It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:33 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
New Law Trials - EoYTs 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am
Posts: 10003
Post New Law Trials - EoYTs
http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?do ... law+trials

Quote:
The World Rugby Executive Committee has approved the addition of six law amendments to the programme of global law trials.

The amendments, which were made following positive trials in specific international competitions this year, relate to the scrum (Law 20) and tackle/ruck (Laws 15 and 16), are aimed at making the game simpler to play and referee as well as further promoting player welfare.

They have been approved following extensive game data analysis as well as player, coach, match official and union feedback from the tournaments in which these six aspects of law were trialled.

The six law amendments will now join the scheduled global law trial programme, completing a total package of 11 aspects of law, and will debut in full from 1 August in the northern hemisphere and from 1 January in the south.

The November 2017 Tests will operate under the full global law trials, while the 2017 Women’s World Cup will operate under the package of five global law trials that has been operational in the southern hemisphere since January and was operational during the June test window.

The six aspects of law approved to join the global trial programme are:

1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).

2. Law 20.9 (b) Handling in the scrum – exception
The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows (locks).
Rationale: To promote continuity.

3. Law 20 Striking after the throw-in
Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball.
Sanction: Free-kick
Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

4. Law 15.4 (c)
The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle 'gate'.
Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law.

5. Law 16 Ruck
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point, the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

6. Law 16.4: Other ruck offences
A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.
Sanction: Penalty
Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

The six new aspects of law were part of the original 2015 laws review process, and were recommended to move to closed trial to provide a further analysis opportunity before global trial could be considered.

These closed trials were operational at the 2017 World Rugby U20 Championship, World Rugby Nations Cup, World Rugby Pacific Challenge, Americas Rugby Championship and Oceania Rugby U20 Championship, with positive outcomes:

Scrum outcomes:
– More ball coming back into play with fewer penalties and fewer collapses.
– The ball was fed quicker with scrums continuing to be stable prior to put-in.
– No collapses occurred by the No 8 picking the ball up from under the second rows (locks).

Tackle outcomes:
– Feedback suggested that the tackle was easier to referee with clearly defined offside lines and tacklers not interfering with the quality of the ball with more players on their feet allowing counter-rucking.


Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:07 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am
Posts: 10003
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:11 pm
Profile
British & Irish Lions Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:00 am
Posts: 2267
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Brian Moore will have to resist the well verse urge to complain about it, at least until players find ways around it and collapses inevitably start again. One thing I want to see properly reffed is blocking players joining rucks. Too many times players run past a player on the ground and intercept incoming players before they join the ruck. I've not seen it penalised yet. Also just generally standing on the wrong side of the actual ruck and acting as a buffer without actually being part of it.

_________________
Image


Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:19 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am
Posts: 10003
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Troron wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Brian Moore will have to resist the well verse urge to complain about it, at least until players find ways around it and collapses inevitably start again. One thing I want to see properly reffed is blocking players joining rucks. Too many times players run past a player on the ground and intercept incoming players before they join the ruck. I've not seen it penalised yet. Also just generally standing on the wrong side of the actual ruck and acting as a buffer without actually being part of it.


Do you mean the players going over the top of the ruck? If so that's a tough one. If you decide the first players to a ruck can't blow over then they have to stop and wait for the slower opposition loosies to arrive. Those guys will then have momentum, and easily smash the other team who technically were quicker to the ruck. We'd be penalising speed and rewarding slow forwards. It'd be odd.

I can definitely see your point though. If this was policed in the Lions series we'd have to scrub one try for Warburton and one try for Murray.


Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:45 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 12:34 am
Posts: 15243
Location: Japan
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Yeah man, players that have gone over the ruck, on the ground, or getting up, interfering with the opposition is getting out of hand. Holding and blocking players is a right mare now, everyone is doing it.

_________________
Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one, and fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around,
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.


Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:48 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 5978
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Legalising not straight put in's is comparable with the mood of contemporary society and ends a nonsense.


Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:24 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am
Posts: 10003
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Legalising not straight put in's is comparable with the mood of contemporary society and ends a nonsense.


It's still a straight put in, it's not a centre put in.

I agree with it anyway. A scrum occurs after an error from one team. It shouldn't then become an even contest for possession, the team that didn't commit the error should have an advantage.


Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:30 am
Profile
International Player

Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:41 pm
Posts: 825
Location: The Present
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
Troron wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Brian Moore will have to resist the well verse urge to complain about it, at least until players find ways around it and collapses inevitably start again. One thing I want to see properly reffed is blocking players joining rucks. Too many times players run past a player on the ground and intercept incoming players before they join the ruck. I've not seen it penalised yet. Also just generally standing on the wrong side of the actual ruck and acting as a buffer without actually being part of it.


Do you mean the players going over the top of the ruck? If so that's a tough one. If you decide the first players to a ruck can't blow over then they have to stop and wait for the slower opposition loosies to arrive. Those guys will then have momentum, and easily smash the other team who technically were quicker to the ruck. We'd be penalising speed and rewarding slow forwards. It'd be odd.

I can definitely see your point though. If this was policed in the Lions series we'd have to scrub one try for Warburton and one try for Murray.



Whilst you may be right about the Lions tries (it was nice to see us finally use the tactic effectively) ... NZ (and SH teams generally) have become MASTERS at this kind of play which has caused NH teams massive problems.
It's been very very anoying to watch as we have failed to catch on to what is obviously happening and do likewise.

Most of my frustration has been about why we don't do it ourselves when it is SO effective for SH teams !!

So if this stops all that happening I will be delighted.


Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:35 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am
Posts: 10003
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
welshy34 wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Troron wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Brian Moore will have to resist the well verse urge to complain about it, at least until players find ways around it and collapses inevitably start again. One thing I want to see properly reffed is blocking players joining rucks. Too many times players run past a player on the ground and intercept incoming players before they join the ruck. I've not seen it penalised yet. Also just generally standing on the wrong side of the actual ruck and acting as a buffer without actually being part of it.


Do you mean the players going over the top of the ruck? If so that's a tough one. If you decide the first players to a ruck can't blow over then they have to stop and wait for the slower opposition loosies to arrive. Those guys will then have momentum, and easily smash the other team who technically were quicker to the ruck. We'd be penalising speed and rewarding slow forwards. It'd be odd.

I can definitely see your point though. If this was policed in the Lions series we'd have to scrub one try for Warburton and one try for Murray.



Whilst you may be right about the Lions tries (it was nice to see us finally use the tactic effectively) ... NZ (and SH teams generally) have become MASTERS at this kind of play which has caused NH teams massive problems.
It's been very very anoying to watch as we have failed to catch on to what is obviously happening and do likewise.

Most of my frustration has been about why we don't do it ourselves when it is SO effective for SH teams !!

So if this stops all that happening I will be delighted.

Conversely the comments from the SH are that NH teams are always holding on at the rucks, doing these kinds of plays, and slowing play down to compensate for their inability to play the faster game. The difference is you dont tend to upload a montage videos of other teams transgressions to Youtube if your team is winning RWCs and sitting at the top of the rankings.

Pointing fingers at one hemisphere is stupid. It's a pro game and all teams push the laws to their advantage.


Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:48 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 5978
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Legalising not straight put in's is comparable with the mood of contemporary society and ends a nonsense.


It's still a straight put in, it's not a centre put in.

I agree with it anyway. A scrum occurs after an error from one team. It shouldn't then become an even contest for possession, the team that didn't commit the error should have an advantage.


Fair point! I hadn't thought of the fairness aspect before.


Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:04 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:41 am
Posts: 6070
Location: Centurion, South Africa
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
It's still a straight put in, it's not a centre put in.

I agree with it anyway. A scrum occurs after an error from one team. It shouldn't then become an even contest for possession, the team that didn't commit the error should have an advantage.

Pretty 100%

In my first year in the school 1st team, we had a fantastic defense but horrid scrum. One school we played regularly would knock the ball on 'accidentally' when they weren't getting through, to milk scrum penalties.

Yeah we were that shit. Not even put in's directly to the 8th man helped every time :D
(I was blindside flank at that point btw :thefinger: )

_________________
Burpity burp burp


Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:15 pm
Profile
British & Irish Lions Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:00 am
Posts: 2267
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
Do you mean the players going over the top of the ruck? If so that's a tough one. If you decide the first players to a ruck can't blow over then they have to stop and wait for the slower opposition loosies to arrive. Those guys will then have momentum, and easily smash the other team who technically were quicker to the ruck. We'd be penalising speed and rewarding slow forwards. It'd be odd.

I can definitely see your point though. If this was policed in the Lions series we'd have to scrub one try for Warburton and one try for Murray.


I mean a player getting tackled and then other players from the tackling team going beyond the tackled player and acting as a shield whilst a player behind tries to turn the ball over. In legal play the first player that the attacking team would hit when they joined the ruck would be a player making the turnover or a player ready to ruck. Using the blocking tactic they have to clear out a player who is simply blocking and is neither making a turnover nor part of the ruck, they are simply standing in the way. The game I saw that had this done all the time was Wales vs England in the last 6N. A large chunk of the Welsh dominance at the breakdown was due to blocking English players from getting to the breakdown, giving the welsh back row an extra second or 2 to get a turnover. Since that game I noticed the Scots also utilised it all the time in their games against Ireland and Wales. Generally in the 6N the team that was dominating the breakdown was the one doing the most blocking. It wasn't penalised once.

_________________
Image


Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:02 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am
Posts: 10003
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Right gotcha. We don't want anything that rewards plodding forwards so I see what you mean. Hopefully it's reffed that way.

It's always the thing with the new laws, there's how they read, then how they are reffed.


Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:56 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Legalising not straight put in's is comparable with the mood of contemporary society and ends a nonsense.


It's still a straight put in, it's not a centre put in.

I agree with it anyway. A scrum occurs after an error from one team. It shouldn't then become an even contest for possession, the team that didn't commit the error should have an advantage.


And therein lies the entire reason for the 'punishment' that is a 'penalty' in the game! It's the reason why all ruling body's have resisted the biennial calls to reduce the value of the penalty kick, it's because it's a p.e.n.a.l.t.y and it's intended to penalise the transgressor, end of!
In this particular case, there are many scrum-halfs and front-rows who still won't take the advantage on offer unless it's properly trained! I wonder how referees will calculate a 'shoulder-width' - I imagine (early days?) it will be a free-for-all with all sorts of interpretations?

_________________
"I have to say, I find that offensive toward (insert cause/belief)"

Bit of tough luck for you then, old chap. I really don't give a toss about your perceived sensibilities!!


Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:11 pm
Profile
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 am
Posts: 11532
Location: Neath Valley
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Legalising not straight put in's is comparable with the mood of contemporary society and ends a nonsense.


It's still a straight put in, it's not a centre put in.

I agree with it anyway. A scrum occurs after an error from one team. It shouldn't then become an even contest for possession, the team that didn't commit the error should have an advantage.



I'm not trying to be pedantic but you have contradicted yourself, you can't have an even contest if one side has the advantage.

I agree that the side that didnt commit the error should have an advantage but it should also be a contest. The reason for the need for a contest is the diversity of the game, in that slow plodding forwards are needed to secure the possession and maintain the advantage (props) or regain the advantage in set piece. If not we will go the rugby league route.

From what i can see its a clever move to change the feed straight but off centre as the hooker of the side in possession can adopt a far more powerful position. With the old legal feed the position of the hooker in effect led to a 7 against 8 scrum which was exaggerated further by the fact the front row contest was virtually a 2 on 3, so the advantage from the scrum was lost and in the advantage went to the team not in possession. To negate this the crooked feed and no strike became widespread.

_________________
"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for


Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gwladok5 and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: