Law Trials Survey

[beckett50]

Has anyone else had this?

http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/Glob...Rugby+Global+Law+Trials+UK+Residents+Midlands

It would appear that WR may be looking to put them all into Law.

FWIW I seriously objected to the trial whereby the #9 can stand to the right of the centre line. However, I feel that the voice of the community game may be lost in the need for WR to further pander to the TV $ :chin:

 

[Balones]

See my post from 16-02-18.

 

[crossref]

I also objected to that, but also to all the focus on the plane of touch m. Impossible to judge for a sole ref

 

[Ian_Cook]

I objected to the hooker of the team throwing in must strike for the ball. I think BOTH hookers should have to strike for the ball.

 

[didds]

FWIW I seriously objected to the trial whereby the #9 can stand to the right of the centre line. However, I feel that the voice of the community game may be lost in the need for WR to further pander to the TV $ :chin:

Lets face it... all law changes are based around what happens at the elite end of the game. Changes are never made because there is a perceived issue at level 14.

Same in cricket.

didds
didds

 

[crossref]

Also in rugby there is too much tinkering

 

[didds]

Also in rugby there is too much tinkering

100% agree.

 

[DocY]

I don't like the offset scrum half, but I really don't like the plane of touch changes.

They might be okay with ARs, but when you've got the touch judges I usually get and you give them the power to decide if their guy kicked the ball out on the full or the opposition carried it into touch, what do you think happens? It's just a pain to manage and leaves one team unhappy.

 

[DocY]

I objected to the hooker of the team throwing in must strike for the ball. I think BOTH hookers should have to strike for the ball.

I'd not actually thought of this, but I think you're right. The instability comes in when only one team hooks. I wouldn't have any objection to neither team hooking, though.

 

[crossref]

I don't want to hark back to the 2018 Law Book all the time ... But this brings it my irritation with them out

One the one hand they make deliberate, careful, subtle changes to the Laws, expecting them to have a significant impact on the way the game is played

Meanwhile they riddle the Law Book with accidental, careless and ill-thought out changes , some subtle , some not subtle at all, and blithely announce that this will make no difference to how the game is played .



Harrumph

 

[ChrisR]

I did the survey and have the same issues expressed here.

The offset SH is an attempt to deal with the front row problems in the pro game. Get the scrum over with ASAP. The requirement for feeding hooker to strike is a throwaway concession. Don't like it but can live with it. I'd rather not have the change and just let the pros squint feed.

My real disagreement is with the changes to touch law. The plane of touch concept will come back and bite 'em sooner or later in a big game but it will nibble at the community ref as described in DocY's post #8.

 

[menace]

I think they jumped the gun giving the survey to Oz refs..weve onky had half the elvs in place for 5 mins!!! For most areas in oz the season only starts this weekend!

 

[Christy]

I did the survey and have the same issues expressed here.

The offset SH is an attempt to deal

My real disagreement is with the changes to touch law. The plane of touch concept will come back and bite 'em sooner or later in a big game but it will nibble at the community ref as described in DocY's post #8.

I agree with you . ( but i had an idea which i thoughg was workable )
1stly if a player picks up a ball from the ground whether it is stationary or not .
With 1 foot in field of play & 1 foot out ,,i would be ok that this same player has taken the ball out .
As the new trials also suggest .

But i dont agree with a player catching a ball & now being given or loosing the line out throw,
If we deem him to have both feet out side field of play & actually catching the ball inside field of play ,,which under new trials says he took it out .
I think the throw in should still be offered to the catching team .

Its too hard to referee properly on the days when those calls become material to a team .
Even as touch judging that ive done ,,its not all that clear cut . .

So im for it if ball is on floor & played by a player with 1 foot in field & 1 foot outside.
But not for a ball that has been kicked & caught by opposition player.

 

[didds]

So im for it if ball is on floor & played by a player with 1 foot in field & 1 foot outside.
But not for a ball that has been kicked & caught by opposition player.

I've probably missed something here but what about a ball that has been kicked but is on the floor?

eg grubber, punt that has landed and rolled.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

I've probably missed something here but what about a ball that has been kicked but is on the floor?

eg grubber, punt that has landed and rolled.

didds

You don't consider the PoT in such cases. You are in the territory of the changes stating that picking the ball up, whether it is moving or stationary no longer comes into it. This was part of the clarification for In Goal, TIG and DBL incidences, in addition to Touch. You pick it up with a foot in the relevant area, you are deemed to have taken it there.

 

[ChuckieB]

I agree with you . ( but i had an idea which i thoughg was workable )
1stly if a player picks up a ball from the ground whether it is stationary or not .
With 1 foot in field of play & 1 foot out ,,i would be ok that this same player has taken the ball out .
As the new trials also suggest .

But i dont agree with a player catching a ball & now being given or loosing the line out throw,
If we deem him to have both feet out side field of play & actually catching the ball inside field of play ,,which under new trials says he took it out .
I think the throw in should still be offered to the catching team .

Its too hard to referee properly on the days when those calls become material to a team .
Even as touch judging that ive done ,,its not all that clear cut . .

So im for it if ball is on floor & played by a player with 1 foot in field & 1 foot outside.
But not for a ball that has been kicked & caught by opposition player.

The driver for the change, as we should know, was to look to keep the ball in play. They do this by not rewarding you with possession for having forced the ball out where you could otherwise have attempted to keep it in play. As such they are offering no halfway house.

 

[Christy]

I've probably missed something here but what about a ball that has been kicked but is on the floor?

eg grubber, punt that has landed and rolled.

didds

A grubber kick would count as ball on the floor ( even if it bounces & is caught )

A kick that does not hit floor but is caught , with 1 foot out & 1 foot in .
I would be all for catcher getting throw in . ( as was before )

 

[didds]

You don't consider the PoT in such cases. You are in the territory of the changes stating that picking the ball up, whether it is moving or stationary no longer comes into it. This was part of the clarification for In Goal, TIG and DBL incidences, in addition to Touch. You pick it up with a foot in the relevant area, you are deemed to have taken it there.

I was replying to christy's point specifically

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

I was replying to christy's point specifically

didds

So was I, or so I thought.

That a grubber kick that has contacted the ground could be considered as anything other than a ball picked up is a bit alien to me.

 

[didds]

Gotcha Chuckie - agreed!