should it be any less of a weapon in your
armoury than a good drop-kicker or an exceptional scrum-half say? It's
not as though a team concede a goal, kick-off only to see the ball
disappear into a maul only to re-emerge over the try line (ad infinitum).
Because it's like saying some teams can cheat better, or some teams can
commit professional fouls better. It may be a weapon in their armoury,
but it's not one that rugby needs to be encouraged.

-- rick boyd
The Green Phantom
2006-03-28 12:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Scott Lemon
I don't get what they're trying to do, effectively removing the rolling
maul. If I wanted to watch rugby league I'd go watch it.
Rolling mauls aren't that frequent anyway. Half of them get collapsed,
accidentally or deliberately, and the game stops again.
Have the maul, and get possession out of it. No need to move some fat
bugger 30 metres downfield with the ball in his grap and seven other fat
buggers in front of him preventing the contest for possession. The
rolling maul is what's contrary to the spirit of rugby, not abolishing it.
Allowing your position to show here Rick?

I can only say that the rolling maul, properly executed, is a dynamic tactic
which allows traditional forward strengths to be deployed.

The Hawks have used the tactic very successfully because they have fit,
athletic forwards, well marshalled by their scrummie.

It's a part of the all round game.

regards

The Green Phantom
rick boyd
2006-03-28 13:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Green Phantom
Allowing your position to show here Rick?
Strangely, my brain is able to comprehend features of the game outside
the skills of that most noble of protagonists, the wing three-quarter.
Post by The Green Phantom
I can only say that the rolling maul, properly executed, is a dynamic tactic
which allows traditional forward strengths to be deployed.
The Hawks have used the tactic very successfully because they have fit,
athletic forwards, well marshalled by their scrummie.
It's a part of the all round game.
But is it in keeping with the spirit of rugby? The maul is suposed to be
part of the continued contest for possession. Once the team in
possession has secured the ball at the rear of the maul, they should use
it. The maul was designed to contest possession, not shield the ball
from possession. Once the maul starts moving and the ball is secured at
the rear, there is nt contest, there is no positive use of the ball,
just two negative forces: the maul rolling forward, and the opposition
pushing back.

-- rick boyd
The Green Phantom
2006-03-28 13:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by The Green Phantom
Allowing your position to show here Rick?
Strangely, my brain is able to comprehend features of the game outside
the skills of that most noble of protagonists, the wing three-quarter.
Post by The Green Phantom
I can only say that the rolling maul, properly executed, is a dynamic tactic
which allows traditional forward strengths to be deployed.
The Hawks have used the tactic very successfully because they have fit,
athletic forwards, well marshalled by their scrummie.
It's a part of the all round game.
But is it in keeping with the spirit of rugby? The maul is suposed to be
part of the continued contest for possession. Once the team in
possession has secured the ball at the rear of the maul, they should use
it. The maul was designed to contest possession, not shield the ball
from possession. Once the maul starts moving and the ball is secured at
the rear, there is nt contest, there is no positive use of the ball,
just two negative forces: the maul rolling forward, and the opposition
pushing back.
Presumably that's why we have use it or lose it?

regards

The Green Phantom
Alistair Hutton
2006-03-28 15:25:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:08:12 +0100, The Green Phantom
Post by The Green Phantom
Post by rick boyd
Post by The Green Phantom
It's a part of the all round game.
But is it in keeping with the spirit of rugby? The maul is suposed to be
part of the continued contest for possession. Once the team in
possession has secured the ball at the rear of the maul, they should use
it. The maul was designed to contest possession, not shield the ball
from possession. Once the maul starts moving and the ball is secured at
the rear, there is nt contest, there is no positive use of the ball,
just two negative forces: the maul rolling forward, and the opposition
pushing back.
Presumably that's why we have use it or lose it?
Absolutely, what we need is the maul reffed to the letter of the law
rather than removing them all together. Performing mauls as defined
by the law book is a tricky task.

--
Alistair Hutton
Mike Whooley
2006-03-28 22:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alistair Hutton
Absolutely, what we need is the maul reffed to the letter of the law
rather than removing them all together. Performing mauls as defined
by the law book is a tricky task.
Am I right in thinking there is no law stating defending players who
legally join the ruck, but then end up on the far (attacking team's)
side due to the maul rolling, must detach?

I know the refs are constantly nagging players back around, but I've
heard it suggested the laws simply state how the defenders must join.
Any truth in this?

If so, it would seem a more sensible rule than the one currently
proposed.
rick boyd
2006-03-28 22:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alistair Hutton
Absolutely, what we need is the maul reffed to the letter of the law
rather than removing them all together. Performing mauls as defined
by the law book is a tricky task.
No one is suggesting removing the maul. The suggetsion is to make it
legal to collapse rolling mauls.

-- rick boyd
Scott Lemon
2006-03-29 10:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alistair Hutton
Absolutely, what we need is the maul reffed to the letter of the law
rather than removing them all together. Performing mauls as defined
by the law book is a tricky task.
No one is suggesting removing the maul. The suggetsion is to make it legal
to collapse rolling mauls.
Effectively the same thing - how can you stop anyone collapsing a maul? The
laws of physics would say you can't, no teams will bother even starting one
up.
rick boyd
2006-03-29 14:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
Effectively the same thing - how can you stop anyone collapsing a maul? The
laws of physics would say you can't, no teams will bother even starting one
up.
Well that's the whole point, isn't it. To make rolling mauls obsolete.
And a good thing too.

-- rick boyd
Geraint Lewis
2006-03-29 20:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
Post by Alistair Hutton
Absolutely, what we need is the maul reffed to the letter of the law
rather than removing them all together. Performing mauls as defined
by the law book is a tricky task.
No one is suggesting removing the maul. The suggetsion is to make it legal
to collapse rolling mauls.
Effectively the same thing - how can you stop anyone collapsing a maul? The
laws of physics would say you can't, no teams will bother even starting one
up.
Good teams would learn to move the maul at speed, rather than it being a
slow amble. The result is that the opposition would need to slow the
maul up and grow numbers before collapsing it. Anything else is likely
to result in a player getting his comeuppance at the bottom of 16 large
boots.

Result - good teams use rolling mauls to advance 5 - 15 metres, sucking
in the opposition players and so creating gaps and strong attacking
positions. The maul is finally collapsed with the defence now having to
face 15 v 7 as the players who collapsed the maul are the last to get
up. Further, nobody is going to go to sleep watching 16 men walk the
length of the field at a snails pace while one player hangs on to the
back with the ball in hand.

Mass movements in rugby make for good viewing over short distances e.g.
a scrum 5 attack. They punish the game over longer distances.

The proposed change that is silly is to create football style linesmen.
If anything football should go the rugby way, though preferably it
should just take the highway.
--
Geraint Lewis
rick boyd
2006-03-28 22:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Green Phantom
Presumably that's why we have use it or lose it?
That applies only to stationary mauls unfortunately.

-- rick boyd
The Green Phantom
2006-03-28 23:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by The Green Phantom
Presumably that's why we have use it or lose it?
That applies only to stationary mauls unfortunately.
Which is when a rolling maul has been successfully defended?

regards

The Green Phantom
rick boyd
2006-03-29 14:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Green Phantom
Post by rick boyd
That applies only to stationary mauls unfortunately.
Which is when a rolling maul has been successfully defended?
What happens when a rolling maul stops? The ball carrier peels off and
starts a new one. You'd have to be pretty thick to come to a halt and
just sit there, waiting for the ref to blow the turnover.

-- rick boyd
The Green Phantom
2006-03-29 14:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by The Green Phantom
Post by rick boyd
That applies only to stationary mauls unfortunately.
Which is when a rolling maul has been successfully defended?
What happens when a rolling maul stops? The ball carrier peels off and
starts a new one. You'd have to be pretty thick to come to a halt and
just sit there, waiting for the ref to blow the turnover.
Never seen it happen that way to be honest Rick. Yes the ball carrier
may well peel off and form a new maul, the point being though it has to
be dynamic and moving forward. Once it becomes static the referee
issues a warning - and then a turnover for not heeding the warning.


regards

The Green Phantom
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 14:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by The Green Phantom
Allowing your position to show here Rick?
Strangely, my brain is able to comprehend features of the game outside
the skills of that most noble of protagonists, the wing three-quarter.
Post by The Green Phantom
I can only say that the rolling maul, properly executed, is a dynamic tactic
which allows traditional forward strengths to be deployed.
The Hawks have used the tactic very successfully because they have fit,
athletic forwards, well marshalled by their scrummie.
It's a part of the all round game.
But is it in keeping with the spirit of rugby?
Yes

The maul is suposed to be
Post by rick boyd
part of the continued contest for possession.
Really? That sounds suspiciously like another Boyd definition.


Once the team in
Post by rick boyd
possession has secured the ball at the rear of the maul, they should use
it.
Progressing up the field IS using it.

The maul was designed to contest possession, not shield the ball
Post by rick boyd
from possession.
Source?


Once the maul starts moving and the ball is secured at
Post by rick boyd
the rear, there is nt contest, there is no positive use of the ball,
just two negative forces: the maul rolling forward, and the opposition
pushing back.
Your arguments are based on a premise that rugby is primarily about a
contest for possession.

It's not, it's a contest for possession and territory.

Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
Craig L
2006-03-28 15:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by rick boyd
Post by The Green Phantom
Allowing your position to show here Rick?
Strangely, my brain is able to comprehend features of the game outside
the skills of that most noble of protagonists, the wing three-quarter.
Post by The Green Phantom
I can only say that the rolling maul, properly executed, is a dynamic tactic
which allows traditional forward strengths to be deployed.
The Hawks have used the tactic very successfully because they have fit,
athletic forwards, well marshalled by their scrummie.
It's a part of the all round game.
But is it in keeping with the spirit of rugby?
Yes
The maul is suposed to be
Post by rick boyd
part of the continued contest for possession.
Really? That sounds suspiciously like another Boyd definition.
Once the team in
Post by rick boyd
possession has secured the ball at the rear of the maul, they should use
it.
Progressing up the field IS using it.
The maul was designed to contest possession, not shield the ball
Post by rick boyd
from possession.
Source?
Once the maul starts moving and the ball is secured at
Post by rick boyd
the rear, there is nt contest, there is no positive use of the ball,
just two negative forces: the maul rolling forward, and the opposition
pushing back.
Your arguments are based on a premise that rugby is primarily about a
contest for possession.
It's not, it's a contest for possession and territory.
Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
The rolling maul is definitely a tactic that should be kept in play.
Something extremely exciting about watching a pack of forwards
executing it properly. See a lot more 'truck and trailer' calls these
days which would indicate to me that the defensive teams are working
harder to contest possession and breaking up the 'uncontestable'
element of the move. It should stay. What else have us lumbering oafs
got to look forward to? more running from lineout to lineout? God let
us have a breather too please ;-)
rick boyd
2006-03-28 23:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by rick boyd
But is it in keeping with the spirit of rugby?
Yes
Should we guess the reasons for this or are we supposed to be psychic?
Post by rick boyd
The maul is suposed to be
Post by rick boyd
part of the continued contest for possession.
Really? That sounds suspiciously like another Boyd definition.
Think about it, Seamus. What's the difference between rugby and league
at the tackle? In league, the contest is over. Play stops and restarts
with a rollball. In rugby the contest for possession continues with
either a ruck or a maul. The players don't join in just because they
love lying in a heap (well, the props might).
Post by rick boyd
Progressing up the field IS using it.
But not in the spirit of the game. The ball should only be caried
downfield while it is open to contest of possession. The rolling maul is
like having blockers running in front of the ball carrier.
Post by rick boyd
The maul was designed to contest possession, not shield the ball
Post by rick boyd
from possession.
Source?
It's self evident. See above.
Post by rick boyd
Your arguments are based on a premise that rugby is primarily about a
contest for possession.
It's not, it's a contest for possession and territory.
A contest for possession and territory under set conditions. You can't
run blockers in front of the ball carrier, no matter how much you might
like territory. The ball has to be available for the contest of
possession. It's intrinsic to the nature of rugby, and the rolling maul
is a violation of that principle.

-- rick boyd
The Green Phantom
2006-03-28 23:40:45 UTC
Permalink
rick boyd wrote:

[...]
Post by rick boyd
A contest for possession and territory under set conditions. You can't
run blockers in front of the ball carrier, no matter how much you might
like territory. The ball has to be available for the contest of
possession. It's intrinsic to the nature of rugby, and the rolling maul
is a violation of that principle.
Yes, well, harruumph, you do have a point there but to my mind it is
still an anomaly that should remain.

And anyway, now that I come to think of it if the rolling maul is held
up then use it or lose it comes in to play and the contest continues or
posession changes hands.

regards

The Green Phantom
Sean Byrne
2006-03-29 10:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by rick boyd
Post by rick boyd
But is it in keeping with the spirit of rugby?
Yes
Should we guess the reasons for this or are we supposed to be psychic?
Well if you're going to bandy vague undefined terms like 'spirit of the
game', the genesis of which seems to be your desire to see sevens style
rugby.
Post by rick boyd
Post by rick boyd
The maul is suposed to be
Post by rick boyd
part of the continued contest for possession.
Really? That sounds suspiciously like another Boyd definition.
Think about it, Seamus. What's the difference between rugby and league
at the tackle? In league, the contest is over. Play stops and restarts
with a rollball. In rugby the contest for possession continues with
either a ruck or a maul. The players don't join in just because they
love lying in a heap (well, the props might).
No. The difference is that in rugby the *play* continues with either a
ruck or maul. This 'contest for possession' is your invention, it's the
continuity that is the key difference.
Post by rick boyd
Post by rick boyd
Progressing up the field IS using it.
But not in the spirit of the game. The ball should only be caried
downfield while it is open to contest of possession. The rolling maul is
like having blockers running in front of the ball carrier.
Post by rick boyd
The maul was designed to contest possession, not shield the ball
Post by rick boyd
from possession.
Source?
It's self evident. See above.
The maul was designed as a battle between forward packs for terrritory.

The loss of possession and "use it or lose it" aspects are recent
inventions; previously it was sufficient to be going forward to ensure
continued possession.


The IRB states the following in it's charter under 'Contest and Continuity':

'It is the aim of the team in possession to maintain continuity by
denying the opposition the ball and, by skillful means, to advance and
score points. Failure to do this will mean the surrendering of
possession to the opposition either as a result of shortcomings on the
part of the team in possession or because of the quality of the
opposition defence'

A good summary of a rolling maul.
Post by rick boyd
Post by rick boyd
Your arguments are based on a premise that rugby is primarily about a
contest for possession.
It's not, it's a contest for possession and territory.
A contest for possession and territory under set conditions. You can't
run blockers in front of the ball carrier, no matter how much you might
like territory.
But you can trundle a scrum 20m upfield with the ball at the 8's feet.
Post by rick boyd
The ball has to be available for the contest of
possession. It's intrinsic to the nature of rugby, and the rolling maul
is a violation of that principle.
Possession is available for contest in a rolling maul situation - as
happens in virtually every game if you successfully defend the maul you
get possession.


Later,
Sean
rick boyd
2006-03-29 14:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Well if you're going to bandy vague undefined terms like 'spirit of the
game', the genesis of which seems to be your desire to see sevens style
rugby.
I don't think it is a vague term. I think it is a term which most rugby
afficiandos understand very well. Just because it is not set down in a
law book doesn't make it vague.
Post by Sean Byrne
No. The difference is that in rugby the *play* continues with either a
ruck or maul. This 'contest for possession' is your invention, it's the
continuity that is the key difference.
I am not following you at all. Are you saying that league stops and
waits? You know this is not what happens. The game continues, pretty
much instantly. Tackle, stand up, tap ball back, halfback passes. The
reason it was made that way is because it's quicker, and league wanted a
quick, open game for the spectators.

There is no difference in the continuity, if anything league has more
continuity. The difference is in the continuation of the contest for
possession. In league, the ball is dead from the moment the tackle is
made until the halfback lays his hands on it.

In rugby, the ball remains alive in the tackle and after the tackle,
into the ruck or maul. It's a fundamental principle of rugby. It's very
nice of you to say that it's my invention, but it has been there since
the beginning.
Post by Sean Byrne
The maul was designed as a battle between forward packs for terrritory.
Where are you getting this stuff from? Did you eat a lot cheese last night?

The maul has never been about territory. It is a contest for possession
following the tackle. Players from both teams try to gain possession of
the ball. The rolling maul is something different.
Post by Sean Byrne
The loss of possession and "use it or lose it" aspects are recent
inventions; previously it was sufficient to be going forward to ensure
continued possession.
Previously it was sufficient for huddles of fat buggers to stand around
for hours achieving nothing. The use it or lose it change was to do with
speeding the game up, it had nothing to do with movement of the maul.
Post by Sean Byrne
'It is the aim of the team in possession to maintain continuity by
denying the opposition the ball and, by skillful means, to advance and
score points. Failure to do this will mean the surrendering of
possession to the opposition either as a result of shortcomings on the
part of the team in possession or because of the quality of the
opposition defence'
A good summary of a rolling maul.
Quite the opposite, I would have thought. The opposition cannot be
denied the ball by illegal means and as you have just pointed out, they
should have possession surrendered to them.
Post by Sean Byrne
But you can trundle a scrum 20m upfield with the ball at the 8's feet.
You must get away from this idea of comparing the scrum to the maul. The
scrum is a set piece with a definite structure and purpose. The original
scrum did not use the feet on the ball at all, but one pack tried to
push the other pack off the ball until it was free for the half back to
claim possession of it. The scrum is not a means of moving the ball
downfield. It would be thoroughly inneffective for this purpose. It is
very occasionally used as means of moving the ball 5 metres and across
the goal line.
Post by Sean Byrne
Possession is available for contest in a rolling maul situation - as
happens in virtually every game if you successfully defend the maul you
get possession.
How is possession available? Players must come in from the rear of their
own side, the ball is protected at the other end of the opposition side.
The ball is sealed off and cannot be contested. If you successfully
defend the maul, the ball carrier peels off and starts a new maul, or
passes it out to his back line.

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-29 17:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
Well if you're going to bandy vague undefined terms like 'spirit of
the game', the genesis of which seems to be your desire to see sevens
style rugby.
I don't think it is a vague term. I think it is a term which most rugby
afficiandos understand very well. Just because it is not set down in a
law book doesn't make it vague.
No, the fact that it means different things to different people makes it
vague. That there's been more than one note of discord with your stance
suggests that rugby aficionados don't "understand" it as well as you
would like.

The fact that it is not set down in a law makes it undefined.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
No. The difference is that in rugby the *play* continues with either
a ruck or maul. This 'contest for possession' is your invention, it's
the continuity that is the key difference.
I am not following you at all. Are you saying that league stops and
waits? You know this is not what happens.
From the moment of the tackle until it is rolled under the players
feet, the ball is out of play, as is a ball in touch etc.


The game continues, pretty
Post by rick boyd
much instantly. Tackle, stand up, tap ball back, halfback passes. The
reason it was made that way is because it's quicker, and league wanted a
quick, open game for the spectators.
There is no difference in the continuity, if anything league has more
continuity.
League is, by nature, a constant stream of first-phase play. Continuity
requires multiple phases.


The difference is in the continuation of the contest for
Post by rick boyd
possession. In league, the ball is dead from the moment the tackle is
made until the halfback lays his hands on it.
Exactly. One phase of play. Ball out of play. Another phase of play.
Post by rick boyd
In rugby, the ball remains alive in the tackle and after the tackle,
into the ruck or maul.
There you are, you got there in the end.


It's a fundamental principle of rugby. It's very
Post by rick boyd
nice of you to say that it's my invention, but it has been there since
the beginning.
Post by Sean Byrne
The maul was designed as a battle between forward packs for terrritory.
Where are you getting this stuff from? Did you eat a lot cheese last night?
Ah... yes of course Rick, your interpretation (and it is only that) of
the intentions of the lawmakers when including mauls in the laws is true
and valid, everyone else has been on the cheese.
Post by rick boyd
The maul has never been about territory. It is a contest for possession
following the tackle.
Not according to the laws it's not. No mention at all about possession
or contest, only that it's a group of players from each team moving
towards a goal-line.


Players from both teams try to gain possession of
Post by rick boyd
the ball. The rolling maul is something different.
Post by Sean Byrne
The loss of possession and "use it or lose it" aspects are recent
inventions; previously it was sufficient to be going forward to ensure
continued possession.
Previously it was sufficient for huddles of fat buggers to stand around
for hours achieving nothing. The use it or lose it change was to do with
speeding the game up, it had nothing to do with movement of the maul.
Post by Sean Byrne
'It is the aim of the team in possession to maintain continuity by
denying the opposition the ball and, by skillful means, to advance and
score points. Failure to do this will mean the surrendering of
possession to the opposition either as a result of shortcomings on the
part of the team in possession or because of the quality of the
opposition defence'
A good summary of a rolling maul.
Quite the opposite, I would have thought. The opposition cannot be
denied the ball by illegal means and as you have just pointed out, they
should have possession surrendered to them.
Who's been eating cheese now? Check your law book Rick - mauls are legal.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
But you can trundle a scrum 20m upfield with the ball at the 8's feet.
You must get away from this idea of comparing the scrum to the maul.
Why? It's the most similar aspect of play.

The
Post by rick boyd
scrum is a set piece with a definite structure and purpose.
As is a maul. It's another facet of rugby that pits forward packs
against each other with the team not in possession shielded from the
ball by opponents in front of the person controlling the ball.


The original
Post by rick boyd
scrum did not use the feet on the ball at all, but one pack tried to
push the other pack off the ball until it was free for the half back to
claim possession of it. The scrum is not a means of moving the ball
downfield. It would be thoroughly inneffective for this purpose. It is
very occasionally used as means of moving the ball 5 metres and across
the goal line.
I've never claimed it was effective for progressing the ball, merely
that it's another example of the ball being shielded from the opposition.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
Possession is available for contest in a rolling maul situation - as
happens in virtually every game if you successfully defend the maul
you get possession.
How is possession available? Players must come in from the rear of their
own side, the ball is protected at the other end of the opposition side.
The ball is sealed off and cannot be contested. If you successfully
defend the maul, the ball carrier peels off and starts a new maul, or
passes it out to his back line.
You've never seen a turnover following a maul? Christ even the Force
manage the occasional one of those.

Just because a player isn't touching the ball doesn't mean he isn't
contesting for possession.

A blindside flanker is contesting possession when he pushes in the scrum
even though the ball comes nowhere near him.

Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2006-03-29 22:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
No, the fact that it means different things to different people makes it
vague. That there's been more than one note of discord with your stance
suggests that rugby aficionados don't "understand" it as well as you
would like.
Yep, well we've both said our piece on this subject. Before we start the
slow waltz, let's move on.

-- rick boyd
William A. T. Clark
2006-03-29 15:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
Post by Martyn W
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
<snip>
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
I don't get what they're trying to do, effectively removing the rolling
maul. If I wanted to watch rugby league I'd go watch it.
Yes, well I think this all comes about because some media guru at IRB HQ
thinks that the game must be all open backplay in order to put rear ends
in seats and in front of TVs. These rear ends belong to a "new"
audience, bringing untold new riches to support the game.

BS, I say. The players and clubs have made the game what it is, and
without them it will drift off into some irrelevant show pony. The way
to advance the game is to bring the newbies into the game and teach them
to appreciate its variety, something that neither soccer nor RL have.

Of course, it would be better if the media gurus had ever played the
game, but . . oh, well.

William Clark
rick boyd
2006-03-29 22:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Yes, well I think this all comes about because some media guru at IRB HQ
thinks that the game must be all open backplay in order to put rear ends
in seats and in front of TVs. These rear ends belong to a "new"
audience, bringing untold new riches to support the game.
BS, I say. The players and clubs have made the game what it is, and
without them it will drift off into some irrelevant show pony. The way
to advance the game is to bring the newbies into the game and teach them
to appreciate its variety, something that neither soccer nor RL have.
Of course, it would be better if the media gurus had ever played the
game, but . . oh, well.
I think what the law change committee are really trying to do is
preserve the spirit of the game's essential elements. Remember that the
game is unrecognisable from its earliest incarnations, so it's not like
law change is anything new or threatening.

But every time a new set of laws is introduced, coaches immediately set
about trying to exploit them and abuse them to their own advantage.
naturally, as any good coach would.

So a continual process of adjustment is needed to preserve the basic
principles of rugby from the slow creep of negativity.

"Lfting in the lineouts will destroy the lineout," the Luddites howled
when that change was introduced. But it didn't. It rewarded the side not
negatively kicking the ball out, it prevented all the argy-bargy going
on in the lineouts off the ball and itmade lineouts quicker and more
spectacular.

Just because the English like to play pretty much every sport they get
their hands on in a negative, defensive style does not make it good.

-- rick boyd
William A. T. Clark
2006-03-30 01:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by William A. T. Clark
Yes, well I think this all comes about because some media guru at IRB HQ
thinks that the game must be all open backplay in order to put rear ends
in seats and in front of TVs. These rear ends belong to a "new"
audience, bringing untold new riches to support the game.
BS, I say. The players and clubs have made the game what it is, and
without them it will drift off into some irrelevant show pony. The way
to advance the game is to bring the newbies into the game and teach them
to appreciate its variety, something that neither soccer nor RL have.
Of course, it would be better if the media gurus had ever played the
game, but . . oh, well.
I think what the law change committee are really trying to do is
preserve the spirit of the game's essential elements. Remember that the
game is unrecognisable from its earliest incarnations, so it's not like
law change is anything new or threatening.
But every time a new set of laws is introduced, coaches immediately set
about trying to exploit them and abuse them to their own advantage.
naturally, as any good coach would.
So a continual process of adjustment is needed to preserve the basic
principles of rugby from the slow creep of negativity.
"Lfting in the lineouts will destroy the lineout," the Luddites howled
when that change was introduced. But it didn't. It rewarded the side not
negatively kicking the ball out, it prevented all the argy-bargy going
on in the lineouts off the ball and itmade lineouts quicker and more
spectacular.
Just because the English like to play pretty much every sport they get
their hands on in a negative, defensive style does not make it good.
-- rick boyd
I always thought that the "spirit of the game" lay in its variety,
especially compared to RL and soccer. It appears that we are trying to
legislate that variety out of the game. In the case of the lineouts,
everyone knew that they were a huge problem area, and while I agree that
I was initially very skeptical, I think that the lineout has developed
into an interesting and, once again, contested area. Just watch what
Ireland's lineout did to Scotland, for example.

However, I don't see the breakdown as the same kind of problem. If the
IRB would just insist that refs ping those lurkers that hang around the
fringes in a clearly obstructing position, and make players release the
ball, then we could once again go back to good, quick, rucking, and play
would flow. Not only that, but rucking requires the commitment of more
forwards than the current 7-a-sde type maul, and the last thing the game
needs is a bunch of fatties all with hands on the ball, while the rest
of the donkeys take up positions in midfield, thus ensuring that no
incisive back play can take place.

I think that preventing kicking from within the 22 gives too much
incentive to the attacking side to stuff it up the jumper and just grind
to the line. Kicking for touch is now a risk/reward option for a team -
make them kick into space and again we change the game and take another
dimension out of it.

I took your post in the spirit in which it was made until I saw the last
paragraph. That's just dumb, and you know it.

William Clark
rick boyd
2006-03-30 14:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
I took your post in the spirit in which it was made until I saw the last
paragraph. That's just dumb, and you know it.
Yes. Of course. You didn't expect me to be completely serious, surely?

-- rick boyd
JRH
2006-03-30 19:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by William A. T. Clark
Yes, well I think this all comes about because some media guru at IRB HQ
thinks that the game must be all open backplay in order to put rear ends
in seats and in front of TVs. These rear ends belong to a "new"
audience, bringing untold new riches to support the game.
BS, I say. The players and clubs have made the game what it is, and
without them it will drift off into some irrelevant show pony. The way
to advance the game is to bring the newbies into the game and teach them
to appreciate its variety, something that neither soccer nor RL have.
Of course, it would be better if the media gurus had ever played the
game, but . . oh, well.
I think what the law change committee are really trying to do is
preserve the spirit of the game's essential elements. Remember that the
game is unrecognisable from its earliest incarnations, so it's not like
law change is anything new or threatening.
But every time a new set of laws is introduced, coaches immediately set
about trying to exploit them and abuse them to their own advantage.
naturally, as any good coach would.
So a continual process of adjustment is needed to preserve the basic
principles of rugby from the slow creep of negativity.
"Lfting in the lineouts will destroy the lineout," the Luddites howled
when that change was introduced. But it didn't. It rewarded the side not
negatively kicking the ball out, it prevented all the argy-bargy going
on in the lineouts off the ball and itmade lineouts quicker and more
spectacular.
Just because the English like to play pretty much every sport they get
their hands on in a negative, defensive style does not make it good.
With the greatest respect Sirrah, but the English invented the vast
majority of the games that are now played at the very highest level
around the world, teaching the ethics and rules to the vast hordes
that now like to claim them as their own.

Bucolic Apoplectic
Royal Tunbridge Wells
Dave (SA)
2006-03-30 19:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JRH
Post by rick boyd
Post by William A. T. Clark
Yes, well I think this all comes about because some media guru at IRB HQ
thinks that the game must be all open backplay in order to put rear ends
in seats and in front of TVs. These rear ends belong to a "new"
audience, bringing untold new riches to support the game.
BS, I say. The players and clubs have made the game what it is, and
without them it will drift off into some irrelevant show pony. The way
to advance the game is to bring the newbies into the game and teach them
to appreciate its variety, something that neither soccer nor RL have.
Of course, it would be better if the media gurus had ever played the
game, but . . oh, well.
I think what the law change committee are really trying to do is
preserve the spirit of the game's essential elements. Remember that the
game is unrecognisable from its earliest incarnations, so it's not like
law change is anything new or threatening.
But every time a new set of laws is introduced, coaches immediately set
about trying to exploit them and abuse them to their own advantage.
naturally, as any good coach would.
So a continual process of adjustment is needed to preserve the basic
principles of rugby from the slow creep of negativity.
"Lfting in the lineouts will destroy the lineout," the Luddites howled
when that change was introduced. But it didn't. It rewarded the side not
negatively kicking the ball out, it prevented all the argy-bargy going
on in the lineouts off the ball and itmade lineouts quicker and more
spectacular.
Just because the English like to play pretty much every sport they get
their hands on in a negative, defensive style does not make it good.
With the greatest respect Sirrah, but the English invented the vast
majority of the games that are now played at the very highest level
around the world, teaching the ethics and rules to the vast hordes
that now like to claim them as their own.
Who is claiming the game as their own?
Did not realise anyone was
Or are you claiming it to be the property of England?

Invention should not convey any special rights in perpetuity

Rugby belongs to all that love the game and the English have no greater
claim than other rugby loving nation. (Even if you did win the WC)

Some rule changes have worked and some have failed

To change for changes sake is dumb
To cling onto something when change is needed is equally dumb
JRH
2006-03-30 22:06:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:56:59 +0200, "Dave (SA)"
Post by Dave (SA)
Post by JRH
Post by rick boyd
Post by William A. T. Clark
Yes, well I think this all comes about because some media guru at IRB HQ
thinks that the game must be all open backplay in order to put rear ends
in seats and in front of TVs. These rear ends belong to a "new"
audience, bringing untold new riches to support the game.
BS, I say. The players and clubs have made the game what it is, and
without them it will drift off into some irrelevant show pony. The way
to advance the game is to bring the newbies into the game and teach them
to appreciate its variety, something that neither soccer nor RL have.
Of course, it would be better if the media gurus had ever played the
game, but . . oh, well.
I think what the law change committee are really trying to do is
preserve the spirit of the game's essential elements. Remember that the
game is unrecognisable from its earliest incarnations, so it's not like
law change is anything new or threatening.
But every time a new set of laws is introduced, coaches immediately set
about trying to exploit them and abuse them to their own advantage.
naturally, as any good coach would.
So a continual process of adjustment is needed to preserve the basic
principles of rugby from the slow creep of negativity.
"Lfting in the lineouts will destroy the lineout," the Luddites howled
when that change was introduced. But it didn't. It rewarded the side not
negatively kicking the ball out, it prevented all the argy-bargy going
on in the lineouts off the ball and itmade lineouts quicker and more
spectacular.
Just because the English like to play pretty much every sport they get
their hands on in a negative, defensive style does not make it good.
With the greatest respect Sirrah, but the English invented the vast
majority of the games that are now played at the very highest level
around the world, teaching the ethics and rules to the vast hordes
that now like to claim them as their own.
Who is claiming the game as their own?
Did not realise anyone was
Or are you claiming it to be the property of England?
Invention should not convey any special rights in perpetuity
Rugby belongs to all that love the game and the English have no greater
claim than other rugby loving nation. (Even if you did win the WC)
Some rule changes have worked and some have failed
To change for changes sake is dumb
To cling onto something when change is needed is equally dumb
Whooosshhhh...

My post was a tongue in cheek riposte to the OP's:

"Just because the English like to play pretty much every sport they
get their hands on in a negative, defensive style does not make it
good."

Geddit? ;o)
Stex
2006-03-30 23:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by JRH
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:56:59 +0200, "Dave (SA)"
Post by JRH
Post by rick boyd
Post by William A. T. Clark
Yes, well I think this all comes about because some media guru at IRB HQ
thinks that the game must be all open backplay in order to put rear ends
in seats and in front of TVs. These rear ends belong to a "new"
audience, bringing untold new riches to support the game.
BS, I say. The players and clubs have made the game what it is, and
without them it will drift off into some irrelevant show pony. The way
to advance the game is to bring the newbies into the game and teach them
to appreciate its variety, something that neither soccer nor RL have.
Of course, it would be better if the media gurus had ever played the
game, but . . oh, well.
I think what the law change committee are really trying to do is
preserve the spirit of the game's essential elements. Remember that the
game is unrecognisable from its earliest incarnations, so it's not like
law change is anything new or threatening.
But every time a new set of laws is introduced, coaches immediately set
about trying to exploit them and abuse them to their own advantage.
naturally, as any good coach would.
So a continual process of adjustment is needed to preserve the basic
principles of rugby from the slow creep of negativity.
"Lfting in the lineouts will destroy the lineout," the Luddites howled
when that change was introduced. But it didn't. It rewarded the side not
negatively kicking the ball out, it prevented all the argy-bargy going
on in the lineouts off the ball and itmade lineouts quicker and more
spectacular.
Just because the English like to play pretty much every sport they get
their hands on in a negative, defensive style does not make it good.
With the greatest respect Sirrah, but the English invented the vast
majority of the games that are now played at the very highest level
around the world, teaching the ethics and rules to the vast hordes
that now like to claim them as their own.
Out of curiousity, do the English claim golf as well?

Stex
Rock2006
2006-03-28 09:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martyn W
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/27/1143441081716.html
"The most important rugby match played over the weekend was at Stellenbosch
University between two "guinea pig" teams of students playing under new
rules - the Stellenbosch Laws - devised under the auspices of the IRB by Rod
Macqueen (coach of the 1999 World Cup Wallabies), Pierre Villepreux
(France), Richie Dixon (Scotland) and Ian McIntosh (South Africa).
The experiment is being managed by Paddy O'Brien (NZ), a former Test referee
and now the IRB's referees manager. The brief for the group was to devise a
simpler, shorter and more effective set of laws while retaining the
essential features of rugby. The group also wants to quicken up the game and
take the subjectiveness out of referees' decision making.
Danie Craven, the most powerful rugby administrator from the 1950s through
to the 1970s, once told me the laws of rugby were wrong because they were
too complicated and too long. He used teams of students at Stellenbosch to
test out his own theories. So it is appropriate that the Stellenbosch Laws
should be trialled at his university.
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary
responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.
I had the chance last week of watching videos with Rod Macqueen of incidents
from the trial matches at Stellenbosch. After the players became accustomed
to the new laws - and, just as importantly, to the opportunities they open
up - play became very lively. Continuity flourished. The players learnt to
stop tucking the ball under their body (the Bob Dwyer ploy) when they were
tackled. Instead, they started placing it well back from the tackle.
The most contentious issue is the use of hands in the ruck. The proposed law
is simpler, taking about 30 laws out of the rule book. It allows referees to
concentrate on the essential issues, offside and foul play.
Many gurus have called for this over the years. I saw a game at TG Milner
field more than 20 years ago where laws devised by Scott Johnson, the new
Wallabies backs coach, were played. Handling in the ruck was one of about a
dozen new rules Johnson proposed. My memory is that the rucks were cleared
more effectively than they are now.
After the Stellenbosch Laws have been trialled in a 20-match competition, a
review will be presented to the IRB with the expectation that new,
simplified laws will be put into play in 2008.
The ARU is thinking of using the Stellenbosch Laws in September's inaugural
Australian Provincial Championship tournament. It should. Virtually every
innovation to make rugby open, athletic and clever has come from the
southern hemisphere. The Stellenbosch Laws follow this proud tradition."
Brad
--
.
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
I must say this is the area that concerns me the most about these changes
but I dont think it will kill mauling .. maybe push it to be used
differently?

The way I read these proposed changes the maul may still be effective.
Presumably any dangerous takedown of the maul can be penalised?
There is no longer a "use it or lose it" law and now and it can go in any
direction so long as people join through "the gate" (supposedly this will
policed more strictly).

Also since truck and trailer is allowed if the maul splinters and continues
to move forward
you might get the situation where by a maul is pulled down at the front but
players at the
back will detach and continue moving forward to reform the maul past
advantage line ?

PT
Brad Anton
2006-03-28 11:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
Gah, pull the fucking maul down and scrap for the ball I say. I've always hated the rolling maul -
images of Neil Back playing the offside rule to its limit spring to mind.
Brad
rick boyd
2006-03-28 11:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.

-- rick boyd
Martyn W
2006-03-28 12:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
As I posted I wondered if I should leave the "rolling" bit unstated but
understood.

Wingers eh? Why did they leave the "h" out? Sometimes the rolling maul
can be a thing of grace and beauty. The main problem with it, is it is
virtually impossible to defend without infringing, which is patently
stupid. Whether being able to take it down brings its own problems is
something that will out with time.
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 12:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martyn W
Post by rick boyd
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
As I posted I wondered if I should leave the "rolling" bit unstated but
understood.
Wingers eh? Why did they leave the "h" out? Sometimes the rolling maul
can be a thing of grace and beauty. The main problem with it, is it is
virtually impossible to defend without infringing,
People keep repeating this as if it was gospel truth.

All that is required is sufficient numbers, decent teamwork and good
body position. It's something Scotland did a good job of during the 6
nations against both England and France.

If it really was impossible to defend against teams would be using it a
lot more, making a lot more territory every time they employed it as a
tactic, and every 5 metre lineout would result in a try.

Later,
Sean



which is patently
Post by Martyn W
stupid. Whether being able to take it down brings its own problems is
something that will out with time.
simon s-b
2006-03-28 12:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by Martyn W
Post by rick boyd
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
As I posted I wondered if I should leave the "rolling" bit unstated but
understood.
Wingers eh? Why did they leave the "h" out? Sometimes the rolling maul
can be a thing of grace and beauty. The main problem with it, is it is
virtually impossible to defend without infringing,
People keep repeating this as if it was gospel truth.
All that is required is sufficient numbers, decent teamwork and good
body position. It's something Scotland did a good job of during the 6
nations against both England and France.
If it really was impossible to defend against teams would be using it a
lot more, making a lot more territory every time they employed it as a
tactic, and every 5 metre lineout would result in a try.
Later,
Sean
tried posting this before but Google flipped. Sorry if it appears
twice.

Rugby used to be a game for people of all shapes and sizes. The
traditional second row type is now a threatened beast after lifting
laws came in, and will be threatened again by this collapsing mauls
pish. Hands in rucks? Right, lets just get rid of the art of a
scavenging loosie as well, and replace him with a back-like speedster.

Keep going down this path and we'll have one of two things - rugby
league or 7's with 15 people playing.
Craig L
2006-03-28 15:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by simon s-b
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by Martyn W
Post by rick boyd
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
As I posted I wondered if I should leave the "rolling" bit unstated but
understood.
Wingers eh? Why did they leave the "h" out? Sometimes the rolling maul
can be a thing of grace and beauty. The main problem with it, is it is
virtually impossible to defend without infringing,
People keep repeating this as if it was gospel truth.
All that is required is sufficient numbers, decent teamwork and good
body position. It's something Scotland did a good job of during the 6
nations against both England and France.
If it really was impossible to defend against teams would be using it a
lot more, making a lot more territory every time they employed it as a
tactic, and every 5 metre lineout would result in a try.
Later,
Sean
tried posting this before but Google flipped. Sorry if it appears
twice.
Rugby used to be a game for people of all shapes and sizes. The
traditional second row type is now a threatened beast after lifting
laws came in,
Disagree completely here. They tried 2nd rowers who were specialist
loosies and it never really worked (AB's got found wanting by french
pack in 99 WC). Big 2nd rowers are really the engine behind the front
row. Wimpy little speedsters just dont generate the power and leverage
that big guys give to a pack.

and will be threatened again by this collapsing mauls
Post by simon s-b
pish.
agree. Collapsing mauls not a good thing.

Hands in rucks? Right, lets just get rid of the art of a
Post by simon s-b
scavenging loosie as well, and replace him with a back-like speedster.
Speedsters dont like to get a) dirty or b) stood on. Thats why they
never get involved now (unless you are Ben Cohen and youre not sure
what youre actually supposed to be doing on the park anyway).
Post by simon s-b
Keep going down this path and we'll have one of two things - rugby
league or 7's with 15 people playing.
didgerman
2006-03-28 21:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by simon s-b
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by Martyn W
Post by rick boyd
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
As I posted I wondered if I should leave the "rolling" bit unstated but
understood.
Wingers eh? Why did they leave the "h" out? Sometimes the rolling maul
can be a thing of grace and beauty. The main problem with it, is it is
virtually impossible to defend without infringing,
People keep repeating this as if it was gospel truth.
All that is required is sufficient numbers, decent teamwork and good
body position. It's something Scotland did a good job of during the 6
nations against both England and France.
If it really was impossible to defend against teams would be using it a
lot more, making a lot more territory every time they employed it as a
tactic, and every 5 metre lineout would result in a try.
Later,
Sean
tried posting this before but Google flipped. Sorry if it appears
twice.
Rugby used to be a game for people of all shapes and sizes. The
traditional second row type is now a threatened beast after lifting
laws came in, and will be threatened again by this collapsing mauls
pish. Hands in rucks? Right, lets just get rid of the art of a
scavenging loosie as well, and replace him with a back-like speedster.
Keep going down this path and we'll have one of two things - rugby
league or 7's with 15 people playing.
And fewer watching....
William A. T. Clark
2006-03-29 14:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by simon s-b
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by Martyn W
Post by rick boyd
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
As I posted I wondered if I should leave the "rolling" bit unstated but
understood.
Wingers eh? Why did they leave the "h" out? Sometimes the rolling maul
can be a thing of grace and beauty. The main problem with it, is it is
virtually impossible to defend without infringing,
People keep repeating this as if it was gospel truth.
All that is required is sufficient numbers, decent teamwork and good
body position. It's something Scotland did a good job of during the 6
nations against both England and France.
If it really was impossible to defend against teams would be using it a
lot more, making a lot more territory every time they employed it as a
tactic, and every 5 metre lineout would result in a try.
Later,
Sean
tried posting this before but Google flipped. Sorry if it appears
twice.
Rugby used to be a game for people of all shapes and sizes. The
traditional second row type is now a threatened beast after lifting
laws came in, and will be threatened again by this collapsing mauls
pish. Hands in rucks? Right, lets just get rid of the art of a
scavenging loosie as well, and replace him with a back-like speedster.
Keep going down this path and we'll have one of two things - rugby
league or 7's with 15 people playing.
Couldn't agree more. The great thing about Rugby to me was the variety
of options it offered. These gave roles to all sorts of physical types,
from the quicksilver little scrumhalf to the monster lock. We seem to be
legislating the game to remove these. If we do so, we take half the
tactical options available to coaches out of the playbook, and eliminate
the opportunities for all but a much more homogeneous group of physical
types. We end up like league, or soccer.

In my view, there is nothing wrong with a sterling forward battle, if
that is the strength of the teams. We seem to be obsessed with
restricting the game to backplay only, and it will be the poorer for
that, not because we don't all love to see exciting back play, but
because it will be less attractive if the contrasting thrust up front is
reduced or eliminated. It is light and dark that make things interesting
- remove one and the image is suddenly bland.

William Clark
Will_S
2006-03-28 21:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay. The
continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the rolling
maul adds nothing to the game.
-- rick boyd
Well if its now only a free kick then leave it in the game
Stex
2006-03-28 22:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Martyn W
The one I don't get is collapsing the maul becoming legal. There is the
potential for safety issues, but that aside, if the objective is to
make the maul ineffective and hence diminish its use in the name of
continuity, then why not just outlaw it? There will be screamers, but
there always is.
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
-- rick boyd
Spoken like a true winger

Stex
rick boyd
2006-03-29 00:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stex
Spoken like a true winger
Spoken like a true prop.

Have we added anything to the debate at all?

-- rickboyd
Stex
2006-03-29 22:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Stex
Spoken like a true winger
Spoken like a true prop.
Have we added anything to the debate at all?
-- rickboyd
Just putting some context around your debate.

1st 5 actually

Stex
rick boyd
2006-03-29 22:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stex
Post by rick boyd
Post by Stex
Spoken like a true winger
Spoken like a true prop.
Have we added anything to the debate at all?
-- rickboyd
Just putting some context around your debate.
1st 5 actually
Then you should know better.

-- rick boyd
didds
2006-03-28 23:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
what about driven mauls then?

cf driven maul that moves 20 yards upfield and a rolling maul that ...
err... moves twenty yards upfield.

???????

didds
rick boyd
2006-03-29 00:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by didds
Post by rick boyd
The problem is not the maul, but the rolling maul. The maul must stay.
The continuing contest for possession is fundamental to rugby. But the
rolling maul adds nothing to the game.
what about driven mauls then?
cf driven maul that moves 20 yards upfield and a rolling maul that ...
err... moves twenty yards upfield.
???????
A driven maul being where the ball carrier is at the front of the maul?

-- rick boyd
Ben Clegg
2006-03-28 16:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/27/1143441081716.html
Brad, you missed out naming the author.... "By Spiro Zavos".

I'm not convinced based on this one story that all of these changes are
about to happen. All kinds of law variants are tried out at Stellenbosch
and also at Cambridge University, and the vast majority never go any
further.

Some of them do sound positive. For example, the no passing back into
the 22 and then kicking out on the full sounds to me like a good change.
Although I'd still love to see Bill Taylor's rather old suggested
amendment that takes this even further. Bill suggested there should be
no kicking out on the full, even from possession won inside the 22
(although we discussed the issue of letting people do so after taking a
mark, or from any other free kick within the 22).

Cheers,

Ben
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 17:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Ben Clegg wrote:
<snip>
Post by Ben Clegg
Although I'd still love to see Bill Taylor's rather old suggested
amendment that takes this even further. Bill suggested there should be
no kicking out on the full, even from possession won inside the 22
(although we discussed the issue of letting people do so after taking a
mark, or from any other free kick within the 22).
What was the rationale behind that? My initial reaction is that it
would promote kicking into the corner as an attacking option above
attacking with the ball in hand.

Currently such kicks have to be accurate, as the defending team has the
advantage of being able to punish any wayward ones because of the
advantage afforded by being able to kick out on the full.

Later,
Sean
Ben Clegg
2006-03-28 17:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
<snip>
Post by Ben Clegg
Although I'd still love to see Bill Taylor's rather old suggested
amendment that takes this even further. Bill suggested there should be
no kicking out on the full, even from possession won inside the 22
(although we discussed the issue of letting people do so after taking a
mark, or from any other free kick within the 22).
What was the rationale behind that? My initial reaction is that it
would promote kicking into the corner as an attacking option above
attacking with the ball in hand.
For one thing, I don't like that players in their own 22 don't have to
think, they just belt the ball out as far upfield as they can. This law
change doesn't stop you kicking it, but you have to have a plan if you
are going to kick it.

I'd see it as a way to stop so much of the game being played in the
middle of the pitch. Sides that gain territory don't lose it all because
of one turnover.
Post by Scott Lemon
Currently such kicks have to be accurate, as the defending team has the
advantage of being able to punish any wayward ones because of the
advantage afforded by being able to kick out on the full.
On the other hand, the more territory defenders have to cover, the more
gaps there will be for players keeping ball in hand.


Cheers,

Ben
Jon.R
2006-03-28 17:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/27/1143441081716.html
"The most important rugby match played over the weekend was at
Stellenbosch University between two "guinea pig" teams of students playing
under new rules - the Stellenbosch Laws - devised under the auspices of
the IRB by Rod Macqueen (coach of the 1999 World Cup Wallabies), Pierre
Villepreux (France), Richie Dixon (Scotland) and Ian McIntosh (South
Africa).
The experiment is being managed by Paddy O'Brien (NZ), a former Test
referee and now the IRB's referees manager. The brief for the group was to
devise a simpler, shorter and more effective set of laws while retaining
the essential features of rugby. The group also wants to quicken up the
game and take the subjectiveness out of referees' decision making.
Danie Craven, the most powerful rugby administrator from the 1950s through
to the 1970s, once told me the laws of rugby were wrong because they were
too complicated and too long. He used teams of students at Stellenbosch to
test out his own theories. So it is appropriate that the Stellenbosch Laws
should be trialled at his university.
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
<snip>

Another SH ploy to take away the importance of tight forwards and turn our
beautifulk game into league by the back-door.

They wioll be stopping push over tries next.
Sean Byrne
2006-03-28 17:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lemon
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/27/1143441081716.html
"The most important rugby match played over the weekend was at
Stellenbosch University between two "guinea pig" teams of students playing
under new rules - the Stellenbosch Laws - devised under the auspices of
the IRB by Rod Macqueen (coach of the 1999 World Cup Wallabies), Pierre
Villepreux (France), Richie Dixon (Scotland) and Ian McIntosh (South
Africa).
The experiment is being managed by Paddy O'Brien (NZ), a former Test
referee and now the IRB's referees manager. The brief for the group was to
devise a simpler, shorter and more effective set of laws while retaining
the essential features of rugby. The group also wants to quicken up the
game and take the subjectiveness out of referees' decision making.
Danie Craven, the most powerful rugby administrator from the 1950s through
to the 1970s, once told me the laws of rugby were wrong because they were
too complicated and too long. He used teams of students at Stellenbosch to
test out his own theories. So it is appropriate that the Stellenbosch Laws
should be trialled at his university.
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
<snip>
Another SH ploy to take away the importance of tight forwards and turn our
beautifulk game into league by the back-door.
France and Scotland are in the SH?
Post by Scott Lemon
They wioll be stopping push over tries next.
When was the last time you saw one of those?

Later,
Sean
Philip Castleman
2006-03-28 20:46:39 UTC
Permalink
All are good, except allowing collapsing of Rolling mauls. Rolling maul law
needs to change.As it is now I see no difference between a rolling maul or
"Truck and trailer". With the ball tucked under one arm and a shoulder
leaning on a bum in front this is legalised obstruction, where defenders
have no right to contest the ball as they will be penalised for entering
from the side. However , collapsing maul is too easy. The idea is to commit
defenders to the maul to create holes out wide. What I feel would be better
is for the ref to call use it or maul over, once the maul stops going
forwards. This year I have seen times where the team in possession has been
pushed backwards for some time, only to be allowed to start shoving forwards
again. The maul's forward process can be stopped for several seconds but the
ref NEVER calls use it. Changing to the concept of having to use the ball
after forward motion stops is fair, because it requires commitment of bodies
of defenders with skill to overcome the momentum, and if the team in
possession is organised enough they should be able to keep the forward
momentum. Then there is a fair contest which is what the game is about, and
the basic concept of the maul remains.

Still no mention of how to separate the defensive line from the attackers,
which league adressed with the 5 then 10m rule. I still say defenders should
have to align behind he halfback to help open the game up a bit
Phil
William A. T. Clark
2006-03-29 14:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
Looks like the writing's on the wall
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/27/1143441081716.html
"The most important rugby match played over the weekend was at Stellenbosch
University between two "guinea pig" teams of students playing under new
rules - the Stellenbosch Laws - devised under the auspices of the IRB by Rod
Macqueen (coach of the 1999 World Cup Wallabies), Pierre Villepreux
(France), Richie Dixon (Scotland) and Ian McIntosh (South Africa).
The experiment is being managed by Paddy O'Brien (NZ), a former Test referee
and now the IRB's referees manager. The brief for the group was to devise a
simpler, shorter and more effective set of laws while retaining the
essential features of rugby. The group also wants to quicken up the game and
take the subjectiveness out of referees' decision making.
Danie Craven, the most powerful rugby administrator from the 1950s through
to the 1970s, once told me the laws of rugby were wrong because they were
too complicated and too long. He used teams of students at Stellenbosch to
test out his own theories. So it is appropriate that the Stellenbosch Laws
should be trialled at his university.
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility,
like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.
I had the chance last week of watching videos with Rod Macqueen of incidents
from the trial matches at Stellenbosch. After the players became accustomed
to the new laws - and, just as importantly, to the opportunities they open
up - play became very lively. Continuity flourished. The players learnt to
stop tucking the ball under their body (the Bob Dwyer ploy) when they were
tackled. Instead, they started placing it well back from the tackle.
The most contentious issue is the use of hands in the ruck. The proposed law
is simpler, taking about 30 laws out of the rule book. It allows referees to
concentrate on the essential issues, offside and foul play.
Amen. So rucking has now gone the way of set scrummaging - consigned to
the scrapheap.

Great - this is progress?

William Clark
Will_S
2006-03-30 02:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must
come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed.
Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown
and can't release it is penalised.
Dont like it. Making it a free kick instead of a penalty would be enough for
me.
Post by Brad Anton
2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any
time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.
Would make it still only a max of 7 but at any time for either side
Post by Brad Anton
3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the
lineout is taken from where the kick was made.
Should be in now
Post by Brad Anton
4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All
other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).
BUT sin bin should be encouraged to stop the player committing proffessional
fouls ie. tackled in his 22 but holds on to the ball. Also would add 3
yellow cards and an automatic one match suspension
Post by Brad Anton
5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.
As long as its only a free kick then leave it as it is
Post by Brad Anton
6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary
responsibility, like a football touch judge, of policing the offside
lines.
They do now through the mic
Uncle Dave
2006-03-30 18:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Anton
Virtually every
innovation to make rugby open, athletic and clever has come from the
southern hemisphere. The Stellenbosch Laws follow this proud tradition."
For me, the trouble with this is that it assumes that rugby is in some
mystical way meant to be "open, athletic and clever". It could be
reasonably argued that there is nothing clever about abusing your body
and voluntarily having the shit kicked out of you . For me, the
essence of rugby has always been its combative nature which has set it
apart from football even more than the fact that in one version you can
carry the ball and in the other not.

There is no way I could, with a straight face, describe it to one of my
non-rugby friends as "clever". "Daft" maybe, but no, clever it ain't
and gloriously stupid in this safety-mad, PC world are those who
continue to play it despite the inevitable adverse effect on their
health and constant risk of injury.

There seems to be no shortage of people who take it on themselves to
decree what the game is "meant" to be like and just as the silent
majority fought other groups who sought to impose on the world their
own restrictive view (e.g. that certain races are inferior to others),
so we should resist - whether we agree with the proposed rule changes
or not - those who would impose change for purely arbitrary reasons.
What is the basis for these changes? Where is the link to rugby's
roots, i.e. how do these changes benefit the game more than the
original intent or the existing ones? Why is a need for such changes
perceived? Because some old BOFs say so and they have to find
something for retired referees to do?!

As far as I'm concerned, just because a bunch of people find the
subject of the Mona Lisa to be ugly is no reason to paint a nice
watercolour of the seaside over it. No, I'm not a Luddite - my
day-to-day work involves encouraging people to change the way they do
things. I battle intrenched, mostly baseless opposition to change
every day. The difference is, I do so with good reasons based on
empirical evidence or at least persuasive emotionless argument,
bullshit-detector at full charge, always checking the benefits for
those involved, always making sure I add value and never seeking to
impose change just for the sake if it.

The constant fiddling with the rules of rugby is another indication -
and my God we've seen some - of the unfortunate fact that there is no
shortage of very UNclever rugby people who think the game is theirs to
do with as they will. The only basis I see for these changes is the
opinion of those wanting the change. Where are the statistics to tell
us why we should change? How will these changes help the game and why
should they be considered at all?

Oh, I know why, because Mister Murdoch's minions and the mindless
masses they want to attract can't handle the inherent complexity of the
game. Jeez, I've argued long enough that rugby should be more
accessible but these changes do not a jot to alter the fact that the
game will remain an impenetrable mystery to anyone either not brought
up with it or willing to invest a few years to understand it.

If you want to change something, try enforcing the current laws rather
than conveniently ignoring them for the sake of increased TV ratings.
Jeez, ask "why" fer chrissakes, don't just accept everything THEY tell
you as being valid because THEY say it is. Do that and you deserve the
watered down crap they want to serve you.

And shoot on sight any eejit journo who writes something like
"Virtually every innovation to make rugby open, athletic and clever has
come from the southern hemisphere. The Stellenbosch Laws follow this
proud tradition." We need the air for real people.

Cheers

UD
rick boyd
2006-03-31 00:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Dave
And shoot on sight any eejit journo who writes something like
"Virtually every innovation to make rugby open, athletic and clever has
come from the southern hemisphere. The Stellenbosch Laws follow this
proud tradition." We need the air for real people.
Quite right Dave. The truth must be obscured at all costs.

Let's go back to village football. The English might even be good at it.

-- rick boyd

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...