Law review process begins

[didds]

From what i see not much is wrong.

Things that would make everybody's life "easier" would be some sort of simplified "ball in touch" rejig. I've no personal rpeference, but something that is easily understood and C&O in operation.

FKs - they are a meaningless sanction on the whole with little deterrent. Some sort of non-goal-kickable sanction (as suggested above) might be better eg gain in ground possible but not points.

Advantage-lineout possibility... eg side has PK advantage and kicks for touch successfully instead of having the PK awarded anyway, has the l/out awarded as normal, but is given the throw-in. This prevents the game stopping, going back for the kick, the kicki to touch being made and thus ending up with the throw. Or at least the option given to the captain etc.


50 point mercy rule at all levels below (say) level 5.

A good trial of the (OB & Didds) oft suggested successful-PK-goal-followed-by-a-scrum-restart-at the point of infringement to the attackers, to avoid the PK pressure release scenario.

didds

 

[crossref]

Advantage-lineout possibility... eg side has PK advantage and kicks for touch successfully instead of having the PK awarded anyway, has the l/out awarded as normal, but is given the throw-in. This prevents the game stopping, going back for the kick, the kicki to touch being made and thus ending up with the throw. Or at least the option given to the captain etc.

i like that idea (which is a new one to me)

 

[OB..]

Lineout numbers - no limits for either throwing or non-throwing team.

That was tried as an ELV and rejected because it removed the associated tactical options.

I'd say that line outs have to be balanced, but remove the offence, so we just don't have the lineout until they are.

so if Red call 5 men, and blue line up with 6, then red don't throw the ball in until blue remove the player.

Same as having matched scrums in U19 and below. We have to match scrum numbers, but there is no offence that can be committed

You can't change scrum numbers for tactical reasons.

Trying to catch out the opposition for the sake of a FK could be stopped by requiring the throwing team to tell the referee how many players every time they call a shorter lineout. The referee can then announce it to the defenders and give them time to comply.

Personally speaking I would like to see the whole line-out Law re-written as I believe that the current practise of lifting, line dancing etc has over complicated the whole process.

I know that the game is now payed at a fast pace, and fair contest is at the heart of the game. IMO the ability to support jumpers has negated the fair contest at the line-out and all the line dancing just further delays playing time.

Legalising lifting cleaned up a lot of the skullduggery that used to go on in the lineouts. A major improvement.

Lineout - would like to see wording that a team not winning the ball, must compete for it (i.e. form maul etc) OR retreat to the 10m offside line.

Why should the attackers be entitled to determine the defending options? Would you require the whole group of lineout players to retreat? What if the lineout is just 5m out - retreating to the goal line would essentially mean conceding the try?

What we do need is a clear definition of "leaving the lineout".

Except when peeling, a lineout player may not step more than 1m back from his initial position until the lineout has ended.

i don't - I think lineouts are great. And I don't think they take long -- much less time than scrums.

Agreed.

 

[didds]

it came me in a flash of inspiration over a decade ago CR, when we had exactly that scenario several times on a a hot afternoon. Just struck me that us just having the bloody lineout would have saved a lot of wasted time and energy traipsing to and fro!

didds

 

[ChrisR]

it came me in a flash of inspiration over a decade ago CR, when we had exactly that scenario several times on a a hot afternoon. Just struck me that us just having the bloody lineout would have saved a lot of wasted time and energy traipsing to and fro!

didds

Spoken like a true tight five on a hot and steamy day.

 

[OB..]

THE TACKLE
1. Incorporate those aspects of the tackle that are currently matters of referee interpretation and protocols as Laws in the Law Book
a: Define "clear release" Maybe
b: Define "The Tackle Gate" properly in the Law book, with a description and a diagram or drawing. Agree
c: Define the order in which things must happen at the tackle i.e. tackler release > tackled player place/pass/push/release > jackler plays ball through gate etc No. Tips balance too far in favour of the ball carrier.

2. Remove Law 15.4 (c) to take away the tackler’s right to play the ball from any direction, i.e. make him roll away and then come through the tackle gate like everyone else.

Again, tips the balance too far. Last ditch tackle, tackler gets up to run round while tackled player gets up to dive for the line.

3. Outlaw squeeze-ball completely as it is lying on the ball, a breach of Law 15.5 (a). The tackled player must not position himself over the ball, or remain positioned over the ball, and then push the ball between his legs. If a player is tackled into such a position, he must immediately roll onto his side and release, or push the ball out one side.

Agreed.

4. Only allow clean-out of players in the tackle gate and immediately either side of the gate, and specify this in Law. Players more than 1m beyond or "abeam" the gate must not be cleaned out.

Agreed.

 

[crossref]

it came me in a flash of inspiration over a decade ago CR, when we had exactly that scenario several times on a a hot afternoon. Just struck me that us just having the bloody lineout would have saved a lot of wasted time and energy traipsing to and fro!

didds

actually would need to tinker in practice - -can they run 20m and then kick to touch and keep the thow in?

 

[OB..]

TACKLE/RUCK
5. Whena Ball Carrier goes to ground with the ball, the ball is deemed to be on theground even if it is not in contact with the ground.


6.Outlaw the saddle roll completely as this iscollapsing a ruck - Law 16.3 (c). Arriving players at the tackle may pushplayers in the gate back (in a direction roughly parallel to the touch-lines)and to the ground if they wish, but must not grasp roll & them to the sideand to the ground.

Agreed

- - - Updated - - -

MAUL
7. Change priority order in Law 17.6 (c). Make whoever took the ball into contact irrelevant. If a maul ends unsuccessfully, the throw-in to the scrum is determined in the following priority...
a. the team going forward
b. the team in possession
c. the attacking team

Disagree.
The maul has become a major part of the game and is difficult to defend. I don't want it to become even more dominant.

 

[didds]

I might have missed this above...

* come up with some solution to OB's scenario of the tackler releasing close to the line allows a try.

didds

 

[crossref]

.

You can't change scrum numbers for tactical reasons.

In adult rugby you can once you have 14 players - you might vary between 7 and 8 from scrum to scrum.

In U19 rugby teams sometimes try to, but the Laws prevent it [pace the many discussions we have had on this].

When I compare it to lineouts, the scenario is that blue have only 14 and at the next scrum 7 blue players turn up, and 8 red players. We don't allow the scrum to go ahead and then FK red as a sanction... we just tell red to lose a player, and then we scrum.

.
Trying to catch out the opposition for the sake of a FK could be stopped by requiring the throwing team to tell the referee how many players every time they call a shorter lineout. The referee can then announce it to the defenders and give them time to comply.

exactly so, indeed we remove the FK sanction completely and this is how it would be done every time.

 

[OB..]

FKs - they are a meaningless sanction on the whole with little deterrent. Some sort of non-goal-kickable sanction (as suggested above) might be better eg gain in ground possible but not points.

Excellent idea. Gain in gound from a kick to touch, but loss of possession (and still no option to score points).

Advantage-lineout possibility... eg side has PK advantage and kicks for touch successfully instead of having the PK awarded anyway, has the l/out awarded as normal, but is given the throw-in. This prevents the game stopping, going back for the kick, the kicki to touch being made and thus ending up with the throw. Or at least the option given to the captain etc.

Relies too heavily on clear, loud calls by the referee? However option to the captain might be worth exploring. Does he get two bites at the cherry? What if the kick to touch was under pressure and he now wants a kick at goal?

50 point mercy rule at all levels below (say) level 5.

Manchester would certainly have appreciated that, as would all of Hartpury's opponents during their rise to the National Leagues. However I don't think I want to see that in the laws - how do you define the level world-wide? It can be implemented as an RFU regulation.

A good trial of the (OB & Didds) oft suggested successful-PK-goal-followed-by-a-scrum-restart-at the point of infringement to the attackers, to avoid the PK pressure release scenario.

didds

Strongly agree, of course!

 

[Dickie E]

I'd say that line outs have to be balanced, but remove the offence, so we just don't have the lineout until they are.

so if Red call 5 men, and blue line up with 6, then red don't throw the ball in until blue remove the player.

Same as having matched scrums in U19 and below. We have to match scrum numbers, but there is no offence that can be committed

[LAWS](e) If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout, their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout to satisfy this Law.[/LAWS]

Doesn't this cover it already?

 

[OB..]

[LAWS](e) If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout, their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout to satisfy this Law.[/LAWS]

Doesn't this cover it already?

It doesn't cover attempts to buy a FK by fooling the opponents.

 

[crossref]

[LAWS](e) If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout, their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout to satisfy this Law.[/LAWS]

Doesn't this cover it already?

it depends on the ref, and how they manage it.
I do indeed use that part of the Law and I can't remember the last time I gave a FK for numbers. But from watching games I know that other refs differ, and FK are indeed awarded...

 

[FlipFlop]

Why should the attackers be entitled to determine the defending options? Would you require the whole group of lineout players to retreat? What if the lineout is just 5m out - retreating to the goal line would essentially mean conceding the try?

What we do need is a clear definition of "leaving the lineout".

My point is that a principle of Rugby Union is the CONTEST for the ball. So in a lineout I would like to see the principle in law. Either contest the lineout, and the ball, or leave the lineout. Your choice as a defender. If you can't win it on the throw, try to win it in the next phase. Don't stand around and wait for the ref to award it to you. Go and win it.

I agree leaving the lineout should be defined. But I would like to see the defenders being allowed to leave the lineout (they don't set numbers).

I would also like to see "peeling" better defined (or at least enforced). Should a team be allowed multiple peelers? Some are clearly leaving without expecting to get the ball. This would help nullify the maul after the lineout effect - if a peeler has to take the ball as a "pop" from the catcher. All others must stay on the line of touch. Means forming the maul effectively is so much harder. Each team to be permitted 1 peeler, the rest to stay on the line of touch (or within 1m of LoT?)?

 

[OB..]

SCRUM
9. Make all scruminfringements (including those that are currently FK, but excepting those thatare deemed dangerous play) a penalty kick that cannot be kicked for goal (i.e.they still get gain in ground and throw in for the non-infringing team).
Exceptionswould be;

20.1 (i)Charging
20.8 (h)and 20.9 (a) Collapsing
20.8 (i)Lifting/Forcing up

... whichwould all remain as for any other PK

FK for offside offences? Ithink this requires details of which PKs you would like to see changed to FKs.(I strongly support the idea that FKs should be allowed to gain ground from akick to touch but with loss of possession.)

 

[OB..]

My point is that a principle of Rugby Union is the CONTEST for the ball. So in a lineout I would like to see the principle in law. Either contest the lineout, and the ball, or leave the lineout. Your choice as a defender. If you can't win it on the throw, try to win it in the next phase. Don't stand around and wait for the ref to award it to you. Go and win it.

A team is surely entitled to choose not to compete. I don't see why they should have to leave the lineout as a consequence, because that is a major disadvantage in some situations.

I agree leaving the lineout should be defined. But I would like to see the defenders being allowed to leave the lineout (they don't set numbers).

Currently they can choose not to join it in the first place - that is why the ELV failed: teams put 4 or 5 in every lineout.

Obviously the throwing team cannot be allowed to leave the lineout whenever they feel like it. Would there be any advantage to the defenders other than being able to make it clear they are not joining a maul? Perhaps, if that meant they did not need to retire the 10m.

I would also like to see "peeling" better defined (or at least enforced). Should a team be allowed multiple peelers? Some are clearly leaving without expecting to get the ball. This would help nullify the maul after the lineout effect - if a peeler has to take the ball as a "pop" from the catcher. All others must stay on the line of touch. Means forming the maul effectively is so much harder. Each team to be permitted 1 peeler, the rest to stay on the line of touch (or within 1m of LoT?)?

Another maybe. Needs thought.

 

[didds]

My point is that a principle of Rugby Union is the CONTEST for the ball. So in a lineout I would like to see the principle in law. Either contest the lineout, and the ball, or leave the lineout. Your choice as a defender. If you can't win it on the throw, try to win it in the next phase. Don't stand around and wait for the ref to award it to you. Go and win it.

But nowhere in the laws does it say anybody HAS to contest the ball. Even in a scrummage with all the safety related laws, there's nothing that says a team have to strike or try and push the oppo OFF the ball. There's not even a requirement to NOT be pushed back as long as it is not dangerous. Teams do not HAVE to contest rucks. theyc an even choose if they so wish NOT to tackle )CF that Belgium team a few months back).

bascially rugby union does not have the equivalent of the boxing/judo "must fight" laws/rules etc

didds

didds

 

[beckett50]

But nowhere in the laws does it say anybody HAS to contest the ball.

didds

A point of which many coaches are unaware. I often have to point out to coaches that it is not beholden upon the referee to make the contest, but for us to ensure that should there be a contest then it is fair and within the LotG.

 

[beckett50]

i don't - I think lineouts are great. And I don't think they take long -- much less time than scrums.

crossref, I was referring to the delays that this all has upon the hooker etc.