IRB Law amendments post RWC 2011
- Thread starter yourmatesam
- Start date
- Status
Scotty
David Codey (61)
But of course, although unforeseen consequences can also be positive, not just negative. But we would have to trial them first.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Bugger the Law Amendments - after the first two 3N games I just want the current Laws enforced. (and remove the hit from the scrum). By current Laws I want the tackler to release the tackled player and the offside law policed strictly. In tonights game the ABs were up to their age old tricks with offensive pillars at the rucks and tacklers/loiterers impeding opposition players from joining the ruck.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
I feel sorry for some refs; not so much for the professional guys but the up and comers.
They see the star refs letting things go which they know are in contravention of the law, so they don't buck the system. Then when they see that their assessor hasn't marked them down for allowing the activity of pillars, or skew feeds to the scrum even when the tunnel is credible and the scrum is square and steady (just to name two egregious examples) they are lead down the path of non-compliance.
Now and then they will see a ref like Kaplan or Dickinson refereeing a particular law as it is supposed to be, but it looks so goofy because the other pro refs don't do so, and that example is not taken up, and down the path they go.
As others have said: the current laws need to be enforced first and foremost - and there is even one to outlaw the power hit if a guideline is given for it.
Not that guidelines are followed by refs. One of the 2011 guidelines related to pillars:
Offside (pillars)
• Zero tolerance on defending players 1 or 2 wide of the ruck who are in front of their offside line cutting down space for the attacking team. Such players must be managed back onside or penalised.
• Zero tolerance on attacking players 1 or 2 wide of the ruck who are in front of their offside line and act as obstructive pillars. Such players must be managed back onside or penalised.
Why did they bother? I see a lot of tolerance and I'm guessing that most others do also.
They see the star refs letting things go which they know are in contravention of the law, so they don't buck the system. Then when they see that their assessor hasn't marked them down for allowing the activity of pillars, or skew feeds to the scrum even when the tunnel is credible and the scrum is square and steady (just to name two egregious examples) they are lead down the path of non-compliance.
Now and then they will see a ref like Kaplan or Dickinson refereeing a particular law as it is supposed to be, but it looks so goofy because the other pro refs don't do so, and that example is not taken up, and down the path they go.
As others have said: the current laws need to be enforced first and foremost - and there is even one to outlaw the power hit if a guideline is given for it.
Not that guidelines are followed by refs. One of the 2011 guidelines related to pillars:
Offside (pillars)
• Zero tolerance on defending players 1 or 2 wide of the ruck who are in front of their offside line cutting down space for the attacking team. Such players must be managed back onside or penalised.
• Zero tolerance on attacking players 1 or 2 wide of the ruck who are in front of their offside line and act as obstructive pillars. Such players must be managed back onside or penalised.
Why did they bother? I see a lot of tolerance and I'm guessing that most others do also.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I have been watching the ITM Cup game between Auckland and Taranaki. One of my pet hates was on full display and went unpenalised again. The tackler of a taranaki player lay at the back of the ruck after "rolling" away from the tacklee. He then waited there for about 5 seconds and as the Taranaki halfback moved to step over him to get to the ball he "rolled away" taking out the halfback's legs.
This happens so often expescially against Auckland and Canterbury sides that it must be an intentional tactic. How is it not offside play? The player is clearly in an offisde position and is impeding the opposition.
This happens so often expescially against Auckland and Canterbury sides that it must be an intentional tactic. How is it not offside play? The player is clearly in an offisde position and is impeding the opposition.
A
antipodean
Guest
The introduction of the card system, especially the yellow card is not one I agreed with at the time and not one I agree with now. Its usage is arbitrary, sometimes wrong and mostly unnecessary. If teams are constantly infringing, keep kicking three pointers. But an arbitrary rule that states any infraction will result in a yellow card is totally missing the point. Each violation of a law as determined by the referee or his assistants should be judged on its merits. A harsh penalty call should not be escalated into an advantage for the opposing team will out of proportion to the offence. Further, a reasonable referee may not rule on a transgression he sees in recognition that a yellow card would be manifestly unjust, hence robbing the other team.
Once a team has been penalised enough, the odds of them going hard at the ball in a 50-50 situation would be dramatically reduced. The mindset creeps in to not be the person who lets down the team by being sent from the field, resulting in a situation where a team at risk of having another player sent from the field won't compete; they'll wait for the other team to make a mistake and that's just not rugby.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
antipodean
I think the card system is fine. So long as the referee is consistent with his calls, there shouldn't be a drama.
The problem is that there are so many possible infringements at any one time that it generally comes down to the infringement that has the most direct impact on the match.
If there are a number of similar infringements from the same team/player in a match, i think it's obvious that the whistle isn't working, so let the ref go to the pocket.
I think the card system is fine. So long as the referee is consistent with his calls, there shouldn't be a drama.
The problem is that there are so many possible infringements at any one time that it generally comes down to the infringement that has the most direct impact on the match.
If there are a number of similar infringements from the same team/player in a match, i think it's obvious that the whistle isn't working, so let the ref go to the pocket.
A
antipodean
Guest
But that goes back to my point; if you are opposing a team that habitually transgresses, why aren't you able to reflect that on the scoreboard?
I accept that some games are close enough that such an event could decide the outcome, but every team must adapt to the style of adjudication of the referee. If you're attempting to play squeaky clean and letting in tries as a result, while the other team are violating every law to give up only shots at goal and hence being outscored, then a law variation to combat this should not compound the original error. Instead it should rollback the initial cause. In this case, making a try worth only four points.
I'd rather see a well fought contest for possession of the ball than a touch football match. And this is the issue I took objection to; there are certain offences that deserve a greater sanction but this needs to be applied sparingly. Last year during the Tri Nations people were provided a forced rest because the referee and/ or his assistants were clearly wrong.
I accept that some games are close enough that such an event could decide the outcome, but every team must adapt to the style of adjudication of the referee. If you're attempting to play squeaky clean and letting in tries as a result, while the other team are violating every law to give up only shots at goal and hence being outscored, then a law variation to combat this should not compound the original error. Instead it should rollback the initial cause. In this case, making a try worth only four points.
I'd rather see a well fought contest for possession of the ball than a touch football match. And this is the issue I took objection to; there are certain offences that deserve a greater sanction but this needs to be applied sparingly. Last year during the Tri Nations people were provided a forced rest because the referee and/ or his assistants were clearly wrong.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
I think the most beneficial change that could be made to the Laws of the Game revolve around the ball in touch, touch in goal etc etc.
This is the most confusing area of the game. Is the ball in touch or not?
This is the most confusing area of the game. Is the ball in touch or not?
A
antipodean
Guest
What is confusing about it?
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
http://www.brumbies.com.au/verve/_resources/Line_Ball_booklet.pdf
If it wasn't for this booklet, there would be a lot of referees who would be scratching their heads! Most players don't know the ins and outs of these laws, let alone tackle or ruck laws.
dudebudstud
Ward Prentice (10)
As a former player, avid fan and first year ref, I THOUGHT I knew the laws quite well, but this one confused me the most. It is MUCH too complicated.
The other thing that many fans may not be aware of is that as refs we are taught the concept of materiality. Basically, materiality means this: At the very core of the game is the idea of letting the teams play, and not have a stoppage for every infraction. So if there is a law infringement but it has no effect on the game, or the consequences are so minor, is it really worth stopping play to enforce that law. Example, the winger on the very far side of the field is a step or two offside when the ball is being played near the breakdown on the opposite side of the field. Is it worth blowing the whistle for that? Or if a ruck is definitely won by a team, the other team isn't counter rucking, and a player on the winning side of the ruck plays the ball back a bit with his hands. Is this worth blowing the whistle for?
The other thing I have quickly realized as a ref there are a dozen or more things I have to look for at each breakdown, and all this happens in a matter of a few seconds. Is it a legal tackle, is the tackler releasing, is the tackled player releasing the ball, are they both making an attempt to roll away, are arriving players arriving in the gate, are they on their feet, are their shoulders above their hips, are the binding on the players on the ground, if they do fall off their feet is it because of weak opposition, are players binding properly as the join the ruck, are other players offside. ALL THIS IN THE COURSE OF 3- 5 seconds!!!
So I have found that I have used the concept of materiality quite abit. So what if the tackler didn't release right away, the tackled player was still able to play the ball back quickly and his team won the breakdown?
The trade off is play the game to the strictest interpretations of the law and having the whistle blown at every breakdown, or letting the players play, and allowing the ref to manage the game and rule out the inconsequential things.
Overall I think a few laws can be simplified. The ball out one mentioned above, but also I think the options given to captains should be eliminated too such as "Would you like the lineout or a scrum 15 meters in for a not straight throw in?" 90% of the time the captains make the same decision so why not just make that the result of these sort of infringements?
And finally as a ref there is some inconsistency as to when an infringement warrants a short arm free kick vs a long arm penalty. For example:
Law 19.7
(b) The throw-in at the lineout must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(c) A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line
Why is taking too long to throw in a lineout a free kick, but throwing in the ball not straight a bunch of times a penalty?! In the case of not straight the ball is turned over anyway, and how can you judge if it is being "intentionally" not thrown in straight?
That said, I love reffing.
Rant over.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Agree doesn't quite do it about those 1986 scrums. The engagement was even softer in the 1950s to 1970s . There was power in the scrums in those days but it was seen in the power shove after the scrum was steady and the ball was put in.
There is no reason why players should not be required to do the same now because:
1. there is a no charging by front rows into the scrum law and
2. there is a time wasting law
The power hit could be deemed to transgress 1.
Over elaborate huffing and puffing and getting into into perfect position to crouch and engage, even softly, could be deemed to transgress 2.
New laws are not needed but you would have to rid of the Crouch, touch, pause engage ritual.
Instead of managing the scrum after the put in referees/law makers are managing the preparation for the power hit which is ostensibly unlawful anyway.
The words cart, before, and horse come to mind.
.
There is no reason why players should not be required to do the same now because:
1. there is a no charging by front rows into the scrum law and
2. there is a time wasting law
The power hit could be deemed to transgress 1.
Over elaborate huffing and puffing and getting into into perfect position to crouch and engage, even softly, could be deemed to transgress 2.
New laws are not needed but you would have to rid of the Crouch, touch, pause engage ritual.
Instead of managing the scrum after the put in referees/law makers are managing the preparation for the power hit which is ostensibly unlawful anyway.
The words cart, before, and horse come to mind.
.
- Status