Rules changes - who benefits?

[fatprop]

I was thinking about Aus's propping issues and the new rule changes

I see Dan Palmer as a big potential winner as the coach only has to budget 40 minutes at THP from the guy

OK him and a lot of the other real scrummaging, less mobile props

 

[It is what it is]

It will interesting to see how coaches use this 4th prop option.
Will they use it purposely or only "in the case of emergency break glass"?
I assume it will depend on the quality of the replacement

 

[p.Tah]

I'd image they'd use it purposely. Surely a coach will use most of his bench... Hang on a minute.

 

[It is what it is]

I'd image they'd use it purposely. Surely a coach will use most of his bench. Hang on a minute.

Do you know if teams receive 7 or 8 replacements now with this change?

 

[p.Tah]

Do you know if teams receive 7 or 8 replacements now with this change?

Now you've pointed that out I believe it's just 7. From my understanding the prop is just emergency cover. Perhaps others can confirm.

 

[Braveheart81]

Now you've pointed that out I believe it's just 7. From my understanding the prop is just emergency cover. Perhaps others can confirm.

I am pretty sure you can make 8 replacements under the new law amendments.

http://www.irblaws.com/2012/index.php?amendment=5

 

[ChargerWA]

I think the winner is rugby's diversity. With two reserves a coach can pick a guy like Palmer knowing if the game is really loose he has another prop he can sub on.

It helps prevent the game evolving to a point where the props look like loose forwards.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That's only true of the starting props.
If you look at AFL with unlimited interchange there's a pretty bog standard body type that has emerged over the last 20 years.
Same with the hobbits in league: no room for Daryl Brohman any more.
Even in union there's been a change since tactical substitutions have been allowed - less than the other 2, and possibly more psychologically than physically.
The law of unintended consequences is in play here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hugie]

These are the law chnages I would like to see made, not to change the way the game is played but to reflect, more honestly, the way the laws are enforced. It is a come problem across many walks of life that the law lags behind current practices and expectations:

Law 14.2 (a) Lying on or around the ball: With the exception of the All Blacks a player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it.
(b) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball: With the exception of the All Blacks a player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
(c) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. With the exception of the All Blacks a player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.

Law 16.5
(c) Players joining or rejoining the ruck. With the exception of Richie McGraw all players joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If the player joins the ruck from the opponents' side, or in front of the hindmost team mate the player if offside unless he is Richie McGraw.

Law 20.9 All players: Collapsing. A player must not intentionally collapse a scrum. A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a scrum. This is dangerous play.
Penalty: A penalty kick against Australia, if Australia is not one of the teams playing then the penalty shall be awarded against Australia at the next available opportunity.

I think that these changes should be made to the laws to bring them into line with how the game is currently played.

 

[PaarlBok]

New rules in Varsity Cup:
varsity cup site

The FNB Varsity Cup presented by Steinhoff International is ready to rock, with new innovations and even more excitement set to form part of this year’s competition. The 2015 season kicks off on February 9, and among some of the exciting innovations, is the return of the White Card.
The white card, which allows coaches and captains to refer decisions for review to Television Match Officials during games, was first introduced during the inaugural Varsity Cup competition in 2008. The system makes a welcome return and is endorsed by the South African Rugby Union.
This is just another way Varsity Cup ensures it remains at the forefront of sporting innovation and assist SARU in testing ideas. This season will also see the addition of the Defensive Scrumhalf. The Defensive Scrumhalf is a simple change in rules where the scrumhalf defending the scrum will not be allowed to pass the mouth of the scrum once the ball has been inserted.
In other words, the defending scrumhalf will not be allowed to follow the ball. Varsity Cup hopes this rule will encourage a running style of play and diminish the breakdowns at the scrum.
Founder of the competition, former Springbok captain Francois Pienaar, believes this year will be even bigger and better than last year.
“This year is a very exciting year for Varsity Cup Rugby. The return of the White Card presents us with a unique opportunity to trial something that we could one day see used in international rugby. Sport cannot afford to stagnate in this day and age and it is important that it evolves with the players in mind. The White Card is there to ensure the correct decision is always made,” Pienaar said.
The 2014 edition saw UCT Ikeys crowned champions after an emphatic comeback. Ikeys scored three tries in five minutes to beat NWU-Pukke 39-33, after being 15-33 behind.
Duitser Bosman, CEO of Varsity Sports, hopes this year’s competition will be equally exciting.
“We saw some brilliant rugby played last year and believe that this year will be no different. The excitement around the tournament has really come of age in the last few years. The crowds have been brilliant, but most importantly, we have seen the Varsity Cup be a springboard for players to launch their career,” Bosman explained.
The competition is also a springboard for players to further their careers. Last year’s Currie Cup final saw 29 of the 44 players come from a pool of former Varsity Cup players, evidence that the platform is breeding some of the best talent in the country.
As usual, there will be hotly contested derby matches between Ikeys and Maties, Shimlas and CUT, UJ and Tuks as well as a repeat of last year’s final in Potchefstroom. There will be two televised fixtures on SuperSport channel 201 each week, to make sure that the rugby keeps on rocking.
The competition would not have been able to grow, were it not for the continued support from the sponsors, something Bosman feels is testament to the quality of the competition.
“With First National Bank (FNB), Steinhoff International, Spur and Cell C continuing their commitment to sponsorship, it underscores what a great product we have,” Bosman concluded.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I was under the impression that the defensive half back change was meant to be introduced to the NRC last year, but if it was maybe someone forgot to tell the referees. I don't recall any instance of a defending half back being penalised for advancing with the ball in the scrum.

 

[Braveheart81]

I got excited when I thought they were bringing the Off White Card to South Africa's Varsity Cup.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I was under the impression that the defensive half back change was meant to be introduced to the NRC last year, but if it was maybe someone forgot to tell the referees. I don't recall any instance of a defending half back being penalised for advancing with the ball in the scrum.

I can't say there was but i do recall thinking that they halves were not advancing and it made for much cleaner ball.
would never pass the northern hemisphere as it reduces the importance of the scrum.

 

[Jagman]

I'm not sure if there's a difference but I think the NRC laws are that the SH can't go into the space between the opposition flanker and the #8. This law in SA looks like an even tighter restriction.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not sure if there's a difference but I think the NRC laws are that the SH can't go into the space between the opposition flanker and the #8. This law in SA looks like an even tighter restriction.

Thats been the law for your yonks - the SA law seems to reflect the NRC law

 

[PaarlBok]

Varsity Cup still use the two refs. Add the white card system and any dumb player will get caught on field.

 

[Wilson]

Very interested to see how the white card goes, I've always wondered if a challenge system would work in rugby.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Very interested to see how the white card goes, I've always wondered if a challenge system would work in rugby.

Well it needs to be very streamlined to avoid becoming like the NFL one

 

[Strewthcobber]

I've always wondered how you avoid the problem that just about every ruck has a technical rule breach by someone from either team. Someone has their shoulders below their hips or hasn't bound properly or the attacking players won't have rolled away. The guy on the field can ignore it for materiality.

We get into the murky area where the TV ref has to ignore some laws even if that's what is specifically challenged.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

so you envisage the challenging team formulating a basis for the challenge and the TMO only looking at the evidence touching on that basis?