New Mitre 10 Cup laws
-
when I saw them in week 1 I thought they sucked, but maybe it's just the guys getting used to them...alas, nope, still messy as a messy thing!
Funnily after all the gnashing about rucks and other things over the past couple of seasons, I reckon rugby seems to be going pretty well at the moment with the rules, the interpretation of them aside, I think the less tinkering the better!
-
I would still maintain that most of the issues at ruck time are caused by players going off their feet. Yes, the game has sped up enormously and players arriving at breakdowns at speed are always going to lose a bit of accuracy but surely enforcing shoulders above hips more would clean things up a bit?
As Bart says "plane taking off not plane landing"
These trial laws make things just a bit too messy. What you want to encourage is packs forming over a ball making an impromptu scrum and driving over to clear. Big ask. -
Question - does anyone know what the tiebreakers are when teams are tied on points?
The official Mitre10 site presently has Ta$man listed above Auckland - presumably because they have five wins to Auckland's four. Ta$man has a worse points difference.
But Wikipedia says...
When teams are level on log points, they are sorted by:
the winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
highest overall points difference
highest number of tries scored
highest number of points scored
a coin tossI can't find another reference in a casual search.
-
@Chris-B. said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Question - does anyone know what the tiebreakers are when teams are tied on points?
The official Mitre10 site presently has Ta$man listed above Auckland - presumably because they have five wins to Auckland's four. Ta$man has a worse points difference.
But Wikipedia says...
When teams are level on log points, they are sorted by:
the winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
highest overall points difference
highest number of tries scored
highest number of points scored
a coin tossI can't find another reference in a casual search.
http://www.mitre10cup.co.nz/News/28264/itm-cup-tie-breaks-and-cheer-guide
Last year's tie breaks - Wikipedia is right based on that.
-
The running and general skill on display has been great to watch this season, but I am hating the breakdown. I still find myself waiting for tacklers to get to their feet to compete for the ball because they have rights. But no, that has gone and we end up with a bunch of guys using their feet to disrupt the ball. It's just messy.
-
Wynne Gray on the experimental laws
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wynne-gray/news/article.cfm?a_id=23&objectid=11724776This is the relevant section:
What's fair about tacklers being told by the ref to release opponents who then almost get up, might release the ball for a microsecond and then continue to crawl, run or roll up field? As much as anyone, I loathe laws at test and Super Rugby level which allow players to charge into the breakdowns at an angle and clean out defenceless rivals. More players do go to those rucks, however, and have a chance of turning over possession - but not in the NPC. How does rugby attract more players to rucks and give them and spectators a chance to understand the rules? It's as easy as Banks' kicking style. As soon as the tackler and his victim hit the ground, they are out of play and cannot touch the ball. You can't place it, push it, hatch it, squeeze it or do any of the stalling tactics encouraged at the moment. The ball is the offside line and it should be open slather for anyone wanting to grab it or heel it back, as long as they stay on their feet. We want a contest at the breakdown, we want to keep magnificent specialist No7s in the game but, right now, rucks are a dodgy lottery encouraging utility loose forwardsThe new laws suck and I'm sure they won't be adopted. However if they are about safety I suspect we'll seem some different experiments soon
I think Wynn Gray makes a good point in that article about being strict on the tackler but not the tackled player. By being strict on both, turnovers should become easier. It should also force the attacking side to commit more numbers.
I don't mind Dowd's suggestion either - players can only play the backwards with their foot at a breakdown. No more hacking it forward.
Another thing I would like to see in future is cleaning up the 'not held' rulings where the player gets up and goes again. Whether a players is held is becoming very subjective and in many cases unfair to the defence.
Perhaps the players should have to release the ball if they are brought to ground by an incomplete tackle too? -
@Duluth I don't mind a little more leeway given to the attacking player, as it gives teams confidence to take the tackle knowing there is a good chance they will recycle. I would be loath to make it too easy to turn the ball over, as we will revert to teams kicking more ball away rather than risk turnovers.
I also like defending teams having to commit numbers to turn the ball over, as then it becomes risk/reward, and can open the field up. If you have a good chance to disrupt/steal with only one person, then there are a lot of advantages to the defense again.
Personally I think the balance is right at Super and Test level, and i really don't understand why there are experiments for change.
-
@mariner4life said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Personally I think the balance is right at Super and Test level, and i really don't understand why there are experiments for change.
Well they have said one of the main concerns is safety. They seem worried about a jackal being in a vulnerable position getting smashed.
If the RIB is determined to get that out of the game the current laws will not last longMy comments about the attacking team having too much leeway only relate to the NPC laws.. not the current laws.
I agree the balance at Test rugby is quite good right now. The balance in these NPC laws is shite. -
@Duluth of course he's vulnerable, that's why stealing ball is a skill, and takes bravery (and why my neck is fucked). As long as refs are hard on the guys diving in like Lood on the weekend, then it should be all good.
-
Yeah I don't disagree with that
When I read the IRB is concerned about 'safety' I assume they are concerned about legal liability, panics leading to bans in some places etc etc
I suspect the IRB has already decided there will be a change to the breakdown, but they just haven't decided what (because the NPC laws have failed)I am skeptical any effort to keep players on their feet at the breakdown can work without a return to rucking.
Maybe that should be an experiment? Play a one off, decent quality game, with the breakdown ruled like it was ~20 years ago -
@Duluth my reservations about taking the hands out, and keeping guys on their feet, is the ref is going to have to be really hard on body height. Guys go off their feet because the first player there is really fucking low (from either side), so the next guy goes even lower. And at test match pace, that normally results in teams piling off their feet.
That will be a lot of penalties to sort that out.
-
the aim of the new changes was supposed to result in more tries too (which makes rugby better apparently) but it hasn't really given them that either.
-
Under the experimental laws, which New Zealand Rugby high performance referee manager Rod Hill said weren't viewed as a success by World Rugby, a ruck was considered formed as soon as an attacking player arrived in support of the tackled player. It has led to Mitre 10 Cup and Heartland Championship teams not committing players to the breakdown, instead fanning out across the park on defence and taking the contest for possession out of the game. Teams routinely strung 10-15 phases together, with often only a handling error or a kick resulting in a change of possession.He won't have to worry about them when Super Rugby kicks off next season, as the experimental laws will not continue in the competition. That will see the welcome return of a battle for possession at the breakdown, the factor which made rugby what it was, Thorne said.While World Rugby wasn't keen on the lack of a contest at the breakdown, Hill said there were aspects of the trial the governing body "really liked", including a reduction of neck rolls and yellow cards. "The key things that we're trying to achieve is to put players in safer positions at the tackle breakdown, we definitely achieved that," Hill said. "The piece that isn't where we want it was while players are up on their feet significantly more than previous years, we haven't been able to create the contest that we're looking for. And how do we create an offside line at the post tackle stage a little bit earlier than a formal ruck or formal maul to form?"One rule change in next year's Super Rugby competition will see penalty tries automatically result in seven points, without a conversion being taken. The experimental points trial featured in the Heartland competition, in which tries were worth six points and penalties dropped down to two, will be ditched after this year's competition. -
@Stargazer as long as there's no baggage with these laws....
-
@ACT-Crusader Just no. Pack up your shit and leave.
-
@Stargazer said in New Mitre 10 Cup laws:
Under the experimental laws, which New Zealand Rugby high performance referee manager Rod Hill said weren't viewed as a success by World Rugby, a ruck was considered formed as soon as an attacking player arrived in support of the tackled player.
Best news I've heard all week
-
It looks like they will trial an adapted breakdown rule next year:
New Zealand Rugby high performance referee manager Rod Hill confirmed the trial breakdown laws used in the Mitre 10 Cup have been dumped by World Rugby although there would not be a total return to the old laws around the breakdown. The trial involving six-point tries and two-point penalties, used in the Heartland Championship this year, has also been dumped. Hill was in Dunedin over the weekend and told the Otago Daily Times the trial rules went too far and World Rugby had already made the decision to get rid of them.''We are trying to have a game for all sizes and we still want that fetcher. The opportunity for them to come in and get the ball but having said that we went the players up off their feet. If you change the laws you can get the players up. ''It is not the tackler who makes the turnover, it is the first arriving player. If we can keep that first arriving player in the game then we might have found that happy medium.'' The new rule would require the tackler to get out of the breakdown and then come through the gate. The offside line would come in place when a player is over the ball.World Rugby had decided to use these new amended breakdown laws in domestic competitions around the world over the next year. If the trial was successful it may be introduced in Super Rugby in 2018.Super Rugby would implement one of the changes when penalty tries next year would not require a conversion - it would be an automatic seven points.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11726970
-
these tings can sound good in theory....leave things alone, I know it might be a bias view, but things seem to be going pretty well at International and Super rugby level at the moment.
-
There are some things about the variations I kind of liked. The main things are the focus on keeping players on their feet and the idea that the offside line begins when an attacking player arrives at the breakdown.
I'd keep those two things and be strict on enforcing no new hands once a ruck is formed (but players who are in there before the ruck are OK) and I think we'll be fine.
