Law trials and changes
-
I'm aroused
Speeding up the game
Players and match officials are reminded of the following existing laws which must be strictly adhered to:
Law 8.8d Conversion. [The kicker] takes the kick within 90 seconds (playing time) from the time the try was awarded, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed.
Law 8.21: Penalty Kick: The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed and a scrum is awarded.
Law 9.7d: A player must not waste time. Sanction Free Kick
Law 18.12 Lineout: Teams form the lineout without delay. Sanction: Free-kick.
Law 19.4 Scrum: Teams must be ready to form the scrum within 30 seconds of the mark being made. Sanction: Free-kick.
The whole sport is encouraged to apply these guidelines to speed up the game and elite matches competitions will be encouraged to use a “shot clock” as trialled in the LNR/ FFR competitions when practically possible. -
Unfortunately this is mostly just pointing out existing laws to be adhered to without much embellishment as to what constitutes 'wasting time'.
Feigning injury is still the biggest time waster and breath catcher. It would have been good to see something around that. -
I don't think it was quoted above but I also read they are going to push for less TMO intervention. Not sure I like that idea unless there is a buy in from broadcasters and they don't replay certain things. Referee errors will be pounced on otherwise.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Law trials and changes:
I don't think it was quoted above but I also read they are going to push for less TMO intervention. Not sure I like that idea unless there is a buy in from broadcasters and they don't replay certain things. Referee errors will be pounced on otherwise.
It is fairly clear that they want to be more like Sevens or more like we saw at the Womens RWC.
If the TMO sees something clear and obvious they refer to ref eg foul play
If the ref wants help to see if a try was scored or if they suspect, say, a knock on in the build up then the TMO looks for something clear and obvious and decides quickly.If other angles are found post decision then tough shit. I hope that home broadcasters dont become an issue but what we saw in the Womens RWC was the TMO box with access to all views at the same time. They called the shots to use, not the broadcaster.
Edit: an effect of this will be seeing even more defender bodies flop around a try attempt knowing that TMO wont spend much time searching for perfect angles. On the other hand it may actually activate the intention of the goal line drop out which was to encourage giving the ball space so the tries can be clearly seen.
-
From that same media release:
Less reliance on Television Match Official (TMO) reviews
Match officials are reminded that the current TMO protocol is aimed at identifying and ensuring clear and obvious offences are dealt with on-field.World Rugby will be working with match official managers to ensure consistent application of the process.
Fewer water carrier interventions
The Global Law Trial on limiting the number of water carriers to two, and reducing the times they enter the field, has successfully reduced unnecessary stoppages. However, creating set windows for water breaks has created the impression of disrupting the game, even if that water was taken during a natural stoppage (try/injury/TMO review).
Davies added: “Following discussions with stakeholders, an amendment to the current global law trial covering water carriers will allow water onto the field when a try is scored. Participating competitions and unions are reminded of the 60/90 second limits on kick times. Only in a game with no tries, should a natural stoppage be used.
This amendment to the current trial protocol was supported by the Technical zone/ water carrier working group. This group includes player, coach, referee and competition representatives.
Penalising negative player actions
Reinforcing rugby’s values, referees will be asked to be strong on negative player actions. For example, Trapping players into ruck, and first arriving players (the jackler) not aiming to play the ball.
Players are reminded about their responsibilities not to hold the ball or walk off with the ball at penalties – this reduces attacking options by the non-offending team and slows the game down unnecessarily and will be sanctioned.
Penalising players with hands on the floor to support body weight
Players who put their hands on the floor at tackles, rucks and mauls are subject to sanction, although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability.
Law definitions and relevant clauses:- Off feet: Players are off their feet when any other part of the body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
- On feet: Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
- Tackle law 14.8a Other players must: Remain on their feet and release the ball and the ball-carrier immediately, and 14.8b Remain on their feet when they play the ball.
- Ruck law 15.12: Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck
- Maul law 16.9: All other players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet
Clarity on deliberate knock-ons
What is and what isn’t a deliberate knock on often causes of debate. All participants are reminded of the following existing laws:- 3 A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
- 4 It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
Players must endeavour to catch the ball. Referees are asked to show good judgement when deciding if a player has a reasonable expectation of catching and gaining possession, and then in determining a sanction. -
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
From that same media release:
Players must endeavour to catch the ball. Referees are asked to show good judgement when deciding if a player has a reasonable expectation of catching and gaining possession, and then in determining a sanction.
Good they've recognised the problem, but not too sure how this is going to clarify this in the real world. The idea of "good judgement" and "reasonable expectation" is still a bit too woolly for me and leaves too much leeway for different interpretation.
Rest of the changes look a step in the right direction though
-
the Technical zone/ water carrier working group.
Penalising players with hands on the floor to support body weight
Players who put their hands on the floor at tackles, rucks and mauls are subject to sanction, although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability.
- When has a player who puts their hand on the ground at a tackle been subject to sanction?
- Of course players briefly maintain their own balance and stability - that's the point: The whole reason they should be penalised is because they're gaining an advantage which ruins the game.
The word endeavour should be stricken from the maul laws. Refs should start looking at the attacking team at mauls. If it doesn't go forward (and sideways isn't forward), then hand over possession. It's a blight on the game.
Law definitions and relevant clauses:
Off feet: Players are off their feet when any other part of the body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
This one element alone could open up the game if they seriously implemented it.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability.
bang! grey area.
-
@Toddy said in Law trials and changes:
They should get rid of the place kick and just go for drop goal conversation/penalties - 30 second limit after try/penalty given.
Nah, I like the place kick. I reckon there are more pressing problems where time wasting is concerned.
-
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability.
bang! grey area.
Interpretation will still be all over the place. The biggest part of that law not ruled is that when you are leaning onto a player on the ground, that is the same as leaning on the ground. Even in 7s the ball carrier gets immediately leaned on by there own supporting player which stops the contest. Materiality is then applied in that unless a defender is actively trying to get to the ball nothing gets called.
-
I think this is a better place for the discussion about the reduction of tackle height in England's community rugby.
Here's the official media release from the RFU.
RFU COUNCIL APPROVES LOWERING OF THE TACKLE HEIGHT ACROSS COMMUNITY RUGBY IN ENGLAND
To support player welfare, the RFU Council agreed on Monday 16th January to lower the height of the tackle across the community game from July 1 2023.
Designed to improve player safety and informed by data, this change aims to reduce head impact exposure and concussion risk in the tackle for both the ball carrier and tackler. Evidence from studies has consistently demonstrated that higher contact on the ball carrier and closer proximity of the ball carrier and tacklers’ heads are associated with larger head impacts (as measured by smart mouthguards) and an increased risk of concussion.
Lowering the height of the tackle and encouraging the tackler to bend more at the waist will minimise the risk of this occurring while maintaining the tackle as an integral part of the game.
The RFU Council’s unanimous vote will result in law variations from next season, 2023/24, with the tackle height being set at waist height or below.
Ball carriers will also be encouraged to follow the principle of evasion, which is a mainstay of the game, to avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
The changes will apply across the community game (clubs, schools, colleges and universities) at both age-grade and adult levels - National One and below in the men’s game and Championship One and below in the women’s game.
Programmes to support players, coaches and match officials, including detailed law application guidelines are being developed to ensure players, match officials and volunteers will be ready for next season.WHAT TO EXPECT
Reduced tackle height for all community rugby
Tackles must be made at the line of the waist and below.
The aim is to put players’ heads in the safest possible place by defining in law where the line of the tackle may start.
A greater focus on the actions of the ball carrier
Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
Match officials will focus on the actions of the ball carrier as well as the tackler when head contact occurs.
Further background to the change for next season
Player welfare remains at the heart of all decision-making. By making the decision now, the RFU Council has demonstrated its continued commitment to player welfare and recognised the importance of giving coaches, match officials and players time to prepare.
Based on extensive research and evaluations of law changes in England, South Africa, France and New Zealand and the findings of the Orchid mouthguard study carried out in Otago evidence demonstrates that a waist height tackle or below is the optimal height to provide a meaningful reduction in the height of contact on the ball carrier, a reduction in the risk of contact with the ball carrier’s head and a reduction in the risk of contact for the tackler’s head. A lower tackle height is also associated with a reduction in the magnitude of head impacts, a key target for reduction.
France, which introduced similar changes in its domestic game in 2019, reported a 63% reduction in head-on-head contacts. They also reported this move has led to a more fluid game with reduced levels of kicking, increased passing, offloads and line breaks.NEXT STEPS
The process of developing law variations and the law application guidelines is well underway. It is anticipated that new laws will be in place in the next few weeks. They will come into force from 1 July 2023.
A range of training and support will be put in place for players, coaches and match officials. This will include face-to-face workshops, webinars, e-learning and video guidance. Training will be rolled out from the spring, through the summer and into next season.
We understand this is a significant change and the game will have questions around the detail of the new law variation, what it means for coaches and players and how the tackle will be refereed during different phases of the game, for example close to the goal line versus counter attacks in open play.
Detailed FAQs and training materials will be provided over the coming weeks to give clarity for the game. This is the first in a series of communications to give the game sufficient notice of the law changes being made. -
-
Very good read and insights into the thinking. Interesting that France have combated ball carriers charging head first by legislation against it but England have decided to “encourage “ change.
I can’t see that working myself.
Anyone know the NZ approach? -
@Crucial The NZ approach is only aimed at lowering the tackle height to below the sternum (first tackler). I don't see anything in their announcement about ball carriers.
See my post above.
I quite like the French approach, although they chose to lower tackle height to the waist, not sternum.
-
If lowering tackle height makes a difference, happy days... But I think officials need to be really tight on ball placement or throwing it off the ground.
Good to see RFU looking at the ball carrier actions too, trying to keep them high and not dip into contact
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial The NZ approach is only aimed at lowering the tackle height to below the sternum (first tackler). I don't see anything in their announcement about ball carriers.
See my post above.
I quite like the French approach, although they chose to lower tackle height to the waist, not sternum.
Some of this is semantics. The NZ approach is “below the sternum -aim at the puku” the others are “aim at the waist”
I don’t see much difference. -
Sensible discussion
What's not been talked about / I haven't heard or seen anything is what are the stats for HIA, YC & RC in 7s rugby?
If it's significantly less, then surely the RFU, World Rugby et al need to dissect this and determine where the biggest problem areas in the 15-man game are
It will come down to coaching, and the belief from the coaches and buy-in from the players that there's more to gain than lose by tackling higher than the nipple
