Law trials and changes
-
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
@Victor-Meldrew said in Law trials and changes:
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
I can't tell if that was meant to be a joke or not and I'm not even painting.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Law trials and changes:
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
I can't tell if that was meant to be a joke or not and I'm not even painting.
@Bones said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Law trials and changes:
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
I can't tell if that was meant to be a joke or not and I'm not even painting.
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
How and who is going to check on the 90% figure?
-
NZ Community Rugby only.
I'm only posting the paragraphs about the tackle height rules in community rugby here.
I'll post the info about player numbers in the "NZ Club Rugby 2023 ( General)" thread.
-
Community rugby tackle height trial extended for 2024 and 2025.
-
Strong acceptance and compliance with new tackle height.
-
New women and girls’ rugby tackle programme set to be introduced.
After successful implementation in 2023, NZR has also confirmed the reduced tackle height in community rugby will be extended until the end of the 2025 season, in line with World Rugby’s global recommendations.
Lancaster said the trial, which involves the first tackler tackling below the sternum and targeting the belly area, had improved the safety and quality of games and was strongly supported by the rugby community.
“Our participants have told us that want the tackle area of the game to be safer and that’s been our focus. The resounding feedback we’ve heard from our players, coaches and referees is that they understood the reason for change and that’s been critical to its success.
“We appreciate it’s an adjustment to make and our community participants can be proud of the way they have adapted and played the game this season. There’s still room for improvement, but we’re seeing the majority of first tackles below the sternum, more offloads and faster games.”
Match analysis by NZR found that 90% of first tackles in 1st XV school rugby, 78% in senior men’s rugby and 72% in senior women’s rugby were below the sternum this season. In premier men’s club rugby, offloads increased by as much as 65% when compared to games in 2022.
Survey data from community participants identified that 61% thought the lower tackle height was either significantly safer or somewhat safer for the first tackler, with 72% agreeing that the lower tackle height was safer for the ball carrier.
NZR has confirmed an expanded Tackle Clinic programme in 2024 to meet the growing needs of the women and girls’ game.
Restrictions around the defending halfback at scrums in all grades of community rugby will also continue for the next two seasons.
Over 95% of participants surveyed supported the impact the halfback innovation has had on attacking rugby through quicker, cleaner ball. Game analysis by NZR identified only 2% of all scrums now result in a handling error.
A maximum scrum push of 1.5 metres in senior non-premier rugby has been extended with 68% of participants believing scrums were safer as a result.
2024 and 2025 community rugby game innovations:
1 Reduced tackle height to below the sternum targeting the belly area for all community rugby grades
The first tackler must tackle below the sternum and target the belly area. The second tackler can legally tackle below the shoulders in accordance with current rugby law.
2 Defensive halfback offside at scrum for all community rugby grades
The halfback of the team not in possession must remain 1 metre from the scrum and may not advance past the tunnel until the scrum has ended.
3 Maximum 1.5 metre scrum push for all community rugby, excluding senior premier club rugby grades
The maximum push of any scrum is limited to 1.5 metres, unless the scrum is within 5 metres of the goal line. Please note: Small Blacks rugby at U12 and U13s is already limited to a maximum 0.5 metre scrum push and Teenage rugby is limited to a maximum 1.5 metre scrum push.
Reduced tackle height in community rugby: 2023 key insights
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Men's Rugby: 78% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Women's Rugby: 72% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Type in Teenage Boys' 1st XV: Nearly 90% of tackles involved 1 tackler.
Safety Perceptions of surveyed community rugby participants
-
89% understood the reason for the tackle below the sternum law.
-
72% agreed the lower height was safer for the ball carrier.
-
61% thought lower tackle height was safer for the first tackler.
Tackle height impact on Premier Men's Games
- Offloads increased by around 65% in premier men's games compared to 2022.
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
Reduced tackle height in community rugby: 2023 key insights
@Victor-Meldrew check out those last two words, they might be important.
-
-
@Bones said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Law trials and changes:
Sorry should have been clearer (painting ceilings addles my brain..). Was wondering how they are going to referee/judge/officiate on the percentages?
I can't tell if that was meant to be a joke or not and I'm not even painting.
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
How and who is going to check on the 90% figure?
-
@Victor-Meldrew Was just posting the same thing as Bones, without reading his comment first.
The percentages aren't targets; they're stats from 2023.
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew Was just posting the same thing as Bones, without reading his comment first.
The percentages aren't targets; they're stats from 2023.
Ah, thanks.
-
World Rugby more interested in prosecuting "fans" than asking themselves what they could do to fix the problem(s). Other than pandering to the blind watching on TV.
-
World Rugby more interested in prosecuting "fans" than asking themselves what they could do to fix the problem(s). Other than pandering to the blind watching on TV.
@antipodean I'm glad they're going after those idiots. I don't think they are fans btw.
-
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Should be rolled out to Pro, right now, imo. It's going to have to anyway so do it now.
It works as a really good guideline in community rugby as refs can just use the eye test and only penalise if it's actually high, but at the higher level it'd be a farce, imagine all the replays.
Something that appears to be missing that's used over here though is the one around the dip in height of the ball carrier.
-
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Should be rolled out to Pro, right now, imo. It's going to have to anyway so do it now.
It works as a really good guideline in community rugby as refs can just use the eye test and only penalise if it's actually high, but at the higher level it'd be a farce, imagine all the replays.
Something that appears to be missing that's used over here though is the one around the dip in height of the ball carrier.
@Bones said in Law trials and changes:
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Should be rolled out to Pro, right now, imo. It's going to have to anyway so do it now.
It works as a really good guideline in community rugby as refs can just use the eye test and only penalise if it's actually high, but at the higher level it'd be a farce, imagine all the replays.
Something that appears to be missing that's used over here though is the one around the dip in height of the ball carrier.
Disagree, penalty only for above nipple line or whatever they call it, unless head. As everyone is aiming lower there will be less. But agree with the dip and leading with the head, that needs sorting
-
@Bones said in Law trials and changes:
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Should be rolled out to Pro, right now, imo. It's going to have to anyway so do it now.
It works as a really good guideline in community rugby as refs can just use the eye test and only penalise if it's actually high, but at the higher level it'd be a farce, imagine all the replays.
Something that appears to be missing that's used over here though is the one around the dip in height of the ball carrier.
Disagree, penalty only for above nipple line or whatever they call it, unless head. As everyone is aiming lower there will be less. But agree with the dip and leading with the head, that needs sorting
@Machpants said in Law trials and changes:
Disagree, penalty only for above nipple line or whatever they call it
We already get enough check check with it being a pretty clear distinction. Imagine how many we're going to get while the tmo says "hold on barnesy, just going to draw some nipples on him".
-
The logical conclusion of this race to the bottom will be you can only tackle around the ankles. Then they'll complain about the amount of knee injuries...
-
So I've watched a few games now with the new tackle height rule (nipple line) and with a keen referee it seems every third tackle is considered a penalizable offence. Without consideration of whether this will reduce head injury occurrences it seems to me that you can't overcome 10-20 years of muscle memory.
IMO what they should've done was introduced it at a young age group and then had the law interpretation follow that cohort as they age. Obviously that would pose a bit of a conundrum for young colts moving into second/ first grade ahead of this schedule, but it's currently making the game an even worse stop start affair.
-
I also think that if they are going to have this tackle height we'll see more offloads, so they should be stricter on the tackle release to even it up between attack and defence. If you git the ground, and are released, you have to get to your feet and pick up the ball again - always.
-
Something I have been thinking about for a while and the scenario raised it's head again last night. Player from Team A commits an offence that earns a yellow or red card. Player from Team B is not able to take the field again owing to an injury inflicted by the Team A Player. Therefore Team B has to use one of it's subs earlier than planned. This is probably not so much of an issue when a red card means the Player is lost for the remainder of the game, but for yellows and especially 20 minute Reds Team B is disadvantaged because of Team A's actions. I wonder whether in such instances Team A should lose a like for like sub as well?
-
So I've watched a few games now with the new tackle height rule (nipple line) and with a keen referee it seems every third tackle is considered a penalizable offence. Without consideration of whether this will reduce head injury occurrences it seems to me that you can't overcome 10-20 years of muscle memory.
IMO what they should've done was introduced it at a young age group and then had the law interpretation follow that cohort as they age. Obviously that would pose a bit of a conundrum for young colts moving into second/ first grade ahead of this schedule, but it's currently making the game an even worse stop start affair.
-
@antipodean it seems fine here now at normal club level rugby - a happy medium is met and only actual high tackles are penalised. Only time I've seen a case like you describe in the last couple of years is when the ref was being assessed.
@Bones Yeah, first season here in grade rugby so we'll see how it develops. Clearly a bunch of refs doing grade are being strict about it in its implementation.
-
ReMARKable failure - from Planet Rugby -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1810699299501522948
Fans were left perplexed on Tuesday after witnessing one of World Rugby’s “fan-focused law trials sensationally back-fire during the U20 World Championship.The incident occurred during Saturday’s intense clash between France and Wales at Athlone Stadium in Cape Town, already marred by torrid conditions.
Ahead of the tournament, World Rugby announced that six closed law trials would be in place for the competition, notably the ability for a mark to be claimed by a player in their 22 from a kick-off.
World Rugby’s brief explanation for the trial is “promoting attacking options.” This means that the onus is on the team kicking off to hang kick in between the opposition’s 10—and 22-metre lines in an attempt to regather the ball.
However this was not the case when Wales fly-half Harri Ford overcooked his restart as it landed in the French 22 with number eight Mathis Castro Ferreira claiming the mark.
What unfolded thereafter is what left fans perplexed as the back-rower called for teammates to come closer to him before he tapped the ball and instead of running, waited to be tackled by the Welsh defence – a rather unexpected move to remain inside his 22.
The intention was clearly to give scrum-half Thomas Sourverbie a better platform to clear from – and out on the full – as he kicked from behind the ruck, but it did not work effectively as he managed to find touch just outside his 22.
It was a clunky, odd, bland and excruciating eye-sore passage of play, a far cry from the predicted ‘promoting attacking options’ ploy the law was intended for.
And the fans’ reactions strongly suggest that it was an epic failure.
-
ReMARKable failure - from Planet Rugby -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1810699299501522948
Fans were left perplexed on Tuesday after witnessing one of World Rugby’s “fan-focused law trials sensationally back-fire during the U20 World Championship.The incident occurred during Saturday’s intense clash between France and Wales at Athlone Stadium in Cape Town, already marred by torrid conditions.
Ahead of the tournament, World Rugby announced that six closed law trials would be in place for the competition, notably the ability for a mark to be claimed by a player in their 22 from a kick-off.
World Rugby’s brief explanation for the trial is “promoting attacking options.” This means that the onus is on the team kicking off to hang kick in between the opposition’s 10—and 22-metre lines in an attempt to regather the ball.
However this was not the case when Wales fly-half Harri Ford overcooked his restart as it landed in the French 22 with number eight Mathis Castro Ferreira claiming the mark.
What unfolded thereafter is what left fans perplexed as the back-rower called for teammates to come closer to him before he tapped the ball and instead of running, waited to be tackled by the Welsh defence – a rather unexpected move to remain inside his 22.
The intention was clearly to give scrum-half Thomas Sourverbie a better platform to clear from – and out on the full – as he kicked from behind the ruck, but it did not work effectively as he managed to find touch just outside his 22.
It was a clunky, odd, bland and excruciating eye-sore passage of play, a far cry from the predicted ‘promoting attacking options’ ploy the law was intended for.
And the fans’ reactions strongly suggest that it was an epic failure.
@Daffy-Jaffy epic failure alright. Whoever agreed to even trialing a mark off a kick off needs to be taking a good hard look at themselves. Terrible.
-
Not suggesting it, but if they were wanting to promote attacking rugby, removing kicking out on the full from the 22 would.do that...
