World Rugby phased plan to grow the sport

[Locke]

World Rugby has outlined the next steps in the process of reimagining rugby’s entertainment factor, part of a wider mission to grow audience share over the next decade.

World Rugby reveals phased plan to enhance rugby’s global appeal | World Rugby

World Rugby has outlined the next steps in the process of reimagining rugby’s entertainment factor, part of a wider mission to grow audience share over the next decade.

www.world.rugby

First phase: Law Application Guidelines reinforcing existing law

From 19 March, there will be an expectation of strict application of current law by referees globally via the following Law Application Guidelines, focusing on speeding up play:

• Law 15.17: Players will be expected to use the ball more quickly when the ball has been secured at a ruck/breakdown. Referees will be asked to call “use it” earlier, which will begin the five second count to play the ball away.
• Law 19.10: Hookers will be expected to maintain a full brake foot to aid scrum stability and safety during the engagement sequence. Any adjustment must maintain the act of the brake.
• Law 6.29: Strict reinforcement of the 2022 law trial relating to water carriers entering the field of play.

 

[didds]

so these are already in place but now they are REALLY in place.

Right.

Got it.

I'll believe it when i see it.

 

[Volun-selected]

so these are already in place but now they are REALLY in place.

Right.

Got it.

I'll believe it when i see it.

And this time, we mean it! (Probably.)

 

[Ian_Cook]

First phase: Law Application Guidelines reinforcing existing law


From 19 March, there will be an expectation of strict application of current law by referees globally via the following Law Application Guidelines, focusing on speeding up play:

• Law 15.17: Players will be expected to use the ball more quickly when the ball has been secured at a ruck/breakdown. Referees will be asked to call “use it” earlier, which will begin the five second count to play the ball away.
• Law 19.10: Hookers will be expected to maintain a full brake foot to aid scrum stability and safety during the engagement sequence. Any adjustment must maintain the act of the brake.
• Law 6.29: Strict reinforcement of the 2022 law trial relating to water carriers entering the field of play.

Second phase: Law amendment recommendations for global adoption


A package of law amendments will be considered by the World Rugby Council at its 9 May meeting. Each is aimed at enhancing game continuity:

• Recommendation to make adjustments to Law 10 in relation to players being put onside when there are kicks in open play, as per the current Super Rugby Pacific trial which aims to reduce kick tennis.
• Removal of the scrum option from a free-kick at a scrum, reducing dead time.
• Outlawing the practice of the ‘croc roll’, reinforcing player welfare focus

Third phase: Closed law trials


Unions and competition owners will be encouraged to implement a package of closed law trials which can be adopted at domestic or cross-border level, aimed at enhancing game continuity:

• Expansion of the shot clock for scrum and lineouts and reduced kicking time.
• Ability to mark the ball inside the 22m line from a restart, promoting attacking options.
• The ball must be played after the maul has been stopped once, not twice.
• Protection of the nine at the base of the scrum, ruck and at the maul following successful trials in Major League Rugby in the USA and in elite and community competitions in New Zealand.
• Play on for lineout not straight if the throw in is uncontested.

Everything highlighted in red
And about bloody time too. But especially the following

• On- and off-field sanctions: Comprehensive review of the sport’s disciplinary and sanctioning processes with the objective of streamlining, increasing simplicity, consistency and fan understanding. A key consideration will be the potential to combine stronger off-field sanctions for foul play with a global red card trial where a carded player is removed for the duration of the match but may be replaced by another player after 20 minutes. The final proposal will go to World Rugby’s Council in May.

Red cards that reduce a team to 14 players for the remainder of the match are having too much impact on the results. Once a player is red carded in the first half, you might as well turn the TV off and go mow the lawns, because there is a 90% certainty that team will lose. What is the point of watching. Its even worse now that red cards are being handed out like free candy at a circus sideshow. I have to admit that I do not watch a lot of rugby these days, primarily because it has become a sanctions-card lottery. Players are removed from the game for what are no more than errors in timing and minor misjudgements. Rugby seems to expect players to have the reaction times of fighter pilots. On field sanctions do not seem to distinguish between a player who unintentionally mistimes a tackle, and a player whi intentionaly injures and opponent (biting, kicking, stomping etc).

And on that topic, it is also about time for stronger sanctions off the field. For far too long, rugby has issued bans that are little more than a slap on the wrist with a damp tram ticket, with lots of reductions for early guilty pleas and mitigation. Sod it. Players who do things like bite, kick, punch, bag-snatch or eye gouge opponents need to have months out of the game rather than weeks, or even banned from the game entirely (I'm thinking of players like Jules Dupuy and Marius Tincu, or more recently, Kyle Sinckler - the seven weeks he got for what he did to Mike Paterson in Quins v Saints was just a joke)

• Replacements: Examine the latest research on the impact of fatigue and the number and timing of replacements in the elite game to determine options that might create more space on the field while improving injury rates.

Got to be careful with this one. Its all very well to say that tired players might create defensive gaps, but they also tend to get injured more, and in important matches, players could be tempted by the short term lure of playing on after sustaining and injury which they might otherwise have been relaced. I woudl also like to see and end to the "Bomb Squad" tactics of loading up the sub bench with power forwards. IMO there should be five subsitutites/replacements (two non front row forwards and three backs) plus a complete front row.

 

[Balones]

Well written Ian. I concur.

 

[SimonSmith]

Everything highlighted in red
And about bloody time too. But especially the following


Red cards that reduce a team to 14 players for the remainder of the match are having too much impact on the results. Once a player is red carded in the first half, you might as well turn the TV off and go mow the lawns, because there is a 90% certainty that team will lose. What is the point of watching. Its even worse now that red cards are being handed out like free candy at a circus sideshow. I have to admit that I do not watch a lot of rugby these days, primarily because it has become a sanctions-card lottery. Players are removed from the game for what are no more than errors in timing and minor misjudgements. Rugby seems to expect players to have the reaction times of fighter pilots. On field sanctions do not seem to distinguish between a player who unintentionally mistimes a tackle, and a player whi intentionaly injures and opponent (biting, kicking, stomping etc).

And on that topic, it is also about time for stronger sanctions off the field. For far too long, rugby has issued bans that are little more than a slap on the wrist with a damp tram ticket, with lots of reductions for early guilty pleas and mitigation. Sod it. Players who do things like bite, kick, punch, bag-snatch or eye gouge opponents need to have months out of the game rather than weeks, or even banned from the game entirely (I'm thinking of players like Jules Dupuy and Marius Tincu, or more recently, Kyle Sinckler - the seven weeks he got for what he did to Mike Paterson in Quins v Saints was just a joke)

I'm not there. It depends if we're looking at rugby as a spectator-driven event, or a sports match.

If it's the latter, a team deserves to play a man down for the red card. The cards are reserved for acts of serious foul play, and 20 minutes a man down isn't anywhere close to a harsh enough tariff.

You complain about cards being thrown around, but fail to address the core issue: the players, and therefore the coaches, failing to adapt. After Warburton, the spear went away pretty quickly. Yet we still have players tackling high, or charging in dangerously. You want the cards to stop? Get the players and coaches to stop doing dumb shit.

 

[didds]

You complain about cards being thrown around, but fail to address the core issue: the players, and therefore the coaches, failing to adapt. After Warburton, the spear went away pretty quickly. Yet we still have players tackling high, or charging in dangerously. You want the cards to stop? Get the players and coaches to stop doing dumb shit.

A-fuckn-men.
dont want a red card? dont be a twat.

 

[Dixpat]

Everything highlighted in red
And about bloody time too. But especially the following


Red cards that reduce a team to 14 players for the remainder of the match are having too much impact on the results. Once a player is red carded in the first half, you might as well turn the TV off and go mow the lawns, because there is a 90% certainty that team will lose. What is the point of watching. Its even worse now that red cards are being handed out like free candy at a circus sideshow. I have to admit that I do not watch a lot of rugby these days, primarily because it has become a sanctions-card lottery. Players are removed from the game for what are no more than errors in timing and minor misjudgements. Rugby seems to expect players to have the reaction times of fighter pilots. On field sanctions do not seem to distinguish between a player who unintentionally mistimes a tackle, and a player whi intentionaly injures and opponent (biting, kicking, stomping etc).

And on that topic, it is also about time for stronger sanctions off the field. For far too long, rugby has issued bans that are little more than a slap on the wrist with a damp tram ticket, with lots of reductions for early guilty pleas and mitigation. Sod it. Players who do things like bite, kick, punch, bag-snatch or eye gouge opponents need to have months out of the game rather than weeks, or even banned from the game entirely (I'm thinking of players like Jules Dupuy and Marius Tincu, or more recently, Kyle Sinckler - the seven weeks he got for what he did to Mike Paterson in Quins v Saints was just a joke)


Got to be careful with this one. Its all very well to say that tired players might create defensive gaps, but they also tend to get injured more, and in important matches, players could be tempted by the short term lure of playing on after sustaining and injury which they might otherwise have been relaced. I woudl also like to see and end to the "Bomb Squad" tactics of loading up the sub bench with power forwards. IMO there should be five subsitutites/replacements (two non front row forwards and three backs) plus a complete front row.

Tired players are also more likely to mistime tackles

 

[didds]

2024 6N consisted of 15 matches. There were 2 red cards.

2 RCs in 15 games doesn't look like being handed out like candy.
This isnt to excuse stupid players (and coaches) that are clearly content to continue risking head clashes where they are avoidable

 

[Balones]

The top end of the professional game does have fewer RCs than a few years ago. I think this is because they realised that they were ruining the ‘contest’. Now it seems to me that there is far more mitigation applied due to the numerous cameras available. I do not think that the actions of the players has changed that much.
My concern is with the semi-professional and community game. Here there are no cameras available to aid the referee to get to an equitable decision. Recently I have observed a few incidents that were awarded RCs when I feel if cameras were present would have been mitigated down. Not all the games had the outcomes affected by the cards but some were. The RC process at this level does tend to be less flexible and at the same time subjective.
If we have the contest/game ‘spoilt’ at community level by the issuing of inappropriate RCs we are going to have less interest in the game and fewer people wanting to get involved. I can see the 20 minute RC being of benefit here. Can we have different levels of RC for different levels of the game or even different levels of offence? I can see a difference between a deliberate stamp to the head and a mistimed tackle that does make head contact. The former should not be ‘rewarded’ with a replacement, the latter possibly. Probably referees would not want this responsibility.

 

[tim White]

Sadly another situation where TV is driving the game. Still I expect they will want to do something about the scrum feed or we will end up with no scrum at all which is no good for the players of sizes and shapes at community level. No community game = no professional game in ten years time.

 

[Decorily]

Still I expect they will want to do something about the scrum feed ......

Do something about the current CBS sequence also and remove the need for a 'gap' on bind!

 

[Ian_Cook]

A-fuckn-men.
dont want a red card? dont be a twat.

The problem with that Dixpat, is that red cards are being handed out for the result of minor misjudgments and timing errors more often than for "dumb shit" or "being a twat". As Balones correctly points out, tired players are also more likely to make bad judgements and timing errors, so reducing the number of replacements could actually make things worse.

For some time I have advocated for WR to completely rewrite Law 9, and divide it into three sections, and then to introduce a Black Card

Unfair play: Play that is not dangerous, which is done by players to gain an advantage (e.g. repeated infringements, intentional knock-ons, time wasting etc...

Dangerous Play: Anything in the normal course of playing the game, and is a normal, legal part of the game, but that is done dangerously, for example, high and late tackles, tackles without the ball etc

Malicious Play: Any act that is not part of normal game play, which is or could be construed as, an intentional attempt to injure an opponent, e.g. punching, stamping, biting, kicking, eye-gouging, bag-snatching, hair pulling etc.

Then, the cards would be
Yellow: Player is suspended from the game for 10 minutes after which they can return to the field.
Red: Player is removed permanently from the game, but can be subsitituted after 20 minutes.
Black: Player is removed permanently from the game and cannot be replaced.

Acts of Malicious Play should draw much more severe sanctions than Dangerous Play and should be the only acts for which a player can be given a Black Card, although Referees should still be within their rights to decide that an act of Dangerous Play was intentional and so recklass as to rule it Malicious Play.

 

[Balones]

The problem with that Dixpat, is that red cards are being handed out for the result of minor misjudgments and timing errors more often than for "dumb shit" or "being a twat". As Balones correctly points out, tired players are also more likely to make bad judgements and timing errors, so reducing the number of replacements could actually make things worse.

For some time I have advocated for WR to completely rewrite Law 9, and divide it into three sections, and then to introduce a Black Card

Unfair play: Play that is not dangerous, which is done by players to gain an advantage (e.g. repeated infringements, intentional knock-ons, time wasting etc...

Dangerous Play: Anything in the normal course of playing the game, and is a normal, legal part of the game, but that is done dangerously, for example, high and late tackles, tackles without the ball etc

Malicious Play: Any act that is not part of normal game play, which is or could be construed as, an intentional attempt to injure an opponent, e.g. punching, stamping, biting, kicking, eye-gouging, bag-snatching, hair pulling etc.

Then, the cards would be
Yellow: Player is suspended from the game for 10 minutes after which they can return to the field.
Red: Player is removed permanently from the game, but can be subsitituted after 20 minutes.
Black: Player is removed permanently from the game and cannot be replaced.

Acts of Malicious Play should draw much more severe sanctions than Dangerous Play and should be the only acts for which a player can be given a Black Card, although Referees should still be within their rights to decide that an act of Dangerous Play was intentional and so recklass as to rule it Malicious Play.

That’s the sort of approach I was suggesting, but not in so much detail. No process or sanction is ever straightforward in our game but we won‘t know if something is better until we try it.

 

[didds]

it wasn't dixpat it was me, but e.g. if players continue to run in upright into a "tackle" then they risk a red card. It has to be a conscious decision as its been a case for years now that no mitigation and head contact with force is a red card. Nobody is ignorant of the repercussions.

 

[Volun-selected]

I agree with @didds on the repercussions - we need to think about the players on the other end of the offense.

Was talking with a coach who was concerned about how a RC in an early match would take the player out for the whole tourney and “would ruin the whole 2 days for them” … at which point I asked how he felt about a kid on the other side losing 2 weeks or more to concussion protocols?

We have RC for a reason.

 

[Balones]

I don’t think anyone is against RCs. We all want the game to be safer and correct techniques to be encouraged by their appropriate application. I think the top end of the game is lucky enough to have TMOs and replays etc to enforce the fair application and a degree of consistency of the laws which the community game doesn’t. I have some support for trialling the 20 minute RC because in my role I see (and can remember) too many cards, of various colours, for my liking, that are inappropriately awarded because the community referee has to make a judgement on what they thought they saw in a split second. I do appreciate that this can work both ways. I.E. a card should have been issued when it wasn’t.
One’s position on such things as a change or a trial of laws is always based on one’s own experiences. I take the opinion that a 20 min RC should be trialled simply because it will provide more information for us. We can’t say it is a good or bad thing until we have more data.

 

[didds]

thats very fair Balones. And indeed - a trial is a worthy thing because it provides the opportunity to ditch the idea as well as embrace it CF lineout numbers.
But the trial also has to be trialled across multiple strata/levels... CF chest line tackles etc but only in the community game, when it is the elite game where I perceive the issue of upright head contact tackles really exists.

 

[Dickie E]

What is the downside to the 20 minute red card? Do some think that it will encourage foul play?

 

[Balones]

What is the downside to the 20 minute red card? Do some think that it will encourage foul play?

Doesn’t sufficiently punish outright thuggery? E.G. select a player to take out the game winning goal kicker?
Just a thought off the cuff.