Law trials and changes
-
@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.
-
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
I believe FK can escalate to PK for repeated infringements. But why wait?
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).My preference is for the team kicking to touch getting the throw. But if that is too much of a change then allow the FK to be kicked out in the full regardless of where it is awarded and let 5he oppo throw.
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
-
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
I believe FK can escalate to PK for repeated infringements. But why wait?
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).My preference is for the team kicking to touch getting the throw. But if that is too much of a change then allow the FK to be kicked out in the full regardless of where it is awarded and let 5he oppo throw.
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).The ball can be kicked direct to touch. You just lose possession and the lineout is taken where you kicked it.
-
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
I believe FK can escalate to PK for repeated infringements. But why wait?
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).My preference is for the team kicking to touch getting the throw. But if that is too much of a change then allow the FK to be kicked out in the full regardless of where it is awarded and let 5he oppo throw.
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
League here we come
-
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).The ball can be kicked direct to touch. You just lose possession and the lineout is taken where you kicked it.
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).The ball can be kicked direct to touch. You just lose possession and the lineout is taken where you kicked it.
Semantics.
-
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
League here we come
@mikethesnow said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
League here we come
Not at all. But when you've already had two or three resets, then do something illegal enough to warrant a free kick why have a situation where the team awarded the sanction gets minimal benefit?
Allow them to kick to the corner to set up a mail. Just like in league ...
-
@bones interesting, the headline got me, as I think the 20 minute rule is good, but he sees the problem is more with some of the red cards being issued under current rules.
Pretty much agree with everything he said in the article though.
“Well, my response would be that if a player is unlucky to be sent off, then he shouldn’t be sent off.
“Red cards should be for total acts of recklessness or thuggery – if you come running in from a distance with your arm by your side and your shoulder slams into the head or neck area of a defenceless player, for example. That is dangerous play.
“Whereas if someone is very unlucky – you tried to make a legal tackle but the timing was wrong, or you try to clear someone out but you slip at the last minute or the player moves – then that player should not be sent off, because there are mitigating factors which make the contact accidental.”
-
@bones interesting, the headline got me, as I think the 20 minute rule is good, but he sees the problem is more with some of the red cards being issued under current rules.
Pretty much agree with everything he said in the article though.
“Well, my response would be that if a player is unlucky to be sent off, then he shouldn’t be sent off.
“Red cards should be for total acts of recklessness or thuggery – if you come running in from a distance with your arm by your side and your shoulder slams into the head or neck area of a defenceless player, for example. That is dangerous play.
“Whereas if someone is very unlucky – you tried to make a legal tackle but the timing was wrong, or you try to clear someone out but you slip at the last minute or the player moves – then that player should not be sent off, because there are mitigating factors which make the contact accidental.”
@taniwharugby yeah I don't like the ruck site, but the article seemed worth a read for once (if you ignore the headline).
-
@bones interesting, the headline got me, as I think the 20 minute rule is good, but he sees the problem is more with some of the red cards being issued under current rules.
Pretty much agree with everything he said in the article though.
“Well, my response would be that if a player is unlucky to be sent off, then he shouldn’t be sent off.
“Red cards should be for total acts of recklessness or thuggery – if you come running in from a distance with your arm by your side and your shoulder slams into the head or neck area of a defenceless player, for example. That is dangerous play.
“Whereas if someone is very unlucky – you tried to make a legal tackle but the timing was wrong, or you try to clear someone out but you slip at the last minute or the player moves – then that player should not be sent off, because there are mitigating factors which make the contact accidental.”
@taniwharugby said in Law trials and changes:
@bones interesting, the headline got me, as I think the 20 minute rule is good, but he sees the problem is more with some of the red cards being issued under current rules.
Pretty much agree with everything he said in the article though.
“Well, my response would be that if a player is unlucky to be sent off, then he shouldn’t be sent off.
“Red cards should be for total acts of recklessness or thuggery – if you come running in from a distance with your arm by your side and your shoulder slams into the head or neck area of a defenceless player, for example. That is dangerous play.
“Whereas if someone is very unlucky – you tried to make a legal tackle but the timing was wrong, or you try to clear someone out but you slip at the last minute or the player moves – then that player should not be sent off, because there are mitigating factors which make the contact accidental.”
The problem IMO is that's not how it's being applied.
-
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
I believe FK can escalate to PK for repeated infringements. But why wait?
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).My preference is for the team kicking to touch getting the throw. But if that is too much of a change then allow the FK to be kicked out in the full regardless of where it is awarded and let 5he oppo throw.
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
I believe FK can escalate to PK for repeated infringements. But why wait?
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).My preference is for the team kicking to touch getting the throw. But if that is too much of a change then allow the FK to be kicked out in the full regardless of where it is awarded and let 5he oppo throw.
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
I think that is a good proposal.
I would go for the non kicking team throwing in so the remedy to the offence is essentially a free kick. Coincidentally that is the name of the restart already.
-
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
I believe FK can escalate to PK for repeated infringements. But why wait?
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).My preference is for the team kicking to touch getting the throw. But if that is too much of a change then allow the FK to be kicked out in the full regardless of where it is awarded and let 5he oppo throw.
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
I think that is a good proposal.
I would go for the non kicking team throwing in so the remedy to the offence is essentially a free kick. Coincidentally that is the name of the restart already.
@damo said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo I thought the PK is at the ref's discretion after one or two FK? It can be kicked out on the full, do you mean the lineout should be taken where it went out? Quite like that.
I believe FK can escalate to PK for repeated infringements. But why wait?
Yes my proposal is to allow the FK to be kicked to touch on the full (currently not allowed outside the
22).My preference is for the team kicking to touch getting the throw. But if that is too much of a change then allow the FK to be kicked out in the full regardless of where it is awarded and let 5he oppo throw.
Just thinking about ways of avoiding the scrum reset
I think that is a good proposal.
I would go for the non kicking team throwing in so the remedy to the offence is essentially a free kick. Coincidentally that is the name of the restart already.
Agreed. The benefit is the gain in territory and a contest for possession.
-
I have come around on the "held up - goal line dropout" change.
Initially I thought it was too greater loss to the attacking side for being held up over the line.
However it has had the effect of reducing the amount of one off pick and goes and one passes close to the line. Attacking teams that do that run a greater risk of being held up than if they go a few passes wider. I think it makes for a better game.
The other advantage is more debatable. It's true we don't spend so much time on getting the game going again, but then we lose the battle of the scrums close to the tryline which could be a fascinating part of the game.
On balance I think they should keep the new rule for held ups.
Jury still out on kicks into the in-goal which are grounded. I think that has lead to more aimless kicking into in-goal.
