IRB and Unions Sanction New Law Trials

[Bowside]

I am disappointed they have not gotten rid of the power hit, or introduced a 'no-resets' once the ball is out rule.

Would also like to see a clear and universal mandate on ruck interpretation.

 

[Dam0]

Would also like to see a clear and universal mandate on ruck interpretation.

Such as?

 

[Refabit]

The current law is:





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.

You can do that now already.
Refer Law 19.2 (f) "At a quick throw-in a player may throw the ball in straight along the line of touch or towards that player's goal line".

 

[Bowside]

Such as?

I dont mind what they come up with as long as it is consistently enforced for a number of seasons. In the last few seasons the refs have gone from the ELV's to letting the defensive team pilfer without releasing, to mandating the tackler release, to then not being clear on if the tackler has to release, to now penalising players for going of their feet or not holding their weight.

I think the laws should be the same no matter what ref or at what level. What we have now is a situation where you have to play a different gameplan depending on what ref you have as they all have their own idea about how the game should be officiated. Players and officials need a clear protocol of what is ok and what is not. Likewise with infringements there needs to be a mandate on how many times a ref should penalise a player before warning them, and then carding them.

 

[Karl]

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:




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.

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.

But the law is determining where you take the throw in. Its circular. The Line of touch is between the goal line and the line of touch.

Maybe I am an idiot, but it made sense and now it doesn't as far as I can see.

 

[Lee Grant]

I don't think it's that hard.

It refers to the ball kicked directly in touch situation - if it's not a penalty kick. Presently if a player kicks the ball directly into touch (on the full if you like) from his own 30 metre line and the ball goes out at the opponents 40 metre line, there can be no gain in ground. The law states that the ball has to be thrown in from the kicker's 30 metre line, the line of touch.

There is no option for the receiving team to do a quick throw in in such a case because to do so would constitute a gain in ground for the kicking team, which the law says can't happen.

The change gives permission for the receiving team to do a quick thrown in from anywhere between the 30 metre line of the kicker (the ostensible line of touch) and his own goal line.

In practice you will see a receiver catching the ball in touch, maybe doing one of those catches with one leg in the field of play and the other one not, then haring up the park towards the line of touch at the kicker's 30 meter line, finding a gap between opponents, and throwing the pill (not forward) to a team mate who is in space.

Nine times out of ten this new quick throw in won't actually happen, but the catcher of the kick will be an eager beaver to impress his coach and hare up the park.

You could see the new quick throw in being done in the last few minutes of a game by a team a few points behind and not wanting the delay that a formal lineout would entail, or if his team's lineout is dodgy, even if that formal lineout would be held further towards the kicker's goal line than from where he throws in quickly.
.

 

[Nipper]

What about the modifications for 7's - 5 subs? Not sure I like that one.

3. An amendment to Law 3.4 (Sevens Variation) to enable Sevens teams to nominate up to five replacements/substitutes. Under the revision, which will operate from June 1 2012, a team may substitute or replace up to five players during a match. Approval has been granted on player welfare grounds to recognise the additional demands on players and squads owing to the expansion of the HSBC Sevens World Series where there are three blocks of three events on consecutive weekends.

The fitness aspect of 7's is one of the game's defining features - after you've made two full-field runs, can you back up and defend? Which teams or players have the speed endurance to compete for the whole match? when you can sub 70% of your side, this dilutes the value of having the fittest team on the field.

If player welfare, due to "the demands on players and squads owing to the expansion of the HSBC Sevens World Series," was really the goal, wouldn't expanding the size of the squad be a more appropriate solution, rather than one that will change the complexion of the game?

 

[Refabit]

It refers to the ball kicked directly in touch situation - if it's not a penalty kick. Presently if a player kicks the ball directly into touch (on the full if you like) from his own 30 metre line and the ball goes out at the opponents 40 metre line, there can be no gain in ground. The law states that the ball has to be thrown in from the kicker's 30 metre line, the line of touch.

There is no option for the receiving team to do a quick throw in in such a case because to do so would constitute a gain in ground for the kicking team, which the law says can't happen.

The change gives permission for the receiving team to do a quick thrown in from anywhere between the 30 metre line of the kicker (the ostensible line of touch) and his own goal line.

.

I say again you can already do this.
Refer Law 19.2 (f) "At a quick throw-in a player may throw the ball in straight along the line of touch or towards that player's goal line".

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The line out law change is very simple. Currently, this line out is illegal:

Ignore the nonsense about the right ball ect... If you want to take a quick throw, it must be done where the ball went out, or behind that mark.

So when someone kicks it out on the full, you still need to take it from behind where it went out, not back where it was kicked from (which is where the real line out will take place shortly).

Wales did not do this, they took the quick throw downfield. The throw should have been called illegal by Kaplan and brought back. (under the current law)

With this new law, you can catch a kick "out on the full" and run down-field to where the line out would be to take a quick throw. (and a try like the one shown will be allowed)

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I say again you can already do this.
Refer Law 19.2 (f) "At a quick throw-in a player may throw the ball in straight along the line of touch or towards that player's goal line".

The law you are quoting is referring to the fact a quick-line-out-taker can't get penalized for throwing "not straight". He is allowed to throw it backwards if he wants.

The law in question is 19.2(b)
"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"

They are just changing it to say "line of touch" instead of "where the ball went out".

 

[Cardiffblue]

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/165658.html

'Crouch, touch, set.'
to replace

crouch, touch, pause ,engage

Not sure that's going to make much difference

 

[FANATIC]

Cardiffblue, this followed on from a detailed post you put in the other thread... with all the details of this new rule... so I will move my questions to this thread also.​

Look, I am no expert on IRB amended rules, so can anyone here, maybe CardiffBlue, consider the follow questions.
How can the amended word 'set' not be the command to 'engage'?
How is giving an 'indication that the front rows may come together when ready' any different to the command to engage?

Is the reasoning to allow the front rows to move when they feel ready, if so, there are TWO front rows here, they have to engage at the same time, not when they feel like it. Shouldn't all power be in the command of the ref?​

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm not really sure what you're saying Fantatic. As far as I can tell, set is just a straight replacement for engage.

I think the idea behind it is that engage was always a silly choice for a word that essentially is saying go. It has two syllables and the emphasis is on the second syllable. Changing the go word to set should make the timing less confusing.

 

[Nusadan]

Am sure the IRB will then issue a directive to referees and clubs to view the 'set' in similar fashion as 'engage'

 

[Dam0]

I'm not really sure what you're saying Fantatic. As far as I can tell, set is just a straight replacement for engage.

I think the idea behind it is that engage was always a silly choice for a word that essentially is saying go. It has two syllables and the emphasis is on the second syllable. Changing the go word to set should make the timing less confusing.

Exactly. It prevents any confusion on whether they should engage on the "en" or the "gage". One syllable makes more sense

 

[FANATIC]

CardiffBlue posted the details (that were moved from another thread) from the IRB amendment to this rule and it specifically states that 'set' is NOT the instruction to engage. This expressly states it is up to the front row to engage when they feel ready.
CB, Can you please put that detailed information with the wording of the amendment back please.

 

[Braveheart81]

The sequence will see the front rows crouch then touch and using their 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.

The referee calls set when the front rows are ready and then they pack the scrum.

It isn't a case of the referee calling set and then the front rows pack the scrum when ready.

Set will be the call upon which the two front rows pack together.

 

[Dam0]

CardiffBlue posted the details (that were moved from another thread) from the IRB amendment to this rule and it specifically states that 'set' is NOT the instruction to engage. This expressly states it is up to the front row to engage when they feel ready.
CB, Can you please put that detailed information with the wording of the amendment back please.

Yeah but if you look at the law as it stands now, "engage" is not an instruction to engage either (law 20.1(g)

The referee will call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch and using their 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 “pause”. Following a pause the referee will
then call “engage”. The front rows may then engage. The “engage” call is not a command
but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready.

I am not sure why the law is phrased this way, but I am sure that it makes not a jot of difference. All front row players I know understand "engage" is a command to come together, regardless of how the IRB wants to frame it. I don't anticipate any difference with the new phrase.

 

[FANATIC]

Yeah but if you look at the law as it stands now, "engage" is not an instruction to engage either (law 20.1(g)




I am not sure why the law is phrased this way, but I am sure that it makes not a jot of difference. All front row players I know understand "engage" is a command to come together, regardless of how the IRB wants to frame it. I don't anticipate any difference with the new phrase.

cheers for that.
when I read the old and new law phrasing side by side, something seemed amiss. If I had time I would place them side by side like CD did but work must be done.
I am trained to pick words to pieces and interpret laws literally. Any ambiguity sparks my interest, but I guess It is only a rugby law.

EDIT: oops not that the laws of rugby are unimportant.

 

[Bruce Ross]

The referee will call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch and using their 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 “pause”. Following a pause the referee will then call “engage”. The front rows may then engage. The “engage” call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready.

I am not sure why the law is phrased this way, but I am sure that it makes not a jot of difference. All front row players I know understand "engage" is a command to come together, regardless of how the IRB wants to frame it. I don't anticipate any difference with the new phrase.

In practice, Dam0, you may be right in that the highlighted sentence may make "not a jot of difference", but I feel that the principle expressed in the sentence is potentially dangerous. Safe scrummaging requires that the engagement be a coordinated action of both packs. If they are not in synch a scrum collapse or mismatched alignment of heads is much more likely, which could have disastrous consequences for any of the six players involved.

Further, I can see weaker packs exploiting this ruling by delaying, leaving the dominant side liable to be penalised for charging. I cannot see how referees will be able to prevent this practice as they do now by penalising packs for failing to take the hit. The non-engaging front row can legitimately claim, "we weren't ready".
.