Post-WC Law Changes

I believe the IRB had stated they would change any laws until after the WC. The question is

Which laws would you change and why?

I'd remove the hit in the scrum. From comments from props on the old site it seems to only purpose is to add instability, which a prop can take advantage of over his opponent. Since the scrum is supposed to be stable before the ball is put in, and we're having so many collapses, I say remove the hit. This would hopefully allow the binding of props to be improved and allow the ref more chance to focus on the put in, etc. Not a prop or a ref so I would be interesting to feedback.

I'd also like failed drop goals to result in either a 22 or a scrum from where it was kicked from, defenders choice. This would either punish teams from taking speculative pot-shots from the halfway line without penalising a worthwhile and difficult scoring method.

Not quite a law but I'd like to see residency period increased to 5 years and grandparents expanded to require 2 from the same country. Also allow tier 2 nations to cap players already capped by other sides after a cool off period. Not sure there's an official IRB definition of tier 2 or what it would be if there isn't. The residency period is a bit difficult as I don't think someone should be able to be a citizen and not represent his adopted country but not all countries have the same spec. for citizenship.

I agree with you, I'd have passive engagement at the scrum and no pushing until the ball has been put into it.

I'd also scrap the grandparent rule.

I'd also scrap the residency rule for 6 Nation and 4 Nation countries (Argentina being the fourth), for players over 21. However any foreign player who spent 3 years in the country under the age of 21 can change alligances.
I think it's wrong for countries to poach players off other countries with the specific aim of having them qualify for them on residency grounds.
It would be silly to stop Toby Faletau playing for Wales as he basically had three quarters of his childhood in Wales and can barely remember his life in Tonga, which he left aged 6.

I think you'd be on tricky moral ground banning people who are citizens of the UK from ever representing a UK side.

However, we don't want to go down that road on here as there's no 'right' answer. I do think we can agree residency qualification should be tightened up. Ideally before Visser gets capped by Scotland. It's been our saving grace for the last few years that they can't score tries :run1:

If a drop goal missed and goes dead in goal there should be a scrum from where it was attempted or the option of a drop goal.

If there's a knock on and the ball goes dead, the option is given to the captain of what he wants to choose.

If there is a player offside at a kick, then it should just be a free-kick.

Agree with the hit being taken out of the scrum - and tighten up on the ball being put into it.

On residency, I'd like to see it moved to at least 5 years, if not longer for senior players. Perhaps make your suggested change to the grandparent rule but take time off the residency period for having one (back down to 3 years)

I'm not a fan of the allowing capped players to then qualify for a tier 2 nation - I don't think the IRB uses that ranking now... but more importantly I think it could be unfair, as what would happen if the team then moved above a tier one nation in the world rankings thanks to the benefit of that player (or players)?

MBTGOG wrote:If a drop goal missed and goes dead in goal there should be a scrum from where it was attempted or the option of a drop goal.

Do you mean drop-out. Otherwise where do you get you drop-goal attempt from? And if you miss does it just keep going;)

If there's a knock on and the ball goes dead, the option is given to the captain of what he wants to choose.

Agree

If there is a player offside at a kick, then it should just be a free-kick.

From where the kick was taken? Not sure about this one. How do you think it would effect the game?

Snoopster,fair point about the moving up a tier thing

Do you mean drop-out. Otherwise where do you get you drop-goal attempt from? And if you miss does it just keep going;)

I mean drop goal. For example, Frans Steyn can try a pot shot from 50 metres out and it goes over the dead ball line, the defending just kick the ball back. This way it's a scrum back.


On the offside bit, instead of giving away a chance for 3 points on a penalty offence that really should not be liable to losing three points then a scrum is awarded from where the kick is taken.

It's very specific, but I'd like to see the bal going dead in the in goal area through a defender grounding it (not a clean catch as in a mark though) to result in a drop out under the sticks, rather than on the 22. It would hopefully lead to teams being more ambitious around the try line, encouraging kicks through and little grubbers, rather than 25 phases of pick and go.

Heres a snapshot of potential law changes suggested by Richie McCaw, Graham Henry and Mark Reason on http://www.therugbysite.com/community .

"Reason: What law most annoys you, Richie?

McCaw: The thing that frustrates the hell out of me is when you’ve got a really good scrum and the opposition half back nips in and disrupts your ball. They stick their foot in, they shave a hand in, they give you a nudge and they’re usually offside anyway. It’s so frustrating. It’s purely negative and stops the attacking side getting clean ball. I would change the law to stop the scrum-half advancing beyond the halfway point of the scrum.

Reason: But us pesky half-backs like being pesky. Oh well. What about you, Graham?

Henry: We have to get consistency of refereeing at the tackle area. The Northern Hemisphere refs allow the tackling side more leeway to compete, southern hemisphere refs favour the attacking side. Why can’t we clean this area up?

My other demand is that refs ensure that the three front rowers push square with their heads above their hips. Too often the tight head is allowed to bore in on the hooker, the loosehead has nowhere to go, puts a hand on the ground and gets penalised. But he has nowhere to push. If we went back to folding the front rows in and eliminated the hit, it would make it easier for referees to make sure they were square.

Reason: I would like to see the height of the tackle lowered. Too many players are getting injured, particularly at junior level. What about all of you out there, who play and watch each week, what laws would you change?"

Agree with the hit in the scrum.
Also agree with the driving straight forwards by the tighthead.
No doubts about tightening up the residency - I'd like to see the grandparent rule eliminated, and residency increased.
I would tighten up obstruction rules as a lot of dummy runners aere close to obstruction.
And then the breakdown. Graham Henry is rigfht - just make it consistent.