If you could change ONE rule, what would it be?

[Notell]

For me, the interchange rule.Two replacements per half maximum.

 

[Raider_69]

the rule that allows you to start so many f**king threads

 

[Marshall_magic]

In a fight, if someone is getting barraged with rights, and throws a few back to defend themself, they should not be binned, I am sick of seeing one player leap out and belt another, only to see both end up binned, gutless move by the ref to try and keep it even

 

[innsaneink]

Golden point --> Golden try.

 

[Jizmizm]

Stripping the ball

 

[ledzep]

Golden point --> Golden try.

Why? A try is no more valid than any other form of scoring.

 

[Notell]

the rule that allows you to start so many f**king threads

There is no such rule, but you just encouraged me to start more.

By the way, I don't think that auto-fellatio qualifies as a 69.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

the rule that allows you to start so many f**king threads

:lol:

I was going to say I'd ban new members from starting threads, but close enough.


To be fair the bloke's threads have been pretty reasonable for a new bloke.

 

[Nook]

Mine is more an issue of interpretation/enforcement

I'd like to see referees taking a firmer stance in relation to palyers breaking early from scrums. IMO part of the reason that scrum plays have largely become a thing of the past (with a few notable exceptions) is that backrowers and even props are allowed to break from the scrums with impunity in an effort to mow down the first receiver, meaning there is bugger all space for a creative play and that a metre eating hitup is often the most effective play in the circumstances.

If refs required something more than token binding and chose to penalise players for breaking early (rather than shouting 'out!' when the ball is still between the lock's feet and thus effectively killing off 90% of plays from the scrumbase) we'd see much more productive play from the base of the scrum.

It'd result in a large number of early penalties but if done in the trials and communicated to all the clubs effectively I think this could be minimised and the change would be worth it IMO.

 

[Raider_69]

There is no such rule, but you just encouraged me to start more.

By the way, I don't think that auto-fellatio qualifies as a 69.

:lol: i wouldnt know, from what i hear your the resident expert on auto-fellatio
but seriously dude, leave us some sh*t to talk about during off season!
at this rate we'll be twiddling our thumbs argueing over corner post colours!

 

[Nook]

By the way, I don't think that auto-fellatio qualifies as a 69.

Thinks Raider 69 is a knob, this guy will go far.

 

[Notell]

Mine is more an issue of interpretation/enforcement

I'd like to see referees taking a firmer stance in relation to palyers breaking early from scrums. IMO part of the reason that scrum plays have largely become a thing of the past (with a few notable exceptions) is that backrowers and even props are allowed to break from the scrums with impunity in an effort to mow down the first receiver, meaning there is bugger all space for a creative play and that a metre eating hitup is often the most effective play in the circumstances.

If refs required something more than token binding and chose to penalise players for breaking early (rather than shouting 'out!' when the ball is still between the lock's feet and thus effectively killing off 90% of plays from the scrumbase) we'd see much more productive play from the base of the scrum.

It'd result in a large number of early penalties but if done in the trials and communicated to all the clubs effectively I think this could be minimised and the change would be worth it IMO.

Good point. I remember when it became universally acknowledged that there would be no penalties for incorrect feed, feet across, etc. the radio talk-back shows were besieged by people saying to do away with scrums altogether and Peter Frilingos saying that the reasons scrums are good for the game is because it affords the attacking team an opportunity to attack 7 on 7 with the forwards taken out of it. Remember too that "breakaways" were abolished when league broke frm rugby union.

 

[Raider_69]

for the record, id be changing the charge down rule

a team who can not get into a good enough position to get a good clean kick away should not be rewarded with 6 more tackles... in an example of a 5th tackle kick, imo at best should the attacking team recover the charged down ball, they get their 5th tackle again, but i personally would say play on, 5th tackle and change over if the attacking team is tackled.

 

[innsaneink]

Why? A try is no more valid than any other form of scoring.

Maybe, maybe not.

I think it may add to extra time, a bit more footy being played instead of just setting for a drop goal.

 

[Notell]

for the record, id be changing the charge down rule

a team who can not get into a good enough position to get a good clean kick away should not be rewarded with 6 more tackles... in an example of a 5th tackle kick, imo at best should the attacking team recover the charged down ball, they get their 5th tackle again, but i personally would say play on, 5th tackle and change over if the attacking team is tackled.

Agreed. It's already not classed as a knock-on if the ball is ascending. It would also encourage players to play the ball not the man, though I suspect some would still want to knock over the likes of Finch and Kimmorley for the sake of it.

 

[Raider_69]

Agreed. It's already not classed as a knock-on if the ball is ascending. It would also encourage players to play the ball not the man, though I suspect some would still want to knock over the likes of Finch and Kimmorley for the sake of it.

they are human beings, not robots, feeling the urge to knock the likes of Brett Finch over is only natural

 

[Notell]

they are human beings, not robots, feeling the urge to knock the likes of Brett Finch over is only natural

Maybe we can modify it even better:

Knock Finch over, 6 more tackles

Knock Finch out, 12 more tackles.

 

[Charlie124]

one rule id like to see changed is the when the defending team is penalised for the attacking players poor ball control in the play the ball area, nowadays you see far too much of players dropping the ball to try to gain a penalty late in a tackle count, and almost every time it works.

also i agree about the golden try (and penalty goal), i hate seeing all close games become a drop kickathon from the 70th minute onwards.

 

[Jono078]

Well I really dislike Double Movements.. If you can reach out and get the ball down, go for it.

Next would be Knock ons, if it comes off you above your shins its a knock on, except the head.

 

[Stoned Sharky]

golden point... should be golden try but less players should take the field.. for example 7 or 10..there would be a lot more space, as well as having no interchanges in it, so im guessing fittest and fastest players on the field.. should allow for some exciting football dont u think!!