IRB and Unions Sanction New Law Trials

[Lee Grant]

Interesting post, especially this bit.

It'll be interesting to see how the ruck "use it or loose it" law goes. It sounds good in theory, just like a lot of the ELVs did, but perhaps there are some unintended consequences.

The unintended consequences are why these trials are needed.

I think it's good for the SH that the trials will be used in Super Rugby from the start and not give us false hope in how they work by introducing them after the pro season during domestic club rugby.

One thing the 2007 ELVs taught us was how they were refereed at the professional level differed compared to the (amateur) club level. At the club level the gung-ho amateur referees worked the free kick sanctions a treat by using yellow cards which everybody foretold would be needed with the Free Kick sanctions.

By the end of the 2007 Shute Shield season players were complying with the laws using the Free Kick ELVs at least as well as they were under normal law with all the penalties. More importantly, the incidence of yellow cards lessened during the season down to what was normal, or near enough to it; or so it seemed.

In the 2008 Super 14 the pro referees stuffed up this up by being too conservative with the cards and the Free Kick ELV died. They had even added a layer of warnings: "If you keep doing this I will go to penalties."

But I digress. We won't get our hopes up this time. It means that Lyndon Bray, the referee capo for the SANZAR borgata, will have to ride shotgun on his made men before the season starts, and during it
.

 

[Dam0]

And the amendment "For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line". I thought that was already the Law?

The current law is:

For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the
place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.

The change affects the situation where the ball is kicked out on the full. Now the player will be able to take the QT anywhere between his goal line and where the opposition player kicked it. Should spice things up a bit.

 

[Sully]

So you don't need to be between where the ball went out and your goal lane? Not sure I like that.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[Braveheart81]

Realistically, how are you going to take a quick throw downfield from where you caught it after a kick has gone out on the full?

Surely the opposition will have players in place to stop a quick throw by the time you run the ball up towards them.

 

[Jiggles]

I don't understand at all how the situations you foresee will arise from the ball having to be used within 5 seconds of it become available at the back of the ruck.

Why would teams stop contesting the ball because of this rule?

Players can usually tell within the first moments of the tackle whether the ruck will be worth contesting or not. We have seen a number of teams this year, especially the Highlanders and the Stormers, picking their moments to contest a ruck pretty precisely. This is contrasted to Australian teams who rely on a fetcher to determine when to attack and to win turn over ball rather than the swamping turnover tactic the above mentioned teams use.
I don’t think it farfetched to think that a defending team will just make the tackle and fan out, forcing the ball to be “available” from the get go. Another scenario could be the defending team to use a ‘pest’ player to suck in 3 or 4 attacking players into the ruck, with no intention of actually wining the ball. Then the attacking team could only have 11 on 14.
I’m not saying this will happen, but as LG points out above, even laws with the game’s best intentions at heart can be manipulated.

 

[Braveheart81]

Uncontested ball is generally available straight away anyway and teams are always going to want to make use of quick ball.

I really don't see this rule changing the way teams defend.

I could of course be wrong, but I really see it only impacting on teams trying to waste time at the end of a game and teams taking too long to set up forward pods for the next phase.

I can't see how teams will make defending easier by not contesting the ball. Quick ball will always be a benefit for the attacking team and you will always be able to move the ball faster than players can fan out to defend.

 

[Lee Grant]

It should be instructive to watch the Reds v Chiefs game again and how when the Tribe fanned out the Reds were gung ho attacking around the rucks.

Fanning out by defenders gives opportunities to attackers; not necessarily wide out.

Two things I will foretell: the laborious, posturing hatching of the ball by too many scrummies will be quickened up and Catchpole and Hipwell will smile watching it.

Methinks folks up north of the equator will not favour this; they are suspicious of aerobic type innovations in the laws which this one may prove to be. Except Leinster, the Ospreys and a few others, mind.

Cry me a river.
.

 

[Jiggles]

Uncontested ball is generally available straight away anyway and teams are always going to want to make use of quick ball.

I really don't see this rule changing the way teams defend. .

I could be wrong also, but it is a little naive to think that some teams won’t try and exploit every little flaw within the new law, and the way referees interpret it.

Lee - hopefully Scrumhalf’s will see the benefit of quick ball off the deck rather than a step pass with this new law, if it does encourage quick play like it is supposed to then I see this as a likely result.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Realistically, how are you going to take a quick throw downfield from where you caught it after a kick has gone out on the full?

Surely the opposition will have players in place to stop a quick throw by the time you run the ball up towards them.

sceneario:

you catch the ball in touch, and are able to move it upfield to throw in. The kick chaser is running towards your goal line to stop you taking a quick throw. You and your infiled team mate both run upfield, running past the kick chaser, and you execute a quick throw to them (essentially a pass from in touch) which will go behind the chaser, who has had to stop, turn and is now I believe offside.

I don't think you'll see it a lot, but there are moments when this could work out for a quick counter attack

 

[Braveheart81]

I guess teams could try that, but it's a hugely risky play.

Trying to run forward past the chaser and take a quick throw so the chaser isn't in the way screams of a stuff up and an intercept try. You'd think there will be secondary chasers coming through as well.

I see what you're saying, but it seems far more likely to result in giving away a try than gaining an attacking advantage.

 

[fatprop]

The only other thing I wish they would have done was tweak the lineout throw laws with not straight only for competed balls

 

[boyo]

I think that I (along with a lot of spectators) would like scrumhalves not to faff around at the base of rucks doing meerkat impersonations.

 

[Bruce Ross]

What would you like to see Bruce?

60 seconds rather than 90.

 

[Gagger]

I could be wrong also, but it is a little naive to think that some teams won’t try and exploit every little flaw within the new law, and the way referees interpret it.

Lee - hopefully Scrumhalf’s will see the benefit of quick ball off the deck rather than a step pass with this new law, if it does encourage quick play like it is supposed to then I see this as a likely result.

Nothing about this stops the pick 'n go - in fact it encourages it as the replacement for the re-set. If teams fan out fast in defence - like the Chiefs are wont to do - then it makes sense to punish them with the quick pick 'n go.

Not to say that there won't be other un-intended consequences

 

[Karl]

The current law is:

And the amendment "For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line". I thought that was already the Law?​

The current law is:

For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the​

place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.​

The change affects the situation where the ball is kicked out on the full. Now the player will be able to take the QT anywhere between his goal line and where the opposition player kicked it. Should spice things up a bit.

I think the new law is utterly ambiguous. The bolded bit above is not what the law says at all.

To be between something you need two fixed point. To fix a point or a location in 2 dimensional space you need two references - x and y axis. If we are identifying a range of distance on the x axis, I need to identify two separate points. In this case we really have a "y axis = 0" scenario because the location or range of possible locations are all on the x axis or touchline. So, I need to be able to pinpoint two points on the x axis if I am to be "between" them. Right?

"anywhere outside the field of play" is really, say, the x axis, if you look at the field on it's side with the touchline, or x axis, at the bottom or closest to you. Now, where along this x axis must I be when I take the quick throw-in? Answer - "between the line of touch (x axis, no fixed point) and the player’s goal line". Ok - I have one of the two necessary points on the x axis. Now, where is the second so I know how far along the x axis my range of possible quick throw-in locations extends? Where on the line of touch may I be? All we've determined at the moment is that I am between the goal line (one point) and somewhere else on the x axis. The OLD rule told me this. The new rule deletes it.

I can't be between my goal line and the line of touch. The line of touch is an x axis and I have not identified a limiting point - "between A and B on the x axis".

You can imply the new drafting means anywhere on the touch line between my goal line and the opposition goal line because those are the limits of the field of play (ie the limit on the x axis), but WHY leave this blank and ambiguous? Why word it this way?

Why not say:

"For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the player’s goal line and the other side's goal line".



It it is a stupid piece of drafting. Actually, it's worse. It's defective. On it's plain meaning it actually fails to fix the point or a range between two points from which a quick throw in may be taken. It will need some kind of explanatory policy in order to enforce it. That's just stupid. Something this simple should just be clear and unambiguous and able to function logically on it's own 2 feet.

 

[Karl]

60 seconds rather than 90.

Sorry when I asked "what would you like to see? I was referring to the broader issue of simplification and rule changes.

I would like to have seen some attempt at simplifying the Laws but we all have our dreams that will never be fulfilled.

 

[Dam0]

I think the new law is utterly ambiguous. The bolded bit above is not what the law says at all.

To be between something you need two fixed point. To fix a point or a location in 2 dimensional space you need two references - x and y axis. If we are identifying a range of distance on the x axis, I need to identify two separate points. In this case we really have a "y axis = 0" scenario because the location or range of possible locations are all on the x axis or touchline. So, I need to be able to pinpoint two points on the x axis if I am to be "between" them. Right?

"anywhere outside the field of play" is really, say, the x axis, if you look at the field on it's side with the touchline, or x axis, at the bottom or closest to you. Now, where along this x axis must I be when I take the quick throw-in? Answer - "between the line of touch (x axis, no fixed point) and the player’s goal line". Ok - I have one of the two necessary points on the x axis. Now, where is the second so I know how far along the x axis my range of possible quick throw-in locations extends? Where on the line of touch may I be? All we've determined at the moment is that I am between the goal line (one point) and somewhere else on the x axis. The OLD rule told me this. The new rule deletes it.

I can't be between my goal line and the line of touch. The line of touch is an x axis and I have not identified a limiting point - "between A and B on the x axis".

You can imply the new drafting means anywhere on the touch line between my goal line and the opposition goal line because those are the limits of the field of play (ie the limit on the x axis), but WHY leave this blank and ambiguous? Why word it this way?

Why not say:

"For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the player’s goal line and the other side's goal line".



It it is a stupid piece of drafting. Actually, it's worse. It's defective. On it's plain meaning it actually fails to fix the point or a range between two points from which a quick throw in may be taken. It will need some kind of explanatory policy in order to enforce it. That's just stupid. Something this simple should just be clear and unambiguous and able to function logically on it's own 2 feet.

I had no trouble understanding it. Perhaps you are over-thinking it.

 

[Dam0]

"anywhere outside the field of play" is really, say, the x axis, if you look at the field on it's side with the touchline, or x axis, at the bottom or closest to you. Now, where along this x axis must I be when I take the quick throw-in? Answer - "between the line of touch (x axis, no fixed point) and the player’s goal line". Ok - I have one of the two necessary points on the x axis. Now, where is the second so I know how far along the x axis my range of possible quick throw-in locations extends? Where on the line of touch may I be? All we've determined at the moment is that I am between the goal line (one point) and somewhere else on the x axis. The OLD rule told me this. The new rule deletes it.

It has occurred to me that perhaps you don't know what "Line of Touch" is defined as, and you think it refers to the touchline. Well it doesn't. From the Preamble to law 19:

The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the
touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.

This is further defined later by the familiar laws regarding kicking it out on the full etc. Basically it is the point at which a lineout must be taken if there isn't a quick throw.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I think there could be some merit in exploring a further variant in what is being considered with respect to the scrum, namely:

Council also approved the referral by the Laws Representative Group of one potential Law amendment that was successfully trialled at Cambridge and Stellenbosch for further consideration by the specialist Scrum Steering Group (overseeing scrum force project) to be considered alongside the ongoing review of the scrum.

The amendment that will be considered by the Group relates to the engagement sequence and will see the referee call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch then touch and using outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call “set” when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.

If each prop is already touching "the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder" when the call "set" is made it is very easy for them to move their hand to take a correct bind on the opponent's jersey. There is also less opportunity for them to recoil and reload before charging into the engagement, reducing the impact of what LG with the wisdom of age - there are of course exceptions such as Spiro - has so correctly identified as a scourge on the game.
.

 

[Jiggles]

Nothing about this stops the pick 'n go - in fact it encourages it as the replacement for the re-set. If teams fan out fast in defence - like the Chiefs are wont to do - then it makes sense to punish them with the quick pick 'n go.

Not to say that there won't be other un-intended consequences

Just because a team doesn't commit to the ruck, doesn't mean they will fan out or be easy around the fringes. The Stormers, for example, are very particular as to when they do and don't commit, and they are also very hard to attack at the fringes.