The one law change that still annoys me is the held up-goal line dropout change.
I still don't understand why we needed to get rid of 5m scrums.
Scrums are an important part of the game and, imho, nothing beats watching a good scrum contest. I don't think that I am alone in that view.

As an referee in community rugby, my views are maybe slightly different to some - refing is much more difficult than most people think and the laws of rugby are complex and sometimes make it much harder to do a good job.  Before anyone adds anything new in to the laws, they should have to remove or simplify something else. 

From my (albeit slightly selfish) perspective, the one about quick taps would just be a pain.  I like the one about 50:22s - one thing less to watch out for.  Equally the penalty try one is a good move in my books.  It can be much harder than you'd think to get the right player.  In community rugby, it's surprisingly common for players not to have the correct, or even any, number.

The players struggle with law changes as well.  About ten days ago I had a 9 who was unaware of the new law on positioning at scrums (... which does raise other questions).


From the perspective of a fan of the pro game, Matthieu Raynal's views on this are interesting:

[They (southern hemisphere) want more passes, more tries, less time spent in mauls and scrums. While us (northern hemisphere), we defend these specificities, we are against the ruling policies taken by the southern hemisphere. Our league is working, our stadiums are full, rugby is watched by more people than football in our country. We don't want to suffer policies coming from countries where stadium are empty, where they're trying to recreate spectacle and make people come back to the stadiums at all cost by sacrificing the principles of equity and player safety."
[/font]

The thing about U20s is that some years you're just going to get better players than other years, and the same goes for other nations. Occasionally, you're not going to have the necessary quality while other teams do. I'm not saying he would be my preferred coach, but one bad year in the U20s doesn't necessarily mean a lot.

There was a lot of talent when he was coach, but very little structure, also two really bad games with the A team, again with very little structure.
So not the ideal candidate considering our problems.

It's currently mandatory if they can identify a single culprit. I like the change.

The 50/22 rule sucks and this change makes it suck even more.

I like the current 50/22 rule, but this would be a bad change to it.

Would have preferred Ojomah or Atkinson over Dingwall at 12, as I think both of those players have higher ceilings. Fisilau would have been also my pick at 8, with Earl at 7...but time will tell how well it goes. Shame to read the reason for Itoje being on the bench as I wasn't aware his mother had passed

Not sure about Fisilau leapfrogging Pollock tbh.

Fun that we have 3 12s we could genuinely make the case for. Been a while!