Law Amendment Trials
- Thread starter MrTimms
- Start date
- Status
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
The first thing that struck me was that all the referees in the scrum trial called the engagement very quickly. This is on balance a good thing but will take some getting used to.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
What's the effect on the wobs of the 8 replacements for international matches (NH: Sep 1, SH: Jan 1)?
Sounds like an extra prop sits on the bench from this year's EOYT onwards?
Presumably this change will also flow through to Super Rugby as well, given it'd just about be the last major comp left with 22, not 23, match day players.
Sounds like an extra prop sits on the bench from this year's EOYT onwards?
Presumably this change will also flow through to Super Rugby as well, given it'd just about be the last major comp left with 22, not 23, match day players.
MrTimms
Ken Catchpole (46)
Interestingly, it doesn't say it has to be a prop:
I wonder how some coaches will use it tactically.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Good point, Mr Timms. My query arose from the following bit in the existing law 3.5, which seems to indicate that 6 front rowers are required if there are 23 players.
I only say "seems to" because it refers to "Union Specific Variations", and I dunno what actually applies to us in this case.
Not sure why they put it in red.
I only say "seems to" because it refers to "Union Specific Variations", and I dunno what actually applies to us in this case.
Not sure why they put it in red.
EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7
Syd Malcolm (24)
I don't know about the 5 second rule at rucks, i don't think that it should be a scrum. I believe defences should be entitled after such a time able to come around the ruck and get the ball.
Here are some problems i see arising.
1. We may see a lot of scrums at lower levels of Rugby.
2. Rushed pick and drives may result in neck injuries at lower levels of rugby.
3. If you were an extremely dominant scrummaging team and you were ahead by a couple of points at the end of a game, you could possibly just leave the ball at the back of the ruck to waste time as the ref will have to set a scrum and sometimes they reset a number of times (You would obviously do this toward the back end of the game.
4. The backs will be rushed and drop the forwards having to scrummage again.
Also i am in favour of the 90 second rule to conversions provided there is no contest on the kick. Players have to go back far already to prevent this. I believe the minimising of time to kick it and thus not getting the extra 2 will put even more emphasis on penalty goals.
Here are some problems i see arising.
1. We may see a lot of scrums at lower levels of Rugby.
2. Rushed pick and drives may result in neck injuries at lower levels of rugby.
3. If you were an extremely dominant scrummaging team and you were ahead by a couple of points at the end of a game, you could possibly just leave the ball at the back of the ruck to waste time as the ref will have to set a scrum and sometimes they reset a number of times (You would obviously do this toward the back end of the game.
4. The backs will be rushed and drop the forwards having to scrummage again.
Also i am in favour of the 90 second rule to conversions provided there is no contest on the kick. Players have to go back far already to prevent this. I believe the minimising of time to kick it and thus not getting the extra 2 will put even more emphasis on penalty goals.
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
I think it's a great idea, I don't think the Refs at lower grade say 2-3 and below will be policing it that hard. But five seconds is enough time from when the ball is available is a pretty big chunk of time. I just counted to 5-one thousands and I got bored around 3. If you don't play it after 5 you don't deserve the ball.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
I think I tend to agree more with EVERYFWD. At the point that the ref feels the ball is playable he will call "use it" as the rule states but after 5 seconds, if the ball has not been "used" he would simply call, "the ball is out" and play would continue.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
• The increase in the number of replacements does not require the extra player to be a front rower. Odd - I thought the intention was to avoid uncontested scrums.
So why have the extra player? To make it easier for international coaches? As you were then; we can't have them thinking too hard. And it devalues the worth somewhat of versatile players? I always thought multi-skilled players were good for the game but others don't. Fair enough.
• They are still managing the power hit instead of getting rid of it. All they have changed is the catechism uttered by thepriest referee. Early engages, scrum collapses and the dudding of dominant scrums will prevail. Whoopee.
• I like the ball ripping out proviso - good referees have been implementing this in recent years, as they always should have done, but they got caught in a convention that it had to be a knock-on.
• I also like the extension of the jurisdiction of the TMO. They already extended the use of the TMO for domestic rugby in France; so they don't have to trial that version: it works. In France they can go a long way back if a try has been scored and there may have been a knock on or hanky panky by the attacking team.
Sounds like it it is sure to waste a lot of time, but don't reach for the keyboard, it doesn't. You can watch a whole season of Top14 rugby and not notice that the TMO is used differently.
• Law application and guidelines. Hands up those who know why there is no item here regarding the crooked feed to the scrums. That's right - you can't have a clear tunnel with a power hit unless both teams hit symmetrically and at exactly the same time, so often the ball can't be put it straight..
Therefore referees will be allowed to ignore this law - again - even when the tunnel is credible. In the Kafkaesque world of law making and the implementation of it, consistency, even of ignoring an illegality, is more important than the law itself. And even if there was going to be a crackdown on the crooked feed, the law makers know it could never work in practice in the environment of the power hit.
And therefore there will still be no hooking contest. It's a wonder that the IRB didn't change the job description of the chap with the 2 jersey from "hooker" to "thrower". But I digress.
• Five seconds to play the ball at the ruck - crikey - does this mean I can't watch scrumhalves hatching the ball and looking to the left and right, then left again - like they're crossing the street? I'm going to miss the Zen mystery of it all.
I have no idea how this 5 second thingo is going to work in practice, and know there will some nice theories about why it won't work, but damn it all, I want to find out one way or the other; it sounds interesting.
• Prediction: there will be whingeing from some quarters in the NH (though by no means all) that the game will be sped up too much, to more of an aerobic game, by this 5 second thingo - and it's Australia's fault.
.
So why have the extra player? To make it easier for international coaches? As you were then; we can't have them thinking too hard. And it devalues the worth somewhat of versatile players? I always thought multi-skilled players were good for the game but others don't. Fair enough.
• They are still managing the power hit instead of getting rid of it. All they have changed is the catechism uttered by the
• I like the ball ripping out proviso - good referees have been implementing this in recent years, as they always should have done, but they got caught in a convention that it had to be a knock-on.
• I also like the extension of the jurisdiction of the TMO. They already extended the use of the TMO for domestic rugby in France; so they don't have to trial that version: it works. In France they can go a long way back if a try has been scored and there may have been a knock on or hanky panky by the attacking team.
Sounds like it it is sure to waste a lot of time, but don't reach for the keyboard, it doesn't. You can watch a whole season of Top14 rugby and not notice that the TMO is used differently.
• Law application and guidelines. Hands up those who know why there is no item here regarding the crooked feed to the scrums. That's right - you can't have a clear tunnel with a power hit unless both teams hit symmetrically and at exactly the same time, so often the ball can't be put it straight..
Therefore referees will be allowed to ignore this law - again - even when the tunnel is credible. In the Kafkaesque world of law making and the implementation of it, consistency, even of ignoring an illegality, is more important than the law itself. And even if there was going to be a crackdown on the crooked feed, the law makers know it could never work in practice in the environment of the power hit.
And therefore there will still be no hooking contest. It's a wonder that the IRB didn't change the job description of the chap with the 2 jersey from "hooker" to "thrower". But I digress.
• Five seconds to play the ball at the ruck - crikey - does this mean I can't watch scrumhalves hatching the ball and looking to the left and right, then left again - like they're crossing the street? I'm going to miss the Zen mystery of it all.
I have no idea how this 5 second thingo is going to work in practice, and know there will some nice theories about why it won't work, but damn it all, I want to find out one way or the other; it sounds interesting.
• Prediction: there will be whingeing from some quarters in the NH (though by no means all) that the game will be sped up too much, to more of an aerobic game, by this 5 second thingo - and it's Australia's fault.
.
AngrySeahorse
Peter Sullivan (51)
You raise a really good point here on this new 5sec rule. This is the main issue I see with it. I'd like to see the infringement here awarded with a penalty kick or free kick but no scrum option.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
It is a scrum the first time, but a free kick to the non-offending team every time after that. (to avoid time wasting)
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Extra player should be a front rower as it is in other competitions that already have 23 players in match day squads.
Agree with this wholeheartedly. Until the scrum is sorted out then the last thing we need is more scrums.
The move to widen the scope of the TMO is an excellent move and as Lee said it works well in Top14.
Agree with this wholeheartedly. Until the scrum is sorted out then the last thing we need is more scrums.
The move to widen the scope of the TMO is an excellent move and as Lee said it works well in Top14.
EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7
Syd Malcolm (24)
Didn't read that one, i don't know if this is wise. The ref's have enough on their plate and thought process to go through, particularly if it is tight at the end of the game i can see a big game being decided by this.
(Any ref's out there can you please correct me if this process is wrong i am a bloke who tends to remind you of the rules not police them)
*Thats a tackle
*Tackler roll away or get to your feet to play at the ball
*Player from opposition has come into contest the ball that's a ruck 'Hands out tackler
*Did the tackled player release the ball
*Are all players coming through the gate
Now add on top of that
*Balls at the back for 5 seconds
*Now the ref has to ask themselves 'Have i awarded a scrum against the team in possesion or do i award the team not in possession a penalty?'
Now after all that, you can't tell me that the ref won't balls it up. To be fair, i don't think i could blame them for stuff it up either.
I really think this law change will only be used to avoid time wasting at the end of the game. In normal play, the ball will be used within that time frame.
I also can't see teams purposefully infringing to waste more time by having a scrum set. Keeping possession of the ball must outweigh giving the opposition a scrum feed just to use up more time.
I also can't see teams purposefully infringing to waste more time by having a scrum set. Keeping possession of the ball must outweigh giving the opposition a scrum feed just to use up more time.
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
I said this at the time the announcement was made, but it bears repeating.
The 5 second rule at the ruck will virtually never result in a scrum. All that will happen is that the ref will command the halfback to use it, and he will do so.
The 5 second rule at the ruck will virtually never result in a scrum. All that will happen is that the ref will command the halfback to use it, and he will do so.
Never. Yet referees are fully entitled to order a scrum to the team not in possession if they don't use it immediately (laws 20.4 (e) and (f). The reason it never happens is that the ref tells the halfback to use it, and he does. Exactly the same thing will happen with the new ruck law as well. After the first game or so under the new variations, you will forget that the new law even exists.
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
Not bad, although your order is a bit all over the place. I like to have a definite checklist of things I run through in my mind every time a tackle (or something like a tackle) happens. Starting with
*Ball carrier brought to ground and held (otherwise no tackle)
*Tackler released
*Ball carrier releases
*Tackler (and ball carrier) rolls away or otherwise leaves the ground in the tackle zone ASAP
*Arriving players come from legal position (esp tackle assist players who do not become "tacklers" come thru gate).
*Work out point when ruck forms (and if) - ball on ground 1 & or more players each team in contact over ball
*Allow player with hands on at this point to carry on, but no new hands.
*Monitor offside lines now.
Quite a bit later will be
*Is ball available? - tell halfback to use it
And I predict virtually never will I ask myself
*Has that been 5 seconds?
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
http://www.sport-development-mailer.com/t/r-l-hytuoy-ydlhhyjhhd-yu/
I don't like this rule. It's the ball carrier's responsibility to protect the ball and keep possession of it. I don't see what the problem is with the law as it is.
Ir depends if say, McCaw rips the ball back at the tackle and it drops behind him, is that knock on for the attacker or a drop backwards to McCaw
- Status