|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 02/02/2012 14:47:41
Posts: 341,
Visits: 1,835
|
|
| Here is a view from regular correspondent Tim Baines on the current system of the Laws: The Laws in Plain English I may be going into a subject that IRB, The Referee's Board, are all ready looking into this matter, of wanting to reduce the laws in today's modern game! Published in 1994, the IRFB Handbook, may be it is available with today's revised laws, reduced and following today's type of match! But my idea or suggestion, on this matter, is to reduce the 40 laws or less existing today, to the reality of today's modern game of play. I do believe many, know the laws but not all players, coaches, supporters, directors know all the referee signals to its exact meaning? I would try to reduce the laws, to today's modern way of playing the game! How, look up all international games statistics from and to 'x' years, to find out which laws are most commonly appointed by the referees in those games?I can't imagine that all forty laws are applied in one game! We must help and simply make it easier for the players interpretation, TO FACE today's hard contact games.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 23:17:02
Posts: 636,
Visits: 855
|
|
well, I suspect that large elements of all forty laws ARE used in every game.
What may not get used - and maybe very very rarely at all - are the esoteric PARTS of the laws... things like downward pressure on a ball lieing in goal by a player that is touch-in-goal. Now - that's a very very quirky little BIT of one a law that could be scrapped... but.... what do we do when it happens then?
The underlying problem is that we have a very very complex game that has organically grown for 95% or so of its life for players; if the laws were quirky or at times nonsensical it didn't really matter because enough people on the pitch understood the game was a bit cranky and needed 47 variations of offside law (or whatever) to make the game "work". But come professionalism where the top end needed people paying money to fund it it then required this game to become attractive to the paying punter, not just the weekend warrior... so various areas needed "tidying up" or making more aesthetically pleasing. The problem with this - noble - attempt though is that as the laws have become tweaked to open it up and become less of a 80 minute bun fight more and more oddities and unintended areas have come to light, which have required more tweaks to deal with it
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 17/01/2012 20:00:07
Posts: 213,
Visits: 505
|
|
Didds gives a good summary of the evolution of the rules. 40 laws makes it sound manageable. It's all the sub sections and so on. These rules are complex.
For me the key area is the breakdown. If you can work out how to fix that, you are a true genius! There are so many rules and so many offenses that some offense is being committed all the time. To get a game refs ignore stuff. Name me another sport where refs ignore chunks of the rules to allow the game to happen.
If there were easy solutions, I suspect someone would have thought of them. For me, I think the attack need a somewhat better than 50% chance of winning the ruck if we are to see attacking, running rugby. Kick tennis is dull. If you like kicking watch Aussie rules, it's a very entertaining game. The question is how to enable contest at the breakdown yet enable teams to create attacking platforms. Not easy. Pretty sure it's not right at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 25/08/2011 19:28:44
Posts: 24,
Visits: 155
|
|
I think the game could be improved by reducing ambiguity in the laws and by requiring referees to enforce the laws as written. Do away with materiality as a concept. It simply encourages cheating and confuses fans.
There are ways of making the ruck more contestable and to reduce kicking at the same time. For example, it could be a PK for any player to go off his feet at a ruck. That would incentivize real rucking rather than flopping over the ball. I've heard a suggestion to allow a mark to be called anywhere in a player's half, and allow a kick from a mark outside the 22 to gain ground (but not possession) at the line out.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 23:17:02
Posts: 636,
Visits: 855
|
|
JDink (08/12/2009)
There are ways of making the ruck more contestable and to reduce kicking at the same time. For example, it could be a PK for any player to go off his feet at a ruck.
Well, there's the rub of it all really.
It is ALREADY a PK offence to go off your feet at a ruck.
didds
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 25/08/2011 19:28:44
Posts: 24,
Visits: 155
|
|
| Not really. Not if it's "unintentional". Granted, it's a fiction that players are unintentionally falling over players on the ground, but it's a fiction that the bigwigs of the game use to pressure referees to "keep the game flowing" and "reduce penalty count".
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/12/2009 08:00:37
Posts: 15,
Visits: 71
|
|
JDink (09/12/2009)
Not really. Not if it's "unintentional". Granted, it's a fiction that players are unintentionally falling over players on the ground, but it's a fiction that the bigwigs of the game use to pressure referees to "keep the game flowing" and "reduce penalty count".
The ground was very poor on Sunday morning with an U12 fixture I was reffing, I simply told the kids that I would penalise ANYONE off their feet in a ruck, guess what? Almost total compliance, OK they are kids and malleable but they did comply!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 21/12/2009 11:57:42
Posts: 1,
Visits: 17
|
|
| Its not only the IRB rules book that is overcomplicated - there is also the various rulings coming out of IRB. For example in May they ruled that a player competing for a ball with his hands before a ruck is formed can continue to compete after the ruck is formed. Now that's a fairly material distinction that isn't reflected in the rule book. You could argue that the rulings are simply interpretations of the existing rules, but one still needs to be aware of them, which makes it irrelevant whther they're interpretations or new rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 14/08/2011 22:27:31
Posts: 38,
Visits: 94
|
|
DanC (03/11/2009)
Here is a view from regular correspondent Tim Baines on the current system of the Laws:
The Laws in Plain English
I may be going into a subject that IRB, The Referee's Board, are all ready looking into this matter, of wanting to reduce the laws in today's modern game! Published in 1994, the IRFB Handbook, may be it is available with today's revised laws, reduced and following today's type of match! But my idea or suggestion, on this matter, is to reduce the 40 laws or lessexisting today, to the reality of today's modern game of play. I do believe many, know the laws but not all players, coaches, supporters, directors know allthe referee signals to its exact meaning? I would try to reduce the laws, to today's modern way of playing the game! How, look up all international games statistics from and to 'x' years,to find out which laws are most commonly appointed by the referees in those games?I can't imagine that all forty laws are applied in one game! We must help and simply make it easier for the players interpretation, TO FACEtoday's hard contact games.
Sheeit! Firstly, an article in plain English might help
Secondly, had he bothered to open a law book, he'd notice there are only 22 Laws. That's why we referees sometimes smile and say "It's law 23 mate"
Stu
Touchline Official, Worcester Warriors RFC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 14/08/2011 22:27:31
Posts: 38,
Visits: 94
|
|
stuart3826 (14/12/2009)
DanC (03/11/2009)
Here is a view from regular correspondent Tim Baines on the current system of the Laws:
The Laws in Plain English
I may be going into a subject that IRB, The Referee's Board, are all ready looking into this matter, of wanting to reduce the laws in today's modern game! Published in 1994, the IRFB Handbook, may be it is available with today's revised laws, reduced and following today's type of match! But my idea or suggestion, on this matter, is to reduce the 40 laws or lessexisting today, to the reality of today's modern game of play. I do believe many, know the laws but not all players, coaches, supporters, directors know allthe referee signals to its exact meaning? I would try to reduce the laws, to today's modern way of playing the game! How, look up all international games statistics from and to 'x' years,to find out which laws are most commonly appointed by the referees in those games?I can't imagine that all forty laws are applied in one game! We must help and simply make it easier for the players interpretation, TO FACEtoday's hard contact games.
Sheeit! Firstly, an article in plain English might help
Secondly, had he bothered to open a law book, he'd notice there are only 22 Laws. That's why we referees sometimes smile and say "It's law 23 mate"
Oh yes, I forgot - the first 6 laws refer to before the game - only 18 laws left to be applied during the game then!
Stu
Touchline Official, Worcester Warriors RFC
|
|
|
|