New Mitre 10 Cup laws
-
<p>For the dummies like me that don't know these law changes, some links.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.mitre10cup.co.nz/News/28989/law-trials-for-nz-domestic-competitions-in-2016'>http://www.mitre10cup.co.nz/News/28989/law-trials-for-nz-domestic-competitions-in-2016</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.allblacks.com/News/28962/faqs-law-trials-2016'>http://www.allblacks.com/News/28962/faqs-law-trials-2016</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>So are they trialing the points system or not? I saw someone posting up score increments in 7 point margins yesterday I thought.</p> -
Merged. <br><br>
Wanted to go back to this thread as I couldn't remember the detail of the law changes. -
Experimental Mitre 10 Cup laws open door for return to rucking
Craig Dowd
Introducing the experimental laws this year for the Mitre 10 Cup has been a bit of a mixed bag and it has taken teams a while to get the hang of them. It is interesting that some unions opted not to use the experimental laws in their club competitions, which probably hasn't helped their provincial teams in adjusting to them from the outset. I do like the idea of players holding their feet around the breakdown, although they get quite messy with the boot coming and kicking the ball. I don't think teams have quite grasped how to win that contact. But if teams can actually bind and blow past the ball, which was part of rugby 20-30 years ago, they will get the benefits. It is a lost art. They have all become used to going in as individuals and, from my point of view, if there are any tweaks or changes to be made around that contact-breakdown area hen it would be that the boot must have a backward motion. It's a ruck, and a rucking action has a backward motion. A kick of the ball is not acceptable; any forward motion of the foot is of negative intent, but the backward motion of the boot, so long as it is not near the head, it is completely legal. This is a step towards bringing back rucking; I would love to see that engaging, and with referees easing off, as they have a little bit with the scrum laws. I think that can only be positive for the game.Some people have expressed concerns that the "fetchers" like Richie McCaw and David Pocock will be affected, but the changes don't take them out of the game. The brave old sevens of yesteryear would have broken fingers and crippled hands because they would be putting their hands on the ball; but if they were unlucky, they would cop the wrath of the boots of the bigger tight forwards who got there early enough. And if you put your hands where they weren't supposed to be, and you grabbed the ball, you suffered the consequences. We're not talking broken necks, we're not talking high concussion levels, as the type of injuries suffered tended to be superficial, and part of the game of rugby, and I would love to see that contest come back in. What we have seen is that the big, ball-carrying No. 6 has duplicated on both sides and the traditional No. 7 has been taken out of the game a little because the tackler has to now gain his feet and come back through the gate. The one thing about the experimental laws that is glaringly obvious after watching a lot of games is that the person who takes the ball into contact, the person lying on the ground, is out of play; I don't think the referees have identified that a player lying on the ground is not dictating the ruck but is actually out of play. Play is actually where the ball is. If you blow past the ball then the ruck is over and the ball is fair game for anyone, even if someone is still lying on the ground beside it trying to protect it. He is out of play.That has been missed so many times and people have been penalised for it; referees haven't actually got the picture that if the player is lying flat, forget them. The players need to roll away and get out. If they continue to lie there, referees can penalise them; but if they are not doing anything just remember that the ball is in play, and it is open play. That is the clear message that referees need to get their heads around. One interesting comment that has been raised is that these laws will never be accepted by the rest of the world because they think that New Zealand are acting in their own best interests. But New Zealand didn't ask for these experiments. They came from World Rugby and are being experimented with on their behalf. In actual fact, I think New Zealand would be better off without the experiments becoming law. The way the experimental laws are framed they would be of more benefit to other countries. They would be more suited to the likes of England, France and the big players. New Zealand have produced year after year after year, absolutely brilliant openside flankers like Richie McCaw, Michael Jones, Josh Kronfeld; there's a further list of 20-odd players behind them who never really got an opportunity. We produce those players and the laws, as they stand now, suit us right down to the ground.But the reason we have been asked to test these laws is more because of the positive nature of the game. We will suffer like any other country, but it will take something away from us. All in all, it has been positive. But there could be a few more tweaks to make it more positive. I do like the fact the players are staying on their feet, I hate the pile-ups and I hate hands in the ruck because it has never been legal to put your hands in there or even lie on the ground and push the ball back; that's just not part of the game. I especially hate it when you have a big pile-up and all of a sudden the ball comes out and you think 'how the hell did that happen', knowing full well the ball had been filched by someone. If you could clean that up it also makes it easier for the referees to police. Of the other laws, I like the fact you can kick a ball out from a penalty after the half-time or full-time siren has gone and you can have the lineout to follow. I think the scrums have been relatively cleaner, and allowing the ball to be played if the scrum has collapsed is a positive. I do think with the referees being allowed to call "engage" at the scrum, the half-backs should be allowed to roll the ball under the prop's feet because there have been too many times when we have seen the ball sitting there and no-one can hook it.With the referee having created the situation where all the pressure has come on and the power is going through, it becomes a disadvantage for the hooker of the team putting the ball in to have to lift his foot to strike. Unless that is going to change just allow the ball to go under their feet. It is almost like the hooker having to hook the ball is a token gesture from yesteryear. Why does a hooker have to hook the ball: Why can't we just roll it straight back? I don't agree with the points-scoring changes that are being trialled in the Heartland competition, by which tries are worth six points and all kicks are worth two. That's just someone being clever with a calculator. It hurts the game when you are constantly changing points for the sake of trying to manipulate an outcome. Football's goals are worth one, and they always will be worth one. Why do we have to be so clever to change the value of points? The game is not that broken that we need to look for too many solutions.
Dowd: Mitre 10 laws pave way for rucking return
The experimental laws introduced into the Mitre 10 Cup have been somewhat of a mixed, bag but one promising development has been a nod to the old art of rucking -- Craig Dowd writes.
-
A few coaches offer their feedback:
Jury still out on new breakdown laws
The game is faster and plenty of tries are being scored but the jury appears to be out around the new breakdown laws. Rugby writer Steve Hepburn...
*It is supposed to be about getting cleaner, quicker ball. More tries and more fun. But it is all turning into a feast of fly kicks and head scratching.
Coaches spoken to by the Otago Daily Times over the past couple of days have mixed opinions on the trial laws around the breakdown in the Mitre 10 Cup.
The laws are encouraging a faster game and the ball is being thrown around more, but there is real confusion on the rulings and the loss of structure in the game.
The changes basically eliminate the ability of a defending side to obtain a turnover through a player getting in and ripping the ball away. The tackler has no rights when a breakdown is formed as soon as an attacking player joins the player holding the ball.
It has led to a line of 15 defenders across the field and players attempting to go through the breakdown and kick the ball away from the breakdown.
Otago coach Cory Brown said the most frustrating thing around the laws was the consistency with the way they were being applied.
''We get emails saying this is the way the rule is going to be applied and then in the weekend it does not seem to happen. Or it gets applied a different way,'' Brown said.
''The breakdown has just become messy. You look to counter-ruck and get the ball that way but there are a lot of fly kicks of the ball.''
It was hard to get momentum as a team and get the ball off the attacking team.
Bay of Plenty coach Clayton McMillan said it had made for some entertaining rugby but the breakdown laws were no clearer for the people watching.
''It is a mess at the breakdown. Because things are happening so quickly, defensive lines and attacking structures are not getting into place ... for a lot of people it does not look like rugby at times,'' McMillan said.
''It's all a little untidy. They probably need to tweak it to improve it.''
He said the contest for possession had to come back and the kicking of the ball at the breakdown by defending players had to go.
''Rugby used to be a game which could be played by all shapes and sizes. Under these rules I'm not sure that is the case.''
Manawatu coach Jeremy Cotter backed that thinking up saying there had been positives and negatives from the trial laws.
Injuries were still occurring - they had been introduced to negate injuries from the breakdown.
''It is evolving. But it is hard to ascertain the midpoints [of the breakdown] ... I think they should bring the gate back in as you need to get real alignment,'' Cotter said.
''A lot of teams are getting penalised. They are leaving their feet from the clean-out position and getting pinged. It is very hard to get a turnover.''
He had fears for where the game was headed, especially after watching the match between Waikato and Counties-Manukau last Friday, when both sides fielded hefty forward packs.
''That game in my opinion is the brand of rugby I would not like to be encouraged. Where it is all about the game line. Some big tanks run it up and it is very hard to get the ball off them.''
Many teams have done away with quick lightweight openside flankers, preferring bigger loose forwards, as speed to the breakdown is no longer important with turnovers impossible to get.
North Harbour coach Steve Jackson said he had adjusted to the laws which all teams had to do. He felt interpretations were different from referees, and assistant referees could do more from the sideline.
The game was faster, Jackson said and players had to be fitter.
Northland coach Richie Harris said it was a no-brainer changes were made at the breakdown.
''It is a step in the right direction. The game was getting very brutal at the breakdown with the way players were taken out. And, dare I say it, the best exponents of it were the All Blacks,'' Harris said.
''It was mindless and dangerous and no parent will want to put their child into a game like that.''
Harris felt there was still a place for the jackler - the player who comes in to grab the ball when it is on the ground - and the laws needed to be changed to reflect that.
Wellington coach Earl Va'a said the positives around the new laws was the game was becoming a faster, physical contest which suited New Zealand.
There were fewer injuries at the breakdown, he said.
But there was the concern about the fly kicking of the ball, which could soon lead to someone being kicked in the head.
The laws will be reviewed at the end of the season and it will be then up to World Rugby to make a decision on whether they will be more extensively trialled next year.*
-
I think it has made the breakdown messier, and the quality of service form the 9's has decreased as often they will rush his delivery to ensure the ball doesn't get kicked away or it gets kicked away.
-
It has also taken a big chunk of the contest out of the game - which is one of the key principles of rugby, a contest for possession - retaining possession is way too easy now and it is very hard for the defensive side to force a turnover. It's almost turning into League but without the tackle count.
-
Looks like the new laws are likely to be carried through to Super Rugby - at least in some form - hopefully if so there are some tweaks to the Mitre 10 Cup version.
Interesting comments by SANZAAR Game Manager Lyndon Bray (bit of a weird title?). Encouraging that some of the comments talked about here are mentioned by Bray, around the messiness and contest.
***The prevailing issue is to what extent is the contest still on the tackle, and if you've watched a bit of [Mitre 10 Cup] you can see how hard it is to get in and actually win the ball," SANZAAR Game Manager Lyndon Bray told an Australian media briefing recently.
"And we want to protect a little bit of that contest. At the same time the balance is making sure the attack team has got confidence to play.
"So I really like some of it, and I think our view going through to World Rugby, which will look at all of that in November from a decision-making point of view [is] what might it look like going forward; I think those two things, the tackler and [having] the offside line as early as possible in the breakdown -- and maybe therefore redefine that a ruck starts with one player rather than two -- that's working well, but [also] maintaining the contest.
"Because I think in the southern hemisphere, one of our strengths, in all our core markets, is our ability to get on the ball -- and that gives us a real point of difference if you look across world rugby. So I think that's a key factor that we want to maintain."
"I think there's two key things that have come out of Mitre 10 [Cup], as a total package, [we're] not sure that the whole experimental law is right," Bray said.
"But the issue around the tackler and his special rights we have in law, getting rid of that and making him forced to get out of the game and come back round like everyone else and [abide by] offside line at the breakdown, all of that is trying to get the support players of the attack team up off the ground.
"So in the traditional game we've got very accepting of guys in effect driving on the tackler who's on the ground, and that's what we're trying to get out of the game so that you can speed up the flow of the ball, whether that's attacking team or turnover.
"So we were really clear last week that we want to maintain the man-on-feet defender having a strength of contest, we think that's critical. So there's some really good points to come out of it.***
SANZAAR wants to protect 'little bit' of tackle contest
Fetchers such as David Pocock are breathing a sigh of relief with SANZAAR indicating its hesitance at a potential rule change that would make their key skill irrelevant.
-
@KiwiMurph said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
It has also taken a big chunk of the contest out of the game - which is one of the key principles of rugby, a contest for possession - retaining possession is way too easy now and it is very hard for the defensive side to force a turnover. It's almost turning into League but without the tackle count.
I expect while there maybe less turnovers, the team in possession are often scrambling back to get a ball that has been kicked through, so while not a turnover, the opposition has disrupted things.
-
@Stargazer
I agree with a lot of Dowd's article. Except for putting the ball under the prop's feet. Seriously? -
I'd have the shits if we were playing different breakdown interpretations than the ones we have to play under at end of year NH tour. From what I've seen of the Mitre 10 cup teams who did not use those laws in club rugby, it is not just something you can easily adapt to, so I assume the same would happen in reverse, going back to the old rules after using the new ones for 6 months of a Super/Rugby Championship tournament
-
Sumo's take
Given the cold reception to the new laws from World Rugby last week, it looks as if they will not make it past the trial stage. They have not led to a sudden surge in tries (although Week 6 did produce the most of any round this year, with 62), they have not led to a clearer picture for the referee, given penalty percentages have remained static, and they have led to a significant reduction in turnover ball, which goes against the spirit of the game.
Breaking down the breakdown: Why the new laws being trialled are getting the thumbs down
The new breakdown laws currently being trialled in the Mitre 10 Cup have found little favour with World Rugby’s law committee, according to sources close to the latest meeting. Scotty Stevenson assesses their impact on the numbers after six weeks of competition.
-
I hope the new laws get binned. They have reduced my enjoyment of the NPC this year. The rucks just look weird to me, like nobody knows what the hell is going on.
-
@KiwiMurph said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Sumo's take
Given the cold reception to the new laws from World Rugby last week, it looks as if they will not make it past the trial stage. They have not led to a sudden surge in tries (although Week 6 did produce the most of any round this year, with 62), they have not led to a clearer picture for the referee, given penalty percentages have remained static, and they have led to a significant reduction in turnover ball, which goes against the spirit of the game.
The new breakdown laws currently being trialled in the Mitre 10 Cup have found little favour with World Rugby’s law committee, according to sources close to the latest meeting. Scotty Stevenson assesses their impact on the numbers after six weeks of competition.
well, that's it then. If an experiment has failed to deliver the stated aims, it has failed, and so bin it.
-
when I saw them in week 1 I thought they sucked, but maybe it's just the guys getting used to them...alas, nope, still messy as a messy thing!
Funnily after all the gnashing about rucks and other things over the past couple of seasons, I reckon rugby seems to be going pretty well at the moment with the rules, the interpretation of them aside, I think the less tinkering the better!
-
I would still maintain that most of the issues at ruck time are caused by players going off their feet. Yes, the game has sped up enormously and players arriving at breakdowns at speed are always going to lose a bit of accuracy but surely enforcing shoulders above hips more would clean things up a bit?
As Bart says "plane taking off not plane landing"
These trial laws make things just a bit too messy. What you want to encourage is packs forming over a ball making an impromptu scrum and driving over to clear. Big ask. -
Question - does anyone know what the tiebreakers are when teams are tied on points?
The official Mitre10 site presently has Ta$man listed above Auckland - presumably because they have five wins to Auckland's four. Ta$man has a worse points difference.
But Wikipedia says...
When teams are level on log points, they are sorted by:
the winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
highest overall points difference
highest number of tries scored
highest number of points scored
a coin tossI can't find another reference in a casual search.
