General Rugby Discussion 3

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123140193#Comment_123140193

I've no idea what happens in soccer but I don't see much wrong with the current system other than the mitigation they use. They give a period of time and list the number of games to be missed.

In you proposal - if a Munster player playing in the round 4 of the Champions Cup receives a ban, Munster don't progress to the knock out games and you want it Competition tied then it would be next season before a ban would start but then they fail to make the Top 8 of the URC so don't make the Champions Cup for next season. The player gets off scott free

MangleBadger

2 Australians on the committee probably didn’t help the severity.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123140247#Comment_123140247

But its the World Rugby rules that cause the problem not who's on the committee..

The regulations state that:

"Mitigating factors include the following:

(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;

(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;

(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;

(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing

(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and

(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate."

The disciplinary panel are forced to take into consideration all of the above because its written into the rules.

Brief_Lives

French team for england

Captain_Crash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123140243#Comment_123140243

That’s how it works in soccer. If a player gets sent off in the final World Cup qualifier for instance, and his team doesn’t qualify for the WC, then the ban will be served in two years time when they start playing the next set of WC qualifiers. If the player has retired by then or hasn’t been selected so be it. It’s competition tied and one of the few things I’d take for rugby from soccer.

Captain_Crash

Thinking of bans, up until a few years ago bans were the number of games and not weeks. McCaw got sent off for NZ and was to be out for the Bledisloe but NZ decided to play a hastily arranged “capped international” against Samoa* behind closed doors, which served as the final game of his ban and he was available to play against Aus. It was changed not long after because of that.

*Could have been Fiji or Tonga either

fitz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123140326#Comment_123140326

I'd prefer if they did away with mitigation altogether, and switched to a base duration for a ban, and had a set of aggravating factors which add extra time. The question shouldn't be how long they get taken off, but how long they get added on. And a nice suit and good manners at the hearing should be expected, not something you're rewarded for.

I also think handing out fines to the team would be good. There's no incentive currently for coaches to prioritize safe hits. ROG's comments about risking a higher hit in the wake of the Atonio incident a while be back show that coaches are happy to excuse players. Make it their problem too.

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141229#Comment_123141229

There's no incentive currently for coaches to prioritize safe hits

There absolutely is an incentive - the team loses a player for the remainder of the match and probably a few other matches too.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141229#Comment_123141229

I think you make some very good points, especially with the 20-minute red card rule they're forcing through I think bans should also be doubled, otherwise where's the motivation to tackle properly?

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123140453#Comment_123140453

Pretty sure McCaw never got a red. In internationals at least. Don't think he got one for the Crusaders either.

Captain_Crash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141588#Comment_123141588

Your right, he didn’t and just checked to see if he was cited and he wasn’t so it had to have been someone else…! Can’t even find record of the game because it was never official, but I remember it well and the Aussies going mad about it and suspensions subsequently being changed to games instead of weeks

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141654#Comment_123141654

You're probably thinking of SBW vs the Lions in 2017. Because the Blues didn't make the SR playoffs, the final match of his suspension was the first match of the Rugby Championship. The lawyers convinced the hearing that the ABs playing against 2 NPC teams, a half against each, was a meaningful match.

The Aussiea were hardly in a position to complain. They used the equivalent of AIL matches to get their players through suspensions quicker.

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141229#Comment_123141229

You cant get rid of mitigation unless you totally change everything that refa do. Mitigation comes ibto lot of other areas as well. Ypu cant aimply have aggravating factors to add to bans with nothing to mitigate where poasible/feasible.

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141847#Comment_123141847

Why can't you?

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141847#Comment_123141847

Maybe a baseline, severe enough so players & fans know what's absolutely the minimum that will happen. Then increase the sanction if no apology, penitence, wrong biscuits, nice lad defense etc etc.

Captain_Crash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141702#Comment_123141702

Might have been that yeah? Actually pretty certain it is! Hazy memory after years of diving into rucks I’ve no business being near lol! Anyways the punishment structure was changed soon after to mitigate that tomfoolery

fitz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141865#Comment_123141865

That's what I was getting at. Wasn't talking about getting rid of mitigation on pitch, just in citing hearings. I'm not saying get rid of downgrading/dismissing if the wrong call was made on the citing in the first place. But even if it meant redefining what the ban lengths would be, have a base starting point that can't be reduced, then have add-ons to extend the ban for repeat offenses, for not accepting foul play, wrong bisquits, etc.

Pete_Cavan

I think the best way to ensure that players miss meaningful games during suspensions is a system of competition tiers;

Tier 1 - WC (suspensions incurred during warm up games would be served during the WC)

Tier 2 - formal international competitions (6N, RC, Lions series, JWC, etc.)

Tier 3 - other international games (Summer tours, AIs, etc.)

Tier 4 - multi-national cup competitions (CC, SR, etc.)

Tier 5 - domestic leagues (URC, Top14, etc.)

Tier 6 - anything else (international "A" games, random mid season friendlies, etc.)

In the first instance, bans are served in the tier where the offence occurred - so Ntamack's ban would be served entirely in the 6N because they have enough games remaining to see out the suspension

If the ban can't be served within that tier in that season, it can be served in the next match in any tier above - i.e. suspension from a CC pool game would apply firstly to other CC games as long as the player's team remains in the competition, if they go out before the full suspension is served, look at the tiers above. A suspension incurred in a URC game in February can jump up the 6N games if the player was already called up.

If the ban can't be served within that tier or above in that season, start moving down through the tiers. In a change for the NH, Summer Tours would count as the season following that summer, i.e. starting in September. That means a suspension from a 6N match which can't be fully served within that years 6N would not be left hanging until the summer when the player in question may not even be called up. The 6N suspension would first apply to Tier 4 and if not enough games then, to Tier 5 games. That should ensure most bans impact the player and are served within that season. Suspensions incurred towards the end of the season would carry over to the start of the next one.

Basically defining a hierarchy for which games count during suspension, rather than the current system of players being suspended for games they weren't going to play anyway. Of course, I don't for a second think that such a system would be implemented (it's all downsides for everyone except the guy on the receiving end of an act of foul play, but nobody cares about him).

sydthebeat

Mitigation for first offence should just be 2 weeks for everyone, regardless of the offence.

Mitigation being a percentile is the most ridiculous application ever. I elbow a lad in the face, get charged with a 12 week sanction, and get 6 weeks off due to first offence 50% mitigation.

Similarly my timing is slightly off and I take a lad in the air and get a 4 week sanction, I get 2 weeks off due to the same application of 50% off.

Why is the first offence worthy of 3 times the mitigation discount??

There seems to be zero appetite in world rugby to change the system though.

pickarooney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141229#Comment_123141229

They could just make chest-high hits illegal and remove the incentive to make borderline tackles. A low tackle where the carrier drops and you hit their head is a red but a high tackle where you missile into the sternum is strongly encouraged.

Expecting players and coaches not to play to the laws as they stand, expecting them to take more care of their opponents than the governing body is prepared to do - absolute bullshit.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123141847#Comment_123141847

You can absolutely remove the mitigation for "good behaviour at the hearing" and "apologising" etc.

There is potential mitigation around the severity of the incident - which is where the "entry point" criteria comes into things.

But the idea that someone gets a reduction just because they behaved like an adult at the hearing or because they accepted their guilt is just nonsense.

I'd be all for removing the entire middle section above.

The "entry point" decision is where you determine the severity of the incident and raise/lower the starting penalty and the "Aggravation" section is where you punish the repeat offenders etc.

Absolutely zero justification for the middle section in my view.

ersatz

Ws going to say that the middle section has 'good record' which is significant, but only in the sense that a bad record should mitigate against and that's in column 3.

PTH2009

Can't say I felt the same buzz for Season 2 of the Netflix documentary as I did last year

ersatz

MLR downgrading the scrum. This is the inevitable outcomes of the WR empowering MLR at the expense of the US Union. The pro game in the US is becoming rugby league.

https://www.planetrugby.com/news/major-league-rugby-set-for-strange-rule-changes-which-is-a-great-way-to-kill-the-sport-in-the-usa

– A knock-on or throw into touch will now result in a lineout only, removing the scrum option to keep the game moving.

– When the ball is knocked on or thrown into the in-goal area and grounded by either team, the result will be a goal-line dropout, eliminating the scrum as a restart option.

– If a team fails to play the ball within five seconds of the referee’s “use it” call, the sanction will now be a free kick instead of a scrum.

– If a maul ends unsuccessfully, the restart will now be a free kick rather than a scrum.

Jacovs

Saw that yesterday. Only time there will be a scrum is if there was a knock on during play.

Whoever wrote the article I read was not very happy with it. Especially with the USA hosting the 2031 world cup. Either the teams will have to adjust to these rules when playing there in 2031, or the US spectators will have to adjust to the rules as we know them.

ersatz

rumour that it’s coming fro World Rugby, though it’s from barstool sports so as likely to be horseshit as based on something real. Seems an insane love that will destroy union in the US.

Jacovs

Would it be some sort of long term ploy to get rugby union closer to rugby league, and then end up amalgamating the 2 rugby codes into 1 when they are similar enough? Thus combining both fan bases into 1.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166060#Comment_123166060

No. Rugby union is far far more popular than rugby league in the US.

Jacovs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166456#Comment_123166456

Im talking universally. Union in trouble in Australia, but League is a lot more popular.

CMOTDibbler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166528#Comment_123166528

But not anywhere else. Would be tail wagging the dog.

Jacovs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166538#Comment_123166538

Absolutely, but for these corporate types its all about the numbers. If they can count that whole fan base in with their own, grow their commercial income, they absolutely will.

Why else get rid of scrums so much? Do scrums lead to that many injuries? I was under the impression most injuries come from open play, tackles etc. Then they just need to stop all contact and play touch rugby instead. Soon you wont need dedicated props or hookers, since it will just be the odd time they will scrum.

Blut2

Merging with league would be great for the sport, if it didn't require too many compromises. But it probably would.

Moving to 13 players and trying to make the game a little bit faster to bridge some of the gap would both be obvious wins for Union though - a big reduction in wages for professional clubs, more players to spread around teams for amateur clubs that are struggling with numbers, and a faster game for spectators.

More cardio to cover the open spaces would mean smaller players too with positives for player welfare.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166727#Comment_123166727

Sounds utterly dreadful, genuinely.

If people want to watch League they can go watch League - but ridiculously few people do. Why we let Aussies try and drive us towards League I will never understand.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166727#Comment_123166727

If a majority Like the game wanted to follow League they already would but outside of Australia , they just don't.

Why we keep pandering to Australias local issues I will never understand.

It'd be like us asking to introduce the running solo to Rugby so we could "compete" with Gaelic Football

CMOTDibbler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166623#Comment_123166623

Not sure why you'd be asking why get rid of scrums so much. Endless resets, opaque penalties, cheating and more resets.

They've improved things by various means of getting the ball out quicker and removing the scrum option from a number of restart scenarios. But it won't be got rid of completely since it provides a good method of thinning out the field for some back moves.

irelandrover

Im a big enough rugby fan but will be honest and say scrums aren't all that interesting to me. It's got better recently but the less scrums in games the better.

So I don't think the rules are all that bad. Only one I don't like is

When the ball is knocked on or thrown into the in-goal area and grounded by either team, the result will be a goal-line dropout, eliminating the scrum as a restart option.

That just allows teams to play back into their try zone and touch the ball down. It's too easy an out

CMOTDibbler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166982#Comment_123166982

I thought carrying the ball back into your own in-goal resulted in a 5m scrum? Throwing it back would be risky enough. Don't think too many teams would be doing that.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166748#Comment_123166748

There are plenty of league viewers in the UK too. These 2024 attendance figures are comparable to the Premiership or URC UK teams.

Bringing those fans (and their money) on-board would do wonders for the game, especially in Australia where its dying.

But even money and fans aside, reducing union to 13 players isn't exactly turning the game into League. Theres no real negative to it, but plenty of postives - reduce wage bills for professional clubs by approx 15% overnight, spread more players around amateur teams, a faster / more exciting game, smaller players to cover the more field space so reduced contact injuries etc.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167084#Comment_123167084

Thats currently the rule.

The new version.

When the ball is knocked on or thrown into the in-goal area and grounded by either team, the result will be a goal-line dropout, eliminating the scrum as a restart option.

Think of a defending 5m lineout. Now you can just touch it down and get a pressure free goal line drop out.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the new rule.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123166623#Comment_123166623

There's absolutely no chance of it happening (the sports merging).

Rugby union is far more popular worldwide than rugby league so if it was hypothetically going to swing any direction it would be rugby league moving towards rugby union. Then you're losing hoards of money out of the 'combined' sport by virtue of a rake of teams no longer existing and losing a rake of broadcasting deals, sponsorships etc. And that's before you go near governance, unions, existing agreements etc.

I get the desire to make moves to make the sport exciting but looking to a fundamentally less successful sport (globally) and thinking "lets be like them" is a complete non-runner.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167094#Comment_123167094

Good for them. League is non-existent outside the north of England and Australia and making Union "more like League" won't attract league fans anyway.

There is any number of negatives to reducing the number of players, primarily being it wouldn't be Rugby Union anymore. It is an abomination of an idea. League is a joke in comparison to Union, why on earth poeple keep trying to make the globally successful sport more like the regional backwater of a sport is beyond me.

hold my beer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167096#Comment_123167096

Where's that new version coming from? The US? That won't spread anywhere else, stupid rule.

CMOTDibbler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167096#Comment_123167096

But neither of those mentions carrying the ball over the line.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167250#Comment_123167250

It mentions throwing the ball over the line. My original post didn't mention carrying it back.

Currently defending a line out of the 5 you pass back to your 10 and he clears under pressure. With the change you can pass back to your 10. He touches down and has a pressure free clearance.

CMOTDibbler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167418#Comment_123167418

I know. I was asking was there any change there. Clearly not, so there's at least one scrum option.

Also there's something weird about that wording:

When the ball is knocked on or thrown into the in-goal area and grounded by either team, the result will be a goal-line dropout, eliminating the scrum as a restart option.

A grounding by one team would be a try, providing it wasn't they who threw it into the in-goal. Also if the defending team pass it back and ground it, that was always a goal line drop-out or 22. I think. So many law changes are melting my head.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167480#Comment_123167480

I always thought a defending team passing back into the in goal area and grounding it was a 5 metre scrum.

breezy1985

I don't think eliminating the scrum has anything got to do with Rugby League. It's a soulless marketing response to customer satisfaction surveys that claim it kills the atmosphere or slows the game down.

It's designed to respond to the criticism coming from the 6 Nations only supporters who spend half the match (they paid too much for) standing at the bar under the stand.

CMOTDibbler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167514#Comment_123167514

You're probably right. As I said, head melted. Carrying it back though is still a scrum. Or at least it was last weekend.

hold my beer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123167514#Comment_123167514

It is. This looks like a stupid rule being tried in the US.

ersatz

obviously trying it in the US because audiences are small and insignificant in the larger rugby world. It’s likely an R&D excercise to experiment with the rules to minimise scrums. It does feel like it’s headed to RL territory but let’s face it, doing that would haemorrhage supporters because union fans don’t like rugby league. But be it’s a dangerous trend that assumes downsizing forward play will attract more fans by speeding up the game. Kind of ironic that it’s trialing in the US where AL is religion, a game that takes 4 hours for less than 20 minutes of play.