Law Changes 2016

[Quick Hands]

World Rugby has announced some law changes for 2016.

 

[Sully]

Could work.

 

[TOCC]

I like the scrum law variations, specifically allowing advantage to be played if the scrum has collapsed but the ball is available.. It always frustrated me that the ref would blow a penalty rather then allowing the attacking team to chance a move.

 

[Quick Hands]

I like the scrum law variations, specifically allowing advantage to be played if the scrum has collapsed but the ball is available.. It always frustrated me that the ref would blow a penalty rather then allowing the attacking team to chance a move.

Particularly when the ball was just about to roll out. That said, a lot of the NH teams don't want the advantage, they want to kick a penalty goal.

I like the "use it" call when the ball is at No8s feet. Would like to see that extended from stationary scrums to all scrums except attempts at pushover.

Will be interesting to see if the maul changes will stop the plethora of rolling maul tries that we saw at RWC. Will certainly be more difficult to set up the legalised obstruction.

 

[TOCC]

Particularly when the ball was just about to roll out. That said, a lot of the NH teams don't want the advantage, they want to kick a penalty goal.

Yeah true, but lets hope, that if a team is camped 5m out from the oppositions line that they would at least chance an attempt at going for a try. If they don't get the try after a couple of phases then return for the penalty.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

On the maul variation: presumably the 6 nations has not entered its 2016 season.
shuffling to the back of the maul was rife in the England/Scotland game.

 

[Quick Hands]

On the maul variation: presumably the 6 nations has not entered its 2016 season.
shuffling to the back of the maul was rife in the England/Scotland game.

I suspect that you are correct and the changes will take place at the start of the 2016 SH season and the start of the 2016/17 NH season.

Noting that the first 2 round of 6N 2016 have been the usual low scoring affairs (weather playing no part). A far cry from round 2015 when the scores were:

61-20
40-10
55-35

As many of us know; the laws aren't necessarily the problem, it's the intent and mindset of coaches and players.

I am in broad agreement with the 2016 changes.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Under the new law 10.2 - as written

10.2 (d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Should Kurtley face sanction?

Such a poorly written law!

 

[Quick Hands]

Under the new law 10.2 - as written



Should Kurtley face sanction?

Such a poorly written law!

Although there was an infringement (and a foul play one) by an opponent. Which would mean that no such infringement was commited by KB (Kurtley Beale).

At the game the referee signalled advantage as soon as Beale was taken out. The AR on the eastern side also came on and spoke to Gardiner after the try was awarded and Gardiner went back to the Reds huddle behind goal and appeared to speak to someone.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Surely, KB (Kurtley Beale) would only be at fault if the bump wasn't in a spot that could conceivably have caused him to become unconscious. Can anybody confirm he was hit in the head area?

 

[Braveheart81]

Surely, KB (Kurtley Beale) would only be at fault if the bump wasn't in a spot that could conceivably have caused him to become unconscious. Can anybody confirm he was hit in the head area?

He was hit in the body. I haven't seen enough replays to see if his head hit the ground.

He could quite easily have been winded especially as he was trying to avoid contact rather that brace for it.

The laws around simulation can really only come into play when there isn't any contact. Otherwise you're trying to judge how much a particular piece of contact should have hurt which is impossible.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Surely, KB (Kurtley Beale) would only be at fault if the bump wasn't in a spot that could conceivably have caused him to become unconscious. Can anybody confirm he was hit in the head area?

He doesn't look unconcious to me, he just looks like he's on the ground.

The law is aimed at this sort of stuff.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The laws around simulation can really only come into play when there isn't any contact. Otherwise you're trying to judge how much a particular piece of contact should have hurt which is impossible.

The "new" law as written doesn't mention simulation. It just calls up any act that makes the ref think there was foul play. It doesn't even matter if there was indeed foul play.

Technically
Telling the ref you've been bitten -> penalty
Calling out to the ref that you're being held -> penalty
Lying on the ground a bit long -> penalty

Thankfully the refs won't interpret it like this. But why introduce such poorly written laws in the first place?

 

[Brumby Runner]

He was hit in the body. I haven't seen enough replays to see if his head hit the ground.

He could quite easily have been winded especially as he was trying to avoid contact rather that brace for it.

The laws around simulation can really only come into play when there isn't any contact. Otherwise you're trying to judge how much a particular piece of contact should have hurt which is impossible.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

By that reading then Sanchez's actions are acceptable because he was brushed by Hooper. If that's what the law change means, then it is of no real effect.

Have to say, however, that I've never seen a player lie so prone if they are winded, nor in my own experience can I envisage being so inactive after a winding. Gasping for breath and folding the legs up to the body is a more usual action. I believe I would be accurate in saying that someone not moving at all, and spreadeagled on the ground after a winding, would either be unconscious or be feigning unconsciousness. It is possible, of course, that KB (Kurtley Beale) in this instance did belt his head on the ground as he collapsed and was indeed unconscious, but I've not seen where anyone has suggested that to be the case.

 

[Quick Hands]

The "new" law as written doesn't mention simulation. It just calls up any act that makes the ref think there was foul play. It doesn't even matter if there was indeed foul play.

Technically
Telling the ref you've been bitten -> penalty
Calling out to the ref that you're being held -> penalty
Lying on the ground a bit long -> penalty

Thankfully the refs won't interpret it like this. But why introduce such poorly written laws in the first place?

I have a completely different interpretation of the law and I can't for the life of me see how you can possibly interpret it in the way you have. With respect, I think you're reading things into it which aren't there.

 

[liquor box]

@SuperRugby @SuperRugbyAUS #Rugby360 looks like the crackdown on twisting the neck did not last too long https://t.co/zKbcIlj4p1

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^Andrew Lees was the referee of this match. Enough said