YOUR experimental law variations.

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

Who knows - they may like it and have 10 man mauls from the 5 metre line.

Mate the British and Irish rugby folks would love it. They love tight rugby.

Those so and so's hold the balance of power on those decisions don't they?

 

[Lee Grant]

This one kills me. I don't even know what the laws are at the moment regarding this but....

I hate players standing near the ruck (unbound) in that "guardian" role (attacking team). It's often directly between the 1st reciever and the most likely tackler. The only reason for it is to cause an obstruction. Either get into the ruck or retreat.

The law is already there: players have to be behind last feet. It's just one of those things that referees allow routinely and is one of the bad conventions that they follow. It's been going on a while but a young Kees Meuws was one of the foremost early practitioners. Now they stay there as though they have a right, not through law, but through convention. They are honestly puzzled when they are pinged every now on then.

We may as well include in this thread laws that are not enforced but we would like them to be.

1. Pillars being allowed to be in front of last feet. [Good one H.. (of Miami?)]
2. Scrummies not feeding the ball into the scrum straight.
3. Players crabbing around mauls or climbing over.
4. Players using chokeholds in the maul and worse, using them to lever the opponent.
5. Defending THPs being allowed to bore in at scrum time.
6. Attacking players being allowed to go to ground to kill the contest

Notes

1. As discussed above. Years ago defensive pillars used to do the same and for a few years they were facing each other beside the mid point of the ruck. Defensive pillars are now pinged but the attacking pillars are being allowed to act as a shield. No wonder defenders can't get at box kicks.

2. OK - sometimes power hits corrupt the tunnel and the scrummie has no space into which to throw the ball. But he should be pinged at least 50% of the time (a low figure) for when a tunnel is credible.

3. If a player is bound and finds himself in the middle of the maul he can act from there but players like Ali Williams are adept at changing their binds and end up crabbing around.

The foremost practitioner of this was the great Martin Johnson. He annoyed me greatly because he could do something defending the maul illegally which Aussies couldn't do. Sometimes he looked like he was swimming around the maul.

Then there are players that reach over and even pull themselves up and forward so they are climbing - clearly not bearing their weight on their feet and encouraging a collapse.

4. Every side does it every now and then but Bakkies is the worst culprit on the planet.

5. At least a LHP has a bit of an excuse as he naturally goes inside a bit anyway, but what Castro did to young LHP Slipper on the EOYT was obvious, yet Slipper was pinged.

6. Super Rugby is already backsliding from the law crackdown on killing the ball IMO. Defensive players are still being pinged but attacking players are getting away with murder unless someone like Kaplan or Dickinson are refereeing. The French are nearly as bad. The Pom refs are the best in this regard.

In my eyes killing the ball is killing the ball and detracting from a contest. No wonder defensive teams are discouraged from competing at ruck time; so they don't commit when they otherwise could have. No wonder defensive lines are more heavily populated.

[Please no stats on how many tries were scored this year thank you.]

 

[terry j]

not a law variation as such, but the 'why does the hooker throw in at the line out' thread made me wonder about this. Purely for leveling the field and entertainment stakes of course!

(kinda fits in with the old rule that a try only allowed you to attempt to kick a goal, that has been mentioned somewhere recently)

What if the only person who could kick for a conversion was the guy that scored the try? AND, what if the only points you got were conversions? (combine the two)

Hmm, that would make for interesting times!

You'd certainly see them attempt to get as close to the sticks as possible then no?

 

[FiveStarStu]

Don't know if it's the law but it does get reffed like that. Basically until after that phase and it's advantage over.

Maybe one of the refs around here will know if it's actually in the rule book.

This is going to sound stupid but it's what I was taught getting my badge: Advantage is not defined in terms of phases, but in terms of...advantage. If a team has not gained the advantage it would have had the infringement been called, it keeps going. It can be one phase, it can be 20, even for knock-ons. All up to the referee's discretion.

 

[Manuel]

1. Pillars being allowed to be in front of last feet. [Good one H.. (of Miami?)]
2. Scrummies not feeding the ball into the scrum straight.
3. Players crabbing around mauls or climbing over.
4. Players using chokeholds in the maul and worse, using them to lever the opponent.
5. Defending THPs being allowed to bore in at scrum time.
6. Attacking players being allowed to go to ground to kill the contest

7. Law 9.B.1 part (e) and law 21.4 part (b): up to one minute to take conversion kicks and penalty goals.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

7. Law 9.B.1 part (e) and law 21.4 part (b): up to one minute to take conversion kicks and penalty goals.

It is from when they receive the tee isn't it?

 

[Harfish]

If a player accidently runs into the back of one of his own team mates it's not called obstruction unless a tackler was actually obstructed.

Pretty sure that's already in the law book. Of course you can still rule it as accidental offside.

The law that always bugs me as a referee is when a team throw in to the lineout, throws it down the opposition line and still wins it but I have to blow it up as not straight. If you throw it down the opposition line and you're good enough to still win the ball, I say you should keep it.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

Pretty sure that's already in the law book. Of course you can still rule it as accidental offside.

The law that always bugs me as a referee is when a team throw in to the lineout, throws it down the opposition line and still wins it but I have to blow it up as not straight. If you throw it down the opposition line and you're good enough to still win the ball, I say you should keep it.

Agreed. Mind you i have had some referee's who notice this and just let it go. I encourage this and i don't think that you will find too many people to disagree with you.

 

[terry j]

Pretty sure that's already in the law book. Of course you can still rule it as accidental offside.

The law that always bugs me as a referee is when a team throw in to the lineout, throws it down the opposition line and still wins it but I have to blow it up as not straight. If you throw it down the opposition line and you're good enough to still win the ball, I say you should keep it.

Yeah, that's a good one.

You might be able to answer this (seein as how you're a ref), what DO the rules say about ref discretion? I presume refs are 'coached' in much the same way as players, what I mean is often there are 'guidelines' on 'what we will be concentrating on'...which to me implies some sort of discretion?

In other words, is the ref likely to be in 'trouble' from the powers that be if he made discretionary calls as he MUST scrupulously follow the laws?

As 6OR7 pointed out, not too many would argue with discretion that sped the game up...but what would the 'boss ref' say..guess that is the big question for the ref on the field, he is also under scrutiny for his job as much as the players and coaches?

Oh, 6OR7, yeah I get the safety bit in scrums, think I stressed that 'except for safety concerns' let the ball go if it has been won and the front row went down. I woulda though that was, in fact, a safer outcome for the front row anyway?

 

[Harfish]

In other words, is the ref likely to be in 'trouble' from the powers that be if he made discretionary calls as he MUST scrupulously follow the laws?

As 6OR7 pointed out, not too many would argue with discretion that sped the game up...but what would the 'boss ref' say..guess that is the big question for the ref on the field, he is also under scrutiny for his job as much as the players and coaches?

If you "miss" something like letting a crooked throw into the lineout go, you're likely to have that noted by an assessor and it won't do your chances of promotion/progression any good. One thing referees strive for is a consistent message going out to players, we all have our nuances and bugbears but what we hope to give players is a fairly even playing field. I have certain things that I pull up a lot more than other referees, cleaning out ahead of the ball or from the side, for example.

However, at the upper echelons of rugby, it's a political game. Four years later I'm still baffled as to how Paddy O'Brien defended Wayne Barnes' dreadful quarter final performance, and more recently we had Lyndon Bray come out and incorrectly quote the law to defend Super Rugby referees.

At the club level, we just do the best we can, but once referees hit first class level (ITM Cup, Heartland Championship here) you're assessed by at least one assessor every single game and are given match reports which highlight areas of strength and weakness so at that level the referees fall under as much scrutiny as the players.

 

[Lee Grant]

Harfish (and Eyes and Ears if you see this)

Understand your point about the assessors completely.

You are a ref at the club level. What is the rationale behind allowing feeds to the scrum that are consistently skew and often grossly so - yet the same referee who allows them diligently pings longer lineout throws that are only slightly off target?

I understand the point that the modern power hit, even sometimes at club level, can destroy the tunnel if the forces don't meet quite right and front rowers have to align their feet for balance to push or counter push. As their feet move around there is nowhere to put the ball into sometimes; so the skew throw behind the hookers feet is tolerated.

But when the tunnel is clearly there, and more or less parallel to the goal line, why is the scrummie not pinged consistently according to the law?

I asked a Super14 referee this a while back and he waffled on about "as long as the feed was credible" it was allowed. I replied that some of them were incredible yet not pinged, and his reply was a sheepish smile.

 

[Mank]

6. Attacking players being allowed to go to ground to kill the contest

Notes

6. Super Rugby is already backsliding from the law crackdown on killing the ball IMO. Defensive players are still being pinged but attacking players are getting away with murder unless someone like Kaplan or Dickinson are refereeing. The French are nearly as bad. The Pom refs are the best in this regard.

In my eyes killing the ball is killing the ball and detracting from a contest. No wonder defensive teams are discouraged from competing at ruck time; so they don't commit when they otherwise could have. No wonder defensive lines are more heavily populated.

I agree with most of your points but just wanted to look at this one. I agree it is an issue, especially because refs may arbitrarily decide to penalise one case while letting many others go, creates frustration. However, in order to start penalising this there are other areas at the ruck to sort out first, because by penalising this you once again revert to a situation where defending sides can have an advantage at rucks.

As a South African supporter I'm continually dismayed at the naivety or lack of intelligence we show at the breakdown. Indiscretions we commit are often fairly blatant and easily penalised. I am at the same time frustrated and impressed with the effectiveness with which NZ teams can slow opposition ball by seemingly accidental methods. I mentioned this in another thread regarding the Crusaders. Just so I don't get anyone's back up too much, I'm not saying this is limited to only NZ teams, it's widespread, but at the moment I think they are better than others.

a) Tackler on wrong side of ruck. This often happens naturally so it's very tough to say when it's on purpose or not, but I do note how often once a player is wrapped up, one of the tacklers will slip/slide onto the attacking side. He's there momentarily sometimes, but that's often all that's needed to impede the attacking players from effectively joining the ruck, allowing the defenders a better chance at getting hands on the ball or counter ruck.

b) Ruck sliding. Once or as the ruck is formed player X comes through the gate (sometimes) joins the ruck, but while grappling an opponent slides around the side of the ruck eventually either falling on wrong side or otherwise impeding the attacking players from clearing quickly.

c) The ostrich. The defending fetcher arrives at a tackle and buries his head and upper body in the turf over the tackled player. Often there isn't an effort to go for the ball, just a prevention of placement and the view that tackled player is not releasing. It is for this very reason why we see more of the wrestling type cleanouts (grab, twist and dump) lately.

There are probably others. What these do is make it difficult for the attacking team to legally defend their own ball in a tackle situation. The wrestling style cleanouts and the big charge cleanouts with players often going off their feet are the result.

 

[Lee Grant]

am at the same time frustrated and impressed with the effectiveness with which NZ teams can slow opposition ball by seemingly accidental methods. I mentioned this in another thread regarding the Crusaders. Just so I don't get anyone's back up too much, I'm not saying this is limited to only NZ teams, it's widespread, but at the moment I think they are better than others.

A very good post this. I agree with the above quote and if I am critical of the practice it is not so much criticising the Kiwis, but criticising Aussies for not being good enough to do the same. Your SAffers, raised on direct play, are particularly poor at using such guile.

There are a few Kiwis who are not as good as others. Owen Franks, the younger brother, has a bit to learn; Corey Flynn has been a penalty magnet in the past and Ali Williams can do some things that are obvious because of their clownishness, but by and large they are good at guile. Least folks think this is why they get great results, it is not: it is a 1 percenter, if that.

McCaw is the master of the "accidental" obstruction. His subtlety, in comparison with the past blatant interference of Rodney So'oialo, is that of the master. In addition to the stuff all players try, his lines of retreat interfering with opponents are wonders of field geometry.

His timing is good too. On the 2010 end of year tour play passed him by in the England test and a ruck formed. He loafed back and took a line back that transected a probable sniping run of England scrummie Youngs. Youngs sniped and McCaw knocked him over from behind, but it was play on. At the next ruck the ball died and it was black ball into the scrum. The last player off the ground? McCaw. I actually applauded from the couch, it was breathtaking.

On your other points:

(a) and (b) the law crackdown is helping this situation, though it will always be around. More and more the refs are judging what a tackler could have done before he hit the ground in the tackle and are pinging The Snake - sliding down on the wrong side or The Wrestle - wrestling their own body onto the wrong side in the act of tackling.

This Snake was a McCaw trademark but, ever the pragmatist, you hardly ever see him do it now.

(c) The Starfish - it was performed best by Lawrence Dallaglio who would just plant his knuckles near the ball and bridge over it. He was belted by opponents but he was tough enough to endure the hits.

The incidence of this is lower than in his day but you still see it including fetchers reaching over to snaffle the ball with their bellies on top of players on the deck. Young Pocock has a variation of it. He is so bloody strong that he can anchor himself with a one armed grab of a grounded player who bears some of his weight, and scoop up the ball with the other arm.


There are other variations of infractions at the ruck as you indicate and it behoves the other side to act physically to stop the other side doing it. They have to expect that the poor old referee can't see every ruck infringement because they infringe so much themselves.

If they don't they lose games to the likes of Samoa.

 

[Riptide]

Lee, I enjoyed your excellent post.

Just one point that is not directed at anyone at all. I am so jaded of the criticism McCaw gets for playing to the edge of the law. He is a highly intelligent, smart, fast, freakish strong player for his size who will transgress all day long UNTIL he is pinged by refs.

The ire directed at McCaw is just asinine. What the hell do posters expect from an openside? He simply plays to the edge of what he is allowed to get away with. He has the most "game smarts" of any player in the pro era. Only Neil Back & Dallaglio come close.

 

[Mank]

I can't speak for Lee but the only thing that really annoys me about McCaw is that he doesn't play for SA. As I said in my post it's to my continual dismay that South Africa's infringements (of which there are just as many) are too blatant and amateurish.