Rugby Focused Law Changes - May 9th

[Dickie E]

Given the complaint that a FK outside the 22 is toothless, maybe we give it some teeth.

How about we allow the gain in ground even of outside the 22 - and if we want to make it bite harder still, do not allow a quick throw? Ok, the oppo is getting the lineout, but you can peg them right back and they can’t even go quickly to pull anything back.

Seems a decent deterrent to me.

Rugby is complicated enough now for players, refs & spectators. This just adds more complexity

 

[didds]

well, I dont see that as overly complex? Volun-selected's suggestions is no different to a PK to touch then.
If we are going down the route of no QT its the same mentality as a PK to touch - ie other side cant QT.

same same.
Id suggest the tackle height laws at only certain levels of the game are more confusing for most people concerned. Let alone the new-ER actual touch laws

 

[Dickie E]

Its ingrained for the likes of you & I but consider the casual observer.

A kick for touch in GP gives you gain in ground and throw in to opposition.

Unless its kicked out on the full in which case no gain in ground.

Unless the kicker is in own 22 in which case gain in ground.

Unless ball taken back in which case no gain ground.

But if you kick for touch in GP from your own half and ball goes out in opposition 22, you get both gain in ground and the throw unless it goes out on full, in which case you get neither.

A restart kick touch infringement (ie not required distance or out on full) gives opposition options of retake, scrum or lineout unless its 7s or 10s in which case its a FK.

A penalty kick to touch not only gives you gain in ground but the throw as well. A free kick gives you neither. Now it is suggested that the QT goes as well.

No wonder people watch rugby league.

 

[shebeen]

Surprised the GLDO law has remained as is, it seems an absolute failure. The unintended consequence is that any ruck/maul action on/near the goal line sees players diving all over the ball so the ref/TMO can't see anything and now has to guess a crucial decision. It took away an attacking scrum source, that was a fair way to restart. (Instead we now get a kick off where the result is almost always a huge high impact collision - how's that for player safety?).

WR is forgetting that scrums are actually a huge calling card for the game. There is no other sport where short/thin/tall/average/large/fast/slow humans can all find a position in the field. Why throw that down the drain?

Needless to say, the changes seem decidedly targeted on a team in green.

 

[tim White]

I agreed with all of that -until you mentioned the team in green.

 

[BikingBud]

Rugby fan-focused law changes confirmed​

The largest reimagination of rugby’s entertainment value continues to progress with the World Rugby Council approving a package of law amendments that will come into effect from 1 July,

Says it all really!

What does reimagination mean? It might work when someone want's to redesign Eurodisney, Legoland or Universal Studios theme park but this is Rugby.

It's mostly marketeer speak and that alone turns me off from reviewing any more but as a method of communication, a series of power point bullets without broader context is difficult to grasp.

Getting to the 3 immediate changes:

• Onside from kicks in open play: In a rewrite of Law 10.7 relating to players being put onside from kicks in open play, it will no longer be possible for a player to be put onside when an opposition player catches the ball and runs five metres, or passes the ball. Laws 10.1 and 10.4 will make clear that offside players must make an attempt to retreat, creating space for the opposition team to play. This should reduce the amount of kick tennis in the game. Yes absolutely, remove negative play. Like the definition of loitering.
• Free-kicks: Under Law 20.3, it will no longer be possible to choose a scrum from a free-kick. Free-kicks must either be tapped or kicked to encourage more ball in flow. No don't get that, competitive scrums are fundamental to rugby union and should be retained as an option to dominate the opposition. Also why leave it as an option for a penalty, they recognise: many scrums result in long periods of dead time with resets, do people faff about less setting a scrum from a penalty than they do from a FK. What about scrums for squint throws? Are they in effect FKs? Apply the current Laws effectively but let's not remove critical elements of the game.
• Banning the ‘crocodile roll’: The action of rolling/twisting/pulling of a player on their feet in the tackle area (the ‘crocodile roll’) will be outlawed, sanctioned by a penalty. Yes absolutely! Be interesting to see how this develops as reviews of Tackle/ruck/breakdown: A major review of the breakdown through the lens of spectacle and safety – e.g. the impact of contesting the ball on the floor, the practice of jackaling as opposed to an upright driving game

 

[BikingBud]

On paper, looks good - and should help with the kick tennis. Let’s see where the law of unintended consequences leads

Quick interpretation/game management question for the ex-tight 5’s among us:
Where does “loitering” end and “I’m so gassed I’m sucking air through my arsehole“ begin?

As ex tight 5 part of our game plan was always to get the opposition sucking air, that usually came from running them around as big old blokes can usually scrummage well but consequently walk around the pitch. So I wouldn't be bothered what the cause might be but if you are interfering then I am interested.

 

[BikingBud]

The inability to take a scrum off a FK will definitely cause problems.

5m scrum attacking team are very dominant and are expecting a pushover try, defending team simply engage early and give away the FK.

I know that we can give a pen for a deliberate infringement but that's opening another can of worms.

If you give the penalty then they can choose the scrum! How bizarre is that?

 

[SimonSmith]

Its ingrained for the likes of you & I but consider the casual observer.

A kick for touch in GP gives you gain in ground and throw in to opposition.

Unless its kicked out on the full in which case no gain in ground.

Unless the kicker is in own 22 in which case gain in ground.

Unless ball taken back in which case no gain ground.

But if you kick for touch in GP from your own half and ball goes out in opposition 22, you get both gain in ground and the throw unless it goes out on full, in which case you get neither.

A restart kick touch infringement (ie not required distance or out on full) gives opposition options of retake, scrum or lineout unless its 7s or 10s in which case its a FK.

A penalty kick to touch not only gives you gain in ground but the throw as well. A free kick gives you neither. Now it is suggested that the QT goes as well.

No wonder people watch rugby league.

I watch NRL because the product is better, and because, like them or not, the commentators are positive and sound like they're enjoying themselves - just better informed fans.

It makes a LOT of difference to the viewing experience.

 

[didds]

If you give the penalty then they can choose the scrum! How bizarre is that?

This

 

[didds]

They get one free kick for engaging or pushing early, after that I go straight to penalties.

and of course NOW the side receiving the PK CAN opt for a scrum.


funny old world innit ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

and of course NOW the side receiving the PK CAN opt for a scrum.


funny old world innit ?

I have maintained for some time that there is simple answer to this issue, make all scrum infringements an Indirect Penalty Kick (IPK).

An Indirect Penalty Kick
1. Cannot be kicked for goal.
2. Can be kicked directly to touch from any where in the field for a gain in ground and the throw in to the lineout.
3. No scrum option allowed.
4. No escalation to PK. instead, escalation is done via YC.

If we make all scrum infringements to be IPKs, this would help to return the scrum to its core purpose as stated in Law 19, "to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage". It would also encourage teams to use it as a set piece platform for attacking, NOT as a points generator.

 

[didds]

I'd like to see that trialled across ALL levels Ian. Seems a decent stab at a sensible enough solution.

 

[BikingBud]

I have maintained for some time that there is simple answer to this issue, make all scrum infringements an Indirect Penalty Kick (IPK).

An Indirect Penalty Kick
1. Cannot be kicked for goal.
2. Can be kicked directly to touch from any where in the field for a gain in ground and the throw in to the lineout.
3. No scrum option allowed.
4. No escalation to PK. instead, escalation is done via YC.

If we make all scrum infringements to be IPKs, this would help to return the scrum to its core purpose as stated in Law 19, "to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage". It would also encourage teams to use it as a set piece platform for attacking, NOT as a points generator.

A minor infringement or stoppage is absolutely fine, what is not occurring is the contest for possession.

Mostly because the current laws are not being applied.

 

[Ian_Cook]

A minor infringement or stoppage is absolutely fine, what is not occurring is the contest for possession.

Mostly because the current laws are not being applied.

I agree, and I don't think you are ever going to see a fair contest for possession for two reasons

1. The ball is never fed in straight
2. Striking for the ball has become a dying art.

The problem the way I see it, is that if the feeding team actually strike for the ball at the scrum feed, they are at a disadvantage because they are one-short in the pushing department. The only way I can see the contest ever returning is if we get straight feeds, and we make it compulsory for both hookers to strike for the ball.

 

[didds]

I agree, and I don't think you are ever going to see a fair contest for possession for two reasons
...
2. Striking for the ball has become a dying art.

its a dead art at these higher/pro/elite levels.

Nobody strikes any longer. Recent law requirements just mean a hooker waggles a foot minimally somewhere in the tunnel as the ball is put underneath the second row's feet.

 

[didds]

I agree, and I don't think you are ever going to see a fair contest for possession for two reasons

1. The ball is never fed in straight
2. Striking for the ball has become a dying art.

The problem the way I see it, is that if the feeding team actually strike for the ball at the scrum feed, they are at a disadvantage because they are one-short in the pushing department. The only way I can see the contest ever returning is if we get straight feeds, and we make it compulsory for both hookers to strike for the ball.

'Twas ever thus though.
So what has changed such that 40 years ago hookers hooked => 7 v 8 shove, versus today ? - bajada aside of course!

I have a thought or twenty (and Ian's last sentence is a large part of those ), but I am interested in what y'all think is why this wasn't an issue decades ago. And why it cannot be the case today (aside form allegedly various parties all agreeing that's not what they want!)

(I'm not disagreeing with Ian's point here incidentally)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

, but I am interested in what y'all think is why this wasn't an issue decades ago. And why it cannot be the case today (aside form allegedly various parties all agreeing that's not what they want!)

The game has changed over time for various reason and we are witness to net result. The game now belongs to the younger, it is theirs to deal with our mistakes
I did find it odd, to answer your question, when I went from a break away to a wing forward to a flanker. I didn't realize the affect then, but I do now.

 

[Dickie E]

I agree, and I don't think you are ever going to see a fair contest for possession for two reasons

1. The ball is never fed in straight
2. Striking for the ball has become a dying art.

The problem the way I see it, is that if the feeding team actually strike for the ball at the scrum feed, they are at a disadvantage because they are one-short in the pushing department. The only way I can see the contest ever returning is if we get straight feeds, and we make it compulsory for both hookers to strike for the ball.

I think all we need is straight feed. It would then be a tactical decision if a team wanted to hook or just push over the ball

 

[SimonSmith]

'Twas ever thus though.
So what has changed such that 40 years ago hookers hooked => 7 v 8 shove, versus today ? - bajada aside of course!

I have a thought or twenty (and Ian's last sentence is a large part of those ), but I am interested in what y'all think is why this wasn't an issue decades ago. And why it cannot be the case today (aside form allegedly various parties all agreeing that's not what they want!)

(I'm not disagreeing with Ian's point here incidentally)

It's funny, I was asking myself that question this morning walking the dog.

I didn't come to any firm conclusions, but I indulged my cynical side: Lomg ago, the hooker and the tight head could actually scrummage properly. It wasn't about size.

My favourite hooker/TH combo was Ian Milne and Colin Deans. Milne was immovable; but Deans wasn't huge. He did, however, have really quick feet on his strike, so he restabilized quickly.

Nowadays, it strikes me that props are judged as much on yards/carry and tackles as they are on how they scrummage.

And my last thought - the scrum is refereed badly, generally. I'm not sure all referees get cause and effect in the right order. I remember when I was playing hooker for the Men's 2XV at the age of 16, the referee let us, within reason, sort it out. So boring in or compressing got handled by my older wilier props, everyone settled down, and we had good scrummages. Referees have taken over the policing, which means that self correction doesn't happen as much, because you don't want to be the one on the wrong side of what might be 50/50; either that, or the referee doesn't give a shit what happens as long as the ball comes out.

I prefer NRL scrums - at least they're honest about what they're doing.