Law trials and changes
-
I have long thought that the biggest problem rugby has as a viewing spectacle is that the jerseys are too close
So bravo to world rugby for actually fixing their biggest issue
-
Law Clarifications | World Rugby Laws
Clarifications in law for the game of rugby union, as requested by unions or individuals.
In a recent World Sevens Series fixture in Hong Kong an attacking player carrying the ball into in-goal, placed the ball down on what he believed was the ground, but actually placed the ball on the corner post which had been dislodged by the tackler and was now lying in in-goal.
Could the referee have awarded a try?Had the ball carrier placed the ball on a non-player - the referee’s foot, a physio, or an encroaching spectator - then law 6.12 gives the referee the power to determine what would likely to have happened next and to rule accordingly. We think this should be the same outcome for this situation. Therefore, the referee may award a try if they believe a try would have been scored had it not been for the flag in the way.
The same would be the case if some other item had been left/discarded/blown into in-goal and the ball “grounded” on it. In the next law cycle, World Rugby will look to amend 6.12 to include other objects as well as non-players. -
Something I have been thinking about for a while and the scenario raised it's head again last night. Player from Team A commits an offence that earns a yellow or red card. Player from Team B is not able to take the field again owing to an injury inflicted by the Team A Player. Therefore Team B has to use one of it's subs earlier than planned. This is probably not so much of an issue when a red card means the Player is lost for the remainder of the game, but for yellows and especially 20 minute Reds Team B is disadvantaged because of Team A's actions. I wonder whether in such instances Team A should lose a like for like sub as well?
-
Not a law trial or change, but an upcoming policy change:
This section is currently guidance for all competitions.
From 1st January 2025, this will become policy applicable to all World Rugby run competitions. It will remain guidance for all other non-World Rugby competitions.
Media release:
Latest News | World Rugby
The latest World Rugby news, including about the World Rankings, Tournaments, Player Welfare and the Laws of the Game
Document with guidelines/policy:
I've only skimmed through it, but this is an interesting document.
-
-
@Machpants Maybe South Africa will wear their alternate jersey?
From the media release:
In some rare cases, an alternate kit may still pose a challenge if there is not enough colour or design differential. Such was the possibility for the Portugal v Wales Group C encounter on 16 September in Nice where the Welsh alternate kit (black) would have clashed with Portugal's primary kit (dark red). In a move applauded by World Rugby as a positive display of the sport’s values and support for inclusivity, both Portugal and Wales have confirmed they will each wear their alternative kit in support of the cause. Other participating teams have also committed to show their support by wearing alternate jerseys for certain games including Georgia, Ireland, Tonga and South Africa.
-
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
-
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
Haven’t got the time to go into all the details but there are a few articles on the web on the history of the mark. Originally you could take a mark anywhere and score points from the subsequent kick. It’s only in the 22 since the 70s I think.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Law trials and changes:
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
Haven’t got the time to go into all the details but there are a few articles on the web on the history of the mark. Originally you could take a mark anywhere and score points from the subsequent kick. It’s only in the 22 since the 70s I think.
Wasn’t looking for a history lesson
Was looking for thoughts to the questions posed and the game going forward
-
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?the irony is that more contests generally lead to better attacking. If there was more contest on the ground for the ball, yuo'd suck more players into rucks, and then you'd open up space out wide. Choke tackles exist because ruck contests are very hard to win.
Personally I wouldn't start with the mark, I'd start with the goal line drop out being eliminated
Pet bugbear of mine. Then I'd follow up with just one usage for Mauls; use it or lose it, high risk.as for the mark, I can see it leading to far more league style bombs - possibly even bringing back the Garyowen. You'd have huge issues with jumpers contesting (like now), getting ahead of the ball and taking out defenders. So yeah - lots more kicking I expect
-
@nzzp on the maul, it needs to be moving forward, as an attacking team, sideways and back is not the direction you need, so why get more chances to set it up therefore it should be classed a stopped as well.
From the couch it seems some minor tweaks would solve many of the games issues, yet the powers that be cant see this?
Bring back proper binding would certainly help both mauls and rucks too.
-
@taniwharugby said in Law trials and changes:
Bring back proper binding would certainly help both mauls and rucks too.
I'd like this post twice if I could.
-
can see the theory behind the goal line drop out - it's meant to stop the boring drive for the line over and over again by the fatties as soon as you're 5m out rather than passing it and finding a gap. those close-in drives are a lot easier to be held up, and aren't a great spectacle.
admittedly it hasn't worked yet, I think mostly because teams are slow to adapt - but hopefully it will. A bit like how most teams (particularly us) are still not exploiting the 50/22 rule to its full extent. -
@reprobate said in Law trials and changes:
can see the theory behind the goal line drop out - it's meant to stop the boring drive for the line over and over again by the fatties as soon as you're 5m out rather than passing it and finding a gap. those close-in drives are a lot easier to be held up, and aren't a great spectacle.
admittedly it hasn't worked yet, I think mostly because teams are slow to adapt - but hopefully it will. A bit like how most teams (particularly us) are still not exploiting the 50/22 rule to its full extent.I think the players are starting to adjust. It has taken a long time
On the 50/22 I would like to see a 22/50 as well. That would force the wingers back more often.. creating space for a long range attack
-
Ball technology at U-20
-
NZ Community Rugby only.
I'm only posting the paragraphs about the tackle height rules in community rugby here.
I'll post the info about player numbers in the "NZ Club Rugby 2023 ( General)" thread.
-
Community rugby tackle height trial extended for 2024 and 2025.
-
Strong acceptance and compliance with new tackle height.
-
New women and girls’ rugby tackle programme set to be introduced.
After successful implementation in 2023, NZR has also confirmed the reduced tackle height in community rugby will be extended until the end of the 2025 season, in line with World Rugby’s global recommendations.
Lancaster said the trial, which involves the first tackler tackling below the sternum and targeting the belly area, had improved the safety and quality of games and was strongly supported by the rugby community.
“Our participants have told us that want the tackle area of the game to be safer and that’s been our focus. The resounding feedback we’ve heard from our players, coaches and referees is that they understood the reason for change and that’s been critical to its success.
“We appreciate it’s an adjustment to make and our community participants can be proud of the way they have adapted and played the game this season. There’s still room for improvement, but we’re seeing the majority of first tackles below the sternum, more offloads and faster games.”
Match analysis by NZR found that 90% of first tackles in 1st XV school rugby, 78% in senior men’s rugby and 72% in senior women’s rugby were below the sternum this season. In premier men’s club rugby, offloads increased by as much as 65% when compared to games in 2022.
Survey data from community participants identified that 61% thought the lower tackle height was either significantly safer or somewhat safer for the first tackler, with 72% agreeing that the lower tackle height was safer for the ball carrier.
NZR has confirmed an expanded Tackle Clinic programme in 2024 to meet the growing needs of the women and girls’ game.
Restrictions around the defending halfback at scrums in all grades of community rugby will also continue for the next two seasons.
Over 95% of participants surveyed supported the impact the halfback innovation has had on attacking rugby through quicker, cleaner ball. Game analysis by NZR identified only 2% of all scrums now result in a handling error.
A maximum scrum push of 1.5 metres in senior non-premier rugby has been extended with 68% of participants believing scrums were safer as a result.
2024 and 2025 community rugby game innovations:
1 Reduced tackle height to below the sternum targeting the belly area for all community rugby grades
The first tackler must tackle below the sternum and target the belly area. The second tackler can legally tackle below the shoulders in accordance with current rugby law.
2 Defensive halfback offside at scrum for all community rugby grades
The halfback of the team not in possession must remain 1 metre from the scrum and may not advance past the tunnel until the scrum has ended.
3 Maximum 1.5 metre scrum push for all community rugby, excluding senior premier club rugby grades
The maximum push of any scrum is limited to 1.5 metres, unless the scrum is within 5 metres of the goal line. Please note: Small Blacks rugby at U12 and U13s is already limited to a maximum 0.5 metre scrum push and Teenage rugby is limited to a maximum 1.5 metre scrum push.
Reduced tackle height in community rugby: 2023 key insights
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Men's Rugby: 78% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Women's Rugby: 72% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Type in Teenage Boys' 1st XV: Nearly 90% of tackles involved 1 tackler.
Safety Perceptions of surveyed community rugby participants
-
89% understood the reason for the tackle below the sternum law.
-
72% agreed the lower height was safer for the ball carrier.
-
61% thought lower tackle height was safer for the first tackler.
Tackle height impact on Premier Men's Games
- Offloads increased by around 65% in premier men's games compared to 2022.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
Tackle Height in Premier 1st XV School Rugby: 90% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Men's Rugby: 78% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Height in Senior Women's Rugby: 72% of first tackles below the sternum.
Tackle Type in Teenage Boys' 1st XV: Nearly 90% of tackles involved 1 tackler.
Interesting to know how they plan to referee this.
-
@Victor-Meldrew These tackle laws were already applied in 2023. Is it that much different to applying another tackle height?
Community rugby bounce-back continues, tackle height trial extended
