Law trials and changes
-
@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.
-
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@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.
Agreed. Guarantee they aren't and down the track there will be "clarifications" promulgated.
-
World Rugby has launched the simplified law book yesterday (2 January 2018).
You can find it here: http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?&language=EN
Media release: https://www.worldrugby.org/news/303487?lang=en
-
Don't know about being simplified. More like laid out better with tables and pictures to make it easier to follow. The legalese is still there along with the big gaps for interpretation but overall it is a big improvement on the previous versions.
A good example is the ruling on a late tackle on a kicker. Rather than a long wordy and messy explanation there is a diagram showing where the resulting penalty can be taken. In fact it highlighted a ruling I wasn't aware of which was that if the kick goes dead in goal you get a 5 metre penalty out of it -
This was published overnight (29/3/2018):
World Rugby response to the request to lower the tackle height
World Rugby welcomes the outcomes of the PRISP report and the associated action plan calling for the height of the tackle to be changed. This call reinforces World Rugby’s evidence-based move in January 2017 to lower the tackle height using increased on and off field sanctions.This research confirmed that 76 per cent of HIA incidents occur in the tackle, with the tackler at greatest risk, experiencing 72 per cent of these tackle injuries. The research also confirmed that the risk of head injury to the tackler was 4.3 times greater if the contact was high (eg head to head or head to shoulder), even during legal tackles, and 1.4 times greater if the tackler was not bent at the waist at the moment of tackle impact, demonstrating the importance of correct tackle technique. Targeting protection of the tackler, the multidisciplinary group considered a range of possible approaches, including lowering the height of a legal tackle in law, but identified increased sanctions as the most immediate and effective way to impact on tackle height and tackler body position. The objective of increased sanctions was to change behaviour of the tackler (the most ‘at risk’ player for head injury) by encouraging bending at the waist and lowering the height of the tackle. The success of an increased sanction focus is reliant upon sanction compliance across all tournaments, and World Rugby has been monitoring the sanction levels within the elite game comparing 2016 (pre-implementation period) to 2017 (post implementation period). Recently completed monitoring analysis confirms the strength of the approach and reinforces the importance of sanction severity frequency (cards) in changing behaviour. Penalty sanctions for high tackles were increased by 64 per cent worldwide in 2017 compared to 2016. High tackle yellow cards increased by an average of 41 per cent globally after the directive, but with noted variation between tournaments, including a 36 percent decrease in yellow cards issued for high tackles in the Aviva Premiership. This trend in England requires further investigation, as recommended within the PRISP report, and World Rugby welcomes the invitation from the PRISP group to work collaboratively and investigate the relationship between non-compliance of the high tackle directive and concussion rates within their game.The strategy to reduce head contact is not only being addressed through increased sanctions but is also being combined with an evidence-based approach to tackle technique best practice. Collaboration between elite defence coaches and World Rugby at a dedicated workshop in November 2017 has identified key actions and focus areas, which World Rugby is currently exploring. At community level, World Rugby is rolling-out the Active8 warm-up programme, which research demonstrates may reduce the risk of concussion by up to 60 per cent.If you're interested, here are the PRISP report and the response of the Rugby Football Union (RFU), Premiership Rugby (PRL) and the Rugby Players’ Association (RPA) in England.
-
Current global law trials to be adopted into full law after unanimous Council approvallink text
The World Rugby Council has unanimously decided to adopt into law the complete package of 12 law amendments that are currently under global trial. Approval follows an approval recommendation by the Rugby Committee after comprehensive evaluation of trial performance from playing, coaching, match officiating, fan and player welfare perspectives by the specialist 15s Laws Review Group (LRG). With the global law trials having operated since August in the northern hemisphere and January in the southern hemisphere, the amendments come into effect immediately and will be codified with immediate effect.In short, the law amendments that have been adopted into law are: * Uncontested scrums must have eight players (Law 3.15) * Permit kick to touch after time has elapsed (Law 5.7c) * Where multiple penalty infringements the non-offending team can choose the most advantageous (Law 7.2d) * Penalty try has no conversion (Law 8.1c, 8.3 and 8.7) * Touch, 22m and in goal simplification (Law 18) * Scrum – no signal from ref (Law 19.22) * Scrum – alignment of scrum-half (Law 19.15f) * Scrum – compulsory strike (LRG insist that for player welfare purposes this is a compulsory strike by the hooker (Law 19.22) * Scrum - Allow number eight to pick up from second row of scrum (Law 19.36c) * Tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their side of the tackle gate (Law 14.6) * Change in pre-ruck offside line formation – at least one player on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (Law 14.11) * No kicking out of ruck (Law 15) World Rugby undertakes a four-year law review process with the principle objective of simplification for players, coaches, referees and fans, while also promoting player welfare initiatives. The current process began in 2015 with more than 140 union submissions for potential amendments in line with this criteria. Implementation more than a year out from Rugby World Cup 2019 means that players will have been operating under the laws for more than two years. For the first time the global trial evaluation included feedback from more than 10,000 players, coaches, match officials and fans via a social media survey. The feedback regarding the on-field and off-field experience of the 12 law amendments was overwhelmingly positive. -
@stargazer I'd be genuinely interested in seeing this data. From my observations, players going low who get it wrong are most likely to have head injuries.
-
I know some media articles about this have been posted elsewhere, but I'd rather have all law changes and trials in the same thread, so all law issues are easier to find. Here's the official media release from World Rugby, which is probably more complete than what the media have reported anyway.
World Rugby trial a lower tackle height at U20 competitions
World Rugby has announced a programme of dedicated law trials at the World Rugby U20 Championship and U20 Trophy competitions aimed at reducing the risk of head injury by changing player behaviour in the tackle.
World Rugby has announced a programme of dedicated law trials at the World Rugby U20 Championship and U20 Trophy competitions aimed at reducing the risk of head injury by changing player behaviour in the tackle.
Rugby is committed to an evidence-based approach to injury-prevention, and with the latest comprehensive research determining that tacklers who are upright carrying the greatest risk of head-injury, the trials are designed to change player behaviour by getting the tackler to attempt lower tackles and therefore lower the risk of injury.
As a result, the acceptable height of the tackle will be lowered through revised on-field and off-field sanctions, encouraging players to bend at the waist when attempting a tackle.
Approval of the trials by the World Rugby Executive Committee is based on unprecedented research from more than 1,500 elite matches conducted by World Rugby, which confirmed:
- 76 per cent of head injuries occur in the tackle
- 72 per cent of head injuries in the tackle occur to the tackler
- The risk of injury to both players from a high-contact tackle (when the tackler is upright) is 4.3 times greater than a low-contact tackle
- Head on head contact (when the tackler is upright) is 6.5 times more likely to result in a head injury than the lower head-to-hip tackle
World Rugby will trial two approaches. At the U20 Championship in France (30 May – June 17), a High Tackle Warning will be issued if the tackler is upright (i.e. not bent at the waist when tackling), and there is clear and obvious head contact for either player. This will be policed by both the match officials and the citing commissioner. When two high tackle warnings have been issued, a player will automatically receive a one-match suspension.
At the U20 Trophy (location and dates TBC), an amendment to Law 9.13 will operate, altering the definition of a high tackle from above the line of the shoulders to above the nipple line.
The trials will operate as follows:
WORLD RUGBY U20 TROPHY
Law 9.13 The acceptable height of the tackle is reduced from the line of shoulders to below the nipple line. The law will now read: A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the nipple line even if the tackle starts below the nipple line.WORLD RUGBY U20 CHAMPIONSHIP
Tackles that increase the risk of head injury will be cited. The match citing commissioner will issue a "High Tackle Warning" to THE TACKLER WHO IS DEEMED TO BE UPRIGHT (NOT BENT AT THE WAIST) A tackler will be deemed to be upright when: They are in an approximate upright standing position They have made no clear attempt to lower the height of contact with the ball carrier to avoid the head or shoulders of the ball carrier There is no knee flexion and minimal bending at the waist which brings the head into a dangerous position for collision with ball carrier's head or shoulder The high tackle warning will be issued in one of four types of incidents: All HIGH-CONTACT PENALTIES, irrespective of sanction, during matches All TACKLES THAT RESULT IN AN HIA, irrespective of whether to tackler or ball-carrier High tackles that are missed during the match Accidental clear and obvious head to head and head to shoulder contact Sanctions: The High Tackle Warning is issued ONLY IF THE TACKLER IS UPRIGHT, AND THERE IS CLEAR AND OBVIOUS HEAD CONTACT for either player Each High Tackle Warning carries 'one strike'.When 'two strikes' (two High Tackle Warnings) have been issued, a player will receive a one-match suspension (a right to appeal will operate) High Tackle Warnings also form part of the usual accumulation of sanctions, including Citing Commissioner Warnings (CCWs) and yellow cards. A strong education element will be run in parallel, explaining that this player welfare initiative protects the tackler and their opponentsThe high tackle warning trial does not change the law in any way, and on-field decisions and sanctions for high tackles will remain in place, as directed by the high tackle directives of 2017. The change involves post-match sanctioning through the citing process.
A detailed analysis of each trial compared to data from the current global environment and previous World Rugby age-grade tournaments will enable the governing body to inform a possible game-wide approach to this priority area.
(...)
All participating nations competing at the U20 Championship in France were previously informed of the trial immediately after it was approved to ensure appropriate preparation time prior to the tournament.
-
This
-
Interesting article from August about concussion, the effect of recent law changes and this year's law trials (as far as they've already been analysed). It's a long read, but worthwhile IMO.
How has World Rugby come to the point of the 'nipple line' and 'armpit line'?
-
-
@taniwharugby
"The study found 44 per cent of the sampled kick-offs were contested, with just four injuries incurred and 10 penalties. Of the instances where an injury resulted, three came from a one-person lift and one from a two-person lift."A little perspective before outlawing yet another aspect of play might be beneficial.
-
World Rugby consider penalising players who get concussed
World Rugby is considering taking the extraordinary step that if a tackler is upright in a tackle and gets concussed, they’d also face a suspension because they’ll be deemed at fault.
“What we’re trying to do through a number of processes is to bring the tackle height down to protect more the tackler rather than the ball carrier,” World Rugby’s chief medical officer Martin Raftery told reporters at a briefing in Sydney.
“Yes, we’ve got to protect the ball carrier as well but the focus is on the tackler.
“There’s three phases and one phase is increasing the sanctions.
“By increasing the sanctions for illegal tackles, we’re more likely to protect the ball carrier but we’re hoping by increasing the sanctions, it draws attention to that issue and therefore the coaches start to improve the technique which then brings about lowering the tackle height.
“Second intervention is the high tackle warning system.
“That’s about penalising a tackler for being upright in a tackle who has then clear and obvious contact with the ball carrier.
“And it doesn’t matter whether the ball carrier is injured or the tackler is injured.
“If they’re upright and there’s clear and obvious head contact, he’ll receive an extra penalty, which is an off field penalty.”
Stuff
