Experimental rules/laws.

[Braveheart81]

I'm convinced that half the maul issues would be resolved by defaulting to asking the TMO each time whether there is any reason not to award the try.

Actively look for indiscretions in the attacking maul. Instead we see a huge amount of intervention with lots of other potential tries and very little for mauls.

It would add a fair amount of balance to the contest if the attacking maul had to actually follow the laws to be successful.

 

[Dan54]

As someone who doesn't like rolling mauls, I was interested to hear James Parsons and Bryn Hall talking about it and saying why they disageed with Justin Marshall's little rant. As Parsons says with no rolling mauls the players would spread out and more or less just crowd backline. Basically as Karl Hames said last night when MP (Moana Pasifika) were giving them away so easily, defending teams need to bind as spaces between players don't push! Parsons reckons they tend to be used until teams concentrate on stopping them too much, then you play out further where defence is thinner.
I remember Chiefs getting a hiding from Brumbies a couple of years back when they set for Brumbies lineout drive, and they just took ball away from lineout everytime and seemd to score at will.

 

[Sully]

There's nothing wrong with maul, but there's a laundry list of problems with the refereeing of mails.
Lifters in front of the liftee at lineouts, attacking players joining from the side. players with the ball sliding back, players joing from the back and sliding up the side, players completely unbound reaching over the maul, players not bound with a full arm.
Every one of these is against the laws of the game and ignored by referees.

 

[fatprop]

interesting idea from Johnson

One trial World Rugby didn’t immediately jump at, but Johnson hasn’t given up on, is a device to crack down on repeat offenders who give away endless infringements when defending.

Like basketball, where players have a five-foul limit and teams get a limit too, Johnson believes rugby teams should be given a maximum of, say 12, defensive penalties (including advantages), and the tally is kept on the scoreboard. Instead of refs arbitrarily sin-binning for excessive penalties, the 12th offender is binned.

“Once you hit your mark, a player goes off. People are scared of it but if you take the time to analyse it, I could show you 15 clips in the last 12 months where there are three advantages or more in one passage of play. I sit there going ‘why isn’t it all that counted?’,” Johnson said.

“When they come back on, the count starts again at six, or whatever number you come up with. Make it transparent, put it on the scoreboard. That’s what I am pushing next. I will keep pushing.”

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...yle-foul-limits-in-rugby-20220420-p5aeqx.html

 

[Dctarget]

interesting idea from Johnson




https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...yle-foul-limits-in-rugby-20220420-p5aeqx.html

Didn't realise that Johnson was the driving force behind the 50/22. Smart dude, well done. Pretty cool to have such an impact on the game.

 

[fatprop]

Didn't realise that Johnson was the driving force behind the 50/22. Smart dude, well done. Pretty cool to have such an impact on the game.

I don't mind the penalty counter idea (especially on the screen), too many sides when under a penalty advantage turn that advantage into a shit fight.

Seeing each infringement adding up would be interesting whilst adding some consistency to infringing outcomes - teams know that some refs let more shit pass before a card

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I don't mind the penalty counter idea (especially on the screen), too many sides when under a penalty advantage turn that advantage into a shit fight.

Seeing each infringement adding up would be interesting whilst adding some consistency to infringing outcomes - teams know that some refs let more shit pass before a card

Neither do I.

 

[Dan54]

interesting idea from Johnson




https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...yle-foul-limits-in-rugby-20220420-p5aeqx.html

Not sure if finding more reasons to make an uneven number of players is going to get much traction really. In one hand we saying cut red card times because too much advantage to team playing 15 against 14, and now we looking at more reasons to have that very scenario?

 

[fatprop]

Not sure if finding more reasons to make an uneven number of players is going to get much traction really. In one hand we saying cut red card times because too much advantage to team playing 15 against 14, and now we looking at more reasons to have that very scenario?

I haven't seen a better solution, the penalty for infringing at the moment is just so random and ref centred, some don't tolerate much, some let too much go. I want sides prepared to continually infringe under advantage until they take the 3 punished

I would like that punishment more consistent and open

The number can be "managed" so the infractions in the 22 before a card (Johnson suggested 12, it could be 10 or 15) reflects a requirement to not infringe under pressure whilst adding consistency by referees, also the number it resets to (6) is the other variable I like as it adds pressure to sides to not

In the end 15 vs 14 is a self inflicted wound IMHO and too often a pragmatic decision by the player/team

 

[Lindommer]

There's nothing wrong with maul, but there's a laundry list of problems with the refereeing of mails.
Lifters in front of the liftee at lineouts, attacking players joining from the side. players with the ball sliding back, players joing from the back and sliding up the side, players completely unbound reaching over the maul, players not bound with a full arm.
Every one of these is against the laws of the game and ignored by referees.

Totally, totally agree. But let's start with the biggy, what is a maul? To quote the Laws section on WR (World Rugby), "Maul: A phase of play consisting of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet". The "bound together" bit has been dispensed with when the ball-carrier is rarely, if ever, bound to an opposing player. It goes against the principle of rugby being a contest for the ball at all times, how can the opposition compete for the ball when it's at the back of a maul?

As soon as the ball-carrier loses his bind with an opposing player it's obstruction in my book.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

World Rugby Council has adopted five Trial Laws including 50:22 & Goal-line dropout from 1/07/22. Other three cover pre-bound pods aka flying wedge, targeting of lower limbs at cleanout, and "latching". Having trouble with the links but will persevere & post when I'm able (unless of course someone else gets them to work before I do ).

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

As well as the Trial Laws,

"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"

World Rugby moves to aid the flow of the game by trialling limits on non-playing personnel | World Rugby

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...

www.world.rugby

 

[LeCheese]

• 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
• May access water behind the dead ball line or from within their Technical Zone at any time

Understand what they’re trying to do, and like the intent, but this could be a bit rough during the earlier weeks of the Super competition. They may well be able to technically access water at any time, but whether the passages of play allow for it is another question.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Haven't thought this through at all but could the medic & water carrier roles be combined? Surely no one is gong to pretend that a member of the coaching or playing staff is, in fact, a medic & it seems to me that the emphasis on water carriers reeks of a reaction to Rassie's shenanigans during the Lions series last year.

 

[LeCheese]

Haven't thought this through at all but could the medic & water carrier roles be combined?

The way it reads, I don’t think so. ‘Dedicated water carriers’, i.e. serve no other role.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

NZ women have had a try disallowed for "latching" (pre-binding we used to call it) which I didn't think was going to be an offence until 1 July - presumably the Pac4 nations have agreed to adopting it early? I found a coupla things interesting:

1. They actually did it twice in the same movement, the first instance setting up the ruck from which the second resulted in an on-field try.
2. The TMO initially called out the second instance & had to be talked round by the ref into saying it was the first that was the problem, ref insisting that latching is OK if it results in a try being scored. If correct this seems odd.

Personally I'd rather they said latching by one or two players is always OK & that rolling mauls are always obstruction as at least with latching there's a ball-carrier you can actually get to & effect a tackle on or try to hold up.