Trialling laws mortals can understand

There's an article on RugbyHeaven about some new laws they are trialling to make things simpler for supporters (and players and referees) to understand. In summary:

1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed. Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown and can't release it is penalised.

2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.

3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the lineout is taken from where the kick was made.

4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).

5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.

6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility, like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.

Full story here:
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/ar...441081716.html

Some comments here:
http://blogs.smh.com.au/rugbyheaven/...asy_steps.html

What does everyone think?

I think any changes to the rules that simplify some of the more complex laws and make it easier for our new breed of supporter to understand the more tolerant they will be. In saying so though, the crowd at Subi really seem to have a fair idea of rules and tactics by the sound of the crowd at certain times.

Lets see how they work on the field before wholesale changes are made though.

I'm heavily in favour of particularly the short-arm penalties for a lot of the "subjective" decisions. Three points added to the score board for such things as not quite joining thru the gate just rewards negative tactics. I'm not completely sure about collapsing the maul from a safety aspect. I'd favour only allowing the ball to be carried by the player/s leading the maul. Once they pass it backwards they must leave or the new ball carrier/s break away or be called for obstruction. At present it's a blight on flowing play, I reckon.

Anything that simplifies things for blokes like P Honiss is a good thing.

The parts of the trial re touchies policing offside should be implemented immediately. There's no change to the laws involved here. They're already wired up so why not?

Does anyone else think that because of the greater fitness of todays pro players that there is also room to ammend the laws so that only one player who is not bound to the ruck can be within, say a metre of the last feet. The Gate is then directly behind and any player entering must join the ruck or give a free kick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shasta

I'm heavily in favour of particularly the short-arm penalties for a lot of the "subjective" decisions.

---

One rider to my above comment is that I'd like to see the team recieving the free kick to also get the throw in.

1. Hmm, not really sure on this one, if a ruck is formed, that should be it.

2. Don't really have any quarals with this one.

3. This just gives teams more reasons for "attacking kicking", which I would have hoped they were looking to stamp out in favour of more running rugby.

4. Agree 100%

5. No.

6. About time. Say goodbye to your career Bryan Habana.

1. Disagree - if your on the deck - dont touch the ball.

2. Dont really see how this will change this one - i cant see anyone having a 13 man line out.

3. Agree totally

4. Agree totally

5. Disagree totally - that is just dangerous

6. Sounds like a great idea

I'm starting to form the opinion that when the balls on the ground it should be feet only.

A return to the good old days.

No wonder players don't know when you can use your hands if the refs aren't sure or change their "interpretation".

If its on the ground - feet only.

This would also stop all the forwards lining up in defense. One thing I think is a blight on our game is that its starting to look like slightly more mobile rugby league.

1. No way, true rucking is as much of a skill as true mauling is and never the two should meet!
Simplest way is to open up the use of "Doctor Death House" (thanks Stu who!) with the boots and the players will soon know when they can and can't touch the ball! Not condoning stomping and that would need to tighten up in response but there is nothing wrong with coming off the paddock with a few lusty raked welts down your back to show your mates.

2. Can't much see the point of this, instead I would instruct the Ref not to warn the opposition for numbers in the lineout. That should be the responsability of the lineout leader and by the Ref giving warnings it takes away the initiative of going the short lineout. Ref should just award advantage and then, if none, a short arm/free kick.

3. Yep, sounds fair to me, would encourage more attacking moves from deep in your own territory.

4. When can they start!!! Should have been introduced before they stuffed around with the scoring system in the early nineties. This would be the singlemost important decision the IRB could make to improve the spectacle of our sport. More hit ups, more general play. Perhaps make it a ten meter "gain" from the infringement for where the mark is to take the tap or touch kick. I would refine shastas rider in saying I would allow the team to retain the throw in for any touch kick (from the free) from within their defensive half. Any within the attacking half is a thrown in to the other team where the ball crosses touch.

5. Absolutely, 100% against!!!! This has been thought up by a back who has never been hurt in a collapsing maul. I have...twice! With very long rehab periods. No way Jose`, would be a terrible decision to make this change.

6. Sounds like a good idea to me if they are qualified Refs. The current Refs certainly aren't policing it and most defensive lines are getting away with murder. It would only take a couple of touch off-side calls at the start of the game to establish the off-side line and gain the respect for not breaching it.

The other rule (or at least Ref guideline) would be that on the first engagement at the scrum, the Ref should stand out the Tightheads side and get the @#^$% out of the way of the players. If the scrum collapses on the Looseheads side then fair enough, address that side for that single scrum, then get out of the way again.
It seems more and more common these days that the Ref is consistently in the wrong position and interfering with either the attack or defence of the backrow and inside backs.