What law changes would you like?

WombleRef


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
364
Post Likes
33
Current Referee grade:
Level 9
So with the start of the new season upon us - the IRB usually comes up with some excuse to change the laws of the game.

My question is - what would you like to change?

My personal belief is that we once again need to put greater emphasis on putting the ball straight. Not really sure how it can be achieved in law though.
 

WombleRef


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
364
Post Likes
33
Current Referee grade:
Level 9
It can be achieved by showbiz refs using the laws of the game

Are you suggesting telling Sir Nigel of Owen off? That could never happen. I mean it isn't soccer!
 

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
2,003
Post Likes
261
I'll go for CLEAR AND OBVIOUS 'accidental knock-ons or fumbles' are not penalised -you have already slowed things down and cut you options (and made yourself a target for ridicule), isn't that enough?
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I like it. Eliminate a bunch of scrums that have become platforms for penalties.

And it would satisfy my law change which is eliminate the 5m scrum for a knock on in/into goal.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
tim White:278374 said:
I'll go for CLEAR AND OBVIOUS 'accidental knock-ons or fumbles' are not penalised -you have already slowed things down and cut you options (and made yourself a target for ridicule), isn't that enough?

Agree but not sure about your clear and obvious bit

There are three scenarios
Clear and obvious Deliberate knock on... PK (no change)
Accidental knock-ons .. Play on (this would be a massive change)
Not clear or obvious if it was a knock on at all ? .. Play on (no change)
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Along the lines of a discussion we are having in another thread......

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17929-LINEOUT-to-MAUL-%96-DEFENCE


Changes in blue


1. Change Law 10.4 (p) to remove the "Flying Wedge" and replace it with "Pre Binding"

[LAWS]Law 10.4 (p) Pre-Binding and Cavalry Charge.

Pre-Binding
In open play, team-mates of the ball carrier must not bind onto him unless he is first grasped by one or more opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.

Cavalry Charge

A team must not use the ‘Cavalry Charge’.
‘Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known as as a ‘Cavalry Charge’ usually happens near
the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. Either a single
player stands some distance behind the kicker, or attacking players form a line across the
field some distance behind the kicker.
These attacking players are usually a metre or two apart. At a signal from the kicker, they
charge forward. When they get near, the kicker tap-kicks the ball and passes to a player
who had started some distance behind the kicker.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of infringement[/LAWS]


2. Change Law 17.1 to make it clear that a maul cannot form without a tackle attempt first

[LAWS]17.1 FORMING A MAUL
(a) Where can a maul take place. A maul can only take place in the field of play.

(b) How a maul is formed. A maul can only form if the ball carrier is first grasped by one or more opponents.[/LAWS]


3.
Change Law 19.10 to comply with the new 17.1 (b)

[LAWS]Law 19.10 (k) Defending at a lineout. A player who jumps and gains possession of the ball in the lineout
may be tackled immediately upon returning to the ground.
A player who gains possession of the ball in a lineout without jumping may be tackled
immediately.
In both cases, these actions must take place or be commenced before a maul can form.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]
 
Last edited:

Chogan


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
412
Post Likes
8
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
I've said it before
Try = 6, Con = 2. More weight on grounding the ball.
Pen = 3. Two Pens should not be worth more than an unconverted try.
DK = 2. This allows it to be an act with which a tied/close game's outcome can be changed but stops lads having a pop just because they have advantage.

The laws are there we just need to call them. Teams trying to cross the whitewash are much better than playing for 3.
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
remove the turn over/wheel law. remove numbers requirement at lineouts.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,133
Post Likes
2,155
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
remove the turn over/wheel law.

Totally agree. Scrums are hard work enough without 1 team deliberately & legally trying to make them a mess.

I was at a function a few years and Stu Dickinson was asked this question. He had the same answer.

- - - Updated - - -

remove numbers requirement at lineouts.

This one was tried and discarded
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
Totally agree. Scrums are hard work enough without 1 team deliberately & legally trying to make them a mess.

I was at a function a few years and Stu Dickinson was asked this question. He had the same answer.

- - - Updated - - -



This one was tried and discarded

what a shame that was....
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Totally agree. Scrums are hard work enough without 1 team deliberately & legally trying to make them a mess.

I was at a function a few years and Stu Dickinson was asked this question. He had the same answer.


Yep, I agree too. If you remove the reward for the opposition wheeling the scrum you remove that reason to wheel it.

Another thing I would like to see is removal of PK's from non-dangerous/foul play infringements in scrums, and for referees to no longer escalate FKs to PKs, rather, to escalate to YC instead. I see no reason why a team should be rewarded with a potential three points for a crooked throw or binding errors.

In line with this I would change Law 19.1 (i), (j) and (k) have the line-out for both a FK and a PK where the ball was kicked into touch, i.e. allow a gain in ground for both, but with the throw in to the opposition for a FK. Currently, FKs are a bit of a Clayton's sanction; if you get a FK at a scrum anywhere outside your 22m, a tap and run (much the same as winning the scrum anyway) or another scrum are your only options. For a FK awarded, say, on half way, or 10m into opposition territory, I would like to see an option for the non-infringing team to put the ball into the corner and pressurise the opponent's line-out throw.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Change the sanction for 10.4(o), late charging the kicker to read:

"The non-offending team can take the penalty kick at the place of infringement either at the place of infringement or where it is next played."

Add appropriate words for going into touch or dead in goal.

This is a more just reward for a grubber.

- - - Updated - - -

Change the sanction for 10.4(o), late charging the kicker to read:

"The non-offending team can take the penalty kick at the place of infringement either at the place of infringement or where it is next played."

Add appropriate words for going into touch or dead in goal.

This is a more just reward for a grubber.
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,810
Post Likes
1,005
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Change the sanction for 10.4(o), late charging the kicker to read:

"The non-offending team can take the penalty kick at the place of infringement either at the place of infringement or where it is next played."

Add appropriate words for going into touch or dead in goal.

This is a more just reward for a grubber.

.

Doesn't the current wording allow for what you seek? A reward for the grubber.

The current law says...lands or where it was next played..(in fact it says or twice :biggrin:)


[LAWS](o) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
Sanction: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands or or where it was next played.12[/LAWS]
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,810
Post Likes
1,005
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
I've said it before
Try = 6, Con = 2. More weight on grounding the ball.
Pen = 3. Two Pens should not be worth more than an unconverted try.
DK = 2. This allows it to be an act with which a tied/close game's outcome can be changed but stops lads having a pop just because they have advantage.

The laws are there we just need to call them. Teams trying to cross the whitewash are much better than playing for 3.

Why not T=4, C=2, DG=1

I know Browner will have a seizure - so win win :biggrin:
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,810
Post Likes
1,005
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
In line with this I would change Law 19.1 (i), (j) and (k) have the line-out for both a FK and a PK where the ball was kicked into touch, i.e. allow a gain in ground for both, but with the throw in to the opposition for a FK. Currently, FKs are a bit of a Clayton's sanction; if you get a FK at a scrum anywhere outside your 22m, a tap and run (much the same as winning the scrum anyway) or another scrum are your only options. For a FK awarded, say, on half way, or 10m into opposition territory, I would like to see an option for the non-infringing team to put the ball into the corner and pressurise the opponent's line-out throw.

I like this bit too.

I'd like the bits of Law 19 (in touch or not, jumping, landing, knocking, catching, feet here, feet there) to be tidied up - others may suggest it is clear - well done you say I.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,098
Post Likes
2,358
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Am I the only person who doesn't really want any law changes?
 

Dan_A

Player or Coach
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
274
Post Likes
92
Currently a missed drop goal attempt that goes into touch in goal is a dropout. Every other kick that goes into touch in goal is a scrum back. This feels like an anomaly to me, shouldn't missed drop goals be a scrum back if they go into TIG
 

leaguerefaus


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,009
Post Likes
248
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Currently a missed drop goal attempt that goes into touch in goal is a dropout. Every other kick that goes into touch in goal is a scrum back. This feels like an anomaly to me, shouldn't missed drop goals be a scrum back if they go into TIG
I'm going to assume you mean DIG, not TIG. It would have to be a truly awful attempt to go TIG!
 
Top