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
@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.
-
Another random thought.
I'm not a fan of the jump from outside the field of play, catch and land inside thing.
Looks wrong.
Especially since they changed the catch it when you're out law to mean that you took it out. Thought that didn't need changing.
-
Another random thought.
I'm not a fan of the jump from outside the field of play, catch and land inside thing.
Looks wrong.
Especially since they changed the catch it when you're out law to mean that you took it out. Thought that didn't need changing.
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Another random thought.
I'm not a fan of the jump from outside the field of play, catch and land inside thing.
Looks wrong.
Especially since they changed the catch it when you're out law to mean that you took it out. Thought that didn't need changing.
I think it is trying to introduce a skill element for entertainment tbh.
IMO a simple "crossing the plane unless caught by someone clearly inside field of play (i.e. feet on ground)" is far less confusing and gives kicker a little more leeway without having to boot the ball way into the stands. -
Another random thought.
I'm not a fan of the jump from outside the field of play, catch and land inside thing.
Looks wrong.
Especially since they changed the catch it when you're out law to mean that you took it out. Thought that didn't need changing.
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Another random thought.
I'm not a fan of the jump from outside the field of play, catch and land inside thing.
Looks wrong.
Especially since they changed the catch it when you're out law to mean that you took it out. Thought that didn't need changing.
Me too.
I don't mind the idea, but I think it should be the opposite (as it is for a ball in play right now), so you can jump from the field of play, catch and throw the ball back in before you hit the ground, and it is play on. I don't see why in one situation you are allowed to start outsid ethe field of play as long as you end up inside it, but in another you must start inside in but can end up outside.
-
Law query for the refs and nuffys.
Can you still use your feet on the ball in a ruck?
IE., if a ball is sitting loose can you hook in back (as long as you don't connect with opposition players)?@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Law query for the refs and nuffys.
Can you still use your feet on the ball in a ruck?
IE., if a ball is sitting loose can you hook in back (as long as you don't connect with opposition players)?Yes, but only backwards.
-
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Law query for the refs and nuffys.
Can you still use your feet on the ball in a ruck?
IE., if a ball is sitting loose can you hook in back (as long as you don't connect with opposition players)?Yes, but only backwards.
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Law query for the refs and nuffys.
Can you still use your feet on the ball in a ruck?
IE., if a ball is sitting loose can you hook in back (as long as you don't connect with opposition players)?Yes, but only backwards.
Cool.
I asked because I see so many chances for players to do that. Just to put their foot ahead of the ball and take it back. And just wonder why no-one does.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Law query for the refs and nuffys.
Can you still use your feet on the ball in a ruck?
IE., if a ball is sitting loose can you hook in back (as long as you don't connect with opposition players)?Yes, but only backwards.
Cool.
I asked because I see so many chances for players to do that. Just to put their foot ahead of the ball and take it back. And just wonder why no-one does.
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes:
Law query for the refs and nuffys.
Can you still use your feet on the ball in a ruck?
IE., if a ball is sitting loose can you hook in back (as long as you don't connect with opposition players)?Yes, but only backwards.
Cool.
I asked because I see so many chances for players to do that. Just to put their foot ahead of the ball and take it back. And just wonder why no-one does.
There seems to be a lot of confusion if the ball is actually out of the ruck also. Many times players stop and look at the ref and he says it is out, but that time is wasted. IMO the ref should make a loud call that the ball is out or available like they do with tackle release. Same goes when the 9 puts their hand on it, many offsides are caused by the 9 putting hands on but delaying the pass on purpose.
-
-
I like these new laws, a good starting point. For me water should be available at the sideline, help yourself whenever, but the game doesn't stop.
-
Here's the media release from World Rugby:
World Rugby moves to aid the flow of the game by trialling limits on non-playing personnel
The World Rugby Council has approved a global trial limiting the opportunity for non-playing personnel to enter the field of play during a match. Operational for all competitions and stand-alone matches starting after 1 July 2022, the trial aims to improve the flow of matches by reducing unnecessary stoppages without compromising welfare.
The trial follows an extensive review by the international federation of the current elite rugby environment, including research into player hydration needs, and increasing disruption to play caused by multiple water carriers entering the field of play every time there is a stoppage.
The new trial for non-medical personnel sets out a revised protocol for when medics and water-carriers, can access the field of play, limiting the ability to interact with the match officials, and providing a sanctioning framework for any action that that either interferes with play or is against the values of the sport.
The aim of the trial is to improve the flow of the game, reduce the opportunity for potential interference, enhance the spectacle for fans and support match management by match officials.
The trials have been devised in partnership with unions and key stakeholders, in particular International Rugby Players who are supporting the changes.
For all competitions, including Rugby World Cup 2021 playing in 2022, Rugby World Cup 2023 or stand-alone matches that begin after 1 July 2022 the following adjustments to Law 6 will apply:
Medics- Can only provide water to players who they are treating
- Cannot field or touch a ball when it is live in play (sanction: penalty kick)
Additional personnel
- Teams are permitted up to two dedicated water carriers
- Water carriers cannot be a Director of Rugby or Head Coach
- In elite-level rugby, water carriers will only be able to enter the field of play twice per half at points agreed with the match officials – this can only be during a stoppage in play or after a try has been scored
- A person bringing on a kicking tee may carry one bottle for the kicker’s use only
- These water/tee carriers must remain in the Technical Zone at all times before entering the field of play as permitted. Any attempt to field or touch the ball while it is live in play, including the technical zone, will be sanctioned with a penalty kick.
- No-one should approach, address or aim comments at the match officials, save for medics in respect of treatment of a player. Should this happen, the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Players on the field
- May access water behind the dead ball line or from within their Technical Zone at any time.
The updates to the text of Law 6 will be published in the coming weeks.
