Global Law Trials

[crossref]

defender = member of the team not in possession? Not officially defined but a reasonable understanding

Yes indeed, and defending team is generally used to mean the same thing

 

[thepercy]

Re: The Times - new laws

Have to assume so, we were discussing it at training tonight (Level 6/7 standard players) and no one could realistically see how you’d be hitting the lower legs with a legitimate clear out, you had to be in at the side, or maybe driving across in such a way that’s going to paint a similar picture

The gator roll where the clearer-outer lands on the jacklers leg?

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't think in practice you'd call a maul immediately, you'd let a dynamic situation breath for a few seconds to see if it could be a tackle.

I think the latched player is entitled to the space and wouldn't be obstructing unless they changed their line to make contact with a potential tackler.

Not accordiong to the Law Lords who answered this in a question about sacking in a lineout.

 

[thepercy]

Yes indeed, and defending team is generally used to mean the same thing

Generally, except in rugby where it is differently defined, do keep up.

 

[Dickie E]

Not accordiong to the Law Lords who answered this in a question about sacking in a lineout.

not sure what law Lords said and in what context but thepercy's comment makes sense. Otherwise a ball carrier and latched team mate could never be tackled without collapsing a maul

 

[Flish]

Re: The Times - new laws

The gator roll where the clearer-outer lands on the jacklers leg?

Is that covered here though (I’m not sure what the example videos are saying when they talk about levering, is this ok or not?) as a croc roll doesn’t target or directly put weight on the lower limbs (first video example) but it can end up causing an injury (the white v blue example) where the roller (unintentionally) landed on whites legs while attempting to roll - are they saying that’s a penalty now?

Not clear to me where they are going with croc rolls, would have been easier to directly discourage if that was the intention I think

 

[crossref]

I think we are all making the same point
"Defending" is defined as being in your own half
Yet in practice is most often used to mean "not in possession"

 

[SimonSmith]

not sure what law Lords said and in what context but thepercy's comment makes sense. Otherwise a ball carrier and latched team mate could never be tackled without collapsing a maul

3. During a lineout, the players who won the ball from a maul but no opponent goes to join this group of players.
a. Does this group of players constitute a maul?
b. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
c. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?

3. (a) It is not a maul by definition.
3. (b) Yes
3. (c) Yes otherwise it is obstruction

Interpretations after that were that a tacklle under the waist constituted a tackle and not a mul (by definition). Binding above the waist would create the maul (again, by definition)

Clarification 9 of 2006

 

[Phil E]

Interesting question posed in another forum:

Does the 50/22 law apply to kickoffs/restart kicks that go indirectly into touch inside the 22?

The answer has to be yes because there is no provision in the new law quoted to exempt kick off's and restarts (as there is in some of the other new law wording).

 

[Jz558]

The answer has to be yes because there is no provision in the new law quoted to exempt kick off's and restarts (as there is in some of the other new law wording).

Which neatly allows for several recent threads to be tied together. It therefore seems sensible for the referee to position him/herself on the half-way line for the restart, rather than a point where the ball may be expected to land so that they can judge whether the ball, but not necessarily the kicker's feet, was over the plane of the half-way line in order to decide whether the 50-22 law applies should the ball go indirectly to touch in the defending sides 22 from the kick-off. Glad that's cleared all that up then!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Deleted

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I've asked the question as to whether this applies to the age grade laws in RFU land as normally we take U19 laws and uphold them unless specifically told different. The WR site just says 'All Competitions', although there is a suggestion that the RFU can cherry pick which bits to trial.

I have no problems with the 50:22 in junior rugby if they can pull it off, but I don't think the problems the other trials are trying to prevent exist there, and it may create new ones, so hoping they are not applied.

Full laws apply unless there is a variation to vary them. Unless the U19 law prohibit croc rolls them they are legal at U19.

Where is the suggestion that unions can "cherry pick"?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So, just a couple of quick ones on the 3 or more players being pre bound.

Does the to be ball carrier count as 1 of the 3? Or is it just the players bound to him?
I'm also guessing the the 3 players can bind once the ball has been received. Meaning all the attackers need to do is stay very close and bind (before contact), just after the ball is received. Making the Law change moot as we'll have the same result... 3 players (or more) bound together charging through to the defensive line.

Or am I missing something.

If three players bind onto one player you have 4 players being pre bound.

 

[Flish]

Full laws apply unless there is a variation to vary them. Unless the U19 law prohibit croc rolls them they are legal at U19.

Where is the suggestion that unions can "cherry pick"?

Past experience mostly, age grade coaches generally aren't aware of law changes until communicated via their channels, and whilst I can't recall specific examples I'm sure there were cases in other trials that didn't apply to age grade, at least not till fully adopted. I've also seen one or two posts from other more senior than me figures on the scene suggesting hold fire until communicated, eg;

"Age Grade implementation will be determined by individual Unions... "

We also have the Covid situation in RFU land where age grade progression in September has been delayed (My U14s become U15s in September, however they will play U14 laws until January in order for them to be given the opportunity to train, play, and learn that progression without skipping a year) so I would be surprised if they then throw something else in new too.

Tile will tell, and I know the WR page leaked early, but noticeably no communication from the RFU on the topic yet.

 

[Phil E]

Past experience mostly, age grade coaches generally aren't aware of law changes until communicated via their channels, and whilst I can't recall specific examples I'm sure there were cases in other trials that didn't apply to age grade, at least not till fully adopted. I've also seen one or two posts from other more senior than me figures on the scene suggesting hold fire until communicated, eg;

"Age Grade implementation will be determined by individual Unions... "

We also have the Covid situation in RFU land where age grade progression in September has been delayed (My U14s become U15s in September, however they will play U14 laws until January in order for them to be given the opportunity to train, play, and learn that progression without skipping a year) so I would be surprised if they then throw something else in new too.

Tile will tell, and I know the WR page leaked early, but noticeably no communication from the RFU on the topic yet.

Spanner in works alert.....you have seen the Age Grade adapted laws that are to be used in age grade rugby games from 7th August until 4 September? These have been published in the latest Community Game Update but are still TBC.

If you haven't seen them or want to discuss them best to start a new thread.

 

[Flish]

Spanner in works alert.....you have seen the Age Grade adapted laws that are to be used in age grade rugby games from 7th August until 4 September? These have been published in the latest Community Game Update but are still TBC.

If you haven't seen them or want to discuss them best to start a new thread.

Ha, yes, I have seen, and asked - and got confused looks! No one at my club has any fixtures planned and keeping August as traditional pre-season training so I'm not advertising the option! I'll worry about it if I get asked to ref them

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Spanner in works alert.....you have seen the Age Grade adapted laws that are to be used in age grade rugby games from 7th August until 4 September? These have been published in the latest Community Game Update but are still TBC.

If you haven't seen them or want to discuss them best to start a new thread.

It gets more confused.

 

[Camquin]

JZ558 - when was the last time you saw a kicker actually take the kick behind the mark.
So of course the ball was ahead of the half way line.
So when it goes indirectly into touch in the 22, you award line-out to the defending side.
If they are awake, they ask if that means the kick was taken in their half.
When you say yes, they opt for the scrum on halfway.

 

[Jz558]

JZ558 - when was the last time you saw a kicker actually take the kick behind the mark.
So of course the ball was ahead of the half way line.
So when it goes indirectly into touch in the 22, you award line-out to the defending side.
If they are awake, they ask if that means the kick was taken in their half.
When you say yes, they opt for the scrum on halfway.

Dont worry Camquin, it wasn't meant as a serious comment but as recent threads had covered referee positioning at KO and restarts, trying to judge whether a ball had crossed the plane of the goal line from 30 meters away following a kick downfield and the new 50:22 law it made me laugh. I just couldnt work out a way to get in awarding a penalty try during the kick off whilst running away from the subsequent punch-up.

 

[thepercy]

The answer has to be yes because there is no provision in the new law quoted to exempt kick off's and restarts (as there is in some of the other new law wording).

Do you think this was purposefully done or done by accidental omission?