Super rugby law trials

[Dickie E]

https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2020/...DLTACUgSgh8Icwsdei-re-jKyx_f1071IJNGaI0hFEtNs

some interesting trials here.

I'm not keen on 2 & 3. Seems like a licence to just put bombs up into corner.

 

[crossref]

#1 is interesting

1 When an attacking player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal or knocks the ball on play restarts with a goal line drop-out

so
1a - attackers heldup : an attacking 5m scrum becomes a goal-line dropout
1b - attackers knock on : a defending 5m scrum becomes a goal-line dropout

the second seems very odd - attackers knock on, and are rewarded by having possession kicked back to them


Perhaps the trial authors think that an attacking knock on in goal would normally lead to a 22m drop out ?

 

[didds]

Good spot CR.

"Perhaps the trial authors think that an attacking knock on in goal would normally lead to a 22m drop out ? "

You are making the basic assumption that the law authors ever think...

didds

 

[didds]

I'm not keen on 2 & 3. Seems like a licence to just put bombs up into corner.

5 & 6 seem to promote more kicking. Though i suppose it counteracts the tedious trench warfare of pick and drive and one out hit ups in the centre of the pitch possibly.

didds

 

[Jz558]

Some interesting stuff here and I am looking forward to seeing the results although at first glance it looks like a recipe for a lot of kicking with the potential for an increased number of lineouts followed by catch and drive. Just a couple of points though

Law Trial 1 - I am assuming, because it isn’t specifically prohibited, that a kick, taken correctly which goes directly into touch is allowed, unlike a 22 drop out, and results in a gain in ground with the throw going to the non-kicking team. As the defending side I would definitely prefer to gain distance and defend the lineout than defend a kick being run back at me in open play.

Agree with CR. Why include a knock-on in goal and reward the offending team? At least offer the defending side the option of a 5-metre scrum.

Law Trial 2 - I may be missing something obvious but what does ‘forced by the defending team’ mean?

Law Trial 3 - By ‘attacking 22m area’ I assume they mean the 22 area of the side in possession even if they are in their own half (ie the defending team as defined in the current laws)? so they mean if a team kick from inside their own 22m and the ball is caught in their opponents 22m the kick cannot be marked? If they mean that why not just say it?

Law Trial 5 & 6 - Why make law on the basis of a non-defined term ie 50m area? If by 50m area they mean yours or your opponent’s half of the pitch why not use the term ‘half’ which everyone understands? I realise this is taking my point to extremes but if they actually mean a 50m area, on a pitch which is less than 100m in length (minimum allowed in law being 94m) does your 50m area extend into the opponent’s half?

 

[crossref]

great points!
- "forced" is a southern hemisphere term meaning the defender touches down in his own in-goal. (we don't have a word for that in the north)

- yes, yet again they use the word "attacking" to mean "in possession". It most often does mean that now.

- great point about '50m zone' of couse they mean 'half'

- I assumed you CAN'T kick a goal-line dropout directly into touch. I wonder what is the right answer ?

I thought this

3. A kick originating in the attacking 22m area cannot be marked by the defending team within their own 22m area. The kick can however be marked within the defending team’s in-goal area and play restarts with a 22m line drop- out

meant that when the attackers, inside their opponents 22m - do a cross kick to the winger, all in the 22m zone, then the kick cannot be marked.

 

[Jz558]

- "forced" is a southern hemisphere term meaning the defender touches down in his own in-goal. (we don't have a word for that in the north)

Thank you. I've never heard this term previously.

- I assumed you CAN'T kick a goal-line dropout directly into touch. I wonder what is the right answer ?

If not specifically prohibited I don't see any grounds to disallow. They have obviously looked at the 22m drop-out because other criteria such as 'without delay' and charging over the line are prohibited but they seem to have decided not to include going directly to touch for the gial-line dropout. Maybe they thought it was too much of a disadvantage to the defending side given that previously they were entitled to the put in at a scrum.

I thought this

meant that when the attackers, inside their opponents 22m - do a cross kick to the winger, all in the 22m zone, then the kick cannot be marked.[/QUOTE]

Funnily enough thats what I initially thought. In fact when i posted originally I still wasn't entirely sure they didnt mean that.

 

[crossref]

the wording is so sloppy, isn't it

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

My 2 penneth
1. I like it. Law makers obviously trying to get rid of top level scrums which kill the game as a spectical. not too much of a problem in the weeds

2. Disagree with this. We have the 22 drop out, no need to change. Will reward teams who can't break down a defence and are forced to kick as they have run out of ideas.

3. I see what they are trying to do here, whilst at first glance it will lead to more kicking. Aimless kicking behind deep deadball areas will be poitless and could lead quick thinking defence into attack. I still believe defenders should be able to mark any kick. in their 22.

4. Specifically for showbiz rugby. Down in the weeds unaccaptable. most teams could hold out 14 against 15 for a while and this is potentially rewarding foul play. Imagine if after 5 minutes a team decided to take out the star goalkicker and stand off, it could happen and they could win the game.

5. What's a 50m area? poorly written. again I know they are trying to force tedefenders to cover the space and leave gaps. it could work to be fair.

6. I guess to try and stop aimless kicking, can't see this having much effect.

7. Hate this, what's wrong with a draw? going to put the officials on the spot for minor infringements which will win the game. high altitude or with the wind, games could be decided by a minor infirngment whilst in you opponents half. ridiculous.

6.

 

[SimonSmith]

great points!
- "forced" is a southern hemisphere term meaning the defender touches down in his own in-goal. (we don't have a word for that in the north)

Fans of rugby history and/or Bill McLaren would remember that act being called "minoring" the ball.

We do have a word for it - it just isn't used.

 

[L'irlandais]

Before my time that, Minor points

 

[Dickie E]

Interestingly, these law changes that encourage kicking are safety related.

The logic is:
1. team X encouraged to kick, leads to
2. team Y responds by pushing their winger back to cover the kick, leads to
3. fewer defenders in Y's backline, leads to
4. fewer gang tackles, leads to
5. safer tackling.

Or so it is claimed.

 

[Donk93953]

the wording is so sloppy, isn't it

Agree...this is horribly written.

I'm going to have to see these in use....because it appears to me they all just complicate the game.
We are getting to a point that they are so many laws and interpretations , upon interpretations, that the game is losing it ability to flow and move.
I'm of the opinion that we have enough laws and variations and they simply need to be enforced.