[Law] World Rugby announces law amendment relating to scoring against the post protector

[L'irlandais]

The amended law will now read: The post protector is no longer an extension of the goal-line and therefore [LAWS]Law 8.2 (a) will read:
A try is scored when the attacking player is first to ground the ball in the opponents’ in-goal.[/LAWS]
By stipulating that an attacking team can no longer score against the post protector and therefore must ground the ball in-goal, this gives defending teams a fair chance of preventing a try from being scored
Source: WR News

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

World Rugby Chairman Sir Bill Beaumont said: “World Rugby’s mission is to make the game as simple, safe and enjoyable to play as possible. This law amendment reflects that mission.

“By stipulating that an attacking team can no longer score against the post protector and therefore must ground the ball in-goal, this gives defending teams a fair chance of preventing a try from being scored.”

this gives defending teams a fair chance of preventing a try from being scored

I guess the previous 100 yd was sufficient area to prevent a try

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

l
By stipulating that an attacking team can no longer score against the post protector and therefore must ground the ball in-goal, this gives defending teams a fair chance of preventing a try from being scored

Now, can a defending touchdown a ball against the post protector?, that is a ball that is not actually in goal?


This is kinda "shoulda leave well enough alone" scenario, isnt it?

 

[Pablo]

Not really surprising given a) the fatness of modern-day post protectors vs when the law was first written and b) this season’s antics of several defending teams lifting them up or ripping them off to deny the option of grounding the ball against them.

A bit of a shame, as I quite liked this little quirk of law. But like I say, I’m in no way surprised.

 

[SimonSmith]

Now, can a defending touchdown a ball against the post protector?, that is a ball that is not actually in goal?


This is kinda "shoulda leave well enough alone" scenario, isnt it?

You've not thought that through, or you've expressed it badly.

If the defenders ground the ball against the post pad in-goal, it will be grounded by virtue of the fact that it has been touched to the ground in goal.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

You've not thought that through, or you've expressed it badly.

If the defenders ground the ball against the post pad in-goal, it will be grounded by virtue of the fact that it has been touched to the ground in goal.

good point, I meant can it be touched to the pad at the base essentially on field of play by defenders. The same spot where attackers could in the past score a try.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

good point, I meant can it be touched to the pad at the base essentially on field of play by defenders. The same spot where attackers could in the past score a try.

Given the base of the post protector is not as defined as in-goal and there was a specific law stipulating that this was a method of scoring, a defender grounding the ball against the post protector would result in the ball still being in play.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

IMO - about bloody time. A quirk in the laws which caused more problems than it solved. In every other part of the field the line is the mark at which playing conditions change and keeping this consistent reduces complexity - reducing unnecessary complexity in the game should be encouraged.

 

[crossref]

I don't understand why we don't ever see American style tuning fork posts.

I certainly wouldn't start making people convert (too expensive, not priority) , but you might think that as and when stadiums get upgrades and/or new posts put in, tuning forks should be labelled best practice, and would come in gradually

 

[beckett50]

This move is one of those "about bl@@dy time" changes. Should have been done years ago.

It goes to "Equity" as the defenders now have a legal way of stopping a try being scored. Let's all face the truth that there was no legitimate way to stop an attacking player scoring against the base of the post.

 

[Dickie E]

In the 400 odd games I've reffed probably seen it twice. Yawn. Bigger issues to be dealt with.

 

[crossref]

In the 400 odd games I've reffed probably seen it twice. Yawn. Bigger issues to be dealt with.

Yes but last twelve months it gradually became a thing in elite rugby with attacking teams deliberately using each pick and go to shift sideways nearer to the posts until ...

 

[didds]

Yes but last twelve months it gradually became a thing in elite rugby with attacking teams deliberately using each pick and go to shift sideways nearer to the posts until ...

This ^^^.

nobody at the levels where laws are discussed etc gives a toss about what happens with us in theb grassroots . This change is not aimed at us.
Its entirely aimed at the elite level where indeed this is clsaearly a (reasonable) tactic. with the width of PP as they are, the try line is up to 0.5m ahead of where defnders can legally stand. An analogy would be them having to defnd the real try line with an offisede line st 18 inches closer to the dead ball line.


and as it "never" occurs at grass roots then the change wont matter to the vast majority of is on these forums I guess.

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree that at grassroots it changes little.


But I am glad to see it go from TV rugby. Edinburgh v Munster in December. The pundits were not happy...

Mitrea says “drop it”, Schoeman ignores him and Mitrea just… plays on.
Incredibly dangerous play and dangerous, irresponsible refereeing.

Don’t like the ref blaming above, but he might have stopped play and restarted with an attacking scrum. (That probably would have not ended as it did with a Try to Red, but player safety comes first.) If I ask a player to stop doing something dangerous, his ignoring me is not an option. I am going to blow the whistle and have a chat with the offending player.


I saw A. N. Other doing it in NH rugby this past season, but can’t find the footage
Here’s a SH example

 

[Pablo]

I agree that at grassroots it changes little.


But I am glad to see it go from TV rugby. Edinburgh v Munster in December. The pundits were not happy...

Don’t like the ref blaming above, but he might have stopped play and restarted with an attacking scrum. (That probably would have not ended as it did with a Try to Red, but player safety comes first.) If I ask a player to stop doing something dangerous, his ignoring me is not an option. I am going to blow the whistle and have a chat with the offending player.


I saw A. N. Other doing it in NH rugby this past season, but can’t find the footage
Here’s a SH example

Quite surprised in both cases that it wasn't a penalty - easily justified as an act that is "reckless or dangerous to others" under Law 9.11. Given they both interrupted a dominant attacking move, I would have been OK with a yellow card as well. The players knew what they were doing was illegal; it's pure gamesmanship.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I don't understand why we don't ever see American style tuning fork posts.

I certainly wouldn't start making people convert (too expensive, not priority) , but you might think that as and when stadiums get upgrades and/or new posts put in, tuning forks should be labelled best practice, and would come in gradually

You'd then have a fixed depth of in goal area.

Biggest I've seen is Market Rasen & Louth - must be 22m - Google maps says 22.21m

Shortest West Leeds - must be barely legal. Tuning fork would have to go over the fence in next-doors! Google maps says 4.02m :wow:

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I don't understand why we don't ever see American style tuning fork posts.

I certainly wouldn't start making people convert (too expensive, not priority) , but you might think that as and when stadiums get upgrades and/or new posts put in, tuning forks should be labelled best practice, and would come in gradually

There's a Rugby Ground near Ibrox (Rangers FC in Glasgow ye ken) who have tuning forks. They are the only ones I've ever seen. Unless it's an American football pitch - it does say some Rugby club or other on a board outside though.

Just looked on GM. It's Cartha Queen's Park RFC. They are a tuning fork but they are stuck in the goal line anyway so forget all that.

I've never seen any (proper ones).

I suppose CQP RFC solution halves the problem

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

In the 400 odd games I've reffed probably seen it twice. Yawn. Bigger issues to be dealt with.

I know what will happen your next game

 

[crossref]

You'd then have a fixed depth of in goal area.

Biggest I've seen is Market Rasen & Louth - must be 22m - Google maps says 22.21m

Shortest West Leeds - must be barely legal. Tuning fork would have to go over the fence in next-doors! Google maps says 4.02m :wow:

I don't think so
I imagine the tuning fork post just in the middle of the in goal

 

[TigerCraig]

I don't think so
I imagine the tuning fork post just in the middle of the in goal

Thats what happens in Canadian football

One of the issues here at grassroots is we often use shared fields with soccer, which means shared posts - so soccer goals (which are wider and lower than a rugby crossbar) with uprights with a crossbar mounted on them - so effectively there are 2 crossbars. We just play that if it hits either of them its play on