Law trials and changes
-
@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
-
Yikes.
We should see heaps of yellows and reds.
I didn’t see anything about runners needing to keep thermir heads up, so the message seems to be that if you lead with your head, you can draw yellows and reds.
Is it possible that if runners were required to keep their heads above their shoulders, we’d see less head contact?
-
@gt12 said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Yikes.
We should see heaps of yellows and reds.
I didn’t see anything about runners needing to keep thermir heads up, so the message seems to be that if you lead with your head, you can draw yellows and reds.
Is it possible that if runners were required to keep their heads above their shoulders, we’d see less head contact?
As attacking coach I'd instruct players to leap into contact with their head below their waist. If you couldn't guarantee a win after 10 phases...
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@gt12 said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Yikes.
We should see heaps of yellows and reds.
I didn’t see anything about runners needing to keep thermir heads up, so the message seems to be that if you lead with your head, you can draw yellows and reds.
Is it possible that if runners were required to keep their heads above their shoulders, we’d see less head contact?
As attacking coach I'd instruct players to leap into contact with their head below their waist. If you couldn't guarantee a win after 10 phases...
I think you may find that was the comment made ages ago after the initial Irish whinging about 'thuggery'.
Leading with the head seems to be a running style already coached in some teams. -
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@gt12 said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Yikes.
We should see heaps of yellows and reds.
I didn’t see anything about runners needing to keep thermir heads up, so the message seems to be that if you lead with your head, you can draw yellows and reds.
Is it possible that if runners were required to keep their heads above their shoulders, we’d see less head contact?
As attacking coach I'd instruct players to leap into contact with their head below their waist. If you couldn't guarantee a win after 10 phases...
I think you may find that was the comment made ages ago after the initial Irish whinging about 'thuggery'.
Leading with the head seems to be a running style already coached in some teams.Ahh, but being a rugby savant, I've added the Lions prop carrying technique to it.
It would be nice to see refs simply say "you ducked into that, it's your fault" if there was a genuine attempt to make a legal tackle.
-
@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:
@gt12 said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Yikes.
We should see heaps of yellows and reds.
I didn’t see anything about runners needing to keep thermir heads up, so the message seems to be that if you lead with your head, you can draw yellows and reds.
Is it possible that if runners were required to keep their heads above their shoulders, we’d see less head contact?
As attacking coach I'd instruct players to leap into contact with their head below their waist. If you couldn't guarantee a win after 10 phases...
I think you may find that was the comment made ages ago after the initial Irish whinging about 'thuggery'.
Leading with the head seems to be a running style already coached in some teams.Ahh, but being a rugby savant, I've added the Lions prop carrying technique to it.
It would be nice to see refs simply say "you ducked into that, it's your fault" if there was a genuine attempt to make a legal tackle.
The bit I don't like about that process is that the ref is not allowed to consider mitigating factors like 'ducking' if the tackle is in open space. The assumption that the tackler can change their tackle height in a split second with their head already down is crazy. You are expected to anticipate a duck and only tackle around the legs?
-
There's a lot of very substantial rules being trialed, and tested, over the next year or so
Tackle height trial approval could change the game as we know it
World Rugby administrators have spent two days in London discussing various law review proposals and their decision surrounding the tackle height could change the sport as we know it.
-
I like precisely none of those
-
Recommendations made to further injury-prevention in rugby
Injury-prevention is at the heart of a package of law amendment and trial recommendations made by World Rugby’s Law Review Group (LRG) during two highly productive days in London this week. With player welfare being the number-one consideration, the recommendations made by this multi-disciplinary expert group, carefully considered all available evidence in the evaluation of each proposal, including the six that were discussed at the recent player welfare and laws symposium in Marcoussis, France.Having assessed and discussed all the available data, the six Marcoussis proposals were each considered by the LRG and, accordingly, recommendations were made to the Rugby Committee:- 50:22 kick proposal.
If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents’ 22 or from inside their own 22 into their opponents’ half, they will throw in to the resultant lineout.
RATIONALE: To create space by forcing players to drop back out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trials.
- Reduction in the number of permitted substitutions.
RATIONALE: To encourage more space and opportunities towards the end of the game as on-field players tire.
RECOMMENDATION: For World Rugby to sponsor more research to determine if there is a player welfare benefit.
- Off feet at the ruck – players must move away from the ball without delay.
RATIONALE: To ensure more space and time is afforded to the attacking side.
RECOMMENDATION: Specialist working group should be formed to assess all issues regarding the ruck/ breakdown.
- Delaying the movement of the defensive line at the ruck until the ball has reached the first attacking player or until the receiver opts not to pass.
RATIONALE: To give the team in possession more time and space on the ball.
RECOMMENDATION: Not to approve for trial.
- Reducing the tackle height to the waist.
RATIONALE: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trials.
- Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play.
RATIONALE: To ensure players who are guilty of serious foul play do not escape with a yellow card when they deserved red.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trials.
Beyond the Marcoussis outcomes, a number of other proposals were considered by the LRG and recommendations made accordingly:- The introduction of an infringement (penalty and free-kick) limit for teams. Once a team has reached the limit, a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction.
RATIONALE: To encourage teams to offend less.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.
- The awarding of a goal line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up.
RATIONALE: To reward good defence and promote a faster rate of play.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.
- One additional replacement per team be allowed during extra-time in a sevens match.
RATIONALE: To manage player fatigue and workload.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trial at the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series and HSBC World Rugby Women’s Sevens Series.
- The High Tackle Technique warning has been successfully trialled at the World Rugby U20 Championship for the last two years.
RATIONALE: Head Injury prevention strategy.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve further closed trials.
- A number of potential changes to tackle law were discussed by the group, with a particular reference to the community level in France.
RATIONALE: To reduce injury rates in the domestic game.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve for closed trials in designated FFR competitions.
Following a detailed discussion on the risks associated to front-row players’ necks during the scrum engagement process, the LRG also supported a proposed amendment to Law 19 (Scrum) that, if approved, will outlaw the practice of front-rows placing their heads onto opposition players’ shoulders between the call of ‘bind’ and ‘set’. It has been shown that this practice has resulted in potentially dangerous levels of axial loading on front-rows’ cervical spines. Given this issue has significant potential welfare implications, it will be actioned immediately. The LRG also considered feedback from the implementation of the High Tackle Sanction framework in the recent World Rugby U20 Championship in Argentina. Following input form operational staff, it was agreed to simplify the framework by removing reference to direct or indirect contact and streamlining the questions once a shoulder charge or high tackle had occurred. Four proposals of law amendments in Rugby X were also recommended by the LRG, including: * That restarts should take place on the five-metre line (as opposed to the goal line). * That the requirement for kicks to be grubbers be removed. * That the seven-point ‘max zone’ be removed (so all tries carry the same value). * That one-on-one skill tests be introduced to settle drawn matches (replacing extra-time)..
The LRG, which is made up of law experts, players, coaches, match officials and elite competition representatives, considers the applications, edits or clarifications of existing law and the introduction of new laws deemed appropriate for closed or global trials. The process could culminate in law amendments within the next Rugby World Cup cycle. - 50:22 kick proposal.
-
In London at the end of June, World Rugby held a two-day conference at the end of which they issued an immediately effective law change to the front row of the scrum to avoid potential catastrophic injury.
In the interests of player safety, World Rugby has banned ‘axial loading’, a process of concentrating scrum power on the opposing hooker instead of allowing it to be diffused along the length of the shoulder of players in the front row, which is seen as the axis of the scrum.World Rugby stated last week that: “Following a detailed discussion on the risks associated to front-row players’ necks during the scrum engagement process, the Law Review Group (LRG) also supported a proposed amendment to Law 19 (Scrum) that, if approved, will outlaw the practice of front-rows placing their heads onto opposition players’ shoulders between the call of ‘bind’ and ‘set’.
“It has been shown that this practice has resulted in potentially dangerous levels of axial loading on front-rows’ cervical spines.
“Given this issue has significant potential welfare implications, it will be actioned immediately.”
The Law change is now to take place. The World Rugby protocol is as follows:
During the scrum cadence, a hooker will not be allowed to lean and “deload” the weight of the entire forwards onto the shoulder of the opposition hooker at the “BIND” call from the referee.
There must be a clear gap with longer binding if necessary.
While non-compliance will result in a FK on the first occasion, any further offending of this nature, will result in an upgrade to a penalty, which will apply for the rest of the match. The implications of further repeat offending also carry with it the sanction of a yellow card as is customary in our laws.” -
@Crucial I assume that's from this article?
World Rugby ban potentially catastrophic practice of 'axial loading' at scrums
In London at the end of June, World Rugby held a two-day conference at the end of which they issued an immediately effective law change to the front row of the scrum to avoid potential catastrophic injury.
-
Blog post from Jake White about that 50:22 proposal in light of the SR Final. The question is. who would have benefited most from this rule, the Jaguares or Crusaders, if this proposal had already been adopted and applied during the Final?
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Blog post from Jake White about that 50:22 proposal in light of the SR Final. The question is. who would have benefited most from this rule, the Jaguares or Crusaders, if this proposal had already been adopted and applied during the Final?
The interesting aspect is it would dramatically alter the effectiveness of the rush defence too considering how much easier it would be to get the ball wide to an unmarked player. Push to hard and you can't turn and cover. You'd effectively be asking the fullback and winger to cover too many players.
-
That was an interesting piece from White.
He also got me thinking about marks. What if instead of the the 50/22 we extended marks to the halfway line. So if you take a midfield bomb you can either take your time to clear or quickly tap and put the chasing line offside.
I like that it rewards good skill (taking the catch) while keeping the contest alive.
-
@Cyclops said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
That was an interesting piece from White.
He also got me thinking about marks. What if instead of the the 50/22 we extended marks to the halfway line. So if you take a midfield bomb you can either take your time to clear or quickly tap and put the chasing line offside.
I like that it rewards good skill (taking the catch) while keeping the contest alive.
Without any proper analysis and going with what I see from my armchair, I’d say that happens maybe 3-4 times a game. A mark is effectively a stoppage in play, waiting for your own team to get back on side, gather yourself for the big kick etc. I’m not sure we would want another 3-4 of those when there are enough already now IMO.
