Law trials and changes
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Hooroo So as soon as the opposition look like getting into your half, you need to drop another defender back.
For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby. So a proposal I'd be interested in trialling would be every scrum reset the clock is stopped until it comes out and general play commences.
other way around? While they are in their half you'll need to keep your wingers back? As soon as they cross halfway then you pull them up shorter?
I guess the hoping is more running from your own half? But i can't see too many teams having a crack at that, wingers are generally back any way. I don't think this makes a huge difference to game play, especially at the top level.
Just on your game clock suggestion, some games would be fuuuuucking long.
-
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Hooroo So as soon as the opposition look like getting into your half, you need to drop another defender back.
For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby. So a proposal I'd be interested in trialling would be every scrum reset the clock is stopped until it comes out and general play commences.
other way around? While they are in their half you'll need to keep your wingers back? As soon as they cross halfway then you pull them up shorter?
Ahh yes.
I guess the hoping is more running from your own half? But i can't see too many teams having a crack at that, wingers are generally back any way. I don't think this makes a huge difference to game play, especially at the top level.
I think such an idea (your half into their 22) wouldn't change anything. Such a kick would be a low percentage lottery. My erroneous interpretation would at least provide a little more room on the outsides.
Just on your game clock suggestion, some games would be fuuuuucking long.
True, they would. But at least at some point there'd be more than the turgid walls of defence that we've seen of late.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
True, they would. But at least at some point there'd be more than the turgid walls of defence that we've seen of late.
maybe. Or the rest keeps refreshing everyone.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby.
I wsa thinking a similar thing (so great idea @antipodean!) I wsa wondering about reducing subs benches to 5 though - rewards versatile front rowers and players, and means there is a much stronger incentive on stamina over raw power and bulk. Personally, I think it would lead to better rugby, as you have to compromise on big units who can't go 80, and then reward versatility in players on the bench
-
-
@Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.
Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.
-
@nzzp Don't like that idea. Apart from player welfare issues (players staying on the field despite carrying a minor injury, because there's no replacement, while they would be replaced under current rules), it also rewards teams with less depth.
-
@Stargazer is that any different to now?
Also depth is over rated. The deepest squad i have ever seen still couldn't win a world cup. Perhaps test rugby would become more competitive, which also helps
-
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.
Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.
Am liking this.
The issue is what happens when you get an injury in tghe front row after you've used your subs. And what about an "injury" in the front row?
-
@booboo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.
Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.
Am liking this.
The issue is what happens when you get an injury in tghe front row after you've used your subs. And what about an "injury" in the front row?
Then you go uncontested and play with 14...
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.
Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.
Am liking this.
The issue is what happens when you get an injury in tghe front row after you've used your subs. And what about an "injury" in the front row?
Then you go uncontested and play with 14...
Are you referencin a certain NZ derby game in recent seasons? So was I
-
@booboo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.
Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.
Am liking this.
The issue is what happens when you get an injury in tghe front row after you've used your subs. And what about an "injury" in the front row?
replace your front rower, lose a player of your choice (the poor blindside, it's always the poor blindside)?
or, yea, uncontested is good too. Scrums are only a restart anyway.
-
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.
Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.
Am liking this.
The issue is what happens when you get an injury in tghe front row after you've used your subs. And what about an "injury" in the front row?
replace your front rower, lose a player of your choice (the poor blindside, it's always the poor blindside)?
or, yea, uncontested is good too. Scrums are only a restart anyway.
I know you're only joking, but I am triggered by that...
-
@booboo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@booboo said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.
Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.
Am liking this.
The issue is what happens when you get an injury in tghe front row after you've used your subs. And what about an "injury" in the front row?
replace your front rower, lose a player of your choice (the poor blindside, it's always the poor blindside)?
or, yea, uncontested is good too. Scrums are only a restart anyway.
I know you're only joking, but I am triggered by that...
they are. This modern thing about them now being a way to draw penalties out of your opposition is fucking stupid.
-
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
or, yea, uncontested is good too. Scrums are only a restart anyway.
Did I see in that link from the law review that there are now on average 7 scrums a game, donw from 30 in the 1980's?
Sheeeit, imagine setting 30 scrums these days - that'd be a full half of rugby!
-
World Rugby furthers concussion prevention commitment with new high-tackle sanction framework
World Rugby has issued a law application guideline and supporting educational materials to assist everyone in the game with the on-field sanction decision-making process for high tackle and shoulder charges. Reflecting the international federation’s evidence-based approach to reducing the risk of concussion, the ‘decision-making framework for high tackles’ was developed in partnership with union and competition delegates attending the player welfare symposium in France last month and includes player, coach, match official and medic input. It is a simple-step by step guide with the purpose of: * Improving the consistency in application of on-field sanctions by distinguishing between dangerous tackles that warrant a penalty, yellow card or red card * Supporting protection of the head of both players by consistently and frequently sanctioning the tackle behaviour that is known to be the highest risk With research demonstrating that 76 per cent of concussions occur in the tackle, with 72 per cent of those to the tackler, and that head injury risk is 4.2 times greater when tacklers are upright, the framework is aimed at changing player behaviour in this priority area, via the promotion of safer technique and builds on the January 2017 edict on tougher sanctioning of high tackles Available as a step-by-step PDF, the framework is also supported by an educational video and illustrates what match officials are looking for when determining a sanction. The process focuses on the source of direct contact to the head, the degree of force and, for the first time, any mitigating or aggravating factors that may be applied by the match officials. It will be a useful tool for coaches, players, match officials, media and fans. It provides a fresh emphasis and does not retrospectively judge previous decisions.High-tackle sanction framework (pdf)
All World Rugby competitions and international matches will adopt the law application guide with immediate effect along with any competition that is yet to kick-off. Competitions currently in progress can either implement immediately or at the beginning of the next competition season/hosting. -
Sanzaar will hold off on bringing World Rugby's new guidelines around high tackles into Super Rugby until next season. The sport's governing body earlier this week announced an excellent new law application guideline around how referees will assess high tackles and shoulder charges. The step by step guide provides much more clarity around what sort of contact will constitute what sort of punishment, and is aimed to improve the consistency of the sanctions handed down by officials, and continue World Rugby's push to support protection of players' heads. While all World Rugby sanctioned competitions and international matches, along with any competition yet to kick off, will adopt the new law guide with immediate effect, competitions currently in progress had the option of either bringing it in straight away or waiting until the beginning of their next season. And Super Rugby have opted for the latter, with a Sanzaar spokesperson telling Stuff: "As we are 15 rounds into the 18-round regular season we will not be introducing any new law guidelines/variations into the 2019 Super Rugby tournament. The variations will be part of The Rugby Championship."The new law guide would give officials a more black and white path to their decisions, and allow all involved to understand them better. World Rugby had at the start of 2017 introduced two new tackle categories in their battle against concussion - reckless (resulting in a yellow or red card) and accidental (with the minimum sanction of a penalty) - however there was only loose wording around how to arrive at the sanctions, with this guide posted on a few New Zealand rugby referee associations' websites being the closest to an available official directive: Has there been foul play? No = play on Yes = then consider: Where initial contact was: Direct to the head or indirect (slipped up) Severity: Force, speed/pace, swinging arm, momentum, shoulder Accidental/Mitigating factors: 'Slipped', 'ducked into'. PENALTY ONLY - Indirect contact, no force YELLOW CARD - Indirect contact, with force OR Direct contact, no force RED CARD - Direct contact, with force The new process focuses on more specific things such as what part of the body contacts the head, what indicates a 'degree of danger', the term 'seatbelt' tackle, and what sort of mitigating factors can reduce sanctions by one level. -
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
With research demonstrating that 76 per cent of concussions occur in the tackle, with 72 per cent of those to the tackler, and that head injury risk is 4.2 times greater when tacklers are upright, the framework is aimed at changing player behaviour in this priority area, via the promotion of safer technique and builds on the January 2017 edict on tougher sanctioning of high tackles
those are quite interesting stats, particularly with 72% of those concussed (in tackles) being the tackler!
-
I recommend watching that YouTube video. I suspect we're going to see more cards during the TRC and RWC.
Interestingly, one of the examples used is the Cane/Tu'ungafasi double tackle on Grosso from one of the NZ - France tests, last year. Under these guidelines, they both would have received at least yellow and Tu'ungafasi possibly red.
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I recommend watching that YouTube video. I suspect we're going to see more cards during the TRC and RWC.
Interestingly, one of the examples used is the Cane/Tu'ungafasi double tackle on Grosso from one of the NZ - France tests, last year. Under these guidelines, they both would have received at least yellow and Tu'ungafasi possibly red.
Of course the time to introduce this is three months before the world cup. FFS. I still get cross when I see smoe yellow cards given on players who lead with their heads (AWJ vs Kaino in Lions 3, for instance).
The trigger on an HIA is worrying too - suspect we'll see marginal knocks going straight to HIA to win penalties/cards. I'm getting more cynical as I get older
