First full match under the new Laws.

[PaulDG]

Level 11 pre-season friendly in pretty poor conditions. Home side won relatively easily but the constant heavy rain not made things slippery.

Line out changes, no issues. Worked well, actually.

Scrum, both sets of backs found it hard to remember to be 5m back as old habits of back foot are hard to break. I didn't penalise as both sides were doing it and it didn't appear to be malice. No issues with SH's perhaps because conditions meant getting the ball out cleanly from the scrum was pretty rare so there was no opportunity for the winning SH to take the new "out wide" option.

One incident of kick directly to touch from a pass back - accompanied by good natured heckling as the other 29 players immediately recognised what had happened!

Lots of penalties for handling on the ground, sealing in, etc. though all in all, probably not than many more overall than a normal match. I explained at the beginning of the game that rucks had to be rucks, that when I said "no hands", I really did mean it and helping back is no longer acceptable nor is deliberately sealing in the ball but again, old habits will take some killing off and in a less friendly encounter the might have been cards for repeat offending.

And hey!... A last minute try scored involving the winger who scored hitting the corner post as he touched down!!! (To comments of "bloody corner post Law" from the defenders.)

No mauls pulled down. Several were taken down by ball carriers with usual cries of "he got it down, it's our put in"..

A pretty positive start. Hopefully I can get my kit dry in time for the conference tomorrow....

 

[ex-lucy]

i had a situation where the winger went over but his legs touched the corner post ... (his foot was in touch just before anyway) ... and attacking team were adamant that "the corner post is on our side, the try should count, it doesnt matter if he touched it" ..

hmm, was this in the 'standard' on Friday?

 

[Phil E]

i had a situation where the winger went over but his legs touched the corner post ... (his foot was in touch just before anyway) ... and attacking team were adamant that "the corner post is on our side, the try should count, it doesnt matter if he touched it" ..

hmm, was this in the 'standard' on Friday?

erm.......am I missing somethign here?
They are right, it doesnt matter if he touched it (ignorong the foot on the line bit).

 

[OB..]

erm.......am I missing somethign here?
They are right, it doesnt matter if he touched it (ignorong the foot on the line bit).

How can you ignore the foot on the line?

They claimed the try should count, and they were wrong. The ELV was irrelevant.

 

[Phil E]

How can you ignore the foot on the line?

They claimed the try should count, and they were wrong. The ELV was irrelevant.

I wasn't ignoring the foot on the line, I thought Lucy was implying that (if we put the foot out to one side for a moment) that the team were wrong in their knowledge of the law about the corner post.

They were right in that in that it no longer matters if he touched the post, but wrong in the decision, as his foot was out anyway.

Confusion all round!

 

[OB..]

Saw my first live ELV match yesterday - Level 9 supposedly, but only a friendly. Easy home win 40-5.

Only one quick throw-in, which didn't really work because the defence was up fast.

One curious lineout ploy: receiver back 9 metres, and a forward standing 1 metre out of the line. Referee simply told them to sort it out, so the forward stepped back in again. It was not clear what the intention was since nothing much happened.

Otherwise, all full lineouts.

22 kicking restriction not much in evidence - no real impact.

Three mauls collapsed. Two probably just fell down, but the third was pulled down legally. Ball unplayable.

5m offside at scrums. Neither side seemed to derive any great benefit. Attack tended to meet defence on the gain line as before, though perhaps slightly wider on occasions. Everybody seemed to forget that the offside line moves if the scrum moves.

One scrum half often fooled the opposition by bending down to pick up the ball, and then delaying. The defending backs wrongly assumed the ball was out and came up fast. The sh was not dummying, so it is something they will have to adjust to.

Different restrictions on the scrum halves did not come into play.

 

[ex-lucy]

taking up PHil's confusion ...
ignoring the foot in touch and concentrating on winger's leg hitting the corner post ... would i have been correct to award a 22m drop out or should it have been a try?

i thought that it was only the base that mattered when you grounded it at the base.

 

[Toby Warren]

Ex Lucy - It would be a try - the post is no longer in touch - if the ball hits it and bounces off and remain in play it is play on. Rather like football uses corner posts now.

 

[Davet]

A player can brush against (or send flying) the corner post with leg, arm, torso or whatever. The ref doesn't care.

However if a boot (or body part) touches a single blade of whitwashed grass, then the player is in touch.

 

[ex-lucy]

so, i was wrong .. in my thinking and Phil is right.
saved by his foot in touch ...

 

[Simon Thomas]

Interesting weekend :

Saturday I assessed a Scottish Panel Ref (an ex-Hampshire member back for a couple of weeks) who did a level 5 friendly for us.

Home #6 got 'd*ckhead' of day' when he called numbers at 2nd lineout. Quiet word, rest of players' laughter subsided and smiles all round.

Couple of succesful QT, one disallowed as 2 & 2 had formed.

5m at scrum had to be enforced too often - all trying to get away with when ref was convetrating on FR battle and issues (no ARs appointed), and slow to retreat when scrum pushed back.

Two legal and effective maul collapses.

No issues with ball taken back in to 22m and no gain in ground - kicking form hand by both sides was excellent throughout (especially home #10 Kiwi import from Napier RFC, a real class player).

Biggest issues were with tighter control of bridging & sealing, and clearing out - but ref was consistent and both sides adapted quite fast. It did seem to give faster and cleaner ball overall.

Sunday was South Coast Schools U18 15-a-side tournament. Outstanding play with Wellington/Downside/Millfield/ Hampton/Windsor/Prior Park [Bath]. Portsmouth, Kings Soton and Chichester HS, as well as three top quality Welsh XVs from Glandaf, collegsirgar (Llanelli Academy) and Whitchurch.

We had full Teams of 3 appointed to each match (well done to my guys for turning out in such numbers on a wet day) who dealt with 5m offside well, and other ELVs caused little problem, except for Welsh schools who play collpased mauls at U19. Quiet word with coaches and all ok thereafter. A few minor warning re oppo thrower and receiver at 2m, but nothing else.

This was high quality rugby and we will be seeing some of these guys at the top level in a few years [ some schoolboy internationals were on show ], and collegsirgar full back with his swerves and side steps, and astute rugby brain, plus lightening speed (def sub 11sec boy) looks like the next Shame Williams (yes he was that good).

After four very fast matches, my legs had gone and as we had 9 guys to cover three pitches I stood down and just watched. After RFU and Federation ELV everyone seemed comfortable (even Deeps !) with ELVs. General consensus is that 5m offside could be an issue without Ars and if scrums get pushed more than 1.5m (max at U19 and below)

 

[Phil E]

so, i was wrong .. in my thinking and Phil is right.
saved by his foot in touch ...

The corner posts are no longer considered to be in touch-in-goal except when the ball is grounded against the post.

What this means for the Game
A try will no longer be disallowed if the ball carrier touches the corner post before grounding the ball as long as that player has not otherwise been in
touch.
A try will still be disallowed if the ball is grounded against the corner post.

If the ball hits the corner post and bounces back into the playing area, the game continues.

This Experimental Law Variation is designed to avoid tries being disallowed simply because a player has taken out the corner post. It will also serve to
simplify the role of the Television Match Official who will no longer need to discern whether the player made contact with the corner post before grounding the ball.

In my ELV lecture we were told, watch the touch line, not the post, its the line that counts. Originally they wanted the posts to be moved a meter away from the line, but left them in to aid TJ's on kicks to the corner etc. If you imagine the post is a meter out, then that explains the grounding against the post bit. If the post wasn't there it would have touched the line. Likewise with the player hitting the post, if it wasn't there it wouldn't have mad any difference.

 

[ex-lucy]

so, i got it arse about face ....

 

[Dixie]

Reffed a Hampshire side, Chineham 1st XV, in a friendly training game at Tadley with four quarters to help both sides get to grips with the ELVs. Couple of PK's for defensive backs 5m - had told #10's to organise themselves, and not expect anything from me other than a glance up to check 5m when the ball becomes available. On both occasions, back foot habits had reasserted themselves. Dick of the day award shared by the C skipper, who got himself binned for a late body check on a kicking winger, and the T loosehead, who queried why no gain in ground was awarded when a kick from the 10m line went direct to touch.

No lineout ELVs used at all, disallowed one gain in ground for a "taken back in". No legal maul collapses, though two PK's for lifting the leg in a maul. As with GP refs at Glaws and Worcester, was lenient with the YC on repeat offences at the breakdown, racking up too many PK's trying to instill an understanding of the idea of playing the game whilst on the feet.

This was billed as a L.9 game, but I thought a mid L.10 more reflected the quality of the teams. Both utilised a large squad, but the best on offer seemed low for a L.9. Any of the Hants refs care to comment on Chineham's prospects at L.9? Tadley 2's tend to struggle at this level.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Dixie

Chineham are a Hampshire 3 club, so level 11 on a good day !

They would be detroyed at level 9 (Hampshire 1) by a cricket score.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

One scrum half often fooled the opposition by bending down to pick up the ball, and then delaying. The defending backs wrongly assumed the ball was out and came up fast. The sh was not dummying, so it is something they will have to adjust to.

20.9(h) Dummying: A scrum half must not take any action to make the opponents think that the ball is out of the scrum whilst it is still in the scrum.

Does that law mean dummying only is illegal or dummying and/or taking action to make.....etc is illegal? :chin: :chin: :chin: :chin:

It strikes me that if the sh has done anything to make the opposition think it's out then the sh is in the wrong.

Oppos could say "The scrum half made me think it was out".....as an excuse for offside.

I wish I'd never started this!!!!

 

[OB..]

I would not describe doing nothing as taking action.

 

[ddjamo]

"still is still moving to me" willie nelson and toots mytals