Game changer - complete overhaul of the kicking game;

Remove the 22 line allowing for any ball caught in the receiving teams half to be marked.
If the ball is kicked and without being touched crosses either the side line or dead ball line (regardless if the ball is grounded in flight) then either a scrum or lineout is awarded to the opposing team from the position of, or inline with, where the ball was kicked.

All kicks, conversions, penalty and dropped, to be worth 2 points.

And the result of all this.....well the ball will be kept in play longer resulting in fitter, smaller, more athletic and better skilled players, who are forced to learn how to catch and pass and to understand how to create space for their team mates to attack.

The fact is that the game has become too defensively determined and the balance has to be redressed to enable more open attacking rugby.

Has to be worth a trial at least?

If you take the 'Mark', and your only just  over the half way line, and your any good, cant you still take a shot at goal?

Or was that provision removed when they banned marks from kick offs.

aucklandlaurie wrote:If you take the 'Mark', and your only just  over the half way line, and your any good, cant you still take a shot at goal?

Or was that provision removed when they banned marks from kick offs.

No option to kick at goal. Your options are to either and preferably 'tap' or, an 'in field' kick.

I thought you could take a shot at goal?

A 'tap' would be a bit dangerous as the ball has to travel over the 'Mark', and if it doesnt its a scrum to the other side.

Might be just as easy to remove the 'mark' and be done with it. my big problem with the mark is that all the forwards have to trudge all the way back and be onside for the taking of the mark play.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I thought you could take a shot at goal?

A 'tap' would be  a bit dangerous as the ball has to travel over the 'Mark', and if it doesnt its a scrum to the other side.

Might be just as easy to remove the 'mark' and be done with it. my big problem with the mark is that all the forwards have to trudge all the way back and be onside for the taking of the mark play.

Removing the 'Mark' would encourage more kicking. I am attempting to remove the benefit of kicking and so forcing coaches, teams, players to play ball in-hand heads-up rugby, as opposed to premeditated thoughtless kicking at every opportunity.

There should be flexibility, within a yard or two, with regards to the position of the 'Mark'.

Equally there should be far greater flexibility with regards to the position that a 'tap' penalty is taken from. Why do we currently penalize the team who are the innocent party, when we should be encouraging the opportunities to break up the game, especially if I am decreasing the value of a kicked penalty. I want to see the scrum half or whoever deciding to pick up the ball and run with it!

If all kicks are reduced to 2 then the incentive to penalise becomes more attractive. If anything if you want more free flowing rugby you increase the points scored from penalties to act as a deterrent to commit fouls or play in the grey area of the law.

If you remove the mark do you not think it would be more attractive to use the up and under as an attacking weapon? The mark gives players the incentive NOT to garry owen as a decent fullback will catch, mark, clear his lines without pressure and force the opposition to restart from the halfway line once more. Take away the mark and it becomes far far more useful a weapon. You would use it more often then running without a mark being in place.

In the end you have to allow teams to clear their lines. If not the game becomes bogged in the same region for hours upon hours. See any top tier side in latter stages of competitions and the match deep in their half having to run it out. Its impossible and what you're suggesting is incompatible with union.  Even in league if you start at your goal line you'd be lucky to get past your halfway line once you finish your six without a kick. Kicking allows a free flowing of the game, exchange of territory and possession.

After the World Cup we have just had, do you really believe the game isn't encouraging open attacking rugby?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:After the World Cup we have just had, do you really believe the game isn't encouraging open attacking rugby?

Quite. The real game changer would be for referees to harmonise on a southern hemisphere interpretation of the game - starting with having all SH refs for the 6N and using some of the RWC dough to send NH refs on long exchange programmes with the SH.

Reducing the value of a penalty increases the number of penalties. Introducing a mark anywhere increases the incentive to slow the game down as you can call a mark anytime you want to stop the game and reorganise your defence. IIRC, that's why the 22 was introduced in the first place.

I don't see a problem with kicking. Some of the best teams kick the ball a lot and its also a skill that not many players are good at.

Less kicking means the defending team will just line across the pitch and there'll be less space for the attacking side. The game would turn more defensive.

Here are some ways to make the game more attack orientated

Give a try a base points of 5 but then multiply by factor of 2 if it is scored from the attacking teams half.

Teams should also nominate 13 defenders and when they don't have the ball the other 2 players become passive defenders and not a allowed to tackle or involve themselves in the ruck.

award the defending team 3 points if the attacking team misses a dropgoal or penalty kick,

I would just leave the game alone to be honest and work on improving the officiating of the game.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I would just leave the game alone to be honest and work on improving the officiating of the game.

I certainly agree with that comment!

Maybe some simplification of the breakdown and tackle rules needed, or just a bit more empathy from the ref?

I'd have to go with Rory here.  I don't think the rules need yet more modifications to 'encourage' a more attacking running game.  That kind of game already exists with current rules, as the WC and the teams that generally did best in it proves.

The simple thing is that some sides are good at it and some aren't.  The sides that aren't can often use counter measures to maintain competitiveness.  That's when rugby distinguishes itself from League, and for many of us, it's when Union proves its true value as a spectacle of various methods used to gain advantage and to win games.

The game already has its premium standard - SH and mostly NZ rugby.  All that's required is that any side wanting to go head to head with those teams needs to simply try to reach those standards.  The eternal struggle

I'd like to change one simple thing. After conceding a try, the opposition should have to kick off from their own 22 line instead of the half way line. It just gives the try scoring side an extra little reward.

profitius wrote:I'd like to change one simple thing. After conceding a try, the opposition should have to kick off from their own 22 line instead of the half way line. It just gives the try scoring side an extra little reward.

That could be long days indeed kicking the ball from your 22 if playing against the ABs! A fecking lonnnnnnggg knackering day at the office in your own half for 70 minutes.

profitius wrote:I'd like to change one simple thing. After conceding a try, the opposition should have to kick off from their own 22 line instead of the half way line. It just gives the try scoring side an extra little reward.

Then again why not just have that the team that scores kicks off! the groundstaff would love it they could turn the sprinklers on down the other end, give some of the ground markings a touch up, and be in the bar by fulltime.