New Mitre 10 Cup laws
-
Looks like the new laws are likely to be carried through to Super Rugby - at least in some form - hopefully if so there are some tweaks to the Mitre 10 Cup version.
Interesting comments by SANZAAR Game Manager Lyndon Bray (bit of a weird title?). Encouraging that some of the comments talked about here are mentioned by Bray, around the messiness and contest.
***The prevailing issue is to what extent is the contest still on the tackle, and if you've watched a bit of [Mitre 10 Cup] you can see how hard it is to get in and actually win the ball," SANZAAR Game Manager Lyndon Bray told an Australian media briefing recently.
"And we want to protect a little bit of that contest. At the same time the balance is making sure the attack team has got confidence to play.
"So I really like some of it, and I think our view going through to World Rugby, which will look at all of that in November from a decision-making point of view [is] what might it look like going forward; I think those two things, the tackler and [having] the offside line as early as possible in the breakdown -- and maybe therefore redefine that a ruck starts with one player rather than two -- that's working well, but [also] maintaining the contest.
"Because I think in the southern hemisphere, one of our strengths, in all our core markets, is our ability to get on the ball -- and that gives us a real point of difference if you look across world rugby. So I think that's a key factor that we want to maintain."
"I think there's two key things that have come out of Mitre 10 [Cup], as a total package, [we're] not sure that the whole experimental law is right," Bray said.
"But the issue around the tackler and his special rights we have in law, getting rid of that and making him forced to get out of the game and come back round like everyone else and [abide by] offside line at the breakdown, all of that is trying to get the support players of the attack team up off the ground.
"So in the traditional game we've got very accepting of guys in effect driving on the tackler who's on the ground, and that's what we're trying to get out of the game so that you can speed up the flow of the ball, whether that's attacking team or turnover.
"So we were really clear last week that we want to maintain the man-on-feet defender having a strength of contest, we think that's critical. So there's some really good points to come out of it.***
-
It has also taken a big chunk of the contest out of the game - which is one of the key principles of rugby, a contest for possession - retaining possession is way too easy now and it is very hard for the defensive side to force a turnover. It's almost turning into League but without the tackle count.
@KiwiMurph said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
It has also taken a big chunk of the contest out of the game - which is one of the key principles of rugby, a contest for possession - retaining possession is way too easy now and it is very hard for the defensive side to force a turnover. It's almost turning into League but without the tackle count.
I expect while there maybe less turnovers, the team in possession are often scrambling back to get a ball that has been kicked through, so while not a turnover, the opposition has disrupted things.
-
Experimental Mitre 10 Cup laws open door for return to rucking
Craig Dowd
Introducing the experimental laws this year for the Mitre 10 Cup has been a bit of a mixed bag and it has taken teams a while to get the hang of them. It is interesting that some unions opted not to use the experimental laws in their club competitions, which probably hasn't helped their provincial teams in adjusting to them from the outset. I do like the idea of players holding their feet around the breakdown, although they get quite messy with the boot coming and kicking the ball. I don't think teams have quite grasped how to win that contact. But if teams can actually bind and blow past the ball, which was part of rugby 20-30 years ago, they will get the benefits. It is a lost art. They have all become used to going in as individuals and, from my point of view, if there are any tweaks or changes to be made around that contact-breakdown area hen it would be that the boot must have a backward motion. It's a ruck, and a rucking action has a backward motion. A kick of the ball is not acceptable; any forward motion of the foot is of negative intent, but the backward motion of the boot, so long as it is not near the head, it is completely legal. This is a step towards bringing back rucking; I would love to see that engaging, and with referees easing off, as they have a little bit with the scrum laws. I think that can only be positive for the game.Some people have expressed concerns that the "fetchers" like Richie McCaw and David Pocock will be affected, but the changes don't take them out of the game. The brave old sevens of yesteryear would have broken fingers and crippled hands because they would be putting their hands on the ball; but if they were unlucky, they would cop the wrath of the boots of the bigger tight forwards who got there early enough. And if you put your hands where they weren't supposed to be, and you grabbed the ball, you suffered the consequences. We're not talking broken necks, we're not talking high concussion levels, as the type of injuries suffered tended to be superficial, and part of the game of rugby, and I would love to see that contest come back in. What we have seen is that the big, ball-carrying No. 6 has duplicated on both sides and the traditional No. 7 has been taken out of the game a little because the tackler has to now gain his feet and come back through the gate. The one thing about the experimental laws that is glaringly obvious after watching a lot of games is that the person who takes the ball into contact, the person lying on the ground, is out of play; I don't think the referees have identified that a player lying on the ground is not dictating the ruck but is actually out of play. Play is actually where the ball is. If you blow past the ball then the ruck is over and the ball is fair game for anyone, even if someone is still lying on the ground beside it trying to protect it. He is out of play.That has been missed so many times and people have been penalised for it; referees haven't actually got the picture that if the player is lying flat, forget them. The players need to roll away and get out. If they continue to lie there, referees can penalise them; but if they are not doing anything just remember that the ball is in play, and it is open play. That is the clear message that referees need to get their heads around. One interesting comment that has been raised is that these laws will never be accepted by the rest of the world because they think that New Zealand are acting in their own best interests. But New Zealand didn't ask for these experiments. They came from World Rugby and are being experimented with on their behalf. In actual fact, I think New Zealand would be better off without the experiments becoming law. The way the experimental laws are framed they would be of more benefit to other countries. They would be more suited to the likes of England, France and the big players. New Zealand have produced year after year after year, absolutely brilliant openside flankers like Richie McCaw, Michael Jones, Josh Kronfeld; there's a further list of 20-odd players behind them who never really got an opportunity. We produce those players and the laws, as they stand now, suit us right down to the ground.But the reason we have been asked to test these laws is more because of the positive nature of the game. We will suffer like any other country, but it will take something away from us. All in all, it has been positive. But there could be a few more tweaks to make it more positive. I do like the fact the players are staying on their feet, I hate the pile-ups and I hate hands in the ruck because it has never been legal to put your hands in there or even lie on the ground and push the ball back; that's just not part of the game. I especially hate it when you have a big pile-up and all of a sudden the ball comes out and you think 'how the hell did that happen', knowing full well the ball had been filched by someone. If you could clean that up it also makes it easier for the referees to police. Of the other laws, I like the fact you can kick a ball out from a penalty after the half-time or full-time siren has gone and you can have the lineout to follow. I think the scrums have been relatively cleaner, and allowing the ball to be played if the scrum has collapsed is a positive. I do think with the referees being allowed to call "engage" at the scrum, the half-backs should be allowed to roll the ball under the prop's feet because there have been too many times when we have seen the ball sitting there and no-one can hook it.With the referee having created the situation where all the pressure has come on and the power is going through, it becomes a disadvantage for the hooker of the team putting the ball in to have to lift his foot to strike. Unless that is going to change just allow the ball to go under their feet. It is almost like the hooker having to hook the ball is a token gesture from yesteryear. Why does a hooker have to hook the ball: Why can't we just roll it straight back? I don't agree with the points-scoring changes that are being trialled in the Heartland competition, by which tries are worth six points and all kicks are worth two. That's just someone being clever with a calculator. It hurts the game when you are constantly changing points for the sake of trying to manipulate an outcome. Football's goals are worth one, and they always will be worth one. Why do we have to be so clever to change the value of points? The game is not that broken that we need to look for too many solutions.@Stargazer
I agree with a lot of Dowd's article. Except for putting the ball under the prop's feet. Seriously? -
I'd have the shits if we were playing different breakdown interpretations than the ones we have to play under at end of year NH tour. From what I've seen of the Mitre 10 cup teams who did not use those laws in club rugby, it is not just something you can easily adapt to, so I assume the same would happen in reverse, going back to the old rules after using the new ones for 6 months of a Super/Rugby Championship tournament
-
Sumo's take
Given the cold reception to the new laws from World Rugby last week, it looks as if they will not make it past the trial stage. They have not led to a sudden surge in tries (although Week 6 did produce the most of any round this year, with 62), they have not led to a clearer picture for the referee, given penalty percentages have remained static, and they have led to a significant reduction in turnover ball, which goes against the spirit of the game.
-
I hope the new laws get binned. They have reduced my enjoyment of the NPC this year. The rucks just look weird to me, like nobody knows what the hell is going on.
-
Sumo's take
Given the cold reception to the new laws from World Rugby last week, it looks as if they will not make it past the trial stage. They have not led to a sudden surge in tries (although Week 6 did produce the most of any round this year, with 62), they have not led to a clearer picture for the referee, given penalty percentages have remained static, and they have led to a significant reduction in turnover ball, which goes against the spirit of the game.
@KiwiMurph said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Sumo's take
Given the cold reception to the new laws from World Rugby last week, it looks as if they will not make it past the trial stage. They have not led to a sudden surge in tries (although Week 6 did produce the most of any round this year, with 62), they have not led to a clearer picture for the referee, given penalty percentages have remained static, and they have led to a significant reduction in turnover ball, which goes against the spirit of the game.
well, that's it then. If an experiment has failed to deliver the stated aims, it has failed, and so bin it.
-
when I saw them in week 1 I thought they sucked, but maybe it's just the guys getting used to them...alas, nope, still messy as a messy thing!
Funnily after all the gnashing about rucks and other things over the past couple of seasons, I reckon rugby seems to be going pretty well at the moment with the rules, the interpretation of them aside, I think the less tinkering the better!
-
I would still maintain that most of the issues at ruck time are caused by players going off their feet. Yes, the game has sped up enormously and players arriving at breakdowns at speed are always going to lose a bit of accuracy but surely enforcing shoulders above hips more would clean things up a bit?
As Bart says "plane taking off not plane landing"
These trial laws make things just a bit too messy. What you want to encourage is packs forming over a ball making an impromptu scrum and driving over to clear. Big ask. -
Question - does anyone know what the tiebreakers are when teams are tied on points?
The official Mitre10 site presently has Ta$man listed above Auckland - presumably because they have five wins to Auckland's four. Ta$man has a worse points difference.
But Wikipedia says...
When teams are level on log points, they are sorted by:
the winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
highest overall points difference
highest number of tries scored
highest number of points scored
a coin tossI can't find another reference in a casual search.
-
Question - does anyone know what the tiebreakers are when teams are tied on points?
The official Mitre10 site presently has Ta$man listed above Auckland - presumably because they have five wins to Auckland's four. Ta$man has a worse points difference.
But Wikipedia says...
When teams are level on log points, they are sorted by:
the winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
highest overall points difference
highest number of tries scored
highest number of points scored
a coin tossI can't find another reference in a casual search.
-
Question - does anyone know what the tiebreakers are when teams are tied on points?
The official Mitre10 site presently has Ta$man listed above Auckland - presumably because they have five wins to Auckland's four. Ta$man has a worse points difference.
But Wikipedia says...
When teams are level on log points, they are sorted by:
the winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
highest overall points difference
highest number of tries scored
highest number of points scored
a coin tossI can't find another reference in a casual search.
@Chris-B. said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Question - does anyone know what the tiebreakers are when teams are tied on points?
The official Mitre10 site presently has Ta$man listed above Auckland - presumably because they have five wins to Auckland's four. Ta$man has a worse points difference.
But Wikipedia says...
When teams are level on log points, they are sorted by:
the winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
highest overall points difference
highest number of tries scored
highest number of points scored
a coin tossI can't find another reference in a casual search.
http://www.mitre10cup.co.nz/News/28264/itm-cup-tie-breaks-and-cheer-guide
Last year's tie breaks - Wikipedia is right based on that.
-
The running and general skill on display has been great to watch this season, but I am hating the breakdown. I still find myself waiting for tacklers to get to their feet to compete for the ball because they have rights. But no, that has gone and we end up with a bunch of guys using their feet to disrupt the ball. It's just messy.
-
Wynne Gray on the experimental laws
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wynne-gray/news/article.cfm?a_id=23&objectid=11724776This is the relevant section:
What's fair about tacklers being told by the ref to release opponents who then almost get up, might release the ball for a microsecond and then continue to crawl, run or roll up field? As much as anyone, I loathe laws at test and Super Rugby level which allow players to charge into the breakdowns at an angle and clean out defenceless rivals. More players do go to those rucks, however, and have a chance of turning over possession - but not in the NPC. How does rugby attract more players to rucks and give them and spectators a chance to understand the rules? It's as easy as Banks' kicking style. As soon as the tackler and his victim hit the ground, they are out of play and cannot touch the ball. You can't place it, push it, hatch it, squeeze it or do any of the stalling tactics encouraged at the moment. The ball is the offside line and it should be open slather for anyone wanting to grab it or heel it back, as long as they stay on their feet. We want a contest at the breakdown, we want to keep magnificent specialist No7s in the game but, right now, rucks are a dodgy lottery encouraging utility loose forwardsThe new laws suck and I'm sure they won't be adopted. However if they are about safety I suspect we'll seem some different experiments soon
I think Wynn Gray makes a good point in that article about being strict on the tackler but not the tackled player. By being strict on both, turnovers should become easier. It should also force the attacking side to commit more numbers.
I don't mind Dowd's suggestion either - players can only play the backwards with their foot at a breakdown. No more hacking it forward.
Another thing I would like to see in future is cleaning up the 'not held' rulings where the player gets up and goes again. Whether a players is held is becoming very subjective and in many cases unfair to the defence.
Perhaps the players should have to release the ball if they are brought to ground by an incomplete tackle too? -
Wynne Gray on the experimental laws
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wynne-gray/news/article.cfm?a_id=23&objectid=11724776This is the relevant section:
What's fair about tacklers being told by the ref to release opponents who then almost get up, might release the ball for a microsecond and then continue to crawl, run or roll up field? As much as anyone, I loathe laws at test and Super Rugby level which allow players to charge into the breakdowns at an angle and clean out defenceless rivals. More players do go to those rucks, however, and have a chance of turning over possession - but not in the NPC. How does rugby attract more players to rucks and give them and spectators a chance to understand the rules? It's as easy as Banks' kicking style. As soon as the tackler and his victim hit the ground, they are out of play and cannot touch the ball. You can't place it, push it, hatch it, squeeze it or do any of the stalling tactics encouraged at the moment. The ball is the offside line and it should be open slather for anyone wanting to grab it or heel it back, as long as they stay on their feet. We want a contest at the breakdown, we want to keep magnificent specialist No7s in the game but, right now, rucks are a dodgy lottery encouraging utility loose forwardsThe new laws suck and I'm sure they won't be adopted. However if they are about safety I suspect we'll seem some different experiments soon
I think Wynn Gray makes a good point in that article about being strict on the tackler but not the tackled player. By being strict on both, turnovers should become easier. It should also force the attacking side to commit more numbers.
I don't mind Dowd's suggestion either - players can only play the backwards with their foot at a breakdown. No more hacking it forward.
Another thing I would like to see in future is cleaning up the 'not held' rulings where the player gets up and goes again. Whether a players is held is becoming very subjective and in many cases unfair to the defence.
Perhaps the players should have to release the ball if they are brought to ground by an incomplete tackle too?@Duluth I don't mind a little more leeway given to the attacking player, as it gives teams confidence to take the tackle knowing there is a good chance they will recycle. I would be loath to make it too easy to turn the ball over, as we will revert to teams kicking more ball away rather than risk turnovers.
I also like defending teams having to commit numbers to turn the ball over, as then it becomes risk/reward, and can open the field up. If you have a good chance to disrupt/steal with only one person, then there are a lot of advantages to the defense again.
Personally I think the balance is right at Super and Test level, and i really don't understand why there are experiments for change.
-
@Duluth I don't mind a little more leeway given to the attacking player, as it gives teams confidence to take the tackle knowing there is a good chance they will recycle. I would be loath to make it too easy to turn the ball over, as we will revert to teams kicking more ball away rather than risk turnovers.
I also like defending teams having to commit numbers to turn the ball over, as then it becomes risk/reward, and can open the field up. If you have a good chance to disrupt/steal with only one person, then there are a lot of advantages to the defense again.
Personally I think the balance is right at Super and Test level, and i really don't understand why there are experiments for change.
@mariner4life said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Personally I think the balance is right at Super and Test level, and i really don't understand why there are experiments for change.
Well they have said one of the main concerns is safety. They seem worried about a jackal being in a vulnerable position getting smashed.
If the RIB is determined to get that out of the game the current laws will not last longMy comments about the attacking team having too much leeway only relate to the NPC laws.. not the current laws.
I agree the balance at Test rugby is quite good right now. The balance in these NPC laws is shite. -
@mariner4life said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Personally I think the balance is right at Super and Test level, and i really don't understand why there are experiments for change.
Well they have said one of the main concerns is safety. They seem worried about a jackal being in a vulnerable position getting smashed.
If the RIB is determined to get that out of the game the current laws will not last longMy comments about the attacking team having too much leeway only relate to the NPC laws.. not the current laws.
I agree the balance at Test rugby is quite good right now. The balance in these NPC laws is shite. -
@Duluth of course he's vulnerable, that's why stealing ball is a skill, and takes bravery (and why my neck is fucked). As long as refs are hard on the guys diving in like Lood on the weekend, then it should be all good.
Yeah I don't disagree with that
When I read the IRB is concerned about 'safety' I assume they are concerned about legal liability, panics leading to bans in some places etc etc
I suspect the IRB has already decided there will be a change to the breakdown, but they just haven't decided what (because the NPC laws have failed)I am skeptical any effort to keep players on their feet at the breakdown can work without a return to rucking.
Maybe that should be an experiment? Play a one off, decent quality game, with the breakdown ruled like it was ~20 years ago -
Yeah I don't disagree with that
When I read the IRB is concerned about 'safety' I assume they are concerned about legal liability, panics leading to bans in some places etc etc
I suspect the IRB has already decided there will be a change to the breakdown, but they just haven't decided what (because the NPC laws have failed)I am skeptical any effort to keep players on their feet at the breakdown can work without a return to rucking.
Maybe that should be an experiment? Play a one off, decent quality game, with the breakdown ruled like it was ~20 years ago@Duluth my reservations about taking the hands out, and keeping guys on their feet, is the ref is going to have to be really hard on body height. Guys go off their feet because the first player there is really fucking low (from either side), so the next guy goes even lower. And at test match pace, that normally results in teams piling off their feet.
That will be a lot of penalties to sort that out.
-
the aim of the new changes was supposed to result in more tries too (which makes rugby better apparently) but it hasn't really given them that either.
