• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Super Rugby Pacific 2025

JRugby2

JRugby2

Dave Cowper (27)
Adam84 said:
Shit i thought the 'play-on if not thrown straight' rule was already a thing in 2024... its honestly a no-brainer and maybe some refs were already loosly enforcing it..
Click to expand...
It was, but brought in after super
Adam84 said:
But I have real concerns about the 'protection of the 9' rule; not letting the opposition half proceed past halfway is a stupid inclusion. When was that ever a concern in the game?

But my bigger issue relates to the rule around the ruck and maul; how is this applied close to the opposition line when you have forwards playing scrum-half, either picking and driving or popping to a pod beside them? It's essentially stating that a forward on the edge of the ruck can't defend within a 1m channel against an attacking pick&drive... which is where 90% of pick and drives are scored..
Click to expand...
The wording says trying to play the ball away from ruck/maul - so anyone who picks and runs from the base can be hit. Not 100% how it will be enforced but my guess is the moment anyone takes more than a single step in any direction with the ball they are fair game.

Basically this rule is stop the loose hand coming and slapping the ball away from someone about to pass or completing a sack to promote game flow and limit the number of messy rucks/ stoppages we have. I don't have strong feelings either way personally and can see the argument both for and against - but this won't impact the scenario I think you're describing.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
Adam84 said:
Shit i thought the 'play-on if not thrown straight' rule was already a thing in 2024... its honestly a no-brainer and maybe some refs were already loosly enforcing it..
Click to expand...
TRC trialled it in 2024, but then it wasn't used in the end of year tests (being run by 6 nations), World Rugby Council voted in favour of the changes in November, and now from 1/1/2025 it's being trialled across the globe
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
WorkingClassRugger said:
The new variations are causing a bit of a stir on the MLR socials. Lots of 'might as well make it League' comments.
Click to expand...

That's always the way.

In my view the changes are fine. You're mostly getting rid of defensive scrums where the team with the ball is just trying to win the scrum and kick for touch. A free kick seems a good way to remove what is essentially a waste of time from the game.

The knock on into touch only being restarted with a lineout speeds things up slightly too.

You're potentially removing a couple of scrums a game on average. It's hardly a seismic shift in getting rid of the scrum.
 
Adam84

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
Braveheart81 said:
You need to be onside (i.e. not already part of the ruck/maul). I don't see how it changes for those defenders close to the goal line. It's only the players in the ruck/maul who are affected.

Has anyone noticed any difference so far in the Six Nations? This is a global law trial so it applies everywhere.
Click to expand...

A player is considerd to be part ruck if they're in contact with it.. When defending on the line it's pretty standard coaching for defenders to maintain contact with the 'ruck' to maintain that connection and proximity... here's a couple of examples where they're defenders and technically part of the ruck and cannot make a tackle wihout a penalty under these laws

1739254657626.png


1739253872377.png



1739254260183.png




1739254589880.png
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Adam84 said:
A player is considerd to be part ruck if they're in contact with it.. When defending on the line it's pretty standard coaching for defenders to maintain contact with the 'ruck' to maintain that connection and proximity... here's a couple of examples where they're defenders and technically part of the ruck and cannot make a tackle wihout a penalty under these laws
Click to expand...

Don't you just change this by coaching players to no longer put a hand on anyone in the ruck if they are not actually part of the ruck so they are onside?

Given we're at the point of a global law trial I think it's basically a given that this will become a permanent change.
 
Adam84

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
JRugby2 said:
It was, but brought in after super

The wording says trying to play the ball away from ruck/maul - so anyone who picks and runs from the base can be hit. Not 100% how it will be enforced but my guess is the moment anyone takes more than a single step in any direction with the ball they are fair game.

Basically this rule is stop the loose hand coming and slapping the ball away from someone about to pass or completing a sack to promote game flow and limit the number of messy rucks/ stoppages we have. I don't have strong feelings either way personally and can see the argument both for and against - but this won't impact the scenario I think you're describing.
Click to expand...

Fair. Hopefully, that is the intent; I'm not sure it's clear in the wording...

To me it's just another line in an already complicated book of rules for rules that i'm not entirely sure are even necessary
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
Has the definition of a ruck changed? Those players arent part of a ruck by definition in the laws (15.7 & 15.13)

A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
Click to expand...
All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
Click to expand...
 
Adam84

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
Braveheart81 said:
Don't you just change this by coaching players to no longer put a hand on anyone in the ruck if they are not actually part of the ruck so they are onside?

Given we're at the point of a global law trial I think it's basically a given that this will become a permanent change.
Click to expand...
Or you could just coach halfbacks to pass fast and from the ground.. or coach players to clear out properly and defend the halfback...

it's a coached practice to maintain a physical connection with the ruck to keep that gap closed when defending on the line; the inverse is valid if it isn't practised. Not sure encouraging more pick&drives 2m from the line is really the desired outcome of all this...

Regardless i think as a rule it value-adds little and it's just another highly technical rule that an official has to monitor on top of 101 other things.. we should be simplifying rule books not overcomplicating them with nuanced rules like '1m from a ruck'...
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
PhilClinton

PhilClinton

Mark Loane (55)
Braveheart81 said:
That's always the way.

In my view the changes are fine. You're mostly getting rid of defensive scrums where the team with the ball is just trying to win the scrum and kick for touch. A free kick seems a good way to remove what is essentially a waste of time from the game.

The knock on into touch only being restarted with a lineout speeds things up slightly too.

You're potentially removing a couple of scrums a game on average. It's hardly a seismic shift in getting rid of the scrum.
Click to expand...

The concern from purists is probably more about the cumulative effect on removing any number of scrums from the game. And if the impact on the product gets a positive reception, does that leave the door open to review more areas to swap scrums for free kicks.

If for example they calculate 20% of scrums per game on average are removed due to these changes, does that mean you're expecting the big boppers to be putting in 20% more effort across the field? And then at what stage do teams start reevaluating the benefit of having a mobile prop vs a scrummager.
 
Ignoto

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
WorkingClassRugger said:
The new variations are causing a bit of a stir on the MLR socials. Lots of 'might as well make it League' comments.
Click to expand...
Honestly, any law changes that help brings more fatigue into our games, the better if you ask me. With the size of the bench these days, half the team turns over meaning defensive lines never get tired as the match deteriorates.

If it also means those billtong eating "natural" athletes that come out of a certain African country find themselves out of breath more often, than the better.
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Ignoto said:
Honestly, any law changes that help brings more fatigue into our games, the better if you ask me. With the size of the bench these days, half the team turns over meaning defensive lines never get tired as the match deteriorates.

If it also means those billtong eating "natural" athletes that come out of a certain African country find themselves out of breath more often, than the better.
Click to expand...
Yep Ig, I actually would love there to be a way of restricting the number of replacements, accept for injuries etc, unfortunately probably too hard as it would be too easily abused with the rules on head knocks etc (which is already happening I think). I reckon 2-3 replacements allowed per match, obviously not that straight forward with front rows etc.
 
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Ignoto said:
Honestly, any law changes that help brings more fatigue into our games, the better if you ask me. With the size of the bench these days, half the team turns over meaning defensive lines never get tired as the match deteriorates.

If it also means those billtong eating "natural" athletes that come out of a certain African country find themselves out of breath more often, than the better.
Click to expand...

I had someone of the MLR tell me one of the points of the scrum was to provide the bigger boys a breather. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scrum actually is and what purpose it assumes.

I suspect it will cut a number of scrums. The current average at the professional level is 19 per game. The much talked about game between England and France that Rassie is using to fight against such variations had 15. Which will probably be where they land with these variations.

The big problem that has led to this has been the development of players and tactics designed to draw penalties and slow the game. Perhaps these variations are taking it too far. We'll have to wait and see but the issues around the scrum collapsing due to improper technique for the sake for drawing a penalty need to be addressed.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Dave Cowper (27)
Adam84 said:
Or you could just coach halfbacks to pass fast and from the ground.. or coach players to clear out properly and defend the halfback...

it's a coached practice to maintain a physical connection with the ruck to keep that gap closed when defending on the line; the inverse is valid if it isn't practised. Not sure encouraging more pick&drives 2m from the line is really the desired outcome of all this...

Regardless i think as a rule it value-adds little and it's just another highly technical rule that an official has to monitor on top of 101 other things.. we should be simplifying rule books not overcomplicating them with nuanced rules like '1m from a ruck'...
Click to expand...
I also think this is similar to the 5 sec use it law and 30 sec scrum/ lineout clocks.

These aren't strictly enforced to the second/ measurement - rather they're used to try to quantify or give some rigidity to the law, over wording like "without delay" or "in close proximity of". Even when you hear referees doing the big "2!, 1!" countdown - a lot of the time the ball has already been available for 5 seconds and they are just hurrying them along.

If someone for example tackles a halfback when the ball has loosely spat out 0.9m from the back of a ruck - I reckon most referees are playing on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top