WR Law changes for 2016

[The Fat]

Just received the law changes for Aus this season and I suppose for NH for 2016-17 season.

Following the 2015 Rugby World Cup, World Rugby went through a Law review process which has
led to some Law changes being implemented for the 2016 season around the world.
World Rugby also agreed on some trial variations which will NOT apply in community rugby in
Australia in 2016.
Below find the various changes that will apply in 2016. In particular, there are some major variations
around scrum and maul that all coaches, players and referees need to be aware of.


SCRUM
Law 8.3
Advantage may now be played (if it is safe to do so) when a scrum collapses, or when a player stands
up in a scrum and their feet are on the ground. Advantage still cannot be played if a player in the
scrum is forced upwards AND has no support on the ground. Safety should always be the priority
when a scrum collapses.

Law 20.1
A team must be ready for the referee to call “crouch” within 30 seconds from the time the referee
makes the mark for the scrum (FK).

Law 20.10
When a team has the ball at the #8’s feet but the scrum is not moving forward, the referee will call
“Use it!” The team must use the ball immediately (turnover scrum).

Law 20.11
When a scrum is legally wheeled through 90 degrees, this no longer results in a turnover. The scrum
is reset with the same team feeding the ball, regardless of who had possession at the time of the
stoppage.

Law 20.12
The scrum-half of the team that doesn’t win the ball in the scrum may not move into the space
between the flanker and No. 8 when following the ball through the scrum (PK). This was previously
an Australian U19 Law Variation, now applies worldwide.

MAUL
Law 17.3
The ball can be moved backwards hand-to-hand once the maul has formed. A Player is not allowed
to move/slide to the back of the maul when he is in possession of the ball (PK).

SUBSTITUTIONS
Law 3.12
A player who has been tactically substituted may return to the field to replace a player who has
been injured as a result of foul play. (If the team chooses to replace the injured player with a fresh
reserve, the team does not gain any extra replacements.)

TIMING AT THE END OF A GAME
Law 5
If a try is scored close to time expiring, so long as the conversion is kicked (boot striking ball) before
time expires, there will be a restart. A team may decline to take the conversion so long as they
indicate this before time expires. In this case, there will be a restart, and the kicking team cannot
kick the ball out on the full, or not 10 metres, etc, to end the game. The game will continue with
appropriate sanctions options given to the non-kicking team.

FOUL PLAY
Law 10.2
It is now explicitly illegal for a player to “simulate” that they been subject to any infringement at all,
including (but not limited to) foul play (PK).

KNOCK ON
Law 12
If a player, in tackling an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the
ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.
If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent’s hands and the ball goes
forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is not a knock-on.

MARK FOR PENALTY AND FREE KICKS NEAR IN-GOAL
Law 21.2
The mark for all FKs and PKs awarded within 5 metres of a goal line is now 5 metres back from the
goal line. Previously this was only true for an attacking team’s mark within 5 metres of the defending
team’s goal line.

 

[FatherFlipper]

I personally like 10.2 - should hopefully stop frivolous appealing, and players standing at breakdowns, waving their arms in the air going "Sir" with looks of shock and horror on their innocent faces...

 

[Phil E]

I personally like 10.2 - should hopefully stop frivolous appealing, and players standing at breakdowns, waving their arms in the air going "Sir" with looks of shock and horror on their innocent faces...

I think its aimed at "diving" rather than "appealing".

I like all of them apart from the first one, although I suspect that is aimed at the top end of the game.

 

[Ian_Cook]

SCRUM
Law 8.3
Advantage may now be played (if it is safe to do so) when a scrum collapses, or when a player stands up in a scrum and their feet are on the ground. Advantage still cannot be played if a player in the scrum is forced upwards AND has no support on the ground. Safety should always be the priority when a scrum collapses.

Law 20.1
A team must be ready for the referee to call “crouch” within 30 seconds from the time the referee makes the mark for the scrum (FK).

Law 20.10
When a team has the ball at the #8’s feet but the scrum is not moving forward, the referee will call “Use it!” The team must use the ball immediately (turnover scrum).

Law 20.11
When a scrum is legally wheeled through 90 degrees, this no longer results in a turnover. The scrum is reset with the same team feeding the ball, regardless of who had possession at the time of the stoppage.

- about bloody time too!

Law 20.12
The scrum-half of the team that doesn’t win the ball in the scrum may not move into the space between the flanker and No. 8 when following the ball through the scrum (PK). This was previously an Australian U19 Law Variation, now applies worldwide.

MAUL
Law 17.3
The ball can be moved backwards hand-to-hand once the maul has formed. A Player is not allowed to move/slide to the back of the maul when he is in possession of the ball (PK).

SUBSTITUTIONS
Law 3.12
A player who has been tactically substituted may return to the field to replace a player who has been injured as a result of foul play. (If the team chooses to replace the injured player with a fresh reserve, the team does not gain any extra replacements.)

TIMING AT THE END OF A GAME
Law 5
If a try is scored close to time expiring, so long as the conversion is kicked (boot striking ball) before time expires, there will be a restart. A team may decline to take the conversion so long as they indicate this before time expires. In this case, there will be a restart, and the kicking team cannot kick the ball out on the full, or not 10 metres, etc, to end the game. The game will continue with appropriate sanctions options given to the non-kicking team.

Fair enough

FOUL PLAY
Law 10.2
It is now explicitly illegal for a player to “simulate” that they been subject to any infringement at all, including (but not limited to) foul play (PK).

I agree with FatherFlipper. This should apply to players waving their arms about at the ruck/tackle (the bold bit is the clue) If it only applied to players "diving", it would be limited to foul play
.

KNOCK ON
Law 12
If a player, in tackling an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on. If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent’s hands and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is not a knock-on.

Sorted and should end the spurious arguments from SA Referees

MARK FOR PENALTY AND FREE KICKS NEAR IN-GOAL
Law 21.2
The mark for all FKs and PKs awarded within 5 metres of a goal line is now 5 metres back from the goal line. Previously this was only true for an attacking team’s mark within 5 metres of the defending team’s goal line.

Cock-up fixed!

 

[ChrisR]

Agree with above ^^^^^^

Tho I'd rather the feed go to team in possession on wheeled scrum rather than back to initial feeder.

 

[OB..]

20.11
The attacking side will see an opportunity to wheel slightly to put the opposing back row at a disadvantage. The defenders will perhaps resist initially, but then encourage it, aiming for a reset.

Does that count as an improvement?

 

[ChrisR]

20.11
The attacking side will see an opportunity to wheel slightly to put the opposing back row at a disadvantage. The defenders will perhaps resist initially, but then encourage it, aiming for a reset.

Does that count as an improvement?

Yes, though time will tell. Coupled with 20.10 "Use it" and 8.3 Advantage on collapsed scrum we should see more ball played from scrum.

 

[FlipFlop]

Don't like the wheel - being a full reset. Prefer team in possession. If there is a strike against the head, the feeding team will wheel to get the reset.

And the 10.2: disagree about the waving arms. Waving arms is not simulating they have been infringed against, it is appealing. Simulating is diving, or pretending to have been hit, etc. It is the faking of a reaction to an illegal act.

But having said that - would like it to specifically include arm waving!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Don't like the wheel - being a full reset. Prefer team in possession. If there is a strike against the head, the feeding team will wheel to get the reset.

If you win the ball against the throw in, the prospect of the opposing team wheeling is a bloody good incentive to get the ball out quickly.

As a referee, if I saw a strike against the head and the scrum start to wheel, I'd be looking very closely at the front row of the team that threw in.

And the 10.2: disagree about the waving arms. Waving arms is not simulating they have been infringed against, it is appealing. Simulating is diving, or pretending to have been hit, etc. It is the faking of a reaction to an illegal act.

But having said that - would like it to specifically include arm waving!

Can you give me a scenario where a player would dive in order to claim an action by the opponent that was NOT foul play?

 

[thepercy]

If you win the ball against the throw in, the prospect of the opposing team wheeling is a bloody good incentive to get the ball out quickly.

As a referee, if I saw a strike against the head and the scrum start to wheel, I'd be looking very closely at the front row of the team that threw in.




Can you give me a scenario where a player would dive in order to claim an action by the opponent that was NOT foul play?

SH "trips" over a tackler on the wrong side of the breakdown to buy a PK.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

17.3 maul!
Seriously I'll believe it when I see it.
All current televised mauls rely on this illegal move.

 

[Ian_Cook]

SH "trips" over a tackler on the wrong side of the breakdown to buy a PK.

A trip is foul play, although, I guess you could argue that by intentionally falling over, he's bringing attention to an infringing opponent. How is this different from a player waving his arms about to point out a tackled player not releasing?

In the "trip" scenario, at least there remains a possibility (however remote) that the SH really didn't see the player and genuinely tripped over him by accident. In the "waving yer arms about" scenario, there is no chance at all that the player was doing anything other than appealing to the referee.

 

[Ian_Cook]

17.3 maul!
Seriously I'll believe it when I see it.
All current televised mauls rely on this illegal move.

Err, that is why they are making the Law specifically that you can't do it that way... aren't they?

 

[menace]

17.3 maul!
Seriously I'll believe it when I see it.
All current televised mauls rely on this illegal move.

Err, that is why they are making the Law specifically that you can't do it that way... aren't they?

I have 2 thoughts on this.

1) really how different is it as 'legal obstruction' if the ball carrier slides back vs the ball passed back?? Both require a set of skills to execute effectively to create a legal obstruction. I would think if you allow it to be passed back you should allow the BC to slide back. They're both creating that same legal obstruction which can only be countered with committing numbers to the maul to stop it moving forward.
Though I'm sure smarter rugby heads than me will give a bloody good reason for the difference that is not apparent to me.

2) extending 1, the defender of a maul is permitted to move through the maul provided they are bound within the maul (they can even have their arms free to grab the BC provided they are bound in the maul). Effectively they can move through to get to the BC and kill the maul therefore for equity surely the BC should be permitted to evade the defender coming through the maul provided they too remain bound 'in' the maul? Not allowing truck and trailer I understand. I'm just not sure how I feel about about allowing 1 team the action but not the same action cause they're holding the ball. I'm sure again someone smarter than me will give a good reason for it.

 

[The Fat]

I have 2 thoughts on this.

1) really how different is it as 'legal obstruction' if the ball carrier slides back vs the ball passed back?? Both require a set of skills to execute effectively to create a legal obstruction. I would think if you allow it to be passed back you should allow the BC to slide back. They're both creating that same legal obstruction which can only be countered with committing numbers to the maul to stop it moving forward.
Though I'm sure smarter rugby heads than me will give a bloody good reason for the difference that is not apparent to me.

2) extending 1, the defender of a maul is permitted to move through the maul provided they are bound within the maul (they can even have their arms free to grab the BC provided they are bound in the maul). Effectively they can move through to get to the BC and kill the maul therefore for equity surely the BC should be permitted to evade the defender coming through the maul provided they too remain bound 'in' the maul? Not allowing truck and trailer I understand. I'm just not sure how I feel about about allowing 1 team the action but not the same action cause they're holding the ball. I'm sure again someone smarter than me will give a good reason for it.

WR is obviously saying that a ball carrier cannot get to the back position of the maul without breaking his bind. You have identified an inequity between the rights of the defender and the ball carrier. The only "fair" way to achieve the desired outcome is to allow the BC to slide back through the maul while "caught in" but for the ball to be at the back person, it must be handed to that player i.e. the original BC can only slide back until he is the 2nd last player.

 

[Pegleg]

These changes are in the 2016 Law book. Except 17.3 (unless I've missed it). Also the change referred to as bewing 3.12 is under 3.14.

 

[didds]

WR is obviously saying that a ball carrier cannot get to the back position of the maul without breaking his bind..

Except you don;t have to bound when IN the maul - being surrounded by other maulers but not bound to them is legal.

The only players that have to be bound ar those on the outsides. So the BC doesn't have to be bound in until he becomes the rear player.

didds
[/QUOTE]

 

[didds]

Ian - I think what was being suggested that there was no trip in any real sense whether deliberate or not by the player whose leg was the obstruction, but rather that the scrum half finds a leg to initiate contact with to then take a dive - or even just acts as if he had been tripped with no actual contact made.

I think.

didds

 

[The Fat]

Except you don;t have to bound when IN the maul - being surrounded by other maulers but not bound to them is legal.

The only players that have to be bound ar those on the outsides. So the BC doesn't have to be bound in until he becomes the rear player.

didds

[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure we are saying the same thing didds.

 

[FlipFlop]

Maul - passing the ball back means there is a moment when the ball has to be transferred, so it is vulnerable to being dropped, stolen etc. Also - gives less incentive to join infront of the ball carrier. It brings back what is supposed to happen in a maul. Also there is no longer a need to have a specialist ball carrier in the maul - everyone needs to be able to do it.

As for the faking it without foul play - diving out of the line out (despite never being pushed)? SH "stamping" near the ball at a ruck to try and imply oppo hands are on it (when they aren't)? But ultimately I'm not sure. I was just pointing out that simulating is not the same as appealing. I think the reference to "foul play or not" is just a catch-all, to say ALL these types of actions are illegal. Previously they were under "unsportsman like conduct", now they have their own law.