Does not the whole rugby law book need a complete overhaul?

It'd be a mammoth job which could only in practice be put in place by say 2017 (i.e. 2 years in advance of the next-but-one RWC).

I've long maintained that the current laws are so complicated because of continual tinkering.

The current English request for a review of interpretation only goes to demonstrate how ridiculously impenetrable the game has become even for the full-time professionals.

My guess is that a full revision /simplification? of the laws with the intention of preserving the spirit of the game would be welcome by everyone.

It just needs simplification

Biltong wrote:It just needs simplification

Agreed Biltong. Only trouble is that to simplify the game as it is to what is mutually acceptable like the Levenson Inquiry needs to take all views on board.

so you want to change the rules and effect the game

Rules should be black and white.

The problem is that interpretation of rules depends on where your ref comes from in the world.

Surely the IRB was created to have 1 governing body where rules are defined and then implimented?

Its Loco.

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:so you want to change the rules and effect the game

No GTS. Read the OP.

... a full revision /simplification? of the laws with the intention of preserving the spirit of the game ...

What to my mind is a slash and burn of the tinderwood pile of kindling and paper that has been piled on the top of the basically sound established Union laws.

Get shot of referees' interpretations of the laws wherever possible (e.g. a simple thing like the actions in a tackle require the tackler to immediately release and the tacklee to immediately place the ball on the ground or release it).

The mountain of breakdown laws needs to be cut back to base necessities (that's why I suggest it will take six years for the law reconstruction to be mutually agreed). What is simplistically required is:
when a player is tackled: any player should enter the breakdown from 1m behind the back foot of any player in physical contact with the existing breakdown. There is a cautionary note in this suggestion though. It might accelerate the RU progress to RL's homogenisation of forwards and backs.

Get rid of nearly all the rules for the breakdown. Just keep:

Offside line
Dangerous play


Anything else goes so the defence can cling all over the ball and be as naughty as they want as long as they do it from their side.

Likewise the attacking team can fall all over it or clear it out properly, again as long as it's from their side.

Oh and i'm not advocating rucking btw.

yappysnap wrote:Get rid of nearly all the rules for the breakdown. Just keep:

Offside line
Dangerous play


Anything else goes so the defence can cling all over the ball and be as naughty as they want as long as they do it from their side.

Likewise the attacking team can fall all over it or clear it out properly, again as long as it's from their side.

Oh and i'm not advocating rucking btw.

Just the Eton Wall Game yappy.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Is this another reactional thread to a so called Walsh disgracefull performance on sat by anychance?

Things are starting to get tired now!

Not really. Discussion of poor refereeing, inconsistencies, and odd interpretation has been bemoaned on here for months.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Is this another reactional thread to a so called Walsh disgracefull performance on sat by anychance?

Things are starting to get tired now!

Haha, it's not all about you mate.

Funnily enough there was a sport called rugby union which had issues before Wales hammered England on Saturday. It had some problems and for a pretty long time people questioned it's rulings at the breakdown to name an area.

Obviously you're struggling to remember further back then Sat due to the copious amounts of alcohol that you drunk in celebration of a historic win and I respect that.

But seriously?

Some of us can actually move on from one game and talk about other things.

Maybe give that a try eh?

I can only apologise if I'm wrong, but you have to admit the amount of ref bashing hasn't half ramped up in the last few days, for 48 hours after the final whistle there were a lot of gracious people, now those gracious people are calling Walsh a disgrace, bemoaning the reffing set ups at scrum time and now throwing out the rule book???

Come on...

blues, let's hope the moaning doesn't get up to RWC semi final heights.

I have no issue with the RWC semi, I though the Rolland decision was poor, but understandable.

I would however discuss the final, in which I have never seen such a near disgracefull performance by a ref before or since!!

7 threads in 4 days is a trend though...

trends are where you want to find 'em.

Not really, they are noticable by their significance.

IMO the hit is doomed. Unless a rule is introduced that if the scrum has to be reset then after 1 reset a pen goes to the side in possession. This would encourage the defending side to to scrummage correctly but sadly it would encourage sides - wales especially it seems - to consider dropping the scrum and taking the pen.

If sides were required to form the scrum prior to a push with no hit then it would become a contest but it would still go down.

I think the scrum should be refereed less tbh, as long as it is safe then lets go back to the good old days

http://v2journal.com/different-coloured-shirt.html

thebluesmancometh wrote:I can only apologise if I'm wrong, but you have to admit the amount of ref bashing hasn't half ramped up in the last few days, for 48 hours after the final whistle there were a lot of gracious people, now those gracious people are calling Walsh a disgrace, bemoaning the reffing set ups at scrum time and now throwing out the rule book???

Come on...

Bluesman i have no issue with Walsh's performance at all, although I've not gone back and forensically examined all the decisions it all seemed fair to me. We got battered, simple as that. That said, any simplification etc. that prevents or at least reduces the whole 'it was the ref's fault' argument works for me. Not sure it's possible mind.

http://v2journal.com/different-coloured-shirt.html

Anomalies are pervasive throughout the Laws Glas.
Along with your simple point about the tackle:

Forward passes are tolerated (momentum) yet are prohibited in the Law
Similarly squint feeds at the scrum
Universally people scream plaintively about the dire state of scrum sets, hits, shoving, delays in feeds and more recently the deliberate late engagements to con the ref into believing that the other side went early
The breakdown in particular is a minefield pick'n'mix from which the ref can gorge himself should he so wish

One quick fix might be to review Law 4 (clothing) regarding the bind would be only too tempting.

But to do that in isolation would be madness as the 'tinkering' would just be perpetuated.

What is required is a fundamental facet of play re-draft of the Laws which provides a comprehensive and cohesive set of laws which primarily retains the spirit and uniqueness of the game, simplifies the laws, reduces referee's decisions and makes the game more understandable by all stakeholders - players, arbiters, fans and media.

At present the IRB Law book is an ass.

GT points well made, there esp 'ref gorging'.
The self important refs have a field day and at their worst, either bend a game or whistle it to death.

I have said for years that there are just too many technical offences that can be committed in rugby. The laws do indeed need simplifying.

We all want to see a proper scrum. One whereby the strongest scrummagers win, the ball goes in straight and the hooker actually does the job his name suggests. At the moment a scrum is put the kettle on time because they will are likely to be still trying to get one sorted by the time you get back.

There are dozens of offences being committed at each ruck and in reality you could ping just about everybody in each one.

These 2 areas of the game need urgent attention because they are slowly strangling the game as a contest and spectacle.

I dread to admit it but this season I haev actually watched some football on tv. That is something I haven't done for about 25 years. If someone like myself feels like this then how are we to sell the game to the kids. Ho do you convince a neutral observer that standing around for 7 minutes trying to get a completed scrum is sport or entertainment.

I hope the IRB take note. Everyone in the game is screaming out for some action but they continually trot out the line that nothing is wrong and quote increased participation numbers as evidence.

Scrums and rucks are a mess. Most other parts of the game is easy to ref.


One thing that bug me is referees stopping teams from taking a quick lineout or tap and go. Usually they'll say its the wrong spot but you can bet they themselves want a break too. The other day in the 6 nations a team (forget who) where stopped taking a quick lineout because the opposition were bringing on subs. The subs should not be able to stop play, they should have to wait until there is a proper stoppage.

If the ball is out of play profitus, play has stopped.

I saw that incident as well and like you I can't recall which game. But I could see the rationale.

It didn't bug me as much as (say) the breakdown lottery where so many technical penalties are available.

What is required is a fundamental facet of play re-draft of the Laws which provides a comprehensive and cohesive set of laws which primarily retains the spirit and uniqueness of the game, simplifies the laws, reduces referee's decisions and makes the game more understandable by all stakeholders - players, arbiters, fans and media.

At present the IRB Law book is an ass.

Can't argue with that. The first place to look though is the offside law at the breakdown. Get rid of the back foot law. The ball has to be on the floor for it to be a ruck. If it's in another player's hands or not on the floor it can be handled. Lets get these forwards out of midfield.

Get rid of rolling mauls. Once the ball is at the back use it or lose it - no requirement for the maul to stop first.

I've privately vowed to myself not to openly express disgust/dissent/dispute referees' decisions on V02.

Whilst the Laws are so oxmoronic and convoluted, I can't blame the ref.
Just the Laws.

No point really discussing any phase of play in this post.

I'm just hoping to gain a general consensus amongst rational posters that something needs to be done to rephrase the entire Law book so that aspirationally we can understand what is going on in front of our eyes.

I'm with you Tiger but what happens when the Laws and rules are changed and England take another hammering - are we then back to square 1 ?

So - laws?

For me obviously the scrums need sorted. Progressive binding / straight feeds probably.

Lineout - no one moves once the lineout is formed until the ball is in the air

ruck and maul - less penalties, more freekick offenses but use yellow cards much more easily for deliberate/ repeat offenders

The main thing is the refs - i want 5 officials for top rank matches to police offside properly and ensure nothjing is missed

The current breakdown law has been designed to help weaker packs compete against stronger packs.

Simples.

If you can't compete, at least you can play to the referee.

There I said it.

Simplify the laws,

Enter the gate
If you touch the ball stay on your feet
Respect the offside line
If you take in in and don't get it out, you lose it, same as with a maul.

Everything else is semantics.

Gower, can we at least try this weekend to stay on topic please.

There are plenty of threads around where you can go off topic, the pub is a good place to start.

Thanks.

your ego must be on double time eh......

your last post BTW is not on topic....

plenty of places to massage that small man syndrome, the pub is a good place to start. if they let you in.

thanks.

PM on the way to you.

oh and to stay on topic.

no. they don't.

greytiger wrote:I've privately vowed to myself not to openly express disgust/dissent/dispute referees' decisions on V02.

Whilst the Laws are so oxmoronic and convoluted, I can't blame the ref.
Just the Laws.

Agreed. This is the case at the breakdown especially. I reckon that at almost any given breakdown the ref could peanlise both teams for some or other technicality. The laws then leave the ref in the place where they must choose whether to penalise or not (to let the game flow etc) and who to penalise. I have half a mind to propose the reintroduction of 'rucking/raking' at te breakdown, that might simplify matters. I also wonder whether there needs to be a specialist scrum ref, a ex-front-row forward - well versed in the dark-arts of the scrum etc, who comes on to assist in officiating scrums. ensuring that there is an official on both sides of the scrum...

I think the props shirts should have handles on and Im not joking
Getting penalised for slipping is ridiculous, that's not sport

Doesn't the law regarding scrums say something along the lines of "No pushing until the ball is fed into the scrum"? If this is the case then surely the "Hit" is illegal anyway.