Law trials and changes
-
@KiwiMurph far out, how many gimmicks do you need?
Not delighted the comps are differnet, given we're going to a crossover later in the year. Reminds me of 2009 France in Dunedin where we had played with the shocking ELV all year, and went back to 'normal' rugby for the tests. No surprise, we weren't that good at it (and a great win by the Frogs)
-
@KiwiMurph far out, how many gimmicks do you need?
Not delighted the comps are differnet, given we're going to a crossover later in the year. Reminds me of 2009 France in Dunedin where we had played with the shocking ELV all year, and went back to 'normal' rugby for the tests. No surprise, we weren't that good at it (and a great win by the Frogs)
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@KiwiMurph far out, how many gimmicks do you need?
There are about 140 of them called "Laws"
Not delighted the comps are differnet, given we're going to a crossover later in the year.
Perhaps
-
@booboo I don't like it. Not sure it adds much to the game - and will completely change the risk/reward of grubbers into the in goal.
I hate the captain's review. Refs are refs, they are gods walking amongst the players, and TMO can't even figure out forward passes
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
I hate the captain's review. Refs are refs, they are gods walking amongst the players, and TMO can't even figure out forward passes
If fans didn't whinge about officiating every few minutes we wouldn't be getting captain reviews. We get what we deserve.
-
I am not sure I like the goal line drop kick from an attacking kick that is grounded by the defending team. We risk ending up with a league style of a few 'hit ups' then a kick. I wonder if the same rule applies if a kick to the in goal is taken on the full?
On the flip side, it may help combat the rush defence.
-
I am not sure I like the goal line drop kick from an attacking kick that is grounded by the defending team. We risk ending up with a league style of a few 'hit ups' then a kick. I wonder if the same rule applies if a kick to the in goal is taken on the full?
On the flip side, it may help combat the rush defence.
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
I am not sure I like the goal line drop kick from an attacking kick that is grounded by the defending team. We risk ending up with a league style of a few 'hit ups' then a kick. I wonder if the same rule applies if a kick to the in goal is taken on the full?
On the flip side, it may help combat the rush defence.
I think I saw in the Ferald - if a kick is taken on the full - they can claim a mark, and the kick is from 5m line?
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
I am not sure I like the goal line drop kick from an attacking kick that is grounded by the defending team. We risk ending up with a league style of a few 'hit ups' then a kick. I wonder if the same rule applies if a kick to the in goal is taken on the full?
On the flip side, it may help combat the rush defence.
I think I saw in the Ferald - if a kick is taken on the full - they can claim a mark, and the kick is from 5m line?
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
@Kruse said in Law trials and changes:
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
For some reason I read that as red-headed
... but I think it can work. -
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
I am not sure I like the goal line drop kick from an attacking kick that is grounded by the defending team. We risk ending up with a league style of a few 'hit ups' then a kick. I wonder if the same rule applies if a kick to the in goal is taken on the full?
On the flip side, it may help combat the rush defence.
I think I saw in the Ferald - if a kick is taken on the full - they can claim a mark, and the kick is from 5m line?
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
@Kruse said in Law trials and changes:
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
that's old news - was in play last year as well I believe, so not 'new'. In modern media, that's ancient talk ... apprently not interesting or relevant
-
We already had the red card variation and golden point in NZ, last year. So only two changes in SR Aotearoa.
I agree it will be confusing for SR TT later in the season that the variations aren't the same for both competitions.
I prefer this picture from the SANZAAR media release:
You can find all the media releases here:
Super Rugby Aotearoa (NZ website): https://www.superrugby.co.nz/news/goal-line-drop-out-captains-referral-to-feature-in-sky-super-rugby-aotearoa/
Super Rugby AU (Aussie website): https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2021/02/09/super-rugby-au-2021-law-variation
Both (SANZAAR website): https://super.rugby/superrugby/news/super-rugby-innovative-law-variations-to-continue/
-
@Kruse said in Law trials and changes:
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
that's old news - was in play last year as well I believe, so not 'new'. In modern media, that's ancient talk ... apprently not interesting or relevant
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@Kruse said in Law trials and changes:
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
that's old news - was in play last year as well I believe, so not 'new'. In modern media, that's ancient talk ... apprently not interesting or relevant
I did wonder if that was the case, but couldn't remember it... but instead, had memories of people on here suggesting it on average once a day, always as if it was a radical new idea - as recently as... well, last week.
-
@Kiap I'm sure there were no red cards in Super Rugby Aotearoa; and I don't think there were in Super AU either. I can only find one citing and suspension from the post-covid competitions and Kobus van Wyk wasn't red carded in the game he made his illegal tip tackle.
-
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@Kruse said in Law trials and changes:
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
that's old news - was in play last year as well I believe, so not 'new'. In modern media, that's ancient talk ... apprently not interesting or relevant
I did wonder if that was the case, but couldn't remember it... but instead, had memories of people on here suggesting it on average once a day, always as if it was a radical new idea - as recently as... well, last week.
@Kruse said in Law trials and changes:
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@Kruse said in Law trials and changes:
I notice a 'law variation' in that graphic which I'd have thought most widely reported/publicised, but wasn't even mentioned in Ferald, and other headlines I've seen - a red-carded player can be replaced after 20 minutes?
that's old news - was in play last year as well I believe, so not 'new'. In modern media, that's ancient talk ... apprently not interesting or relevant
I did wonder if that was the case, but couldn't remember it... but instead, had memories of people on here suggesting it on average once a day, always as if it was a radical new idea - as recently as... well, last week.
yeah, media covered it, but it only affects the occasional game, so doesn't get much attention.
-
Not a law trial or new law variation. This is more about the application of the existing law.
World Rugby furthers head injury prevention commitment with expanded Head Contact Process
World Rugby has publicly launched the Head Contact Process (HCP) to assist the sanctioning process for contact with the head and neck, underscoring the sport’s commitment to head injury prevention. This process has been developed through extensive collaboration and consultation with current and former players, coaches, referees and medical experts.
The HCP is an evolution of the High Tackle Sanction Framework, which supported rugby’s ambition of reducing the risk of head injury through stronger and more consistent on and off field sanctioning of high-risk tackle actions, in turn encouraging a positive change in player behaviour.
Within the evolved HCP, the scope for sanction consideration has been broadened to include all illegal head and neck contact, including dangerous clean-outs, head-on-head collisions and head contact which arises from ball carriers leading with an elbow or forearm, in addition to high tackles and shoulder charges.
While already in operation in the Guinness Six Nations and across elite competitions around the world, the HCP will now come into effect immediately at all levels of the game in the form of a Law Application Guideline. It will be supported by a sport-wide education process for players, coaches and match officials, also furthering concussion awareness.
With the game united in its commitment to protecting players, the HCP is the result of a comprehensive, collaborative and scheduled review of the High Tackle Sanction Framework actioned at the Player Welfare Symposium in Paris in March 2020. It was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary review group featuring players, coaches, referees, medics and disciplinary representatives*.*The High Tackle Sanction Framework Review Group: Bernard Laporte (Chair), Conrad Smith and David Quinlan (IRP), Richie Gray, Dave Rennie and Gregor Townsend (coaches), Wayne Barnes and Jaco Peyper (referees), Christopher Quinlan QC and David Barnes (judicial and citing), Dr Martin Raftery and Professor Ross Tucker (medical and research), Alan Gilpin, Joe Schmidt, Mark Harrington, Dr Éanna Falvey, Joël Jutge, Paddy O’Brien, Yvonne Nolan, Steve Hinds, Rhys Jones and Dominic Rumbles (World Rugby).
You can find the new Law Application Guideline here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17 (includes videos) -
Maybe it has already been posted in another thread, but I only just found out that World Rugby has also approved the trial of the red card replacements, captain’s challenge and goal-line drop-outs in the Rainbow Cup. I couldn't find a news item from World Rugby, but found this on the SARU website:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge. -
Maybe it has already been posted in another thread, but I only just found out that World Rugby has also approved the trial of the red card replacements, captain’s challenge and goal-line drop-outs in the Rainbow Cup. I couldn't find a news item from World Rugby, but found this on the SARU website:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge.@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge.
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge.
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
Yeah, it's a blight and should be scrapped.
That said, I'm happy they trial stuff like the Captains referral/challenge thing - at least it shows the game isn't run by a bunch of conservative old farts, I guess.
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge.
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge.
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
Yep, it's just awful and undermines respect of the ref IMO. Already have seen it being gamed (going for hail mary checks, cause it might pay off)
-
i think ive seen once where the challenge worked...the rest of all failed or even gone against the team bringing them...on paper it might have looked good...not so in reality
-
i think ive seen once where the challenge worked...the rest of all failed or even gone against the team bringing them...on paper it might have looked good...not so in reality
@kiwiwomble said in Law trials and changes:
i think ive seen once where the challenge worked...the rest of all failed or even gone against the team bringing them...on paper it might have looked good...not so in reality
The law of unintended consequences.
