[Law] More new Laws?

[crossref]

hmm - the WR slide says

To make a mark a player must have one or both feet on or behind that player’s 22-metre line and catch a ball that has reached the plane of the 22-metre line.

which is not what I understood that RFU slide to mean!

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I think the must have 8 in a scrum is badly worded.
The law makers are assuming that games have started with a full compliment of players.
Not always the case up here even in a Level 7 1st XV game.
And I thought that was going to be the only Law I would be able to explain to the guys, apparently not!

Game starts Red with 15 v Blue with 14 and contested scrums with Blue packing 7.
Blue prop gets suspended and have to go uncontested, Law says you have to pack with 8 lads, sorry 3 man overlap every scrum for red!!!!
I know it is not the intent but that's what it says!!:chin:

 

[VM75]

Ruck
Law 16
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

That's not a ruck, that's general play. This in combination with the change to 15.4 (c) effectively ensures retention for the attacking team who win the vast majority of rucks

Someone is going to have to come up with a legitimate way to facilitate a legitimately realistic steal of possession, or the 10thTackle Turnover of possession will be need to drafted !

 

[VM75]

I think the must have 8 in a scrum is badly worded.
The law makers are assuming that games have started with a full compliment of players.
Not always the case up here even in a Level 7 1st XV game.
And I thought that was going to be the only Law I would be able to explain to the guys, apparently not!

Game starts Red with 15 v Blue with 14 and contested scrums with Blue packing 7.
Blue prop gets suspended and have to go uncontested, Law says you have to pack with 8 lads, sorry 3 man overlap every scrum for red!!!!
I know it is not the intent but that's what it says!!:chin:

faced with that disadvantage a better tactic would be to delay forming a defending scrum, and conceded a FK , easier to defend !

 

[Treadmore]

Re: Law changes made easy for the 2017/18 season (RFU land)

Law changes made easy for the 2017/18 season (RFU land)

View attachment 3585

Thanks

anyone know why RFU have listed only a subset in their News?

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20413-More-new-Laws&p=333450&viewfull=1#post333450

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/world-rugby-announce-six-law-changes/

 

[Rushforth]

I think the must have 8 in a scrum is badly worded.
The law makers are assuming that games have started with a full compliment of players.

We have a regulation of at most one player difference at the lowest levels (4th division for gents; there is a premier which is about L5/L6 by UK standards).

I would interpret it as "when scrums go uncontested, if one team has fewer players than the other, the numbers in the scrum must still be equal".

Youth regulations are also with 7 each, drop the number 8, with 6 each drop both flankers, and with 5 each no back row, but equal numbers.

So if one side turns up with 10 and the other with 15 or more, and the side with just 10 doesn't want to borrow players (yet), they will be playing 5-man scrums, but if it is relatively friendly and everybody wants a game, and it starts off 12v13, then I would (ok, might) make the decision that scrums are six aside from the start, and stay so if scrums go uncontested for any reason, even for adults.

I don't think you can really encode that in law, and the document in post 1 is the "made easy" version.

 

[VM75]

Re: Law changes

Isn't it slightly easier for the jackler, since the jackler on his own constitutes a ruck so offside lines have formed

Crossref, it remains a race to get 'hands on the ball' tackler , or to merely 'park' 'fix' 'tether' over the ball support player or defender.

I can't see it's now easier for the jackler though - could you explain why you think it is please? [genuinely interested]

 

[VM75]

Re: Law changes made easy for the 2017/18 season (RFU land)

Thanks

anyone know why RFU have listed only a subset in their News?

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20413-More-new-Laws&p=333450&viewfull=1#post333450

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/world-rugby-announce-six-law-changes/

cos the others are old news, [ie...they were already being trialled] , these are NEW news.

 

[Treadmore]

Re: Law changes made easy for the 2017/18 season (RFU land)

cos the others are old news, [ie...they were already being trialled] , these are NEW news.

yeah but did RFU even bother to put the old news on their News?

 

[crossref]

I think the must have 8 in a scrum is badly worded.
The law makers are assuming that games have started with a full compliment of players.
Not always the case up here even in a Level 7 1st XV game.
And I thought that was going to be the only Law I would be able to explain to the guys, apparently not!

Game starts Red with 15 v Blue with 14 and contested scrums with Blue packing 7.
Blue prop gets suspended and have to go uncontested, Law says you have to pack with 8 lads, sorry 3 man overlap every scrum for red!!!!
I know it is not the intent but that's what it says!!:chin:

Very good point !

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.[/LAWS]Literalists will point out that this applies even if you are initially standing in touch. I suspect WR assumed that "before landing in touch" necessarily implied you started in the field of play, but it would be better to spell it out.

Does it also apply if the player kicks the ball while in the air?!

 

[ChrisR]

Now the referee needs to be able to judge the position of the ball relative to the 'plane of the 22', 'the plane of goal', 'the plane of dead ball' as well as the 'plane of touch' to determine who took the ball into that area.

What were they trying to fix? Too much kicking? This is going to fix that? Dumb to the Nth power.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Someone is going to have to come up with a legitimate way to facilitate a legitimately realistic steal of possession, or the 10thTackle Turnover of possession will be need to drafted !

The following is a pretty typical tackle/breakdown scenario in which a jackler successfully wins a turnover

Current Law
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Gold 7 arrives and latches onto ball and a few moments later Blue 4 arrives through the gate and grabs Gold 7 - Ruck Formed (offside lines appear). Gold 7 succeeds in picking up the ball (or Blue 13 is PK for not releasing). Turnover

Global Trial
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Gold 7 arrives and latches onto ball - Ruck Formed (offside lines appear) - and a few moments later Blue 4 arrives legally from behind the offside line and grabs Gold 7. Gold 7 succeeds in picking up the ball (or Blue 13 is PK for not releasing). Turnover

I can't see anything in that second scenario, that makes it any more difficult for, or less likely that, Gold 7 secures the turnover.

In both cases Gold 7 can keep his hands on the ball after the arrival of Blue 4 because Law 16.4 (b) says he can. I see nothing in the wording of the global trial Laws that is not consistent with that. If you think that the words "As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used" means that Gold 7 will have to let go, then I disagree. If anything, it reinforces that Law 16.4 (b) still applies.

Now lets look at another typical tackle/Breakdown scenario in which a turnover is secured by counter-rucking.

Current Law
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Blue 1 and 3 arrive and stand over the ball defending possession and brace for the arrival of Gold cleaners. Gold 4 arrives and tries to clean out Blue 1 - - Ruck formed (offside lines appear). Three more Gold players arrive and counter ruck, driving Blue 1 & 3 off the ball - Turnover.


Global Trial
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Blue 1 and 3 arrive and stand over the ball defending possession and brace for the arrival of Gold cleaners - Ruck formed (offside lines appear). Gold 4 arrives and tries to clean out Blue 1, followed by three more Gold players who counter-ruck, driving Blue 1 & 3 off the ball - Turnover.

Again, there is nothing in the second scenario that makes any difference to the likelihood of a turnover being secured.

 

[ChrisR]

Ian, I hope that you are right. But "As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used" could be interpreted differently. I can't find a reference but requiring the jackler to release the ball on contact with an opponent was my initial understanding.

If the jackler gets the ball off the ground, has the ruck ended? It no longer meets the definition of a ruck but it hasn't met the ending of a ruck definition either.

 

[Treadmore]

If the jackler gets the ball off the ground, has the ruck ended? It no longer meets the definition of a ruck but it hasn't met the ending of a ruck definition either.

It has if you consider the ball to have left the (1-man) ruck - why would you not?

 

[VM75]

The following is a pretty typical tackle/breakdown scenario in which a jackler successfully wins a turnover

Current Law
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Gold 7 arrives and latches onto ball and a few moments later Blue 4 arrives through the gate and grabs Gold 7 - Ruck Formed (offside lines appear). Gold 7 succeeds in picking up the ball (or Blue 13 is PK for not releasing). Turnover

Global Trial
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Gold 7 arrives and latches onto ball - Ruck Formed (offside lines appear) - and a few moments later Blue 4 arrives legally from behind the offside line and grabs Gold 7. Gold 7 succeeds in picking up the ball (or Blue 13 is PK for not releasing). Turnover

I can't see anything in that second scenario, that makes it any more difficult for, or less likely that, Gold 7 secures the turnover.

In both cases Gold 7 can keep his hands on the ball after the arrival of Blue 4 because Law 16.4 (b) says he can. I see nothing in the wording of the global trial Laws that is not consistent with that. If you think that the words "As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used" means that Gold 7 will have to let go, then I disagree. If anything, it reinforces that Law 16.4 (b) still applies.

Now lets look at another typical tackle/Breakdown scenario in which a turnover is secured by counter-rucking.

Current Law
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Blue 1 and 3 arrive and stand over the ball defending possession and brace for the arrival of Gold cleaners. Gold 4 arrives and tries to clean out Blue 1 - - Ruck formed (offside lines appear). Three more Gold players arrive and counter ruck, driving Blue 1 & 3 off the ball - Turnover.


Global Trial
Blue 13 is tackled by Gold 12. Blue 1 and 3 arrive and stand over the ball defending possession and brace for the arrival of Gold cleaners - Ruck formed (offside lines appear). Gold 4 arrives and tries to clean out Blue 1, followed by three more Gold players who counter-ruck, driving Blue 1 & 3 off the ball - Turnover.

Again, there is nothing in the second scenario that makes any difference to the likelihood of a turnover being secured.

All nicely worded, but the game has gradually lessened the likelihood of possession stealing and now making the tackler be gate entry compliant means there is more time for the support players to arrive, I believe there will be less possession thefts ongoing [which are one of the USP's of Union v L ]

There are some that think this will improve the code generally, I however think it takes us another step towards all defenders being curtailed in their 'possession contest' at the tackle. Eventually another evolutionary regression when the ref is required to shout "Held" for the ball carrier to have a free 'play of the ball'

#dismayed

 

[VM75]

It has if you consider the ball to have left the (1-man) ruck - why would you not?

+1

It's in the best interests of the game IMO to allow the first player who gets his hands on the ball the opportunity to try & take possession, cancelling his right merely because an opponent "arrives" [nb .. a new & as yet undefined term] makes no sense at all.

 

[ChrisR]

I went to WR to to get the changes from the horse's mouth, so to speak, only to find them available only as a PowerPoint presentation, not as a PDF. Limited to dial-up access I won't even try to download them.

Is there a PDF of the law updates? Written as law mods and not a summary?

 

[VM75]

[h=3]Ruck - Trial[/h]Law 16
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler).
At this point the offside lines are created.
Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.

Scenario
*Tackle made.
*Support player of BC arrives & positions/parks himself over the ball.
*Defenders decide not to contest this Mono-Ruck, instead they observe the newly created offside lines [ & fan out]
* Whilst SH is weighing up his pass options the Park'r [under no counter ruck pressure] reaches down & picks up & go's.

OK, or not?

Considerations
At what point should we consider that the Park'rs right to pick up & go has expired? What practical triggers should we use to assist management without wide & different [& a non uniformed ] timing interpretations of immediate being applied?

I'm visualising 'expiry' triggers.
Defenders make contact with Park'r before they back off & fan out = Dual ruck established, Th4 too late for hands to now be used.
Park'r fixes onto tackled BC = Mono demonstrates Intention to Park = Immediate now expired.
Park'r doesn't fix onto anyone, but is over the ball & no longer going forward OR attempting to pick up the ball = Mono Intention to Park is established = Immediate now expired.

Prior to these or if he's still going forward the first arriver can pick up if he chooses.

Has anyone else worked through their visualisations &/or either agrees or can suggest other considerations?

cheers

 

[Martin Doughty]

Questions on scrum put ins.


If the referee is no longer giving any signal for the put in, then what happens in the following situations:


Scenario 1: C-B-S and the scrum half immediately (meaning in the next few milli-seconds) puts the ball in {back in my hooking days we used to signal this by me or the SH just saying 'heads'}.
The scrum might not even be stable and it could even be starting to move, but it just has not yet had the time for the movement or instability to show.
Under last seasons laws we would have: a) waited until it was stable; b) penalised for an early push; c) penalised the SH for not waiting.
Question: What do we do now?




Scenarion 2: C-B-S but the scrum takes a few seconds to become stable.
Last season I would have given it this few seconds of settling time and then given the SH the OK.
What am I supposed to do now?
If I tell the SH that it is stable and to continue then I am signalling to him.
If I do not give any signal then at what point do I penalise the SH for delaying the put it?


...and as a follow on to scenario 1, are immediate put-ins back on the menu?