Law trials and changes
-
@stargazer Wonder if jumping in the lineouts to catch a throw in is considered "jumping to avoid a tackle" as lineout jumpers cannot be played (tackled) by the opposition until the return to the ground. Suppose you could say the same about players leaping high into the air to catch lofted kicks knowing they cannot be tackled until they reach the ground.
@higgins said in Law trials and changes:
@stargazer Wonder if jumping in the lineouts to catch a throw in is considered "jumping to avoid a tackle" as lineout jumpers cannot be played (tackled) by the opposition until the return to the ground. Suppose you could say the same about players leaping high into the air to catch lofted kicks knowing they cannot be tackled until they reach the ground.
no issue with that.
I'm still pissy about jumping to catch a pass being a penalty, but them's the Laws deciding Lions tests
-
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
tired bodies on tired bodies
Yeah not sure I see the sense in that!
As opposed to fresh bodies against tired bodies.
If you pick people to play 80, the body shape is different. It's definitely worth considering
Probably 90% of the cards we're seeing, are players being lazy and/or making mistakes. I just don't see the logic that it's going to improve if we add more tired players.
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
tired bodies on tired bodies
Yeah not sure I see the sense in that!
As opposed to fresh bodies against tired bodies.
If you pick people to play 80, the body shape is different. It's definitely worth considering
Probably 90% of the cards we're seeing, are players being lazy and/or making mistakes. I just don't see the logic that it's going to improve if we add more tired players.
but we don't see more reds from that late in the game I don't think. The injury argument is different - but I don't see it as open and shut case. Tired bodies + fresh bodies can't be good, and that's the elephant in the room we're not considering.
-
Have your say on welfare-focused rugby law trials
World Rugby is giving everyone involved in the game the chance to have their say on the welfare-driven global law trials which have taken place over the last nine months. A survey is now live giving fans, players, officials and anyone else with an interest in the game a chance to make your voice heard. The questionnaire will remain available until 28 March.
Short period for a survey.
World Rugby is giving everyone involved in the game the chance to have their say on the welfare-driven global law trials which have taken place over the last nine months. A survey is now live giving fans, players, officials and anyone else with an interest in the game a chance to make your voice heard. The questionnaire will remain available until 28 March.
In July 2021, World Rugby announced that a package of law trials, focused on improving the welfare of players, would be trialed across the global game. Those law trials are:- 50:22: This law trial is intended to create space via a tactical choice for players to drop out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch, reducing impact of defensive line speed
- Goal-line drop out: This law trial is intended to reduce the number of scrums, reward good defence, encourage counter-attacking and increase the rate of ball in play
- Pre-bound pods of players: Outlawing the practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound prior to receiving the ball – the sanction will be a penalty kick
- Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick
- Tightening law relating to latching: One-player latch to be permitted, but this player has the same responsibilities as a first arriving player (i.e. must stay on feet, enter through gate and not fall to floor) – the sanction will be a penalty kick
The results of the survey will be used alongside detailed data analysis and coach, player, referee and medical feedback to help inform the decision of the Law Review Group (LRG), which will make a final recommendation to the World Rugby High Performance Rugby Committee, before the World Rugby Council considers the recommendations in May. Should the law trials be approved by the Council, they would become full laws of the game in July 2022.
(...) -
Have your say on welfare-focused rugby law trials
World Rugby is giving everyone involved in the game the chance to have their say on the welfare-driven global law trials which have taken place over the last nine months. A survey is now live giving fans, players, officials and anyone else with an interest in the game a chance to make your voice heard. The questionnaire will remain available until 28 March.
Short period for a survey.
World Rugby is giving everyone involved in the game the chance to have their say on the welfare-driven global law trials which have taken place over the last nine months. A survey is now live giving fans, players, officials and anyone else with an interest in the game a chance to make your voice heard. The questionnaire will remain available until 28 March.
In July 2021, World Rugby announced that a package of law trials, focused on improving the welfare of players, would be trialed across the global game. Those law trials are:- 50:22: This law trial is intended to create space via a tactical choice for players to drop out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch, reducing impact of defensive line speed
- Goal-line drop out: This law trial is intended to reduce the number of scrums, reward good defence, encourage counter-attacking and increase the rate of ball in play
- Pre-bound pods of players: Outlawing the practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound prior to receiving the ball – the sanction will be a penalty kick
- Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick
- Tightening law relating to latching: One-player latch to be permitted, but this player has the same responsibilities as a first arriving player (i.e. must stay on feet, enter through gate and not fall to floor) – the sanction will be a penalty kick
The results of the survey will be used alongside detailed data analysis and coach, player, referee and medical feedback to help inform the decision of the Law Review Group (LRG), which will make a final recommendation to the World Rugby High Performance Rugby Committee, before the World Rugby Council considers the recommendations in May. Should the law trials be approved by the Council, they would become full laws of the game in July 2022.
(...)@stargazer Done.
No use moaning on here when you have an opportunity to provide direct feedback. -
done
really disappointed i wasn't allowed to talk about red cards
-
done
really disappointed i wasn't allowed to talk about red cards
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:
done
really disappointed i wasn't allowed to talk about red cards
I moaned in the comments about that.
-
Mine: I don't believe player welfare has been improved in any of these rule changes. I believe that there is a differentiation between accidental or incidental contact that should not be treated the same as what is traditionally understood to be foul play. Further that the product is being ruined as game altering decisions are being made subjectively and haphazardly diminishing the attractiveness of the professional game. Instead World Rugby is ignoring evidence based approaches in reducing the incidence of head injuries. The stand down period for suspected concussions should be longer. Players should be placed on a report system for all but serious, deliberate acts of foul play just like after match citations and the appropriate sanctions should have increased severity.
-
An interesting consequence or two from the goal line drop out trial up north.
Catch and send back a droppie at goal with no pressure on.
Having big players charge back at speed setting up a huge collision. -
An interesting consequence or two from the goal line drop out trial up north.
Catch and send back a droppie at goal with no pressure on.
Having big players charge back at speed setting up a huge collision.@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
An interesting consequence or two from the goal line drop out trial up north.
Catch and send back a droppie at goal with no pressure on.
Having big players charge back at speed setting up a huge collision.In fairness kicking the ball from your own goal line instead of defending a 5m scrum is still a huge win.
If the kick is poor (too long) and the returning drop kick is good that's the problem with coaching & execution,not the laws.
-
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
An interesting consequence or two from the goal line drop out trial up north.
Catch and send back a droppie at goal with no pressure on.
Having big players charge back at speed setting up a huge collision.In fairness kicking the ball from your own goal line instead of defending a 5m scrum is still a huge win.
If the kick is poor (too long) and the returning drop kick is good that's the problem with coaching & execution,not the laws.
@mikethesnow yeah I get that just pointing out unintended consequences from the change.
I don’t think anyone wants to see a drop out caught and drop kicked back as a shot being “standard”. That’s kind of farcical.
I guess if it means drop outs to the sides that result it attacks down the flanks….Of course the kicking team has to be careful as a ball out on the full offers the options of a 5 metre scrum or lineout and we are back to the old outcome.
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
-
https://twitter.com/TheXV/status/1511055197371609096
I can't read the article, but the tweet seems to suggest that the author thinks that a red card only has a deterrent effect if you punish the entire team and the spectators (because a game is ruined if there's a red card early in the game).
I read/hear this a lot from NH writers and fans.
The whole point of a 20-minute red card is that you still have an attractive game and the deterrent is in the suspension of the player afterwards. A suspension can seriously affect a player, still challenges a team because it requires depth, but it doesn't ruin it as much for fans.
That's, by the way, also why I don't think - as some have suggested on the Fern - that you should differentiate between intentional/dirty acts leading to a red card (not 20 minutes according to some) and accidental acts (20 minutes). The difference should solely be in the suspension, not in the consequence for the game.
-
The bit I don't get is that while the rule makers concede that split second decisions in a dynamic situation can make it difficult for 'transgressors' and they have some sympathy, they also claim that the sanctions will change behaviours. Same goes for the tweet quote above where the implication is that the stronger the punishment the less it will happen.
I see very little correlation between the two. Maybe many head contacts are being prevented through technique coaching but you cant measure what doesnt happen. -
@mikethesnow yeah I get that just pointing out unintended consequences from the change.
I don’t think anyone wants to see a drop out caught and drop kicked back as a shot being “standard”. That’s kind of farcical.
I guess if it means drop outs to the sides that result it attacks down the flanks….Of course the kicking team has to be careful as a ball out on the full offers the options of a 5 metre scrum or lineout and we are back to the old outcome.
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
I get what you are saying but that's the wrong choice of words. There is no change to the incentive for scoring, you need to score to win the game. The change is in what happens if you fail to score.
Just speaking just about the 'held up' result: There's a slightly larger penalty for failing to score and being held up. Conversely there's a slightly larger reward for the defence in holding people up
I'd like to know the percentages on which type of attacks resulted in a held up. I would assume the majority would be short range pick and goes or splinters from a maul?
One of the thing I dislike about rugby in recent years is how teams fall into very predictable patterns. If you are 5m out, it's time to just pick and go.. two passes wide is too risky unless you have advantage.
If I'm correct about pick and goes often leading to a held up, perhaps that can make the standard option slightly more risky and encourage more variety? Hard to say without seeing all the stats after a period of time.When the ball is held up by just a defender or two (not the whole pack) often thats a difficult play to execute. I don't have a problem with it getting more reward
I have more of an issue with the ball kicked into the in-goal being a drop out.
-
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
An interesting consequence or two from the goal line drop out trial up north.
Catch and send back a droppie at goal with no pressure on.
Having big players charge back at speed setting up a huge collision.In fairness kicking the ball from your own goal line instead of defending a 5m scrum is still a huge win.
If the kick is poor (too long) and the returning drop kick is good that's the problem with coaching & execution,not the laws.
@mikethesnow said in Law trials and changes:
In fairness kicking the ball from your own goal line instead of defending a 5m scrum is still a huge win.
If the kick is poor (too long) and the returning drop kick is good that's the problem with coaching & execution,not the laws.
Yes, execute better and the drop goal won't be available
-
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
I get what you are saying but that's the wrong choice of words. There is no change to the incentive for scoring, you need to score to win the game. The change is in what happens if you fail to score.
Just speaking just about the 'held up' result: There's a slightly larger penalty for failing to score and being held up. Conversely there's a slightly larger reward for the defence in holding people up
I'd like to know the percentages on which type of attacks resulted in a held up. I would assume the majority would be short range pick and goes or splinters from a maul?
One of the thing I dislike about rugby in recent years is how teams fall into very predictable patterns. If you are 5m out, it's time to just pick and go.. two passes wide is too risky unless you have advantage.
If I'm correct about pick and goes often leading to a held up, perhaps that can make the standard option slightly more risky and encourage more variety? Hard to say without seeing all the stats after a period of time.When the ball is held up by just a defender or two (not the whole pack) often thats a difficult play to execute. I don't have a problem with it getting more reward
I have more of an issue with the ball kicked into the in-goal being a drop out.
@duluth said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
I get what you are saying but that the wrong choice of words. There is no change to the incentive for scoring, you need to score to win the game. The change is in what happens if you fail to score.
Just speaking just about the 'held up' result: There's a slightly larger penalty for failing to score and being held up. Conversely there's a slightly larger reward for the defence in holding people up
I'd like to know the percentages on which type of attacks resulted in a held up. I would assume the majority would be short range pick and goes or splinters from a maul?
One of the thing I dislike about rugby in recent years is how teams fall into very predictable patterns. If you are 5m out, it's time to just pick and go.. two passes wide is too risky unless you have advantage.
If I'm correct about pick and goes often leading to a held up, perhaps that can make the standard option slightly more risky and encourage more variety? Hard to say without seeing all the stats after a period of time.When the ball is held up by just a defender or two (not the whole pack) often thats a difficult play to execute. I don't have a problem with it getting more reward
I have more of an issue with the ball kicked into the in-goal being a drop out.
Agree on all counts. When I feel like the balance has tipped too far is the situations where an attempt to score is obviously over the line but grounding can't be seen. The attacking team goes from being dominant and crossing the try line to having to receive a kick 40 out.
-
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
I get what you are saying but that's the wrong choice of words. There is no change to the incentive for scoring, you need to score to win the game. The change is in what happens if you fail to score.
Just speaking just about the 'held up' result: There's a slightly larger penalty for failing to score and being held up. Conversely there's a slightly larger reward for the defence in holding people up
I'd like to know the percentages on which type of attacks resulted in a held up. I would assume the majority would be short range pick and goes or splinters from a maul?
One of the thing I dislike about rugby in recent years is how teams fall into very predictable patterns. If you are 5m out, it's time to just pick and go.. two passes wide is too risky unless you have advantage.
If I'm correct about pick and goes often leading to a held up, perhaps that can make the standard option slightly more risky and encourage more variety? Hard to say without seeing all the stats after a period of time.When the ball is held up by just a defender or two (not the whole pack) often thats a difficult play to execute. I don't have a problem with it getting more reward
I have more of an issue with the ball kicked into the in-goal being a drop out.
@duluth said in Law trials and changes:
One of the thing I dislike about rugby in recent years is how teams fall into very predictable patterns. If you are 5m out, it's time to just pick and go.. two passes wide is too risky unless you have advantage.
IIRC one of the reasons given for trialing this new law was to encourage teams to play with more width when near the goal line instead of pick and goes. That's on the coaches and players to make those adjustments instead of reverting to type.
-
The free kick.
Why?
Serious question.
I know it goes back in history and is for "technical" infringements (... even League used to have it's version of the "differential penalty" for scrum infringements ... not that you could ever tell what wasn't penalisable ...).
What pisses me off is that when it is an escalation of sanction following multiple scrum resets it results in a scrum reset.
Been floated before, but how about we allow a free kick to be kicked to touch like a penalty, or even at the very least allow it to be kicked out on the full even if the oppositon get the throw?
No.1 in the Laws I would change.
-
Prediction: every goal line drop out up the middle gets hit back as an attempted drop goal. At the end of the season the law gets changed
Perofeta missed by a whisker tonight, and I think it becomes the norm.
Disclaimer: I can't stand the law.
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
Prediction: every goal line drop out up the middle gets hit back as an attempted drop goal. At the end of the season the law gets changed
Kick shorter or chase better
If it becomes a real problem they’ll say no drop goal until there’s a breakdown
-
The free kick.
Why?
Serious question.
I know it goes back in history and is for "technical" infringements (... even League used to have it's version of the "differential penalty" for scrum infringements ... not that you could ever tell what wasn't penalisable ...).
What pisses me off is that when it is an escalation of sanction following multiple scrum resets it results in a scrum reset.
Been floated before, but how about we allow a free kick to be kicked to touch like a penalty, or even at the very least allow it to be kicked out on the full even if the oppositon get the throw?
No.1 in the Laws I would change.
