Rugby Law Updates
-
Not sure where to post this.
What really grinds my gears is that when you have a TMO review at 79 minutes in a must win match to keep series alive, that review has to be to strict letter of law. Given CT was horizontal it was actually impossible to clean below the shoulders so technically a penalty.
So far as I can tell there is no official guidance suggesting 9.20 should not be interpreted literally.
I do of course realise that practice is generally not to, meaning back of neck is fair game..
World Rugby needs to issue clarification. If that amounts to ‘ignore the letter of 9.20’ they might as well scrap it.
Or confirm it is to be taken literally.
That may lead to more jackalling, which I personally shouldn’t be opposed to.
-
Former Ireland full-back Rob Kearney expects "big changes" in rugby union guidelines over the "next three to six months" to improve the game as a spectacle.
He believes too many stoppages in the game, caused primarily by television match official (TMO) reviews designed to aid refereeing decisions, are having an adverse effect.
The former Leinster back was appointed to the executive board of World Rugby in 2024.
"Stoppages, TMOs, referees, it's hurting the game badly," of the biggest short-term challenge facing the game.
"Big changes I think will happen in the next three to six months - certainly remit number one from a World Rugby perspective is to improve and make changes because the product on the field at the moment is not good enough, it's not what it needs to be.".
"With so many other sports you're under pressure to win fans and eyeballs."
-
-
-
@reprobate said in Rugby Law Updates:
A chasing player 'attempting' to catch a high ball with one hand is not making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, and this is a deliberate knock-on.
This is a law I can get behind
-
@reprobate said in Rugby Law Updates:
A chasing player 'attempting' to catch a high ball with one hand is not making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, and this is a deliberate knock-on.
I think it should just be if you're going off the ground it has to be a genuine catch attempt, it shouldn't be ok to tap it back. Would get rid of 90% of the bullshit now.
Unless we get good at it, then leave it as is.
-
@Bones said in Rugby Law Updates:
@reprobate said in Rugby Law Updates:
A chasing player 'attempting' to catch a high ball with one hand is not making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, and this is a deliberate knock-on.
Unless we get good at it, then leave it as is.
That will be when they change it.
-
@Bones said in Rugby Law Updates:
@reprobate said in Rugby Law Updates:
A chasing player 'attempting' to catch a high ball with one hand is not making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, and this is a deliberate knock-on.
I think it should just be if you're going off the ground it has to be a genuine catch attempt, it shouldn't be ok to tap it back. Would get rid of 90% of the bullshit now.
Unless we get good at it, then leave it as is.
I'd be happy with the first bit, but would want something done about it no matter how good we get at it - if I want to watch that shit I can watch AFL.
-
@Bones said in Rugby Law Updates:
If the "halfback" at the breakdown rolls the ball more than two feet, rolls it twice, touches it with both hands for more than two seconds....ball is out.
Easier just to have a quicker "use it" time that is strictly enforced. When that law was first trialled in the NPC it worked well (5 years ago?)
It ends slow motion rucks of any sort. Also it rewards organised teams with good cardio.. it punishes the opposite with errors/turnovers
-
just saying, but banning the box kick takes care of basically all these dramas
-
@mariner4life so are you banning them form the base of a scrum/ruck/maul, what if the 10 sends up a bomb from a pass, which is largely same.
-
1 pass (or run) before kicking, that's very easy to police.
And i don't see the bomb from 10 as being the same, as the timing is way different for all chasers, and there is more jeopardy with chasers coming through.
-
I only have a problem with the slow box kicks. The attack runs out of options and it become the default choice.. almost another set piece.
A stricter ruck time limit makes it harder to set up and execute and therefore less attractive
My problem with a blanket ban is removing quality options in general play. During the NPC Funaki had some great box kicks late in games. Super quick rucks and a small kick over the top before the defence is set. It can can be a good attacking option, even immediately after a turnover
-
I only have a problem with halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the ruck - what they do afterwards doesn't bother me, once we/teams combat the kick from the base then it becomes less useful (like how we combatted SA's high kicks after 2009).
But, halfbacks pushing the ball back with their hands does my head in.
Just make it halfback touches the ball (hands/feet - players in the ruck can still use feet) and it's fair game.
-
@Duluth said in Rugby Law Updates:
I only have a problem with the slow box kicks. The attack runs out of options and it become the default choice.. almost another set piece.
A stricter ruck time limit makes it harder to set up and execute and therefore less attractive
My problem with a blanket ban is removing quality options in general play. During the NPC Funaki had some great box kicks late in games. Super quick rucks and a small kick over the top before the defence is set. It can can be a good attacking option, even immediately after a turnover
Yeah I agree, halfbacks need to still be allowed to kick for those creative opportunities. I think the law changes just need to shift the risk/reward of the high box kick so they don't happen all the fucking time. Having to do them faster helps, and shifting the contest odds in favour of the defender - even going as far as attacking players not being allowed to compete in the air at all would be better than wiping out the kick option for me.
-
@reprobate said in Rugby Law Updates:
even going as far as attacking players not being allowed to compete in the air at all would be better than wiping out the kick option for me.
I have no issue with that - but I like the 'if you go up one handed and knock it on, that's a penalty'. Discourages it - but doesn't eliminate it.
-
@nzzp said in Rugby Law Updates:
I have no issue with that - but I like the 'if you go up one handed and knock it on, that's a penalty'. Discourages it - but doesn't eliminate it.
I kinda like the rugby league "disruptor" rule.
If you jump up, you have to be making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, no one handed stuff.
Otherwise penalty.
Everyone one laughed when they brought the rule in, but it did clean-up that part of the game. -
@mohikamo said in Rugby Law Updates:
@nzzp said in Rugby Law Updates:
I have no issue with that - but I like the 'if you go up one handed and knock it on, that's a penalty'. Discourages it - but doesn't eliminate it.
I kinda like the rugby league "disruptor" rule.
If you jump up, you have to be making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, no one handed stuff.
Otherwise penalty.
Everyone one laughed when they brought the rule in, but it did clean-up that part of the game.Saffers were masters of flooding the area aerially with bodies - knocking catchers and disrupting. Smart play, but shit rugby I reckon.
