Simplifying the game.

When I first visited Belfast in 1974 it was at pretty much the height of the Troubles and I saw a graffito which read 'If you're not confused, then you don't understand the situation'. And that rang as true then regarding that horrible political predicament as I in a different way and several degrees of magnitude in terms of importance, that I feel about rugby.

I love the game for all its physicality, variety of requisite skill-sets, passion and generally the respect that both participants and spectators etc. show each other.

But it is a horribly complicated sport - particularly at the breakdown and at set-piece re-starts.

The breakdown is always a matter (to my simple mind) of the arbitariness of the ref. Would it not be better to reintroduce (potentially dangerous) rucks/a good shoeing? What about forbidding players from re-joining the ruck/maul?

In the scrum the CTPE routine has failed spectacularly to resolve the frustration of the collapse.

In the line-out the call of numbers enables a host of fat boys to clutter the girls' space and reduce the spectacle (so I'd propose a minimum of six players on each side to compete in a l-o). And you could also ban shuffling the personnel in the l-o whilst the thrower prepares to deliver the ball.

Now that the RWC is over and the hiatus on law modifications is ended, what law changes could be introduced to help me become less confused?

With the proviso that all the unique components of the RU game are retained.

Get a book on the laws and read it, you will be less confused.

Top Tip.

Portnoy

I get a lot of what you are saying. My trip to Wembley last week was in the company of my wife and father-in-law, neither of whom are particularly fans of rugby but fancied the trip to Wembley. Both generally enjoyed the game (although perhaps less so the customer service of the Wembley concessions, who are carp), but found particularly delay of the game every time a scrum was awarded extremely frustrating. They are right as well- the 2 minute hiaitus of form up -CTPE - collapse - repeat 3 times before the ref gives an arbitrary penalty is beyond a joke (and worse at live games than on the TV).

While this will not lose the game established fans, it is a serious detriment to it attracting new supporters, which is a shame because there is a lot else going for rugby (the friendly atmosphere at the matches is a big contrast to any football matches I've ever attended).

The breakdown is less of an issue, although as has been said elsewhere, it is probably legit to penalise either side at most rucks (slightly less true of mauls, although in most cases the defending team commit a penalty offence). The refs just need to officiate in a manner that improves the likelihood of quick ball being recycled - a couple of years ago it looked like the revision to the Law interpretation was assisting this, but either defenders have got wise to the new rules or the refs have become less stringent in their application.

Vaden wrote:Get a book on the laws and read it, you will be less confused.

Top Tip.

Vaden, As I said 'If you're not confused, then you don't understand the situation'. I know the laws, but they are so complex (and in some cases contradictory) that I am bound to be confused.

Just look at the breakdown.

First/second tackler, tacklee should release the ball immediately but
delays the release until he's placed it to his satisfaction, the imaginary 'gate' instead of requiring new players to enter from behind the ball in such a way that they engage the ruck/maul with their back foot behind the line of the ball, 'guards' standing off the breakdown in overtly offside positions etc. etc. It's a firkin mess.

The laws can be simplified (and enforced) without detriment to the ethos of the game.

Agree with the overall sentiment.

I think much of the lineout has already been simplified and its a shining example of what can be achieved.

Not so long ago the lineouts were genuinely complete lotteries determined by having a bean pole. Referees were criticised for turning a blind eye to lifting players. They made it legal to lift and created a set piece which is now the most potent attacking platform available in the game.

Allowing rucking is the elephant in the room. Personally I just dont see the IRB able to bring it back. Too few people nowadays properly understand it and it would lead to uproar from health and safety brigade (remember the scandal when they tried to legalise collapsing mauls?). Insurance costs would rise as the perception of more injuries increases. It wouldnt work. An alternative is needed.

For me we need to keep 90% of the game but just simplify the seemingly dozens of technical offences that a player can commit. Games are won and lost these days on a referees interpretation of a pathetic technical offence.

doctornickolas wrote:Games are won and lost these days on a referees interpretation of a pathetic technical offence.

That will always be the case I reckon.

dummy_half
Agreed on the scrum. What is good about the scrum is that it's a contest for the ball. But not if it's fed into the back row. The it becomes about the 'hit' leading to all sorts of shenanigans. Refs for some reason don't hardly seem to mind about feeding.

Sadly, I agree about rucking. Probably can't be brought back.

I always felt, and still do, that a gentle shoeing would clean out many of our breakdown problems. I have had my share of red zebra stripes and I earned every darned one of them. As a doctor, I am part of the safety first brigade, but I think this is one of those areas where a strategically placed boot will improve the speed and limit the number of players slowing down our game. The challenge is that referees would need to be very careful to judge whether the shoeing is for purpose of merely to injure. Which I guess brings us back full circle.

I'm of the view that if you don't like rucking or being rucked then maybe your in watching/playing the wrong sport, Rugby is/was a mans game (and thats not knocking the womens game) after all.

But BathBGOG we havent had rucking in over a decade and a half. Its been 16 years since rucking was permitted. For those of us in our 20s rucking is just some mythical thing that gets talked up by our Dads.

Its like saying that if you don't like professionalism maybe your watching the wrong sport. Rugby is/was an amatuer game after all.

I see where you coming from Red but I'm 30 and we used to ruck at school level, it was just a way of getting the ball out quicker, which with how well organised defences are today (excluding Bath) would help the game as a spectacle, professional or not.

It would help yes I agree with that. I just think that it would be impossible to actually bring it back. I can just see a situation like this now.

Q - What is rucking.
A - Rucking is a way of speeding up the game, by allowing players to gently shoe players who are slowing down the game illegally.

Q - So you allow people to retaliate by stamping on people?
A - No no its not stamping on them just a gentle shoeing to offendors.

Q - What does that even mean there's nothing gentle about it. Your aim is to hurt the guy and thereby get him to move away.
A - No we used to do it all the time, its perfectly safe.

Q - If its so safe why did the IRB deem it necessary to remove it from the game the minute the game went professional.
A - Probably because they felt it wasn't needed. However things have moved on and it is now needed again.

Q - Not at all needed we have a referee who is the sole judge of law. We should spend our time ensuring consistency rather than allowing people to stamp on whoever they like.
A - No its not a stamp its a gentle shoeing.

Q - If its so gentle then why remove it from the game in the first place etc etc etc etc

The IRB tried to allow the legal collapse of mauls a few years back. There was a massive public outcry with the health and safety brigade screaming blue murder. Personally I saw no difference really and I can't remember any injury occurring.

I'm older than you Stag and I can remember rucking only too well.

There were basically two types - the malicious and the fair.

As a player and a spectator I never had any issue with fair clearing out.

Being rucked is not a pleasant experience - so you quickly learn.

Being rucked is inherently a matter of intention and you always know what it is. And it's always a matter of the way the studs are used.

And pretty much it's always obvious. whether there is malice aforethough.

The Scots and ABs always used to base their play around the ruck and it was in the main fair and a delight to watch.

Its always so easy to spot the difference between the stamp and the tread, the ruck and the scrape and and the target point of the body which is associated with the object clearing the ball fairly.

I would expect to see many, many Y/R cards in the first twelve months if rucking were brought back until players understand that

a. Ball stallers realise that the are putting themselves in harm's way

and

b. Ruckers realise that they should clear fairly and with no intent of harm (rather than hurt).

Portnoy, I see the value in rucking. I just don't see how it can realistically and practically get re-introduced. You yourself say that you expect to see many many yellow and red cards. Theres not a chance such a situation would be tolerated.

Staggy, as you said collapsing the the maul was tolerated and as you pointed out, there were no major catastrophes. But it just didn't fit with the rugby ethos - so it was abandoned.

I'm not sure that rucking presents such danger fundamentally as it would most likely cause temporary injuries - not life-threatening ones.

And it fits the ethos.

I think bringing rucking back would actually make the game even harder to judge. The referee wouldn't have a clue what to do, especially if his natural instinct is to penalise the offending player for rucking/stamping, as was the law previously.

Also, the need for a "true" openside would be redundant. Bigger players would be preferred.

It wasn't tolerated Portnoy it was removed.

I agree with you that it would bring positivies to the game. However you suggest it will cause lots of yellow cards, red cards and temporary injuries. Now that would be in the short term but I don't see it lasting.

Whether its good for rugby or not won't matter. You need to convince the public and health/safety brigade of the advantages and disadvantages.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I think bringing rucking back would actually make the game even harder to judge. The referee wouldn't have a clue what to do, especially if his natural instinct is to penalise the offending player for rucking/stamping, as was the law previously.

Also, the need for a "true" openside would be redundant. Bigger players would be preferred.

Rory,

You don't (can't) remember rucking. It's an art/skill/science on apar to the rolling maul.

The problem Portnoy is that almost no current players or referees have any knowledge of rucking. Rugby has also had plenty of new fans since professionalism many of whom had never played or heard about rucking.

I dont see the IRB being able to push it through and get it working fast enough to silence the naysayers

Portnoy wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I think bringing rucking back would actually make the game even harder to judge. The referee wouldn't have a clue what to do, especially if his natural instinct is to penalise the offending player for rucking/stamping, as was the law previously.

Also, the need for a "true" openside would be redundant. Bigger players would be preferred.

Rory,

You don't (can't) remember rucking. It's an art/skill/science on apar to the rolling maul.

You're right I can't, I am going by what I read. And I don't think it is going to solve any of the breakdown problems personally, but only cause more. With rucking involved, does that mean the referee leaves it totally to the players to judge the breakdown?

What’s wrong with you pansies rugby’s a hard game end of.

In many ways it would help the Ref as players would dish out there own justice rather than wait for a little man who never made it in the game to wave a yellow plastic card at them, and cheats like McCaw would be shown up for the talentless players that they are.

Oh Jeez Staggy,

The law is simply allowing the rucker to 'heel' the opponent out. And any intent to cause harm by stamping, scraping or attending to players' appendages which are not in the way of clearing the ball are banned.

It really isn't rocket science.

Portnoy . . . . . .I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!

Ok? I am 100% in agreement that rucking as it used to be would benefit the game. Im not disagreeing with that.

I am just pointing out that the IRB will not, in my opinion, be able to successfully bring back rucking after making it illegal 16 years ago.

HERSH wrote:What’s wrong with you pansies rugby’s a hard game end of.

In many ways it would help the Ref as players would dish out there own justice rather than wait for a little man who never made it in the game to wave a yellow plastic card at them, and cheats like McCaw would be shown up for the talentless players that they are.

Saying McCaw is talentless just shows you don't know much about rugby..

Hmmm, 'heel' the opponent out? Yet another intricately microscopic piece of lawmaking that would have the fans at each other's throats 'interpreting' when a 'heel' is a sole, a toe, a stud or two...or three. And YouTube video footage put up to prove that the heel really was the whole nine yards of dangerous play studs, and the same footage proving it was just perfectly legal studs...and the poor ref lynched to the nearest crossbar for not getting it right...and...well, you know how it goes by now, 3,000 articles on the technicality of 'heel'.

Furious and fast studs in faces or even hands, arms and legs is dangerous play. (open wound, player replaced territory) It would be much too much to ask a ref, already under the pressure of getting ruck decisions right in a fast and brutal modern game where fans demand that their side is judged fairly, to also produce a technically correct call on whether he saw heels, soles, studs or toes.

Im sure Gavin Quinnell wouldn't like to see rucking re-introduced...

gowales wrote:Im sure Gavin Quinnell wouldn't like to see rucking re-introduced...

Honestly, he did come to my mind on this thread. That is pretty tragic and seems more likely to happen if it was re-introduced.

Hang on. Gavin Quinnell: that was an eye gouge wasn't it?

All vulnerable parts of the body were always proected under the Laws and the spirit of the the game.

I've not noticed an increase in psychopathic behavior in RU since it went pro.

Quinnell's loss of an eye was tragic. But it sure as hell wasn't rucking.

There never was a conclusion only rumours. Stamping seems like the more probable one though

Looking more into it, people think it was a stamp

So even if that's true, it's still psychopathic behavior which no amount of legislation an prevent.

In my experience, you always know where to direct your feet in a ruck - not least because you want to clear the ball and not to get your own team-mate.

It may have been accidental as far as I am aware Portnoy. And in the heat of a game, someone may aim for the head, not intentionally going for their eye, but still catch them there.

There are 2 issues at the scrum currently, both illegal under the current rules, and happening all the time, both are supposed to be penalised by a free kick (I think)
1) Crooked Feed. Ball should be fed down the centre of the scrum and the hooker should hook the ball with his foot
2) Early shove. Pressure should not come on the scrum until the ball is fed in straight. No more winning the hit! which results in 90% of penalties at scrum time.

Neither of which is policed properly.

The advantage of penalising the early shove is that it would give the props time to bind properly on the skin tight shirts.

As for allowing rucking with feet I agree that it should be allowed in moderation. A gentle shoeing has the same effect as being told as a child not to touch the oven cos its hot, you do it once and get burned, and it stick in your memory, being rucked by a couple of pairs size 11's reminds you that you are in an illegal position.

Rucking won't work - the reason being that players are far bigger and stronger than before, you'd have to exert a huge amount of pressure to make an impact, given that players also wear padding someone looking to get the ball out of the ruck would literally have to stamp to be able to exert sufficient force.

The other reason - and this is the main one - rucking was painful because usually if you were rucked it was but some guy wearing those nasty steel studs....and that hurt. I reckon I still have scars and I havent played rugby in over 15 years!!! But you will not see many pro's wearing steel studs, if they still exist I imagine that it's really only your front rows and locks would wear them - backrows are too mobile and would be more likely to all use multi-studs, also I don't think too many pro coaches would fancy running the risk of injury with guys wearing steel - thay can cause quite a bit of damage to knees and ankles over time.

No doubt the sentiment of this thread is right though - the scrum is the real problem area at the moment and I think it is the first that needs to be sorted - I'm a bit light on solutions though!

The scrum is a tricky one. Trying to think my way through it, so from 'ball knocked on, scrum called'
- front rows get set, engage with their opponents (the props setting their bind with the ref covering the side the ball is to be fed from and the assistant giving thumbs up for the other side). [any faffing about is a free kick against you]
- front rows are engaged and bound, ref calls for second rows to attach.[any faffing about is a free kick against you]
- once second rows are in, ref calls for back rows to attach. [any faffing about is a free kick against you]
- then ref instructs scrumhalf to feed the ball, the trigger can be 'feed' at which point both packs can push [feed must be straight, otherwise free kick]

That 4 things for the player to do and ref to check, each shouldn't take longer than what?.. 5 seconds to complete. Once the ball is in, the push comes on so any going down or coming up is back in the usual realm of refereeing. The ref triggering the feed/push should also mean more of a challenge.

There we go, my attempt at sorting the scrum... rip it apart (but suggest an improvement/correction please and don't just knock it for the sake of it).

The breakdown.... tricky one this. If I'm honest when a referee is consistent with both sides I like a good contest and turnover ball in a game is great to see. The rules sound good but so much happens at the breakdown (as in, the tackler doesn't release, the tackled player doesn't place the ball and waits for support, the support for offense go off their feet and try to seal off and the defense keep their hands in their too long). So trying to think through this is a minefield;
- Player gets tackled
- tackler must release tackled player and exit breakdown (that player must not impede opposition from getting to breakdown), the tackler cannot contest for the ball. Tackler to be defined as all defensive players tacking part in the tackle.
- after the tackler has exited breakdown (rolled away), the tackled player must place the ball
- the tackled player is official the breakdown area any player entering the breakdown must do it from the direction of their own posts (no in from the side)
- first defensive player into the breakdown may contest for the ball with their hands
- any other player arriving at the breakdown must enter from their own posts and drive over the ball while maintaining their feet
- the ref to indicate 'ball secured' at which point the scrumhalf should only have 5 seconds to start the next phase before it becomes 'ball out'


Jeez, it is tricky to try and figure out a simplified breakdown! And my suggestion sounds rubbish.

I watch rugby. I love it. I sometimes get confused. I love the mess, the heat, the steam, the niggling, the face-offs, the runs, the speed, the beauty and most of all (as long as there are not too many) - the tries.

Do we have to always know exactly which way the whistle is going to blow? No, we don't and we actually love the game because we don't always know. It's frustrating but it causes some lovely arguments. When I watch rugby I don't want to see snooker. Big men in a heavy hitting, fast running battle will never be a game of chess - there will always be those moments of 'what the hell happened there'. Don't sterilise a good game.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:The scrum is a tricky one. Trying to think my way through it, so from 'ball knocked on, scrum called'
- front rows get set, engage with their opponents (the props setting their bind with the ref covering the side the ball is to be fed from and the assistant giving thumbs up for the other side). [any faffing about is a free kick against you]
- front rows are engaged and bound, ref calls for second rows to attach.[any faffing about is a free kick against you]
- once second rows are in, ref calls for back rows to attach. [any faffing about is a free kick against you]
- then ref instructs scrumhalf to feed the ball, the trigger can be 'feed' at which point both packs can push [feed must be straight, otherwise free kick]

That 4 things for the player to do and ref to check, each shouldn't take longer than what?.. 5 seconds to complete. Once the ball is in, the push comes on so any going down or coming up is back in the usual realm of refereeing. The ref triggering the feed/push should also mean more of a challenge.

There we go, my attempt at sorting the scrum... rip it apart (but suggest an improvement/correction please and don't just knock it for the sake of it).

A mate of mine had a similar idea, instead of -Touch-Pause-Engage, change to Touch-Engage-Pause-Shove.

Simplifying the game to me should involve banning the complex backs moves that the All Blacks employ successfully V other international teams such as the usage of crossing over of players and also the usage of counterrucking techniques to win the ball from the opposition.

Also legalise the usage of bag-snatching as a way of allowing lighter forwards such as the Scotland 1991 forward pack to compete more on level terms with their much more heavier and stronger English forward pack opponents.

Touch-Pause-Engage get the ball in on engage, If the ball is at the No8s feet then it's playable

Ban Rugby League type shoulder high tackles as employed by the Samoans and Fijians and also ban the scrum cap so that players have to wear head-tape again.

gboycottnut - reckon you should be the go to guy for keeping things "simple". Nice job.

I think rugby needs to go back to its roots.

I just saw a picture of a rugby team from around 1890 - they all had Moustache's.
If all players had Moustache's (and not crappy new style ones, rugby players should have proper old style handlebar ones) then I think you would find that game would become far more free flowing.

Tell that to the poor young Japanese scrum-half who got banned for trying to use an illegal substance to make his moustache grow

Very good observation Red Right! I think too they should be forced to make use of the caps they get for Internationals and start wearing them again. Everything prim and proper, like proper gentlemen.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Tell that to the poor young Japanese scrum-half who got banned for trying to use an illegal substance to make his moustache grow

Under the moustache rule, if you could not grow a moustache (without help) you would be ineligible to play senior rugby. My proposal would get rid of "A" teams and replace them with the "Hearts" teams. Why Hearts you might ask? The reason being that the King of Hearts is the only King in a card deck that does not have a moustache. Now we know that mean with Moustache's like to play cards so they will understand this. Also, it is to make those who have yet to develop into senior players know that they are still kinda nancy boys until they make the seniors.

Also, men with moustache's like to administer justice "in house". Should one player feel aggrieved, a challange shall be issued. The accused will either admit the aggresion and retreat (conceding possesion) or accept the challenge, in which case 2 minutes, Queensbury rules, the winner (who will gain possession) will be decided by the town mayor (who must attend every game).

Rucking shall be permitted, interfering with the jumper, of course, its his own fault for being up there. Scrummaging, all in.
Edit: Caps shall be worn with pride at all times (good call fly)

No player, under any circumstance, will be allowed to interfere with the moustache of another player. Anyone found guilty of this will have their moustache shaved off an be forced to live with Jedward for a period no less than 3 months

Problem solved!!