[Law] Law Book cut in half

[The Fat]

Full review of the Law book looks to be going full steam ahead

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...y-50-per-cent-to-make-it-easier-to-understand

 

[Phil E]

Why is it that NZ seem to be driving and announcing this?
Why aren't World Rugby announcing this?
Tail wagging dog?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Why is it that NZ seem to be driving and announcing this?
Why aren't World Rugby announcing this?
Tail wagging dog?

I read about this on Friday/Saturday, here

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/rmurphy/england-opposed-law-change-redefine-ruck/


Why is it that England seem to be driving and announcing this?
Why aren't World Rugby announcing this?
Tail wagging dog?

The reality is that this has been in the wind for about 18 months.

Two of the changes are good ones IMO

1. The tackler will lose his right to play the ball from any direction. He will have to go through the gate other players. (this is an idea a suggested here a coupe of years ago; the referee would no longer have to remember who is and who is not a tackler)

2. Only one player (attacker or defender) will be needed to form a ruck. So as soon as a jackler arrives and goes for the ball, a ruck is formed and offside lines appear (It will put a stop to the business that happened in England v Italy this last 6N). Not sure where these offside lines would be, the jackler's hindmost feet would be his teams, perhaps a line across the field passing through the back (entry) of the opponent's gate?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Law Book cut in half

Which half are they going to keep?

 

[Dickie E]

1. The tackler will lose his right to play the ball from any direction. He will have to go through the gate other players. (this is an idea a suggested here a coupe of years ago; the referee would no longer have to remember who is and who is not a tackler)

the upside (apart from referee memory) is that there will be less issue with tackler getting to his feet and taking up space on the 'wrong' side of the ruck

the downside is that there will be less propensity for the tackler to go to ground as he will be completely out of the game. Tacklers staying on their feet/higher may lead to more mauls/maul turnovers, lifting tackles and/or high tackles.

 

[_antipodean_]

2. Only one player (attacker or defender) will be needed to form a ruck. So as soon as a jackler arrives and goes for the ball, a ruck is formed and offside lines appear (It will put a stop to the business that happened in England v Italy this last 6N). Not sure where these offside lines would be, the jackler's hindmost feet would be his teams, perhaps a line across the field passing through the back (entry) of the opponent's gate?

I'm not sure I like this. League got rid of the distinction between tackles and rucks.

the downside is that there will be less propensity for the tackler to go to ground as he will be completely out of the game. Tacklers staying on their feet/higher may lead to more mauls/maul turnovers, lifting tackles and/or high tackles.

The tackled player has to still be on their feet to have a maul. If it was as easy to keep a player in possession off the ground, it would happen more frequently.

 

[didds]

2. Only one player (attacker or defender) will be needed to form a ruck. So as soon as a jackler arrives and goes for the ball, a ruck is formed and offside lines appear (It will put a stop to the business that happened in England v Italy this last 6N). Not sure where these offside lines would be, the jackler's hindmost feet would be his teams, perhaps a line across the field passing through the back (entry) of the opponent's gate?

This will be the interesting one for me - seeing what coaches and players come up with to best benefit from it. I'm not personally entirely convinced - the offside at a tackle was dropped because as I predicted (amongst others!) it wold make a line break almost impossible to defend. This is just none stage removed - a line break with eventiual tackle (full back) creates an offside line merely by a suppoorter arriving and taking up position over the ball. It wold mean it needs probably three players to effect ir rather than the previous two to be fair. But its still the same scenario.

Q: 15 makes a line break and is tackled by 15. 12 in support stands over the ball - ruck formed. Presumably the same player can now step backwards (ruck over) and pick up the ball (the offside line from that ruck still exists however for retiring defenders.) ??

didds

 

[didds]

Possible derail:

I don't have an issue with that Italian tactic. The "problems" surrounding it were it was the only tactic Italy had, and England were initially too stupid to think of a solution... and Poite struggled at times himself to work it out. As part of a (possible) overall defensive plan I think its very valid option.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

And this touted law change in itself has contributed to cut the size of the law book by how much?

 

[leaguerefaus]

No need to cut it in half - someone else has already done this for you https://playnrl.com/media/2363/arl-rules-book-2017-copy3-spc-1171219.pdf

 

[OB..]

Possible derail:

I don't have an issue with that Italian tactic. The "problems" surrounding it were it was the only tactic Italy had, and England were initially too stupid to think of a solution... and Poite struggled at times himself to work it out. As part of a (possible) overall defensive plan I think its very valid option.

didds

Agreed.

Did it achieve anything significant? No.
Did England capitalise on the player(s) out of position? Yes.
Is it likely to be used again? No.

 

[didds]

Agreed.

Did it achieve anything significant? No.
Did England capitalise on the player(s) out of position? Yes.
Is it likely to be used again? No.

I don't know that the tactic will never be used again (aside form these law changes making it impossible .


* it was significant ... for about 30 minutes
* England eventually capitalised - but it took them half an hour to do so
* As an occasional "throw it into the mix" tactic I think it has value - to keep attacking sides thinking. The Chiefs (? IIRC) used it in very specific circumstances (restarts and kick offs) and it was fairly effective.

As discussed in the original thread here, Italy were too naive themselves. That doesn't make the tactic ineffective overall.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

I read about this on Friday/Saturday, here

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/rmurphy/england-opposed-law-change-redefine-ruck/

The original link is a confusing article, conflating two separate stories - the streamlining of the law book, and global trials of new laws. The thread title refers only to the first, Pundit Arena article only to the second.

Regardless of the benefits or otherwise of a "cleaner" tackle/ruck situation, I think everyone would welcome a sensible and elegant pruning of the law book as it stands.

 

[_antipodean_]

Is it likely to be used again? No.

Not sure how you can say that with any confidence given it had been used prior to that match. The only thing we can say with any confidence is such an eventuality won't happen again if the law as reported gets amended.

 

[OB..]

I don't know that the tactic will never be used again (aside form these law changes making it impossible .


* it was significant ... for about 30 minutes
* England eventually capitalised - but it took them half an hour to do so
* As an occasional "throw it into the mix" tactic I think it has value - to keep attacking sides thinking. The Chiefs (? IIRC) used it in very specific circumstances (restarts and kick offs) and it was fairly effective.

As discussed in the original thread here, Italy were too naive themselves. That doesn't make the tactic ineffective overall.

didds

Crusaders? Was it used in more than one match? The counter is now known, so a one-off occasional disruption is all it might achieve.

 

[didds]

a one-off occasional disruption is all it might achieve.

which was of course my initial point above.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm not sure I like this. League got rid of the distinction between tackles and rucks.

Well, not quite. In league a tackle takes place when..

(a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
comes into contact with the ground.

(b) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further
progress and cannot part with the ball.

(c) when, being held by an opponent, the player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play the ball.

(d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent already grounded places a hand on him.

I'm not personally entirely convinced - the offside at a tackle was dropped because as I predicted (amongst others!) it wold make a line break almost impossible to defend. This is just none stage removed - a line break with eventual tackle (full back) creates an offside line merely by a supporter arriving and taking up position over the ball. It wold mean it needs probably three players to effect ir rather than the previous two to be fair. But its still the same scenario

The abandoned ELV was offside at the tackle. The current ruck requires two players from opposing teams to form a ruck, this is halfway between... I don't think there is anywhere else to go with it if this won't work.

I don't have a great deal of sympathy with the "unable to defend a clean break" scenario. The way to deal with that is don't concede clean breaks!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Crusaders? Was it used in more than one match? The counter is now known, so a one-off occasional disruption is all it might achieve.

Chiefs use the tactic frequently across the whole season, once or twice in a game, and as didds correctly noted, mostly at restart kicks when the play is largely unstructured.

 

[Treadmore]

The abandoned ELV was offside at the tackle. The current ruck requires two players from opposing teams to form a ruck, this is halfway between... I don't think there is anywhere else to go with it if this won't work.

I don't have a great deal of sympathy with the "unable to defend a clean break" scenario. The way to deal with that is don't concede clean breaks!

But the current ruck law involves competing for the ball and thus slowing down play (most likely), giving more time to react to the creation of the offside lines. The new proposal will allow the creation of (almost) instant offside lines at a tackle and seems closer to the tackle ELV than current ruck practice.

I'm not sure what problem the proposal is trying to fix.

 

[crossref]

I suspect it's a knee jerk reaction to the England Italy game ?

I agree, though, I can't see why its needed