> you break the law you need to be penalised instead of this let things go for
> the sake of an open game and hope the players do the right thing. I would
> suggest more liberal use of the the yellow card or maybe the introduction of
> a green card :-5 min sin bin. One thing the ill fated Australian Cup/
> League(?) showed was sin binning players for deliberate violations worked
OK, let's establish two things.
Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that penalising players leads to more productive play. The British have been following this approach for a century or more and all it leads to is games constantly punctuated by penalties and an emphasis on playing negative rugby that induces penalties for the opposition. And nobody hopes that players will mysteriously decide to do the right thing. Players have to be wheeled, coaxed, persuaded, cajoled, instructed, commanded and threatened into doing the right thing -- and many of them will, which removes the need for the game to stop for yet another ***ing penalty. The point of rugby is not to watch the referee blow his whistle -- the point of rugby is to enjoy playing the game; and enjoy watching the game.
Secondly, and logically subsequent to that final point, the referee's job is not to constantly and diligently search for infringements on the field that can be awarded a penalty. There are about nine*** of those a second and theoretically seventy-five minutes of every game could be absorbed in the awarding and execution of penalties. Now, even the law book actually states that penalties are not to be awarded on purely pedantic, technical grounds but only when they have materially disadvantaged the non-poffending team.
So let's get right away from the whole concept of managing the game by penalties, and focus on positive and productive guidance from sensible, well-considered laws, through education, good coaching and positive, proactive game management by referees. It is not "letting things go". It is guiding the players to fulfil the whole point of the game -- enjoyable play and enjoyable spectacle.
> 1) it will reduce markedly the contest at the breakdown reducing turnover
> chances, I just love the 15 phase pick and push NOT
I disagree. There is currently little contest at the breakdown after the initial tackle. There is a brief period where a single defender has access to the ball and then the attacking loose forwards, and often backs, arrive, dive over the ruck and seal off access, drive defending players from the ruck and back into their own territory, and tackle adjacent players without the ball and remove them from the vicinity -- all in complete disregard from any number of laws. Get teams to commit all their forwards to the breakdown as the game was intended to do, and make movement a necessity so that every breakdown does not simply become stacks on the mill.
> 2) it will turn the game into a series of rolling mauls unless the offside
> is looked at
The first thing I would do is make it legal to collapse the maul. Defending teams would hesitate to do that, because the attacking team had forward movement and would retain possession. Instead, there would be incentive for them to commit all their forwards and try and push the maul back the other way. If it became stationary, the ref could order the team in possession to use it or lose it, and away we go, with lost of space out wide.