Rassie will force defensive teams to concede a penalty, we kick for touch therefore more line outs and driving mauls. The time it now takes to complete two scrums and kick for touch is insane or he creates tap and go set pieces.
Chatting with son today about the kickoff rule. So basically, indirectly soft-banned deep kick offs is result when think about it. Which teams does this benefit?
This is not that far from the truth actually - think back to the World cup game against Ireland where the Boks had to play in their away strip against the lighter green Irish, to accomodate color-blind people
Rassie is probably bored already and can't wait for new law changes just to exploit them at the next world world cup😂😂 and anger these blokes from world rugby all over again.
The irony is that scrum was one of the most exciting and talked about moments of the world cup. If you're trying to get people to talk about rugby less then these changes are great.
Don't think we have time for this shit, not a rugby fan anymore, think those who like traditional rugby must start there own league, let fools like John Kirwan watch is shit
@@wlk2408 load of rubbish. There’s usually records at every World Cup in most sports so that’s just a useless point. Things like reducing shot clock time, reducing set piece time, reducing scrums and changing the DuPont law all encourages teams to run and then score tries so it all adds up. And that’s cool you can watch 20 games, good for you. But most people won’t and usually watch just their own domestic league. Some people actually like the atmosphere of games mate. The crowds were be even better if they were more like football but never mind. Scrums are easily the biggest killer of atmosphere in stadiums so it is a good upgrade. If world rugby lost 100 traditional supporters and won 100 new supporters that is a win for rugby
If the Free Kick rule change affects Free Kicks from Scrum infringements, then Scrum Infringements need to be upgraded to Penalties. Otherwise they will end up with teams deliberately giving away free kicks, knowing that another Scrum can't be called.
Yes, that was my thinking. This only favours less physical teams in a physical sport. It's terrible and has absolutely zero to do with the safety of the scrum itself. Feels like morons in a boardroom trying to figure out how to get more people watching Union, and then asking pundits to speak on behalf of the audience.
It's obviously to speed up the game and take away the 2-3min for every reset scrum and teams using it to run the clock down. Kick or tap gets the ball back in play quicker and encourages running.
This will be the biggest unintended effect of the rule changes. It's been mentioned by many since the new rules were mooted a month or so ago. I assume the bigwigs at World Rugby were aware of it. The real question is why they didn't anticipate it with a simple clause that stated what you've said - penalties for infringements to stop gamesmanship.
@@davesmith826I don't think it was unintended, they somehow got int heir head that more ball in play equals more entertaining games, and so they're neutering scrums (been for years, although some of the changes were legit for safety). The real problem is that scrums are a distinctive trait of union, if you get rid of them you can as well take a couple players out and play league (with these changes props will be just slightly bigger flankers anyway)
Scrums are great. They create space that can be attacked. That law change also gets rid of my favourite law which is you specificity can’t score a drop goal off the back of a scrum that had be chosen from a free kick. Always wanted to see it tried and the ref call play on to great confusion of fans and players lol
Free kicks aren't just awarded for claiming the mark. They are including free kicks awarded at scrums, lineouts or any other time a team is awarded a free kick.
@@peadarrya but you are being naive if you think that change has nothing to do with the scrum called from the mark. Literally was never even mentioned before that happened.
@@yeayou1221spot on. I think this is the point. World Rugby trying to close every loophole exploited by the brains trust at the Springboks to benefit their game. In the end they target an element of the game that the purists love... the scrum! Chasing the Sun did so much to bring some hype back to that facet of the game only for it to be undermined by the so-called custodians of the game. Shameful
Like Eggchasers said - Defences are so good, Scrums take 16 players out of play - 8 on defence - soooo WHY would you take something away that causes more openings on the field??? So ironic since they want more linebreaks etc
@@JimmyKipthe average scrum penalties per game is just over 2 per game (same level as it was in the 90s). So tell me again how half of them are used to milk penalties?
I think instead of fixing the perceived "issues" they're trying to address, it will have the opposite affect. But hey, let's wait and see. I've not been enjoying these new laws whilst watching the U20 rugby champs. Especially taking the mark from a kick off. Ok the game has just stopped because someone has scored. Let's get it started again. No wait, let's stop it again so someone can have a free kick for the line. OK let's restart the game with a lineout. Yay we sped up the game ! 🤦♂️
@@kristian762 Indeed, utter stupidity. Also... Doesn't this suit teams that like structured play, set pieces, like contesting, oh, I dunno, lineouts in opposition half? Sorta hurts the teams that like running/broken play rather than the teams who like 'slow' play as insinuated about Boks etc.
@@kristian762 100% agree, I saw this happen and was like what he can't do that. Then they said it was a law variation, and it was stupid. Almost makes it NFL esque, start stop start stop....
The ex-NZ coach Pysop law less scrums, made it. The same guy Foster who cry'splained that NZ vs Italy was clearly a better game than Boks vs France/Ireland, coz 1min more ball in play time.
The scrum is for the big men of the team and it is a show of strength between the teams it is an important part of the game they are trying to kill! This is a very disappointing change by the World Rugby. The fans love a good scrum, It is so impressive when it is a good match between the teams.
It’s also terribly unimpressive when one scrum is clearly better than the other. That one aspect creates penalties, yellow cards and dictates a game outcome.
I love a good scrum's technical excellence so I'm confident two rule changes from now the scrum options will be increased. Yep. Time for World Rugby to stop trying to justify its existence by constantly confusing fans of an already complex game. As for TMO interactions, the fact that WRC final TMO interrupted but got the rules wrong seems to me it's time to let the on-field refs ask if they want an opinion. I kept waiting for Wayne Barnes to reply to a TMO interjection with "Who asked you?" but I guess he'a too well mannered.
Calling the mark from a kick off is just going to lead to more lineouts. Boks strategy isnt going to change, just adapt. If they dont want us to scrum, we'll maul. We want to put the poison in the opposition forwards legs. Only one stop at the maul means they'll just maul it more often. Im interested to see how long the refs give us to set the maul before they call use it. Cause if they dont give us enough time to get properly set, the maul can become quite dangerous as guys start trying to get go forward early. I dont think this is going to play out the way world rugby wants.
Marks from kickoffs will only occur if they actually catch it cleanly or the team kicking chooses to kick it deep, having it come down between the 10 and 22 means it stays in play. It’s so predictable now, kick deep, try to force a penalty otherwise the defending team takes a couple of carries then kicks directly for touch from inside their 22, resulting in the line out you just referred to near half way. Net zero Maybe make the mark old school, have to have one foot on the ground and be stationary?
My question is what counts as a stoppage, suppose it will come down to how much time you get to set the maul. but again this is 100% setup to get the dominance to change hands. they don't want it in the South anymore. The problem is they now starting to move it back towards NZ instead of RSA so jokes on them.
@@jameslittle8891 have you been watching them implement it in the U20 rugby champs? It goes the same way every time. Catch it clean, take thr mark, kick for touch. Very predictable, and very boring. Sure it may go down differently at the senior level, but maybe not. I'm sure boks will kick it very deep, chase hard, force the mark. Get an attacking lineout most likely between the 22 and the 10. And then maul it every single damn time, because there's only 1 use it call, and less opportunities for scrums, they'll take every opportunity to put the poison in the opposition forwards legs. Which means maul, maul, maul every chance they get. Which will end up being quite a bit more than we currently do. Negating both of the law changes, having the opposite affect. I think trying to tweak the laws to force a certain type of spectacle is never going to have the desired effect. You can't force teams to play in a way they don't want to play by tweaking rules. The only law change that I think has been a good idea thus far has been the 50/22. And getting rid of Duponts law is also a good idea. The rest is just ridiculous and won't work out the way they want. Anyways. That's my rant, thanks for listening 😂🍻
I watched highlights from the 2007 World Cup and 2009 Super Rugby playoffs recently. Setting scrums took less than 20 seconds and they did not collapse more than they do now. We don't need less scrums, they just need to get on with it. I watch many live rugby matches each week and also get bored when scrum resets take too long. TMO interference is definitely the biggest pain in the ass at this stage. It was so great rewatching those 2007 matches and referees just rewarding tries. A while ago I watched the 2005 Ashes highlights again and it was so cool seeing Rudy Koortzen just giving a batsman out without the inevitable review, which happens at every wicket now. Technology is over-reaching and World Rugby should pay more attention to that.
It’s all to help other nations and disadvantage South Africa. The DuPont law is coz SA beat FRA at their own game, and the scrum law is coz no other nation can out scrum SA. So less forward dominance, this also changing the way SA sets up their teams on the benches as well. It’s a load of crap from nations that cannot take being beaten. We all heard all the pundits say it last year during the World Cup. Now that NZ, AUS and ENG rugby are all going down hill, they try and fix the “rules” to accommodate them.
These 1st world nations cannot stand the fact that a little 3rd world African country is beating all of them even when they stack the deck. SA had the most difficult calendar on of the world cup, the only team to play all the top 5 rugby teams and still win. The only real teams the ABs played were franc and Ireland. England had a walk in the park to get to the semi-final as they basically only played fiji. What a joke. The fact that SA won this WC is an amazing achievement.
I feel like mainstream media and commentators have also had a negative impact on the scrums and partially to blame for this law change. No built up excitement / detailed analysis of the scrums. Just complaining whenever there's another scrum. Although definitely agree that scrum resets and setting for the scrums takes way too much time from the game
Poor mainstream commentary has a lot to answer for. It's nothing new to have commentators that don't know the rules or nuances of rugby (especially scrums, especially in Australia) but more recently they seem to be constantly negative about scrums. (The simpletons in Aussie media here get paid more to promote League, so there's been bias that way across all media for decades now. It's embarrassing how badly they report games.) The best things WR could do is educate the commentariat properly, or better yet, get them to watch Squidge, he's doing a much better job than WR anyway...
Blame referees. Years ago all we said was 'Down and Bind' and it worked without a problem. Referees who have never played, let alone been in a scrum themselves, just self appointed traffic wardens, are to blame for most of today's rugby problems.
@@leplessis8179 "down and bind worked without a problem" - not sure where you played, but it caused many problems & slowed games a tonne! Most teams I knew set up too far apart, knowing that you could pull penalties with a collapse (which also caused plenty of injuries). Paying attention to international games you could see them gaming this as well. While it was fun for the piggies, it by no means made the game faster or more entertaining for everyone else. The "crouch-touch-pause-pack" from u19s was much more reliable and created tougher scrums as both teams would generally have better footing. The refs have a tough job, especially with scrums. There an infinite amount of variables that can cause a scrum to fail, and those poor bastards have to try and work out if it was a prop missing a footing on a shove, the tighthead dropping a shoulder, the hooker landing a punch or knee, the blind side flanker pulling at the prop binds... The list goes on.
@@leplessis8179no problems from “down and bind”? So no life changing neck and back injuries, sometimes even death? I guess if you ignore that then sure there were no problems👍🙄 FYI scrum penalties per game are about the same level (just over 2 per game) as in the 90s. Would you like to try again?
I just watch rugby occasionally (TV in general), or I would go back and watch an old game. It's generally not a good idea to cater to people like me who aren't glued to the screen. Whether the game is faster or slower, I'm still going to watch the same amount. Personally I never had a problem with scrums. It's like cricket, you watch how the match is played, not for the constant excitement.
Fully agree that rugby is synonymous with scrums and big collisions. But the amount of box kicks in a match these days have gotten out of hand. Personally I would do away either the caterpillar rule that would lead to far less injuries resulting from collisions in the air? Also fewer referrals to TMO for potential dangerous play. Anyone else that feels the same?
Caterpillar rucks would be easy to fix without needing to make massive changes. Introduce a rule that says no player may join the ruck after the ref calls “use it”. If the players were already part of the ruck they may remain, but no more nonsense of scrummies calling guys into a ruck that is already secured.
I don't agree with stopping the clock but referee should be able to deny a retake if there's a non penalty collapse. Sometimes the referee can't see any infringement and sometimes competing infringements. Referee should be able to warn first and then insist on the free kick.
I find these changes hilarious. It's not that the current rules suit the Springboks - it's that Rassie, Nienaber and co. are experts at exploiting it. Close one loophole, Rassie will just find another one to exploit. If they turn it into glorified rugby league, we'll just forward a combination of the 20 world-class loose forwards we have as the pack and then we'll be in an even better position than we were. But good on you, world rugby. Keep chasing your tails, we'll keep winning trophies in the meantime.
As a former lock and open side I loved scrum time, the only rule needed was the Dupont, everything else was fine. A 20 red card is possibly the worst one imo as we have a bunker let's let that work for a few years first yeah?
Thanks for the updates Mark. Will be interesting to see what happens wjth these new laws. I love the scrums and really enjoyed Squidge rugby's recent deep dive on them- we need more education from the commentators and pundits not fewer scrums IMO
Exactly right - funnily despite all the negative comms around scrums (especially in this part of the world) - none of my friends/acquaintances really complain about scrums (except bloody Tony)
I watch 5-6 Rugby games a week. All Major League Rugby. I watch a vast majority of the leagues games. The best games are the ones with the least scrums. I appreciate the scrums yet prefer more running and tackling as an alternative.
Please leave the scrum alone. It's one of the most fascinating things about rugby union. Also keep the TMO out of it as much as possible. There's already a referee and two assistants. Use the TMO for egregious foul play and obvious howlers. Bring back citing if necessary!
Why change the game on the back of two wildly successful World Cup tournaments? Are they even needed? Oh, of course, the wrong team from the wrong hemisphere won!
IMHO us online rugby punters should probably try to bear in mind that we are in an echo chamber of rugby tragics and that skews our perception of what rugby fans want. Like it or not, a huge amount of money is generated for rugby by fans who are relatively casual. They get swept up in the prestige and intrigue of world cups, or the fair weather excitement when a local team is doing well or the fun of being part of the roar of the crowd. That's not the same as being super into the intricacies of laws and tactics and whatnot and that colours the aspects of the game they enjoy & what they want to see less of & more of.
To be honest, I think in a game there are more penalties from scrums than free kicks (from scrums) - so in truth this law does not improve ball in play time significantly. What id does do is give a weaker team an exit strategy by allowing them to give away a free kick (rather than a penalty) with no huge consequence. I guarantee that the rate of free kicks (from scrums specifically) will increase.
If, and it’s only an if, this results in a more sevens or league style of play that sees a move to more uniformly built players then I will switch to watching SX and boxing.
The truth is WR with strong ENG/AUS/NZ influences fear League as a rival. Becoming more like league is not the solution, very few Bok games were boring for having 1 min leass play time than a a lame non-contest NZ vs Italy fixture, no matter what Foster tells you. AUS union is largely wrecked, they fear losing a meaningful Australia contingent particularly where League is stronger. The future growth of the Union game is actually Pacific Islands, Argentina, France, Africa, US & Canada, Georgia, Japan. Does anyone think Georgia & Argentina want scrums to count less, or even Ireland? None of which face meaningful league threats, but we are being batted from pillar to post with nitt-picky directives to protect ENG, NZ & AUS. Who think making the game more like league will keep people leaving for league, when in fact its more likely to see them leave for league. WR is terrified of its own shadow, and should realise forwards, scrums and all shapes & sizes is the ethos of Union. There is also a feeling I think that WR wanted a NH RWC champion to boost spending & money in the game. They had prepped "Du Pont" as the poster boy of RWC2023 and he was supposed to raise the trophy, good a player as he is, the guy is still crying and needs a shrink for his saltyness today. I remember when Lomu was the sales ticket in 1999 in the UK every poster had Jomu, these pre-ordained marketeers dreams always fail. It smells like WR will properly shit themselves if someone else apart from RSA win the next one, they will see it as absolutely terrible for business, regardless of merits. Personally i'd love it, I would repeat Gary Lineker's famous definition of football "Football played by 11 men aside and the Germans win" "Rugby played by 15 men aside and the Boks win"
The scrum one is especially ridiculous. It is blatantly obvious designed to put it to South Africa. The offside law is good, I think. Croc rolls are tricky. I agree with you that breakdowns are really difficult.
In the same week... WR: we need to reduce the amount of scrums. Squidge Rugby: here's an educational video to celebrate scrums and how integral they are to Rugby.
Not sure about the new free kick no scrum change. Scrums are part of the contest so if a team has a dominant scrum they should be able to use it as a weapon.
It’s not just calling a mark inside the 22.. it’s any free kick.. so includes when teams are awarded a free kick because of a scrum infringement.. basically, it’s punishing teams who dominate scrums.. really poor choice from world rugby.. agree with the other two changes though. I suspect the trialled reduction or enforced structure of the bench won’t lead anywhere… they will be hard pressed against introducing something that is a counter to player safety like reducing number of players on bench..
Alot of the focus from WR seems to be about kicking the can down the road and avoiding real issues such as TMO, inconsistent referreeing (interpretation nonsense) and a host of other issues, all focused on poor quality of officiating in general. The croc-roll and Du Pont law seem like the only relevant points. Everything else, red card rule and everything else, all about blind eye to a genuine concern about officiating concerns.
I could do with less scrums in my life. Only because sometimes they take soooooo long, reset reset reset jesus it can be brutal for people with short attention spans like myself. However if they have a clock for these then maybe thats a step in the right direction. Is there such thing as milking a scrum?
I have to be honest I have heard a significant amount of people complain about the scrummaging. We in the comments by the fact we are here are not casual fans. Those fans that only tune into international games that i know all hate the 5 minutes of scrum set up and collapses
Maybe the issue is the set up time then? Hopefully they can elevate some scrum 'free kicks' to penalties to avoid people just not engaging properly or as some have said weaker sides will just let the free kick happen to avoid get destroyed at scrum time.
@@mitcheljeavons2182it’s just hard to ref the scrum that’s the biggest limitation, it’s unfortunate- I really think there should be a ‘scrum ref’ which sounds silly but get a real high level ex scrummager (with referee training) to be the one analysing- the traditional referees get trained well i don’t dispute that but they cant understand it to the level a day in day out scrummager does.
Everyone think SA will be struggling with these new laws have maybe not see the stocks of super humans we have as loose forwards…. They had no chance to be in the team because there are just so many of them…. Imagine now we move away from scrums and can just choose a whole team of loose forwards 😂😂 yup…. This is SA sayin, hold my beer
You guys must realise the endgame, to make men softer.SouthAfrica is one of the last countriies where men are still allowed to be men.I bet you in a few years with these laws they are preparing to make teams Co-ed have women involved in same team as men.In South Africa we are real warriors, whether its a Boer farmer or Zulu Warrior we still have the real testoterone.Springboks prove it with their power, theres a lot you dont know about the strength of our country but even if you go bak in history The British Empire suffered their worst defeat in colonial history, its something embedded in all our diffrerent people of our rainbow nation.So we will adapt to whatever you try to nullify our progress, we dont have just brawn, we have brains and skills you have never seen.That is why you hear South African say " they dont know what we know.We have not even tapped into 2% of black players,the talent from schoolboy rugby in this country is world class, stop the hate because we are real warriorsth-cam.com/users/shortsCfvyH5x0eEY
Yeah agree with croc rolls and dangerous play of any kind in general. I think 20min red cards are a good thing for genuine mistakes where players are tackled in the air etc etc. Heavier sanctions where players deliberately cause injuries or possible injuries to other players need VERY heavy sanctions. Most people who see scrums for the first time, love it. They are very intrigued by it. People also love the physicality of rugby when they see it. Big tackles, big hits. So I think scrums can stay, even for free kicks, just speed them up a bit. Some scrum halves take an eternity to get the ball out. I am all in favor of speeding the game up, but then you need to be careful of leaning towards 7's style or NRL type vibes. Which already exists? Just my 2c As always, keep up the good work!!
Surely more tired bodies will equal more injuries? Id be interested to look at any study that says otherwise. And I'm struggling to understand how reducing the consequences of dangerous play is going to reduce dangerous play. Either these guys don't care about player welfare, and they've been screwing up the sport with all these red cards for accidental head contact for legal reasons, or they're a bunch of idiots living in clown world. Maybe both
It's kind of tragic. I introduced two of my American friends to rugby recently and they loved the scrum time and how it was a different style of test in sports. (they would call it the human bridge before remembering it as scrum though 🤣) Most of the people I've introduced to the game have really enjoyed the set pieces like the scrum and the Lineout so it does feel like it's leaning the wrong way from my experience. Suppose will just have to see how it goes.
Rugby is the most difficult sport in the world to officiate. The range of laws is staggering and I've never met a fan who understands all of them. What I have met is hundreds of fans who complain about the constant tinkering in the game by World Rugby. World Rugby should be streamlining laws, not adding new ones. They're caught in a cycle of implementing rule changes that lead to unintended consequences that then require further rule changes that lead to more unintended consequences. Look at the people who sit on its Executive Committee - dinosaurs from a bygone age. If you think they know the first thing about what young people want and like, you're naive. There's also a clear NH bias to the composition of the panel. The last I checked NZ and SA had one member apiece - the same number of representatives as the US!
I find it hard to believe you havent heard people complain about scrums. Dont get me wrong I dont mind a scrum but I dont like watching reset after reset. Im not convinced this law change will change much tbh. But im positive on these changes. I just really hope the 20 min red card in implemented fully.
Just going on the world cup messages I was getting from people - it was all TMO that people moaned about, and sometimes asking for rule clarifications 😅
That scrum call in the semi was so epic tho, the risk and absolute balls to make such a decision in a match of that caliber was awesome. It seems World Rugby are anti-entertainment and want to force teams into less creative play styles
People who do not like scrums are people who doesn't understand the laws and nuances behind it, or at least an appreciation for it, not that I have it all under the knee. The solution to this is greater clarity on the application of the rules, but scrums are what make rugby, rugby
For some reason scrums have become viewed as a stop in play. It bugs me when the scrums are both still up neither moving, and the ref says use it! Why a Scrum is ball in play, neither has gone down why must they use it, they are using it at the back off the scrum. Banning calling a scrum from a mark seems unnecessary, it has only ever been used once and it is risky. Even against England there was some discussion in the team about using it again, but Pollard over ruled and kicked instead. It was a very specific use in a very specific game against a very specific opponent, and most everyone loved the innovation and the risk taking of it. Except for the pundits we have that seem to hate rugby.
This is a massive mistake. We need to celebrate and distinguish the rugby acumen, the strategy the diversity found in rugby union. Its by far a superior product. for example in usa NFL is super slow but great to watch and rugby union is already an amazing product while rugby league lacks in comparison. Its a great balance. Immediately it needs to stop and instead we need to see it as advertising the right product and be custodians of the game we love - else it will be lost. More viewers if its advertised as the superior product instead of losing its core. else why have 7s rugby?
that's the thing, rugby 7 is just so boring to most people... is not what I want to see when I watch rugby. I want to see brute forcing the opponent with scrums, lots of huge tackles, carries, some offloads but when there's virtually no space, a player taking 2 or 3 men with a flat run... many things that rugby 7 just... it feels like track field day than anything else. if that's the decision world rugby are going to aim for (making it look like a super rugby alike game from the 2000s but with virtually more passes and no stoppages and just running all over the pitch) then it will change the whole core of the game.
Rassie game manages to the rules, You change the rules He changes the game plan. Its called using your coach head. Plus, South Africa have the strength of a player pool to achieve this at the top level.
The lineout law feels weird to me. It will incentivize teams in their attacking 22 to gamble and not throw straight. It could paradoxically result in more delay. Re TMO, I would like the TMO to be applied only on the egregious things, like foul play, miles forward pass, foot in touch, etc., but I would like the TMO to simply overrule the ref. Instead of: “Billy, I’ll show you a picture of a forward pass.” there should be an announcement to the ref: “forward pass on the ten meter line, scrum blue.” Lastly, I’m one of those who love scrums. It’s the most technical rugby discipline, the ultimate teamwork of power and technique. I don’t want less of it, but more. People often forget, that scrums temporarily turn rugby union into sevens, they provide so much space for a running attack. This craze is a result of all the league fifth column, that has infiltrated rugby. They’re trying to change rugby into league, while forgetting that there already is league for those five people around the world who even care. Words can’t express how silly it is to try and model rugby after an orders of magnitude less popular sport in order to get it more popular. It’s as if ice hockey tried to become more popular by emulating bandy. It’s just bone-chillingly dumb. “LeT’s GeT pEoPlE iN tHe StAnDs.” Have you ever tried to get to a La Rochelle home game? People spend years on a waiting list for season tickets.
The lineout law will paradoxically result in more controversy because it is up to the referee to decide if the opposition competed or not. So throw the ball straight to your flyhalf, no one jumps because the ball does not go anywhere near the lineout, and it's play on. Or.. prop at the front jumps and is deemed not to have competed because he could not get near the ball that was thrown to the middle (or directly to the scrummie). Referee decisions are never popular for the losing team it seems, so woohoo controversy!! Agree completely about the real time involvement of the TMO in exactly the same way as the AR's are ALREADY involved. Agree completely about loving scrums, and it is simply a matter of time before this law is exploited to remove the dominance of a powerful forward pack.
Scrums are iconic to Rugby, reducing the time it takes to have a scrum in place is fine, reducing the number of scrums is not. And not only SA loves scrums, we love the in FR too, mind you =) Regarding TMO, I see two main issues : interruptions and director influence. If you regulate what TMO can intervene on, you should regulate what the director is able to show you in the replay and in the stadium in the same way, don't you think?
Scrums, gotta be worried. I really prefer fans to learn /be educated for scrums rather than have fewer scrums. I am happy with the shot clock on scrums and lineouts tho. Not a fan of the stoppages and "timeouts". Mauls, not happy. Don't think they should mess with mauls. Dupont law, so happy they've sorted this. Genuinely thought players must always retreat until onside so glad it's going back to the law that shouldn't have been changed. Croc rolls, this one will be interesting to see how players get cleaned out. Hopefully a positive to get rid of it All the rest, very weird. It really does seem like they're addressing things that weren't really a problem (to me)
They should just do what they did with Cricket. Every team gets 2 "reviews" if your review was silly then you loose it and if it was good then you keep it. That will allow players that KNOW something is wrong to review and stop guys pulling a "Nick" and just faking stuff.
The scrum from a 22m free kick was such a moment in the world cup, people still talk about it. And it happened like once. Why change the law on a once off, that is a disproportionate reaction I think.
Things happen quickly and there’s only so much 3 people can keep their eye on in the heat of the moment. Maybe have timed TMO interventions. If TMO wants to pipe up, he has like 60 seconds to make his point. The ref can ask for 60 more seconds for discussion. You have to say if there is a foul or not, then you can decide level of punishment. If nothing is conclusive in 2 minutes, move on.
No. The vast majority of controversy stems from us at home seeing footage that the referee does not see, unless of course the TV director gets involved. A single forward pass in 2007 lost the All Blacks the opportunity to progress in the RWC. The decision is still considered controversial today and the referee in question is remembered for that 17 years later. A simple TMO calling "forward pass" and that entire incident goes away. How can this be a bad thing?!? The time taken for the TMO to talk to the referee who makes the decision.. yes, that can be sorted, but the TMO should be just as instrumental at calling infringements as the AR's are.
@@Karma-qt4ji Nope. I remember that 2007 game well and am an AB's fan but STILL think the TMO should only intervene when asked by the ref. The TMO is just a bloke, they're not Gods and can make mistakes and miss infringements like anyone else, there's no such thing as a perfectly reff'd game, they slow the game down, they nit-pick and should be kept in their place. Bad or missed infractions balance themselves out over time, aiming for perfection is a mistaken concept.
@@rabbitss11 I disagree. It is not the intervention of the TMO that is the issue, it is the time taken for the intervention to take place. In the RWC final, the AR gave the referee a thumbs up the second the pass from Telea bobbled forward, indicating that the pass was okay (even I, as a SAFFA, am content with that); there was a scrum awarded to SA just before that but a word from the TMO prompted the referee to overturn and give a penalty to the AB's - you kicked for the corner and the try followed in that passage of play. No one complained about the intervention of either the AR or the TMO then, because both were seamless, discreet and quick. In the 2007 QF, that forward pass could have been spotted and called by the AR and no one would be complaining about it. Wayne Barnes would not have been accused of matchfixing and we would not still be discussing it. So why can't the TMO operate on the same seamless instantaneous basis? Why does the referee need to see the footage in a TMO intervention? We get angles and slomos on our couches at home that the referee simply does not get and in much the same way as cricket went, we hold the referees responsible for that. There are channels out there focused solely on the outrage of aggrieved rugby fans. We simply need to get more right, which is happening, but now we need to get to the correct decision quicker.
@@Karma-qt4ji sorry but we're never going to agree on this, I just see the TMO as an added layer and it's a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Like I say, if the ref asks for the TMO's opinion that's fine but otherwise he should stay out of it.
World Rugby the type of kid to say "im not playing anymore" after being Tagged.
😹😹😹
No, World Rugby is the kid that says "How can I get people to stop picking on me!"
@@magnusmcgee993 no, world rugby is the kid that tries to change the rules so he has a better chance of winning
World Rugby is like the kid who lost a game and then takes their ball home unless everyone changes the rules
@@Bennusan1 World Rugby 's Dad is bigger than your Dad
You should look into the stats for how many scrums are chosen, I was surprised to see Willemse take a scrum, I hadn't seen any before...
Scrum penalties is how SA has won three world cup finals. SA play for scrum penalties-hence 7-1 bench split.
@@kelbatt7729scrum penalties are unchanged this is for free kicks
Rassie will force defensive teams to concede a penalty, we kick for touch therefore more line outs and driving mauls. The time it now takes to complete two scrums and kick for touch is insane or he creates tap and go set pieces.
Chatting with son today about the kickoff rule.
So basically, indirectly soft-banned deep kick offs is result when think about it.
Which teams does this benefit?
Next year they will ban green jerseys. But only the darker green
Phew, you had me worried there for a second!
But red-haired props and Viking locks-they need to go!!
@@silversolver7809lmao. Rassie would make Kitsy and RG swap hairstyles 😂
This is not that far from the truth actually - think back to the World cup game against Ireland where the Boks had to play in their away strip against the lighter green Irish, to accomodate color-blind people
Rassie will now accommodate the rolling and tap mall more then what ...and also use the penalty...god the loop hole is crazy ...
About frigging time
Rassie is probably bored already and can't wait for new law changes just to exploit them at the next world world cup😂😂 and anger these blokes from world rugby all over again.
It is gone for Rassie . Speed game is good for all blacks and Razor comes !
@DrissZyani-bu5mo looming fwd to coming back to this comment in 6minths time. Pls come back then
It’s Dr Rassie
The irony of introducing MORE kicks and less running Rugby is just hilarious.
The irony is that scrum was one of the most exciting and talked about moments of the world cup. If you're trying to get people to talk about rugby less then these changes are great.
Yeah man honestly - of the casual people in my wider circle who contacted me during the world cup to chat rugby - none said anything bad about scrums
Don't think we have time for this shit, not a rugby fan anymore, think those who like traditional rugby must start there own league, let fools like John Kirwan watch is shit
@@wlk2408 bunch of bloody souties ruining things for the rest of us. Again.
Yeah I loved seeing an England team who dominated South Africa lose because of bs penalties at one set piece. What a spectacle
@@wlk2408 load of rubbish. There’s usually records at every World Cup in most sports so that’s just a useless point. Things like reducing shot clock time, reducing set piece time, reducing scrums and changing the DuPont law all encourages teams to run and then score tries so it all adds up.
And that’s cool you can watch 20 games, good for you. But most people won’t and usually watch just their own domestic league. Some people actually like the atmosphere of games mate. The crowds were be even better if they were more like football but never mind. Scrums are easily the biggest killer of atmosphere in stadiums so it is a good upgrade. If world rugby lost 100 traditional supporters and won 100 new supporters that is a win for rugby
If the Free Kick rule change affects Free Kicks from Scrum infringements, then Scrum Infringements need to be upgraded to Penalties. Otherwise they will end up with teams deliberately giving away free kicks, knowing that another Scrum can't be called.
Yes, that was my thinking. This only favours less physical teams in a physical sport. It's terrible and has absolutely zero to do with the safety of the scrum itself. Feels like morons in a boardroom trying to figure out how to get more people watching Union, and then asking pundits to speak on behalf of the audience.
It's obviously to speed up the game and take away the 2-3min for every reset scrum and teams using it to run the clock down. Kick or tap gets the ball back in play quicker and encourages running.
This will be the biggest unintended effect of the rule changes. It's been mentioned by many since the new rules were mooted a month or so ago. I assume the bigwigs at World Rugby were aware of it. The real question is why they didn't anticipate it with a simple clause that stated what you've said - penalties for infringements to stop gamesmanship.
@@davesmith826I don't think it was unintended, they somehow got int heir head that more ball in play equals more entertaining games, and so they're neutering scrums (been for years, although some of the changes were legit for safety). The real problem is that scrums are a distinctive trait of union, if you get rid of them you can as well take a couple players out and play league (with these changes props will be just slightly bigger flankers anyway)
You'll enjoy watching rugby League @@danWMO7
Rassie's silence on this means the Boks already have a plan in place 🇿🇦🥳🎓
100% Rassie will be way ahead of the rules clowns.
We have Tony Brown!
He appointed an ex-referee as an advisor for precisely this reason. He's not dumb. He's actually a lot smarter than the people who run World Rugby.
He's just filming a reaaaalllllyyyy long video lol
Jaco Peyper is already searching for loopholes as we speak😂😂
Scrums are great. They create space that can be attacked. That law change also gets rid of my favourite law which is you specificity can’t score a drop goal off the back of a scrum that had be chosen from a free kick. Always wanted to see it tried and the ref call play on to great confusion of fans and players lol
No scrums from free kicks? Gosh, the Boks did it once and they ban it😂🤣😅
Free kicks aren't just awarded for claiming the mark. They are including free kicks awarded at scrums, lineouts or any other time a team is awarded a free kick.
Not really showing a great understanding of the current rules with that comment
@@peadarrya but you are being naive if you think that change has nothing to do with the scrum called from the mark. Literally was never even mentioned before that happened.
@@yeayou1221spot on. I think this is the point. World Rugby trying to close every loophole exploited by the brains trust at the Springboks to benefit their game. In the end they target an element of the game that the purists love... the scrum! Chasing the Sun did so much to bring some hype back to that facet of the game only for it to be undermined by the so-called custodians of the game. Shameful
Jesus christ, you didn't hear this much whinging when WR introduced rules that stifled NZ's playstyle. Saffas always playing the victim 😒
Like Eggchasers said - Defences are so good, Scrums take 16 players out of play - 8 on defence - soooo WHY would you take something away that causes more openings on the field??? So ironic since they want more linebreaks etc
Because half of scrums (or more) aren’t aiming to use that space, they’re just for farming 50/50 penalties.
@@JimmyKipthe average scrum penalties per game is just over 2 per game (same level as it was in the 90s). So tell me again how half of them are used to milk penalties?
I think you may prefer rugby sevens in that case
If u dont like scrums go watch rugby league
Alot of people are switching from union to league
It will be interesting what unintended consequences come out of these
I think instead of fixing the perceived "issues" they're trying to address, it will have the opposite affect. But hey, let's wait and see. I've not been enjoying these new laws whilst watching the U20 rugby champs. Especially taking the mark from a kick off. Ok the game has just stopped because someone has scored. Let's get it started again. No wait, let's stop it again so someone can have a free kick for the line. OK let's restart the game with a lineout. Yay we sped up the game ! 🤦♂️
its stupidity
@@kristian762 Indeed, utter stupidity. Also... Doesn't this suit teams that like structured play, set pieces, like contesting, oh, I dunno, lineouts in opposition half? Sorta hurts the teams that like running/broken play rather than the teams who like 'slow' play as insinuated about Boks etc.
Yeah man 100% always something left field happens when they change the laws - as smart coaches look for more ways to get the most from their team
@@kristian762 100% agree, I saw this happen and was like what he can't do that. Then they said it was a law variation, and it was stupid. Almost makes it NFL esque, start stop start stop....
World Rugby is scared of Bok Domination. Cowards
The ex-NZ coach Pysop law less scrums, made it. The same guy Foster who cry'splained that NZ vs Italy was clearly a better game than Boks vs France/Ireland, coz 1min more ball in play time.
The scrum is for the big men of the team and it is a show of strength between the teams it is an important part of the game they are trying to kill! This is a very disappointing change by the World Rugby. The fans love a good scrum, It is so impressive when it is a good match between the teams.
It’s also terribly unimpressive when one scrum is clearly better than the other. That one aspect creates penalties, yellow cards and dictates a game outcome.
I love a good scrum's technical excellence so I'm confident two rule changes from now the scrum options will be increased. Yep. Time for World Rugby to stop trying to justify its existence by constantly confusing fans of an already complex game. As for TMO interactions, the fact that WRC final TMO interrupted but got the rules wrong seems to me it's time to let the on-field refs ask if they want an opinion. I kept waiting for Wayne Barnes to reply to a TMO interjection with "Who asked you?" but I guess he'a too well mannered.
Dr. Rassie re writing the the rulebook.
Calling the mark from a kick off is just going to lead to more lineouts. Boks strategy isnt going to change, just adapt. If they dont want us to scrum, we'll maul.
We want to put the poison in the opposition forwards legs. Only one stop at the maul means they'll just maul it more often. Im interested to see how long the refs give us to set the maul before they call use it. Cause if they dont give us enough time to get properly set, the maul can become quite dangerous as guys start trying to get go forward early.
I dont think this is going to play out the way world rugby wants.
Indeed.
World rugby thought about that and maul's will only get one use it call from now on.... They definitely are trying to convert rugby union into league.
Marks from kickoffs will only occur if they actually catch it cleanly or the team kicking chooses to kick it deep, having it come down between the 10 and 22 means it stays in play. It’s so predictable now, kick deep, try to force a penalty otherwise the defending team takes a couple of carries then kicks directly for touch from inside their 22, resulting in the line out you just referred to near half way. Net zero
Maybe make the mark old school, have to have one foot on the ground and be stationary?
My question is what counts as a stoppage, suppose it will come down to how much time you get to set the maul. but again this is 100% setup to get the dominance to change hands. they don't want it in the South anymore. The problem is they now starting to move it back towards NZ instead of RSA so jokes on them.
@@jameslittle8891 have you been watching them implement it in the U20 rugby champs? It goes the same way every time. Catch it clean, take thr mark, kick for touch. Very predictable, and very boring. Sure it may go down differently at the senior level, but maybe not. I'm sure boks will kick it very deep, chase hard, force the mark. Get an attacking lineout most likely between the 22 and the 10. And then maul it every single damn time, because there's only 1 use it call, and less opportunities for scrums, they'll take every opportunity to put the poison in the opposition forwards legs. Which means maul, maul, maul every chance they get. Which will end up being quite a bit more than we currently do. Negating both of the law changes, having the opposite affect.
I think trying to tweak the laws to force a certain type of spectacle is never going to have the desired effect. You can't force teams to play in a way they don't want to play by tweaking rules. The only law change that I think has been a good idea thus far has been the 50/22. And getting rid of Duponts law is also a good idea. The rest is just ridiculous and won't work out the way they want. Anyways. That's my rant, thanks for listening 😂🍻
Rassie, leaving a legacy. Should actually name law after Rassie. We can call it the "The Erasmus Law" 😂.
if you dont like scrums, then maybe try golf, they dont feature a lot in that sport
I watched highlights from the 2007 World Cup and 2009 Super Rugby playoffs recently. Setting scrums took less than 20 seconds and they did not collapse more than they do now. We don't need less scrums, they just need to get on with it. I watch many live rugby matches each week and also get bored when scrum resets take too long.
TMO interference is definitely the biggest pain in the ass at this stage. It was so great rewatching those 2007 matches and referees just rewarding tries. A while ago I watched the 2005 Ashes highlights again and it was so cool seeing Rudy Koortzen just giving a batsman out without the inevitable review, which happens at every wicket now. Technology is over-reaching and World Rugby should pay more attention to that.
They changed the rules around setting scrums as that was the source of most serious injuries in amateur and school rugby. Had nothing to do with time.
Strangely enough. I like all the reviews but that’s my technical personality type.
I can see why others would hate it.
Watch how the scrum law backfires over the next year or two and it will be back to the 'old' rule for the next world cup. Go bokke!
Sounds like WR would prefer turning Union into League. Very hard to please WR
It’s all to help other nations and disadvantage South Africa. The DuPont law is coz SA beat FRA at their own game, and the scrum law is coz no other nation can out scrum SA. So less forward dominance, this also changing the way SA sets up their teams on the benches as well. It’s a load of crap from nations that cannot take being beaten. We all heard all the pundits say it last year during the World Cup. Now that NZ, AUS and ENG rugby are all going down hill, they try and fix the “rules” to accommodate them.
These 1st world nations cannot stand the fact that a little 3rd world African country is beating all of them even when they stack the deck. SA had the most difficult calendar on of the world cup, the only team to play all the top 5 rugby teams and still win. The only real teams the ABs played were franc and Ireland. England had a walk in the park to get to the semi-final as they basically only played fiji. What a joke. The fact that SA won this WC is an amazing achievement.
Strange comment! Didn’t realise AllBlacks were going down hill like you say. We did pretty well in RWC final with 14 players
I feel like mainstream media and commentators have also had a negative impact on the scrums and partially to blame for this law change. No built up excitement / detailed analysis of the scrums. Just complaining whenever there's another scrum. Although definitely agree that scrum resets and setting for the scrums takes way too much time from the game
👏👏👏👏
Poor mainstream commentary has a lot to answer for. It's nothing new to have commentators that don't know the rules or nuances of rugby (especially scrums, especially in Australia) but more recently they seem to be constantly negative about scrums. (The simpletons in Aussie media here get paid more to promote League, so there's been bias that way across all media for decades now. It's embarrassing how badly they report games.)
The best things WR could do is educate the commentariat properly, or better yet, get them to watch Squidge, he's doing a much better job than WR anyway...
Blame referees. Years ago all we said was 'Down and Bind' and it worked without a problem. Referees who have never played, let alone been in a scrum themselves, just self appointed traffic wardens, are to blame for most of today's rugby problems.
@@leplessis8179 "down and bind worked without a problem" - not sure where you played, but it caused many problems & slowed games a tonne! Most teams I knew set up too far apart, knowing that you could pull penalties with a collapse (which also caused plenty of injuries). Paying attention to international games you could see them gaming this as well. While it was fun for the piggies, it by no means made the game faster or more entertaining for everyone else. The "crouch-touch-pause-pack" from u19s was much more reliable and created tougher scrums as both teams would generally have better footing.
The refs have a tough job, especially with scrums. There an infinite amount of variables that can cause a scrum to fail, and those poor bastards have to try and work out if it was a prop missing a footing on a shove, the tighthead dropping a shoulder, the hooker landing a punch or knee, the blind side flanker pulling at the prop binds... The list goes on.
@@leplessis8179no problems from “down and bind”? So no life changing neck and back injuries, sometimes even death? I guess if you ignore that then sure there were no problems👍🙄
FYI scrum penalties per game are about the same level (just over 2 per game) as in the 90s. Would you like to try again?
The less scrums at test level will lead to beefed up defences cutting down space. Here comes more kicking...
😂 my thoughts exactly. Scrums allowed more spaces to open up allowing backs to run-in. wR is a joke
100%
Watch older footage and how quick scrums happens. Bring that back.
Everything was quicker. THe game actually used to be 80 minutes, not 150 like today's game.
So bad scrums will just happily sabotage a scrum knowing most refs won’t immediately give penalties. That’s an absolute joke.
I just watch rugby occasionally (TV in general), or I would go back and watch an old game. It's generally not a good idea to cater to people like me who aren't glued to the screen. Whether the game is faster or slower, I'm still going to watch the same amount. Personally I never had a problem with scrums. It's like cricket, you watch how the match is played, not for the constant excitement.
well said , but it was NZ that was making the biggest fuss because of their loss.
In their attempt to gain more viewers, they'll actually lose viewers.
Its cool, Rassie was already 4 moves ahead of them. He already has another exploit for this.
Fully agree that rugby is synonymous with scrums and big collisions. But the amount of box kicks in a match these days have gotten out of hand. Personally I would do away either the caterpillar rule that would lead to far less injuries resulting from collisions in the air? Also fewer referrals to TMO for potential dangerous play. Anyone else that feels the same?
I would rather see caterpillar rucks targeted than scrums personally, but ultimately I'd rather they stop tinkering 😅
Fair point
Caterpillar rucks would be easy to fix without needing to make massive changes. Introduce a rule that says no player may join the ruck after the ref calls “use it”. If the players were already part of the ruck they may remain, but no more nonsense of scrummies calling guys into a ruck that is already secured.
@@googlename5125 Best suggestion I’ve come across to address this obvious issue. Also makes for more interesting game-play tactics.
This is fucked. Sorry can’t say it any other way.
Why don't they just stop the clock when a scrum is called and start it again when the scrum has set ?? ?
Its dead space in the game... doesn't matter if you stop the clock or not. Its boring.
@mikescudder4621 Yes but what might happen in the extra time saved by stopping the clock for the fat blokes to get ready might not be boring.
@@Dickie2702 Extra time is only in Super rugby.
@@mikescudder4621 Don't be a pedantic idiot you know what I mean.
I don't agree with stopping the clock but referee should be able to deny a retake if there's a non penalty collapse. Sometimes the referee can't see any infringement and sometimes competing infringements. Referee should be able to warn first and then insist on the free kick.
"Sour"Kerwin and Warren Gatland main instegaters to suit their countries style
RUGBY LEAGUE - another law change and we will have full on League as opposed to Union 😞
I find these changes hilarious.
It's not that the current rules suit the Springboks - it's that Rassie, Nienaber and co. are experts at exploiting it. Close one loophole, Rassie will just find another one to exploit.
If they turn it into glorified rugby league, we'll just forward a combination of the 20 world-class loose forwards we have as the pack and then we'll be in an even better position than we were.
But good on you, world rugby. Keep chasing your tails, we'll keep winning trophies in the meantime.
More tired bodies means more injuries BTW.
As a former lock and open side I loved scrum time, the only rule needed was the Dupont, everything else was fine. A 20 red card is possibly the worst one imo as we have a bunker let's let that work for a few years first yeah?
Shocking! I love the scrum
Thanks for the updates Mark. Will be interesting to see what happens wjth these new laws. I love the scrums and really enjoyed Squidge rugby's recent deep dive on them- we need more education from the commentators and pundits not fewer scrums IMO
Exactly right - funnily despite all the negative comms around scrums (especially in this part of the world) - none of my friends/acquaintances really complain about scrums (except bloody Tony)
@@TwoCentsRugby well Tony isn't a true rugby fan then!
I watch 5-6 Rugby games a week. All Major League Rugby. I watch a vast majority of the leagues games. The best games are the ones with the least scrums. I appreciate the scrums yet prefer more running and tackling as an alternative.
Absolute joke! Just drop 2 more players and give both teams 5 tackles already! That should encourage "more ball in flow"
Please leave the scrum alone. It's one of the most fascinating things about rugby union. Also keep the TMO out of it as much as possible. There's already a referee and two assistants. Use the TMO for egregious foul play and obvious howlers. Bring back citing if necessary!
Why change the game on the back of two wildly successful World Cup tournaments? Are they even needed? Oh, of course, the wrong team from the wrong hemisphere won!
IMHO us online rugby punters should probably try to bear in mind that we are in an echo chamber of rugby tragics and that skews our perception of what rugby fans want. Like it or not, a huge amount of money is generated for rugby by fans who are relatively casual. They get swept up in the prestige and intrigue of world cups, or the fair weather excitement when a local team is doing well or the fun of being part of the roar of the crowd. That's not the same as being super into the intricacies of laws and tactics and whatnot and that colours the aspects of the game they enjoy & what they want to see less of & more of.
Simple have each team be able to call 1 tmo a match. The ref cant call the tmo , and the tmo cant interject unless its a head injury
To be honest, I think in a game there are more penalties from scrums than free kicks (from scrums) - so in truth this law does not improve ball in play time significantly. What id does do is give a weaker team an exit strategy by allowing them to give away a free kick (rather than a penalty) with no huge consequence. I guarantee that the rate of free kicks (from scrums specifically) will increase.
If, and it’s only an if, this results in a more sevens or league style of play that sees a move to more uniformly built players then I will switch to watching SX and boxing.
The truth is WR with strong ENG/AUS/NZ influences fear League as a rival. Becoming more like league is not the solution, very few Bok games were boring for having 1 min leass play time than a a lame non-contest NZ vs Italy fixture, no matter what Foster tells you.
AUS union is largely wrecked, they fear losing a meaningful Australia contingent particularly where League is stronger.
The future growth of the Union game is actually Pacific Islands, Argentina, France, Africa, US & Canada, Georgia, Japan. Does anyone think Georgia & Argentina want scrums to count less, or even Ireland?
None of which face meaningful league threats, but we are being batted from pillar to post with nitt-picky directives to protect ENG, NZ & AUS.
Who think making the game more like league will keep people leaving for league, when in fact its more likely to see them leave for league.
WR is terrified of its own shadow, and should realise forwards, scrums and all shapes & sizes is the ethos of Union.
There is also a feeling I think that WR wanted a NH RWC champion to boost spending & money in the game.
They had prepped "Du Pont" as the poster boy of RWC2023 and he was supposed to raise the trophy, good a player as he is, the guy is still crying and needs a shrink for his saltyness today. I remember when Lomu was the sales ticket in 1999 in the UK every poster had Jomu, these pre-ordained marketeers dreams always fail. It smells like WR will properly shit themselves if someone else apart from RSA win the next one, they will see it as absolutely terrible for business, regardless of merits.
Personally i'd love it, I would repeat Gary Lineker's famous definition of football "Football played by 11 men aside and the Germans win"
"Rugby played by 15 men aside and the Boks win"
Last quote is delusional. All Blacks have thoroughly outclassed the Springboks head to head since the game began.
@@colejones6312 Which is why the entire amateur era you had less than 50% win rate.
The scrum one is especially ridiculous. It is blatantly obvious designed to put it to South Africa. The offside law is good, I think. Croc rolls are tricky. I agree with you that breakdowns are really difficult.
If they want league, why don't they play league? Scrums are one of the bigger differences between the codes.
One team was crazy enough to call a scrum in their own 22. They happened to win the worldcup. So now we have "Scrums bad!"
If World Rugby loves Rugby League so much, why don't they say so?
They should ban flat passes. All passes should be visibly backwards.
Less rules = More new rugby fans, More rules = Less new rugby fans
So now u don't need a props anymore, u just go early everytime and will never have to scrum?!
In the same week...
WR: we need to reduce the amount of scrums.
Squidge Rugby: here's an educational video to celebrate scrums and how integral they are to Rugby.
Not sure about the new free kick no scrum change. Scrums are part of the contest so if a team has a dominant scrum they should be able to use it as a weapon.
The way the game is heading I feel sorry for the heavies up front they will no longer be needed if it continues like this
It’s not just calling a mark inside the 22.. it’s any free kick.. so includes when teams are awarded a free kick because of a scrum infringement.. basically, it’s punishing teams who dominate scrums.. really poor choice from world rugby..
agree with the other two changes though.
I suspect the trialled reduction or enforced structure of the bench won’t lead anywhere… they will be hard pressed against introducing something that is a counter to player safety like reducing number of players on bench..
Alot of the focus from WR seems to be about kicking the can down the road and avoiding real issues such as TMO, inconsistent referreeing (interpretation nonsense) and a host of other issues, all focused on poor quality of officiating in general.
The croc-roll and Du Pont law seem like the only relevant points. Everything else, red card rule and everything else, all about blind eye to a genuine concern about officiating concerns.
I could do with less scrums in my life. Only because sometimes they take soooooo long, reset reset reset jesus it can be brutal for people with short attention spans like myself.
However if they have a clock for these then maybe thats a step in the right direction. Is there such thing as milking a scrum?
I have to be honest I have heard a significant amount of people complain about the scrummaging. We in the comments by the fact we are here are not casual fans. Those fans that only tune into international games that i know all hate the 5 minutes of scrum set up and collapses
Maybe the issue is the set up time then? Hopefully they can elevate some scrum 'free kicks' to penalties to avoid people just not engaging properly or as some have said weaker sides will just let the free kick happen to avoid get destroyed at scrum time.
@@mitcheljeavons2182it’s just hard to ref the scrum that’s the biggest limitation, it’s unfortunate- I really think there should be a ‘scrum ref’ which sounds silly but get a real high level ex scrummager (with referee training) to be the one analysing- the traditional referees get trained well i don’t dispute that but they cant understand it to the level a day in day out scrummager does.
The mall 'use it once' 'use it twice' getting axed is a surprise to me..... Never thought it was an issue.
Everyone think SA will be struggling with these new laws have maybe not see the stocks of super humans we have as loose forwards…. They had no chance to be in the team because there are just so many of them…. Imagine now we move away from scrums and can just choose a whole team of loose forwards 😂😂 yup…. This is SA sayin, hold my beer
You kick too much! SA takes a scrum from the mark- u can only kick!
You guys must realise the endgame, to make men softer.SouthAfrica is one of the last countriies where men are still allowed to be men.I bet you in a few years with these laws they are preparing to make teams Co-ed have women involved in same team as men.In South Africa we are real warriors, whether its a Boer farmer or Zulu Warrior we still have the real testoterone.Springboks prove it with their power, theres a lot you dont know about the strength of our country but even if you go bak in history The British Empire suffered their worst defeat in colonial history, its something embedded in all our diffrerent people of our rainbow nation.So we will adapt to whatever you try to nullify our progress, we dont have just brawn, we have brains and skills you have never seen.That is why you hear South African say " they dont know what we know.We have not even tapped into 2% of black players,the talent from schoolboy rugby in this country is world class, stop the hate because we are real warriorsth-cam.com/users/shortsCfvyH5x0eEY
Yeah agree with croc rolls and dangerous play of any kind in general. I think 20min red cards are a good thing for genuine mistakes where players are tackled in the air etc etc.
Heavier sanctions where players deliberately cause injuries or possible injuries to other players need VERY heavy sanctions.
Most people who see scrums for the first time, love it. They are very intrigued by it. People also love the physicality of rugby when they see it. Big tackles, big hits. So I think scrums can stay, even for free kicks, just speed them up a bit. Some scrum halves take an eternity to get the ball out.
I am all in favor of speeding the game up, but then you need to be careful of leaning towards 7's style or NRL type vibes. Which already exists?
Just my 2c
As always, keep up the good work!!
Surely more tired bodies will equal more injuries? Id be interested to look at any study that says otherwise. And I'm struggling to understand how reducing the consequences of dangerous play is going to reduce dangerous play. Either these guys don't care about player welfare, and they've been screwing up the sport with all these red cards for accidental head contact for legal reasons, or they're a bunch of idiots living in clown world.
Maybe both
Agree 💯 ... Jonah Lomu playing wing was far more dangerous to small wings like Michael 😂
It's kind of tragic. I introduced two of my American friends to rugby recently and they loved the scrum time and how it was a different style of test in sports. (they would call it the human bridge before remembering it as scrum though 🤣)
Most of the people I've introduced to the game have really enjoyed the set pieces like the scrum and the Lineout so it does feel like it's leaning the wrong way from my experience.
Suppose will just have to see how it goes.
"Pulling of a player on their feet" Jasus was that ever legal
Rugby is the most difficult sport in the world to officiate. The range of laws is staggering and I've never met a fan who understands all of them. What I have met is hundreds of fans who complain about the constant tinkering in the game by World Rugby. World Rugby should be streamlining laws, not adding new ones. They're caught in a cycle of implementing rule changes that lead to unintended consequences that then require further rule changes that lead to more unintended consequences. Look at the people who sit on its Executive Committee - dinosaurs from a bygone age. If you think they know the first thing about what young people want and like, you're naive.
There's also a clear NH bias to the composition of the panel. The last I checked NZ and SA had one member apiece - the same number of representatives as the US!
that old boys club in world rugby are a bunch of no-good doers they are
I find it hard to believe you havent heard people complain about scrums.
Dont get me wrong I dont mind a scrum but I dont like watching reset after reset. Im not convinced this law change will change much tbh.
But im positive on these changes. I just really hope the 20 min red card in implemented fully.
Just going on the world cup messages I was getting from people - it was all TMO that people moaned about, and sometimes asking for rule clarifications 😅
I thought the Croc Roll was already banned? Or did the ref make a mistake to send someone off in the men’s RWC final?
He wasn't sent off for the croc roll, he was sent off for falling on the lower limbs of the would-be jackler. That is already banned.
Why do they think there's a need to trial a 20 minute red ?
That scrum call in the semi was so epic tho, the risk and absolute balls to make such a decision in a match of that caliber was awesome. It seems World Rugby are anti-entertainment and want to force teams into less creative play styles
People who do not like scrums are people who doesn't understand the laws and nuances behind it, or at least an appreciation for it, not that I have it all under the knee. The solution to this is greater clarity on the application of the rules, but scrums are what make rugby, rugby
For some reason scrums have become viewed as a stop in play. It bugs me when the scrums are both still up neither moving, and the ref says use it! Why a Scrum is ball in play, neither has gone down why must they use it, they are using it at the back off the scrum. Banning calling a scrum from a mark seems unnecessary, it has only ever been used once and it is risky. Even against England there was some discussion in the team about using it again, but Pollard over ruled and kicked instead. It was a very specific use in a very specific game against a very specific opponent, and most everyone loved the innovation and the risk taking of it. Except for the pundits we have that seem to hate rugby.
Ridiculous. No free kick scrum should result in more scrum penalties, or else weak scrums will deliberately infringe.
This is a massive mistake. We need to celebrate and distinguish the rugby acumen, the strategy the diversity found in rugby union. Its by far a superior product. for example in usa NFL is super slow but great to watch and rugby union is already an amazing product while rugby league lacks in comparison. Its a great balance. Immediately it needs to stop and instead we need to see it as advertising the right product and be custodians of the game we love - else it will be lost. More viewers if its advertised as the superior product instead of losing its core. else why have 7s rugby?
Rugby league more tries rugby union to much kicking that my view 🧐
that's the thing, rugby 7 is just so boring to most people... is not what I want to see when I watch rugby. I want to see brute forcing the opponent with scrums, lots of huge tackles, carries, some offloads but when there's virtually no space, a player taking 2 or 3 men with a flat run... many things that rugby 7 just... it feels like track field day than anything else. if that's the decision world rugby are going to aim for (making it look like a super rugby alike game from the 2000s but with virtually more passes and no stoppages and just running all over the pitch) then it will change the whole core of the game.
@@bradleycooper1609
then reduce kicking not collisions
@@mariadanielalavia8877 Lose its core !
Incidents of serious foul play that have been missed by the Ref and ARs must be called out by the TMO. Don't silence the TMO.
Rassie game manages to the rules, You change the rules He changes the game plan. Its called using your coach head.
Plus, South Africa have the strength of a player pool to achieve this at the top level.
Well it’s cheaper than building new flood defences around the Aviva stadium and Twickenham Stadium
"Dr Erasmus" saying "we know what they don"t know" explains everything.
The lineout law feels weird to me. It will incentivize teams in their attacking 22 to gamble and not throw straight. It could paradoxically result in more delay.
Re TMO, I would like the TMO to be applied only on the egregious things, like foul play, miles forward pass, foot in touch, etc., but I would like the TMO to simply overrule the ref. Instead of: “Billy, I’ll show you a picture of a forward pass.” there should be an announcement to the ref: “forward pass on the ten meter line, scrum blue.”
Lastly, I’m one of those who love scrums. It’s the most technical rugby discipline, the ultimate teamwork of power and technique. I don’t want less of it, but more. People often forget, that scrums temporarily turn rugby union into sevens, they provide so much space for a running attack.
This craze is a result of all the league fifth column, that has infiltrated rugby. They’re trying to change rugby into league, while forgetting that there already is league for those five people around the world who even care. Words can’t express how silly it is to try and model rugby after an orders of magnitude less popular sport in order to get it more popular. It’s as if ice hockey tried to become more popular by emulating bandy. It’s just bone-chillingly dumb.
“LeT’s GeT pEoPlE iN tHe StAnDs.” Have you ever tried to get to a La Rochelle home game? People spend years on a waiting list for season tickets.
The lineout law will paradoxically result in more controversy because it is up to the referee to decide if the opposition competed or not. So throw the ball straight to your flyhalf, no one jumps because the ball does not go anywhere near the lineout, and it's play on. Or.. prop at the front jumps and is deemed not to have competed because he could not get near the ball that was thrown to the middle (or directly to the scrummie). Referee decisions are never popular for the losing team it seems, so woohoo controversy!!
Agree completely about the real time involvement of the TMO in exactly the same way as the AR's are ALREADY involved.
Agree completely about loving scrums, and it is simply a matter of time before this law is exploited to remove the dominance of a powerful forward pack.
Soon we will have a game with only 23 wings
Consistency and TMO - Agreed!
Scrums are iconic to Rugby, reducing the time it takes to have a scrum in place is fine, reducing the number of scrums is not. And not only SA loves scrums, we love the in FR too, mind you =)
Regarding TMO, I see two main issues : interruptions and director influence. If you regulate what TMO can intervene on, you should regulate what the director is able to show you in the replay and in the stadium in the same way, don't you think?
Best Rugby analysis on TH-cam hands down!
Scrums, gotta be worried. I really prefer fans to learn /be educated for scrums rather than have fewer scrums. I am happy with the shot clock on scrums and lineouts tho. Not a fan of the stoppages and "timeouts".
Mauls, not happy. Don't think they should mess with mauls.
Dupont law, so happy they've sorted this. Genuinely thought players must always retreat until onside so glad it's going back to the law that shouldn't have been changed.
Croc rolls, this one will be interesting to see how players get cleaned out. Hopefully a positive to get rid of it
All the rest, very weird. It really does seem like they're addressing things that weren't really a problem (to me)
Lol the research on Fatigue clearly shows more replacements == less injuries. Would be interesting to see what they decide.
As a casual Rugby follower I must say that the rules can be confusing at times.
They should just do what they did with Cricket. Every team gets 2 "reviews" if your review was silly then you loose it and if it was good then you keep it. That will allow players that KNOW something is wrong to review and stop guys pulling a "Nick" and just faking stuff.
designed to stop time wasting. Stop the walking to the lineout etc also.
And misses the mark entirely
The scrum from a 22m free kick was such a moment in the world cup, people still talk about it. And it happened like once. Why change the law on a once off, that is a disproportionate reaction I think.
Because it is in their heads😂
@@michaelced1221 hahahaha Rassie Rassie Rassie!!!
TMO's should only get involved if they are specifically asked to do so by the ref, if they're not asked they should remain silent
Things happen quickly and there’s only so much 3 people can keep their eye on in the heat of the moment.
Maybe have timed TMO interventions. If TMO wants to pipe up, he has like 60 seconds to make his point. The ref can ask for 60 more seconds for discussion. You have to say if there is a foul or not, then you can decide level of punishment. If nothing is conclusive in 2 minutes, move on.
No. The vast majority of controversy stems from us at home seeing footage that the referee does not see, unless of course the TV director gets involved.
A single forward pass in 2007 lost the All Blacks the opportunity to progress in the RWC. The decision is still considered controversial today and the referee in question is remembered for that 17 years later. A simple TMO calling "forward pass" and that entire incident goes away. How can this be a bad thing?!?
The time taken for the TMO to talk to the referee who makes the decision.. yes, that can be sorted, but the TMO should be just as instrumental at calling infringements as the AR's are.
@@Karma-qt4ji Nope. I remember that 2007 game well and am an AB's fan but STILL think the TMO should only intervene when asked by the ref. The TMO is just a bloke, they're not Gods and can make mistakes and miss infringements like anyone else, there's no such thing as a perfectly reff'd game, they slow the game down, they nit-pick and should be kept in their place. Bad or missed infractions balance themselves out over time, aiming for perfection is a mistaken concept.
@@rabbitss11 I disagree. It is not the intervention of the TMO that is the issue, it is the time taken for the intervention to take place. In the RWC final, the AR gave the referee a thumbs up the second the pass from Telea bobbled forward, indicating that the pass was okay (even I, as a SAFFA, am content with that); there was a scrum awarded to SA just before that but a word from the TMO prompted the referee to overturn and give a penalty to the AB's - you kicked for the corner and the try followed in that passage of play.
No one complained about the intervention of either the AR or the TMO then, because both were seamless, discreet and quick. In the 2007 QF, that forward pass could have been spotted and called by the AR and no one would be complaining about it. Wayne Barnes would not have been accused of matchfixing and we would not still be discussing it. So why can't the TMO operate on the same seamless instantaneous basis? Why does the referee need to see the footage in a TMO intervention?
We get angles and slomos on our couches at home that the referee simply does not get and in much the same way as cricket went, we hold the referees responsible for that. There are channels out there focused solely on the outrage of aggrieved rugby fans. We simply need to get more right, which is happening, but now we need to get to the correct decision quicker.
@@Karma-qt4ji sorry but we're never going to agree on this, I just see the TMO as an added layer and it's a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Like I say, if the ref asks for the TMO's opinion that's fine but otherwise he should stay out of it.