Law trials and changes

nzzp

@Stargazer I'd be delighted if they started enforcing 'not held' in a far more strict way. If you get brought down, you're tackled - you shouldn't be able to get up and go again. Personal pet peeve that sounds like they will work harder on

Edit: @Crucial I wrote mine and then wandered off before hitting submit Same as what you said

Stargazer

World Rugby announces law amendment relating to scoring against the post protector

World Rugby has announced that, with immediate effect, it will no longer be possible to score a try by grounding the ball against the post protector.

The minor amendment to Law 8 was approved by the World Rugby Council during its special meeting held via teleconference on Tuesday and follows a recommendation by the international federation's Rugby Committee and specialist Laws Review Group.

With defending players currently legally obliged to stay behind the goal-line and post-protector shape and size increasing for welfare reasons, it is increasingly difficult for teams to legally defend this area.

In some extreme cases, post protectors have been lifted or moved by defending teams, leaving the posts exposed and therefore increasing the risk of injury.

.

The amended law will now read:
The post protector is no longer an extension of the goal-line and therefore Law 8.2 (a) will read:
A try is scored when the attacking player is first to ground the ball in the opponents’ in-goal.

.

Meanwhile, World Rugby continues to monitor evaluate ongoing closed law trials, which have been implemented with enhancing player welfare in mind. They will resume when rugby resumes.

Initial feedback for the 50:22 and the below the waist tackle are encouraging, with the latter resulting in a three-fold decrease in injuries and a 60 per cent reduction in concussion in the French community game.

Stargazer

World Rugby creates access to optional domestic law trials to further reduce COVID-19 risk

The World Rugby Executive Committee has approved 10 optional law trials which are designed to provide national member unions with COVID-19 transmission risk reduction options if required.

Temporary law trials relating to the scrum, tackle, ruck and maul were approved along with a package of best-practice match hygiene measures. Each measure aims to reduce individual cumulative exposure to these contact activities, which are generally accepted as presenting the highest COVID-19 transmission risk.

Unions can apply to implement one or more of the temporary law amendments as domestic trials at elite or community levels on a needs-basis in line with the World Rugby return-to-play guidance published this month.

Recognising the fluid global COVID-19 environment, implementation by unions will be entirely based on their territory-specific requirements and respective government advice and directives.

The trials are informed by World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance, which determines high transmission risk as being 15 cumulative minutes within one metre of an infected person. The important considerations for rugby are:

It is generally accepted that sustained close contact carries greater COVID-19 transmission risk than close proximity

It is also generally accepted that close proximity in an outdoor environment carries lesser risk that an indoor environment

As transmission risk during a game is related to both physical contact and proximity, further evidence-based risk reduction should be focused on contact activities

While individual exposure to contact activities such as scrums, tackles, lineouts, rucks and mauls are generally within 15 cumulative minutes, further exposure reduction is possible

Risk reduction can also be achieved via best-practice match management, including hygiene measures, screening, testing and implementation of World Rugby’s return-to-play guidance

Sport should only return when safe and appropriate to do so in line with government advice

Click here for the full package of optional temporary law trials

The law trials were considered by the specialist Law Review Group (LRG) comprising coaches, players, match officials, medics and law specialists, following a detailed analysis of 60 matches. The LRG decided against mandatory global application of the law trials given the wide variation in the presentation and management of COVID-19 across nations.

Comprehensive game analysis enabled an evidence-based approach to developing the temporary trials that limit scrum contact and time, lower the tackle height and speed up ball distribution from rucks and from mauls.

(...)

In addition to the on-field law and officiating interventions, a number of non-law hygiene measures are recommended for playing and training in line with WHO and World Rugby guidance:

Mandatory hand and face sanitisation pre- and post-match

Regular ball sanitisation before, during and after matches

Single user water bottles/hydration

Changing of jerseys, shorts and headgear at half-time where possible

Prevention of huddles and celebrations involving contact

Prevention of spitting and nose clearance

Recommended training measures

Forwards units: high risk transmission activity such as an eight-person scrum should be undertaken against machine to limit exposure, packs should be trained separately

Scrum and maul practice should take place at the end of a training session, preferably a day before a ‘down day’ to allow 24-48 hours before collective training

High transmission risk training should be avoided within 48 hours of a game

Kirwan

This is unbelievably stupid.

You cannot social distance a contact sport, tinkering like this is futile. It's either safe or it isn't.

Kirwan

I mean, by all means introduce hygeine measures, and isolate people with illness from the team. But can people go back to applying common sense. FFS.

Machpants

It could all be sorted by all the players wearing full body rubber gimp suits with full face masks.

Snowy

The new blues match gear.

That is probably Akira trying to protect against all of the shit that gets flung at him (and it's hard to tell how fat he is under that too).

Stargazer

I agree with the comments. It's a contact sport. I can think of risk-reducing options that don't involve changing the rules like this (or wearing crazy suits).

Fortunately, the trials are optional and for domestic use only.

What bothers me, also, in rule 5 is that a player can get an orange card for a "red card high tackle offence", but can't return to the field immediately if the TMO concludes that it's a penalty only.

mariner4life

i like a lot of those tweaks though

voodoo

@Stargazer are the proposed tweaks just for the Covid period? Otherwise #1 and #3 seem to really finish the scrum as a weapon?

Stargazer

@voodoo The way I read the quoted text, the trials are only to reduce the ristk of COVID-19 transmission. It clearly says "temporary law trials" and they're not mandatory because the "presentation and management of COVID-19 across nations" varies.

So, unless WR/participating nations like the new laws and/or want to change rugby into league, we'll hopefully don't see a permanent change to the rules.

voodoo

@Stargazer phew

antipodean

@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:

i like a lot of those tweaks though

I only like the last.

I certainly don't like the idea of a team that can't scrum getting to opt out of the contest and play league.

Kirwan

It feels like a couple of them is someone using the pandemic as an opportunity to try controversial law changes, and they can fuck right off.

mariner4life

@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:

@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:

i like a lot of those tweaks though

I only like the last.

I certainly don't like the idea of a team that can't scrum getting to opt out of the contest and play league.

nah, fuck it. Scrums are meant to be a way to restart play. We've gone too far now, and it's become this blight on the game where it's all gamesmanship up front and trying to con the ref.

I also hate scrum after scrum on a goal line that always ends up with a prop binned. It's shit to watch.

Machpants

English premiership have said, thank you but no, too the rules modifications for when (if) they restart

antipodean

@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:

@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:

@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:

i like a lot of those tweaks though

I only like the last.

I certainly don't like the idea of a team that can't scrum getting to opt out of the contest and play league.

nah, fuck it. Scrums are meant to be a way to restart play. We've gone too far now, and it's become this blight on the game where it's all gamesmanship up front and trying to con the ref.

restart play with a contest for possession

I also hate scrum after scrum on a goal line that always ends up with a prop binned. It's shit to watch.

Which is why people shouldn't be binned because their opponent is better. Keep a straight back and if your scrum gets rissoled, bad luck. If you want to fuck around, get binned.

mariner4life

@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:

@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:

@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:

@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:

i like a lot of those tweaks though

I only like the last.

I certainly don't like the idea of a team that can't scrum getting to opt out of the contest and play league.

nah, fuck it. Scrums are meant to be a way to restart play. We've gone too far now, and it's become this blight on the game where it's all gamesmanship up front and trying to con the ref.

restart play with a contest for possession

I also hate scrum after scrum on a goal line that always ends up with a prop binned. It's shit to watch.

Which is why people shouldn't be binned because their opponent is better. Keep a straight back and if your scrum gets rissoled, bad luck. If you want to fuck around, get binned.

i disagree with everything you wrote here.

Bovidae

I think the trial laws relating to the maul has some merit, as it's already heavily weighted in favour of the attacking team.

taniwharugby

The Silver Fern

Law trials and changes