Has Rugby too many Laws

First topic message reminder :

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.

TheGreyGhost wrote: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.

Thats basically what McCaw does now

red_stag wrote: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.

Why the IRFU? Probably because O'Driscoll was one of the best exponents of being the clamping tackler (straight out of rugby league) and had become so proficient at stripping the ball.

I don't actually see that much contradiction - the onus is on the defensive players allowing the tackled player to release the ball, and the onus on the tackled player is to play the ball (by placing it or passing) 'immediately' on the tackle being completed (obviously 'immediately' is a rather subjective term in this context, as placing the ball takes an amount of time).

dummy_half wrote:

red_stag wrote: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.

Why the IRFU? Probably because O'Driscoll was one of the best exponents of being the clamping tackler (straight out of rugby league) and had become so proficient at stripping the ball.

Probably why yes. But any Union can challenge or get clarity on any law.

red_stag wrote: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.

I might be misunderstanding it then because it makes sense to me in combination with the earlier laws -
If you make the tackle and go to ground you must release the tackled player and roll away. If you make the tackle or assist in the tackle but remain on your feet you must release the tackled player and/ or ball before you can then compete for it. If you are tackled you must release (or place) the ball once released by the tackler (and any players who had hold of you and the ball when tackled).

The whole point is that both the lineout and the scrum are meant to be contests for the ball. The advantage may lie with the team putting / throwing in, but it must remain a contest.

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.

Except this contradicts law 15.6(c)

"Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to
ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players
may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and
from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick"

If they stay on their feet then they're not defined as a "tackler" but the ball carrier is still "tackled". The player on his feet still has to release the ball and ball carrier.

Hammer thats the law I am referring to. To me it is at odds with other laws and the notion that the man on his feet is king.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:The whole point is that both the lineout and the scrum are meant to be contests for the ball. The advantage may lie with the team putting / throwing in, but it must remain a contest.

Well I think the point is that (and you can add the ruck here) that the more contests you have in the game the more laws it takes to govern them and keep them contested in the way intended.

If you want a simpler and less law heavy game you have to reduce the number, or a least variety, of ball contests.

The laws governing the parts of the game between the ball contests are largely pretty straight forward. The minute anyone gets tackled or kicks the ball it starts getting complicated.

I still prefer it to rugby league though which i found insufferbaly dull.

red_stag wrote:Hammer thats the law I am referring to. To me it is at odds with other laws and the notion that the man on his feet is king.

It's no different to not being able to handle in the ruck. Just stating the tackled player must have a chance to play the ball (not in those words). Good law in my opinion (even if it doesn't seem to be applied to teams playing England)