Law trials and changes
-
-
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
@bovidae The NH nations always getting their way!
Ozzies too
Dave Rennie 'doesn't understand' ditching red card law trial
Australia's Dave Rennie has criticised the northern hemisphere after there were reports 20-minute red cards had been axed by World Rugby.
-
This was on BBC. Some of it old news but the very last bit intrigues me
New law trials to be introduced
World Rugby also announced five welfare-based law trials would be adopted globally on 1 August.
They include 50:22, where if a team can kick from within their own half and get the ball to bounce inside their opponents' 22 then into touch, the kicking team will get the put-in at the line-out.
This has already been tested in Super Rugby AU and is designed to create more space in the field as players drop back to prevent the opposition using this tactic.
Other trials and amendments are goal-line drop-out, pre-bound pods of players, tightening the law relating to latching and sanctioning the lower limb clear-out.Anyone know any more?
-
Here we are....
Welfare-focused breakdown law amendments approved for global trial
Pre-bound pods of players: Outlawing the practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound prior to receiving the ball – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Tightening law relating to latching: One-player latch to be permitted, but this player has the same responsibilities as a first arriving player (i.e. must stay on feet, enter through the gate and not fall to the floor) – the sanction will be a penalty kick -
is 50:22 actually that hard to do? surely 40-22 or even make it a real challenge 22-22
im skeptical of the idea more open field is a welfare benefit, i think more open play is more likely to result in bombs leading to competitions in the air or kick returns getting a full head of speed before running into a front rower
-
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Pre-bound pods of players: Outlawing the practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound prior to receiving the ball – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Why? As long as the two bound players aren't in front of the ball receiver/ carrier, what's the problem?
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Pre-bound pods of players: Outlawing the practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound prior to receiving the ball – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Why? As long as the two bound players aren't in front of the ball receiver/ carrier, what's the problem?
yeah, not sure i get this one either, have pods like that lead to injuries?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Law trials and changes:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Pre-bound pods of players: Outlawing the practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound prior to receiving the ball – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Why? As long as the two bound players aren't in front of the ball receiver/ carrier, what's the problem?
yeah, not sure i get this one either, have pods like that lead to injuries?
My reading is that the old flying wedge law was too specific. This makes it easier the rule in.
-
There is a game with less scrums and kick out from the goal line,and it’s league.Some of rugbys differences are being eroded .It’s not less scrums we need but quicker ,much too long taken since the referees have taken over setting them.
-
I always go to the source: World Rugby. First hand info is better than second or third.
Welfare-focused rugby law trials to be implemented globally
World Rugby has announced welfare-focused initiatives within a package of law amendments that will be trialled globally in competitions that start after 1 August, 2021, reflecting the sport’s ongoing commitment to injury reduction at all levels.
Supporting the priority mission of head impact reduction and in line with the international federation’s six-point welfare action plan announced today, four of the five trials that will be implemented have an underlying focus on potential welfare advancements across the game.The trials include two that have been operational in pilot trial environments – the goal-line drop out, which has been seen in Super Rugby Trans- Ta$man and the Rainbow Cup – and the 50:22, which was most recently operational in Super Rugby AU. Both have the potential to increase space and decrease defensive line speed, which in turn could have welfare benefits.
Three trials focus specifically on reducing injury risk at the breakdown following detailed evaluation by a specialist Breakdown Working Group***. The first will see the introduction of sanctioning of clear-outs which target the lower limbs. The second will outlaw the practice of multi-player (three or more) pre-bound pods. The third area will tighten the definition of what is permissible in the practice of one-player latching.
View the education materials here >>
After a global trial period of one year, laws that are deemed successful in meeting the objective of increasing safety while enhancing the spectacle will be tabled for Council to determine whether they are adopted into law at its May 2022 meeting, a full year ahead of Rugby World Cup 2023 in France.
Welfare-focused law trials approved for global trial
- 50:22: This law trial is intended to create space via a tactical choice for players to drop out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch, reducing impact of defensive line speed – operational in Super Rugby AU
- Goal-line drop out: This law trial is intended to reduce the number of scrums, reward good defence, encourage counter-attacking and increase the rate of ball in play – operational in Super Rugby AU, Super Rugby Aotearoa, Super Rugby Trans- Ta$man and the Rainbow Cup
Welfare-focused breakdown law amendments approved for global trial
- Pre-bound pods of players: Outlawing the practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound prior to receiving the ball – the sanction will be a penalty kick
- Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick
- Tightening law relating to latching: One-player latch to be permitted, but this player has the same responsibilities as a first arriving player (i.e. must stay on feet, enter through gate and not fall to floor) – the sanction will be a penalty kick
Sevens law trials
- The Group approved a two-year extension of the trial whereby a team may nominate and use up to five replacements (this is in addition to substitutions to cover HIA, blood, injury or foul play incidents). The substitutions can be made on a rolling basis. In the event of extra-time, a sixth replacement can also be utilised
- The Group recommended to Council that in-goal assistant referees will no longer be permitted where there is a TMO present at a competition
In addition, the Executive Committee has endorsed a package of community law variations that aim to benefit welfare and accessibility. Recommended to Council for consideration in November, they aim to provide unions with law flexibility at a community level, including weight-banded matches, reduced tackle height and limitations to scrum and lineouts.
This is from that "education material" page:
Flying wedge
The trial
To sanction the three person pre-bound mini-scrum by redefining the flying wedge.
Primary intention
To reduce number of events where the ball carrier and multiple support players are in contact (latched) prior to contact, and to protect the tackler who can be faced with the combined force of three opposing players.
Links to law
New definition of ‘latched’
Amended definition of ‘flying wedge’
Deletion of definition of ‘cavalry charge’
Law 9.22Followed by video examples etc etc
-
@trodthesod id also say less reasons for penalties, let teams come up with ways to defend things like pods rather than banning them, realise a dominant scrum having super front foot ball and the scrum that just been beaten being on the ground and therefor out of the game is enough reward...dont stop it for a penalty
-
@trodthesod said in Law trials and changes:
There is a game with less scrums and kick out from the goal line,and it’s league.Some of rugbys differences are being eroded .It’s not less scrums we need but quicker ,much too long taken since the referees have taken over setting them.
I'm not laying that one on the refs, who are under "safety directions"
professional scrum coaches, and the evolution of the scrum from a restart to a way to generate penalties are the scourge
Maybe the free-kick for scrum infringements was the right idea? But i'm not really 100% on board with that after the 77th minute last night, that scrum was awesome and deserved winning the game. Perhaps we need to change the mindset to one of "deserved teh chance to win the game"
-
@mariner4life do we think having a super dominant scrum deserves the right to direct points? the scrum is just a competition for the ball, surely winning the ball is the most you can expect from just winning the scrum
-
@kiwiwomble said in Law trials and changes:
@mariner4life do we think having a super dominant scrum deserves the right to direct points? the scrum is just a competition for the ball, surely winning the ball is the most you can expect from just winning the scrum
Winning the ball, forward momentum and (if we're near the try line) the chance to push over and score a try.
Taking reset scrums back to the 5 yard line eliminates the opportunity to score pushover tries, which in my opinion is a step backwards.
Same question is whether a mis-timing at the tackle is worth points - penalties have to be meaningful, it's just not clear what that consequence should be.
-
this just becomes a philosophical debate about rugby really.
In a game of fine margins and judgement calls, should errors in timing be worth points? I have never thought so.
But then i can see the point from teh other side. Not giving up points will make teams push the envelope more. And i don't want more yellow cards. Also, in a lot of top level games, actually having the ball can be a disadvantage. Where is the line drawn in a game already incredibly difficult to referee?
Would i have been happy for that last scrum to do not much more than give the French another opportunity to attack? yeah i guess so. Many many more people would disagree with me, especially those that see rugby as more than a running game.
-
@nzzp and it inspires this negative play, actually playing for a penalty, we'd possibly see more stable scrums if there wasn't the same rewards for things going wrong
is there something to be said for something in between a free kick and a penalty, where you could kick for touch and get the feed, but cant choose to kick for goal
-
Over the years the laws of rugby have in my opinion made rugby more dangerous to play.Play and tackles are now mostly head on collisions.Forwards don’t all go to the breakdown.,hands allowed in the tackle,no rucking allowed,all head down situations which exposes the head.
Hate saying this but most of the tackles made in the earlier years of rugby were made side on and around the legs.If as a forward you made a tackle at all you were applauded.
Scrums were screwed legally and weren’t the massive hits they are now.
In the process of making the game more of a spectacle they have made it more unsafe.Cant have it both ways. -
@trodthesod said in Law trials and changes:
Over the years the laws of rugby have in my opinion made rugby more dangerous to play.Play and tackles are now mostly head on collisions.Forwards don’t all go to the breakdown.,hands allowed in the tackle,no rucking allowed,all head down situations which exposes the head.
Hate saying this but most of the tackles made in the earlier years of rugby were made side on and around the legs.If as a forward you made a tackle at all you were applauded.
Scrums were screwed legally and weren’t the massive hits they are now.
In the process of making the game more of a spectacle they have made it more unsafe.Cant have it both ways.Can't argue with that
