World Rugby to introduce law trials

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^ I'm fairly sure you are wrong as I can't find a serious injury let alone a death attributed to the ELV during the two years it was trialled.

 

[XVProps]

No body wants to watch kick-athons so great move. Likewise no body wants to watch scrum re-sets so once the penalty kicking thing is solved we need to then depower scrums so we don't have any resets.

We like more tries so maybe if we drop a couple of players we'll open more space and the game will be more attacking and free flowing.
And no one wants to see the ref have such a huge impact on the game so let's clear up any confusion around the breakdown interpretations and just get rid of them all together.

Imagine if they got rid of goal keepers in soccer how many more goals they would score.

I actually don't mind an 8 point try and convo but I think the balance isn't right at 2 point penalties. Increase the value of the try but keep the penalties 3 points (or make all kicks 3 points). The impact won't be the same as the NRC because the defence would be better and a 2 point penalty isn't a deterrent, especially to cynical teams.

The NRC would be played the way it is even under the old point system because thrown together teams are always poor defenders in all sports. Just because a team turns down a penalty shot doesn't mean they will score, it just happens a lot now because no team seems to be able to defend.

The scrums have already been "de powered" by the new sequence. De power any more and it may as well be Rugby League. The scrum battle can be an intriguing part of a Rugby match. Embrace it! The only part I'd change is the ability to have a shot at goal for a scrum infringement. Short arms only unless it's an attacking 5m scrum the penalty tries can be awarded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dan54]

Running with the ball seems to work in the ITM Cup, though.


Maybe that is the point of the changes, more running, less sludge. Just like your favourite competition. Surely that would be a good thing, or is there something that I am missing?

Wamberal, perhaps why I not that keen on changes because as you say ITM cup (and I'm sure plenty of other comps) have plenty of running under present laws. I not really against tweaking laws mate, just it worries me we try to make a game where you HAVE to run etc all the time, where I think one of the beauties of rugby is it can be played different styles. I think we all want the same outcome (running rugby etc) , but I want nothing too much done that will change to game we have now!!

 

[Dan54]

[quote="waiopehu oldboy, post: 786559, member: 14632]
The one change I'd love to have seen is a revival of the ELV whereby a rolling maul could be taken down by means of a legal, above-the-waist tackle on anyone part of the maul.

I may be wrong, but I believe that this rule caused a number of serious injuries and I think may have actually caused a death due to the stress caused from mauls collapsing on the bodies of tacklers.[/quote]

Not sure it ever lasted long enough to cause injuries TSR, but mauls still collapse regularly, whether before or over the line when scoring tries, and seems no injury probs there. Not sure what answer is there as i a bit like WOB, tend to think the current maul laws are not quite right because you can't tackle the ball carrier.

 

[Quick Hands]

Do you like to see games won and lost on the back of totally random decisions by referees like Poite?

How do these (or any law changes) fix this? Did you watch Hoffman butcher the Rays v Brisbane game on Thursday, where to an extent the game was won and lost on some bizarre cards and the usual array of Hoff decisions?

 

[Quick Hands]

The scrums have already been "de powered" by the new sequence. De power any more and it may as well be Rugby League. The scrum battle can be an intriguing part of a Rugby match. Embrace it! The only part I'd change is the ability to have a shot at goal for a scrum infringement. Short arms only unless it's an attacking 5m scrum the penalty tries can be awarded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When free kicks were introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, this was the intention. However, what has happened is that some of the FK laws have reverted to penalties and referees have decided/been instructed to do a couple of things - once a team has conceded a FK, for all subsequent infringements they award a penalty and they have invented an interpretation of "not pushing straight" which isn't even in the laws and now occurs at all levels of the game with monotonous regularity. When 8 players are all bound together with heads down and being pushsed backwards, I challenge anyone to stay pefectly straight under those circustances. In fact try stay straight and/or not fall over when one person is pushing you backwards - it's near on impossible.

Once the ball reaches the No 8, the penalty option should be gone (except from a 5m attacking scrum where a pushover try is being attempted. I see a significant amount of time wasted in this tactic - when the original intention of the law is a contest for possession - i.e. to win possession, not to win a penalty.

 

[Omar Comin']

How do these (or any law changes) fix this? Did you watch Hoffman butcher the Rays v Brisbane game on Thursday, where to an extent the game was won and lost on some bizarre cards and the usual array of Hoff decisions?

The difference is that penalty goals are much easier to convert, thus the referee almost awards the points - at least if it's an easy kick. Under the new rules teams still need to score the tries.

And I don't think Hoffman butchered that game. He was arguably harsh but every card he gave was for a stupid, unnecessary infringement. Players got no leniency for professional fouls or cynical play and it was a good game as a result.

 

[Lee Grant]

Yeah, I'll admit I've always been on the side of the debate that preferred keeping the existing points systems, but I'm starting to admit that I might have been wrong. The NRC provides some very entertaining rugby.

As we have seen in the NRC and the ARC the key is for referees to use the yellow card sanctions correctly: if they do it will be a good thing for rugby and the scoring system, amongst other things, should be adopted.

Changes were always going to work in domestic rugby in Australia as they did in 2007—but as I mentioned yesterday in another thread: the professional referees failed miserably with their carding when some of the 2007 ARC ELVs were trialled in the 2008 Super 14.

We were all full of hope in the forum for 2008 but instead of more stringent carding, what we saw was referees applying layer upon layer of warnings, and it failed. What had worked wonderfully in Australia a few months before was still-born.

I was shattered by that and it's why I was one of the ones who questioned the sense of producing attractive rugby through domestic law changes if they weren't going to be used higher up.

Whilst it promoted the sport on the one hand, it made it more difficult to assess young players for pro rugby played under standard laws, on the other.

But some progressive changes are certainly worth another go and the good thing about it is that they are trying something in the NH so they can take part of the ownership of it.

That's no guarantee that the NH professional referees will be any better at carding offences than the 2008 S14 referees were, if the changes get a gig in NH pro rugby—even if the the trials in domestic rugby in Wales are successful, as they surely will be.

Let's hope they don't allow a lot of giving up two points to save eight. Let's hope they use the cards as they should be used and I can stop tilting at windmills.
.

 

[Lee Grant]

And I don't think Hoffman butchered that game. He was arguably harsh but every card he gave was for a stupid, unnecessary infringement. Players got no leniency for professional fouls or cynical play and it was a good game as a result.

Agree with that.

I think "The Hoff" lost form in 2015 otherwise, but his tough carding stance (if done accurately) is what is needed from all referees, especially with the points change. It will be all the more necessary if the Aussie and Welsh domestic initiatives get a leg up to pro rugby.

They could use the proposed changes in the Pro12: it's becoming a real dog of a competition. Then the EP and Top14 could give it a go.


As for some of the changes: the French would whinge about the scrums being devalued with their stables of big-arsed props, and the Poms would hate their mauls being watered down, but some Euro clubs like Clermont will be grinning from ear to ear.
.

 

[Lee Grant]

I may be wrong, but I believe that this rule caused a number of serious injuries and I think may have actually caused a death due to the stress caused from mauls collapsing on the bodies of tacklers.

Not sure it ever lasted long enough to cause injuries TSR, but mauls still collapse regularly, whether before or over the line when scoring tries, and seems no injury probs there. Not sure what answer is there as i a bit like WOB, tend to think the current maul laws are not quite right because you can't tackle the ball carrier.

When I was a young bloke, many moons ago, there were no mauls. What we call a maul these days was illegal. When you were held standing up, you were deemed to be tackled and had to release the ball in some way if you could.

Edit: If I remember correctly defenders had to allow you to, otherwise they were sanctioned just as they have to now when a tackle is made.

If you smuggled the ball back to a team mate he had to clear off and not attach behind you—the obstruction would be obvious.

It was common to place the pill on the ground after going in low with the ball in a tackle, yet stay on your feet, and your team mates would bind and a loose scrummage, or moving ruck, would travel up the field with the ball on the deck. It was a real art.

If cynical opponents prevented this movement they got shoed as they knew they would (and so did the referees). It was part of the game.

The Tackled-Ball law change in 1958 was historic and although it killed the loose scrummage, the game sped up. But nobody picked that the moving ruck would be replaced eventually by an evil spawn called a maul, which harked back to the early days at the Rugby School.

It was an unintended result of a law change, but instead of outlawing the obstruction of the fellow in front, the referees let it go—they thought they were modern, "let the game flow"—and their convention became quasi-law.

Eventually the law makers at the time fashioned laws to enable this new element of the sport to prevail. It took them a while though—"Maul" wasn't even defined until 1967.

As we now know: the referees and law makers took the wrong path.

Eventually they got a clue that the initial maul laws needed to be treated and introduced "use it" in 1992; now they are having another crack at it.

I hope the Welsh ELV about forming the maul succeeds. Mentions of stricter adherence to the other maul laws seem fine don't they, but so did comments a couple of years ago about throwing the ball straight into the scrum from one metre away.

Apparently it is too hard for referees to handle, even though the power hit has been outlawed and the tunnel is more credible.


I cringe at just about every maul these days and don't even need slow-motion to see infractions at four out of five mauls.

Though that is probably a low count.
.

 

[Lee Grant]

The bonus point system is different in the NRC though. You have to score 3 more tries than your opponents to get the attacking BP. I think it's better - you can't just get the 4 tries and take the foot off the gas. It's the same as what's used in France for the Top 14.

It has worked well for a few years in France now and it rewards defence. You can see the leaders shift gears almost when the losing team gets a try late in the game when the other team, already sure winners, has been three tries ahead but now need another try.

Super Rugby should adopt this

Apart from what has been mentioned before it avoids the abortion of logic when a losing team gets a bonus point by scoring four tries, though their opponents score six. And such a losing side could get a second BP when they finish within seven points. One BP for a losing side should be enough anyway.

And it encourages losing opponents to score that try near the end to stuff up the try bonus point for the obvious winners. Who knows how important that spoiling will be later on?


As well as the above, which has been successful in the Top14, I'd like to see no try bonus points awarded if opponents score four tries, or maybe three.

Defences would be concentrated on earlier in Super Rugby matches if that, and a try differential, were adopted.

Eventually it could have some effect in the NRC also if the defence of the teams improves to make it possible, as it must.


By the way - they have made a change in the Top14 this year. Losing teams can still get a losing bonus point, but they have to come within five points, not seven.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

The difference is that penalty goals are much easier to convert, thus the referee almost awards the points - at least if it's an easy kick. Under the new rules teams still need to score the tries.

And I don't think Hoffman butchered that game. He was arguably harsh but every card he gave was for a stupid, unnecessary infringement. Players got no leniency for professional fouls or cynical play and it was a good game as a result.

And tries are much easier to score when the oppostion has 14 players - so referee impact is increased, not decreased.

At least one of the cards wasn't even an infringement, so I'd suggest it was a good game despite the Hoff, not because of him.

 

[Omar Comin']

They might be easier to score but they are still not necessarily easy to score. Certainly no where near as easy as a goal kick. And they are within the ability of the opposition to stop. Unlike a penalty kick which is not contested.

Cards are given for obvious professional fouls, dangerous play or repeated infringements. Usually it's a lot more black and white that the offending player or team has done something wrong. And in the case of repeated infringements, even if you might debate the final one, it's unlikely the ref will have got all of them wrong.

Penalty goal attempts on the other hand can be taken from any little penalty blown in range. There's often a lot more grey area on a single penalty. With a high value for penalty goals it makes the impact of each refereeing decision a lot greater IMO.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^Although even where the standard laws operate, it's quite common for 14 points to be scored during the 10 minute sin bin period as opposed to a 3 point penalty goal.

If referees yellow card more players - including I assume scrum infringements, I don't see that as progress per se. It merely changes the nature of the impact of poor/incorrect decisions, it doesn't remove them.

As long as the scrum is refereed as it currently is, the problem remains. It is responsible for far too many of the current 3 point penalties. It is the only facet of the game where a team is able to contrive a penalty. I've lost count of the number of times that I hear commentators congratulating the scrum of team A for "winning a penalty" Leaving aside the fact that many of these penalties are questionable in the first place, the interpretation encourages penalties. Now they do it for the penalty goal, I see this morphing into contriving to have opposing props yellow carded - which I see as a worse result.

The solution is there for all to see, but alas this part of the laws has been hijacked in the past 30 years by the NH scrum lobby. Just as Lee Grant observed above how referees and administrators allowed the maul to develop into an 8 headed monster - the same can be said of scrum interpretations, which have allowed teams to move it from a ball winning contest into a penalty winning contest.

I've posted this footage before when discussing scrums - note the scrum awarded at 1.14, front rows come together at 1.19, ball in (after half back had to run and fetch it) at 1.28 and ball out at 1.29. That's right 15 seconds from whistle to ball in play and 5 seconds of that were taken up with the half fetching the ball. Whenever you hear scrum worshippers jibbering on about how the scrum in its current form has always been part of the game, refer back to this and remind them of the reality

.

 

[dru]

They might be easier to score but they are still not necessarily easy to score.

With just a few other things being equal of corse they are.

Reducing the number on the playing field is a blight on the game. If we are going to use cards like confetti something would have to change.

 

[Lee Grant]

If referees yellow card more players - including I assume scrum infringements, I don't see that as progress per se. It merely changes the nature of the impact of poor/incorrect decisions, it doesn't remove them.

No, it doesn't remove the impact of bad decisions, but if we want to retain the NRC ELVs and promote them to professional rugby we need to get the yellow cards dished out properly otherwise the ELVs won't work.

People in Sydney will remember the players' attitude in the Shute Shield in 2007 when the ARC ELVs were trialled that year, before the ARC.

At first the attitude of the players didn't change and the amateur referees gave them the cheese. After a while the players complied because they realised the refs weren't backing down from giving yellow cards.

I remember one time when a carded player even gave the ref a nod of approval at being sanctioned with yellow. That was funny.


That video brought back good memories—the quick scrums and the real hooking contests. But those days have gone a'glimmering, since professional players can spend so much time in the gym now and their physical development can enhance scummaging dominance.

We fondly hope those early days will come back, but they never will; though the crooked feed can be fixed if referees are forced by their minders to make the players comply. It's a revolutionary concept, but I'm sure it would work.

Referees should be capable of following instructions, and if not, there is nothing like demotion to change their ways. And promotion for compliance would send a message.

But who minds the minders?

Some may say those were the good old days, but they weren't. You see more rugby now than then despite the time taken for scrums—there were so many more of them before.

The scrums might have operated better in the past, but they had laws then we would think now were arcane. For example, only, you could mark the ball from anywhere on the park and you could also kick directly into touch from anywhere on the field, yet the lineout would form where the ball crossed touch.

To the credit of Australian rugby they applied for a dispensation for their domestic rugby to restrict the possibility of gaining ground from a ball kicked directly into touch, unless the ball was kicked from behind their own 25-yard line (or 22-metre line, for younger folk).

But when the Wallabies played in test matches they had to comply with international law.

The Home Unions adopted the Aussie method in 1970, but I forget when it become international law.

Maybe they were fed up with negative rugby and remembered that Wales kicked the cover off the ball in the 1965 5N against Scotland at Murrayfield, and there were 111 lineouts that day.

No, it's not one of my usual mistypes—111.
.

 

[Dan54]

Do any of us really think the game of rugby is the same when there are 14 or 13 players on the field for 1 team, and imagine if it your team that the one down to 14 players, we would have even more moaning about the refs! I think we need to be careful what we wish for, I for one don't think more tries always makes for a better game, and sure we all like to see a bit of running, but not just for the sake of running!! Like I say the odd tweek of laws is ok, but if you want more room on the field, and less breakdowns, scrums and lineouts,I respectfully invite you to go and watch league , lets not try and turn rugby into a bastardised form of league! I am happy if the maul laws were cleaned up, and perhaps any missed kicks (especially dropkicks) at goal the opposition can have scrum from where kick was taken. And if you extend that to penalties, teams will be iffy about shots from wide out.

 

[Omar Comin']

With just a few other things being equal of corse they are.

Reducing the number on the playing field is a blight on the game. If we are going to use cards like confetti something would have to change.

Remember the Wales vs France semi final in 2011. France certainly didn't find it easy scoring tries with a one man advantage for most of the match. It is possible to defend with 14 players, especially for just 10 minutes. I think I saw a stat somewhere that the average deficit during a yellow card period is about 6 or 7 points. So basically the equivalent of a couple of penalty goals.

And I don't agree it's a blight on the game. It's up to teams to avoid conceding cards. Ice Hockey and water polo are other sports where infringing players get removed temporarily from the game. Is that a blight on those sports too? I think removing players temporarily (if losing territory and possession isn't enough) is a better punishment from an entertainment perspective than watching one player from each team take regular uncontested kicks at goals.

 

[Quick Hands]

Remember the Wales vs France semi final in 2011. France certainly didn't find it easy scoring tries with a one man advantage for most of the match. It is possible to defend with 14 players, especially for just 10 minutes. I think I saw a stat somewhere that the average deficit during a yellow card period is about 6 or 7 points. So basically the equivalent of a couple of penalty goals.

And I don't agree it's a blight on the game. It's up to teams to avoid conceding cards. Ice Hockey and water polo are other sports where infringing players get removed temporarily from the game. Is that a blight on those sports too? I think removing players temporarily (if losing territory and possession isn't enough) is a better punishment from an entertainment perspective than watching one player from each team take regular uncontested kicks at goals.

In water polo it's a 20 second exclusion in a match which lasts 28 minutes, which is vastly different to a 10 minute sin bin in a game which lasts 80 minutes. i.e 1/84th of a match as compared to 1/8th.

You haven't addressed the concern about scrum penalties, which must by extension involve more cards for these infringements. At the moment we see scrum penalties which by my rule of thumb involve the referee getting in right 1/3 of the time, getting wrong 1/3 of the time and the other 1/3 the penalty could have gone either way. Currently some of these penalties result in 3 points (if they are within range) and some don't. If we have players carded on the basis of this guesswork, it involves teams being a man down when in many cases they haven't actually infringed.

The other point I make is that going from penalty goals to cards doesn't minimise referee impact (particuarly in the case of error), it increases it.

 

[Quick Hands]

No, it doesn't remove the impact of bad decisions, but if we want to retain the NRC ELVs and promote them to professional rugby we need to get the yellow cards dished out properly otherwise the ELVs won't work.

People in Sydney will remember the players' attitude in the Shute Shield in 2007 when the ARC ELVs were trialled that year, before the ARC.

At first the attitude of the players didn't change and the amateur referees gave them the cheese. After a while the players complied because they realised the refs weren't backing down from giving yellow cards.

I remember one time when a carded player even gave the ref a nod of approval at being sanctioned with yellow. That was funny.


That video brought back good memories—the quick scrums and the real hooking contests. But those days have gone a'glimmering, since professional players can spend so much time in the gym now and their physical development can enhance scummaging dominance.

We fondly hope those early days will come back, but they never will; though the crooked feed can be fixed if referees are forced by their minders to make the players comply. It's a revolutionary concept, but I'm sure it would work.

Referees should be capable of following instructions, and if not, there is nothing like demotion to change their ways. And promotion for compliance would send a message.

But who minds the minders?

Some may say those were the good old days, but they weren't. You see more rugby now than then despite the time taken for scrums—there were so many more of them before.

The scrums might have operated better in the past, but they had laws then we would think now were arcane. For example, only, you could mark the ball from anywhere on the park and you could also kick directly into touch from anywhere on the field, yet the lineout would form where the ball crossed touch.

To the credit of Australian rugby they applied for a dispensation for their domestic rugby to restrict the possibility of gaining ground from a ball kicked directly into touch, unless the ball was kicked from behind their own 25-yard line (or 22-metre line, for younger folk).

But when the Wallabies played in test matches they had to comply with international law.

The Home Unions adopted the Aussie method in 1970, but I forget when it become international law.

Maybe they were fed up with negative rugby and remembered that Wales kicked the cover off the ball in the 1965 5N against Scotland at Murrayfield, and there were 111 lineouts that day.

No, it's not one of my usual mistypes—111.
.

I agree we'll never go back to those days, I only use that footage to rebut those who say that the scrums we have now and the scrum penalties that we get have always been part of the game.

I don't necessarily have an issue with players being carded as part of changes to the laws, but until rugby addresses the issue of the way the scrum is currently refereed, I see the increased use of cards as a negative. All I can see happening is certain teams will contrive to have opposition players carded as a result of scrum infringements. Neither referees, nor the administrators seem to understand that when a pack of 8 forwards are being pushed back, it is next to impossible to stay dead straight after a certain time - the forces being exerted just don't allow it, but referees and/or administrators have invented this infringement of wheeling which doesn't exist. We see penalties galore for it and I'd hate to see players carded for it - particularly as in most cases it is a contrived penalty when the ball has been cleanly and clearly won and the team have the opportunity to play with front foot ball, but instead they choose to play for a penalty by use of the "second shove". (As you can see it's my pet hate in rugby at the moment - an absolute blight on the game and one with no basis in history or in law.)

So, IMO, any law changes need to involve:

An instruction to referees that the scrum is a contest for possession, not a contest for a penalty (or a yellow card)

No scrum option at penalties or free kicks

Once the ball reaches the No 8, penalties are off the table - the team has to use the ball immediately or lose it (except in the case of an attempted pushover from a 5 metre scrum)

Sadly, we'll never go back to the days when a scrum was all over in 15 seconds, but there is a ridiculous amount of time wasted setting up the modern scrum, which is compounded when it needs to be reset.