Changing the value of the penalty goal relative to the try makes no odds. Tries were once worth 3 points, then they went to 4 points, then to 5 points - still kicking won games. Creating space and reducing the number of penalty offences looks like a way forwards. The penalty will still exist for repeat offences.

On blocking - gents, blocking is a part of rugby and has been just about for ever. I am not talking about American Football (”Football”) style blocking, lead blocking etc. Whenever you can play a man who does not have the ball, you are blocking. Clearing at rucks, that’s blocking and is very little different to what goes on at the line of scrimmage - just add a few bodies on the floor. The maul is the same. Once you realise this, and the fact that there are far fewer restrictions on blocking in RU than in Football you will be onto something (probably the ‘phone to your nearest Football coach to help with blocking and block shedding techniques! That and some judo coaching and your forwards could be a serious rucking and mauling machine! A lot of the Australain RL teams are using wrestling coaches these days. You need to see www.ironrugby.com to get some ideas about what Football can bring to the game.

For those who fear union will look like league - well if the game gets faster and the ball is in play longer and kicked less - bring it on! Seriously, whilst the ball can be contested for at the tackle and there is no 6 tackle rule, RU is safe. Do though look carefully at league - this is where many of the recent advances and ideas in RU have come from, especially in defense. Their basic skills are generally much better than their union counterparts. Leaguies say union players cannot tackle, they are pretty much right! There are plenty of league coaches with top flight union teams to try to get defenses working. It’s a big area and league is showing the way.

Will the field get too crowded? It probably already is. In the 70’s ruck and maul laws were different - side going forward got the put in at the scrum. Teams therefore committed lots of bodies to them. This left space elsewhere. In an effort to speed the game up, these laws were changed. Teams committed much fewer players to the ruck, esp. in defense, as we see today. In RL, when they did away with rucks etc. overcrowding was a problem, so 2 players were ditched. Today, players are far fitter and faster than they were, space is at a premium. The new scrum laws look interesting in this regard. Tying up 8 defenders and having a 10m gap could make scrums a potent attacking platform, even for teams who do not scrummage like Argentina. Quick channel 1 ball will do the job just as well as a big old wrestle and a couple of meters advanced. In RL there are loads attacking moves worked from scrums because the field is depopulated. Also, Football fans, remember there is no law in rugby preventing a runner from being in motion prior to the scrum half pass. A dymanic “dive” type play followed by a quick offload or ruck could be effective, esp as the ball carrier should have got over the gain line so the defensive players will have had to retreat to join the ruck, unlike the attackers.

Ulitmately, whatever we say, I think these things are likely to go through. Apparently they were ratified by the IRB the other day (whatever that means). Time to start planning for their introduction!

I have been watching professional rugby for 30 years, my father was watching for many years before that and his father for many years before that.

Aside from the danger aspect of allowing collapsed mauls, this law would have the effect of removing the maul from the game. You can’t really use it as an attacking option if it can be nullified so easily. I know that some of the powers that be want this, but it radically alters the nature of the game.

Rugby Union is increasingly resembling rugby league. These laws are another big step in that direction. It is only a matter of time before the scrum is almost entirely depowered (partly due to safety concerns, but also because competitive scrums supposedly “bore” fans). I wonder how long it will be before our betters notice that the new laws have resulted in increasingly crowded midfields and reduce the number of players to 13 in order to promote a faster and higher-scoring game.

I like the idea of fewer lineouts and limiting penalty kicks but I think penalty rules should stay intact indside the 22m though because killing the ball or slowing play inside the 22m where a try can potentially occur is wrong and should be penalised. I don’t agree with collapsing a maul though. What team is going to engage in a maul when they can just drag the attacking team to the ground and potentially bury the ball because a pile of players are laying on it?

Overall, leave the game alone. While I like some of the changes, I don’t like when administrators try and change a sport because THEY think it will improve it. I haven’t heard any teams or players complain so why change anything?

Super 14 may not use new laws

As far as the opposition slowing the ball down, that is what is currently happening as some people/teams are better at getting away with this than others. Making it legal I suspect will improve ball retention in the ruck. At the professional level, this is not that much of an issue, but amateur leagues will benefit greatly I think. The desired result being more phases, more recycling the ball and more action.

As Josh noted, mauls are being collapsed pretty routinely at the moment. In addition, the IRB has studied the safety issue and sees no evidence of increased danger as yet. We’ll see I guess.

The allowed ‘truck and trailer’ rules might be a slippery slope. Blocking should never be allowed to enter the sport. What the IRB wants to prevent is the defense drawing a penalty by exiting or not defending the maul (and thus leaving the offense unintentionally off-side, which in reality is intentionally caused by the defense).