|
|
 |
[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
Icm5Fa#s
|
Tue, 20 May 08 20:07 GMT
|
Dear Ob,
..."so far as field wide trench warfare exists, the defence does get beaten"..
YES BUT ODDS ARE IN FAVOR OF DEFENDERS, ODDS MUST BE EVENED UP.
..."There is a continuum between structured and unstructured play."..
THATS LINEOUT TO RUCK, THERE IS NO RUCK TO LINEOUT AND STILL HOLD POSSESSION.
THATS MY REASON FOR THIS RULE >>>
Introduce 50/22 rule: Description: If a kick is made from the attacking teams half and it bounces out in the defending teams 22, then the attacking team receives the lineout put in. The kick must not go out on the full, the bounce need not be in the 22 but the touch line breach must be in the 22 (Not after kick off). This rewards the attacking team for an excellent tactical kick. It also encourages the defending team to have players further back and out of the ‘field wide trench defense’. This allows an attacking team to go from non structured play to structured play and still hold possession.
http://betterrugbyrules.blogtown.co.nz/my-elv-amendments/
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 19 May 08 15:30 GMT
|
The solution to the wide field trench defence is NOT to permit maul collapses and to promote the use of driving mauls.. maybe by dropping UIOLI. Thsi way eams would see the benefits if creating mauls and driving them as if they get tied up inside the maul they keep the ball at a reset scrummage (FK under ELVs?). This in turn would foece the "defenders" to stry and stop the driving maul by using more and more defenders, thus removing forwards especially from the WFTD.
Of course - this is totally contrary to the 1992 law alterations. But it does I believe illustrate that however the law makers et al tinker with the game of rugby union they will not please all the people all the time. There is potentially no "perfect" solution, so its a case therefore of accepting the best fit solution available - you either have mauls, or you have WFTD.
take your pick.
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 18 May 08 21:46 GMT
|
I do not agree with your fundamental concepts - they are too simplistic.
In so far as field wide trench warfare exists, the defence does get beaten.
There is a continuum between structured and unstructured play.
The problem with mauls is the maul itself, not the separation between those outside it.
|
|
|
Icm5Fa#s
|
Sun, 18 May 08 20:23 GMT
|
Come on think out side the box:
1) A 10 meter line is easily recognisable, not an issue.Say defenders foot crosses it, thats the cross over point.
2) 5 m back from maul, is good, and any player in the zone better be joning the maul or not be, no fringe players.
If you dont like any of these, what are your ideas to battle the 'field wide trench defense'. Ok to bag me, but put up some ideas on how to allow attack to beat defense in rugby!
I know the English dont like the free kicks for offences, but I think the biggest issue is the 'field wide trench defense', and how to give the attacking team and advantage to ovecome it. Once again read my reasons for it under the word WHY...
PS: I am kiwi you likes the maul ! Yes I had black pudding for Sunday Breakfast !
This message edited on Sun, 18 May 08 by Icm5Fa#s
|
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 18 May 08 10:54 GMT
|
I am delighted to see that the IRB has decided not to proceed with the ludicrous idea of offside at a tackle.
A 5 metre offside line at the maul is impracticable. It means that once a maul has formed, nobody can join it. (I assume the dummy half is an exception.)
Allowing a maul to be pulled down 10 metres form the goal-line would lead to all sorts of unnecessary argument - particularly since there is no 10 metre line. Even if you add such a line, at what point does a maul cross it?
I won't go on because I do not accept the underlying assumptions anyway.
|
|
|
weakone
- slfaithfull@aol.com
|
Sun, 18 May 08 10:03 GMT
|
A little harsh and undemocratic!
Even if I do not agree with the original posts theories.
|
|
|
nuref
|
Sun, 18 May 08 09:01 GMT
|
I originally wrote a ten-paragraph reply, getting more and more angry during the process. In the end, I ditched it, because the substance of my response can be expressed perfectly in three words:
You're an idiot!
|
-------------------------
Improving every game |
|
|
Icm5Fa#s
|
Sat, 17 May 08 23:46 GMT
|
http://betterrugbyrules.blogtown.co.nz/my-elv-amendments/
home page : http://betterrugbyrules.blogtown.co.nz/
I would retain all current Super 14 rugby ELVs, and add in rucking (preferred) or ‘hands in the ruck’, and the following:
(a) Promote Attacking Mauls: Do not allow mauls to be pulled down outside 10 meters from the try line (reluctantly), and further once a maul is established (confirmed by the ref) the defending side (only) must be back 5 meters. This would make it very expensive for the defending side to allow the maul to roll forward, this would encourage the defending team to commit more or all forwards to attacking maul, thus removing the forwards from the field wide trench defence.
(b) Promote Attacking Full Lineouts: Do not allow short lineouts, as the consequence of the short lineout is forwards standing in the back line. Quick lineouts are ok. Scrums and lineouts are the only situation where forwards and backs restarts are completely separated. That’s good for the rugby union traditional contests. I would have allowed short lineout pre the ELVs, but as the ELVs have created an imbalance between structured and non structured play favoring the latter there needs to be an add back adjustment. Does the IRB add back, or only deduct ?
(c) Introduce 50/22 rule: Description: If a kick is made from the attacking teams half and it bounces out in the defending teams 22, then the attacking team receives the lineout put in. The kick must not go out on the full, the bounce need not be in the 22 but the touch line breach must be in the 22 (Not after kick off). This rewards the attacking team for an excellent tactical kick. It also encourages the defending team to have players further back and out of the ‘field wide trench defense’. This allows an attacking team to go from non structured play to structured play and still hold possession.
Why …
- There is no method for the attacking team to go from non structured play to structured play and still hold possession. So allow (c).
- The field wide defensive trench is a formidable defence, therefore requires a more rigorous attacking tool to breach it. Allow (a).
- The ELVs have increased ‘ball in play’ and all of it is non structured play, so we must re balance this by having (b), to give further opportunity for the backs versus backs contest.
- Allowing rucking (preferred) or ‘hands in the ruck’ is not enough to fraught the field wide defensive trench on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
