Has Rugby too many Laws

Are there too many laws which make the game unmanagable or are they necessary due to the nature of the sport. This was discussed on old 606 and I'd be interested to hear the views of the new forum.

If you aren't familiar with the laws then just say what you think based on your viewing experiences as a fan.

No. You only have too many if they're not needed. To have the game resembling the one we have today you need all those laws. The problem isn;t the number it's in the variablility in how they can be applied.

The game is way, way too complex to gain universal acknowledgement.

Footy's simpler and has enough controversial stuff and - like RU - the coaches fix the players' attentions on the ways to cheat.

And if they can't find a marginal way to cheat, they'll find an illegal one.

Like Cycling or athletics or swimming. Or worse*: Cricket.

[edit:

*the players themselves find a profitable alternative]

I like rugby the way it is. it is defitinitely complicated and it will be hard for people to take it up who know nothing about it but when understood it's the best game on the planet IMO. The rules are good. Interpretations do vary too much however

What bout laws like:

- If a Drop Goal misses it isn't a scrum back from where it was kicked

- At a Freekick if the team choose to take a scrum they are not allowed win the scrum, pass it back to flyhalf and take a drop goal

- If an attacking team knocks on and it goes over the goal line and the defending team touch it down they can't take a 22 dropout. They must go back for the scrum.

- It is illegal to throw the ball into touch

- If you don't use it in maul its the other teams scrum. If you catch a kick and set up a maul straight away and don't use it is it your scrum. If you catch a restart and set up a maul straight away and don't use it is it the other teams scrum.

etc. Are these laws necessary. Do they improve the game.

A hundred (or 99 to be precise) since the schism has failed to make RL more popular than handball (which is a very good game). And RL has to me a poor offering - It is RU stripped down to the bare essentials.

The choice is between 'more is more' or 'more is less' or 'less is more' or 'less is less' so far as the Law administrators are concerned.

Wow I see we really are going into the belly of the beast.

I agree with 1 and 4 for sure I think they are good rules. I also really like the passing back into your 22 and kick rule.

2,3 and 5 do seem a little bit 'fine tooth comb'-ish don't they?

I think the nature of rugby union – that it involves competition for the ball at the breakdown – is such that it is always going to require fairly complicated and open-to-interpretation laws... but I do think there seem to be too many offences that are penalised.

A couple of ones that annoy me –

Deliberate knock ons. A player goes for an interception with one hand and knocks the ball on. Scrum to the other team surely? Why do we need to penalise this with potentially three points to the opposition?

Offsides. Fly half kicks the ball across field. The winger is a foot ahead of him as the kick is made. The winger catches the ball. A penalty is given and three points are scored by the opposing team, which decides the game. Why not a scrum back where the kick was taken. Isn't that enough?

I think we could do with fewer offences punished by kickable penalties. No, I don't want to turn the game into rugby league, but to decide games on technicalities is just unsatisfying.

- If a Drop Goal misses it isn't a scrum back from where it was kicked

I've always wondered about this one - it seems like making it a scrum back would be a good way to prevent teams from trying long range drop goals unless they are sure of them or desperate.

- If an attacking team knocks on and it goes over the goal line and the defending team touch it down they can't take a 22 dropout. They must go back for the scrum.

Seems rather unfair - the 22 drop out is an advantage so it would seem sensible to allow it.

- It is illegal to throw the ball into touch

I think this law is essential - it prevents a player under pressure from just throwing the ball out into the crowd to stop the other team from getting a quick turnover and attacking off it (for instance if the ball is kicked just short of the try line, the defender gets there first but has no support against three players from the attacking side)

Snoopster - but the attacking team gets a lineout. They get possession. To me its no different than kicking it into the crowd.

There are probably more examples of laws like this but they are just off the top of my head.

I'd prefer turn over ball there than a lineout myself. Agree with snoopster on the other points too.

Should crossing be a penalty?
Should accidental offside be a penalty?

Too many laws.... hmmmm. On the face of it, no.

But on another thread we were discussing the iRB eligibility regulations and I made the point that as with anything designed by committee it becomes over-large and ripe for contradiction (see the no-delay-on-put-in & scrum-must-be-steady laws) and loopholes.

It's where the laws have tried to plug loopholes they tend to make the law book just that little bit top-heavy and nit-picky.

Overall, though, the vast majority of the time you don't need to know about the nitty gritty so your enjoyment of the game shouldn't be affected.

One I'd get rid of for sheer unnecessary-ness is :

If you have a foot in touch-in-goal and pick the ball up, it's a scrum back where it was kicked. If in the same situation you ground the ball instead of picking it up, it's a 22.

Silliness.

There do seem to be a lot of rules in rugby but all you really need to know is the basics.

AlynDavies wrote: all you really need to know is the basics.

Then why not just have the basics?

(Note: A lot of my comments here are in my role as Devils Advocate)

red_stag wrote:Snoopster - but the attacking team gets a lineout. They get possession. To me its no different than kicking it into the crowd.

As pete (buachaill on eirne) says, it means there is a chance of turnover ball which is usually preferable to a line out. Letting players throw it straight out would give defenders more options for slowing the game down when they're under pressure - if they're isolate near the touchline and are tackled before they can kick it clear, under the current laws then the tackler's team mates have a chance to win the turnover and a good chance of a try, if the player can just throw it into the crowd though the chance isn't there and the game stops while the two teams organise their line outs. All possession isn't equal

Any of the laws that I think are strange, I find myself looking for them to be changed rather than removed. So I don't think there are too many laws.

I think the premise behind rugby, the very premise of no forward passes meaning a team must get through a defense (I know kicking is an option but a difficult and high risk option) means that it will be a more combative sport than most and that will always result in numerous laws. Rugby has also had quite a few years for teams to figure out ways to take advantage of laws so that means the governing body has to put more amendments in place.

I think you could get a novice up to speed with Rugby Union as quickly as cricket or american football, hurling, GAA.

For the likes of throwing the ball into touch, the premise had to be that teams would throw the ball at a spectator so that the opposition cannot have a quick lineout. Kicking the ball into someone standing beside the pitch is far less acceptable (and mean) so has not become as widespread an act. If teams did it consistently for a season, it would be banned also.

On the deliberate knock-on. It is in the name - deliberate. If you knock a ball up, you are seen to be trying to gain possession and usually a scrum, you knock it down, you give yourself little chance to gain possession so in all likelihood you are trying to prevent the opposition through a cynical act of poor play. A good law to have.

Oh, and if the iRB want to clean up the scrum, how about reducing the number of situations in which a scrum can take place.

Knock on, throw forward, accidental obstruction, unplayable in a maul, held up in goal, grounded in goal by the defending team (if taken in-goal by defending team), optional choice for penalties, optional choice for free-kicks, optional choice for crooked throw at lineout, mandatory for second crooked throw at lineout, wheeled scrum, doubt about grounding (22.15), option if ball is kicked dead through in-goal, being ahead of the kicker during kick off, kick-off directly into touch, kick-off not 10m, incorrect 22 drop out, option for 22 drop out directly into touch... and many, many more...

If there were fewer opportunities to award scrums, maybe we wouldn't complain so much.

I don't think there are too many laws either. This is because i know two people who got into rugby union by catching a game on tv and getting sucked in without anyone to explain it to them. One was mid twenties, the other fifty. They both love it now.

Like other posters have mentioned rugby union is not harder to explain than other popular sports and easier than some (american football, cricket).

What bugs me about the rules is that they change them regularly. Maybe it's the age i'm at.

They don't change laws regularly, they change the focus of the interpretation

the thing about rugby is that is a deep game. The laws that you are quoting here as silly are what make it different from football and rugby league. Those games are fine but they lack something. With rugby you have to concentrate all the way through and it grips you because you know there are laws there which could frustrate you out of nowhere. it's poetic and beautiful and if those laws were done away with rugby would be much less interesting.

Would you think its fair to say many rugby fans pride itself on having intricate laws?

yep

Interesting. Really I couldn't care that rugby be seen to have complicated laws. I would aim to make things as straightforward as possible which would still be fair intricate simply due to the way rugby needs to be played.

Some laws are pointless IMO though.

Are there too many Laws?

I don't think there is an answer to that because the game is determined by the Laws. Fewer laws and it would be a different game... like League(?). The ELVs showed that using the Laws to try to chage the game in a particular way doesn't always produce the outcome expected.

The question is really are the current Laws defining Rugby Union as they should? Who should decide on this? Some nations with powerful dominant scrums would want more scrums in the game, and vice versa.

There are two areas that I do think should be addressed and not necessariy with more or less Laws.

Firstly 'playing advantage'. There is too much of an arbitrary nature to this, regarding what constitutes advantage and the length of time allowed. I'd like to see the ref. say "final advantage" to warn the team that there is only one more phase of play left before it is deemed over. The attacking team could then decide to continue or go back to the original infringement. A kick of any sort would end the advantage.

Secondly a penalty often doesn't penalise the offending team enough. This actively encourages teams to test the referee's mettle early in a part of the field that doesn't matter and later commit serial offences to close out games. I'd automatically add one point to the scoreboard for every penalty awarded irrespective of where it happens on the pitch. The tariff wouldn't change though, so there would only be an additional two points available from a place kick.

Yes soccer is a much simpler game, thats why the FA rules handbook is 564 pages long and the FIFA laws handbook another 140 pages.


With soem of the laws you are ask "are the neccasary" Id ask would removing them make the game significantly simpler? Its hardly complicated to remeber that you arent allowed to throw the ball out deliberatly. The other cases for the most part are eitehr there for very functional purposes ( ie use it or lose it in the maul to stop the game stagnating) or because there needs to be a rule of some sort (if its not a drop out what is it?).

Look aghain at soccer. They tried to kind of remove offside a bit (which got put in to stop tactics that spoilt the game) but ended up creating a confussing mess of extra regualtions defining what is and what isnt offside that make it very hard for a spectator in real time to understand the referee inetrprtation even if they know the rules themselves.

I like the way the IRB laws are worded and put together. Its a very concise and clear document. Its certainbly a hell of a lot better than the WFTDA rulebook. What it doesnt cover though is application to real life scenarios, thats were the complication in any sport occurs.
The complications of rugby are not in the laws, they are in some of the interpretation and the difficulty to see what is actually going on.

With apologies to the great Eric Morecambe - Rugby referees apply all the right laws but not necessarily in the right order!

HammerofThunor wrote:No. You only have too many if they're not needed. To have the game resembling the one we have today you need all those laws. The problem isn;t the number it's in the variablility in how they can be applied.

And that inconsistency comes from the fact that there are too many laws, they are contradictory and to get round this the IRB rely on "interpretation".

Glas a du wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:No. You only have too many if they're not needed. To have the game resembling the one we have today you need all those laws. The problem isn;t the number it's in the variablility in how they can be applied.

And that inconsistency comes from the fact that there are too many laws, they are contradictory and to get round this the IRB rely on "interpretation".

No it isn't [EDIT this probably goes without saying it but this is just my opinion]. The issue areas are:

1) The Scrum, I'd argue that it's not the complexity of the laws but the complexity of the action. You can't simplify the laws of scrum without effectively removing the scrum. You can change them however, such as removing the hit.

2) Breakdown, laws are pretty simple. You have to bind, stay on your feet, not handle the ball and push over it. It's how individual refs apply this that's the problem. When is are players going off their feet because they're losing the ball and when is it accidental and has no effect? Did a player have their hands on the ball before the ruck was formed? It's not the number of laws but the inherent fact it's a fast paced game.

What laws are contradictory?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Glas a du wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:No. You only have too many if they're not needed. To have the game resembling the one we have today you need all those laws. The problem isn;t the number it's in the variablility in how they can be applied.

And that inconsistency comes from the fact that there are too many laws, they are contradictory and to get round this the IRB rely on "interpretation".

No it isn't [EDIT this probably goes without saying it but this is just my opinion]. The issue areas are:

1) The Scrum, I'd argue that it's not the complexity of the laws but the complexity of the action. You can't simplify the laws of scrum without effectively removing the scrum. You can change them however, such as removing the hit.

2) Breakdown, laws are pretty simple. You have to bind, stay on your feet, not handle the ball and push over it. It's how individual refs apply this that's the problem. When is are players going off their feet because they're losing the ball and when is it accidental and has no effect? Did a player have their hands on the ball before the ruck was formed? It's not the number of laws but the inherent fact it's a fast paced game.

Are you arguing with me or against me?

HammerofThunor wrote:What laws are contradictory?

You can't get up from a tackle if you are held, but the tackler is supposed to release you when you are tackled.

There is one law which of applied would sort out the ruck. It is a free kick offence to be part of a ruck if your head is lower than your hips.

"come in Mr McCaw, your time is up"

Glas a du wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:What laws are contradictory?

You can't get up from a tackle if you are held, but the tackler is supposed to release you when you are tackled.

That isn't an issue with it being contradictory but that refs call the timing differently and players try to take advantage of doubt - it is only holding on to keep hold once the tackle is made at which point the tackled player has to release the ball before getting up. One follows the other.

Once the tackle is completed the tackled player is supposed to release the ball and tackler is supposed to release the player. Not contradictory. The problem is when is the tackle completed. This would be issue even if the only law in the game that the tackled play must release the ball.

No. The tackler has to hold the tackled if he is to stop him just getting up, but every time he does he risks giving away a penalty. How is that not contradictory! My point is that if you read the laws they do contradict each other, bit the only reason we don't have chaos is "interpretation". In most cases that means turning a blind eye to obvious infringements and no matter how hard the IRB tries interpretation varies from individual referee to individual referee. Putting that much pressure on a Referee is ridiculous. There are too many rules in rugby because we need all referees at grass roots to be able to properly referee a game, now only a handful of refs in the world get close.

The modern ruck is a construct which depends on a raft of laws. At every ruck both sides could be penalised for handling or holding on. The Magners refereeing is a lottery because this is got wrong so often.

Glas a du wrote:No. The tackler has to hold the tackled if he is to stop him just getting up, but every time he does he risks giving away a penalty. How is that not contradictory!

A tackle is defined as the ball carrier being 'brought to ground', which is defined in Law 15.3.

Once the player has been brought to ground the tackler has to release the tackled player and the tackled player has to pass/release. Those are the responsibilities of both players in the tackle.

The confusion is people think once you are brought to ground you can get back up again if you are released. You can if you haven't been brought to ground, otherwise you can't.

To me it is also contradictory that if a player is knocked to the ground by a player who remains on his feet, the guy on his feet must release him even though he isn't a tackler.

Can you expand on that, I'm having trouble visualising the scenario

Yep if you wanted to get rid of laws youd have to get rid of parts of the game, eg the scrum. Go to free kicks instead and you woulkd not only remove a whole section of laws but also some of the most baffleing and difficult to enforce ones. You would however fundamental change the game. Youd also have to find another way of freeing up space, so maybe get rid of the flankers and have a half bothered uncontsted scrum.
Hang on a minute.....


The tackler release thing is a bit of an issue. You do see a lot more "not held" called now, or players just crawling along the ground after a tackle.
Whilst the laws arent strictly contradictory here there is a contradicting onus on the tackler...they want to release immediatly ( as they have to ) to avoid being penalised and to comepte for the ball, but equally they want need to hold long enough for the referee to be satisfied that the tackle is complete. There has to be a small amount of benefit of the doubt applied here, its ridiculous to expect that a tackler could no the exact instant that the referee has adjudged the tackle complete and release without even a spilt second of delay. As people stated previously, its not a contradiction in the laws ...its a difficuluty in adjudging when you go from tackle complete to holding on. The ref just has to judge based on a players actions when they have released and if they are gaining unfair advantage and if they are trying to play within the rules, and allows some leniency between the two that isnt strictly defined in the rules.

Peter - take the lineout. Previously the whole thing had a lot more offenses and lifting has removed a huge amount of them and cleaned up and improved the game.

red_stag wrote:Peter - take the lineout. Previously the whole thing had a lot more offenses and lifting has removed a huge amount of them and cleaned up and improved the game.

True but lifting has added a whole load more too, and if you are purley looking to reduce the number of laws and uncomplicate the game just get rid of it altogether.
You still have laws governing when theres a lineout
Laws governing whos ball it is in the lineout
Laws governing quick lineouts (hi Wales!)
Laws governing how the lineout is formed
Laws governing the executiuon of the lineout

Its a lot of laws. Removing lifting may have cleaned up the scrap that their used to be but its not true that allowing lfting significantly uncomplicated the game itself.


But yes the question is are we looking to uncompliacte or improve the game. That was my whole point. Most laws are there for a reason. The game could survive without lineouts at all, but its better for them. The price of having them is that you need a whole set of laws to govern them.
With scrums theres not only a massive set of laws governing them but also the application of them is getting like the pre lifting lineout situation. Its not only confussing and difficult to understand but also negativly impacting on the game itself. This is why theres a growing weight of people asking why we still have scrums. I cant remeber the exact quote but i heard about one elite ref telling the front rows that if they didnt start listening to him theyd just be putting themsleves out of a job pretty soon.
Ideally in the case of things like scrums where the laws arent functioning we could find a way , like with lineouts, to change that. I wouldnt want to see scrums lost...but they are complicated, not a vital component of the main element of gameplay, and increasingly disfunctional. But you arent gojng to improve the situation simply by removing some of the scrum regualtions, if anything you have to put even miore in...or just accept that "free kick" is a much less complex and law heavy call.

Peter laws themselves are neceessary. I agree most laws are there for a vital reason but certainly the application and presence of some are unnecessary.

Laws of course are needed ,but need to be applied in a standard way.The referee is the sole arbiter of the laws on the field which is of course the way it should be.
BUT constant tinkering with the laws,Breakdown for example we seem to have had 3 different guidelines for 3 seperate seasons.
Maul law was changed because one team dominated with ,when that happens IRB changes laws to adjust the difference.
Refs should`nt be able to ignore certain rules to let a game flow for TV audiences benefits.
There are a lot niggly laws which could be changed,allow the shoulder charge,bring back old style scrum/ruck laws ,ban lifting in lineouts.
Clampdown on offsides,and crooked scrum feeds, why retake for crooked throw.If it goes to otherside tough.
Lifting improved things,no all its done has taken timing out of the equation skill replaced by just throwing players into the air.
Competing at line out is a euphemism fo r jumping across early,lifting was always practiced a Bok speciality since the year dot.
Time was if the throw went against the throw more than twice in amatch the refs knew something was going on.
Variations at Line out time isalmost non- existent very few shortened line out s as to peels when was that last seen.
Or classic back row move from Scrum or the Bajala.
When asking for a Decision of the TMO a standard set of words need applying "Try or No Try" NOT "Is there any reason why a try cannot be awarded"

Too many Laws?
Or too many Lawes?

emack2 wrote:When asking for a Decision of the TMO a standard set of words need applying "Try or No Try" NOT "Is there any reason why a try cannot be awarded"

A ref has 2 options going to TMO:

- Try or No Try = I've seen nothing, convince me a try has been scored. When footage is inconclusive its an attacking 5m scrum

- Any reason try can't be awarded = Looks good to me, did I miss anything? When footage is inconclusive a try is given.

They are the two standard approaches.

red_stag wrote:To me it is also contradictory that if a player is knocked to the ground by a player who remains on his feet, the guy on his feet must release him even though he isn't a tackler.

What exactly do you mean by knocked down? If they have to release then they must have hold of them. How is it not a tackle?

It's not contradictory to have tacklers release and the tacked player relase the ball at the same time. The problem is defined the point of a completed tackle.

The law says that your are only a tackler if you go to ground too. We see situations where two defensive players make a hit. One goes low. One goes high.

The guy who goes low goes to ground with the ball carrier. He has to roll away and release.

The other guy has been holding onto the ball this whole time. He is and always has been on his feet. The ball carrier is on the ground. If neither player release the guy holding on, on the ground wins a penalty. Given he is off his feet and the other guy isn't a tackler, the ball carrier should have to release.

To me this doesn't make sense.

red_stag wrote:The law says that your are only a tackler if you go to ground too. We see situations where two defensive players make a hit. One goes low. One goes high.

The guy who goes low goes to ground with the ball carrier. He has to roll away and release.

The other guy has been holding onto the ball this whole time. He is and always has been on his feet. The ball carrier is on the ground. If neither player release the guy holding on, on the ground wins a penalty. Given he is off his feet and the other guy isn't a tackler, the ball carrier should have to release.

To me this doesn't make sense.

I thought the law was that players involved in the tackle but who don't go to ground must also first release the ball and ball carrier before they compete for the ball, which is why the other guy in your scenario is penalised.

That is it snoopster. It is a new law less than 12 months old and to me is at odds with the laws surrounding players who are off their feet. The IRFU also made a formal petition to the IRB to remove it.

Maybe it should work like Pool, or the America's Cup. Where the challenger or holder get to set the laws.

15 aside, 40 minutes each way, tackler must release, momentum passes are allowed, scrum put ins don't have to be straight, quick lineouts, but no marks allowed.

We could then have a lengthy 6 month period where the winner of a game isn't declare until the game has been scutinised by a series of courts and the victory awarded one way, then the other on appeal until we've all forgotten who was even playing.