New Mitre 10 Cup laws



  • NZ rugby to trial two refs, new laws in national provincial championship in 2016
     
    TOBY ROBSON
    Last updated 20:49, December 17 2015
     
    Two referees will officiate together during New Zealand's national provincial championship next year as part of a World Rugby trial of proposed rule changes.
     
    The second on-field official will mainly be used to rule on a new offside line that will be moved one metre back from a redefined ruck, where the confusing "gate" will be ditched and the rights of the tackler reduced.
     
    New Zealand Rugby wasn't planning to unveil the proposed rule changes until early next year, but they are widely known after provincial unions sounded out clubs across the country about whether or not they wanted their premier competitions to trial the rules in order to prepare players for the representative season.
     
    Tweaks of the rules had been signalled with All Blacks coach Steve Hansen among the most vocal in saying the game needs to be easier to play, watch and referee, but the move to using two referees as is the case in the National Rugby League is a bold move.
     
    NRL bosses introduced the concept in 2009 and some referees believe it will provide a major improvement in keeping ever creeping defensive players on side. They also believed getting rid of the imaginary "gate" through which players can legally enter the breakdown will make things easier for officials.
     
    It remains unclear exactly what duties each of the on-field referees would have, but is assumed the secondary official would primarily be charged with policing the offside. In league there is a "lead ref" who does the bulk of officiating from the defensive side, though in international matches there is still only one on-field official.
     
    Dual referees aside, the most drastic change to be trialled during New Zealand's newly named Mitre 10 Cup will be at the tackle and ruck respectively.
     
    Under current law a ruck is formed when one player from each team are on their feet, in physical contact, over the ball. The trial will see the word "ruck" replaced by "breakdown", which would be formed when just one attacking player was over the ball on the ground. Once a breakdown is formed, no player from either side will be able to make a play for the ball with their hands, but in the absence of a "gate" would be able to enter the breakdown from any angle as long as they have come from an onside position.
     
    That will see an end to the familiar call of "from the side" with the hope there are less penalties and less confusion about which players are legally trying to enter the most frequent phase of the game.
     
    Essentially defenders will only be able to make a play for the ball if they swoop in, à la Wallabies loose forward David Pocock, before the first arriving attacker can turn the tackle into a breakdown.
     
    Tackler's rights will also be reduced from 360 degrees to 180 degrees, bunting the effectiveness of players like All Blacks openside Richie McCaw, who in his prime made an art form of stealing the ball in the same act as effecting a tackle. With the requirement to get back one metre before returning to the breakdown, tacklers will essentially have only one choice, which will be to roll away.
     
    Law makers are hopeful defences will see opportunity in counter rucking in numbers as opposed to getting their hands on the ball, but coaches spoken to by Stuff believed the rule changes would favour the attacking side by making it difficult to effect a steal at the tackle with defences simply fanning out to form a defensive wall.
     
    Similar dynamics were at play in in Super Rugby during the early 2000s when the Brumbies, under coach Eddie Jones, perfected the art of building pressure through holding the ball through countless phases in order to break down picket fence defensive lines.
     
    There is potential for the new laws, but not the two referees, to be trialled in New Zealand's premier club rugby grade in 2016. Provinces across the country are currently asking their clubs for feedback, although World Rugby would then have to sign off on any changes below the national provincial championship.
     
    The drive for change has been driven by World Rugby who sought feedback from around the globe before ratifying the trials, which will not be restricted to New Zealand.
     
    Hansen has been vocal about his desire to see changes to simplify the breakdown and create time and space for teams to attack, while Chiefs coach Dave Rennie took part in World Rugby's review process in March this year as a member of a Laws Representation Group.
     
    That group presented recommendations to World Rugby in October and following next year's trials any approved changes would come into force in January 2017 in the southern hemisphere and in August that year for the northern hemisphere.
     
    AT A GLANCE
    Proposed World Rugby law changes:
     
    1 Two on-field referees
    2 Removal of the 'gate' entry at the breakdown
    3 Tackler and arriving players can enter from midpoint of breakdown as long as they come from an onside position
    4 Tackler no longer has 360 degree rights to the ball
    5 Offside lines one metre behind hindmost foot at breakdown



  • you are going to see guys getting hammered from harsh angles.
    dont understand the tackler from 180 degrees rule. you really dont see a lot of that anyway imo.
    but i think the tackler having to role away will be hard in 1v1 cover tackles. attacker will get an easy 2nd chance
    so hard to ref the one metre behind even with a 2nd ref



  • Hmm Hard to comment with not much detail. Don't really understand the takler rights bit because the article suggests the a tackler instead of now having to show a clear release ie. hands in the air, before going for a turnover would have to tackle, get back a metre then go for the steal. Am i interpretting that right?
     
    One change I wish they would bring back from the old "ELVs" is the legally collapsing the maul. Lots will disagree but i don't think legal obstruction being protected from a tackle fits with the rest of the game as it is played.
    The way the maul has become is a bit of a joke. I think we were lucky the RWC didn't become a maul fest like some had suggested earlier in the year.
     
    Back on topic though. It will be interesting to also see how the two refs work together. IF one is watching the offside how will he know the ball is out ? Will the ref watching the ruck yell "ball out" every ruck? In fact i think that would actually be a good thing because it would take away those situations where a defender thinks a ball is out only to be pinged for offside.



  • on paper looks like a pretty shitty rule change to me.
    Offside one meter behind the hindmost foot? Is that only for the defending team, I guess, otherwise the acting scrumhalf would always be offside, so that means attacking teams get huge advantage with pick and gos, which are dull to watch.
    Tackler not having all the rights from anywhere is just silly, it's not like it's too much power to the tackler anyways, he usually gets cleaned out and if support is too slow then that's attacking teams fault. Why disadvantage the tackler there? It takes a decent amount of skill to get up on your feet quick enough to steal the ball, no matter from where, but after tackling you'd uickly have to adjust to where your side of the field (your 180°) is, which can be confusing when you're swinging around holding someones shorts or legs. Shitfuck
    Two on field-referees will lead to simulatenous blowing of whistles and one referee penalises team A and the other team B for their respective indiscretions. Will be confusing and shit
     
    I have zero faith in this being a positive rule change, there's so many more different things in urgent need of reform, and they fuck up the tackle and ruck situation? how about the maul?



  • Some weird laws that don't really need changing/tweaking and nothing about making a maul (and I still love mauls) a fairer 'contest'.



  • on paper looks like a pretty shitty rule change to me.
    Offside one meter behind the hindmost foot? Is that only for the defending team, I guess, otherwise the acting scrumhalf would always be offside, so that means attacking teams get huge advantage with pick and gos, which are dull to watch.
    Tackler not having all the rights from anywhere is just silly, it's not like it's too much power to the tackler anyways, he usually gets cleaned out and if support is too slow then that's attacking teams fault. Why disadvantage the tackler there? It takes a decent amount of skill to get up on your feet quick enough to steal the ball, no matter from where, but after tackling you'd uickly have to adjust to where your side of the field (your 180°) is, which can be confusing when you're swinging around holding someones shorts or legs. Shitfuck
    Two on field-referees will lead to simulatenous blowing of whistles and one referee penalises team A and the other team B for their respective indiscretions. Will be confusing and shit
     
    I have zero faith in this being a positive rule change, there's so many more different things in urgent need of reform, and they fuck up the tackle and ruck situation? how about the maul?

    I guess they'll have one 'lead' ref who makes the calls, the other just acts more as a guide for other rules? Otherwise, yep, be funny watching them rule a breakdown infringement differently.



  • They had to wait for Ritchie to retire before introducing this trial.....



  • I'm not sure if I trust World Rugby to make choices if their stats is anything to go by
     
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/75301573/all-blacks-praised-for-attacking-prowess-in-official-2015-rwc-report

    • Kicks have decreased from 59 to 39 per match and scrums have more than halved from 23 to 13.


  • There aren't enough refs for 2 to become the norm.



  • They had to wait for Ritchie to retire before introducing this trial.....

    Came here for this. Fuck imagine how good etc...



  • If unbound players have to be 1 meter behind the breakdown to be onside, how do you traverse that one meter in order to bind in a legal fashion?



  • Hmm Hard to comment with not much detail. Don't really understand the takler rights bit because the article suggests the a tackler instead of now having to show a clear release ie. hands in the air, before going for a turnover would have to tackle, get back a metre then go for the steal. Am i interpretting that right?

    I sincerely hope not. World rugby seem hell bent on getting rid of the contest for possession aspect of the game.

    Some weird laws that don't really need changing/tweaking and nothing about making a maul (and I still love mauls) a fairer 'contest'.

    The single biggest blight on the game.



  • I wish they stopped messing with the rules! %$*+@#%^ 
     
    NZ Herald:

    Rugby: Tries to be worth six points in NPC
    8:17 AM Wednesday Dec 23, 2015
     
    Tries are set to have greater value in next year's Mitre 10 Cup after a scoring change was revealed this morning.
     
    New Zealand Rugby's Neil Sorensen has confirmed to TAB Sport Radio that tries will now be worth six points in the 2016 national provincial championship, with penalties dropping in value to from three to two points.
     
    Formerly known as the ITM Cup, the Mitre 10 Cup has been chosen to host the initiative which will place an emphasis on try-scoring and attacking rugby, and decrease the amount of penalties being kicked.
     
    Additionally, according to a report by World Rugby, NZ Rugby are also looking at experimenting with two referees next year in the competition.

    • More to come


  • I don't see what increasing the points for a try achieves in NZ rugby. We already play the game to score tries more than penalties.



  • I don't see what increasing the points for a try achieves in NZ rugby. We already play the game to score tries more than penalties.

    yeah my thoughts exactly.
     
    Being worth more does what to the way the game is already played in NZ?
     
    A trial of this sort would be better in England (if it is needed at all)



  • A few more details in this article on Stuff:

    Tries to be worth six points in New Zealand rugby's NPC
     
    Tries will be worth six points in New Zealand's national rugby championship next year.
     
    The change was confirmed by New Zealand Rugby's Neil Sorensen in an interview with TAB Sport Radio on Wednesday.
     
    The changes will also include penalties being reduced from three points to two points.
     
    The moves are part of World Rugby's trials to make the sport more attacking and appealing.
     
    Australia's national championship and Welsh leagues have already been operating under the new scoring system.
     
    Next year's Pacific Challenge Cup and Under-20 trophy will also feature the same scoring rewards along with other European competitions
     
    Giving greater points for tries and less for penalties is seen as a positive move.
     
    New Zealand are also set to trial two referees in the 2016 NPC.

    If penalties are devalued to 2 points, isn't that an invitation to more offending? Or are the two refs going to hand out more cards as well?



  • Horrible, horrible, horrible. Why is World Rugby intent on destroying the penalty as a practical method of scoring points? I doubt I will be watching any ITM Cup rugby next season. As Crucial said, how many ITM Cup games is point scoring not rewarded? People are kidding themselves if they think that people aren't turning up because the rugby isn't exciting enough. People don't turn up to the ITM Cup because the rugby is seen as irrelevant.



  • A few more details in this article on Stuff:
     
     
    If penalties are devalued to 2 points, isn't that an invitation to more offending? Or are the two refs going to hand out more cards as well?

    In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.



  • In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.

    In 79 ITM Cup games we had 45 yellow cards and 2 red cards.
     
    This means that if we are to emulate the NRC, the amount of yellow cards will increase 2.75 times. Great news if you are a referee; bad news if you think one of the problems with rugby is close games being decided by referees.



  • In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.

    Define "unbalanced" - in the context of a player deliberately infringing in certain situations, and receiving his due for it.



  • Define "unbalanced" - in the context of a player deliberately infringing in certain situations, and receiving his due for it.

    I don't know what sport you watch if you think that the majority of YC's given now are for deliberate offences. Most of them are given for repeated offences. Many are given when players become trapped on the wrong side of the ruck. Many are given when a defensive team is genuinely trying to stop a rolling maul and end up infringing. I would hate to see what kind of things are given YC's in the NRC where we see almost  3 times as many cards given.



  • In case anyone thought I was being alarmist, there were two penalty goals kicked in the NRC (which operates under slightly different scoring rules). Make no mistake - these rules will eliminate the penalty goal as a genuine option in rugby games.



  • i would have thought it would lead to more intentional fouls being committed. give away 2 instead or 6 maybe 8( 33% or 25%),sounds better tan 3 instead or 5 maybe 7(60% or 42%)
    the only way i can see this working is if the the threshold for a yellow card is going to be lower



  • Finally, the NZRU has posted all the rule changes that will be trialled:

    New laws to be trialled across domestic competitions
     
    ALLBLACKS.COM     23 DEC 2015
     
    Changes to rugby laws will be trialled across New Zealand’s national provincial competitions in 2016.
     
    New Zealand Rugby is currently planning to trial changes that will apply to some of the domestic competitions including a new points scoring system, policing of the breakdown and the use of two referees.
    New Zealand Rugby General Manager Rugby Neil Sorensen said that while much of the detail on how the laws will be implemented, is still to be worked through, the trials were part and parcel of World Rugby’s cyclical review of laws.
    “World Rugby conducts a review of its laws about every four years, typically after Rugby World Cup, and they evaluate current law and we have had (All Blacks Coach) Steve Hansen and (Chiefs Coach) on the Law Review Group looking at these laws.
    “That group has come out with a number of suggested changes, some of which they have asked New Zealand trial.
    The following will be trialled next year:Mitre 10 Cup:
    • Two referees
    • New points system – 8 pts penalty try, 6 pts try, 2 pts DG, 2 pts PK, 2 pts Conv
    • Law 15: Tackler must get to feet then can only play the ball from his side of the mid-point of the breakdown; Tackler assist or first arriving player may play the ball as long they join from an onside position
    • Law 16:
    Breakdown iss formed when an attacking player of feet is over the ball on the ground, from this time no players may play the ball with their hands.
    An off side line is created “hindmost foot + 1 metre.
    Arriving players may join from onside as long as they join their side of the midpoint (no gate).
    No players may have their hands on the ground, or players already on the ground. A player in the half back position may play the ball
    Mitre 10 Heartland & Women’s Provincial Championship
    • New points system - 8pts Penalty Try, 6pts Try, 2 pts each for PK, DG and ConvJock Hobbs Memorial Under 19 Championship
    • Two referees
    Sorensen said the alternative points system would also likely be trialled in Mitre 10 Cup, as well as the Mitre 10 Heartland Championship and the Mitre 10 Women’s Provincial Championship.
    The allocation of six points for a try and two for a penalty had already been trialled in Australia.
    “It did have some massive changes in domestic rugby and it will be really interesting to see how it pans out in our domestic rugby next year. What they found in Australia was that were hardly any kicks at goal, a lot more kicking for touch, a lot more tries but there were other unintended consequences such as more yellow cards as the value of penalties was reduced.
    “There’s a massive amount of work to do before we bring these laws into play. World Rugby will come back and give us the mechanics of the law (referee calls etc) but our referees team will also work with World Rugby and Provincial Unions to ensure a smooth implementation of the new rules.”
    “This is quite a daunting piece of work, but also very exciting to think we will have quite a different looking game next year.”



  • FFS, if you increase a try to 6 you don't drop penalties to 2. Who came up with this clusterfuck?



  • stupid idea, and mathematically embarrassing.



  • 4 penalties/drop goals = 1 converted try
     
    Seems daft after one of the better RWCs in terms of playing style, where 2 of the most attacking teams made the final for a change, and now they look to make changes?
     
    Before the RWC everyone was worried mauls would be a blight on the RWC, they werent, after a scratchy start with TMO use, it was refereed pretty damn well, and the play reflected it.



  • Seems daft after one of the better RWCs in terms of playing style, where 2 of the most attacking teams made the final for a change, and now they look to make changes?

    There were three attacking teams made the top 4 when you think about it. But besides Japan, and occasionally Canada, a lot of it was twaddle.
     
    Why NZRFU think they need to change the domestic scene is anyone's guess. I would think - like most of you seem to - that everything is just peachy with Kiwi rugby and that nothing needs to change while you're #1 with no signs of losing steam at all levels of rugby.
     
    Yet, here we are. Apparently the "stupidity" of the NRC experiment has infected the noble bastion of NZ domestic rugby. Who'd have thunk it?

    I don't know what sport you watch if you think that the majority of YC's given now are for deliberate offences. Most of them are given for repeated offences. Many are given when players become trapped on the wrong side of the ruck.

    Well, it sucks for that player, but maybe his team mates should have been defending legally up to that point. That's why its called a team warning. And I'm not sure about "many" being quantifiable.
     
    A lot of the YCs given in NRC that I saw were for deliberate infringement - particularly as the speed of the game was quite a bit higher than most of the club guys had experienced to that point. They start to run out of puff and infringe, knowing they need to prevent a try. Ref gets them in the red zone.
     
    Here is a breakdown of the NRC between last (inaugural) year and this year:
     
    http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/16790/Buildcorp-NRC-A-2015-v-2014-statistical-snapshot.aspx
     
    Penalties and Yellow Cards
    In 2014, the breakdown was an average of 24 penalties per game, 1.9 free kicks per game, and 1.5 yellow cards per game.In 2015 the breakdown is:•    21.9 penalties per game (High of 31, Low of 13);•    1.2 free kicks per game, and•    1.5 yellow cards per game.The good sign here is that though penalties and free kicks have decreased (also a reason why BIP time increased in 2015), referees remain unafraid to hand out yellow cards. In total, 53 yellows and four red cards were handed out over the 36 games.With penalty goals reduced to two points under the Buildcorp NRC Law Variations, it’s crucial that referees remain on top of cynical infringements, particularly. Happily, this is the case, with referees happy to blow the penalty, dish out the card, and teams winning the penalty invariably kicking for the corner to set up the lineout drive.
     
    Fairly consistent, which is all you can ask for. They make the point that cynical infringements must be punished, but that is the same anywhere.
     
    Will be interesting to see what happens next year as player fitness levels continue to increase due to experience in both the playing and coaching areas. Its a fairly short comp (couple of months with finals) but players who want contracts know they need to get and stay fit if they want a career out of this.



  • There were three attacking teams made the top 4 when you think about it. But besides Japan, and occasionally Canada, a lot of it was twaddle.
     
    Why NZRFU think they need to change the domestic scene is anyone's guess. I would think - like most of you seem to - that everything is just peachy with Kiwi rugby and that nothing needs to change while you're #1 with no signs of losing steam at all levels of rugby.
     
    Yet, here we are. Apparently the "stupidity" of the NRC experiment has infected the noble bastion of NZ domestic rugby. Who'd have thunk it?

    3 of the teams playing more attractive rugby made it to the semi finals, if that isnt endorsement enough that things are moving in the right direction.
     
    The Welsh have always tried to play expansively, the Irish want to, the English want to, the French can...the Island teams do but seem to possibly be hamstrung by so many plying thier trade in a comp that is dominated by teams not playuing that style.
     
    As to changing the domestic game, well it has its problems, but I dont think the changes they are looking at are addressing these...try scoring and attacking flowing rugby isnt exactly an oddity at NPC. 
     
    Changing the points - why? What do they hope to achieve?
    1m off-side line and no gate - be interesting seeing it in action
    No hands in ruck at all - so only way to win the ball is to clear past it?
    2 refs - the concept is good, but cant see it working at all, we have 2 other officials already that do jack shit, and one of the 2 new officials is gonna have to take a back seat (like what youd expect the AR to have done) otherwise it will end up a clusterfuck.
     
    In regard to the 'stupid' NRC comp trialling the changes, maybe they now want to have a go in a 'real' comp 😉



  • And here I was thinking we'd just had one of the best RWCs ever. There is nothing wrong with the rules and points scoring in rugby - in fact rugby has this worked out better then any ther sport. Soccer - goals mean way too much. At the other end of the scale, Aussie Rules - points don't mean enough. Rugby has it exactly right at the moment.
    The only controversy in the RWC was the erratic way the judiciary punished foul play. That's where they need to focus their attention.



  • No hands in ruck at all - so only way to win the ball is to clear past it?

    Most counter-rucks are exactly that. Power over the ball.
     
    Technically, most steals aren't hands in the ruck at all - player has beaten the ruck formation, so the offence occurred before any ruck.



  • One thing no one has mentioned is that a penalty try is now worth 8 points! I assume you still get a conversion so it will now be worth 10 points. What a ridiculous idea.
     
    Some times I feel like a very strange rugby fan. I actually like rugby for what it is.



  • is it really that or are they just counting it as 8 given it is all but a guaranteed 2 points?
     
    I guess it would make sense to avoid the professional fouls to allow 2 points rather than a try, but still messing about with the wrong part of the game.



  • why don't they just make a try worth 12 points, and penalties and conversions worth 4 each, cause everyone likes high-scoring games.
     
    fucking idiots.



  • One thing no one has mentioned is that a penalty try is now worth 8 points! I assume you still get a conversion so it will now be worth 10 points. What a ridiculous idea.
     
    Some times I feel like a very strange rugby fan. I actually like rugby for what it is.

    Nah I think its "penalty try doesn't need a conversion kicked" - so 8 points.
     
    I think the simultaneous reduction of penalties and DGs and increase on tries could have been done a different way. I opined during the NRC that it would slowly decrease the role of the long-range goal kicker, given pretty much any penalty is now kicked for touch.
     
    Keeping Pen and DG at 3 would have been a better system, with tries at 6.



  • It's been said but why, after the best World Cup ever, with fantastic attacking rugby throughout do we neex this?
    In my opinion (and cue Nick) this is all about Straya and Strayans not understanding rugby and wanting it to be league.
    "We don't like rucks"
    "We need more tries"*
    "We don't understand the rules"
    "Scrums should be restarts only"
    Squeeky wheel syndrome.
    WR has been sucked in to thinking there is something wrong with the game that requires fundamental fucking with, where a few minor tweaks would suffice.
    HATE (if I use caps will that give it more weight?) the scoring changes. Will result in more infringing.

      • which is bullshit anyway IMO


  • In my opinion (and cue Nick) this is all about Straya and Strayans not understanding rugby and wanting it to be league.

    :lol: Yeah because suddenly WE are the world power in rugby union. :lol: 
     
    And :lol: WE are the ones who tell the NZRFU what to do with their domestic comp 🤣
     
    IT IS ALL AN AUSSIE PLOT, BRO!  :knuppel:
     
    Clearly, the boxing day beers are going well in Wide Bay! 😉
     
    :fishing:   :good1:

    WR has been sucked in to thinking there is something wrong with the game that requires fundamental fucking with, where a few minor tweaks would suffice.

    Look at it this way - and this isn't my opinion, just supposition on a potential line of thought whereupon we have arrived at this situation:
     
    WR has just seen all its NH unions fail to make a mark at RWC2015. They're going to try SOMETHING but can't impose that sort of shit on their batshit crazy club systems up north.
     
    Neither can they push through these kind of Law changes based on the two-year-old Australian domestic competition (and fair enough). 
    So they need more proving grounds to see if these things work. They need it to be a rugby heartland with a contained next-tier competition. That rules out Wales because there is too much crossover with Europe, and South Africa because they place too much importance on their Currie Cup and may not have been keen on any overtures.
     
    According to the Tony Robson article I read on stuff, these trials won't be restricted to NZ. Maybe the ARU will take on some of these things for the NRC next year as well.
     
    As for this:

    "We don't understand the rules"
    ...
    Squeeky wheel syndrome.

    From http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/75216263/nz-rugby-to-trial-two-refs-new-laws-in-national-provincial-championship-in-2016
     
    Hansen has been vocal about his desire to see changes to simplify the breakdown and create time and space for teams to attack, while Chiefs coach Dave Rennie took part in World Rugby's review process in March this year as a member of a Laws Representation Group.
     
    That group presented recommendations to World Rugby in October and following next year's trials any approved changes would come into force in January 2017 in the southern hemisphere and in August that year for the northern hemisphere.
     
    Fucking Hansen and Rennie: squeaky wheels extraordinaire!



  • It's still crsp and I still blame you Aussies



  • Nah I think its "penalty try doesn't need a conversion kicked" - so 8 points.
     
    I think the simultaneous reduction of penalties and DGs and increase on tries could have been done a different way. I opined during the NRC that it would slowly decrease the role of the long-range goal kicker, given pretty much any penalty is now kicked for touch.
     
    Keeping Pen and DG at 3 would have been a better system, with tries at 6.

    As someone else pointed out, tries should be 2 and kicks 1 under that system.



  • They should increase a try to six, reduce a conversion to one, but have them from in front of the posts. Then they should allow forward passes and obstruction.


Log in to reply