Comments on: Paddy O’Brien explains the Stellenbosch experimental law variations, Part 1

By: Zak

Zak — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:17:49 +0000

Some of the rules make sense, some don’t. The 22-line rule doesn’t make sense really, but the one about less penalty kicks does. I’ve played rugby for five years, and playing against a team that just scores on penalties is….frustrating. This also introduces rugby players into ‘taking the penalty’. You know, when soccer players fall down and cry after the ball hits their shins? I don’t like the 5m back from the scrum bull, or the elimination of corner posts, but whatever. Personally, I like starting mauls, so anybody who thinks they are boring is either a spectator who knows nothing, or a back.

By: Matt Loukes

Matt Loukes — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:58:05 +0000

The really crazy thing in here is not being allowed to pass the ball back into the 22. We will see an orgy of kicks aimed to land between the 10 metre and 22 metre lines. Every kick off will land just outside the 22, leaving the defending side with no option but either to run from inside their own 22 - foolish most of the time with a rush defence coming at them - OR to put a long bomb into the same place in the opponents half - more, not less, aerial pingpong.

The thing that has spoiled rug by over recent years is forwards clogging up back divisions because they are not doing their primary job, competing for possession.

All they need do is scrap the laws at ruck and maul and say the team going forward gets the put in. Hey presto, all the forwards back where they belong and if anyone lies on the ball, they get removed. I’ve had it happen to me thousands of time and it’s not dangerous in the least unless someone is out to hurt you deliberately and they’ll do that anyway.

More big lumps who can’t run fast is what the game needs.

By: futureoffootballimeanrugby

futureoffootballimeanrugby — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:20:56 +0000

I actually like some of these ‘rules’ I like seeing people get hit, pass a ball, run through a defender and maybe…maybe if they really have to, drop the ball and grubber it past a defender. WE PLAY RUGBY! This isnt football, we hit each other, we shouldnt be booting the ball back and forth at each other(well, only if were really winning and want to just be mean on an up and under) i think alot of the rules about the kickin gmake sense screw percy montgomery and his 105 kicked points at the RWC 2007!

By: How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Rugby and Love the Stellenbosch Experimental Laws - What Is Rugby?

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:48:40 +0000

[…] has been made of the Stellenbosch experimental law variations (ELVs) which last week were given preliminary approval by the IRB to be more widely circulated and […]

By: Vic

Vic — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:30:45 +0000

My understanding is that these laws have been in the works for some time. We have a new article to address this issue almost ready for publication which shows the game has been in steady decline since 1995.

By: G.Williams

G.Williams — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:50:32 +0000

Why werent any of these chanes made when Australia were winning their world cups? Or New Zealand theirs?
O’Brien was a loutish England slagger before this world cup, and a whinging loser after Australia were knocked out.
This smacks of arrogance and self interest.
If the game is in such a poor state why did record numbers watch this world cup?
The laws should stay as they are and not be changed to accomodate poor losers.

By: Josh Houston

Josh Houston — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:08:51 +0000

http://scrum.com/39_48859.php

The pressure is mounting for at least SOME sort of rule change to liven things up.

By: oldfart

oldfart — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:52:44 +0000

many of the rule changes seem to me to make sense. I am certainly in favour of allowing the collapsing of a maul, as it has become a boring bane of the game, practically unstoppable by a smaller pack. i would like to see a differential value for penalties inside or outside the 22 - less for outside the 22.
Altho i have never played in the pack, I can see that the ruck has become too onesided; the tackled team has far too much advantage.

Let’s see how it goes; the idea that the northern and southern hemisphere has been rather destroyed at this World Cup with almost all sides playing the negative practice of the long kick upfield hoping to keep the ball in the opposition half. At least some of the Pacific Island sides were more inventive.

Meanwhile, the IRB MUST do something about Argentina’s place in world rugby after their success. It is a disgrace that they are treated as second class.

By: Josh Houston

Josh Houston — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:11:02 +0000

After paying $20 to get into a bar showing the live match, only to watch seven penalty kicks be the only scoring in the RSA V. England final, I’m increasingly more in favor of the law changes. I at least want to give them a shot and see how they’ll work.

All I know is all this penalty kicking has to stop (I’m partially biased because I look like Charlie Brown when I try and place kick)

By: Billy

Billy — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:43:11 +0000

Its insane to even think of these rules! Who are these bored and confused viewers we are supposed to be so worried about? And ref’s that dont understand the breakdown? It’s madness, and rungby should be left alone, to be the great game it ALREADY is, we do not want changes, we do not want fads and fashions and a dilution of what makes it a real challenge… a game for everyone, and everyone involved…. And consider this: in the northern hemisphere viewing figures are huge, the game popular, the grounds full, the tv audience high, the player base massive and growing… England alone has 200,000 MORE players accross all ages than ALL the other rugby nations combined! Their clubs are privately owned, the players privately contracted. They play a forward game and ALWAYS will, I’ve played there, most of teh year, most ages and abilities play in mud, they have to play a forward game! You try running in ankle deep mud… so the super 14 and the southern hemipshere go for the new rules, and teh IRB says to everyone next year, the new rules are in, and England says no… and Britain says no, and France say no, and Ireland say no, which they will, and the IRB wrangles for another year… all our big forwards go north, as THEY ARE DOING, and our players spend 2 or 3 years playing a different game… then the IRB backs down, which it will, or suffer a breakaway from the only people in the game with money(!!!), and then the old rules are reapplied and the whole super 14 thing not only looks stupid, but NZ lose 2 or 3 year preparation for the next world cup!!! This is a big and very blind mistake. The new rules must be kicked out. Most viewers are former or current players, and if we need to educate the public more, so be it… but leave the game alone.