SOS to IRB: our game is dying as a spectacle

[GIGS20]

What.....you mean look at the field before running with the ball?

Surely not!

[welshrugbyfan]

Bring back rucking and passing back into the 22.

The kicking game has come around since the ELV change.

I don't mind kicking for touch, a lineout is a contest. But aimless kicking back to one another is not worth the price of admission.

Rucking = no one holding onto the ball if there isolated. Even if your not you'll soon let go of it.

[Burgs]

It is somewhat ironic that the "kicking game" has evolved in some part as a mark of respect to the Deanes Crusaders who would prefer to defend an opposition into an attacking position, wait for the turnover and then counter attack out wide.
Unfortunately it was too successful and everyone tries a similar tactic.

It is also inevitable in the time that the code has gone pro that players are getting bigger, faster and better skilled, all on the same sized field. The gaps are harder to find and if you can't go through or around the options are limited as there aren't too many chances to go under.

[brokendown gunfighter]

no team is game to run the ball back,because ,as sure as hell at the first tackle someone is going to get pinged & no one knows who or why-so they just roost it down the paddock

[James]

Bring back rucking and passing back into the 22.

The kicking game has come around since the ELV change.

I don't mind kicking for touch, a lineout is a contest. But aimless kicking back to one another is not worth the price of admission.

Rucking = no one holding onto the ball if there isolated. Even if your not you'll soon let go of it.

Has it though? I mean the 2007 World Cup Final was an absolute kick fest. They resorted to kicking because they were too afraid to attack and make a mistake probably in part because neither England or South Africa is a particularly good attacking team. If attacking were easier, and to be fair I can't think of any way of making it easier without potentially ruining the game even more, the ball would be run more often.

Agree about the rucking though.

[welshrugbyfan]

Has it though? I mean the 2007 World Cup Final was an absolute kick fest. They resorted to kicking because they were too afraid to attack and make a mistake probably in part because neither England or South Africa is a particularly good attacking team. If attacking were easier, and to be fair I can't think of any way of making it easier without potentially ruining the game even more, the ball would be run more often.

Agree about the rucking though.

That's just one game though. Seems alot worse since the Elv's came in. Right from the outset it was clear the kicking game was annoying the fans. Especially in the NH.

[jazza93]

I dont think the answer has anything to do with kicking at all.

More trys would be created with more space and holes in the defense. The key is sucking more players into the ruck area somehow, but that would include changing a lot of laws. The more chance of a turnover at the ruck/maul the higher number of players teams will have in and around the rucks.

Anyway, the game is fine and way more exiting to watch than most other world sports. But If they are going to change any laws they may as well start the talk now so they can act straight after the next WC.

[James]

That's just one game though. Seems alot worse since the Elv's came in. Right from the outset it was clear the kicking game was annoying the fans. Especially in the NH.

Yeah I guess so. It's just one of the last non-ELV games I can remember.

I was kind of thinking that maybe when the attacking team is penalised it is a short arm but when the defending team is penalised it is a long arm (except for foul play). The attacking team's penalty is losing possession only and the defending team's penalty is conceding territory or 3 points. Losing both possession and territory or going from having the ball to being 3 points down is a big deal. It would probably a bit too much of a radical change though.

[AndyS]

More trys would be created with more space and holes in the defense. The key is sucking more players into the ruck area somehow, but that would include changing a lot of laws. The more chance of a turnover at the ruck/maul the higher number of players teams will have in and around the rucks.

Which was the idea of the ELV allowing anyone legally entering the ruck and on their feet to play the ball. It did involve a lot more folk in the ruck, but the added uncertainty (and the ELV that awarded the free kick to the other side if it didn't come out) meant teams were not confident about their ability to retain the ball in contact and instead kicked.

But it is crap to say this then somehow translated to Super 14, let alone the internationals. That law was never trialled anywhere at that level, with none of the trials making any real change to the breakdown (which is funny, when the breakdown was one of the primary issues the Laws Project Group were set up to address after the 2003 RWC). So while there may be a lot of kicking, you'd have to look elsewhere than the ELVs - my guess is the feedback into tactics of what seems to work (so blame the top teams for being good at a kicking game) and probably IRB/referee interpretations and focus points again making teams nervous about taking the ball into contact.

[welshrugbyfan]

The ruck law is probably the one law that causes confusion amongst players and fans.

The ELV's made the water even cloudier.

What a good ref will do is shout "Ruck" or "It's a ruck now". Players and fans now know that they'll be penalised if they try to touch the ball.

The ruck law is pretty simple but it's up to the ref to determine when a ruck is formed and to tell the players trying to rip a ball out of someones hands that he must now leave it alone.

Player gets tackled, attacking team on their feet try to rip the ball off the tackled player. Forwards rush in and smash the player who is on his feet off his feet. Ruck forms, half back moves in and re cycles the ball. Simple.

Rugby is such a basic game that for some reason the IRB are determined to make confusing.

[hertryk]

Cooper kicks to Leary
and
Cooper kicks to Leary
and
Cooper kicks to Leary
and ..yes you are RIGHT
Cooper kicks to Leary......Yawn ......!!! Yawn!!!

[The Ethicist]

My opinion for what it's worth
I love the lineout
I love the scrum
I love the breakdown as it is a contest for the ball and theoretically, the game never stops.

Problem 1.
There is too much cheating at the breakdown.
solution 1. Rucking should be legalised. End of problem
solution 2. Remove all handling of the ball at the tackle contest. You have to blow over the ball and put the ball on your side of the ruck before someone can pick it up. I think this would favour attacking rugby as it would be quite difficult to steal it encouraging teams to keep the ball in hand. My preference. Perhaps bring in a 15 phase maximum to prevent teams closing it off for long periods

Problem 2.
The law of unintended consequences. I actually applauded the law whereby you couldn't pass the ball back into the 22 to kick out on the full. However, this law has lead to a bomb-athon where basically, a game of rugby isone bomb after another bewteen the 22m line This is as exciting as watching lawn bowls
solution 1. is to return to the old rule where you can pass it back to the 22
solution 2. borrowed from the mungoes is the 40:20 rule where if you kick the ball from within your 40m area and find touch less than 20m out (not on the full) you get an attacking lineout. This would make wingers hang back and open up the game to the possibility of counter attack and running rugby. And if they find touch with a kick, we get attacking rugby from the ensuing lineout. It removes the bomb-a-thon which is a blight on the game

Problem 3
22m dropouts. I would like to see goal line drop outs to give the attacking team an advantage. It would change the game

Problem 4
The defence is allowed to stand on the advantage line
I think defence should be forced to move 2 m back from the ruck unless the attacking team plays it immediately which means nobody is offside. This would make it a little easier to get momentum going forward favouring attacking rugby

Discuss