Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Rule changes for Boxing Day


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 fredm

fredm
  • Coach
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:19 PM

I see the RFL are using the Boxing Day match as a trial for 3 new rule changes.

1) Attacking side at a scrum can pack down with only 5 players giving them a numerical advantage outside the scrum. Wonder if the ref is going to allow the defending side to push as the ball is put in and what will happen if they gain possession?

2) If the ball is kicked dead from inside the kickers half of the field, the tap is taken on the 40 metre line not the 20.
Will this mean more shepherding the ball over the dead ball line if it looks as if it may go dead or not?

3) If a kick is charged down and the kicking team regain possession, the tackle count will not start again.
Will this mean that more attempts will be made to charge down kicks as if it is charged down and the ball goes 20/30 yards backwards that is to the advantage of the defending team surely?

Think we will be hearing a few comments to the ref from those unaware of the above!!

#2 Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle
  • Coach
  • 7,138 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:07 PM

I just wish they'd stop tinkering, the only rule that needs changing is the re-introduction of contested scrums

#3 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,472 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:40 PM

I just wish they'd stop tinkering, the only rule that needs changing is the re-introduction of contested scrums


I don't believe the scrummaging laws have ever been changed Gary, just their interpretation.

Despite being something of a traditionalist (ahem!) I think the application of the laws in scrummaging is about right.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#4 Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle
  • Coach
  • 7,138 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:10 PM

I don't believe the scrummaging laws have ever been changed Gary, just their interpretation.

Thats even bl00dy worse than actually changing them

Despite being something of a traditionalist (ahem!) I think the application of the laws in scrummaging is about right.

Ha, ha, so ignoring the laws is acceptable

#5 GoldDog

GoldDog
  • Coach
  • 385 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:18 PM

Fred my man, where did you see this ?

I'm all up for a bit of change.

I don't see the point of rule 1, whilst 2 and especially 3 sound like winners and would certainly introduce new aspects to the game.

#6 RogerTRam

RogerTRam
  • Coach
  • 216 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:05 PM

Fred my man, where did you see this ?

I'm all up for a bit of change.

I don't see the point of rule 1, whilst 2 and especially 3 sound like winners and would certainly introduce new aspects to the game.



Golddog it was published in the press today heres a link to it. http://www.thepressn...ils.asp?id=8654

Edited by RogerTRam, 21 December 2012 - 08:05 PM.


#7 Bi11

Bi11
  • Coach
  • 535 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:35 PM

I just wish they'd stop tinkering, the only rule that needs changing is the re-introduction of contested scrums

Agreed and agreed.

#8 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,472 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:05 AM

Agreed and agreed.


I believe that the reintroduction of contested scrums would simply result in a very serious accident occurring in no time. The strength and physique of modern day players is quite different from those of the part-time era and the danger of serious injury would, in my opinion, be something that the authorities would be foolish to ignore. Thankfully no such changes appear to be on the horizon.

Now shoulder-charges.................................
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#9 Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle
  • Coach
  • 7,138 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:02 PM

I believe that the reintroduction of contested scrums would simply result in a very serious accident occurring in no time. The strength and physique of modern day players is quite different from those of the part-time era and the danger of serious injury would, in my opinion, be something that the authorities would be foolish to ignore. Thankfully no such changes appear to be on the horizon.

Now shoulder-charges.................................

BSJ, i usually have bags of time for your replies even if i disagree but you have spouted this years utter ###### contest winner, for christs sake get real, 20 years ago we had 6 20 stone fatties contesting each side of the scrum, the only difference is we now have lighter, fitter and stronger guys not contesting the scrums, the excellent condition of modern players would be helpful in reducing potential injuries unlike 20 years ago when the fat feckers just fell on top of each other squashing anything or anyone under them.

#10 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,691 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:49 PM

I believe that the reintroduction of contested scrums would simply result in a very serious accident occurring in no time. The strength and physique of modern day players is quite different from those of the part-time era and the danger of serious injury would, in my opinion, be something that the authorities would be foolish to ignore. Thankfully no such changes appear to be on the horizon.

Now shoulder-charges.................................


They still have contested scrums in the game of which you do not speak BSJ - bigger blokes and more of them. and although there are occasionally serious injuries resulting from collapsing scrums, they seem relatively rare. Bring back the three armed hooker I say (left,right and loose). ;)

#11 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,472 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 03:55 PM

BSJ, i usually have bags of time for your replies even if i disagree but you have spouted this years utter ###### contest winner, for christs sake get real, 20 years ago we had 6 20 stone fatties contesting each side of the scrum, the only difference is we now have lighter, fitter and stronger guys not contesting the scrums, the excellent condition of modern players would be helpful in reducing potential injuries unlike 20 years ago when the fat feckers just fell on top of each other squashing anything or anyone under them.


I will refrain from replying in a similar tone Gary. It isn't the mass of the players but the physique and development of techniques that I am referring to. There is enough damage caused in the tackle/wrestle without adding to that through a twelve man wrangle. Increased strength and heightened physique actually increases the probability of injury, just for your information.

GOR refers to the dark side and their retention of scrums. Well they've had to tinker with the rules so much in an effort to avoid serious injuries (which still occur all too often) that their scrummaging (so I am told) is approaching the joke that ours was in the 80's. They are simply penalty winning contests, which I suppose is the whole point of RU in any case, so they are welcome to it.

Different numbers in the scrum for attack and defence doesn't seem to make any sense to me, however.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#12 Piggy's mate

Piggy's mate
  • Coach
  • 3,209 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:02 PM

I believe that the reintroduction of contested scrums would simply result in a very serious accident occurring in no time. The strength and physique of modern day players is quite different from those of the part-time era and the danger of serious injury would, in my opinion, be something that the authorities would be foolish to ignore. Thankfully no such changes appear to be on the horizon.

Now shoulder-charges.................................


I have to agree with BSJ. There is little entertainment in the scrum that can be seen by the fan and present arrangements allows the ball to the backs for a set move that you can see! Sad if the old rules were reinstated and even one young lad was paralised by a neck injury?

Now where did I leave that pointy thing that bloke Damocles gave me, I've work to do!


 

BATLEY BULLDOGS RLFC :bb:


#13 Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle
  • Coach
  • 7,138 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:23 PM

Lest we forget this is actually a contact sport

#14 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,472 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:50 PM

Lest we forget this is actually a contact sport


True, and the occasional serious injury is only a fair price to pay for our entertainment I suppose.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#15 Bi11

Bi11
  • Coach
  • 535 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

I have to agree with BSJ. There is little entertainment in the scrum that can be seen by the fan and present arrangements allows the ball to the backs for a set move that you can see! Sad if the old rules were reinstated and even one young lad was paralised by a neck injury?

The comment about neck injury is a very fair point and difficult to argue against. I do miss seeing the odd ball won against the head though; and combined with other rule changes the result has been a more structured but possibly less entertaining game.

#16 Rammo23

Rammo23
  • Coach
  • 200 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 11:30 PM

Let's face it the only reason for a scrum in league is to slow down the game and give everyone chance to have a breather the hooker hasn't struck for a ball for years and neither side push or should I say very rarely so if the attacking side decide to have a five man scrum why wouldn't the defending side try and push them off the ball or has that been stopped now

#17 Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle
  • Coach
  • 7,138 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 10:10 AM

True, and the occasional serious injury is only a fair price to pay for our entertainment I suppose.

So players dont take up the sport knowing theres a likelyhood of injury, i know no one myself included wants to see anyone seriously injured and if this means a slight change in rules etc, etc then so be it but lets not pretend we have a scrum, we either have competitive scrums or we dont have scrums at all, currently it spoils the game.

#18 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,472 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

So players dont take up the sport knowing theres a likelyhood of injury, i know no one myself included wants to see anyone seriously injured and if this means a slight change in rules etc, etc then so be it but lets not pretend we have a scrum, we either have competitive scrums or we dont have scrums at all, currently it spoils the game.


There we must agree to differ Gary: I believe that eliminating scrums altogether would spoil the game. I also believe that changing the refereeing of the scrums (binding etc) could improve the game.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#19 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,691 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:14 PM

There we must agree to differ Gary: I believe that eliminating scrums altogether would spoil the game. I also believe that changing the refereeing of the scrums (binding etc) could improve the game.


I tend to agree with Gary - why tinker at all. If we just want to make the game more exciting, why not make the game eleven a side and drop the the second row, that would open up some room, and isn't any more contrived than allowing a numerically skewed scrum attack. I'm not a rugby coach, but if I were GM, I would be making plans to take Aizue out of the attacking scrum and putting him in the line - so JK will probably take out a prop to mark him, and the whole shebang could become a pantomime - appropriate for christmas I suppose. :o

#20 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,472 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:40 PM

I tend to agree with Gary - why tinker at all. If we just want to make the game more exciting, why not make the game eleven a side and drop the the second row, that would open up some room, and isn't any more contrived than allowing a numerically skewed scrum attack. I'm not a rugby coach, but if I were GM, I would be making plans to take Aizue out of the attacking scrum and putting him in the line - so JK will probably take out a prop to mark him, and the whole shebang could become a pantomime - appropriate for christmas I suppose. :o



Yes but you find RU entertaining, so I'm afraid your views don't count.


















:P :P :P
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users