APV1 says...

@ BokAvenger - Hear! Hear! Whilst we all appreciate the need for sponsorship and advertising, that shouldn't mean that we bow to their every whim.

@ sandal - I've always though that the kicker should get the time they need, but the clock should have stopped. Therefore there'd be no advantage in taking longer. And kicking has now become a science, so they do take quite some time to compose themsleves, get in "the zone", etc...

Posted 10:55 17th May 2012

sandal says...

I almost don't care how long the kicker has to attempt his conversion. So long as this new rule stops try scorers throwing the ball into the crowd.

In 1976, a South African referee called time on an All Black penalty kick after 40 seconds. (Although the ref claimed that was the rule, of course no such rule existed.) Based on that experience, anything less than 90 seconds might be tight if the time for a conversion attempt is measured from the moment the try is awarded.

On the other hand, I remember Dan Carter converting a try from the sideline after the ball fell over and he re-placed it. He acted so quickly he probably didn't have time to worry or to think about it. Short time allowances might just make for more accurate goalkicking.

Posted 07:58 17th May 2012

BokAvenger says...

The IRB is ruining rugby with pathetic "made for TV" rule changes. Next they'll divide the game into quarters so they can squeeze some extra advertising revenue out of the game. Real rugby should just break away from this psuedo League rubbish they're trying to create.

Posted 19:28 16th May 2012

papachinzo says...

The TMO should have been able to those things anyway, it will turn even the most wayward, indecisive referee, into a pro.

5 seconds is a bit ridiculous really, it should be more like 10-15 seconds.

I think another rule they should look into, is the amount of times a scrum can be reset, a max of 2-3 would suffice. Scrum resets always kill momentum and eat up game time!

Posted 14:53 16th May 2012

physiodan says...

What I would like to see is a single question that the referee can ask to the TMO which either gives benefit of doubt to the the attack or defence. In my eyes, "Is it a try, tes or no?" puts the benefit with the defence as the ball may have been grounded but the TMO cannot see it to award it, where as "Is there any reason why I cannot award the try?" gives the benefit to the attacking team as the TMO cannot disallow unless there is something glaringly obvious. My personal preferance is that the benefit should always go in favour of the attacking team.

Posted 12:56 16th May 2012

jamesliveinhope says...

5 seconds is plenty (count it) the reality is that they only use about 15 seconds a ruck anyway.

Posted 11:46 16th May 2012

pugzly101 says...

DaveJ,

According do a few different commentaries, the 5 second rule will only start once the ref has let the scrum half know that the ball is playable. I don't think the re-organising of the back line will be too much of an issue, well, not for NH teams anyway as most NH teams forwards like to come around the corner straight after a backs move.

Posted 10:33 16th May 2012

BackingLeinster says...

Does anyone know the details on this, how long can the ball be kept at the back of the ruck. Hopefully the ref will just call use it once the ball becomes playable and the scrum half will have to take it on. Also how far back will the TMO's be allowed to ajudicate. Hopefully it will be limited to the last ruck/kick/scrum/line out

Posted 09:29 16th May 2012

Bash says...

90 second limit is far too much. Isn't it suppose to be 60 seconds?

The best amendment is the 5 second ruck rule. Northern hemisphere teams are going to struggle I reckon...

Posted 09:08 16th May 2012