Law trials and changes
-
-
-
-
-
@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.
-
@nepia said in Waratahs v Hurricanes:
@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.
Being wrong is also a problem.
-
@nepia said in Law trials and changes:
@mikey07 said in Waratahs v Hurricanes:
@nepia how was that trolling I was merely voicing my opinion?
Well that joke went down like a lead balloon ... I didn't actually think anyone liked the captains referral system.
Yeah it's probably a bit of a funny one looking back on it. I mean, did the refs hate it and set out to make it a failure?
A lot of the scorn for the captain's referral I'd say probably stems from the officials getting it (sometimes blatantly) wrong in many of them, or just ignoring infringements/mistakes.
-
@bones said in Law trials and changes:
I mean, did the refs hate it and set out to make it a failure?
That's a great conspiracy angle... but worth looking into. It did seem at the start that any Captain's Referral would be given a cursory glance, and then ignored.
Later... they went the opposite direction - looked far too hard, found shit that wasn't in the scope of the actual Referral, and just confused matters to the point where nobody was happy with the outcome.
It does kinda look like a concerted effort to ignore it, then get rid of it. But... equally... Hanlon's Razor. -
Not confirmed by World Rugby, yet, but it looks like this is going to happen.
The first article below uses language that's a bit confusing (mixing up words like rule changes and trials), but it appears that World Rugby has decided to trial the 50-22 kick and the goal line dropout for 12 months from 1 August. The first rule was already trialled during Super AU, and the goal line dropout was trialled during both Super AU and Super Aotearoa.
According to the same article, a trial of the 20-minute red card rule has not been approved.
Sources said World Rugbyās law advisory group were in favour of the change to the red-card system but World Rugby powerbrokers were concerned the punishment was not enough deterrent for players making dangerous high contact.
France and England were key drivers in the decision to not modify the red card rules.
The timeline of the new rule changes will see the Wallabies play under a different set of laws against France than they will against New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina in The Rugby Championship.That's what you get if Stuff articles just copy and paste from Australian articles. Obviously, the All Blacks will also play under a different set of laws against Tonga and Fiji than during the RC.
Sanzaar is set to hold a meeting on Thursday night to discuss the rule changes.
Rugby Australia is expected to push for the 20-minute red card to continue through The Rugby Championship at the meeting, given it has widely been considered a success through the Super Rugby competitions.
While RA is comfortable with the changes given Australian players have become accustomed to the new rules, sources said New Zealand Rugby were not in favour of the changes.
NZR do not believe the rule ā which rewards the defending team with a dropout when they hold the opposition up over the line rather than awarding a five-metre scrum ā provides enough reward for the attacking team.Super Rugby Aotearoa also did not feature the 50-22 rule, which is almost identical in concept to the NRLās 40-20 rule.
While Australian Super Rugby sides only utilised the rule on a handful of occasions, defending teams were forced to defend without one or both of their wingers in the defensive line through the middle part of the field.
The shift in defensive shape has opened up more space for attacking rugby when kicks may have otherwise been employed.
The rule changes were part of a push from RA chair Hamish McLennan to make the game more appealing to broadcasters when the gameās television rights were up for grabs.
From the second article:
All Blacks coach Ian Foster wants World Rugby to rethink its decision to ditch the experimental 20-minute red card rule as the gameās lawmakers launch global trials.
World Rugby has not formally announced the trials but among them will be the 50-22 kick, a goal line drop out, and Foster said another would be a change on how players can latch on to one another to reduce force in contact areas, aiming to improve player welfare.
Foster said the Sanzaar nations, comprised of New Zealand, Australia, Argentina and South Africa, were āpretty unanimousā in wanting to stick with the 20-minute red card trial.Foster indicated that up to five law changes will be trialled from August and hopes the red card trial is still adopted.
āI think we might go and ask again, but Iām not sure of the chances,ā he added.There have been concerns throughout the game that the crackdown on high shots, in a bid to improve player welfare, has led to more red cards, as there is a smaller margin of error for the tackler, and it can compromise the quality of a match if a team is down to 14 players for most of the game.
However, World Rugby is concerned the rule might not be enough to deter players from making potentially high, dangerous contact, as it tries to combat the game's concussion issues.As for the other trials, such as the 50-22 and the goal line drop out instead of a five-metre scrum, which were inspired by the National Rugby League (NRL), Foster was less sure about the former.
The 50-22 law means that if a player kicks the ball from their own half, and it bounces into touch within the opposition's 22, the attacking team will get a lineout.
It was used in Super Rugby AU but not Super Rugby Aotearoa, so it will not be familiar for Kiwi players, although Foster said it hasnāt been implemented much in trials so far.
āThe 50-22 rule is a little bit of a niggle because none of us have tried it apart from Australia. But itās going to be there for the next 12 months, so weāve just got to get stuck into it,ā he said.
āThe evidence from trials around the world are that it hasnāt had a massive amount of impact. Not many teams have been able to execute it well.
āThe logic is sound because itās maybe trying to get you have an extra defender in the back field, which can give you more attacking opportunities. Weāre just going to have to be smart enough to adapt to it.ā -
-
-
@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 ā 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 ā 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) ā 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
