Law trials and changes
-
-
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
tired bodies on tired bodies
Yeah not sure I see the sense in that!
As opposed to fresh bodies against tired bodies.
If you pick people to play 80, the body shape is different. It's definitely worth considering
-
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
tired bodies on tired bodies
Yeah not sure I see the sense in that!
As opposed to fresh bodies against tired bodies.
If you pick people to play 80, the body shape is different. It's definitely worth considering
Probably 90% of the cards we're seeing, are players being lazy and/or making mistakes. I just don't see the logic that it's going to improve if we add more tired players.
-
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
'injuries' before tactical substitutions;
There's an easy way to address this: play on.
"But sir he's a second rower for our scrum" - then play the scrum with one of your flankers in there. It isn't a specialist position according to the Laws.
"But sir he's our hooker for the lineout" - someone else can throw; again - not in the Laws.
"But sir he's a prop for the scrum" - and he's been down "injured" four times this half, so he should be replaced immediately or I'll penalise you for unsportsmanlike conduct.
-
New Zealand Rugby has asked World Rugby for a "Clarification in Law" about the legality of a player jumping over a tackler.
Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Request
NZR seeks clarity on 2 issues:
Law 9.17 states “a player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground”.
Law 9.11 states “players must not do anything that is dangerous to others including leading with elbow or forearm”.
Law 9.7 states “ a player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game”
Q.1 When a player hurdles/jumps over a tackler who is attempting to make a low legal tackle, this stops the defender from being able to tackle the ball carrier (as the ball carrier is now in the air and not able to be tackled). This seems unfair and against law 9.7 “unfair play”.
In SRP round 1 Pita Gus hurdles Aaron Smith, re lands on his feet and then dives to scoreNZ Rugby wants to know is this legal or illegal, unfair play or unfair and dangerous play?
Q.2 In 2021, Jonny May scored by leaping/diving over a covering tackler and scoring in the corner. His dive/leap and twist allowed him to score directly in one movement.NZ Rugby wants to know if this is legal/illegal, unfair play or unfair and dangerous play.
Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
A.1 We agree – jumping to hurdle a potential tackler is dangerous play, as is the act of a ball carrier jumping into a tackle. Even if no contact is made, we believe this act is in clear contravention of law 9.11, and runs contrary to the game-wide focus on player welfare.
In this specific case the sanction should be a PK against the ball carrier.
A.2 A ball carrier may dive with the ball in order to score a try, and we all agree that should be allowed. From an equity perspective, if they do so, a defender may attempt to make a safe and legal tackle on that player. As we have said above, jumping to avoid a tackle should be regarded as dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly,even if no contact is made.
Player welfare should remain the priority deciding factor for match officials in these very rare situations. In such instances as this rare example, which involves great player skill and dexterity, match officials have to make a judgement call as to which actions have taken place. If there is any element of dangerous play, in line with the above ruling, then a try cannot be the reward.
In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly. -
@stargazer Wonder if jumping in the lineouts to catch a throw in is considered "jumping to avoid a tackle" as lineout jumpers cannot be played (tackled) by the opposition until the return to the ground. Suppose you could say the same about players leaping high into the air to catch lofted kicks knowing they cannot be tackled until they reach the ground.
-
@higgins said in Law trials and changes:
@stargazer Wonder if jumping in the lineouts to catch a throw in is considered "jumping to avoid a tackle" as lineout jumpers cannot be played (tackled) by the opposition until the return to the ground. Suppose you could say the same about players leaping high into the air to catch lofted kicks knowing they cannot be tackled until they reach the ground.
no issue with that.
I'm still pissy about jumping to catch a pass being a penalty, but them's the Laws deciding Lions tests
-
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes:
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
tired bodies on tired bodies
Yeah not sure I see the sense in that!
As opposed to fresh bodies against tired bodies.
If you pick people to play 80, the body shape is different. It's definitely worth considering
Probably 90% of the cards we're seeing, are players being lazy and/or making mistakes. I just don't see the logic that it's going to improve if we add more tired players.
but we don't see more reds from that late in the game I don't think. The injury argument is different - but I don't see it as open and shut case. Tired bodies + fresh bodies can't be good, and that's the elephant in the room we're not considering.
-
Have your say on welfare-focused rugby law trials
World Rugby is giving everyone involved in the game the chance to have their say on the welfare-driven global law trials which have taken place over the last nine months. A survey is now live giving fans, players, officials and anyone else with an interest in the game a chance to make your voice heard. The questionnaire will remain available until 28 March.
Short period for a survey.
World Rugby is giving everyone involved in the game the chance to have their say on the welfare-driven global law trials which have taken place over the last nine months. A survey is now live giving fans, players, officials and anyone else with an interest in the game a chance to make your voice heard. The questionnaire will remain available until 28 March.
In July 2021, World Rugby announced that a package of law trials, focused on improving the welfare of players, would be trialed across the global game. Those law trials are:- 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
- 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
- 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
The results of the survey will be used alongside detailed data analysis and coach, player, referee and medical feedback to help inform the decision of the Law Review Group (LRG), which will make a final recommendation to the World Rugby High Performance Rugby Committee, before the World Rugby Council considers the recommendations in May. Should the law trials be approved by the Council, they would become full laws of the game in July 2022.
(...) -
done
really disappointed i wasn't allowed to talk about red cards
-
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:
done
really disappointed i wasn't allowed to talk about red cards
I moaned in the comments about that.
-
Mine: I don't believe player welfare has been improved in any of these rule changes. I believe that there is a differentiation between accidental or incidental contact that should not be treated the same as what is traditionally understood to be foul play. Further that the product is being ruined as game altering decisions are being made subjectively and haphazardly diminishing the attractiveness of the professional game. Instead World Rugby is ignoring evidence based approaches in reducing the incidence of head injuries. The stand down period for suspected concussions should be longer. Players should be placed on a report system for all but serious, deliberate acts of foul play just like after match citations and the appropriate sanctions should have increased severity.
-
An interesting consequence or two from the goal line drop out trial up north.
Catch and send back a droppie at goal with no pressure on.
Having big players charge back at speed setting up a huge collision.
The rebirth of the drop goal? Dan Robson's strike highlights quirk in goal-line dropout law trial
Receiving teams are being presented with the chance to reply to dropouts with long-range drop goal attempts
-
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
An interesting consequence or two from the goal line drop out trial up north.
Catch and send back a droppie at goal with no pressure on.
Having big players charge back at speed setting up a huge collision.
The rebirth of the drop goal? Dan Robson's strike highlights quirk in goal-line dropout law trial
Receiving teams are being presented with the chance to reply to dropouts with long-range drop goal attempts
In fairness kicking the ball from your own goal line instead of defending a 5m scrum is still a huge win.
If the kick is poor (too long) and the returning drop kick is good that's the problem with coaching & execution,not the laws.
-
@mikethesnow yeah I get that just pointing out unintended consequences from the change.
I don’t think anyone wants to see a drop out caught and drop kicked back as a shot being “standard”. That’s kind of farcical.
I guess if it means drop outs to the sides that result it attacks down the flanks….Of course the kicking team has to be careful as a ball out on the full offers the options of a 5 metre scrum or lineout and we are back to the old outcome.
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
-
I can't read the article, but the tweet seems to suggest that the author thinks that a red card only has a deterrent effect if you punish the entire team and the spectators (because a game is ruined if there's a red card early in the game).
I read/hear this a lot from NH writers and fans.
The whole point of a 20-minute red card is that you still have an attractive game and the deterrent is in the suspension of the player afterwards. A suspension can seriously affect a player, still challenges a team because it requires depth, but it doesn't ruin it as much for fans.
That's, by the way, also why I don't think - as some have suggested on the Fern - that you should differentiate between intentional/dirty acts leading to a red card (not 20 minutes according to some) and accidental acts (20 minutes). The difference should solely be in the suspension, not in the consequence for the game.
-
The bit I don't get is that while the rule makers concede that split second decisions in a dynamic situation can make it difficult for 'transgressors' and they have some sympathy, they also claim that the sanctions will change behaviours. Same goes for the tweet quote above where the implication is that the stronger the punishment the less it will happen.
I see very little correlation between the two. Maybe many head contacts are being prevented through technique coaching but you cant measure what doesnt happen. -
@crucial said in Law trials and changes:
Personally I just don’t like the disincentive for attacking sides to try and score.
I get what you are saying but that's the wrong choice of words. There is no change to the incentive for scoring, you need to score to win the game. The change is in what happens if you fail to score.
Just speaking just about the 'held up' result: There's a slightly larger penalty for failing to score and being held up. Conversely there's a slightly larger reward for the defence in holding people up
I'd like to know the percentages on which type of attacks resulted in a held up. I would assume the majority would be short range pick and goes or splinters from a maul?
One of the thing I dislike about rugby in recent years is how teams fall into very predictable patterns. If you are 5m out, it's time to just pick and go.. two passes wide is too risky unless you have advantage.
If I'm correct about pick and goes often leading to a held up, perhaps that can make the standard option slightly more risky and encourage more variety? Hard to say without seeing all the stats after a period of time.When the ball is held up by just a defender or two (not the whole pack) often thats a difficult play to execute. I don't have a problem with it getting more reward
I have more of an issue with the ball kicked into the in-goal being a drop out.
-
@mikethesnow said in Law trials and changes:
In fairness kicking the ball from your own goal line instead of defending a 5m scrum is still a huge win.
If the kick is poor (too long) and the returning drop kick is good that's the problem with coaching & execution,not the laws.
Yes, execute better and the drop goal won't be available
