IRB Law amendments post RWC 2011

[yourmatesam]

Hello all,

Just received this via our union here in SIRU.

What are your thoughts on possible changes you would like to see put forward to the IRB?

Cheers,
Sam

 

[Crow]

Good to see that the review is underway.
I'd love to see the submissions to this, although it may lead to some stereotypes getting trotted out.

 

[DPK]

An idea for a submission- halfbacks offside line at scrum time being the front row?

 

[Lee Grant]

Not a bad idea at first glance. Currently the defending scrummie has to have both feet behind the ball has he follows the ball through, but invariably they have one foot in front of the ball and are not pinged; so making him stay back where you say may have it's merits allowing cleaner pick up and despatch by the team in possession.

But beware of the unintended result of law changes. A scrum that is being dominated is usually going backwards or at least the 2nd rowers are struggling with their footing. The poor old no.8 or scrummie has the devils own job to pick the ball up cleanly and especially with the opponent scrummie up his arse. But when the defending scrummie has to stay on his side of the fence it's easy peasie.

Do we want it easy peasy for a scrum under pressure or should we reward strong scrummaging?

 

[DPK]

Do we want it easy peasy for a scrum under pressure or should we reward strong scrummaging?

Well, the scrum half may not be able to harass the 8 as he is picking up the ball, but by hanging back they can form a solid defensive line with the backrower on whichever side they are on when they detach.

If the scrum is being pushed over the goal line, the goal line would become the offside line as it is for the rest of the backs.

But I agree that it does make it easier for the weaker scrum to salvage ball from a backpedaling scrum. That said, it's not that much easier for the number 8. Sure, he gets an easier pick up, but as soon as he picks up that pill the opposition have about three steps to line him up.

 

[Lee Grant]

We have discussed the scrum problems on another thread, especially the abomination of the power hit and its horrid effects on the game. These malignancies include the consequence of the dominant scrum being dudded by those referees who have no clue, which is most of them.

We have mentioned going back to the future and recommended changes that will have the effect of players folding into each other before the scrummie is even ready to put the ball in. This will outlaw the power hit and instead place emphasis on the power shove once the ball is put in. The dominant scrum with therefore be able to dominate more than it does now, in fact: as it used to dominate in the olden time.

But I don't want to go there with suggested wording of scrum ELVs though requiring necks to touch each other on the crouch or folding together, and before the put in (and therefore the shove), may not be a bad idea.


But I'm imagining the worst and that the IRB will do FA about the power hits.

Even so I'd like some changes:

- the current laws say the front rowers should be in a position to shove but they don't say they have to shove forward. It should be written that they have to do so. If such a law is enforced (not that I think it will be, but we can dare to dream) it will stop the defending LHP boring into attack the hooker, and even stop the odd THP like Castrogiovanni doing the same thing.

It may even stop defending THPs from pulling back to create a wheel, (you never know what laws the refs will have as flavour of the year); it could work.

- If you you don't want to outlaw a power hit then at least make it so it can't happen. Require the "Touch" after the "Crouch" to be done neck on neck not with hands. They will have to stand closer so the neck "Touch" is positioned right on the "Crouch".

It's just an idea. There will be a bit of pinging as players shove on the neck touch but it we want change we have to do different things.
.

 

[Gnostic]

I would like to see current Laws enforced.
1. Scrummies to feed the ball straight
2. Backrowers to remain bound at the scrum, including the loosies not being permitted to slide up and bind on the opposition front row.
3. Offside at the ruck, pillars and players driving past the ball becoming unbound and then loitering or binding defending players to prevent them joining the ruck or defensive line.
4. Players advancing in front of the kicker to prevent a quick lineout throw.

 

[liquor box]

I would like rucking brought back if an opponant has the clear opportunity to get off the ball or take their hand off the ball. If they are obstructing on purpose then they get what they deserve

If they are stuck on top of the ball and unable to move then they should be penalised for not rolling away and not rucked

 

[IronAwe]

Yes, I agree we should bring back rucking. EVERY game there are players on the wrong side of the ruck.

 

[tigerland12]

I would like to see current Laws enforced.
4. Players advancing in front of the kicker to prevent a quick lineout throw.

This one for sure, it has been annoying me when a tired prop who is 50m behind the ball can then prevent a quick throw as soon as the ball goes out.

 

[Lee Grant]

Gnostic

1. On the scrummies putting the ball in straight. It is not possible all of the time because the power hit destabilises the front rowers and the tunnel between then disappears. Referees know this so they allow skew throws most of the time into a space that is clear. In their refs language they say a put in should be allowed if it is "credible".

The tunnel can remain intact if the power hit is just right and the forces meet at the midpoint symmetrically - vertically and horizontally. The trouble is that the scrummies have been allowed to out the balls in skew all the other times and will keep doing it even with the perfect hit.

Eliminate the power hit and the tunnel won't be compromised most of the time and the ball will be able to be put in straight. Then we can have a hooking contest. The trouble is: as the decades roll on the current law makers may not know what a hooking contest is.


2. Binding of backrowers - agreed. Schalkie is a good one at slipping up and helping out his THP


3. Pillars - agree, this was supposed to be part of the law crackdown but it was hardly ever exercised.

It's one of those conventions of referees. Kees Meuws and his mates started it seriously years ago and it wasn't cracked down on then. Defending pillars were pinged but not the team in possession and once the big refs started allowing attacking pillars to stay there in front of last feet, it flowed through. Now and then Kaplan and Dickinson crack down on attacking pillars but there's not many that go against the convention.

Driving past and loitering reached its final form with Rodney So'oialo. There was one game in NZ when George Smith said to the ref that he couldn't get to his own ruck because Rodders was always in the way, often pulling out Aussies from their own side of the ruck. They should have charged him rent in that game.

That has been cracked down a lot since Rodders time but it's the sly stuff that gets up your nose. Everybody does it but they seem to stumble oh so accidentally in the the wrong place. If there was a snake there they wouldn't flop anywhere near it.

Needs to be cracked down on more. The laws are OK and infractions easily identified.


4. Players advancing has been cracked down on a lot but once the ball goes out and they have made some effort to retire before then they are no longer offside and they charge back up so long as they don't interfere with the quick throw.

It's a good idea though. If you legislated that the ball was not dead when it went out and opponents had to stay back it could discourage some kicking but there is probably an unintended consequence I haven't thought of.

 

[Refabit]

This one is more for community rugby than S15 and above but I'd like to see quick throw-ins allowed even when someone else has touched the ball. This is provided this person doesn't provide an advantage to the thrower. Too many times I see opposition spectators or coaches (even ballboys) touch the ball that's gone out merely to prevent a quick throw.
In this manner the incidental touch could be ignored but the touch that provides an advantage would still be stopped.

Most of the other laws I'd just like to see policed. The defensive scrum-half with a foot in front of the ball, the lineout jumper not allowing the throw to pass the 5metre line, the THP boring in, last feet not meaning a foot in front of the last feet.

 

[RugbyFuture]

all kicks worth 2. dont care what you have to say, has to happen. would simplify the lawbook for one thing.

 

[liquor box]

one thing I would change is that if a team does not contest a line out then it should not matter if the ball is not straight. If you are not going to contest the ball then you have no right to get the ball for no effort.

I would also bring the blind side touch judge onto the field to stand on the opposite side of the scrum to help determine any infringments. It is very rare for a problem to occur on the side where the referee is standing, if you have one on both sides then maybe this will fix a lot of problems.

 

[#1 Tah]

All props must slot droppies from 40m out as part of their front row training.

Ball in straight at scrum time is a huge problem and needs attention.

 

[Gnostic]

Gnostic

3. Pillars - agree, this was supposed to be part of the law crackdown but it was hardly ever exercised.

It's one of those conventions of referees. Kees Meuws and his mates started it seriously years ago and it wasn't cracked down on then. Defending pillars were pinged but not the team in possession and once the big refs started allowing attacking pillars to stay there in front of last feet, it flowed through. Now and then Kaplan and Dickinson crack down on attacking pillars but there's not many that go against the convention.

Kaplan ruled against Meelamu tonight in the Semi for acting as an offensive pillar and obstructing the defence. Very interesting and a perfectly correct call. I hope this gets some serious attention at the RWC (but not before then ).

 

[Manuel]

I'd like to see the "one minute to kick" law enforced. I predict more actual gametime and a loss in accuracy, which would imply less kicks at goal.

 

[Lee Grant]

all kicks worth 2. dont care what you have to say, has to happen. would simplify the lawbook for one thing.

Beware of unintended results of law changes.

Presently teams defending their goal line infringe to save 5 or 7 points to be scored against them. They are willing to sacrifice 3 points.

Query - would there tend to be more of this, or less, if a penalty was worth only 2 points? The referees should card more if that happens? Agreed "should", but won't.

Kaplan ruled against Meelamu tonight in the Semi for acting as an offensive pillar and obstructing the defence. Very interesting and a perfectly correct call. I hope this gets some serious attention at the RWC (but not before then ).

I thought Kev was actually advancing in front of the ball carrier and taking someone out rather than being a passive pillar not allowing a defender to get to the scrummie. But it was good to see it pinged, wasn't it?

 

[Lindommer]

1. Scoring team kicks off to restart play. NFL do it, Super League did it, most minis comps do it. The result will turn 85-0 games into 45-0 games as the weaker team will get the pill for at least some time. Close matches between two equal teams won't change. Should at least be trialled in some competitions.
2. Ball touching the post no longer a try. The original Law was written before post pads when the front of the post was a vertical extension of the leading edge of the goal line; that's now not the case with post pads up to 10cm thick.
3. Goal line to be renamed the try line. Touch lines to be renamed sidelines.
4. No penalties or scrums within 15m of touch. This will remove all ambiguity for lineout/non-lineout penalties. Kickers will have more angle for a touch kick or be closer infield for a goal kick. Makes for very interesting quick taps.
5. Game clock stops for goal kicks. Kicker gets 1 minute, siren/bell goes off when minute's up. This would encourage support staff to not muck about getting a kicking tee on the field.
6. Ball in touch to be determined by the ball, and only the ball. As in soccer and AFL. The only exception I can think of now is a kick blown back in by wind (or a banana kick), this "out" ball would be "in" when it lands.
7. Offside to be rigorously policed by TJ/ARs.
8. Referees shot for overly-slow "crouch/touch/pause/engage" calls. Call to be "crouch/touch/pack" and to take about 1.5 seconds. Or less.

 

[yourmatesam]

8. Referees shot for overly-slow "crouch/touch/pause/engage" calls. Call to be "crouch/touch/pack" and to take about 1.5 seconds. Or less.

I was a fan of the fast scrum call, but with some experience under my belt, the longer call (not as ridiculously long as the S15 refs) has made a huge difference at 'community level' rugby. I find that the front rows generally try to pre-empt the engage call to try and win the hit and I've found that by not having a set cadence for the scrum call and having both teams steady and square before engage that there are less scrum resets because both packs are hitting at the same time and they are stable on their feet.

I would like to see the scoring team kick off trialled, it would be interesting to see the outcome.