Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond



  • Umm

    What a surprise, running at each other with your head down, means more concussions.



    • Training load: Any player competing at Rugby World Cup 2019 must have a ‘load passport’ to encourage best-practice training load management between club and country environments (approved by the World Rugby Council in November 2018 and presented to tier one coaches), while all unions are encouraged to optimally manage load between club and national team environments based on published best-practice and guidance.

    What?? Where's the published best practice and guidance? This reads to me like they are assuming all unions are like NZ/Ireland and in charge of their "clubs" (and that all their national players are playing in their country).



  • Funny how whenever something in the Laws goes against England there is a swift change. Twice now the offside law has changed due to games at Twickers.



  • @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    Funny how whenever something in the Laws goes against England there is a swift change. Twice now the offside law has changed due to games at Twickers.

    Sure, but this clarification wouldn't have helped England in the Lawes situation

    The changes they made after the Italy game created confusion about offside lines at a ruck vs 'tackle with offside line'. Making them the same seems like a good idea

    I look forward to seeing what the unintended consequence of this change is. Players suddenly swinging their arm/leg out in a ruck and putting players offside?



  • @Bones said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    • Training load: Any player competing at Rugby World Cup 2019 must have a ‘load passport’ to encourage best-practice training load management between club and country environments (approved by the World Rugby Council in November 2018 and presented to tier one coaches), while all unions are encouraged to optimally manage load between club and national team environments based on published best-practice and guidance.

    What?? Where's the published best practice and guidance? This reads to me like they are assuming all unions are like NZ/Ireland and in charge of their "clubs" (and that all their national players are playing in their country).

    Published best practice/guidance, is presumably this: http://sandc.worldrugby.org/index.php?module=81

    ... and note that they're always careful to use the word "encourage" for things that they know damned well they can't enforce.



  • @Duluth said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    Funny how whenever something in the Laws goes against England there is a swift change. Twice now the offside law has changed due to games at Twickers.

    Sure, but this clarification wouldn't have helped England in the Lawes situation

    The changes they made after the Italy game created confusion about offside lines at a ruck vs 'tackle with offside line'. Making them the same seems like a good idea

    I look forward to seeing what the unintended consequence of this change is. Players suddenly swinging their arm/leg out in a ruck and putting players offside?

    What I’d like to see is a directive that says you must be clearly and obviously onside rather than offside. If players don’t want to be pinged then they have to be careful.



  • Watching Ireland v England and I've come up with one law change that will solve so much.

    Ban the box kick.

    Think about the things that are instantly improved:
    Those long snakey rucks? Gone
    Half backs rolling the ball back with their hands? Gone
    A huge number of the aerial contests leading to injuries, penalties, and 50/50 cards are gone.
    And teams have to actually run with the ball again, and the game doesn't need to be run by air traffic control



  • @mariner4life So illegal to kick directly from the ruck? Sounds good to me, we're shit at it anyway 😉



  • Looking to use a league rule



  • @Hooroo So as soon as the opposition look like getting into your half, you need to drop another defender back.

    For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby. So a proposal I'd be interested in trialling would be every scrum reset the clock is stopped until it comes out and general play commences.



  • @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Hooroo So as soon as the opposition look like getting into your half, you need to drop another defender back.

    For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby. So a proposal I'd be interested in trialling would be every scrum reset the clock is stopped until it comes out and general play commences.

    Yeah, I actually like the sound of this rule as a whole.



  • @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Hooroo So as soon as the opposition look like getting into your half, you need to drop another defender back.

    For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby. So a proposal I'd be interested in trialling would be every scrum reset the clock is stopped until it comes out and general play commences.

    other way around? While they are in their half you'll need to keep your wingers back? As soon as they cross halfway then you pull them up shorter?

    I guess the hoping is more running from your own half? But i can't see too many teams having a crack at that, wingers are generally back any way. I don't think this makes a huge difference to game play, especially at the top level.

    Just on your game clock suggestion, some games would be fuuuuucking long.



  • @mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Hooroo So as soon as the opposition look like getting into your half, you need to drop another defender back.

    For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby. So a proposal I'd be interested in trialling would be every scrum reset the clock is stopped until it comes out and general play commences.

    other way around? While they are in their half you'll need to keep your wingers back? As soon as they cross halfway then you pull them up shorter?

    Ahh yes.

    I guess the hoping is more running from your own half? But i can't see too many teams having a crack at that, wingers are generally back any way. I don't think this makes a huge difference to game play, especially at the top level.

    I think such an idea (your half into their 22) wouldn't change anything. Such a kick would be a low percentage lottery. My erroneous interpretation would at least provide a little more room on the outsides.

    Just on your game clock suggestion, some games would be fuuuuucking long.

    True, they would. But at least at some point there'd be more than the turgid walls of defence that we've seen of late.



  • @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    True, they would. But at least at some point there'd be more than the turgid walls of defence that we've seen of late.

    maybe. Or the rest keeps refreshing everyone.



  • @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    For all of this, if the players had to run more during the 80mins, there would be more open running rugby.

    I wsa thinking a similar thing (so great idea @antipodean!) I wsa wondering about reducing subs benches to 5 though - rewards versatile front rowers and players, and means there is a much stronger incentive on stamina over raw power and bulk. Personally, I think it would lead to better rugby, as you have to compromise on big units who can't go 80, and then reward versatility in players on the bench



  • So that would have to be a ful front row (safety and stopping golden oldie scrums) plus two backs, or a loose forward/back hybrid?



  • @Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.

    Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.



  • @nzzp Don't like that idea. Apart from player welfare issues (players staying on the field despite carrying a minor injury, because there's no replacement, while they would be replaced under current rules), it also rewards teams with less depth.



  • @Stargazer is that any different to now?

    Also depth is over rated. The deepest squad i have ever seen still couldn't win a world cup. Perhaps test rugby would become more competitive, which also helps



  • @mariner4life said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Machpants i reckon you keep the 7 man bench but you're only allowed 5 subs.

    Being able to sub half the team, and 80% of the big units is a bit of a joke when you think about it.

    Am liking this.

    The issue is what happens when you get an injury in tghe front row after you've used your subs. And what about an "injury" in the front row?


Log in to reply