0
A couple of things.
What change disadvantaging the attacking team at the breakdown did the law changes below create?Originally Posted by TommyM
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 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...
That'd really suck for the Wallabies wouldn't it?
C'mon the
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.
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).
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...
well...maybe a little, but I wasn't bagging the suggestion, more the crapness of the Wallaby kicking in General play.....let's face it, I counted three kicks from gold on Sat Nite which hit grass in the field......that was out of how many! I think a rule like that would have to help Australia, because if Giteau kept kicking the way he has been for the last three years, it would be completely obvious and he would be hooked for doing it.
Don't take it personally Andy. I'm with you that the kicking out of hand is a blight on the modern game and needs to be addressed. It's even more disappointing that the Aussies do it as much as South Africa, but as well as Nauru!
C'mon the
Um, yes, well, the law surrounding the tackle has been there for a fair while and this seems to be the law which causes the most angst. There hasn't been a recent specific directive, but over the past few years it has been a directive that the tackler (if there is one) is dealt with first, then the tackled player - with both of those chaps complying with the requirement to get out of the way if they are off their feet - then the arriving players. The single most penalised infringement would have to be the tackled player not releasing the ball to the opposition player who is on his/her feet. Players seem to think that a referee will only look at whether the tackled player's hands are preventing the opposition from getting the ball, so they put their arm/elbow on it and even show their hands are free, or they stick a leg on the ball. That's still "holding on" and should be penalised. (for those playing at home, that was what Skibes was penalised, and subsequently sin-binned for in Kala v Soaks a couple of weeks ago) Arriving players staying on their feet after entering through "the gate" has also been around in law for quite some time.
It seems the coaching tactic has been to commit less and less players to the post-tacke phase, resulting in (a) more "pillars/posts" waiting to pick & drive, and (b) more defenders waiting to stop said pick & drive. Interestingly - and you sideline viewers of clubs games should really pay attention here - this has resulted in there being a ruck at the post-tackle phase for only a brief moment before the ruck simply disappears. Therefore the fringers and backs were not offside, even though you thought they were. Think about it. (oh, if you don't even know what constitutes a ruck or a maul then you can find such a definition in this very site - but you really should admit that you don't know)So I think this perceived disadvantage to the attacking team is a result of the coaching tactics in relation to the law.
If you see what I mean.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote