Law trials and changes
-
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...
-
They obviously don't have a focus group to whom these changes are presented prior to introducing them in real life scenarios
Would have taken less than a minute to envisage that
-
2024 LAW VARIATIONS: THE RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIP
- RED CARD
In the event foul play is determined to be deliberate and with a high level of danger it will result in a full red card for the offending player who will not return to the field nor be able to be replaced.
All other Red Cards that do not meet the above threshold will be 20 min Red Cards in which the offending player will be removed from the match but will be entitled to be replaced by another player after 20 minutes. The offending team will then be able to replace the red carded player with one of their available replacements.
Rationale: the individual, not the game, punished for red card offences.
- COUNTDOWN CLOCK FOR SCRUM, LINEOUTS AND KICKS AT GOAL
a) Conversion & Penalty: A player will have 60 seconds to kick at goal [conversion] from when a try is scored; or 60 seconds to kick at goal [penalty] from time referee is informed of kick at goal option. If a player exceeds this time limit the conversion kick shall not count/be kicked – play restarts at the centre mark; for a Penalty a scrum is awarded to the non-kicking team at the place of the penalty.
b) Scrum: A scrum must be set 30 seconds from when the mark for scrum is made by the referee. A Free Kick shall be awarded at place of scrum against the team causing the delay.
c) Lineout: A lineout must be formed 30 seconds from the AR signalling the place of the lineout. A free kick shall be awarded on 15-metre line against team causing the delay.
Rationale: Speed up ball returning to play after a score, kick for touch or scrum.
- PROTECTION OF THE NINE AT THE BASE OF THE SCRUM, RUCK AND AT THE MAUL
Ruck: A player who was part of the ruck may not play an opponent who is near it, and who is attempting to play the ball away. ‘Near’ is defined in Law as being “within one metre”. Sanction: Penalty
Maul: A player who is part of the maul may not play an opponent near it, and who is attempting to play the ball away. Sanction: Penalty
Scrum: Once play in the scrum begins, the scrum-half of the team not in possession must take up a position with both feet no further than the centre line of the tunnel; or permanently retires to a point on the offside line either at that team’s hindmost foot, or permanently retires at least five metres behind the hindmost foot. Sanction: Penalty.
Rationale – all three measures allow the scrum half, or player in that role, to play the ball away cleanly from the phase of play without disruption.
- PLAY ON FOR A LINEOUT NOT STRAIGHT IF THE THROW IN IS UNCONTESTED
Law dictates that the ball must be thrown straight into the lineout.
However, if the defending team are not lifted to compete for the ball, then play shall continue in the instance a throw may appear not straight.
If the defending team lift a teammate to compete for the ball and a throw is not deemed not straight by referee then they shall be offered the option of a lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw in the ball.
Rationale: Doesn’t force a stop in play where no material offence has taken place.
-
RC ruling is much better
Don’t like scrum halves not being able to contest at the back of the scrum
And the not straight rule at the linesout is absolute bollocks
-
RC ruling is much better
Don’t like scrum halves not being able to contest at the back of the scrum
And the not straight rule at the linesout is absolute bollocks
Always thought it was absurd to have a scrum from a not straight lineout throw.
The halfbacks put in to the resulting scrum is invariably even more crooked than the original lineout throw!
Explain the logic there...
-
RC ruling is much better
Don’t like scrum halves not being able to contest at the back of the scrum
And the not straight rule at the linesout is absolute bollocks
@MiketheSnow I've always thought uncontested lineouts shouldn't be called back if not straight...probably a hangover from when we rarely contested lineouts and thought if we chose not to contest, free ball for opposition.
However, what constitutes contesting? Half hearted lift at the front after the ball has gone past?
Will it be another one for the ref to make a judgement call?
