Law trials and changes
-
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?” -
Press release World Rugby
21 July 2017Six law amendments added to global trial as northern hemisphere programme gets underway
Covering the areas of scrum and tackle/ruck law, these changes will be trialed alongside five previously confirmed laws and will come into effect on 1 August in the northern hemisphere and 1 January in the south.The World Rugby Executive Committee has approved the addition of six law amendments to the programme of global law trials following positive trials in specific international competitions this year. The amendments, which relate to the scrum (Law 20) and tackle/ruck (Laws 15 and 16), are aimed at making the game simpler to play and referee as well as further promoting player welfare. They have been approved following extensive game data analysis as well as player, coach, match official and union feedback from the tournaments in which these six aspects of law were trialled. The six law amendments will now join the scheduled global law trial programme, completing a total package of 11 aspects of law, and will debut in full from 1 August, 2017 in the northern hemisphere and from 1 January, 2018 in the south. The November 2017 tests will operate under the full global law trials, while Women’s Rugby World Cup 2017 will operate under the package of five global law trials that has been operational in the southern hemisphere since January and was operational during the June test window. The six aspects of law approved to join the global trial programme are: 1. Law 20.5 and 20.6 (d) No signal from referee. The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line. Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team). 2. Law 20.9 (b) Handling in the scrum – exception The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows. Rationale: To promote continuity. 3. Law 20.8 (b) Striking after the throw-in Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball. Sanction: Free-kick Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession. 4. Law 15.4 (c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”. Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law.5. Law 16 Ruck A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used. Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees. 6. Law 16.4: Other ruck offences A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion. Sanction: Penalty Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law. The six new aspects of law were part of the original 2015 laws review process, and were recommended to move to closed trial to provide a further analysis opportunity before global trial could be considered. These closed trials were operational at this year's World Rugby U20 Championship, World Rugby Nations Cup, World Rugby Pacific Challenge, Americas Rugby Championship and Oceania Rugby U20 Championship, with positive outcomes: Scrum outcomes: * More ball coming back into play with fewer penalties and fewer collapses * The ball was thrown in without delay, with scrums continuing to be stable prior to throw-in * No collapses occurred by the number eight picking the ball up from under the second rows Tackle outcomes: * Feedback indicated that the tackle was easier to referee with more clearly defined offside lines and tacklers not interfering with the quality of the ball with more players on their feet allowing counter rucking A comprehensive analysis was undertaken by the specialist Laws Review Group, the Scrum Steering Group, considering detailed and highly-positive union, player and match official feedback, before the recommendations were approved by the Rugby Committee and subsequently the Executive Committee. The trials were also considered at the high performance match officials and coaches meeting earlier this year. World Rugby Chairman Bill Beaumont said: "World Rugby continually reviews the laws to ensure that the game is as enjoyable, simple and safe as possible at all levels. I would like to thank our unions for their full support throughout the process, the experts who evaluated the closed trial data and look forward to seeing the full results of the global trial.”Rugby Committee Chairman John Jeffrey added: "These law amendments are designed to improve the experience of those playing and watching the game at all levels and to avoid negative play where possible. The results of the closed trials were highly-encouraging with more ball out from the scrum, fewer penalties and better stability, which has a player welfare benefit too.” Implementation this year will enable at least a year of evaluation before the moratorium on law amendment begins a year out from Rugby World Cup 2019. Law Review Group members: Alain Rolland; Rhys Jones; Mark Harrington (all World Rugby); Nigel Melville (RFU); Ben Whitaker (ARU); David Nucifora (IRFU); Didier Retiere (FFR); Dave Rennie (NZR), Francesco Ascione (FIR); Rachael Burford (IRPA); Chris Paterson (SRU); Pablo Bouza (UAR); Paul Adams (WRU); Chean Roux (SARU). Previous inputs within the process include Paul O'Connell (IRPA); Eddie Jones (RFU); Nigel Whitehouse (WRU) and Dr Martin Raftery (World Rugby). -
-
@Hooroo one thing I think that has been apparent in recent years is that many teams do struggle with the strike, you quite often see the ball just sitting in the tunnel...I guess the pressure coming means you take 1 foot off the ground you lose some valuable pushing power?
-
@taniwharugby said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Hooroo one thing I think that has been apparent in recent years is that many teams do struggle with the strike, you quite often see the ball just sitting in the tunnel...I guess the pressure coming means you take 1 foot off the ground you lose some valuable pushing power?
Yep, weaker teams would just hold instead of strike.
-
They've added 3 laws to the scrum because of how they've previously changed laws & interpretations on scrums.
A scrum is now a low set, impossible to hook, horizontal pushing penalty competition.
They let this restart get into this state. Now add more laws to legalise the 150 year old laws that had to be ignored to allow the modern scrum to function.
I can think of an easier solution.
Coincidentally, just as nz gets the best power scrum in the world ......
Although I admit the modern scrum, when evenly matched, that doesn't end in a penalty (except for my team) is a sexy beast.
-
I find it absurd that a ruck and hence offside lines can now constitute one person over the ball.
Super Rugby
