Law trials and changes
-
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.Like I said a blanket ban is easier and cheaper to enforce. No comittees needed, no hearings. Its just is their writing on it. Yes you get fine. done.
Easier, cheaper and dumber.
-
World Rugby's decision to ban players from writing messages on their wrists has been slammed by New Zealand Rugby Players Association boss Rob Nichol. He told Stuff the ban, introduced by World Rugby to align with the Olympics, was "completely inappropriate" and he was already working on getting it reversed. Nichol, who said the directive was buried in a participation agreement, is fuming over the lack of consultation, despite World Rugby stating their rugby committee approved the ban after consultation last month. "I think the whole process that's been around it has been poor," he said. "It hasn't gone out for consultation and that's a big problem. It makes the game and themselves look a bit stupid." Under the International Olympic Committee terms of participation, no slogans, symbols or messages are permitted. World Rugby's statement said a common-sense approach had been accepted by all participating teams and a spokesman told Stuff the ban covered the world sevens circuit and the Rugby World Cup. "There has been a significant increase in strapping 'art' or 'messages' on the series in recent seasons, which is impossible to police for inappropriate or political statements by the match officials in the short period of time before entering the field in a sevens environment across multiple matches and in multiple languages," the statement said. Players have been told they will be fined $1000 if they continue the practice, which Nichol rubbished. "Even the concept of a fine. World Rugby doesn't have the power to fine our players, so it's comical . . . it's a joke. The whole thing has just been really poorly done." Nichol has made his views known to the International Rugby Players Association and New Zealand Rugby, and asked both to relay his association's concerns to World Rugby. The ban disrespected players, hadn't been thought through and was nothing short of flawed, Nichol said. "By just unilaterally making this decision and then imposing it on the athletes, that's just completely contrary to the values and the character of the game, and this is from the people that are supposed to govern the game." While Stuff was told the ban also covered the Rugby World Cup, Nichol hadn't been told how ranging the ban was, further solidifying his view of it being a "poorly implemented policy".Rather than straight up banning the practice, Nichol would rather see World Rugby educating players around what they can and can't write. "There's already regulations in place saying you can't write inappropriate things on your body," Nichol said. "So maybe the starting point is let's just put a bit of focus on education and make it really clear that if you're going to write on your wrist, you can't use it to do inappropriate things." All Blacks prop Kane Hames was given a warning by New Zealand Rugby last year, after writing a message of support for native Americans while he was playing for the New Zealand Māori. That was one of a number of isolated incidents New Zealand Rugby had dealt with in the past 20 years, and each time Nichol said the particular individual never repeated the mistake. "From a rugby perspective, how prevalent is it? I'd say 99.9 per cent of athletes that do it, there is nothing wrong with what they write," Nichol said. -
In a spectacular back-flip, World Rugby have today announced that they will adopt a common-sense approach to players' messages on their wrists. "While World Rugby understands the emotion around this matter, the policy is aligned with the Olympics position and other major sports. The re-focus on this area is in response to an increase in size of such messages and to deter any inappropriate content," a World Rugby spokesperson said. That said, a common-sense framework will operate at Dubai (Sevens) and this has been discussed and agreed with the teams."I still don't get why they think they have to align their policy to that of the Olympics and other major sports. The Olympics are only every 4 years; what does that have to do with the Sevens World Series and the RWC? Even more so, why follow other sports?
-
I can understand if individuals were using it for marketing which may 'undermine' a sponsor, but most of them seem to have something on there which means something to them, and I know Rene Ranger has smiley face, which I guess is offensive to someone somewhere?
-
@taniwharugby said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I can understand if individuals were using it for marketing which may 'undermine' a sponsor,
Just look at the fuss over SBW using a blank bit of tape.
@taniwharugby said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I guess is offensive to someone somewhere?
Here you go:
Chinese people mean something very different when they send you a smiley emoji
Open your eyes, that is not a friendly communiqué.
"China is a case in point. The country is known for generating creative, peculiar internet memes—ones sometimes deployed to subtly mock authorities. People there have also developed a system for using emoji subversively, so that a smiley face can actually convey contempt."
-
We seem to be getting a little off topic and not really an emoji:
Shiba
"On the surface: It’s a dog breed from Japan.
Below the surface: “I am just cute and innocent. What are you talking about? I have no idea.” (Also: “I despise you.”)"To return to topic. I might have a Shiba on my wrist bands next time I am playing international rugby.
-
.
Making rugby's laws easier to understand for all is the objective behind the simplified law book, which will be introduced globally from 1 January, 2018. Approved at the November World Rugby Council meeting, the simplified law book is designed to make the laws easier to understand while not altering the meaning of them or how the game is played. The book is the product of nearly two years’ work by a specially constituted group of experts and follows a comprehensive consultation and feedback process with World Rugby’s 121 member unions and all six regional associations. The eight-person group includes law experts, referees, a club coach, a sports scientist as well as a web designer/illustrator. The result is a law book that is more logically laid out, clearer in its explanations and, with various repetitions and contradictions removed, 42 per cent shorter than the current version.Law Simplification Group: Mark Harrington (World Rugby Head of Technical Services and club head coach), Tappe Henning (Scottish Rugby Union Referee Manager and former international referee), Dr Ross Tucker (sports scientist), Rod Hill (New Zealand Rugby Referee Manager), Chris Cuthbertson (Chairman RFU Laws Committee), James Fitzgerald (World Rugby Media Manager and former international referee), Adam Pearson (web designer/illustrator). -
@stargazer surely in the 'Law Simplification Group' having a few ex-players, probably recently retired ones in the group would have been a great help
-
@taniwharugby Yes, looks like a missed opportunity.
-
I didn't think the laws were that difficult to understand. I'm wary of this simplification effort unless they're removing laws.
-
A welcome project (even if it is a bit late for SBW)
Sounds like they have attempted to fix my biggest bug bear which is working out what section to look in for the relevant law. The present version is a mess.
My concern though is that simplification of the written law may lead to increased room for 'interpretation'.
Hopefully alongside the actual Law Book there is clear guidance on how to interpret each law as a transparent means of understanding rather that the secretive 'referee guideline edicts' that leave punters confused.
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Law Simplification Group: Mark Harrington (World Rugby Head of Technical Services and club head coach), Tappe Henning (Scottish Rugby Union Referee Manager and former international referee), Dr Ross Tucker (sports scientist), Rod Hill (New Zealand Rugby Referee Manager), Chris Cuthbertson (Chairman RFU Laws Committee), James Fitzgerald (World Rugby Media Manager and former international referee), Adam Pearson (web designer/illustrator).
Tappe Henning? Why didn't they go the whole hog and include Stuart Dickinson, Derek Bevan and Jim Fleming while they were at it...
-
@billy-tell said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Law Simplification Group: Mark Harrington (World Rugby Head of Technical Services and club head coach), Tappe Henning (Scottish Rugby Union Referee Manager and former international referee), Dr Ross Tucker (sports scientist), Rod Hill (New Zealand Rugby Referee Manager), Chris Cuthbertson (Chairman RFU Laws Committee), James Fitzgerald (World Rugby Media Manager and former international referee), Adam Pearson (web designer/illustrator).
Tappe Henning? Why didn't they go the whole hog and include Stuart Dickinson, Derek Bevan and Jim Fleming while they were at it...
Mind you they could have done worse.
George Ayoub.
-
I am cautiously optimistic. Hopefully they tidy up all the inconsistent language and make it easier to follow.
I'm not that impressed that they are releasing it on 1 January and it will be effective immediately. WR are saying that it does not alter the laws at all, but I don't believe it is possible to rewrite a lawbook without altering the laws slightly - even if unintentionally.
A better approach would have been to release it a month before it becomes official, to give all the refs a chance to get to grips with it.
-
@damo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I am cautiously optimistic. Hopefully they tidy up all the inconsistent language and make it easier to follow.
I'm not that impressed that they are releasing it on 1 January and it will be effective immediately. WR are saying that it does not alter the laws at all, but I don't believe it is possible to rewrite a lawbook without altering the laws slightly - even if unintentionally.
A better approach would have been to release it a month before it becomes official, to give all the refs a chance to get to grips with it.
And coaches, and players
-
@damo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I'm not that impressed that they are releasing it on 1 January and it will be effective immediately. WR are saying that it does not alter the laws at all, but I don't believe it is possible to rewrite a lawbook without altering the laws slightly - even if unintentionally.
The reason the law book is like it is, is because of the requirement to provide clarity.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@damo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I'm not that impressed that they are releasing it on 1 January and it will be effective immediately. WR are saying that it does not alter the laws at all, but I don't believe it is possible to rewrite a lawbook without altering the laws slightly - even if unintentionally.
The reason the law book is like it is, is because of the requirement to provide clarity.
The laws as written, and the laws as refereed are totally different. Woudl be good to write them the way they are meant to be played.
