Law trials and changes
-
Temporary replacement period for off-field HIA now fixed at 10 minutes
World Rugby has approved an amendment to law making it mandatory for players who undertake an off-field screening under the head injury assessment (HIA) protocol not to return before 10 minutes (actual time) have elapsed. The amendment comes into effect globally from 26 August and applies to all participating elite adult rugby competitions*. It amends the previous time stipulation, which included no minimum requirement. With the latest data indicating that the average time for the screening to be undertaken by a team or independent doctor being a shade over seven minutes, the introduction of a fixed time will further promote a calm, clinical environment for assessment without rush or risk of screening time falling well under the average completion time. The adjustment will also assist match management. (...) **Exception: The Rugby Championship 2017, which kicks off this weekend, will operate with the amendment in advance of the global implementation date. -
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Press release World Rugby
21 July 2017Six law amendments added to global trial as northern hemisphere programme gets underway
Covering the areas of scrum and tackle/ruck law, these changes will be trialed alongside five previously confirmed laws and will come into effect on 1 August in the northern hemisphere and 1 January in the south.Good video explaining the six law amendments (posted above):
-
Interesting video thanks. First weekend of the AP this weekend and a record number of tries scored. Few factors, good weather, some optional defence and perhaps some of the new laws around the ruck giving the attacking team a little more protection of their ball.
Had to laugh at the scrum feed section on the vid. All that seems to happen now is the 9 stands to the side and still feeds to the second row. Still didn't see a straight feed (or a ref blow for a crooked one...)
-
Some good changes in there but why the fuck did it take so long to ban kicking the ball in the ruck? It's good that they've finally done it but even ignoring player safety, it was never about competing for the ball, just disrupting play for the other team. I've always hated it.
-
@Stargazer All I see is less competition for the ball.
And the idea there can be a ruck and hence an offside line because someone stood over a tackle! Not even golden oldies run rucks like that.
-
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Stargazer All I see is less competition for the ball.
And the idea there can be a ruck and hence an offside line because someone stood over a tackle! Not even golden oldies run rucks like that.
The strangest bit is the offside line then disappearing if the arriving player then steps back again. Rolland says that the opposition players that were previously offside are now onside again. That is plain odd. Once an offside line is formed it should stay in place.
The other thing I noticed was that the kicking the ball in the ruck rule is for player safety- fair enough. We have seen kicks to the head in these situation and there is no onus on the kicker to take care like they would in a tackle situation. It was inconsistent. However, the one man ruck thing demands that an arriving attacker steps over the tackled player encouraging him to plant his foot right where the tackler may still be getting away. Recipe for stomped on heads don't you think? -
Like all rule changes in rugby they create as many new problems as they try to fix. The more I look at it the more I wonder if that tackle/ruck thing was made up by a committee of theorists that have never played a game in their lives (WR Refs?)
If the arriving player doesn't (or can't) step over the tackled player then the situation is no different to the current one that England bitched about when Italy played to the laws. In fact according to Rolland they now have an incentive to hang around offside in case they get put onside again.
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again? -
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
-
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
Woosh.
My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
Woosh.
My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.
OK. Misunderstood what you were saying.
-
@Bones said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Unco not that I'm a fan of the hacking at the ball at the ruck anyway, but isn't disrupting play for the other team a large part of competing for possession?
Sure but there should at least be some illusion of proper competition there. To me it isn't much different than a deliberate knock on.
-
he's just setting us up for another howler
-
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
I imagine they are just trying to close off an avenue for gorilla marketing. But seems a bit extreme. From the players point of view, does it really make a difference? Do you look at it often during the game? Amateur players seem to get on fine without it so is this really that big of a deal?
-
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
