Law trials and changes
-
Carded for this.
-
@antipodean what a joke...he even jumped higher too.
Seems unless you catch it, you are in the wrong.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Carded for this.
What the fuck?
This looks like a ridiculous new application of laws, and I don't see how it increases player safety. Players will just gamble on not getting carded if they catch it.
-
That's just ridiculous! I fear with great fears what a "card fest" it's going to be during the Super Rugby season, although I still have a little bit of hope that our SH refs have more common sense and find common ground on a more reasonable interpretation and application of the rules. WR and NH refs are killing the game damn it! Who still wants to watch games if teams end up playing with 12-13 players for some time during the game and reach the final whistle with fewer than 15 players on a regular basis?
-
@gt12 said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Carded for this.
What the fuck?
This looks like a ridiculous new application of laws, and I don't see how it increases player safety. Players will just gamble on not getting carded if they catch it.
Shit, I hadn't seen this one.
Yep. Rugby has lost the fucking plot.
-
Wayne Barnes explains the 'new' tackle laws:
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2017/01/wayne-barnes-will-make-you-completely.html
-
I was at a club game yesterday and the biggest area of confusion was players getting penalised for "over the shoulder" tackles, especially in close quarters. Nobody was doing anything dangerous but until the practice is unlearned it leads to endless penalties and eventually YCs for continued infringements.
-
What's your analysis?
I'm in favor of the new interpretations, except for the red card ruling, based on what I've heard there.
I watched the video and it seems to me that they're guessing what is red and yellow. From what I heard, it seems like non-penalty versus penalty are clear enough (perhaps not in practice) and penalty versus card is clear enough (perhaps not in practice) but I still couldn't really see much difference between yellow and red.
-
I'm a big fan. Can only be an advantage for NZ with tackle laws that are likely to increase offloads. I've yet to watch a game in the NH that has bee "ruined" by them. And I've already watched a few games this weekend.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Carded for this.
Alright that is a shocker.
-
Jamie Cudmore: 'Suspecting a Concussion Means It's Probably a Concussion'
http://news.rugbypass.com/view/suspecting-a-concussion-means-its-probably-a-concussion
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Jamie Cudmore: 'Suspecting a Concussion Means It's Probably a Concussion'
http://news.rugbypass.com/view/suspecting-a-concussion-means-its-probably-a-concussion
Good read. He really gets wound up after a bit doesn't he? Makes excellent points from the view of someone who has actually been there and has the clarity of hindsight.
I do tend to agree that the emphasis on high tackles is paying lip service to the problem and taking the opportunity to try and clean up some 'visuals' of the game to the casual observer.
Even WRs own studies show that concussions from high tackles are only a small % of concussive head injuries (the tackler is actually the one at the highest risk).
I know that NZRU work hard with ACC in coaching coaches at all levels to improve tackling technique for safety of both players but that is because of our accident compo system in NZ, not because of a WR directive. -
Only watched the first one. Are you all missing the fact that 7s is always reffed much stricter than XVs?
Many a YC on the Sevens circuit would be deemed harsh in XVs. In part I think the reasoning on this is that Sevens, by necessity, looks for a clean open game with little latitude. The harsher interpretations are meant to make the players play a game with less infringements.
Haven't we already seen via that Wayne Barnes clip that some of these would not be YC'd in XVs and that the ones slipping through are from refs adjusting?
To me though, there were a couple of important elements not addressed in that Barnes explanation. One is regarding the incentive for ball carriers to lead with the head in a very low body position when driving. The other is that innocuous head contact that has been upped to a penalty falls into YC and PT territory when it occurs close to the line. The ruling that an infringement that stops a probable try results in a YC and PT now applies to a quite 'light' penalty offence that can be milked by the attacking team.
It is certainly going to take time for players and coaches to retrain techniques and instincts as well as for Refs to find the right balance.
I was at a club game on the weekend and even though there was a big quality gap between the two sides (a 50-25) win, there was a long period where the lesser side maintained possession and scored points simply because the ref got on a roll with penalties for contact above the shoulder then starting issuing YCs for continued infringements. The contact was almost all just arm hitting above shoulder on driving ball carriers around the breakdown. -
@Crucial Yeah, that and I find it a bit sad that video has already been posted twice now, on a board where 7's gets short shrift and is not even considered rugby by some. So next to nobody watched the 7's, yet they're happy to post up a video trying to highlight the shit stuff that happened - and not a highlights video to be found.
-
@Bones said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
@Crucial Yeah, that and I find it a bit sad that video has already been posted twice now, on a board where 7's gets short shrift and is not even considered rugby by some. So next to nobody watched the 7's, yet they're happy to post up a video trying to highlight the shit stuff that happened - and not a highlights video to be found.
I watch 7's and I have never seen it reffed like that for high shots. Guys ducking under tackles and the tackler getting a card a guy grazing a players head and getting a yellow come on be genuine? Have you ever seen it reffed that harshly.
-
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
@Bones said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
@Crucial Yeah, that and I find it a bit sad that video has already been posted twice now, on a board where 7's gets short shrift and is not even considered rugby by some. So next to nobody watched the 7's, yet they're happy to post up a video trying to highlight the shit stuff that happened - and not a highlights video to be found.
I watch 7's and I have never seen it reffed like that for high shots. Guys ducking under tackles and the tackler getting a card a guy grazing a players head and getting a yellow come on be genuine? Have you ever seen it reffed that harshly.
No, but the combo of harsher reffing in Sevens with a lower tolerance for high contact edict from WR will obviously result in that happening.
I would not expect to see YCs for those incidents at Super Rugby level. There may be the odd one or two from refs getting in wrong in the moment, but it shouldn't be policed like that overall.
The NH games are finding the balance in the most part and the SH refs will take the learnings.
I don't think the clampdown is perfect by any means and have stated why. I also don't think the sky is falling. -
Be prepared for further changes to the sport down the track as well. Apparently protecting the tackler from head injury is the next target (quite obvious when the highest % of reported injuries come from concussion and the highest % of concussions happen to the tackler).
Quite how that will translate to laws is anyone's guess. More likely to be stronger coaching initiatives on technique. -
After the earlier announcement that SANZAAR has updated it's judicial process (http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/new-super-rugby-judiciary-process-unveiled/), it has now also announced changes to itsTelevision Match Official (TMO) protocol:
SANZAAR Changes TMO Protocol
SANZAAR has today announced that it has made an amendment to the Television Match Official (TMO) protocol for the 2017 Super Rugby season. The amendment reflects the emerging technology that is now available in terms of the number of camera angles and the use of split-screen television software. Plus SANZAAR’s desire to tighten the process and make it more accurate, more efficient and to reduce the time taken for the decision-making process. So what is different in 2017? Should the referee or one of his team (Assistant Referees or TMO), wish to initiate a review of a decision (via replay by the TMO), the referee will first state to the TMO his "on-field decision" based on his real-time view. The TMO will then review the given incident accordingly based on the referee’s assessment.The TMO must be persuaded that the evidence is compelling before proving the on-field referee’s call wrong, and therefore overturning the call. ‘What’ can be referred for review remains the same as the World Rugby Protocol (no change). The “two phases back only” protocol still stands. The only exception to this process is in the case of a potential foul play incident. The referee can choose to review the incident on the big screen (or request the TMO to review it if the replay screen is of poor quality) with no “on-field decision" prior to the review. Commenting on the new protocol SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos said, “The general consensus is that with the new technology and the protocol of a definitive "on-field call", time is saved and the awkward conversation between referee and TMO that occurs from time to time is eliminated.” “SANZAAR is confident this will enhance the fan’s match experience. This also aligns our sport’s process with that of almost all the other high performance sports, which use a television replay protocol.” “In summary, this protocol change makes the process clean and efficient and places accountability for an “on-field call” in the hands of the referee and a review of that decision in the hands of the TMO,” added Marinos.Example of the new TMO protocol: 1. A try is scored but the assistant referee is not sure if the player was in touch. The referee would refer his decision, stating, "In real time I believe a try has been scored. Can you please just check that the player was not in touch before he grounded the ball?" 2. A try is scored, but the referee is unsure of an incident of potential obstruction leading up to the try: the referee will state that he believes a try has been scored, or alternatively that he believes there is obstruction and a penalty-kick is his on-field ruling. The TMO then reviews that on-field decision. 3. A team drives over the line and the referee has no sight of the ball. He refers the incident and states: “I am unsighted, therefore held up over the line, 5m scrum, attacking team ball. Can you check there is no evidence to the contrary?”
Super Rugby
