2019 Law Book available for download

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,408
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
....from the WR website

It appears to have an extra two pages of content (looking at the last page number).
It states that any 2019 changes are highlighted in green, but a quick scan shows very few of these, so without comparing it line by line I can't see where the two extra pages have come from?

Nice little job for CR? :wink:

2019 download.jpg
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
Offside at the Ruck 15.4
They have changed it to bring it in line with Offside at the tackle

So the Offside line is the nearest part of the body of any player in the ruck (ie from either team)

Previously it was the hindmost foot of the player on your own team


Was that change made quickly as a result of the England v New Zealand Courtney Lawes decision ?
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
this is highlighted as new

[LAWS]19.30. Once play in the scrum begins, the scrum-half of the team not in possession :
a. Takes up a position with both feet behind the ball and close to the scrum but not in
the space between the flanker and the number eight or[/LAWS]

so brings into Law what we have been applying for a while
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
and this is an interesting change in the U19 regulations -- important for everyone reffing kids

[LAWS]U19 VARIATON 19.6.b When a team is reduced to fewer than 15 for any reason, the number of players in
each team in the scrum must be similarly reduced.[/LAWS]

Previously that said "may" be reduced.

So that ends all the discussions we have had about reducing scrum numbers nd whether it depended on whether a forward or a back left the pitch. Going forward 14 players always means seven in the scrum...
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
Other changes - or corrections perhaps - have been made to the Law Book without being highlighted - Boo !

So we have a new Law
[LAWS]18.25. Opposition players must not block the throw. Sanction: Free-kick.[/LAWS]
and subsequent Laws within Law 18 are renumbered to make room for it.

That Law was, of course, accidentally omitted from the 2018 book, and now happily reinstated in 2019


Interestingly, this new wording settles another long running argument / ambiguity
- opposition player blocks the throw = FK
- player from own team blocks the throw = option (LO or scrum)

So it's not just a re-instatement, it's actually (depending on how you reffed it before) a change.
 
Last edited:

PeteTheMeat

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
6
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete
 

PeteTheMeat

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
6
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
and this is an interesting change in the U19 regulations -- important for everyone reffing kids

[LAWS]U19 VARIATON 19.6.b When a team is reduced to fewer than 15 for any reason, the number of players in
each team in the scrum must be similarly reduced.[/LAWS]

Previously that said "may" be reduced.

So that ends all the discussions we have had about reducing scrum numbers nd whether it depended on whether a forward or a back left the pitch. Going forward 14 players always means seven in the scrum...

Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete
 

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete

Yes. The RFU has mandated this for a while, and I guess that WR is bringing all Unions into 'line' (couldn't think of a more appropriate word.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
Yes. The RFU has mandated this for a while, and I guess that WR is bringing all Unions into 'line' (couldn't think of a more appropriate word.

Have they ?
I thought it has been as ambiguous as ever , up to now ?
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete

That's fine until there are uncontested scrums when you are back to 8 v 8!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
So , as noted in the quick tap thread - another UNHIGHLIGHTED change smuggled into the 2019 book .. a significant change to wording of 10.4.c , which requires all players offside in general play to RETIRE until put onside by a team mate
 

mcroker

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
362
Post Likes
113
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
So , as noted in the quick tap thread - another UNHIGHLIGHTED change smuggled into the 2019 book .. a significant change to wording of 10.4.c , which requires all players offside in general play to RETIRE until put onside by a team mate

10.4.c is the 10m rule (for kicks) - that always required a player to retire to an imaginary line across the field 10 meters from where the ball lands.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
10.4.c is the 10m rule (for kicks) - that always required a player to retire to an imaginary line across the field 10 meters from where the ball lands.
Historical footnote: many years ago (probably the 60s) it was legal to run towards an opponent waiting for a kick as long as you stopped 10 yards away.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
See with the reduction of numbers in the scrum - would this not only apply if there were 7 forwards on the field? EG Red gets yellow/red card to Flanker. Blue has to reduce the number in the scrum too. Red gets yellow/red card to back, scrums stay 8 v 8 as there is no imbalance in numbers for scrums.???
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
See with the reduction of numbers in the scrum - would this not only apply if there were 7 forwards on the field? EG Red gets yellow/red card to Flanker. Blue has to reduce the number in the scrum too. Red gets yellow/red card to back, scrums stay 8 v 8 as there is no imbalance in numbers for scrums.???

That's how it was (mostly ) reffed up until last week.
The 2019 change is that in both cases the scrum goes down to 7

.. unless it's uncontested in which case in both cases it's eight again
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Historical footnote: many years ago (probably the 60s) it was legal to run towards an opponent waiting for a kick as long as you stopped 10 yards away.

Thugby League kept that one in their rules.
 

Shelflife


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
645
Post Likes
176
That's how it was (mostly ) reffed up until last week.
The 2019 change is that in both cases the scrum goes down to 7

.. unless it's uncontested in which case in both cases it's eight again

Whats the logic behind this ? Why cause disruption to the scrum because a back has been YC ?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
Whats the logic behind this ? Why cause disruption to the scrum because a back has been YC ?

I suspect the logic is to deny the team with 14 the decision on whether the play with seven or eight in the scrum (which they sort of could do by making substitution to take off or bring on a forward
 
Top