Law trials and changes
-
Not a law trial or new law variation. This is more about the application of the existing law.
World Rugby furthers head injury prevention commitment with expanded Head Contact Process
World Rugby has publicly launched the Head Contact Process (HCP) to assist the sanctioning process for contact with the head and neck, underscoring the sport’s commitment to head injury prevention. This process has been developed through extensive collaboration and consultation with current and former players, coaches, referees and medical experts.
The HCP is an evolution of the High Tackle Sanction Framework, which supported rugby’s ambition of reducing the risk of head injury through stronger and more consistent on and off field sanctioning of high-risk tackle actions, in turn encouraging a positive change in player behaviour.
Within the evolved HCP, the scope for sanction consideration has been broadened to include all illegal head and neck contact, including dangerous clean-outs, head-on-head collisions and head contact which arises from ball carriers leading with an elbow or forearm, in addition to high tackles and shoulder charges.While already in operation in the Guinness Six Nations and across elite competitions around the world, the HCP will now come into effect immediately at all levels of the game in the form of a Law Application Guideline. It will be supported by a sport-wide education process for players, coaches and match officials, also furthering concussion awareness.
With the game united in its commitment to protecting players, the HCP is the result of a comprehensive, collaborative and scheduled review of the High Tackle Sanction Framework actioned at the Player Welfare Symposium in Paris in March 2020. It was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary review group featuring players, coaches, referees, medics and disciplinary representatives*.*The High Tackle Sanction Framework Review Group: Bernard Laporte (Chair), Conrad Smith and David Quinlan (IRP), Richie Gray, Dave Rennie and Gregor Townsend (coaches), Wayne Barnes and Jaco Peyper (referees), Christopher Quinlan QC and David Barnes (judicial and citing), Dr Martin Raftery and Professor Ross Tucker (medical and research), Alan Gilpin, Joe Schmidt, Mark Harrington, Dr Éanna Falvey, Joël Jutge, Paddy O’Brien, Yvonne Nolan, Steve Hinds, Rhys Jones and Dominic Rumbles (World Rugby).
You can find the new Law Application Guideline here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17 (includes videos) -
Maybe it has already been posted in another thread, but I only just found out that World Rugby has also approved the trial of the red card replacements, captain’s challenge and goal-line drop-outs in the Rainbow Cup. I couldn't find a news item from World Rugby, but found this on the SARU website:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge. -
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge.
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
-
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
Yeah, it's a blight and should be scrapped.
That said, I'm happy they trial stuff like the Captains referral/challenge thing - at least it shows the game isn't run by a bunch of conservative old farts, I guess.
-
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
I hope this doesn't mean that it has become more likely that these law trials will become law amendments. I'm fine with the red card replacements, but don't like the captain's challenge.
I'd go further that the captain's challenge is a blight on the game and should be binned immediately. It would be better to have more clarity around the laws to give refs and viewers more expectation of consistency
Yep, it's just awful and undermines respect of the ref IMO. Already have seen it being gamed (going for hail mary checks, cause it might pay off)
-
i think ive seen once where the challenge worked...the rest of all failed or even gone against the team bringing them...on paper it might have looked good...not so in reality
-
@kiwiwomble said in Law trials and changes:
i think ive seen once where the challenge worked...the rest of all failed or even gone against the team bringing them...on paper it might have looked good...not so in reality
The law of unintended consequences.
-
Sky Super Rugby Trans- Ta$man laws confirmed
Goal-line drop-outs and the ability to replace red carded players after 20 minutes are the two law innovations trialled by New Zealand Rugby (NZR) and Rugby Australia (RA) that will carry over to Sky Super Rugby Trans- Ta$man when the new competition kicks off this weekend.
The two law innovations used in Sky Super Rugby Aotearoa that will not carry over to the new six-week trans- Ta$man competition are the captain’s referral and Golden Point extra time.
New Zealand Rugby Head of High Performance Mike Anthony said it was important to ensure the laws used over the next six weeks did not disadvantage players from either side of the Ta$man.
“New Zealand Rugby has trialled a range of innovations this season in Sky Super Rugby Aotearoa and we are reviewing those trials with a view to making some recommendations for future competitions.
“For Sky Super Rugby Trans- Ta$man we have agreed with Rugby Australia to stick to laws that were consistent across our respective domestic Super Rugby competitions, which in this case are the goal-line drop-out and the red card replacement.
“Statistics from Sky Super Rugby Aotearoa indicate the goal-line drop-out has achieved its purpose of speeding up the game and getting the ball back in play more quickly than a 5m scrum, while we believe the red card replacement rule maintains the integrity of matches for players and fans alike when a player has been sent off.”It has been agreed that matches tied at full time during the round-robin will finish as a draw with the two teams sharing the competition points, Anthony said.
“The exception will be the final, which will follow the same extra time protocols as the Sky Super Rugby Aotearoa final. If the respective Super Rugby finals in New Zealand and Australia over the weekend are anything to go by Sky Super Rugby Trans- Ta$man will be an incredibly exciting tournament." -
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
that will not carry over to the new six-week trans- Ta$man competition are the captain’s referral and Golden Point extra time.
Yee farking hah!
-
@stargazer I didn't even realize they were trialing the 20 minute red card replacement rule (which is probably a good thing) - though in my view 10 minutes is probably sufficient penalty.
Captain's referrals are one of those things that seemed like a good idea in principle, but has turned out to be rubbish.
Not sure whether there is merit in trialing them with much stricter limits on what can be referred - I think the idea was probably to try to correct the absolute howler, but they were immediately (mis-) used strategically - or whether the whole concept should be binned.
-
@nta said in Waratahs v Hurricanes:
@mikey07 said in Waratahs v Hurricanes:
@nta interesting they binned the Captains challenge I quite liked it personally.
I thought it was interesting BUT only if it replaced endless TMO replays
It added to them which was the problem.
-
@snowy said in Waratahs v Hurricanes:
@nta said in Waratahs v Hurricanes:
@mikey07 said in Waratahs v Hurricanes:
@nta interesting they binned the Captains challenge I quite liked it personally.
I thought it was interesting BUT only if it replaced endless TMO replays
It added to them which was the problem.
Except for that one time when they looked at one view of a Chiefs knock on (IIRC) and then we all saw the subsequent footage showing it wasn't a knock on.