January 2025 changes on the way

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,643
Post Likes
529
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,315
Post Likes
1,964
page not found for that link?
it isnt a full link - the URL has the dots in it
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,315
Post Likes
1,964
arent these old changes? or were they trials?
no issue with most of them but I personally just dont agree with
  • Play-on in uncontested lineouts: Play will continue if the ball is not thrown straight during uncontested lineouts, reducing unnecessary breaks.
I don't expect anybody to agree with me and we've been here before.

Why not just throw the ball to the receiver then and gamble the oppo don't contest.
Worst case scenario is a turn over scrummage. And down in the weeds particularly if you already know your scrummage is totally dominant that's not an issue cos you'll win it anyway.

didds
 
Last edited:

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
306
Post Likes
125
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
TV focused. Money talks....at the expense of grass roots rugby.
I'm not sure i follow this logic Phil. What is at the expense of grass roots rugby?
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
306
Post Likes
125
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Broadly, I don't mind these changes.

I haven't paid much attention to the trials already carried out, so I have a couple of queries;

The not straight lineouts - are there any limnits to the 'not-straight'? Using Didds' example - is this legal if the oppo don't jump?

30 minute limit for scrums to be set. I do like this. However, as a ref we have a lot to watch at the scrums, and checking the watch as well may be a tricky balance.
 

Shelflife


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
681
Post Likes
202
Reduced conversion time is a good idea, too many teams were taking the piss to run down the clock.

This is only a problem at elite level, if the refs simply enforced the laws as is it wouldn't be a problem. For me its too many resets at scrum time that's spoiling the game (I love a good scrum battle) but if players are infringing. make the bloody call and ping them, if they persist card them.

At lineouts teams have been told no huddles and come into the lineout, teams then go into a huddle and the ref asks them not to huddle if you don't mind ! Penalize them at first instance and neither team will do it again.

I'm not sure what to make of the mark at a kick off, I'll wait and see what comes of that.

I'm neutral on the maul, the powers that be don't like mauls and are trying to depower them. A good maul can be a thing of beauty and can need a moment to set up, i hop the refs don't call "Once" too quickly.

Not straight in the lineout ? Its not a bad idea nut as Didds said it will need clarification as to what extent not straight can be allowed. Over the top straight to the oncoming center ?

Protection of SH ? A load of shite , either scrum properly or resource the rucks/maul properly its denying the defending team the opportunity to attack a poor SH or a poorly set up ruck/maul.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,194
Post Likes
2,494
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I'm not sure i follow this logic Phil. What is at the expense of grass roots rugby?

These changes are for issues in the tv game.
Grass roots doesn't have the same issues, but has to put up with the subsequent law changes.
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
306
Post Likes
125
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
These changes are for issues in the tv game.
Grass roots doesn't have the same issues, but has to put up with the subsequent law changes.
Yes, and for the most part I would agree that these are for issues facing the TV game. My perspective though is that making these changes doesn't really cause issues with the grass roots game hence my interest in your 'at the expense of' comment. In my experience we're in a time of constant change all around us, so a few tweaks to the game's laws are not in my view, too much to put up with.

I don't see the downside with these (apart from having to look at my watch at scrum time).

BUT, I do accept that I may be missing something.
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
306
Post Likes
125
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Protection of SH ? A load of shite , either scrum properly or resource the rucks/maul properly its denying the defending team the opportunity to attack a poor SH or a poorly set up ruck/maul.
So I am sure that this will be an unpopular view, but I support this move. A poor scrum half will cause problems for those around him/her on his team anyway. It does the game no good to have the scrum halfs squashed at the back of rucks, as generally it just creates another ruck, and a mess on the ground.

I see this as helping the game to flow.

Lest anyone siggests it, I am not a former scrum half (or indeed a current one!).
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,643
Post Likes
529
So I am sure that this will be an unpopular view, but I support this move. A poor scrum half will cause problems for those around him/her on his team anyway. It does the game no good to have the scrum halfs squashed at the back of rucks, as generally it just creates another ruck, and a mess on the ground.

I see this as helping the game to flow.

Lest anyone siggests it, I am not a former scrum half (or indeed a current one!).

If a team has a poor scrumhalf, the other team should be able to take advantage of that. Tackles also create rucks and a mess on the ground, should we ban them too? It would increase free-flowing attack and high-scoring games with lots of running rugby, which seem to be the holy grail for WR ;)
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
306
Post Likes
125
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
If a team has a poor scrumhalf, the other team should be able to take advantage of that. Tackles also create rucks and a mess on the ground, should we ban them too? It would increase free-flowing attack and high-scoring games with lots of running rugby, which seem to be the holy grail for WR ;)
Should we ban tackles? Assuming that is not serious, I don't see that I explained my point of view too well.

To be clear I am not against rucks. Or tackles!

The breakdown is a very dynamic situation, as we all know. My view is that the game does not benefit from a breakdown evolving into another breakdown, if the scrum half is scragged at the back of it. Or indeed at the back of a scrum.

As a ref, there is plenty to keep an eye on at and around a breakdown, and the dynamic of one breakdown evolving into another, and possibly another is (a) not easy to referee, and (b) not much fun to play in or spectate. Just my view of course.

Don't forget that if there is a "bad" scrum half then he/she is usually bad because of a poor pass (inaccurate, slow, indecisive or all of this) and this will create the opportunity for the defending team. Just not in the same place as the last breakdown. In fact their opportunity may well be better as they are likely to be further up the pitch with less opposition players around the ball.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,510
Solutions
1
Post Likes
471
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
The not straight lineout won't be an issue ... because all teams will compete at each one - which I assume is the thinking behind it. And that aligns with reducing the impact of the subsequent maul.

Likewise the mark from kick off/restart is to keep these kicks competitive.

Fully agree with 60 secs for conversion. Hey, if the ball has been booted into the far sheep field, I'm going to be putting time off anyway.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,481
Post Likes
1,619
This is a clusterfuck.

So, a mark in the 22 from a restart.
The intention is to stop the catch/maul/boxkick crap going on.
Kicks will be shorter.
That means more contests in the air.
Nothing bad will come from that.

The extra scrum half protection is just...if your team can't protect the 9 at the breakdown or scrum, you don't deserve clean ball; you deserve scrappy ball or no ball at all. This desire to keep the ball moving for the attack is coming at the expense of skills and competition.

As Phil said, this is TV game driven.

And now for the diatribe bit:
This is the next step in the game changing because Elite referee directives, and Elite players and Coaches are fucking the game for the rest of us. If the laws were actually adhered to - and I'm going back a loooong way -the game wouldn't be the shit show that it currently is. Every law move for the sake of "spectacle" comes at the cost of something else in the game.

Poor skill sets? Don't worry, we'll change the law so that your lack of skill doesn't impact the spectacle.
Commit an act of foul play that means your team should be a player down for the rest of the game? No sweat. That might affect the spectacle though, so we'll let you be replaced.

I've been a long term contributor to rugby, not just as a referee but in Admin as well. Fuck this. Our season hasn't started yet, but I'm really starting to question if I want to. That shower of idiots of Dublin are fixing all the wrong things and calling it progress. Fuck 'em.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
3,067
Post Likes
1,029
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
arent these old changes? or were they trials?
no issue with most of them but I personally just dont agree with
  • Play-on in uncontested lineouts: Play will continue if the ball is not thrown straight during uncontested lineouts, reducing unnecessary breaks.
I don't expect anybody to agree with me and we've been here before.

Why not just throw the ball to the receiver then and gamble the oppo don't contest.
Worst case scenario is a turn over scrummage. And down in the weeds particularly if you already know your scrummage is totally dominant that's not an issue cos you'll win it anyway.

didds
They've done the trials now. The "suggestion" is to implement into the law book as changes not trials.
 
Top