Law trials and changes
-
Blog post from Jake White about that 50:22 proposal in light of the SR Final. The question is. who would have benefited most from this rule, the Jaguares or Crusaders, if this proposal had already been adopted and applied during the Final?
-
Blog post from Jake White about that 50:22 proposal in light of the SR Final. The question is. who would have benefited most from this rule, the Jaguares or Crusaders, if this proposal had already been adopted and applied during the Final?
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Blog post from Jake White about that 50:22 proposal in light of the SR Final. The question is. who would have benefited most from this rule, the Jaguares or Crusaders, if this proposal had already been adopted and applied during the Final?
The interesting aspect is it would dramatically alter the effectiveness of the rush defence too considering how much easier it would be to get the ball wide to an unmarked player. Push to hard and you can't turn and cover. You'd effectively be asking the fullback and winger to cover too many players.
-
That was an interesting piece from White.
He also got me thinking about marks. What if instead of the the 50/22 we extended marks to the halfway line. So if you take a midfield bomb you can either take your time to clear or quickly tap and put the chasing line offside.
I like that it rewards good skill (taking the catch) while keeping the contest alive.
-
That was an interesting piece from White.
He also got me thinking about marks. What if instead of the the 50/22 we extended marks to the halfway line. So if you take a midfield bomb you can either take your time to clear or quickly tap and put the chasing line offside.
I like that it rewards good skill (taking the catch) while keeping the contest alive.
@Cyclops said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
That was an interesting piece from White.
He also got me thinking about marks. What if instead of the the 50/22 we extended marks to the halfway line. So if you take a midfield bomb you can either take your time to clear or quickly tap and put the chasing line offside.
I like that it rewards good skill (taking the catch) while keeping the contest alive.
Without any proper analysis and going with what I see from my armchair, I’d say that happens maybe 3-4 times a game. A mark is effectively a stoppage in play, waiting for your own team to get back on side, gather yourself for the big kick etc. I’m not sure we would want another 3-4 of those when there are enough already now IMO.
-
This seems guaranteed to be ambiguous, impossible to referee fairly, and confusing for spectators:
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/nzr-chief-scientist-and-mike-ross-explain-axial-loading
@Tim my absolute biggest worry about this.
-
So we're moving back to the gap when we had "crouch, hold, engage"...
-
Posting this here as well.
-
And, finally, World Rugby has also posted the most recent law changes on its website:
Reaffirming its commitment to evidence-based injury-reduction in the sport, World Rugby has announced details of a minor amendment to the scrum law, reducing the ‘axial’ or rotational load on front row players on engagement. The amendment to Law 19.10b (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19) outlaws the practice of front-rows placing their heads onto opposition players’ shoulders between the call of ‘bind’ and ‘set’ on engagement, and is effective immediately following approval by World Rugby’s Executive Committee after a recommendation of the international federation’s Rugby Committee to adopt key outcomes from the recent Laws Review Group (LRG) meeting in London. The amendment is driven by research and evaluation undertaken by New Zealand Rugby, the Rugby Football Union, Premiership Rugby and the Rugby Players’ Association presented to the LRG. The research has identified increased level of axial or rotation loading on front-rows’ cervical spines during the current scrum engagement sequence. The project also featured input by international front-row players including Ken Owens (Wales), Rory Best (Ireland) and Jamie George (England). The amendment builds on the sport’s successful focus on reducing the risk of injury at the scrum following the 2013 revision to the scrum engagement sequence, which has delivered a 25 per cent reduction on compression forces, a significant reduction in scrum injuries and a more stable scrum.Other approved law changes:
The Executive Committee has also approved amendments to the High Tackle Sanction framework following feedback from the recent World Rugby U20 Championship in Argentina. Following input from tournament officials, it was agreed to simplify the framework by removing reference to direct or indirect contact and streamlining the questions once a shoulder charge or high tackle had occurred. The framework can be viewed at https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9.
The Executive Committee also approved an amendment to the mandatory mid-range sanction in the Regulation 17 sanction table to include both head and/or neck: “Any act of foul play which results in contact with the head and/or neck shall result in at least a mid-range sanction.”
-
World Rugby approves law trials to further injury prevention
Injury-prevention focused law change has taken another significant step forward with World Rugby’s Executive Committee approving a package of law amendments for closed trial. Following a comprehensive evaluation by the expert Law Review Group, the Committee approved six law trial proposals submitted by unions and developed at the ground-breaking player welfare and laws symposium in Marcoussis, Paris, in March. The core focus of the project is the tackle, which is responsible for 50 per cent of all match injuries and 76 per cent of all concussions (72 per cent occurring to the tackler). This is in part driven by an increase of ball in play time by 50 per cent since Rugby World Cup 1987 to approximately 40 minutes today. This has given rise to a 252 per cent increase in tackles over the same period, which is why the game is focused on this facet of the game, identifying solutions to reduce the risk of high-risk situations. The package of trials will be rolled out as designated closed trials in competitions around the world and if successful, would be recommended for global trial within the next Rugby World Cup cycle, meaning Rugby World Cup 2023 could be the first global showpiece to feature law amendments fully aimed at reducing injury risk.The approved package of six law amendments for trial are:
- 50:22 kick: If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents’ 22 or from inside their own 22 into their opponents’ half, they will throw in to the resultant lineout
Rationale: To create space by forcing players to drop back out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch.
Approved for closed trial in the National Rugby Championship (NRC) in Australia
- The High Tackle Technique Warning This has been successfully trialled at the World Rugby U20 Championship for the last two years reducing the incidence of concussion by more than 50 per cent
Rationale: Head Injury prevention strategy.
Approved for further closed trials
- Reducing the tackle height to the waist.
Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player.
Approved for closed trials
- Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play:
Rationale: To ensure players who are guilty of serious foul play do not escape with a yellow card when they deserved red.
Approved for closed trials
- The introduction of an infringement (penalty and free-kick) limit for teams. Once a team has reached the limit, a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction.
Rationale: To encourage teams to offend less.
Approved for closed trial in the National Rugby Championship in Australia
- The awarding of a goal-line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up.
Rationale: To reward good defence and promote a faster rate of play.
Approved for closed trial in the National Rugby Championship in Australia
A further law trial was approved for implementation in the men’s and women’s HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series from the next season:
- One additional replacement per team to be allowed during extra-time in a sevens match.
Rationale: To manage player fatigue and workload.
Approved for closed trial in the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series and HSBC World Rugby Women’s Sevens Series
In addition to the approved trials, the Executive Committee ratified the recommendation of the Rugby Committee, instructing further evaluation in the following areas:
- Reduction in the number of permitted substitutions.
Rationale: To encourage more space and opportunities towards the end of the game as on-field players tire.
World Rugby to sponsor more research to determine if there is a player welfare benefit
- Off feet at the ruck – players must move away from the ball without delay.
Rationale: To ensure more space and time is afforded to the attacking side.
Specialist working group to be formed to assess all issues regarding the ruck/ breakdown.
Potential changes to tackle law at the community level in France were also approved for closed law trial following a detailed proposal by the FFR. A further announcement will be made on this. A number of unions have expressed an interest in operating one or more of the approved trials in their domestic or cross-border competitions: Rugby Australia in the NRC; FFR at all community levels; Georgian Rugby Union domestic leagues; Fiji Rugby Union domestic leagues; the Americas Rugby Championship; SA Rugby in the Currie Cup and the FIR domestic leagues. Further details will be confirmed shortly.(...) Rugby Committee Chairman and Chairman of the Laws Review Group John Jeffrey added: “Approval of these law trials represents another important step on the road to further law improvement within the next four-year Rugby World Cup cycle. Significantly, these trials have injury-prevention at their core, but there are also clear benefits to improving the spectacle for player, match officials and fans. (...) - 50:22 kick: If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents’ 22 or from inside their own 22 into their opponents’ half, they will throw in to the resultant lineout
-
Meddling
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Reducing the tackle height to the waist.
Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player.
Approved for closed trialsGiven the reserach shows more injuries to the tackler than ball carrier, if you push them lower, isnt that going to increase the risk of copping a knee?
-
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Reducing the tackle height to the waist.
Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player.
Approved for closed trialsGiven the reserach shows more injuries to the tackler than ball carrier, if you push them lower, isnt that going to increase the risk of copping a knee?
As well as getting knocked out when making contact with tackler's hip area
Having their head on wrong side or a head clash with a teammate also making a low tackle as well
Doubt it will make a serious difference
LOVE idea of yellow cards for multiple penalties conceded in short time period
Automatic Sin bin for 2 pens conceded in 5 mins or 3 in 10 mins in Opponents 22 or after a line break for example
-
As well as getting knocked out when making contact with tackler's hip area
Having their head on wrong side or a head clash with a teammate also making a low tackle as well
Doubt it will make a serious difference
LOVE idea of yellow cards for multiple penalties conceded in short time period
Automatic Sin bin for 2 pens conceded in 5 mins or 3 in 10 mins in Opponents 22 or after a line break for example
@Jaguares4real said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
As well as getting knocked out when making contact with tackler's hip area
Having their head on wrong side or a head clash with a teammate also making a low tackle as well
Doubt it will make a serious difference
LOVE idea of yellow cards for multiple penalties conceded in short time period
Automatic Sin bin for 2 pens conceded in 5 mins or 3 in 10 mins in Opponents 22 or after a line break for example
Why do you hate rugby?
-
@Jaguares4real said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
As well as getting knocked out when making contact with tackler's hip area
Having their head on wrong side or a head clash with a teammate also making a low tackle as well
Doubt it will make a serious difference
LOVE idea of yellow cards for multiple penalties conceded in short time period
Automatic Sin bin for 2 pens conceded in 5 mins or 3 in 10 mins in Opponents 22 or after a line break for example
Why do you hate rugby?
@Jaguares4real said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Automatic Sin bin for 2 pens conceded in 5 mins or 3 in 10 mins in Opponents 22 or after a line break for example
Why do you hate rugby?
I don't hate Rugby
Though I'm guessing my last sentence was what irked you so much
I just want to punish certain teams e.g. (ABs :fishing_pole: ) who are happy to concede multiple penalties
when their defence is under pressure and give up 3 pointsCracking down on cynical & professional fouls with yellow cards
#MakeRugbyGreatAgain
-
Cards are shit and we should reel them in. Especially for a game like rugby where the only difference between awesome and a penalty is often timing.
Lets stop guys playing because of fear of interpretation. Sounds like a great watch.
-
Cards are shit and we should reel them in. Especially for a game like rugby where the only difference between awesome and a penalty is often timing.
Lets stop guys playing because of fear of interpretation. Sounds like a great watch.
@mariner4life absolutely hate seeing those YC and PT from a team being dominated at scrumtime...you absolutely should not be sent from the field because you or your team is not as good as the opposition.
Cards should be used only for foul and dangerous play, you cant stick a time limit on a period of successive penalties otherwise you may as well put a time limit on advantage for a knock on or penalty too...advantage over, but ref that was only 9 seconds, not 10...Penalty penalty...YC, but ref that last one was 6 mins after the last.
-
Can't remember whether this has already been posted:
World Rugby has announced an immediate amendment to Law 3 to stipulate that a match cannot restart until a player leaving the field of play for a blood injury or Head Injury Assessment (HIA) has been temporarily replaced. The amendment, approved by the international federation’s Executive Committee, codifies an area that was previously at the discretion of the referee. It has the dual intention of promoting player welfare best practice by enabling a player to be assessed and treated as soon as possible, while also ensuring that teams are not disadvantaged by playing with fewer players than permitted for a short period. The amendments apply only to elite matches that have been approved for HIA and the use of temporary substitutions.Law 3 – Game – Temporary Replacements
Amendments to Law 3 are set out in bold below.
TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT - BLOOD INJURY
-
When a player has a blood injury, that player leaves the field of play and may be temporarily replaced. The injured player returns to play as soon as the bleeding has been controlled and/or covered. If the player is not available to return to the field of play within 15 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent.
-
In international matches, the match-day doctor decides whether an injury is a blood injury necessitating a temporary replacement. In matches which have been approved in advance by World Rugby for use of the HIA process, the game cannot restart until the player with the blood injury has been temporarily replaced.
TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT - HEAD INJURY ASSESSMENT (HIA)
- In matches which have been approved in advance by World Rugby for use of the HIA process, a player who requires an HIA:
a) Leaves the field of play; and
b) Is temporarily replaced (even if all the replacements have been used). The game cannot restart until the player who requires an HIA has been temporarily replaced. If the player is not available to return to the field of play after 10 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent.
-
