Rugby Law Updates
-
For rugby law updates or suggested updates.
My suggested updates to foul play. The idea is to make the laws consistent in the area around a breakdown to make decisions simpler for the ref.
9.20 Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.9.20 Dangerous play in a tackle or ruck or maul.
a. A player must not charge into a tackle or ruck or maul
ruck or maul.Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the tackle or ruck or maulruck or maul.
Sanction:Penalty.b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
Sanction:Penalty.c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.
Sanction:Penalty.d. A player may remove the stealer/jackler from the tackle area by pushing/driving them backwards (including by grabbing the knee/leg), but must not roll, pull or twist an opponent.
d. A player must bind to the stealer/jackler with two feet on the ground to form a ruck and then may push/drive the stealer/jackler backwards without grabbing the knee/leg, and must not roll, pull or twist an opponent. If the stealer/jackler has won the ball and in possession a player may attempt to tackle the stealer/jackler by coming from an onside position through the tackle area. Won the ball means the ball is above the tackled player.
Sanction:Penalty.e. ( New ) A stealer/jackler must keep their head and shoulders above the line of their hips.
Sanction:Penalty.f. A player must not drop their weight onto an opponent or target the lower limbs.
Sanction:Penalty.Suggested changes are to remove ambiguity/inconsistencies about responsibilities at a tackle or ruck and to protect the jacklers welfare.
Many people have said that the type of clear out Morgan executed happens regularly through games and I think it makes the whole jackler scenario dangerous due to the exposure of their neck/head in collisions. So the aim is to keep it a contest but improve player welfare.
The updated 9.20d might actually be split up and some of the content placed in 14. Tackle.
Thoughts?
-
I'm not interested in making it more difficult for the lobotomised to apply laws. I see no reason someone needs to keep their head above or in line with their hips before a ruck is formed.
The solution to this problem is to penalise every player who goes off their feet. Every. Time.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
I'm not interested in making it more difficult for the lobotomised to apply laws. I see no reason someone needs to keep their head above or in line with their hips before a ruck is formed.
The solution to this problem is to penalise every player who goes off their feet. Every. Time.
If a jackler has their head below their hips as soon as it becomes a ruck then its a sanction by free kick. You want to keep the game flowing and making the laws consistent so it prevents sanctions.
15.3 Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
If you penalised people everytime they went off their feet their would be 30 penalties every game.
-
my neck is fucked because of the amount of times i got fucking drilled in a ruck exactly like that. We were taught all sorts of ways to clean a ruck when the other guy was over the ball, and nearly all of them were intended to hurt.
Rugby is fucked because law makers have too many conflicting priorities. How do we make a game that looks like what it has always looked like, while also ensuring it is completely safe for the players and therefore palatable to parents, and also entertain people so that they will keep watching (and casuals will tune in)? simple answer, you fucking can't, and it is a futile effort to even try.
If you make too many changes to the breakdown to make it safer AND remove ambiguity then you have to comfortable with the game fundamentally changing. Then you need to add in that the coaches are smarter than you, and they only care about winning, not your advertising dollars.
The law of unintended consequences says any change you make will make something else much much worse.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby Law Updates:
my neck is fucked because of the amount of times i got fucking drilled in a ruck exactly like that. We were taught all sorts of ways to clean a ruck when the other guy was over the ball, and nearly all of them were intended to hurt.
Rugby is fucked because law makers have too many conflicting priorities. How do we make a game that looks like what it has always looked like, while also ensuring it is completely safe for the players and therefore palatable to parents, and also entertain people so that they will keep watching (and casuals will tune in)? simple answer, you fucking can't, and it is a futile effort to even try.
If you make too many changes to the breakdown to make it safer AND remove ambiguity then you have to comfortable with the game fundamentally changing. Then you need to add in that the coaches are smarter than you, and they only care about winning, not your advertising dollars.
The law of unintended consequences says any change you make will make something else much much worse.
Largely agree, however laws should be consistent to make it easier for refs to deliberate. At the moment the laws at the tackle isn't consistent with ruck and maul.
-
@brodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
I'm not interested in making it more difficult for the lobotomised to apply laws. I see no reason someone needs to keep their head above or in line with their hips before a ruck is formed.
The solution to this problem is to penalise every player who goes off their feet. Every. Time.
If a jackler has their head below their hips as soon as it becomes a ruck then its a sanction by free kick. You want to keep the game flowing and making the laws consistent so it prevents sanctions.
Wrong. The player that makes it a ruck has to have their head in line with or above their hips. As does every subsequent player that joins the ruck.
15.3 Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
It's not a fucking ruck until Morgan enters. It's a tackle situation and a player may contest possession by having their head below their hips. Relevant picture from WR:
If you penalised people everytime they went off their feet their would be 30 penalties every game.
Yeah, and they'd quickly fucking learn.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@brodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
I'm not interested in making it more difficult for the lobotomised to apply laws. I see no reason someone needs to keep their head above or in line with their hips before a ruck is formed.
The solution to this problem is to penalise every player who goes off their feet. Every. Time.
If a jackler has their head below their hips as soon as it becomes a ruck then its a sanction by free kick. You want to keep the game flowing and making the laws consistent so it prevents sanctions.
Wrong. The player that makes it a ruck has to have their head in line with or above their hips. As does every subsequent player that joins the ruck.
That's not what the laws say. As soon as someone from the other team binds with a jackler it becomes a ruck and the jackler is part of the ruck. 'All stages' includes the beginning of the ruck.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
It's not a fucking ruck until Morgan enters. It's a tackle situation and a player may contest possession by having their head below their hips. Relevant picture from WR:
Yes I understand that and my suggestion is that the same laws apply in the tackle situation as they do in a ruck to make things consistent so coaches, players, and fans don't get confused about the distinction.
Players competing for or with the ball in any scenario should always be on their feet with their heads in line or above their hips - at kickoffs, lineout, at scrum, at tackle, at ruck, carrying, tackling, and at maul etc. Same rule everywhere.
The more exceptions there are the more complicated things become.
Tizzano was actually in line with his hips anyway. He only went below his hips on contact.
-
@brodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@brodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
I'm not interested in making it more difficult for the lobotomised to apply laws. I see no reason someone needs to keep their head above or in line with their hips before a ruck is formed.
The solution to this problem is to penalise every player who goes off their feet. Every. Time.
If a jackler has their head below their hips as soon as it becomes a ruck then its a sanction by free kick. You want to keep the game flowing and making the laws consistent so it prevents sanctions.
Wrong. The player that makes it a ruck has to have their head in line with or above their hips. As does every subsequent player that joins the ruck.
That's not what the laws say. As soon as someone from the other team binds with a jackler it becomes a ruck and the jackler is part of the ruck. 'All stages' includes the beginning of the ruck.
Let me introduce you to dependent conditional logic and retroactive logic:
- 15.2: "A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground."
- 15.3: "Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips."
Law 15.3 explicitly refers to "players involved in all stages of the ruck." Therefore, it is only enforceable once a ruck is formed as defined in 15.2. If there is no ruck formed (e.g. only one team has a player over the ball), Law 15.3 does not yet apply.
"If a ruck exists, then players must..."
No ruck → no condition.
Player A (e.g. Tizzano) is allowed to be in any posture legal under the tackle law (Law 14), such as having their head below hips as long as they are supporting their weight and on their feet.
Law 15.3 only governs ruck posture, not individual contests at the breakdown prior to a ruck.
This creates a retroactive legal obligation as Player A is now deemed to have always been involved in the ruck from its first moment, and must now be compliant with a rule that didn’t apply when they took their position.
Enforcement of this is clearly stupid and hence why referees don't do it because you're making it practically impossible for people to contest possession at the tackle without almost immediately being penalised once someone else creates a ruck.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
Yeah, and they'd quickly fucking learn.
The ELV showed they didn't unfortunately.
High definition and slow motion have not been kind to rugby. You get videos with arrows and circles and people who don't realllly understand the laws pontificating.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@brodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@brodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
I'm not interested in making it more difficult for the lobotomised to apply laws. I see no reason someone needs to keep their head above or in line with their hips before a ruck is formed.
The solution to this problem is to penalise every player who goes off their feet. Every. Time.
If a jackler has their head below their hips as soon as it becomes a ruck then its a sanction by free kick. You want to keep the game flowing and making the laws consistent so it prevents sanctions.
Wrong. The player that makes it a ruck has to have their head in line with or above their hips. As does every subsequent player that joins the ruck.
That's not what the laws say. As soon as someone from the other team binds with a jackler it becomes a ruck and the jackler is part of the ruck. 'All stages' includes the beginning of the ruck.
Let me introduce you to dependent conditional logic and retroactive logic:
- 15.2: "A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground."
- 15.3: "Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips."
Law 15.3 explicitly refers to "players involved in all stages of the ruck." Therefore, it is only enforceable once a ruck is formed as defined in 15.2. If there is no ruck formed (e.g. only one team has a player over the ball), Law 15.3 does not yet apply.
"If a ruck exists, then players must..."
No ruck → no condition.
Player A (e.g. Tizzano) is allowed to be in any posture legal under the tackle law (Law 14), such as having their head below hips as long as they are supporting their weight and on their feet.
Law 15.3 only governs ruck posture, not individual contests at the breakdown prior to a ruck.
This creates a retroactive legal obligation as Player A is now deemed to have always been involved in the ruck from its first moment, and must now be compliant with a rule that didn’t apply when they took their position.
Enforcement of this is clearly stupid and hence why referees don't do it because you're making it practically impossible for people to contest possession at the tackle without almost immediately being penalised once someone else creates a ruck.
Yes I understood that from the beginning and agree with all of that except your last bit and I'm what I am saying is the law should not be stupid so the refs are forced to ignore it.
Refs should not be in a position where they are forced to ignore stupid laws.
Laws should not be written in a way that they create schrodinger cat scenarios.
I disagree that its impossible to compete for the ball without having your head below your hips.
-
I agree that the game is too complicated in the modern era with massive athletes capable of covering ground and dominating collisions. This makes the game worse because of the myriad of laws that have been introduced to regulate how and when people are permitted to contest possession without it turning into a free-for-all.
I advocate that making players stay on their feet is the best possible solution, whilst entirely cognizant that it may turn the game into a turgid defensive struggle characterized by turnovers and kicks.
But if WR is willing to walk back the draconian application of incidental head contact then that alone may make me happier to watch. I just read that Wayne Barnes over this Test career handed out more cards than games he refereed.
A simple place to start simplifying the laws is when the ball is deemed to have gone out instead of variations of whether you started in field, caught the ball, it crossed the plane of touch etc. If there's a good reason for the variations in this aspect, I don't possess the capacity to understand it.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby Law Updates:
A simple place to start simplifying the laws is when the ball is deemed to have gone out instead of variations of whether you started in field, caught the ball, it crossed the plane of touch etc. If there's a good reason for the variations in this aspect, I don't possess the capacity to understand it.
Agree with this. Simplify and stream line everything.
-
-
I tend to think there have been too many law changes in the last forty years and that not all of them have been for the better.
-
That said, if we could get players back on their feet again and not flopping everywhere by cautious incremental adjustments to the laws, it would make for a safer and more engaging product.
-
-
We don’t need to adjust the laws to stop players going off their feet. Just need to get refs to blow the existing laws. But that would require banishing forever the stupid notion that the attacking side deserves some sort of advantage at the ruck and enforcing the laws that prohibit going off your feet at the ruck, intentionally collapsing the ruck and all the other rules designed to keep players on their feet and contesting for the ball at the ruck rather than eliminating any chance of a contest so that the attacking team get the advantage of a new offside line and immediate use of the ball.
-
@Smuts No hands allowed at the tackle or in the ruck at all. Easy. Next.
Tackler to immediately release the tackled player (tackle completion) and tackled player to immediately place the ball when they hit the floor (no popping it off the deck). Then let the battle commence when those players who are standing get to the breakdown. First one to flop gets pinged. Teams will have to commit numbers to the breakdown to secure the ball or turn it over. Fanning defence will be a thing of the past, as will jackalers.
-
Not sure where to post this.
What really grinds my gears is that when you have a TMO review at 79 minutes in a must win match to keep series alive, that review has to be to strict letter of law. Given CT was horizontal it was actually impossible to clean below the shoulders so technically a penalty.
So far as I can tell there is no official guidance suggesting 9.20 should not be interpreted literally.
I do of course realise that practice is generally not to, meaning back of neck is fair game..
World Rugby needs to issue clarification. If that amounts to ‘ignore the letter of 9.20’ they might as well scrap it.
Or confirm it is to be taken literally.
That may lead to more jackalling, which I personally shouldn’t be opposed to.
