Next season's trials..

[didds]

all very valid points CR. Easy for elte end where a 72nd official can keep tabs and speak to the ref on comms. Down in the sticks in a longish passage of play with multiple advantages, adv over etc ... all becomes a bit hazy...

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Why don't we enforce a clear gap / daylight between the defensive line and the offside line. It will have a similar effect to delaying their movement and might be easier to see infringements.

Do you mean making players stand further behind the line the law permits them to stand on Or changing the offside line?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Regarding this one:
Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play. Rationale: To ensure players who are guilty of serious foul play do not escape with a yellow card when they deserved red. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

Could this not lead to more yellow cards on the basis that the review can make the call on the red? Also, how will it work if there is not a TMO / Citing officer? What happens when during the review we get a potential try referred to the TMO? Does he stop the review and move to reviewing the try.

Looks a non starter for me.

 

[Flish]

Regarding this one:
Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play. Rationale: To ensure players who are guilty of serious foul play do not escape with a yellow card when they deserved red. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

Could this not lead to more yellow cards on the basis that the review can make the call on the red? Also, how will it work if there is not a TMO / Citing officer? What happens when during the review we get a potential try referred to the TMO? Does he stop the review and move to reviewing the try.

Looks a non starter for me.

Agree, if not clearly and obviously a Red then move on and leave to the citing officer. Out in the sticks we need everyone to understand where the red card threshold lies else everyone will just see yellows all day

 

[Arabcheif]

What do we think about the tackle height trail that was approved?

 

[Pinky]

What do we think about the tackle height trail that was approved?

I think it was stopped (as I recall whilst it reduced head injuries for the BC it did not overall reduce head injuries in the tackle), but there was to be some analysis of the results.

 

[Arabcheif]

There's a new trial. Tagged onto the end of proposed trials....

Reducing the tackle height to the waist. RATIONALE: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player. RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trials......

It's in the link on the previous page.

 

[Dickie E]

There's a new trial. Tagged onto the end of proposed trials....

Reducing the tackle height to the waist. RATIONALE: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player. RECOMMENDATION: To approve for closed trials......

It's in the link on the previous page.

I'm no expert but most head injuries to the tackler that I've seen is when he/she gets a knee to the noggin. Not sure how lowering tackle height will help this. Probably make it worse.

 

[Pablo]

I'm no expert but most head injuries to the tackler that I've seen is when he/she gets a knee to the noggin. Not sure how lowering tackle height will help this. Probably make it worse.

IIRC, that was exactly what they found in the below-the-armpits trial during last season's Championship, hence it being terminated early.

 

[Arabcheif]

IIRC, that was exactly what they found in the below-the-armpits trial during last season's Championship, hence it being terminated early.

Indeed, this is why I was surprised to read this was approved for a closed trial. Also, where are the trials (other than the ones that have stated), being conducted.

As a player, I object to being made a guinea pig for a trial like this where previous trials have indicated that lowering the tackle height increases the risk to the tackler. Surely this is counter-productive.

 

[Dickie E]

OK. Just back from the first NRC game with 2 law trials: 50-22 and goal line drop out.

50-22 isn't on if player passes back into own half.

GL drop out - can be taken anywhere on the goal line, kick must go 5 metres, opposition must be on or behind 5 metre line and if ball is kicked out on full, opponent have option of another kick or 5 metre scrum centre field.

There was 1 incident of each in the game. Neither had much impact.