Additional Trials - Law 16 'Breakdown'

[Rich_NL]

Which existing problem(s) is this meant to solve?

 

[crossref]

don't forget everyone, this is only an additional closed trial -- not a global trial and certainly not a definitive new Law

 

[Ian_Cook]

Which existing problem(s) is this meant to solve?

Well, I agree with Marauder's comment earlier in the thread. I think this is an attempt to deal with the practice we saw last season of defenders intentionally not forming a ruck so that the lack of an offside line allows them to defend in the faces of the opposition.

 

[crossref]

Well, I agree with Marauder's comment earlier in the thread. I think this is an attempt to deal with the practice we saw last season of defenders intentionally not forming a ruck so that the lack of an offside line allows them to defend in the faces of the opposition.

i agree,
but the impact will surely be that once the defensive line is borken, the attacking team will create an offside line at every tackle, and render all the opponents immediately offside lazy runners .. unable to intervene as the ball is then played

 

[Dixie]

Thanks. You may be right but the 'breakdown' aiui replaces the ruck.....

How can the breakdown replace a ruck when, under the law governing a Breakdown, we see this:

[LAWS]3. Offside line at a ruck is the back foot + 1 metre. If the back foot of the hindmost
player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal
line. To be policed by AR’s (New 16.5 (a) – Offside [/LAWS]

There is a conflict here with the 7th paragraph:

[LAWS] 7. The breakdown ends when the ball emerges or the ball is picked up (New 16.6 – Successful end to a breakdown) [/LAWS]

It is a reasonable assumption that the 12 year-old youth trainee delegated to draft this incorrectly allowed the word "Ruck" to slip into the definition of a new Law 16 covering only Breakdown, and that rucks will no longer exist. Of course, as there is now no concept of an "unsuccessful end to what previously would have been called a ruck", if a ball does not emerge and can't be picked up by the halfback, we are in the realms of a restart after any other stoppage - Law 20.4(d):

[LAWS]d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

I think I can live with that, but it seems to benefit only the "attacking team". We also have to consider what happens when the defending team gets there first - which will surely be the norm. Presumably, if they all huddle over the ball in a strong stance, we are still in the tackle phase - and the defenders must therefore respect the gate, while attackers need not (or does the first attacker have to enter via the gate, as only by arriving in the tackle zone can he form a Breakdown?).

Another ill-considered point (assuming that the offside line is not half-way up the Breakdown) is what happens if the hindmost foot of the breakdown is within 1m of the goal line. I'm going to guess they don't want to force the defence to line up behind the goal line rather than along it, but as written they only get to come forward to the goal line when the back foot actually touches or crosses it. Very poor - why can't the law makers think of this stuff before promulgating it?

I suspect that this is an attempt to head off the 'no ruck' development last year.

Maybe - but perhaps it's also a realisation that the ruck is simply too complicated as currently constituted

 

[crossref]

The press release makes it pretty clear that these are after-thought last minute trials. I think the poor drafting reflects that.
I expect that by the time these trials are actually held, the wording will have been tightened up..

 

[ChrisR]

I expect that by the time these trials are actually held, the wording will have been tightened up..

Before the trial starts the changes need to be expressed as law modifications otherwise there will be total chaos. I can only hope that exercise will generate a period of thought that will shake out some of the questions.

Not holding my breath.

 

[Dixie]

The press release makes it pretty clear that these are after-thought last minute trials. I think the poor drafting reflects that.
I expect that by the time these trials are actually held, the wording will have been tightened up..

Crossref, I don't disagree that the wording will be tightened up, but I can't see where you get the idea that this was a last-minute afterthought. I took this message from the press release, indicating that the WR considers this to be a highly considered package that has received thorough review and analysis:

2016 will also see a programme of closed law trials begin in earnest as World Rugby’s quadrennial law review process continues in 2016.

Every four years, rugby’s governing body undertakes a complete health-check of the game’s playing trends across the Rugby World Cup cycle to ensure that the sport continues to develop at all levels around the world. This extensive process is undertaken with full union consultation and has player welfare, game simplification and fan experience at its core.

The implementation of the package of law trials and law amendments by World Rugby Council, follows detailed analysis and evaluation of union submissions by the specialist Law Review Group (LRG) which reports to the Rugby Committee. This evaluation process also featured specialist input from the Scrum Steering Group (SSG) and the Multi-Disciplinary Injury Prevention Group (MDIPG) over the past year and is the next phase of the law change process.

 

[crossref]

Crossref, I don't disagree that the wording will be tightened up, but I can't see where you get the idea that this was a last-minute afterthought. I took this message from the press release, indicating that the WR considers this to be a highly considered package that has received thorough review and analysis:

because the press release says

2016 closed trials recap

With the closed law trials kicking-off in Wales and Australia in August with the Principality Cup and National Rugby Championship respectively, 2016 will see other tournaments follow, including a number of World Rugby competitions, namely the Pacific Challenge Cup (March), U20 Trophy (April), Nations Cup (June) and Tbilisi Cup (June), providing valuable data from players, coaches and match officials for the LRG to consider.

VIEW THE FULL LIST OF LAW TRIALS HERE >>

But the "full list" of law trials does NOT include the trials to Laws 15,16,17 !

The reason for that can be found later in the Press Release

At the original LRG meeting the members agreed that Laws 15-17 (Tackle, Ruck and Maul) needed further consideration. All Unions were asked to further consider any potential trials with their Unions. As a result the LRG met again and agreed to trial the following elements of the game, the full list of which can be found HERE.

IE the trials to 15, 16, 17 are - while perhaps not an afterthought - certainly second thoughts. And they are documented in a different way, without using the useful table format the the others are in. They look more rushed to me.

The most odd thing of all is the way it refers to "Law 16 - Breakdown" with no word of explanation.

 

[menace]

How can the breakdown replace a ruck when, under the law governing a Breakdown, we see this:

[LAWS]3. Offside line at a ruck is the back foot + 1 metre. If the back foot of the hindmost
player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal
line. To be policed by AR’s (New 16.5 (a) – Offside [/LAWS]

There is a conflict here with the 7th paragraph:

[LAWS] 7. The breakdown ends when the ball emerges or the ball is picked up (New 16.6 – Successful end to a breakdown) [/LAWS]

It is a reasonable assumption that the 12 year-old youth trainee delegated to draft this incorrectly allowed the word "Ruck" to slip into the definition of a new Law 16 covering only Breakdown, and that rucks will no longer exist. Of course, as there is now no concept of an "unsuccessful end to what previously would have been called a ruck", if a ball does not emerge and can't be picked up by the halfback, we are in the realms of a restart after any other stoppage - Law 20.4(d):

[LAWS]d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

I think I can live with that, but it seems to benefit only the "attacking team". We also have to consider what happens when the defending team gets there first - which will surely be the norm. Presumably, if they all huddle over the ball in a strong stance, we are still in the tackle phase - and the defenders must therefore respect the gate, while attackers need not (or does the first attacker have to enter via the gate, as only by arriving in the tackle zone can he form a Breakdown?).

Another ill-considered point (assuming that the offside line is not half-way up the Breakdown) is what happens if the hindmost foot of the breakdown is within 1m of the goal line. I'm going to guess they don't want to force the defence to line up behind the goal line rather than along it, but as written they only get to come forward to the goal line when the back foot actually touches or crosses it. Very poor - why can't the law makers think of this stuff before promulgating it?

Maybe - but perhaps it's also a realisation that the ruck is simply too complicated as currently constituted

I assume you're questioning WR wording and not my assumption that the ruck is now replaced with the 'breakdown'?? But for the record I made that assertion from

1. A breakdown commences when at least one player from the attacking team is on their
feet and over the ball which is on the ground (Tackled player, tackler + 1). At this
point the offside line is created. (New definition)

Not to mention its law 16....which is currently the ruck law.
Perhaps my assertion was wrong?

Ps. I think I'm going to give up trying to understand the new trial laws until they've been trialled and come into effect....the lack of clarity is doing my head in!

 

[crossref]

Ps. I think I'm going to give up trying to understand the new trial laws until they've been trialled and come into effect....the lack of clarity is doing my head in!

we should probably have two different sections on this site

1- Law questions -- about understanding intepreting and applying the current Laws
2- Law speculation -- about Law trials and ideas for new Laws

 

[Dixie]

we should probably have two different sections on this site

1- Law questions -- about understanding intepreting and applying the current Laws
2- Law speculation -- about Law trials and ideas for new Laws

I'm not sure that's required - this thread is in a section entitled Law Changes. If we were discussing current law (even if recently changed), I'd expect the discussion to be located in the relevant section.

 

[crossref]

SAReferees.com are under the impression that this new Law 16 is currently being trialled in the english premiership.

I don't think that is correct ... but who knows?

here's the article
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-hands-down/2830577/

 

[Ian_Cook]

SAReferees.com are under the impression that this new Law 16 is currently being trialled in the english premiership.

I don't think that is correct ... but who knows?

here's the article
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-hands-down/2830577/

Crossref, I don't quite read it like that. I think they know its not being trialled, its just that the pre RWC2015 instruction looks very similar to this "breakdown" law in the aspect of hands on the ground.

Players jackling for the ball have, for some time now, been penalised if they put their hands in the ground beyond the ball and then tried to sweep up the ball all in one motion. This action has been ruled as going off your feet, on the basis stated in Law 15.6 (a).."Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground".

However, for the last couple of years, we have seen players (usually team-mates of the tackled player) arrive at the tackle, stepping astride the ball to protect it, and leaning forward with their hand or hands on the ground, enabling them to brace lower and be more difficult to clean out. The tackle Law is not clear in this regard.

[LAWS]15.6 (a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.[/LAWS]
.....this Law is silent on players at the tackle who are not attempting to play the ball, and so far we have not penalised these players, however...

[LAWS]15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal
line.[/LAWS]
.....this Law is silent on players entering the tackle who are not attempting to play the ball, but nonetheless, we PK them for side entry/not entering through the gate.

I see no reason not to extend the requirement for players at the tackle to stay on their feet and apply "players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground" as the gold standard for that judgement.

As for the offside calls in the Sarries v Tigers match, I haven't seen any of the game, so I can't judge whether they were rucks when the offside calls were made, but I would say that since, under current laws, the tackle is not a "phase" play, then it is General Play, and the ball is the offside line. Its a bit of a stretch, but stepping past the ball and putting hands on the ground in front of it could be construed as offside.

 

[crossref]

the article says

But now there are experiments that pertain to how rugby is played in England's Premiership. One of those is the introduction of the breakdown - a new idea and defined.

so far as I am aware there are no trials or experiments in the premiership, which is being played the Laws in the book.

having said that, no doubt the referees have been given guidelines and interpretations to ref to.

 

[didds]

the article says


the premiership, which is being played the Laws in the book..

Really? that'll be a first!

Does that include straight put ins?

didds