New Mitre 10 Cup laws

matthew_matichhotmail.com

you are going to see guys getting hammered from harsh angles. 
dont understand the tackler from 180 degrees rule. you really dont see a lot of that anyway imo. 
but i think the tackler having to role away will be hard in 1v1 cover tackles. attacker will get an easy 2nd chance 
so hard to ref the one metre behind even with a 2nd ref

pukunui

Hmm Hard to comment with not much detail. Don't really understand the takler rights bit because the article suggests the a tackler instead of now having to show a clear release ie. hands in the air, before going for a turnover would have to tackle, get back a metre then go for the steal. Am i interpretting that right?
 
One change I wish they would bring back from the old "ELVs" is the legally collapsing the maul. Lots will disagree but i don't think legal obstruction being protected from a tackle fits with the rest of the game as it is played.
The way the maul has become is a bit of a joke. I think we were lucky the RWC didn't become a maul fest like some had suggested earlier in the year.
 
Back on topic though. It will be interesting to also see how the two refs work together. IF one is watching the offside how will he know the ball is out ? Will the ref watching the ruck yell "ball out" every ruck? In fact i think that would actually be a good thing because it would take away those situations where a defender thinks a ball is out only to be pinged for offside.

Tordah

on paper looks like a pretty shitty rule change to me.
Offside one meter behind the hindmost foot? Is that only for the defending team, I guess, otherwise the acting scrumhalf would always be offside, so that means attacking teams get huge advantage with pick and gos, which are dull to watch.
Tackler not having all the rights from anywhere is just silly, it's not like it's too much power to the tackler anyways, he usually gets cleaned out and if support is too slow then that's attacking teams fault. Why disadvantage the tackler there? It takes a decent amount of skill to get up on your feet quick enough to steal the ball, no matter from where, but after tackling you'd uickly have to adjust to where your side of the field (your 180Â°) is, which can be confusing when you're swinging around holding someones shorts or legs. Shitfuck
Two on field-referees will lead to simulatenous blowing of whistles and one referee penalises team A and the other team B for their respective indiscretions. Will be confusing and shit
 
I have zero faith in this being a positive rule change, there's so many more different things in urgent need of reform, and they fuck up the tackle and ruck situation? how about the maul?

Nepia

Some weird laws that don't really need changing/tweaking and nothing about making a maul (and I still love mauls) a fairer 'contest'.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tordah" data-cid="548071" data-time="1450349489">
<div>
on paper looks like a pretty shitty rule change to me.
Offside one meter behind the hindmost foot? Is that only for the defending team, I guess, otherwise the acting scrumhalf would always be offside, so that means attacking teams get huge advantage with pick and gos, which are dull to watch.
Tackler not having all the rights from anywhere is just silly, it's not like it's too much power to the tackler anyways, he usually gets cleaned out and if support is too slow then that's attacking teams fault. Why disadvantage the tackler there? It takes a decent amount of skill to get up on your feet quick enough to steal the ball, no matter from where, but after tackling you'd uickly have to adjust to where your side of the field (your 180Â°) is, which can be confusing when you're swinging around holding someones shorts or legs. Shitfuck
Two on field-referees will lead to simulatenous blowing of whistles and one referee penalises team A and the other team B for their respective indiscretions. Will be confusing and shit
 
I have zero faith in this being a positive rule change, there's so many more different things in urgent need of reform, and they fuck up the tackle and ruck situation? how about the maul?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I guess they'll have one 'lead' ref who makes the calls, the other just acts more as a guide for other rules? Otherwise, yep, be funny watching them rule a breakdown infringement differently.

Hooroo

They had to wait for Ritchie to retire before introducing this trial.....

Stockcar86

I'm not sure if I trust World Rugby to make choices if their stats is anything to go by
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/75301573/all-blacks-praised-for-attacking-prowess-in-official-2015-rwc-report'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/75301573/all-blacks-praised-for-attacking-prowess-in-official-2015-rwc-report</a>
 
<div>* Kicks have decreased from 59 to 39 per match and scrums have more than halved from 23 to 13.</div>

Glath

There aren't enough refs for 2 to become the norm.

Canerbry

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="548189" data-time="1450400405">
<div>
They had to wait for Ritchie to retire before introducing this trial.....
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Came here for this. Fuck imagine how good etc...

dingo

If unbound players have to be 1 meter behind the breakdown to be onside, how do you traverse that one meter in order to bind in a legal fashion?

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="548069" data-time="1450348599">
<div>
Hmm Hard to comment with not much detail. Don't really understand the takler rights bit because the article suggests the a tackler instead of now having to show a clear release ie. hands in the air, before going for a turnover would have to tackle, get back a metre then go for the steal. Am i interpretting that right?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I sincerely hope not. World rugby seem hell bent on getting rid of the contest for possession aspect of the game.
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="548157" data-time="1450392649">
<div>
Some weird laws that don't really need changing/tweaking and nothing about making a maul (and I still love mauls) a fairer 'contest'.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The single biggest blight on the game.

Stargazer

I wish they stopped messing with the rules! %$*+@#%^ 
 
NZ Herald:
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
Rugby: Tries to be worth six points in NPC
8:17 AM Wednesday Dec 23, 2015
 
Tries are set to have greater value in next year's Mitre 10 Cup after a scoring change was revealed this morning.
 
New Zealand Rugby's Neil Sorensen has confirmed to TAB Sport Radio that tries will now be worth six points in the 2016 national provincial championship, with penalties dropping in value to from three to two points.
 
Formerly known as the ITM Cup, the Mitre 10 Cup has been chosen to host the initiative which will place an emphasis on try-scoring and attacking rugby, and decrease the amount of penalties being kicked.
 
Additionally, according to a report by World Rugby, NZ Rugby are also looking at experimenting with two referees next year in the competition.
 
- More to come
</blockquote>

Crucial

I don't see what increasing the points for a try achieves in NZ rugby. We already play the game to score tries more than penalties.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="549029" data-time="1450817474">
<div>
I don't see what increasing the points for a try achieves in NZ rugby. We already play the game to score tries more than penalties.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
yeah my thoughts exactly.
 
Being worth more does what to the way the game is already played in NZ?
 
A trial of this sort would be better in England (if it is needed at all)

Stargazer

A few more details in this article on Stuff:
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
Tries to be worth six points in New Zealand rugby's NPC
 
Tries will be worth six points in New Zealand's national rugby championship next year.
 
The change was confirmed by New Zealand Rugby's Neil Sorensen in an interview with TAB Sport Radio on Wednesday.
 
The changes will also include penalties being reduced from three points to two points.
 
The moves are part of World Rugby's trials to make the sport more attacking and appealing.
 
Australia's national championship and Welsh leagues have already been operating under the new scoring system.
 
Next year's Pacific Challenge Cup and Under-20 trophy will also feature the same scoring rewards along with other European competitions
 
Giving greater points for tries and less for penalties is seen as a positive move.
 
New Zealand are also set to trial two referees in the 2016 NPC.
</blockquote>
 
If penalties are devalued to 2 points, isn't that an invitation to more offending? Or are the two refs going to hand out more cards as well?

hydro11

Horrible, horrible, horrible. Why is World Rugby intent on destroying the penalty as a practical method of scoring points? I doubt I will be watching any ITM Cup rugby next season. As Crucial said, how many ITM Cup games is point scoring not rewarded? People are kidding themselves if they think that people aren't turning up because the rugby isn't exciting enough. People don't turn up to the ITM Cup because the rugby is seen as irrelevant.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="549041" data-time="1450820157">
<div>
A few more details in this article on Stuff:
 
 
If penalties are devalued to 2 points, isn't that an invitation to more offending? Or are the two refs going to hand out more cards as well? 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="549043" data-time="1450820381">
<div>
In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
In 79 ITM Cup games we had 45 yellow cards and 2 red cards.
 
This means that if we are to emulate the NRC, the amount of yellow cards will increase 2.75 times. Great news if you are a referee; bad news if you think one of the problems with rugby is close games being decided by referees.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="549043" data-time="1450820381">
<div>
In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Define "unbalanced" - in the context of a player deliberately infringing in certain situations, and receiving his due for it.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="549047" data-time="1450820803">
<div>
Define "unbalanced" - in the context of a player deliberately infringing in certain situations, and receiving his due for it.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I don't know what sport you watch if you think that the majority of YC's given now are for deliberate offences. Most of them are given for repeated offences. Many are given when players become trapped on the wrong side of the ruck. Many are given when a defensive team is genuinely trying to stop a rolling maul and end up infringing. I would hate to see what kind of things are given YC's in the NRC where we see almost 3 times as many cards given.

The Silver Fern

New Mitre 10 Cup laws