Paddy O'Brien on Stellenbosch Laws

[Glyndwr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6165032.stm

Don't think there's anything we haven't talked about, but over to you.

 

[benco132]

Right then...here we go:
Non-Participants 5m at scrum - not a problem for me, but it opens up a can of worms by leaving 5m to referee interpretation, some referees may think 5m is closer than others!?

Can't see a problem with the rest, but maybe others do!!

 

[spmilligan]

Scrum - The 5m interpretation will be estimated the same as the 10m intepretation at a line out. All will have their own guesstimate. What i think it could do is encourage positive rugby from the side winning the ball enabling them to distribute the ball easier as they see fit. What it does mean, i feel, is that the referee has to widen his view even further to see everyone.
Handling in the ruck - some players think they can now! This could end up just being a wrestling match for the ball and will have to be strictly controlled.
Collapsing the maul - Dont like it, people will get hurt under the pile of bodies.
Defensive kicking - Stops the easy get out clause, again will try to promote positive rugby, i hope.
Penalties and corner flag - No problems i can immediately think of, others might.
These are just my initial thoughts. They have obviously be thought through, tried and experimented with at a higher level.
The outcomes will hopefully prove them beneficial or not during the trial period in Scotland.
We will just wait and see

 

[PeterTC]

Based on experiences of trialling a number of these at the Cambridge Laws Lab (and a few of my own opinions):

5m gap- Better than the 1.5m tried out in Cambridge a few years ago which was just too difficult to referee. The main problem is trying to referee what is already quite a dynamic and tricky area in the form of the scrum as well as maintaining the 5m gap, at least at the lineout, it is in comparision straight forward.

Handling in the Ruck - I wait to see how it is worded, but worked pretty poorly at times in Cambridge when trialled, too many players falling over and too much scrabbling for the ball. Also caused players to forget some of the basics of rucking, and failing to clear out opponents or just simply not picking the ball up when arriving at the tackle unopposed.

Collapsing the Maul - Worked really well, was safe, and also encouraged the proper technique of getting the ball to the back of the maul and not just bundling some bloke along in the middle of a pile of bodies. I favour it (but only after having seen it work well).

Defensive Kicking - Being trialled at the moment, think there have been about 3 or 4 occurances in over 20 games, so in all relatively irrelelvant. Makes for more attacking rugby though.

Penalties - I worry about FKs being the norm, it will surely promote cheating even further?

Corner flags - Fair enough, but I hope they keep some form of marker of the line intersections, as they are a useful reference point for all.


Anyway, that's my 2p on the issue.

 

[Robert Burns]

Based on reading above article:

5m gap- I like it!.

Handling in the Ruck - I think this will make it a worse mess.

Collapsing the Maul - If it has been proved ok, I see no problem..

Defensive Kicking - Seems fair, pain for us to watch, but hey ho!.

Penalties - I can see what they are trying to do, maybe we should have it so that red zone offences are penalties (inside 22m) and outside can be free kick?

Corner flags - How can we tell if he went out in the air whilst going for the line? Flags are key. are they not?

 

[PaulDG]

Defensive Kicking - Being trialled at the moment, think there have been about 3 or 4 occurances in over 20 games, so in all relatively irrelelvant. Makes for more attacking rugby though.

At the level I referee at, defensive kicking is an important part of the game for quite a few teams as it's the only method they have for taking pressure off. I think it's poor play myself and would welcome this change.

Penalties - I worry about FKs being the norm, it will surely promote cheating even further?

Agreed. It might mean the card count has to go up to compensate..?

Corner flags - Fair enough, but I hope they keep some form of marker of the line intersections, as they are a useful reference point for all.

Perhaps put the flags 1m out from the touch line?

 

[Davet]

Corner flags positioned on the touch-line / goal-line junction provide a useful visual marker, and the wagging of the flag as the players body touches the post can give a clue as to whether the player was in touch or not.

If you say that they are no longer an indicator then you just make the job a tad harder. It is important to make use of all the visual clues available.

 

[Dixie]

Corner flags - How can we tell if he went out in the air whilst going for the line? Flags are key. are they not?

Actually, I think the point is that they are not at all key. Except at the corner, "out in the air" is not "in touch" - i.e is "in". The ball or the player carrying it must touch the touchline, or someone or something beyond it, in order to be in touch. The only reason "out in the air" becomes an important consideration at the corners (and the corners alone) is because some idiot put a flag there to be touched.

Why is the flag needed? There are two solid lines to monitor, and one of them should be patrolled by a touch judge - even at 3rd XV level. If the TJ can spot someone touching the line on the 22, he can do so at the corner. The flag is redundant.

If the ref is so far from the play that he can't see where the goal line is, the presence of a flag isn't going to help him decide whether or not the ball was grounded an inch short.

 

[Pablo]

5m gap - will take a little getting used to for both refs and players, but is a great idea. Once players get used to the concept of trespassing being "high risk, low reward" and refs encourage this belief by having a generous interpretation of what 5m looks like, it will create a lot of space for the ball to be used creatively.

Handling in the Ruck - I agree with Rob, it will make a worse mess - but not a mess in which the ref must intervene. Presumably there will be some sort of provision about the ball emerging almost immediately or stopping the scrabble for a scrum restart, but other than that, as a ref, you can just let the players sort it out themselves until the ball emerges.

Collapsing the Maul - I've not seen it applied, but this is the one I like the least. Pete, can you describe how the players brought the maul down without injuring themselves or their opponents? In my mind's eye, I can only envisage two options to collapse a well-formed maul: a) pick up an opponent's leg (danger to opponent) or b) pull the maul over on top of you (danger to self). Maybe it works with fit, well-conditioned professional athletes who have armies of physios to stick them back together the next day, but at community rugby level, I think it spells trouble.

Defensive Kicking - fantastic change. Fully in favour. It will also probably develop a skill/tactic of punting to just short of your opponent's 22 and putting a more committed chase on.

Penalties - A little ambivalent. On the one hand, it can be extremely tedious watching a match decided by place-kicking alone (consider the dull Heineken cup final between Toulouse and Stade Francais in 2005, or the ultra-turgid Varsity Match of 2001), but on the other hand, removing the option to kick at goal also removes the dis-incentive to infringe in the first place. The Wasps team of 2003/4 were extremely adept at infringing inside their 22 in order to concede only 3 points rather than 7 - how might their criminal tendencies have been exacerbated if they knew that no points could be scored from their crimes?

A secondary point is this: "With the exception of foul play (including deliberate/repetitive infringements), all penalties will be free-kicks," said O'Brien.
"If, for example, a player breaks off the scrum, rather than a penalty that decides the match, it's a free-kick - we want players, not referees, deciding matches."
This last phrase is a soundbite which sounds great taken out of context, but is potentially contradictory to the preceding points - taking O'Briens example, if a flanker has broken early twice in the first 60 mins of the match and conceded only free kicks, then does it again two minutes from full-time to close down a fly-half who was angling for a winning drop goal - does the referee award another free kick and let him essentially steal the match, or does he go for the full penalty (justifiable as "repeat infringing") and let the press say that "the referee decided the game"?

Corner flags - Ambivalent again. I can see all the arguments in favour of removing it, but also I like the drama of defenders seeking to use the flag(post!) and attackers having to employ an extra bit of skill to avoid it. I think it's a unique historical quirk of our game and a relatively harmless one at that, and should be left alone, but I shan't be wailing and gnashing my teeth if it does go.

 

[Robert Burns]

Actually, I think the point is that they are not at all key. Except at the corner, "out in the air" is not "in touch" - i.e is "in". The ball or the player carrying it must touch the touchline, or someone or something beyond it, in order to be in touch. The only reason "out in the air" becomes an important consideration at the corners (and the corners alone) is because some idiot put a flag there to be touched.

Why is the flag needed? There are two solid lines to monitor, and one of them should be patrolled by a touch judge - even at 3rd XV level. If the TJ can spot someone touching the line on the 22, he can do so at the corner. The flag is redundant.

If the ref is so far from the play that he can't see where the goal line is, the presence of a flag isn't going to help him decide whether or not the ball was grounded an inch short.

If you have a few players aiming for the line, that pole is your friend.

By all means when you have an official team of three, move it back 1m like the other posts, but if it's L5 or below, leave it where it is, you can't see everywhere and it does help.

 

[Glyndwr]

5m gap - will take a little getting used to for both refs and players, but is a great idea.

Ding!

Pillars??

 

[Gareth-Lee Smith]

I have nothing much to say on these suggestions - they all look bloody good from where I'm sitting

edit: Actually, 5m from back line of scrum will be interesting - I assume stopping on the try-line will be enforced? Because the backline of a defending scrum on 5m will be around 2m out from the tryline, and all hell could break loose

 

[Bryan]

I don't like the idea of the attacking team needing to be 5m back at the scrum. Much like rugby league, just make the defending team stay back the desired distance- who cares what the attacking team are doing as long as they are behind the ball? Would the requirement of a No.10 needing to be 5m back not restrict the attacking options of a team? Would there be more pick-n-drives from the backrow? I'm interested in Didds' response to this as he is the club coach.

I think this will turn into the lineout- both sets of back will need to be back x metres, but the defenders are the ones that will be patrolled more rigourously.

-Bryan

 

[PeterTC]

Collapsing the Maul - I've not seen it applied, but this is the one I like the least. Pete, can you describe how the players brought the maul down without injuring themselves or their opponents? In my mind's eye, I can only envisage two options to collapse a well-formed maul: a) pick up an opponent's leg (danger to opponent) or b) pull the maul over on top of you (danger to self). Maybe it works with fit, well-conditioned professional athletes who have armies of physios to stick them back together the next day, but at community rugby level, I think it spells trouble.

OK, it worked on the prinicipal the person bringing down the maul must do so by taking down a player of the opposing team (note it has been tried in 2 different years, the first time it was ball carrier only, last year it was any opposing player) from between the waist and the shoulders. In bringing him down, the player doing so must go to ground with him. It isn't really (b) but a variant of the (b) you talk about, much akin to using the opponents bodyweight to bring them to ground, as taught to smaller players as a valid and safe (if properly executed) technique for tackling bigger players.

It worked well for a few reasons. One, is it meant that taking the opponents to ground had to be done in a controlled manner. Two, by making the "tackler" go to deck, it encourages him to do it safely as he was the one who was going to get hurt if he tried anything stupid. It produced no injuries to the best of my knowledge while trialled and often rewarded teams who mauled well who simply broke off at the back as the maul was collapsed in front of them, thus taking out opposition players who were tied up in bringing the maul down and creating space.

 

[Deeps]

I am all for change to keep the sparkle but my agony is that, while I might be properly prepared for all this by my conscientious society training officer, I have no confidence that anyone is going to teach the players.

We have had years of stability since the Laws were frozen following the World Cup (which England won by the way). Even so, we have only just about sorted out boots on bodies, we still have 'Let him up' to nail down fully and then there is getting the put in to the scrum and the new scrum engagement sorted. It will be another 4 years before the grass roots players get a handle on all the new proposals if they come into Law (and the way the proposals are being trumpeted it looks a done deal) and then we will be off again.

No problem, this is progress but it is going to need the hard work of referees to do the coaching during the game while cries of inconsistency between referees will be used as an excuse for poorly coached teams.

 

[tim White]

Point of interest on saturday, no-one in the front rows had heard of the new scrum engagement procedure from january 1st. But, you should have seen the 'youngster's' face light up when I mentioned 'Just like U19' because he could still remember them.

 

[Davet]

taking O'Briens example, if a flanker has broken early twice in the first 60 mins of the match and conceded only free kicks, then does it again two minutes from full-time to close down a fly-half who was angling for a winning drop goal - does the referee award another free kick and let him essentially steal the match, or does he go for the full penalty (justifiable as "repeat infringing") and let the press say that "the referee decided the game"?

Or, even - award a PT. If the flanker had not broken early then the 10 would probably have scored.

Is a PT a reasonable result from a FK offence?

 

[Dixie]

No PT here. Law 9.A.1 and the many other Laws referencing a PT all permit a PT only when a try would probably have been scored but for the foul play. If anyone had seen my efforts at a DG from in front of the posts, they'd understand why it would be folly to draw any conclusions from the fact that the ball was in my hands and I was shaping to kick .....

 

[Davet]

Dixie - fine in the original scenario you said drop-goal. I wanted change that to a tackle that prevented a probable try, using the same principle that a flanker breaking early did the deed (or prevented the deed, I suppose...but you know what I mean).

What I was getting at was will we be able to give a PT from what will become a FK rather than a Penalty offence?

 

[Bryan]

Law 22.5(h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.

If the flanker had done it deliberately, then it could fall under 10.2(a) Intentionally Offending or 10.3(a) Repeatedly Offending if the player had done it before and been warned. These are the only infractions under Law 10 that I can see as being relevant. These are the only infractions under Law 10 that I can see as being relevant as warranting a PK for early-breaking from the flanker.

That being said, they are both dubious offences and clearly fall into the "grey-area" of Foul Play IMO.

-Bryan