Predict the rule changes

[Guantanamo]

Look at the ruck. The tackler is not allowed to play the ball at all, the tackled player must be allowed to place the ball back, an arriving player may pick up the ball though, if a ruck has not formed. A ruck is formed if a player from either side joins and binds on to each other or the players on the ground. If a ruck is formed then there must be no hands in the ruck and contest for the ball can only be done with the foot and only if the player is standing. Seems simple enough, doesn't it? Ha, it can become a mine field of poor interpretation, incorrect decisions, miscommunication and as has been shown by a certain NZ referee ignorance or bias. If they returned to the old rules of no hands at all, any time the ball is on the floor in a tackle situation and needs to be secured by foot only, I think it would make it a lot less of a problem. Too many variables in the rules, I'm afraid, are spoiling the continuity of the game.

I prefer the hands in rule, it just needs to be simplified. So instead of it being what it is now it should be players can compete for the ball provided they are on their feet and the tackled players has been given daylight. They may not compete after a ruck has formed. When has a ruck formed? When players from opposing sides compete for the ball. So under my rule if you get your hands in, while on your feet, before the opposition can get to the ruck its fair game (provided there has been daylight) and you can carry on competing if you had our hands on the ball before the ruck formed. But any hands in after the formation is now blown straight away. This way it rewards loosies who can get to the breakdown quickly.

What do you think the practical possibilities are of "pre-binding" in the scrum. So the call is "Crouch, bind, engage." It doesn't remove the hit but will close the gap leading to a smaller hit. It helps line props up better and stops those scrums collapsing from when a tighthead blocks a looseheads attempt to bind.

 

[Ronjay]

I prefer the hands in rule, it just needs to be simplified. So instead of it being what it is now it should be players can compete for the ball provided they are on their feet and the tackled players has been given daylight. They may not compete after a ruck has formed. When has a ruck formed? When players from opposing sides compete for the ball. So under my rule if you get your hands in, while on your feet, before the opposition can get to the ruck its fair game (provided there has been daylight) and you can carry on competing if you had our hands on the ball before the ruck formed. But any hands in after the formation is now blown straight away. This way it rewards loosies who can get to the breakdown quickly.

What do you think the practical possibilities are of "pre-binding" in the scrum. So the call is "Crouch, bind, engage." It doesn't remove the hit but will close the gap leading to a smaller hit. It helps line props up better and stops those scrums collapsing from when a tighthead blocks a looseheads attempt to bind.

It would pretty much be the same as it is now, and ref's will still have discretionary powers on whether the law is being infringed upon. I'm just tired of seeing loose forwards arriving after a ruck has been formed, sticking their paws in and slowing ball down or stealing out rite, against the rules and not getting penalised for it. And what's more, the crappy play has become integral to the game. Want to know who the top loose forwards are in rugby, all the players that can play cynical crap and get away with it.

As for the scrum, the hit is a critical area and a team can get an advantage from it. In any event, a pre bound scrum would be an anti climax but that's just because I'm a front-rower and I'm biased.

 

[Guantanamo]

It would pretty much be the same as it is now, and ref's will still have discretionary powers on whether the law is being infringed upon. I'm just tired of seeing loose forwards arriving after a ruck has been formed, sticking their paws in and slowing ball down or stealing out rite, against the rules and not getting penalised for it. And what's more, the crappy play has become integral to the game. Want to know who the top loose forwards are in rugby, all the players that can play cynical crap and get away with it.

As for the scrum, the hit is a critical area and a team can get an advantage from it. In any event, a pre bound scrum would be an anti climax but that's just because I'm a front-rower and I'm biased.

Pretty much the same but a slight improvement. As far as my understanding goes it is much clearer than the current rule. I feel removing turnovers like this would slow down play and would pretty much destroy the counter.

I know having played flank behind one of the hardest hitting looseheads I have ever seen how important it is. Thats why I am opposed to getting rid of it. However after playing flank behind one of the hardest hitting looseheads I've seen I also know how dangerous, damaging and contentious the area is. The pre-bind would take away some of that danger by not removing the hit entirely, just making it smaller and more precise. If anything it will increase the importance of a good hit as some packs have relied on a big hit and then basically just holding ground in order to win ball, equalize the strength of the hits and all of a sudden having a good hit and shove becomes critical.

 

[DJ...]

To be honest, the scrums could be 100% sorted out if the IRB and SANZAR just introduced standard timing for the touch, pause, engage countdown. Right now it's a lucky packet draw with every scrum and every ref and it's absolutely unfair on the players. What's even more unfair is to change laws even further because of it. That takes care of the hit.

Now they need to get rid of the law preventing front-rowers from touching the ground with their hand. It would reduce reset scrums and there is no advantage gained from doing so.

Binding laws also need to be looked at as well as back angle laws. They're both far too harsh and most penalties surrounding this tend to be grey areas and 50-50 calls...

 

[Nicodeamus]

The only rule I want changed if that if you kick the ball over the advantage line then the advantage should be over, currently it is only over when you carry it over. So what do teams do? They get a penalty advantage, pass it to the fly-half he tries to kick at goal and then he misses and gets a 2nd change.

 

[DJ...]

You want to be able to kick away a penalty advantage? You need to justify where the team has gained an advantage, unless they've gained 3 points, otherwise it makes no sense.

Where is the advantage? And they have to carry it through many phases over the gain line before advantage is over. For penalties of course, which is what you must be referring to...

 

[Devill]

The only rule I want changed if that if you kick the ball over the advantage line then the advantage should be over, currently it is only over when you carry it over. So what do teams do? They get a penalty advantage, pass it to the fly-half he tries to kick at goal and then he misses and gets a 2nd change.

I like it. If a penalty is awarded to a team and they are prepared to take three points rather than a possible seven it is a trade off.
Less points = less risk.