What law changes would you like?

[ChrisR]

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]

I would read it that way. I believe that there used to be a comma after "land" or was I just dreaming? That would have allowed three clear options.

It came up in a thread some time ago and those that paid attention in class thought otherwise. Apparently, the "where it was next played" was added to cover the event if the ball was caught before it hit the deck.

 

[crossref]

[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[/LAWS]

I believe that what the IRB meant to specify was two options
1 - the place of infringment
2 - the place where the ball lands or was next played [because, of course, it may not land]

but the text they actually put into the law inadvertently gives the non-offending team three options
A - the place of infringment
B - the place where the ball lands
C - the place where the ball was next played

As a referee, do we referee to the Law as it is written? or the Law as (we suppose) it was meant.

It has to be as it's written, doesn't it?

 

[ChrisR]

From Ian: "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."

Agreed! Stuns me when the front row is about to collapse, a prop unbinds, puts his hand on the deck trying to keep it up and gives away a PK for his trouble.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

[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[/LAWS]

I believe that what the IRB meant to specify was two options
1 - the place of infringment
2 - the place where the ball lands or was next played [because, of course, it may not land]

but the text they actually put into the law inadvertently gives the non-offending team three options
A - the place of infringment
B - the place where the ball lands
C - the place where the ball was next played

As a referee, do we referee to the Law as it is written? or the Law as (we suppose) it was meant.

It has to be as it's written, doesn't it?

Ahhhhh I see what you mean - I think!?

 

[ddjamo]

Am I the only person who doesn't really want any law changes?

yes...

 

[Dixie]

Am I the only person who doesn't really want any law changes?

Yes. If you don't want change it's because you feel we are in a good place. Yet Law 19 is a disaster, there's confusion about the maul collapse, OB's transitions continue to cause problems, there is deep uncertainty regarding the status of a muck (ruck with all or many bodies on the ground), and many more

 

[Phil E]

Yes. If you don't want change it's because you feel we are in a good place. Yet Law 19 is a disaster, there's confusion about the maul collapse, OB's transitions continue to cause problems, there is deep uncertainty regarding the status of a muck (ruck with all or many bodies on the ground), and many more

.......and yet every week referees referee, and players play, and the only moans I hear are not about badly worded laws, but about "not another set of changes, why don't they stop tinkering?"

The laws are a framework for referees to work with, referees apply them intelligently (with some exceptions :chin: ). They are not black and white for a reason.

 

[FlipFlop]

The biggest change I would like to see is the cleaning up of the current law book. All those clarifications, badly worded laws, etc - actually set straight.

And then refs made to apply....

And why there is a grey area that needs clarification, to get that, and to have it included in the next law book......

Then - once all that has happened, we can start discussing what other changes might make the game better.

 

[talbazar]

.......and yet every week referees referee, and players play, and the only moans I hear are not about badly worded laws, but about "not another set of changes, why don't they stop tinkering?"

The laws are a framework for referees to work with, referees apply them intelligently (with some exceptions :chin: ). They are not black and white for a reason.

Phil, you're not the only one. The laws themselves are good enough in my humble opinion...

But...

The biggest change I would like to see is the cleaning up of the current law book. All those clarifications, badly worded laws, etc - actually set straight.

And then refs made to apply....

And why there is a grey area that needs clarification, to get that, and to have it included in the next law book......

Then - once all that has happened, we can start discussing what other changes might make the game better.

I totally agree with Flipflop too, the law book could do with a nice lifting, trim and clarifications...

My two cents,
Pierre.

 

[thepercy]

I would like to see touch adjudicated the same as it is in basketball.

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't watch basketball.

Can you elucidate?

 

[WombleRef]

The one other change I would like is to allow for both verbal and non-verbal communication of the Yes 9

It is also quite a handy management tool because if the opposition push early as it gives you an extra layer of escalation.

Could start out with verbal, then fk with non-verbal, then penalty, then even further?

Actually the more I think about it - it could be a stupid idea.

 

[OB..]

The laws are a framework for referees to work with, referees apply them intelligently (with some exceptions :chin: ). They are not black and white for a reason.

Phil, you're not the only one. The laws themselves are good enough in my humble opinion...

But...



I totally agree with Flipflop too, the law book could do with a nice lifting, trim and clarifications...

My two cents,
Pierre.

The fact that we have regular "discussions" about the laws proves that there are problems.

What the players think (at my levels anyway) is not a good criterion. They don't even get many of the basics right.

The laws need to be tidied up for the benefit of the referees. They are the ones who have to make the tricky decisions, not the players.

 

[Ian_Cook]

.......and yet every week referees referee, and players play, and the only moans I hear are not about badly worded laws, but about "not another set of changes, why don't they stop tinkering?"

The laws are a framework for referees to work with, referees apply them intelligently (with some exceptions :chin: ). They are not black and white for a reason.

A lot of the moans I hear on the sideline is that referee interpretations change from week to week. What referee "A" allows this week, referee "B" doesn't next week. How many times have several of us looked at video of the same incident on this very forum and all had differing opinions? The Jebb Sinclair incident from Canada v Scotland is a good example of this... opinions ranged from play-on to Red Card.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17822-red-card-decision-Canada-v-Scotland-MERGED

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...ed-card-Scotland-v-Canada&p=277660#post277660

How can this happen when referees are using the same set of Laws as a framework?

At elite level this disparity between referees is so great that teams feel justified in spending considerable resources on video analysis of referees themselves so that they can adapt their game plan around him. People (other than Kiwis or course) have called McCaw a cheat, but in reality, he has simply been very, very good at quickly working out the limits of what the referee will allow, and then playing right up to the very edge of that limit. If referees were much more consistent from match to match, I don't think there would have been anywhere near as much controversy about fetchers like Richie McCaw, George Smith, David Pocock, Heinrich Brussow etc.

Very often, when the iRB issues "clarifications" they clarify nothing, and in fact they often seem to raise questions and cause even more confusion. Take the rip v knock-on clarifications 2011-4 and 2014-1 for example. 2011-4 simply confused a situation that had been clear and obvious for many, many years. 2014-1 confused it even further, in both cases IMO, due to ambiguous language.

Also, others are right about Law 19; it is a complete and utter shambles of confusions and contradictions. Its so bad that one Union, the ARU, issued a booklet (Line Ball Your Call) which contains 19 different scenarios where the referee needs to determine who put the ball out and what happens next. Nineteen FFS!!! Some of these scenarios appear to run counter to accepted practice in the northern hemisphere., so we can't even agree 100% on the ball going out of play!!! Law 19 is badly in need of a complete rewrite, and a change of philosophy as regards touch. IMO, if we reduced it to...

1. Loose Ball: If a ball not being held or touched by a player crosses the plane of touch, then it was put into touch by the last player to touch the ball before it crossed the plane.

2. Held or Touched Ball: If a player holding or touching the ball touches the touchline or the ground beyond it, then that player put the ball into touch

It would make things a lot easier.

 

[ChrisR]

Ian, the Sinclair incident was a good example of disagreement but the current thread under "In Goal" is an even better example of interpretation in Law.

What is most frustrating is the sense that it's totally beyond your control. This is the only forum that I can raise an issue and have a meaningful debate. And sometimes I get agreement, oft times not.

 

[ChrisR]

Remove Law 4.4(i) and allow any stud configuration of legal studs.

Does not eliminate prohibiting missing studs.

 

[crossref]

Remove Law 4.4(i) and allow any stud configuration of legal studs.

Does not eliminate prohibiting missing studs.

I think we are there already I can't think of a plausible configuration that I wouldn't allow today.

 

[chbg]

Remove Law 4.4(i) and allow any stud configuration of legal studs.
Does not eliminate prohibiting missing studs.

I have never understood why missing studs are prohibited by some referees, other than a front stud when it then resulted in previously prohibited single front stud. Boots are made with 4, 5 or even 6 studs under the forefoot; if losing one stud from a 6-stud configuration is dangerous, aren't 4 studs more dangerous? There's even a boot with a total of 6 removable studs and 5 fixed plastic studs (http://www.lovell-rugby.co.uk/Rugby...XT-SG-Rugby-Boots-Black-or-White-or-Solar-Red - only £155!). If a player loses a stud, the first time anyone knows about it is when he/she walks on a hard surface at the end of the match. So he/she may have played for 79 minutes with a stud configuration that you would have prohibited! These boots seem to have fixed studs to maintain some grip even if 2 metal studs are lost (http://www.lovell-rugby.co.uk/Rugby...-Boots-Black-or-Running-White-or-Solar-Blue); surely that's alright then?

 

[FlipFlop]

If I was after 1 law change, would simplify touch to the FFR ruling:

A player in the field of play is not in touch until they touch someone or something beyond the touch line.
A player in touch is not "not in touch" until they have re-established themselves in the field of play (i.e. are not in touch)

The ball is in touch only when it touches something or someone who is intouch.

So you jump from field of play, you are not in touch until you land.
If you jump from touch, you are in touch until you land.

Yes there will be some anomalies - player jumps into field, catches ball, then lands, then the ball is out as player in touch caught it - so ball straight out. But it is simple to implement, simple to administer, and simple to understand. There is a simple rule defining if the player is in touch or not, and the same rule for the ball. And all touch situations can be easily worked out.



More "far out" there changes:
Team infringement: non-offending captain determines who goes off for 10min. (team offence, team suffer)
Repeated scrum offences: non-offending captain determines which forward serves the time. (pack offence, pack suffer)
With the scrum - would reduce chance of uncontested scrums - captain would not pick a FR to go off if it meant uncontested. So ref more likely (I hope) to YC repeated scrum offences.


And simplifying changes:
And I would like to offer option of 22DO or scrum back for all kicks that go dead (missed PKs and drops)

And think FKs should result in gain in ground from anywhere, but loss of possession. Fail to see why if a PK is 1cm outside 22m it is different to 1cm inside 22m.

 

[OB..]

More "far out" there changes:
Team infringement: non-offending captain determines who goes off for 10min. (team offence, team suffer)
Repeated scrum offences: non-offending captain determines which forward serves the time. (pack offence, pack suffer)

It is not a team offence - it was committed by one of the players.
The idea of punishing a player who has committed no offence is totally abhorrent.