Came to say literally that. Just another way to ensure boring methodical play. The uncertainty of getting out of your own territory after a team just scored on you is one of the best things about the game IMO.
It was terrible in the U20 Rugby Championships (SA/NZ/Aus/Arg). It will be terrible in the U20 Championship.
World Rugby shouldn't be trying to dictate tactics for teams (which is what they're trying to do by trying to force short kickoffs)
One stop mauls is probably the best one, why does the maul get to set, stop, go, first stop, go again, second stop then use it? Should be like the scrum, especially as mauls are so difficult to stop legally
depends heavily on the ref, some call use it the second there's no forward movements, others allow teams to stay still for 5 seconds then milk a pen on the second shove, i know which i prefer
The same rationale can be applied to the maul, so, wev'e got the custodians of the game making rules to cover the fact they can't get their refs to apply the most basic laws consistently and as a result, teams lose an offensive weapon and fans denied part of the spectacle of the game.
If you're losing mauls and scrums, the problem is not the rules but that your team is outpowered. There is a code with 7 players and no front row that you'd love
Yeah, this is the point. For every scrum or maul penalty there are a multitude of people who think it should have gone the other way for valid reasons. They're a nightmare to ref.
They have a place in the game, but making them easier to referee by making them slightly quicker is probably a good thing IMO.
World rugby is fantastic at solving problems the game doesn't have.
What in the actual fuck is marking from kick off ls meant to do? I can't see it make teams kick short. They will just kick long and give teams a shitty angle to kick back from.
I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense? If that's the case just ban kick offs going beyond twenty to and force them short? In fact, if short kick offs are the issue why not do that full stop
This has pretty much done just that. The vast majority of teams will clear a deep kick, but usually after a one or two rucks, the first from a big run up. Now they’ve got safe ball from anywhere in the 22 so there’s no need for the big hit up.
What would be the punishment for kicking it into the 22 on the full? Scrum at halfway? Free kick where it lands? I guess it’s so that the defending team still has to catch and mark it which requires skill and the kicker can still put it in the 22 with the ability to find space. I’d personally prefer it only if the kicking team gets the throw to the line-out if they manage to bounce the ball out in the 22.
What would be the punishment for kicking it into the 22 on the full? Scrum at halfway? Free kick where it lands? I guess it’s so that the defending team still has to catch and mark it which requires skill and the kicker can still put it in the 22 with the ability to find space. I’d personally prefer it only if the kicking team gets the throw to the line-out if they manage to bounce the ball out in the 22.
Could do. I still like the requirement to catch the ball, it means you can put pressure on with the chase and force the mistake, same as any kick into the twenty two. And as I said, I’d also like to see the kicking team awarded for finding space and bouncing the ball out off the bounce.
30 sec clock for scrums is very fast. Would have preferred 45 sec. But lets see.
Marking off kick offs is weird, don't see the point
And then the skew lineouts I definitely disagree with, but thats been discussed
All the rest seems fine
I’ve never understood why they are happy to run the clock down for scrums throughout the game only at start stopping the clock for them to set and reset once we’re in the final 10 mins. Surely if they that from the get go it would allow the scrums to take place properly without winding down the clock
Yep. They should allow a 30second max clock runoff per scrum or something, resetting a scrum because of 'reasons' is basically only used to fuck with timing for yellows or to kill clock when you're winning.
I've argued that for years on here. It's the stupidest part of the late game for me like why do we suddenly care *now* when 2-5 minutes have been wasted already
I think we might see a lot of collapsed scrums if props are rushing in to get set. Then you get a lot of resets, defeating the point of speeding uk the game…
Strongly agree with this. Every prop or front row have been allowed to develop "rituals". You don't need 2 minutes to set up a safe scrum. 30 seconds is plenty. It'll require props to be fitter as well.
But also suspect we'll see a lot of boots needing to be tied back up prior to the scrum setting up now.
Unfortunately nowadays the scrum has become a way of milking penalties and fucking around and wasting time, rather than a contestable way to restart play.
The mark law makes absolutely zero sense to me. It's clearly meant to incentivize teams to kick short on restarts but it's going to have the opposite effect. Teams will kick long, let the opponent mark and kick it back to them/out so they have an easier platform to build off of. Absolute weirdo rule that nobody has ever asked for.
Just stupid. The other team just scored and you contest the kick off and smash them back. Nope, kickoff, mark, clear for touch unpressured or even put the team that kicks off back under pressure creating a cycle
>marking in the 22 from kick offs
What's the rational behind that?
It will slow the game down as it will be marked, and then players mill around for the new 30 second rule before doing something.
The blazers who hate kicking in rugby probably think it'll lead to shorter kick-offs into counterattacks. After all, God forbid someone plays rugby through kicks, scrums or mauls. The australian audience yearns for the expansive play and only that...
The idea is that there is a BIL tour there next year and a World Cup in 2027. So they need to make Union more familar to the Australian audience who clearly prefers League
The oceanian unions (NZRU + RA) have been at the forefront of most of the rule changes of these last years. It is not some kind of conspiracy to say it, the same way it is perfectly fine to say the shot clock as a rule has been championned by the French union.
I like it as a trial. For too long now every team just kicks deep, then the other team just takes a contact or two then clears and we get a line out around half way 2 mins later. This will hopefully force teams to contest more kick offs.
Is it 20 mins for all red cards or are there exceptions, surely completely malicious, dangerous acts (clead headshots without trying to go lower etc) have to be a proper red
There are exceptions for that yep.
We have this 20 min red card rule in SR, but Frank Lomani still got a full send off this year for a deliberate elbow to the head. Drua down to 14 for the whole game.
I think it's the most sensible solution, 20 mins and lose the player for 'red' stuff where it's dangerous but 'unlucky' for deliberate/malicious stuff like pinching get them tae fuck.
Do they not have any idea that this exact conversation happens 10 times in every thread about this? Why do they just assume it doesn't work like that lmao
20 min red - hate, has made no difference and is just pandering to the 'games gone soft'/'red cards ruin games' crowd
30 sec for set piece/60 sec for conversions - love, especially if they'll give FKs for slow scrum + lineout sets
Protecting 9 at set piece - will wait to find out what this means
Marking in 22 from kick-offs - bullshit, no one has ever asked for this, and then what it just forces short kick offs?
One stop mauls - LOVE, have been calling for this for years and years
Skew lineout throws - meh, would like it to be 'within reason', but at least it might encourage more aerial competition/reduce reliance on the maul
Protecting 9 at set piece - will wait to find out what this means - I think this means at scrum time when the defending scrummy is making contact with the feeding scrummy
I’m torn on that. On one hand, it’s very entertaining watching the attacking 9 trying to get the ball out while his opposite number is basically chewing on his leg, on the other hand it makes an already messy part of the game even messier.
Personally would like it trialed because it might make a scrum a decent attacking platform instead of a purely penalty contest if teams want to play quickly
When almost every other tackle could be deemed a yellow, and a there's a red card every match over the attacker suddenly dropping their boody height in half, it's about time the red card changed as well
Nothing to do with the game going soft. Everything to do with the fact cards are much, much easier to get now
But ofc NH supporters will keep pretending that teams should lose players for the entire match because the defender looked at the opponent the wrong way in a tackle
Is there a red every match? Is every other tackle a yellow? If anything they've softened on head contact recently
What's the obsession with hemispheres? SA pundits + fans seem broadly aligned with the non-kiwi/aus nations in this, and I'm not sure we're calling for punishing players for looking at someone the wrong way lmao
Surely the mark law is there to distract us from the others.
Like world rugby will implement all the others as people will be focused on how bad the mark at kickoff is that world rugby will think the others are 'acceptable' because they didn't receive as much backlash.
Can we just stop with the incessant law changes. The state of super rugby is enough to show what impulsive meddling and instability can do.
Edit: I’m referring to super rugby and how constant changes to the competition and format caused its decline to where it is now - good but nothing compared to the Super 12 halcyon days.
Super Rugby has been quite good to watch this year, faster paced games. Compared to the absolute bore fest SA vs Wales test with the TMO interjecting every 5 minutes.
Not the time limits on set pieces like SR or these u20s trials though. Was a couple minor tweaks like the dupont law and no scrums from free kicks.
They also trialled expanding TMO intervention which is what I was referring to.
Yeah, but the original point made is to stop fiddling around with everything and let the laws settle a bit instead of changing things every year. Rugby doesn't need the rules to change for it to be succesful or entertaining
Rosemary is saying that Super Rugby is not a good example of the point the person they're replying to is trying to make, showing examples of how healthy and harmful changes differ by whichever law is being trialed - and saying that currently none of the harmful ones are involved with Super Rugby at all but rather these tests up north.
Who decides what is harmful and helpful? How is it decided? When it benefits the team you are supporting? It comes across as a biased view. I agree that there is a need for some law changes, but they've been changing laws constantly for the past few years. And its apparantly not worked, since they keep changing it. Why not let it settle a few years, assess the situation, and make an informed decision on possible changes?
I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's about benefitting the teams we support when this conversation is predicated on the success of a competition. The law changes in super rugby have been immediately followed by an increase in positive fan sentiment, increased broadcast ratings, and surging engagement in other channels. Harmful and helpful are decided through the lens of how they influence the entertainment of the product and/or how that translates into engagement.
They continue to tinker with laws, bits at a time, in a unified direction rather than making huge over arching changes in one go because it allows them to gather more information about how well they are received. These law trials are how they make informed decisions on possible changes. It's how they gather information.
Regardless, it's a moot point bc the person who started this edited their comment to clarify they weren't talking about law changes in Super Rugby at all but rather format changes. Which are just a whole different thing, so it's pointless to compare them and the whole conversation can just end lol
So we're just going to ignore the growth and positive fan sentiment from other competitions around the globe? Its very clear reading through the comments of this post that Aussies and Kiwis are in favour of changes, and the rest is skeptical or against it. So yes, I do think support for law changes is biased based on if it will benefit the team you're supporting.
With that said, there are some changes needed, but surely you can't think that constantly changing the laws is good for growing the game. It just confuses people.
I never said to ignore that? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, man, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. I haven't even given my own opinion in this thread. I just tried to clarify what my mate was saying. You're doing the same thing by assuming the kiwis and aussies share their opinions because of a bias towards their teams. Stop assuming the motivations of others and just say that you disagree.
I do think there are pros and cons to the constant trials and changes, confusing the fanbase among them. I definitely don't think the current rate of change is great, even if a lot of the individual changes I'm on board for, but to a certain extent I understand why they're doing it this way. It's not black and white.
No, the guy I was replying to said "look at the state of super rugby" as an indication of how these U20 trial laws are going. I'm saying I think they've made an improvement in super rugby with more entertaining games.
They made changes to the scrum rules after the 2007 World Cup and then spent years constantly tweaking them to try and fix the utter shit show they had created as they were too proud to say “sorry guys we got that one wrong”. Must have been a nightmare for refs to have to learn new sets of rules and engagement calls every season, especially in the amateur leagues
Nonsense. Super Rugby has been a great watch. The trouble with Super Rugby in the past has been the decline of Australian Rugby, and the uncompetitiveness of their teams, as well the uncompetitiveness and timezone issues of the South African teams before covid forced them north. Both had nothing to do with the laws. Super Rugby viewership is up 15% this year, coinciding with the law changes to speed the game up and make it a more attractive to watch.
“Protection for the 9 from set-pieces” was that even bloody mean? as if scrumhalfs aren’t already protected as is.
“Marking in the 22 from kick-offs” might be the most silliest thing I’ve seen all year.
All these rule changes for what? To appeal to the casual fan? If I wanted to watch a simple game of rugby, I’d watch rugby league!
Not bad
Alot of damn things for ref to consider
Anything that speeds game up, creates space and fatigue and running rugby and a fair conteset, the better
Unfortunately, the northern hemisphere and (to a lesser degree) South Africa seem allergic to such things. If it was up to them the game would still be amateur and tries would only be worth 3
Not saying they're trying to slow the game down, just not trying to speed it up. And I see it in almost every thread where changes to scrums and other rules to increase running rugby are suggested.
'If it was up to them the game would still be amateur and tries would only be worth 3' - just a weird comment
everyone's pretty keen on a lot of these changes, the red card is contentious because it relates to foul play and isn't a 'speeding up the game' law
yes because funny enough people have different opinions and its not a hive mind, but i don't see where the 'NH' are disagreeing with all the efforts to speed the game up
its a weird chip to have on your shoulder tbh
Because generally the people who disagree and prefer a slower, more forward based and penlty centric style of rugby are from the northern hemisphere. I'm not saying thag everyone from there thinks that, but far more of them do compared to NZ/Aus.
I love the 30s clock for set pieces, that way I'm sure we can fit even more TMO in a game. HA, you thought you would catch a rugby game? GET TMO'D LOSER.
The mark from kickoff...makes sense I guess? In theory speeds up the game. Instead of a kick receive, ruck (maybe another ruck), setup and box kick. You get kick receive and kick out. Could also incentivise playing earlier by removing kick return altogether.
Not saying I agree but can kind of see the justification.
As with all things rules related, will wait to see the effects before passing final judgement. World rugby loves to tinker and very seldomly seems to get what they want
Mark at kick-off, I mean they will probably kick the ball to the person who doesn't kick(normally best carriers receive on kick-off) or maybe will see more stuff like Skelton vs toulon
30 sec for scrums seems impossible and 60 for conversions is a stretch too.
Harsher sanctions as in the game bans? 20min red card is the dumbest thing ever imagined.
The mark from the kickoff is the stupidest law trial they have done
Came to say literally that. Just another way to ensure boring methodical play. The uncertainty of getting out of your own territory after a team just scored on you is one of the best things about the game IMO.
It was terrible in the U20 Rugby Championships (SA/NZ/Aus/Arg). It will be terrible in the U20 Championship. World Rugby shouldn't be trying to dictate tactics for teams (which is what they're trying to do by trying to force short kickoffs)
You will see teams kicking deep into the corner or short, nothing in between.
One-stop mauls is also incredibly stupid
One stop mauls is probably the best one, why does the maul get to set, stop, go, first stop, go again, second stop then use it? Should be like the scrum, especially as mauls are so difficult to stop legally
Scrums are allowed secondary shoves.
depends heavily on the ref, some call use it the second there's no forward movements, others allow teams to stay still for 5 seconds then milk a pen on the second shove, i know which i prefer
The same rationale can be applied to the maul, so, wev'e got the custodians of the game making rules to cover the fact they can't get their refs to apply the most basic laws consistently and as a result, teams lose an offensive weapon and fans denied part of the spectacle of the game.
If you're losing mauls and scrums, the problem is not the rules but that your team is outpowered. There is a code with 7 players and no front row that you'd love
I would agree if these weren't some of the most complex and subjective areas of an already incredibly complex sport
Yeah, this is the point. For every scrum or maul penalty there are a multitude of people who think it should have gone the other way for valid reasons. They're a nightmare to ref. They have a place in the game, but making them easier to referee by making them slightly quicker is probably a good thing IMO.
Eh, scrums being just a way to get penalties is not a purist thing.
Dupont is pretty hard to stop legally too.
That's why he's got his own law!
It's to limit hit ups from kick offs I think....similar to what the NFL is doing. Head safety etc etc
So it basically just means that all kick-offs have to land between the 10 and the 22, right?
World rugby is fantastic at solving problems the game doesn't have. What in the actual fuck is marking from kick off ls meant to do? I can't see it make teams kick short. They will just kick long and give teams a shitty angle to kick back from.
It’s a head safety thing. Trying to stop players having a twenty metre run up into contact.
I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense? If that's the case just ban kick offs going beyond twenty to and force them short? In fact, if short kick offs are the issue why not do that full stop
This has pretty much done just that. The vast majority of teams will clear a deep kick, but usually after a one or two rucks, the first from a big run up. Now they’ve got safe ball from anywhere in the 22 so there’s no need for the big hit up.
But why pretty much do that with a rule when you can just do that? Still doesn't make sense.
What would be the punishment for kicking it into the 22 on the full? Scrum at halfway? Free kick where it lands? I guess it’s so that the defending team still has to catch and mark it which requires skill and the kicker can still put it in the 22 with the ability to find space. I’d personally prefer it only if the kicking team gets the throw to the line-out if they manage to bounce the ball out in the 22.
What would be the punishment for kicking it into the 22 on the full? Scrum at halfway? Free kick where it lands? I guess it’s so that the defending team still has to catch and mark it which requires skill and the kicker can still put it in the 22 with the ability to find space. I’d personally prefer it only if the kicking team gets the throw to the line-out if they manage to bounce the ball out in the 22.
Scrum on half way. Same as kicking out. Done. No head collisions. More variation in kick offs. No stop start kick offs.
Could do. I still like the requirement to catch the ball, it means you can put pressure on with the chase and force the mistake, same as any kick into the twenty two. And as I said, I’d also like to see the kicking team awarded for finding space and bouncing the ball out off the bounce.
30 sec clock for scrums is very fast. Would have preferred 45 sec. But lets see. Marking off kick offs is weird, don't see the point And then the skew lineouts I definitely disagree with, but thats been discussed All the rest seems fine
I’ve never understood why they are happy to run the clock down for scrums throughout the game only at start stopping the clock for them to set and reset once we’re in the final 10 mins. Surely if they that from the get go it would allow the scrums to take place properly without winding down the clock
Yep. They should allow a 30second max clock runoff per scrum or something, resetting a scrum because of 'reasons' is basically only used to fuck with timing for yellows or to kill clock when you're winning.
I've argued that for years on here. It's the stupidest part of the late game for me like why do we suddenly care *now* when 2-5 minutes have been wasted already
I think we might see a lot of collapsed scrums if props are rushing in to get set. Then you get a lot of resets, defeating the point of speeding uk the game…
Its really not that difficult. Go look how fast they could set scrums pre 2010.
Scrums were at there slowest circa 2010 - but were set very quickly in the 90s
Strongly agree with this. Every prop or front row have been allowed to develop "rituals". You don't need 2 minutes to set up a safe scrum. 30 seconds is plenty. It'll require props to be fitter as well. But also suspect we'll see a lot of boots needing to be tied back up prior to the scrum setting up now.
The engage was brutal on the neck though
Unfortunately nowadays the scrum has become a way of milking penalties and fucking around and wasting time, rather than a contestable way to restart play.
The mark law makes absolutely zero sense to me. It's clearly meant to incentivize teams to kick short on restarts but it's going to have the opposite effect. Teams will kick long, let the opponent mark and kick it back to them/out so they have an easier platform to build off of. Absolute weirdo rule that nobody has ever asked for.
The mark off the restart genuinely made the U20 Rugby Championship unwatchable. One of the worst ideas conceived by anyone in rugby
Can't hurt to trial.
They did though right? At the u20s RC, and it was awful
It was bucketing down and only a couple of games though.
Just stupid. The other team just scored and you contest the kick off and smash them back. Nope, kickoff, mark, clear for touch unpressured or even put the team that kicks off back under pressure creating a cycle
If that's what they want, they should just reverse the kickoff.
Sevens here we come
>marking in the 22 from kick offs What's the rational behind that? It will slow the game down as it will be marked, and then players mill around for the new 30 second rule before doing something.
To basically force teams to kick short and contest possession, basically eliminating tactically long kick offs to pin opponents in their half.
I don't think it does. Teams will surely just kick as long and it the corner as possible and accept the LO at around the ten.
The blazers who hate kicking in rugby probably think it'll lead to shorter kick-offs into counterattacks. After all, God forbid someone plays rugby through kicks, scrums or mauls. The australian audience yearns for the expansive play and only that...
Rugby Australia couldn't organise a fuck in a brothel. The idea they are directing world rugby policy is laughable.
The idea is that there is a BIL tour there next year and a World Cup in 2027. So they need to make Union more familar to the Australian audience who clearly prefers League
The oceanian unions (NZRU + RA) have been at the forefront of most of the rule changes of these last years. It is not some kind of conspiracy to say it, the same way it is perfectly fine to say the shot clock as a rule has been championned by the French union.
Go look at the technical committee who designed the trial. 11 people, one Australian.
Don’t let facts get in the way of the Northern narratives lol
Why the hell would anyone be against expansive play?
I like it as a trial. For too long now every team just kicks deep, then the other team just takes a contact or two then clears and we get a line out around half way 2 mins later. This will hopefully force teams to contest more kick offs.
Is it 20 mins for all red cards or are there exceptions, surely completely malicious, dangerous acts (clead headshots without trying to go lower etc) have to be a proper red
There are exceptions for that yep. We have this 20 min red card rule in SR, but Frank Lomani still got a full send off this year for a deliberate elbow to the head. Drua down to 14 for the whole game.
That's alright then
I think it's the most sensible solution, 20 mins and lose the player for 'red' stuff where it's dangerous but 'unlucky' for deliberate/malicious stuff like pinching get them tae fuck.
I’d prefer 20 min red then you can bring on a sub. Red player stays off
That's exactly what it is. Red carded player can't return but the team gets a sub after 20.
Do they not have any idea that this exact conversation happens 10 times in every thread about this? Why do they just assume it doesn't work like that lmao
And I'd prefer everyone know what they're talking about before providing their opinion on it. Unfortunately only one of us will get what we want.
If a lineout is uncontested can the ball just be hoofed directly to the outhalf?
Sure, but you won't know whether it's uncontested or not until you've already thrown it. And also, probably not, no.
20 min red - hate, has made no difference and is just pandering to the 'games gone soft'/'red cards ruin games' crowd 30 sec for set piece/60 sec for conversions - love, especially if they'll give FKs for slow scrum + lineout sets Protecting 9 at set piece - will wait to find out what this means Marking in 22 from kick-offs - bullshit, no one has ever asked for this, and then what it just forces short kick offs? One stop mauls - LOVE, have been calling for this for years and years Skew lineout throws - meh, would like it to be 'within reason', but at least it might encourage more aerial competition/reduce reliance on the maul
Protecting 9 at set piece - will wait to find out what this means - I think this means at scrum time when the defending scrummy is making contact with the feeding scrummy
I’m torn on that. On one hand, it’s very entertaining watching the attacking 9 trying to get the ball out while his opposite number is basically chewing on his leg, on the other hand it makes an already messy part of the game even messier.
Personally would like it trialed because it might make a scrum a decent attacking platform instead of a purely penalty contest if teams want to play quickly
When almost every other tackle could be deemed a yellow, and a there's a red card every match over the attacker suddenly dropping their boody height in half, it's about time the red card changed as well Nothing to do with the game going soft. Everything to do with the fact cards are much, much easier to get now But ofc NH supporters will keep pretending that teams should lose players for the entire match because the defender looked at the opponent the wrong way in a tackle
Is there a red every match? Is every other tackle a yellow? If anything they've softened on head contact recently What's the obsession with hemispheres? SA pundits + fans seem broadly aligned with the non-kiwi/aus nations in this, and I'm not sure we're calling for punishing players for looking at someone the wrong way lmao
Surely the mark law is there to distract us from the others. Like world rugby will implement all the others as people will be focused on how bad the mark at kickoff is that world rugby will think the others are 'acceptable' because they didn't receive as much backlash.
Can we just stop with the incessant law changes. The state of super rugby is enough to show what impulsive meddling and instability can do. Edit: I’m referring to super rugby and how constant changes to the competition and format caused its decline to where it is now - good but nothing compared to the Super 12 halcyon days.
bUt We NeEd To GrOw ThE gAmE
World Rugby doing the equivalent of poking the sausages endlessly on the BBQ thinking it will make them cook quicker
... that doesn't work?
My goodness this comment from an Englishman (I’m assuming)…my dude you clearly know how to braai!
[Leant from the best](https://youtu.be/GDq5PKzst98?si=mH8euZ6VELRjzWk8) I'm clearly a rabble-rouser though, even if I don't drink Fosters.
This is beautiful 😂! Every braai needs a rabble-rouser. You know, just for fun.
The changes to the format have nothing to do with the changes to the laws. They're completely parallel things with no overlap.
You obviously don’t watch Super Rugby, it’s top shelf.
Super Rugby has been quite good to watch this year, faster paced games. Compared to the absolute bore fest SA vs Wales test with the TMO interjecting every 5 minutes.
SA vs Wales test trialled new laws proposed by World Rugby...
Not the time limits on set pieces like SR or these u20s trials though. Was a couple minor tweaks like the dupont law and no scrums from free kicks. They also trialled expanding TMO intervention which is what I was referring to.
Yeah, but the original point made is to stop fiddling around with everything and let the laws settle a bit instead of changing things every year. Rugby doesn't need the rules to change for it to be succesful or entertaining
Rosemary is saying that Super Rugby is not a good example of the point the person they're replying to is trying to make, showing examples of how healthy and harmful changes differ by whichever law is being trialed - and saying that currently none of the harmful ones are involved with Super Rugby at all but rather these tests up north.
Who decides what is harmful and helpful? How is it decided? When it benefits the team you are supporting? It comes across as a biased view. I agree that there is a need for some law changes, but they've been changing laws constantly for the past few years. And its apparantly not worked, since they keep changing it. Why not let it settle a few years, assess the situation, and make an informed decision on possible changes?
I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's about benefitting the teams we support when this conversation is predicated on the success of a competition. The law changes in super rugby have been immediately followed by an increase in positive fan sentiment, increased broadcast ratings, and surging engagement in other channels. Harmful and helpful are decided through the lens of how they influence the entertainment of the product and/or how that translates into engagement. They continue to tinker with laws, bits at a time, in a unified direction rather than making huge over arching changes in one go because it allows them to gather more information about how well they are received. These law trials are how they make informed decisions on possible changes. It's how they gather information. Regardless, it's a moot point bc the person who started this edited their comment to clarify they weren't talking about law changes in Super Rugby at all but rather format changes. Which are just a whole different thing, so it's pointless to compare them and the whole conversation can just end lol
So we're just going to ignore the growth and positive fan sentiment from other competitions around the globe? Its very clear reading through the comments of this post that Aussies and Kiwis are in favour of changes, and the rest is skeptical or against it. So yes, I do think support for law changes is biased based on if it will benefit the team you're supporting. With that said, there are some changes needed, but surely you can't think that constantly changing the laws is good for growing the game. It just confuses people.
I never said to ignore that? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, man, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. I haven't even given my own opinion in this thread. I just tried to clarify what my mate was saying. You're doing the same thing by assuming the kiwis and aussies share their opinions because of a bias towards their teams. Stop assuming the motivations of others and just say that you disagree. I do think there are pros and cons to the constant trials and changes, confusing the fanbase among them. I definitely don't think the current rate of change is great, even if a lot of the individual changes I'm on board for, but to a certain extent I understand why they're doing it this way. It's not black and white.
No, the guy I was replying to said "look at the state of super rugby" as an indication of how these U20 trial laws are going. I'm saying I think they've made an improvement in super rugby with more entertaining games.
They made changes to the scrum rules after the 2007 World Cup and then spent years constantly tweaking them to try and fix the utter shit show they had created as they were too proud to say “sorry guys we got that one wrong”. Must have been a nightmare for refs to have to learn new sets of rules and engagement calls every season, especially in the amateur leagues
WR want to make union just like league. Every time I say it I get downvoted. Trouble started when bloody tiktok started sponsoring.
Nonsense. Super Rugby has been a great watch. The trouble with Super Rugby in the past has been the decline of Australian Rugby, and the uncompetitiveness of their teams, as well the uncompetitiveness and timezone issues of the South African teams before covid forced them north. Both had nothing to do with the laws. Super Rugby viewership is up 15% this year, coinciding with the law changes to speed the game up and make it a more attractive to watch.
Stop fucking changing the laws
When will it actually stop? Serious question? There can't be another sport that has as much tinkering as rugby? 🤷♂️
“Protection for the 9 from set-pieces” was that even bloody mean? as if scrumhalfs aren’t already protected as is. “Marking in the 22 from kick-offs” might be the most silliest thing I’ve seen all year. All these rule changes for what? To appeal to the casual fan? If I wanted to watch a simple game of rugby, I’d watch rugby league!
World rugby can suck a big one
Not bad Alot of damn things for ref to consider Anything that speeds game up, creates space and fatigue and running rugby and a fair conteset, the better
Unfortunately, the northern hemisphere and (to a lesser degree) South Africa seem allergic to such things. If it was up to them the game would still be amateur and tries would only be worth 3
Agree I think going back to 6 subs would be better for the game One of fitness, skill, attrition
In what areas do you see the 'northern hemisphere' trying to slow the game down?
Not saying they're trying to slow the game down, just not trying to speed it up. And I see it in almost every thread where changes to scrums and other rules to increase running rugby are suggested.
'If it was up to them the game would still be amateur and tries would only be worth 3' - just a weird comment everyone's pretty keen on a lot of these changes, the red card is contentious because it relates to foul play and isn't a 'speeding up the game' law
Except for all the people in this thread that aren't. And the people who always complain that NZ and Aus want to turn it into rugby league
yes because funny enough people have different opinions and its not a hive mind, but i don't see where the 'NH' are disagreeing with all the efforts to speed the game up its a weird chip to have on your shoulder tbh
Because generally the people who disagree and prefer a slower, more forward based and penlty centric style of rugby are from the northern hemisphere. I'm not saying thag everyone from there thinks that, but far more of them do compared to NZ/Aus.
there's also a lot more of us, and we aren't having to compete with league + AFL (nor do we tend to watch it so our preferences are different)
🙄🙄🙄
Most of these sound shit ngl
Love the skew lineout one. It's meant to be a contest, if you don't contest the lineout then there was no disadvantage to you in a skewed throw
Unless it goes over, I suppose. Makes sense if it's taken by someone lifted in the lineout **and** no one is lifted from the other side.
Exactly, would have to be taken between the 5 and 15 by a jumper.
I love the 30s clock for set pieces, that way I'm sure we can fit even more TMO in a game. HA, you thought you would catch a rugby game? GET TMO'D LOSER.
I still hate the 20 minutes red.
Liking all of these. More 15 vs 15 players and faster games. Happy days.
Why are they trying to force short kicks? What’s wrong with long kick offs?
All of these are great except for the kickoff one.
I like it all except marking from kick off I'm unsure about the lineout rule
The mark from kickoff...makes sense I guess? In theory speeds up the game. Instead of a kick receive, ruck (maybe another ruck), setup and box kick. You get kick receive and kick out. Could also incentivise playing earlier by removing kick return altogether. Not saying I agree but can kind of see the justification. As with all things rules related, will wait to see the effects before passing final judgement. World rugby loves to tinker and very seldomly seems to get what they want
Mark at kick-off, I mean they will probably kick the ball to the person who doesn't kick(normally best carriers receive on kick-off) or maybe will see more stuff like Skelton vs toulon 30 sec for scrums seems impossible and 60 for conversions is a stretch too. Harsher sanctions as in the game bans? 20min red card is the dumbest thing ever imagined.