New Zealand coach Graham Henry calls for IRB to make rule changes

Reaction ... Henry says a rule change is needed. Reuters



By David Beniuk
August 21, 2009
The most crucial Test of Wallabies coach Robbie Deans' reign has been overshadowed by All Blacks coach Graham Henry questioning whether rugby is any good as a spectacle.
As Australia and New Zealand prepared for an ANZ Stadium showdown which could decide the Bledisloe Cup, and will virtually end the Tri Nations hopes of one of the sides, Henry reacted to the game's most recent kicking epidemic with a call for rule changes.

The boot of South Africa five-eighth Morne Steyn has arguably been the tournament's most influential feature so far, with the No.10 kicking eight and then seven penalty goals to ensure victories over the All Blacks in Durban and Australia in Cape Town.

Rugby's trial of new rules appeared to be dead in the water when, after intense opposition from northern hemisphere unions, the International Rugby Board adopted a watered-down version of the game's experimental law variations (ELVs) in May.

Crucially, the short-arm sanction for most breakdown offences was left out, and the predictable result has been less running rugby.

"The product that you're looking at I think needs attention, quite frankly," Henry said on Friday.

" ... The product's not too great and that's disappointing.

" ... Maybe if you had a mark every time the ball was kicked in the air, no matter where it was on the pitch, you could have a scrum back or a free-kick from that mark.

"It may make the game a bit more entertaining.

"I think we need to think outside the square about how we can change the game so it's more enjoyable to play and better to watch."

Asked if New Zealand would lobby the IRB in time for rule changes to be made in a two-year window before the next World Cup, Henry said: "We're always looking at trying to do that as part of the ongoing process."

Henry's captain, Richie McCaw, said his main focus was on playing the game as it is currently governed.

But he also added: "At the moment you get rewarded for putting the ball in the air and playing at the right end of the field and forcing teams into mistakes and maybe that is something that needs to be looked at.

" ... I think you've got to be rewarded for having the skill to use the ball in hand."

Henry conceded southern hemisphere rugby needed an entertaining game on Saturday night.

"Yeah, it probably does," he said.

Deans stopped short of backing Henry but said it was unsurprising the removal of the sanctions ELV had resulted in more kicking.

"When you look back at the World Cup in '07, it was always a possibility, particularly when you've got a side like South Africa who are so able to play the game that way," Deans said.

"They essentially won the World Cup in 2007 without playing.

"There is a lot of kicking but the kicking has improved as well."

Deans said the current laws needed to be given a chance through better policing.

"I think we're missing the opportunity to keep people on their feet (at the breakdown)," he said.

"If we do that we'll get the benefit of the laws the way they are currently ... It will provide more scope to play."

The debate is not expected to affect Saturday's gate, with more than 70,000 tickets believed to be have been sold already.


AAP

http://twf.com.au/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=127

Bla :puke_r: Bla :puke_r: Bla :puke_r:

Change the rules so we can win

Bla :puke_r: Bla :puke_r: Bla:puke_r:

:shakeshead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pieter blackie

Bla :puke_r: Bla :puke_r: Bla :puke_r:

Change the rules so we can win

Bla :puke_r: Bla :puke_r: Bla:puke_r:

:shakeshead:

---

You really enjoy watching the ball being kicked continually back and forth for 80 minutes?? I recommend you check out Aussie rules...

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/vi..._13889,00.html

In this interview, Henry makes a suggestion that I have made a few times on The Roar- that is that a kick can be markable anywhere in the field with the option of a scrum back (actually I suggested in your own HALF only, but still :D ). Definitely would have a big impact I reckon, without changing the game in any fundamental way.

Thoughts? Comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyM

You really enjoy watching the ball being kicked continually back and forth for 80 minutes?? I recommend you check out Aussie rules...

---

nothing was wrong with kicking In the past when Carter kicked the Kiwis into the winning circle and had most points(221points) in a season in 2002 or when Andrew Mertins retired with most point (209point) in a season 1989

And surely I do not have to remind anyone about the Australian kicking game when Larkham did his famous 48m-drop goal to seal victory over South Africa in extra time of the 1999 Rugby World Cup Semi-Final. This has gone down in rugby folklore as the defining moment in the Wallabies victorious Rugby World Cup campaign


OK but now that the shoe is on the other foot everyone is crying Wolf


Kick South Africa Kick It will only be a matter of time before Australia or New Zealand find a decent kicker again

At first to be frank TommyM I didn't give much consideration to the whole 'any kick being markable' idea. I still think it would be unworkable but if it was to be trialled. I wouldn't go down the path of scrums. Free Kicks from where it was kicked would be better. And of course there will need to be set distance the ball travels before it could be marked. It doesn't eliminate kicking but it does force whatever kicking that is done to be far more precise and intelligent.

What is required is the simplification of some laws. For instance advantage. If you kick away possesion whilst on advantage no matter the circumstance all advantage is lost. Period. another would be to set a distance that is determined to be the advantage line. Refs tend to differ greatly. And the TMO could greatly help with this. In the NFL they use TV footage to determine their distance to first down. This is done via marker's which won't be practical in Rugby but the graphic yellow line would. The TMO could use this tech that is already creeping into Rugby to assist the ref by informing him if they cross the advantage line.

For this to happen there must be a set distance that is considered advantage. 5m past the offence would surfice. And a set time. Say if the advantage is not achieved by the secong phase after the offence has occurred the penalty is awarded.

And finally. Bring in the option of a short arm penalty for anything under a professional foul or offside.

---------- Post added at 18:36 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

These would keep the game flowing aswell as allowing teams to play whichever game plan they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pieter blackie

nothing was wrong with kicking In the past when Carter kicked the Kiwis into the winning circle and had most points(221points) in a season in 2002 or when Andrew Mertins retired with most point (209point) in a season 1989

And surely I do not have to remind anyone about the Australian kicking game when Larkham did his famous 48m-drop goal to seal victory over South Africa in extra time of the 1999 Rugby World Cup Semi-Final. This has gone down in rugby folklore as the defining moment in the Wallabies victorious Rugby World Cup campaign


OK but now that the shoe is on the other foot everyone is crying Wolf


Kick South Africa Kick It will only be a matter of time before Australia or New Zealand find a decent kicker again

---

Have you been smoking crack again Pieter? :)

You can't compare Stephen Larkham's drop goal to the way South Africa are playing now. He only made like two drop goal attempts in 10 years of international rugby.

I didn't complain about South Africa's tactics in their game against Australia but the fact that, excluding the penalty they kicked from the second yellow card, they scored no points in the 7 minutes they had a 2 man advantage says a lot. What it comes down to is how you view the game of rugby. We see it as a game where the purpose is to run the ball and win or lose I find that enjoyable. I suppose that most people are fearful that rugby will turn into a version of American football where instead of having downs it is just constant line-outs and scrums inbetween high balls and very little actual running goes on and there are constant stoppages.

You have to feel for Graham Henry. If he brings up an issue he believes in when he's winning he seems like a sore winner for being up a seemingly non-issue. If he brings it up when they are losing he seems like a sore loser.

James nailed it. Give Henry his dues, he might be a fun loving guy but he knows his stuff. Personally i loved the ELV's and the 3 Southern hemisphere teams always played the best rugby, but not now with the Japies playing smart northern hemisphere rugby and cleaning up. Perhaps giving the shortarm the arse was to please the power brokers in the UK ?

reduce the penalty value to two points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Working Class

....What is required is the simplification of some laws. For instance advantage. If you kick away possesion whilst on advantage no matter the circumstance all advantage is lost. Period. another would be to set a distance that is determined to be the advantage line. Refs tend to differ greatly. And the TMO could greatly help with this. In the NFL they use TV footage to determine their distance to first down. This is done via marker's which won't be practical in Rugby but the graphic yellow line would. The TMO could use this tech that is already creeping into Rugby to assist the ref by informing him if they cross the advantage line.

For this to happen there must be a set distance that is considered advantage. 5m past the offence would surfice. And a set time. Say if the advantage is not achieved by the secong phase after the offence has occurred the penalty is awarded.

---

Don't forget with the advantage law (Law 8) that:

8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE
(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b) Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c) Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.

8.2 WHEN ADVANTAGE DOES NOT ARISE
The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough. If the non-offending team does not gain an advantage, the referee blows the whistle and brings play back to the place of infringement.

Territorial or tactical. Not just moving over the gain line.

So "kicking away advantage" doesn't always apply. If the advantage is for something that would come back for a scrum, kicking the ball "downtown" to some space behind the opposition would gain an advantage.

And I'm not so sure we need a TMO to come into it in mid-field. I don't think the viewers would like the game being stopped for this sort of thing.

With the modern light weight Gilbert rugby ball, specialised kicking tees and an excellent of footy boots todays professional players can put one through the sticks from anywhere in the oppositions half...Furthermore some from outside 50m... I'm a fan of the short arm ELV penalties...

In Recent matches we have seen the Refs deciding the match outcome by giving questionable free kicks away... This doesn't offer a better game of rugby for the players or the fans or in the end the sponsors value for money... as some fans will just grow tired and stop watching...

There's 2 separate issues really isn't there? As Mudskipper says- the ball technology has changed the game in that penalty goals are attainable from 60m out. I agree with BDG that a penalty (and drop goal) being reduced to 2 points would encourage attacking rugby and more tries.

The second issue of incessant up and unders is a relatively new phenomenon, and I think the result of the change in the breakdown disadvantaging the attacking team as well as the improvement in defensive structures at international level making breaking the line more difficult. I think the idea of a mark anywhere on the field (agree re: scrum BTW Working Class) would be good as the best option for the marker would often be a quick tap and go (given the defense would have to retreat 10m before tackling) and this would really open things ups and allow for counter-attacking opportunities, whilst also making incessant kicking less attractive.

Pieter- as I think others have pointed out, the problem is not kicker per se, but the amount and type that is occuring (espscially 7 or 8 kicks back and forward while the forwards sit down and have a breather!)

Two points for a penalty would make it too convenient to give one away. Increase tries to 6 six points (so that two penalties = one try) and you'd have a pretty good balance.

Whats the difference between S14 and International rules at this point?

That is the very problem with something like the Advantage laws. They are far too open to individual interpretation. They should be spelled out clearly free from deviation.

The TMO would not have the power to stop play. Ideally the viewer won't even realise their involvement in the decision. They would tell the ref directly whether the team with advantage have achieved it.

As it stands, I have seen advantage being played whilst the team with the advantage in fact lost territiory, the play pulled back 2 mins after the offence and countless tries bombed at the refs whim. By revising this law amongst other they could clear up a grey area in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chook

Whats the difference between S14 and International rules at this point?

---

Currently Sanctions. Many of the breakdown offences would be penalties in the International game and free kicks in the S14.

http://gotheforce.com/uploaded/1741/1250912012.jpg

A couple of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyM

... incessant up and unders is a relatively new phenomenon, and I think the result of the change in the breakdown disadvantaging the attacking team as well as the improvement in defensive structures at international level making breaking the line more difficult.

---

What change disadvantaging the attacking team at the breakdown did the law changes below create?
Law 6 – Assistant Referees allowed
Law 19 – Kicking directly into touch from ball played back into 22 equals no gain in ground
Law 19 – Quick Throw permitted in any direction except forward
Law 19 – Positioning of player in opposition to the player throwing-in to be two metres away from lineout and the line of touch
Law 19 – Pre-gripping of lineout jumpers allowed
Law 19 – Lifting in the lineout allowed
Law 19 – Positioning of Receiver must be two metres away from lineout
Law 20 – Five-metre offside line at the Scrum
Law 20 - Scrum half offside line at the Scrum
Law 22 – Corner Posts no longer touch in goal

Was it an existing law, or has there been an interpretation directive to the referees? Ecky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyM

... I think the idea of a mark anywhere on the field (agree re: scrum BTW Working Class) would be good as the best option for the marker would often be a quick tap and go (given the defense would have to retreat 10m before tackling) and this would really open things ups and allow for counter-attacking opportunities, whilst also making incessant kicking less attractive.

---

I thought that, pre-1977 or so, that was the case. I can probably guess why they changed. Ball gets caught, so they mess about for a bit to give the forwards a breather, then take the scrum - far better attacking base. That speeds the game up and opens up play - not.

For mine, the ability to call a mark anywhere would mean an end to pretty much all kicking. While I might feel it a good idea for Giteau and Burgess at the moment, I wouldn't want to see any style of game specifically mandated and reverting to marks anywhere would do exactly that. But I do think changes are required, as players never used to be able to kick the ball from anywhere. We could of course go back to using a leather ball, but assuming we won't I would:
- make drop kicks 2 points (solely for consistency with conversions, when you can take a drop as a conversion)
- more importantly, I would treat them exactly like any other kick in general play (so, if they go dead, 22 drop out or the option of the scrum)
- I'd leave the penalties themselves completely alone but, whether converted or not, I'd make the restart from from the halfway (which should discourage some of the lower percentage shots from long distance)

But as for all the kicking in general play, I would first and foremost look to whether referee interpretation has created the issue. More important than any change to law is how they are applied, and I'd like to see a real effort by the IRB to ensure a consistent understanding and application around the world - what use is an international administrative body if it can't do that? I suspect that, once you achieved that, a great many issues might suddenly evaporate.

But even if a change were required, I wouldn't look to marks - I think they would actually interrupt and slow play. At most, I would allow either:
a) anyone catching the ball to kick directly to touch so long as they have had not contact with another player. In other words, if they caught the ball unassisted and unopposed, they could kick the ball out on the full without it coming back (but the opposition still has the throw).
b) Alternatively, I'd allow anyone catching the ball to kick to touch with gain in possession so long as they have had not contact with another player. In other words, if they caught the ball unassisted and unopposed, they could kick the ball out as per normal laws (i.e not direct if outside the 22) but retain the throw-in. It would also make for an interesting choice for the fullback inside the 22 - call mark as currently, or is there time to get the kick away?

In both cases, it would not really change things much but would place a big premium on a contest. You could still kick if that is your choice, but there better be someone at the fall of the ball. You definitely wouldn't want to kick it aimlessly down the fullbacks throat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyS

In both cases, it would not really change things much but would place a big premium on a contest. You could still kick if that is your choice, but there better be someone at the fall of the ball. You definitely wouldn't want to kick it aimlessly down the fullbacks throat...

---

That'd really suck for the Wallabies wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyS

A couple of things.



What change disadvantaging the attacking team at the breakdown did the law changes below create?
Law 6 – Assistant Referees allowed
Law 19 – Kicking directly into touch from ball played back into 22 equals no gain in ground
Law 19 – Quick Throw permitted in any direction except forward
Law 19 – Positioning of player in opposition to the player throwing-in to be two metres away from lineout and the line of touch
Law 19 – Pre-gripping of lineout jumpers allowed
Law 19 – Lifting in the lineout allowed
Law 19 – Positioning of Receiver must be two metres away from lineout
Law 20 – Five-metre offside line at the Scrum
Law 20 - Scrum half offside line at the Scrum
Law 22 – Corner Posts no longer touch in goal

Was it an existing law, or has there been an interpretation directive to the referees? Ecky?

---

I was actually referring to the recent change in interpretation of the law that allows the tackler to play the ball with his hands and keep them on it so long as he makes it to his feet. Perhaps this is worth reversing? As well as advantaging the tackler, this has proved VERY difficult ot referee as evidenced by Brown's unjust binning is SA for doing just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIGS20

That'd really suck for the Wallabies wouldn't it?

---

I'm sure that was tongue in cheek, but so what if it did? I think certain elements of the game need to be rebalanced to account for changes in the game that have accumulated over time, but crap play is still going to be crap play and deserves to be found out. The ideal would be that any particular style of playing the game be equally valid, without any one style being favoured (as I feel a defensive kicking based game currently is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyM

I was actually referring to the recent change in interpretation of the law that allows the tackler to play the ball with his hands and keep them on it so long as he makes it to his feet. Perhaps this is worth reversing? As well as advantaging the tackler, this has proved VERY difficult ot referee as evidenced by Brown's unjust binning is SA for doing just that.

---

My understanding was that the tackler is still required to have his hands on the ball before the ruck formed, hence the penalty on Brown. That said, I still have a question mark over the actual formation of the ruck in that case...