World Rugby to introduce law trials

[wamberal]

I particularly like the RSA ref suggestions on cards. No of players on the field not to change. The individual is punished not the team.

Totally agree. Nobody wants to see a game between 15 and 14 or even 13.


The only exception might be a really terrible dangerous tackle where the tackled player's life is endangered.

 

[dru]

Totally agree. Nobody wants to see a game between 15 and 14 or even 13.


The only exception might be a really terrible dangerous tackle where the tackled player's life is endangered.

I think the dangerous play can be sorted by the judiciary afterward. The only thing I can think of is if a team was repeatedly doing this and not responding appropriately to the card. So the ref can be offered an option if he thinks it necessary.

 

[Lee Grant]

^^^^^^

I'm a bit more old-fashioned as you would expect.

I think the carding of a player who can't be replaced for ten minutes is a deterrent and that the current practice should not be changed.

Yeah I know some cards have been issued which shouldn't have been and a player and his team have been dudded, but that's rugby.

If his team is disadvantaged maybe a player won't do it next time; or maybe his coach won't pick him in the next game because he thinks his team may lose the same fellow for ten minutes.


But I don't know that I'm right. If there is enough juice for the idea, it is worth an ELV at a lower level of rugby like the NRC or Currie Cup or whatever - and if that works out it could be promoted to Super Rugby or Top 14 rugby etc.

I doubt if it will get up past the tree huggers at World Rugby to be an ELV in pro rugby, but I've been wrong before.
.

 

[dru]

Lee, think I understand you. I speak solely here as a spectator. And I'm here to watch rugby, not a foregone conclusion.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I agree, L. Grant, it's a team sport, and the team should be punished. Individual accountability can be held at team meetings and by the coach.

I also agree with taking the 'hit' out of scrum engagement, it serves zero purpose except to destabilise the scrum and potentially injure someone.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Some people think that what is happening in rucks with players leaving their feet should be allowed now because it was always part of the game (not saying that you are).

It wasn't - you didn't have to end on the ground all the time to play tough rugby: it was tougher then - and flopping was cheating.



Not many ruck crackdowns have worked. but some have.


.

IIRC there was a players leaving their feet crackdown at one RWC and it worked a treat. Every referee immediately penalised players leaving their feet and by the second week everyone was on their feet. I have a feeling it was 99, but can't be sure.

It will work, but refs have to be consistent and have to work at it, not give up after a couple of games.

We all remember that not so long ago it was an immediate penalty if a player contesting the ball at the tackle put his hand or hands on the ground to support himself. The refs seem to have weakened their interpretation to say if when the player takes his hands off the ground he is supporting his own weight it's ok.

The refs need to start applying the laws as they are written. If it becomes evident that the laws aren't working, then lets change the laws, but the idea that refs have some role in law change by stealth can't stand.

That's not their role and historically never was.

You mentioned the scrum feed in an earlier post - this is another area where referees have changed the law by stealth. They fanatically enforce all other laws at scrum time, but ignore the one that is the basis of the "fair contest for possession after a minor infringement" If we don't want the ball in the middle, let's change the law and then we can stop pretending that the scrum is a contest for the ball altogether.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^^

I'm a bit more old-fashioned as you would expect.

I think the carding of a player who can't be replaced for ten minutes is a deterrent and that the current practice should not be changed.

Yeah I know some cards are issued but shouldn't be.

If his team is disadvantaged maybe a player won't do it next time; or maybe he won't be picked next time because his team might lose another player for ten minutes.

But I don't know that I'm right. If there is enough juice for the idea, it is worth an ELV at a lower level of rugby like the NRC or Currie Cup or whatever - and if that works out it could be promoted to Super Rugby or Top 14 rugby etc.

I doubt if it will get up past the tree huggers at World Rugby to be an ELV in pro rugby, but I've been wrong before.
.

I think that referees having the option of a 5 minute card and/or a 2 minute card would help. Previously refs only had penalty or send off as options and the yellow card has helped the game. Let's face it, not all cards are worth 10 minutes and refs might not be so reluctant to use them if they had lesser times available.

 

[Bullrush]

Fixing the breakdown is a fairly simple matter - the laws aren't difficult - the tackler must release the tackled player, and the tackled player must play the ball without delay.

One of the only laws I have issue with at the moment is this one.

We are seeing more and more players getting tackled then getting up immediately and continuing with their run under this 'I wasn't held' idea.

If the rules are that the tackler must release immediately, of course you weren't held.

Once you go to ground, release the ball. If you can pick it up and go again - like they used to not that long ago - then go for it. But this trend we see of players just getting straight backup and running on pisses me off.

Otherwise, rugby doesn't need to be changed all that much. I'm pretty sure that there are some stats somewhere which show that the teams who are looking to attack more and score more tries under the current rules also win more games.

It's not the rules which stifle running or attacking rugby - it's coaches, players and the skill level of the players that do that.

 

[liquor box]

One of the only laws I have issue with at the moment is this one.

We are seeing more and more players getting tackled then getting up immediately and continuing with their run under this 'I wasn't held' idea.

If the rules are that the tackler must release immediately, of course you weren't held.

Once you go to ground, release the ball. If you can pick it up and go again - like they used to not that long ago - then go for it. But this trend we see of players just getting straight backup and running on pisses me off.

Otherwise, rugby doesn't need to be changed all that much. I'm pretty sure that there are some stats somewhere which show that the teams who are looking to attack more and score more tries under the current rules also win more games.

It's not the rules which stifle running or attacking rugby - it's coaches, players and the skill level of the players that do that.

I guess it comes down to what is tackled? I am sure there is a description in the rules of the game but I will have an attempt.

I think either the front or back of your torso in contact with the ground while an opponent is in contact with you or two parts of your body (feet excluded) in contact with the ground and an opponent at the same time. This second one could be a knee and elbow, two knees etc.

 

[Quick Hands]

As if on cue the first match of RWC 2015 featured some of the things discussed in this thread.

The penalty try, from what might loosely be called a maul, but appeared to disintegrate and for the most part feature 3 England players bound to each other charging downfield - referee sanctioned obstruction.

The we had later an England scrum feed around about half way. England had clearly won the scrum, the ball was securely at the No 8 and they were moving forward. What else should a team expect from a scrum? But what we saw was England hold the ball and keep pusing down field until the referee found and infringement. Again I'll make the point, if you are being pushed backwards - particularly if you are bound to 7 other people - it is impossible to stay square, not fall over or not be forced to stand up to prevent either of the former occuring. Referee sanctioned contriving for a penalty where none should exist.

EDIT: The "maul" of which I speak begins at 2.06 on this clip. It is a legitimate maul until at 2.16 four England players detach. They aren't in contact with ANY Fijian player. Maul over. The 4 England players keep driving towards the line WITH THE BALL AT THE BACK, i.e. 3 England players running obstruction and preventing the ball carrier being tackled.

Result: England end up with a penalty try and Fiji get a player in the bin?

 

[Dan54]

Dan, what about when a player is tackled just short of the try line?



I like the idea that the tackled player can place the ball, but then he should get his mitts right off it.

Yep Wamberal, I have no probs with player placing ball immediately, but I am just wondering if we get strict, should he be able to roll over before placing it behind him?? I also like you think that players that place ball should get hand off it , but they tend to be able to just leave hand there to control it.

 

[wamberal]

Yep Wamberal, I have no probs with player placing ball immediately, but I am just wondering if we get strict, should he be able to roll over before placing it behind him?? I also like you think that players that place ball should get hand off it , but they tend to be able to just leave hand there to control it.

Oh for the good old days. It was all pretty simple back then!!

 

[boyo]

The adjudication has definitely become easier with the new engagement laws because there are less scrums that collapse immediately because there isn't a hit.

Fewer scrums, not less scrums.

I expected better from you. Give yourself an uppercut.

 

[Tip]

This is my biggest gripe;

Why did the TMO not overrule the Penalty Try?

It's as clear as daylight, just like the Fiji no-try.

 

[Lee Grant]

^^^^^^^^
Regarding the penalty try in the England v Fiji match, the referee is the sole judge. A TMO can chirp if he sees something he thinks the referee has missed but most of the time he acts on request, except when he sees foul play. He has no power to over-rule.

As if on cue the first match of RWC 2015 featured some of the things discussed in this thread.

The penalty try, from what might loosely be called a maul, but appeared to disintegrate and for the most part feature 3 England players bound to each other charging downfield - referee sanctioned obstruction.

It looked dicey but about 3-4 years ago some Guidelines were issued to reward a dominant maul.

I don't remember the exact details but I recall that they had the effect that if defenders entered into the maul and then disengaged, either deliberately or not, what remained was deemed to be the original maul.

This resulted in what we saw in the opening game of the RWC - an unopposed running "tank" of attackers with the ball at the back, which looked both unstoppable and dangerous as defenders had to put their bodies on the line to pull it down.

Before the Guidelines I mentioned, the maul was deemed to be over if opponents left it; the "tank" would be pinged if a defender bravely presented himself in front of it with the ball at the back of the "tank".

But under the Guidelines it was considered the same maul, notwithstanding that contact was lost with defenders, whether briefly or otherwise.

Whether it was strictly OK under laws or the Guidelines, it was well done.

If you read this "Eyes and Ears", is that what you recall about those Guidelines?
.

 

[Quick Hands]

It looked dicey but about 3-4 years ago some Guidelines were issued to reward a dominant maul.

I don't remember the exact details but I recall that they had the effect that if defenders entered into the maul and then disengaged, either deliberately or not, what remained was deemed to be the original maul.

This resulted in what we saw in the opening game of the RWC - an unopposed running "tank" of attackers with the ball at the back, which looked both unstoppable and dangerous as defenders had to put their bodies on the line to pull it down.

Before the Guidelines I mentioned, the maul was deemed to be over if opponents left it; the "tank" would be pinged if a defender bravely presented himself in front of it with the ball at the back of the "tank".

But under the Guidelines it was considered the same maul, notwithstanding that contact was lost with defenders briefly.

Whether it was strictly OK under laws or the Guidelines, it was well done.

If you read this "Eyes and Ears", is that what you recall about those Guidelines?
.

AFAIK, the guidelines have become part of the laws at 17.4 (f). It appears not to apply in this case as it wasn't the defenders who voluntarily left the maul so that none of their team were left. The Fijians were clearly trying to contest the maul. It was the English who "successfully" brought the maul to an end under law 17.5. So in this case it's a fairly clear truck and trailer.
17.4

(f)​

When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul.​

17.5 A maul ends successfully when :​

• the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=17

 

[Lee Grant]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for posting that QH. It's been a while since I visited the maul laws and indeed, it looks like those "Guidelines" got the blessing of the IRB and became full-blown law soon after.

And you can see the rationale behind it - don't let opponents bail out of the contest once the maul starts.

So, the "same maul" principle applies only if defenders leave the original maul voluntarily, and surely they didn't - and you mentioned both details.

You can see a couple of times that the Poms just sheared off: the Fijians didn't leave the maul; the maul left them; therefore the next contact obstructed the Fijians. Penalty Fiji!!

NOT


The Guidelines probably mentioned "voluntarily" but I had forgotten.

Well, I learned something there.

I'll ask the pundits in the referee's forum about the matter and let you know what they said.
.

 

[wamberal]

F the rolling maul. It is the biggest blight on the game.


Except for the scrum.

 

[Quick Hands]

F the rolling maul. It is the biggest blight on the game.


Except for the scrum.

Couldn't agree more. I fact in the first 4 games of this RWC, it's surpassed the scrum. I'd like a stat on how many tries/penalty tries so far have come from rolling mauls.

It's no co-incidence so far that the best match of the tournament only had 7 scrums in the whole match.

 

[boyo]

F the rolling maul. It is the biggest blight on the game.

Agree