'Does put a damper on things': Crusaders concerned with All Black duo

Residency qualification (after 18 years old) is bad enough. Residency qualification (after 18 years old) should only be for tier two nations. The only exception should be, genuine, family migration (not just the player on a scholarship) - before the player turns 18.

Test rugby is becoming too much like club rugby, that you can play for whoever you want to (or the richest team).

I’d love for Rugby to go back to that version of the game. Which was closer to Calcio Storico. watched some highlights of England v Austria (1975). The Aussies (literally) beating the sh1t out the English players on kickoff!

Ah, the good ole days. Eh, Nick?

Alas, the game has been turned civilized. Neutered by more and more rule changes every year. Perpetrated by the rulers of the game.

Your article is spot on about time lost to resets. And stopping the clock on resets is an excellent idea. But your article mixes in the “problem” of scrum penalties which has nothing to do with time wasting. But does highlight the problem of referees struggling to referee the ever-changing rules of the game.

Let’s stop stuffing around with laws and allow the refs to catch-up and settle.

If one of those players from 1937 were teleported to present day and asked to watch a game from this past weekend - he wouldn’t know what the f$uck was going on. Might decide to watch league rather.

That said, Felix Jones would be first on my list followed by Jacques Nienaber, Franco Smith and Johan Ackermann.

The only way things improve, that the future looks bright, is if these players remain in NZ. I don't think I'd enjoy rugby if it was all played offshore, than if there wasn't the Kiwi or Aussie game to enjoy, some I'm happy for the game in NZ to make it or bust.

Unfortunately why appears more and more likely as no news comes out, is that they've had to pull in the budget and Mo'unga is unlikely to be brought out of his contract, or perhaps not even be offered enough (with Dmac running the side) to return at all. The main reason I heard for his return can only get weaker and weaker as time heals I would have thought. So it looks like NZR will try and last as long as they can, being frugal with their money, until it all finally peters out.

First, the point would be you wouldn't have a share of those penalities if you didn't choose good scrummers right.

So having incentive to scrummaging well gives more space in the field through having less mobile players.

This balance is what we always strive to come back to being the focus of any law change right.

So to bring that back to some of the points in this article, if changing the current 'offense' structure of scrums, to say not penalizing a team that's doing their utmost to hold up the scrum (allowing play to continue even if they did finally succumb to collapsing or w/e for example), how are we going to stop that from creating a situation were a coach can prioritize the open play abilities of their tight five, sacrificing pure scrummaging, because they won't be overly punished by having a weak scrum?

But to get back on topic, yes, that balance is too skewed, the prevalence has been too much/frequent.

At the highest level, with the best referees and most capable props, it can play out appealingly well. As you go down the levels, the coaching of tactics seems to remain high, but the ability of the players to adapt and hold their scrum up against that guy boring, or the skill of the ref in determining what the cause was and which of those two to penalize, quickly degrades the quality of the contest and spectacle imo (thank good european rugby left that phase behind!)

Personally I have some very drastic changes in mind for the game that easily remedy this prpblem (as they do for all circumstances), but the scope of them is too great to bring into this context (some I have brought in were applicable), and without them I can only resolve to come up with lots of 'finicky' like those here. It is easy to understand why there is reluctance in their uptake.

I also think it is very folly of WR to try and create this 'perfect' picture of simple laws that can be used to cover all aspects of the game, like 'a game to be played on your feet' etc, and not accept it needs lots of little unique laws like these. I'd be really happy to create some arbitrary advantage for the scrum victors (similar angle to yours), like if you can make your scrum go forward, that resets the offside line from being the ball to the back foot etc, so as to create a way where your scrum wins a foot be "5 meters back" from the scrum becomes 7, or not being able to advance forward past the offisde line (attack gets a free run at you somehow, or devide the field into segments and require certain numbers to remain in the other sgements (like the 30m circle/fielders behind square requirements in cricket). If you're defending and you go forward then not just is your 9 still allowed to harras the opposition but the backline can move up from the 5m line to the scrum line or something.

Make it a real mini game, take your solutions and making them all circumstantial. Having differences between quick ball or ball held in longer, being able to go forward, or being pushed backwards, even to where the scrum stops and the ref puts his arm out in your favour. Think of like a quick tap scenario, but where theres no tap. If the defending team collapses the scrum in honest attempt (even allow the attacking side to collapse it after gong forward) the ball can be picked up (by say the eight) who can run forward without being allowed to be tackled until he's past the back of the scrum for example. It's like a little mini picture of where the defence is scrambling back onside after a quick tap was taken.

The purpose/intent (of any such gimmick) is that it's going to be so much harder to stop his momentum, and subsequent tempo, that it's a really good advantage for having such a powerful scrum. No change of play to a lineout or blowing of the whistle needed.

To me there are some other issues not being able to take advantage of both a good scrum and a good counter attack. The ABs when that Argy game without a scrum for 60 minutes because they were happy to counter attack, or something throw ball around or play normally, every 'advantage' the were rewarded.

You should be able to use both tools imo, so I honestly would be looking to exchange the scrums use from knockons to something more reliable.

A dozen (successfully completed) scrums a game is a good number to aim for?

He is just showing the new need for what you suggest, some good analysis into the result of all the previous decades changes to scrums.

The trick is about enabling it to work that way. Being able to opt for a penalty (as is suggested being removed as an option) instead of capitalizing on your scrum dominance acheivers neither of those two things.

So straight away, as a analyst we can see that you would appreciate the suggestions in this article once you saw it played out, even if you can't picture their worth/value now.

Rugby is a balanced game, meant for all shapes and sizes.

Yep, I think you would certainly love them!

But speeding them up further is not the answer (no one has suggested it as a solution so not sure why were talking abuot?) to anything, no, it is about player safety now. Results will be made by increasing their success rate. And you make a very good point that it is all about balance anyway.

It won't be rugby at that point DP, so nobody will be watching rugby! A sobering thought everyone at WR should keep in mind.