Does rugby need uncontested rucks?

[Te Kaha]

Te Kaha you keep singing that song - but there is nothing to back it up.

The aimless mid field kicking, with the majority of points coming from 3 pointers, has all been the result of the reversion to the rules we currently have.

Rather than ditch the entire ELV ruleset, it would have made sense to keep the scrum feed for the team moving forward in a maul, and ban pulling them down.

But either change requires teams to commit more forwards to the ruck/maul and this is just not going to happen.

Thats complete crap... there is nothing wrong with scoring in 3's if the oppostion is intent of giving away the penalties... Under the ELVs there was a bucketload of more penalties given, they were just given as free kicks instead... it meant that the game resembled a helter skelter rubbish game... no stucture... the kicking started as they new that under the "use it or lose it" rule alll you needed to do was tie up the ball and you got it back.. so they kicked and tackled... if they got pinged, big deal it was only a free kick... The yarpies have continued with this as they now have the tallest forward pack in world rugby so they can compete for the high ball like no other... it wont last long as the wallabies and the AB's late in the game showed attacking from deeper effectivly counters it... more teams will pick up on this and the yarpies will ditch it... Oh and it is still illegal to pull down a maul... so they should be kept and worked on.. The ABS havent the yarpies have... that will pull in the forwards if they want it stopped.

The reason we see so much mid field kicking, and more now than ever, is teams will not commit players to the breakdown. So we see impenetrable defensive lines. Kicking is seen as the way around this.

and the reason forwards are commiting to a ruck is that it now only takes one or two to slow it down or even win it... bring back rucking and the only way to win the ball is to counter ruck.. to do this you need more fowards in the ruck.

The ELV sanctions kept the game moving, led to less repacking of scrums, less minor lineout infringements (less lineouts as well) and less penalty goals for minor infringements.

Non-ELV matches are very stop/start because of all the full arm penalties, and referees stuff around with scrums a lot more, because their only sanction is a full arm penalty.

It is beyond bullsh*t to say that there was less repacking of scrums under the ELVs there were exactly the same amount... the only differnce was that there where less scrums as a free kick was taken instead.... this only suited the wannabies because ther had such a sh*t scrum.

Yak, can you imagine an NRL team having some goof trying for field goals from beyond halfway early into the second half? Fair play, they got the trophies, but South Africa play a style of football that says to the average bloke "where's the remote?" All they do is punt the ball, and wait for a penalty within a range of 65m and then ask their ponce to come forward and have a shot.

Generally, all they had to do was punt the ball out, watch the All Blacks screw up another line out (up there for vision and execution Einstein Hore), and then pop back some ponce 15 metres behind the ruck to drop a goal. Or continue the 12 man fat waddle maul until someone gave away a penalty.

All you are saying is that the yarpies took advantage of All Blacks errors... hardly the fault of them or the rules.. if they didnt give away penalties or had a functioning lineout then there wouldnt be a problem... had the All blacks played the entire game like they did the last 20 the result would have been vastly different.

The first thing rugby union needs to do is seriously diminish the value of penalty goals, and in particular drop goals. Drop goals need to revert to 1 point. Penalty goals back to 2, EXCEPT leave it at three if its in the 22. The reason for that is once you get into the 22 you see a lot of cynical offences to stop the try, so that infringement should be worth more. Rugby, due to its point scoring system has become so cynical against attack that even last night, when the All Blacks decided to go for a scrum rather than a clear penalty, the NZ commentators were giving it to McCaw as a mistake. Perhaps due to the rules being the way they are, they were right. But McCaw was trying to be what we all hope Kiwi union players would be, adventurous and tough. Accepting the challenge to find that fourth try. Its the sort of mantle that legends like Lohore and Meads are built on.

To find the forth try??? what about the second and third first??? ... it was a dumb mistake to make.. the first tenant should always be take the points on offer... had they done it, they would have drawn... which still would have made no differnce anyway...

there is nothing wrong in taking a penalty on offer... Trys are great, but winning is better.... you only have to look at the NRL to show how far wrong they have taken it... you can now score a try even if you lose the ball or you look like you might have scored... tries should be awarded for good play and not as a way to entertain the crowd.

 

[Parra]

Bringing back rucking gas nothing to do with committing players to the breakdown. It gets rid of the contentious roll-away rule which is nearly always a 50/50 proposition.

Mauls, and not rucks, are where forward committment will make a huge difference - just lock the ball up and move it forwards. Yet teams still will not commit - the risk is too great.

As for scrums - the point I was making that if a short-arm is an option for the ref he will blow it. With full penalties the only option a ref will try to get it right first, rather than go straight for the whistle. In Super 14 matches this year we saw refs blowing a short-arm quickly, rather than repacking scrums.

I agree with the go-for-the-points mentality. If three points are there for the taking, you take them. Particularly in a defence-oriented game. This is just as true for league teams.

Despite the criticisms of the South Africans approach, it takes a lot of skill to pot goals from 59m out. It is a spectacle in itself.

Why the AB's chose to play into the Boks hands was beyond me. The AB forwards were all over them when they chose to drive the ball. The either made ground or forced an error - yet time and time again they either kicked the ball away or into touch. And the AB lineout was every bit as bad as the Wallabies in Perth.

 

[Iafeta]

All you are saying is that the yarpies took advantage of All Blacks errors... hardly the fault of them or the rules.. if they didnt give away penalties or had a functioning lineout then there wouldnt be a problem... had the All blacks played the entire game like they did the last 20 the result would have been vastly different.

Forget the line outs. Watching that rubbish last night it looked like watching one time who had intent to use the ball versus another team who had intent to hoof it down field. Guess who won? Why? Because that laboured ridiculous style of GAY-FL is supported under the way the rules are written today.

To find the forth try??? what about the second and third first??? ... it was a dumb mistake to make.. the first tenant should always be take the points on offer... had they done it, they would have drawn... which still would have made no differnce anyway...

there is nothing wrong in taking a penalty on offer... Trys are great, but winning is better.... you only have to look at the NRL to show how far wrong they have taken it... you can now score a try even if you lose the ball or you look like you might have scored... tries should be awarded for good play and not as a way to entertain the crowd.

And this is why I will always prefer the New Zealand spirit McCaw showed last night. There was a bigger fish to fry. He knew it. He saw an enormous challenge and asked his lads to find the way to the ultimate goal. The commentators, and yourself, wanted him to do a typical New Zealand sporting act and sell out in pursuit of the short term, lesser goal. Almost the consolation prize.

Tries should be awarded for good play - so last night, there was what, 3 .. 4 good pieces of play?

The rest was scrap, scrap, scrap, slow it down, slow it down, hoof it out, miss a line out, hoof it, scrap scrap scrap, set up for a poncy pot shot. The only thing gayer than that style of football is the Titanic.

The beginning of the Super 12 era was great, same with the beginning of the Tri Nations. In that era, there was enterprise. There was verve. And those less talented and less skillful sides who relied on the punt eventually found themselves found out. In this day and age its who can put each to sleep the quickest. Change the way the points are awarded and you will see enterprise and excitement return. Continue to put your head in the sand and you'll find goal kicking remaining and strengthening as the most important skill.

 

[Te Kaha]

Bringing back rucking gas nothing to do with committing players to the breakdown. It gets rid of the contentious roll-away rule which is nearly always a 50/50 proposition.

It also gets rid of the ridiculous slowing down the ball... nobody is going to lie on the ball of stick there hands on it if it gets rucked... the only way to win it therefor is to commit more players and counter ruck... the All Blacks did that well last night.

Mauls, and not rucks, are where forward committment will make a huge difference - just lock the ball up and move it forwards. Yet teams still will not commit - the risk is too great.

Thats why the springboks easily gain ground they are good at it... its somethign that needs to be learned by everyone else.

As for scrums - the point I was making that if a short-arm is an option for the ref he will blow it. With full penalties the only option a ref will try to get it right first, rather than go straight for the whistle. In Super 14 matches this year we saw refs blowing a short-arm quickly, rather than repacking scrums.

er... you do know that no law has changed in that regard.. if the ref wants to blow a free kick he still can... with or without the ELVs

I agree with the go-for-the-points mentality. If three points are there for the taking, you take them. Particularly in a defence-oriented game. This is just as true for league teams.

Despite the criticisms of the South Africans approach, it takes a lot of skill to pot goals from 59m out. It is a spectacle in itself.

Why the AB's chose to play into the Boks hands was beyond me. The AB forwards were all over them when they chose to drive the ball. The either made ground or forced an error - yet time and time again they either kicked the ball away or into touch. And the AB lineout was every bit as bad as the Wallabies in Perth.

That is the question the All Blacks have to work out... they need to get that part right... no rule change needed there.

Forget the line outs. Watching that rubbish last night it looked like watching one time who had intent to use the ball versus another team who had intent to hoof it down field. Guess who won? Why? Because that laboured ridiculous style of GAY-FL is supported under the way the rules are written today.

thats bollox.. they won because the All Blacks lacked the application to win it.. if they had played the whole game like they did the last 20 they would have smashed the yarpies.

And this is why I will always prefer the New Zealand spirit McCaw showed last night. There was a bigger fish to fry. He knew it. He saw an enormous challenge and asked his lads to find the way to the ultimate goal. The commentators, and yourself, wanted him to do a typical New Zealand sporting act and sell out in pursuit of the short term, lesser goal. Almost the consolation prize.

No... its about winning... that will always come first... he made a mistake in that decision

Tries should be awarded for good play - so last night, there was what, 3 .. 4 good pieces of play?

no there was plenty more... there was also some outstanding goal line defense .... with the exception of the intercept the tries were earned.

The rest was scrap, scrap, scrap, slow it down, slow it down, hoof it out, miss a line out, hoof it, scrap scrap scrap, set up for a poncy pot shot. The only thing gayer than that style of football is the Titanic.

Which is why some of the riles need to be tweeked.. like allowing good solid rucking.

The beginning of the Super 12 era was great, same with the beginning of the Tri Nations. In that era, there was enterprise. There was verve. And those less talented and less skillful sides who relied on the punt eventually found themselves found out. In this day and age its who can put each to sleep the quickest. Change the way the points are awarded and you will see enterprise and excitement return. Continue to put your head in the sand and you'll find goal kicking remaining and strengthening as the most important skill.

no it wont... not in the slightest... in League when they have the points offered they take it.... changing the scoring doesnt change the sytle of play.. the team that wins does... soon a team will get around the springboks... and they will start losing ... then thats how people willplay... its happened like that fro the last 100+ years

 

[Parra]

er... you do know that no law has changed in that regard.. if the ref wants to blow a free kick he still can... with or without the ELVs

There are a mix of penalty/free kick sanctions available to referees. We only see penalty infringements. I don't know why - but it is annoying.

More free kicks and less full penalties was the key feature of the ELV's - but they were thrown out.

Drop the use-it laws, but keep the sanctions would have been a good outcome.

The way to change the way the game is played is to win - we agree on that. The Wallabies look to be the side that is headed in that direction. Time will tell.

 

[Te Kaha]

There are a mix of penalty/free kick sanctions available to referees. We only see penalty infringements. I don't know why - but it is annoying.

More free kicks and less full penalties was the key feature of the ELV's - but they were thrown out.

Drop the use-it laws, but keep the sanctions would have been a good outcome.

The way to change the way the game is played is to win - we agree on that. The Wallabies look to be the side that is headed in that direction. Time will tell.

The simple answer is dont cheat.. you get pinged you deserve it... if your scrum isnt good enough then tough.... it really is that simple... you dont cheat you dont get penalisd.

 

[shiznit]

i dont see what the problem is really... we were punished by a far more accurate side. end of story.

the All Blacks have been playing 'Champagne' rugby for decades... but we've learnt the hard way that this type of rugby doesn't win big games.

funny how Aussies seem to think RU is in crisis because of the rules... in England... in France... In South Africa... in Italy... in Wales... in Ireland... in Scotland... in Argentina they dont mind the rules...

im bloody sick of australians and there idiot ignorant attitude that the rest of the world has to change RU so the ARU can compete in the entertainment market against the NRL.

if you want to watch that type of football... watch the NRL... its not as if the rest of the world gives a sh*t...

 

[Parra]

The simple answer is dont cheat.. you get pinged you deserve it... if your scrum isnt good enough then tough.... it really is that simple... you dont cheat you dont get penalisd.

Yeah. It's all about cheating.

And rules to suit the Aussies.

See you on the way to the next world cup. Enjoy the scraps along the way.

 

[Parra]

And thank us for the scraps we leave you.

 

[Teddyboy]

They should just pour petrol on the rule book and light it.

Radical I know, but I good place to start.

Good start as trying to encourage newcomers to the game(be it to play or to watch) will only but them off at the moment in time.
The IRB needs to drop it's old boy's network over complicated attitude to the game and make it easy to understand and enjoy for the outsider who might take an interest.