New Mitre 10 Cup laws



  • NZ rugby to trial two refs, new laws in national provincial championship in 2016
     
    TOBY ROBSON
    Last updated 20:49, December 17 2015
     
    Two referees will officiate together during New Zealand's national provincial championship next year as part of a World Rugby trial of proposed rule changes.
     
    The second on-field official will mainly be used to rule on a new offside line that will be moved one metre back from a redefined ruck, where the confusing "gate" will be ditched and the rights of the tackler reduced.
     
    New Zealand Rugby wasn't planning to unveil the proposed rule changes until early next year, but they are widely known after provincial unions sounded out clubs across the country about whether or not they wanted their premier competitions to trial the rules in order to prepare players for the representative season.
     
    Tweaks of the rules had been signalled with All Blacks coach Steve Hansen among the most vocal in saying the game needs to be easier to play, watch and referee, but the move to using two referees as is the case in the National Rugby League is a bold move.
     
    NRL bosses introduced the concept in 2009 and some referees believe it will provide a major improvement in keeping ever creeping defensive players on side. They also believed getting rid of the imaginary "gate" through which players can legally enter the breakdown will make things easier for officials.
     
    It remains unclear exactly what duties each of the on-field referees would have, but is assumed the secondary official would primarily be charged with policing the offside. In league there is a "lead ref" who does the bulk of officiating from the defensive side, though in international matches there is still only one on-field official.
     
    Dual referees aside, the most drastic change to be trialled during New Zealand's newly named Mitre 10 Cup will be at the tackle and ruck respectively.
     
    Under current law a ruck is formed when one player from each team are on their feet, in physical contact, over the ball. The trial will see the word "ruck" replaced by "breakdown", which would be formed when just one attacking player was over the ball on the ground. Once a breakdown is formed, no player from either side will be able to make a play for the ball with their hands, but in the absence of a "gate" would be able to enter the breakdown from any angle as long as they have come from an onside position.
     
    That will see an end to the familiar call of "from the side" with the hope there are less penalties and less confusion about which players are legally trying to enter the most frequent phase of the game.
     
    Essentially defenders will only be able to make a play for the ball if they swoop in, à la Wallabies loose forward David Pocock, before the first arriving attacker can turn the tackle into a breakdown.
     
    Tackler's rights will also be reduced from 360 degrees to 180 degrees, bunting the effectiveness of players like All Blacks openside Richie McCaw, who in his prime made an art form of stealing the ball in the same act as effecting a tackle. With the requirement to get back one metre before returning to the breakdown, tacklers will essentially have only one choice, which will be to roll away.
     
    Law makers are hopeful defences will see opportunity in counter rucking in numbers as opposed to getting their hands on the ball, but coaches spoken to by Stuff believed the rule changes would favour the attacking side by making it difficult to effect a steal at the tackle with defences simply fanning out to form a defensive wall.
     
    Similar dynamics were at play in in Super Rugby during the early 2000s when the Brumbies, under coach Eddie Jones, perfected the art of building pressure through holding the ball through countless phases in order to break down picket fence defensive lines.
     
    There is potential for the new laws, but not the two referees, to be trialled in New Zealand's premier club rugby grade in 2016. Provinces across the country are currently asking their clubs for feedback, although World Rugby would then have to sign off on any changes below the national provincial championship.
     
    The drive for change has been driven by World Rugby who sought feedback from around the globe before ratifying the trials, which will not be restricted to New Zealand.
     
    Hansen has been vocal about his desire to see changes to simplify the breakdown and create time and space for teams to attack, while Chiefs coach Dave Rennie took part in World Rugby's review process in March this year as a member of a Laws Representation Group.
     
    That group presented recommendations to World Rugby in October and following next year's trials any approved changes would come into force in January 2017 in the southern hemisphere and in August that year for the northern hemisphere.
     
    AT A GLANCE
    Proposed World Rugby law changes:
     
    1 Two on-field referees
    2 Removal of the 'gate' entry at the breakdown
    3 Tackler and arriving players can enter from midpoint of breakdown as long as they come from an onside position
    4 Tackler no longer has 360 degree rights to the ball
    5 Offside lines one metre behind hindmost foot at breakdown



  • you are going to see guys getting hammered from harsh angles.
    dont understand the tackler from 180 degrees rule. you really dont see a lot of that anyway imo.
    but i think the tackler having to role away will be hard in 1v1 cover tackles. attacker will get an easy 2nd chance
    so hard to ref the one metre behind even with a 2nd ref



  • Hmm Hard to comment with not much detail. Don't really understand the takler rights bit because the article suggests the a tackler instead of now having to show a clear release ie. hands in the air, before going for a turnover would have to tackle, get back a metre then go for the steal. Am i interpretting that right?
     
    One change I wish they would bring back from the old "ELVs" is the legally collapsing the maul. Lots will disagree but i don't think legal obstruction being protected from a tackle fits with the rest of the game as it is played.
    The way the maul has become is a bit of a joke. I think we were lucky the RWC didn't become a maul fest like some had suggested earlier in the year.
     
    Back on topic though. It will be interesting to also see how the two refs work together. IF one is watching the offside how will he know the ball is out ? Will the ref watching the ruck yell "ball out" every ruck? In fact i think that would actually be a good thing because it would take away those situations where a defender thinks a ball is out only to be pinged for offside.



  • on paper looks like a pretty shitty rule change to me.
    Offside one meter behind the hindmost foot? Is that only for the defending team, I guess, otherwise the acting scrumhalf would always be offside, so that means attacking teams get huge advantage with pick and gos, which are dull to watch.
    Tackler not having all the rights from anywhere is just silly, it's not like it's too much power to the tackler anyways, he usually gets cleaned out and if support is too slow then that's attacking teams fault. Why disadvantage the tackler there? It takes a decent amount of skill to get up on your feet quick enough to steal the ball, no matter from where, but after tackling you'd uickly have to adjust to where your side of the field (your 180°) is, which can be confusing when you're swinging around holding someones shorts or legs. Shitfuck
    Two on field-referees will lead to simulatenous blowing of whistles and one referee penalises team A and the other team B for their respective indiscretions. Will be confusing and shit
     
    I have zero faith in this being a positive rule change, there's so many more different things in urgent need of reform, and they fuck up the tackle and ruck situation? how about the maul?



  • Some weird laws that don't really need changing/tweaking and nothing about making a maul (and I still love mauls) a fairer 'contest'.



  • on paper looks like a pretty shitty rule change to me.
    Offside one meter behind the hindmost foot? Is that only for the defending team, I guess, otherwise the acting scrumhalf would always be offside, so that means attacking teams get huge advantage with pick and gos, which are dull to watch.
    Tackler not having all the rights from anywhere is just silly, it's not like it's too much power to the tackler anyways, he usually gets cleaned out and if support is too slow then that's attacking teams fault. Why disadvantage the tackler there? It takes a decent amount of skill to get up on your feet quick enough to steal the ball, no matter from where, but after tackling you'd uickly have to adjust to where your side of the field (your 180°) is, which can be confusing when you're swinging around holding someones shorts or legs. Shitfuck
    Two on field-referees will lead to simulatenous blowing of whistles and one referee penalises team A and the other team B for their respective indiscretions. Will be confusing and shit
     
    I have zero faith in this being a positive rule change, there's so many more different things in urgent need of reform, and they fuck up the tackle and ruck situation? how about the maul?

    I guess they'll have one 'lead' ref who makes the calls, the other just acts more as a guide for other rules? Otherwise, yep, be funny watching them rule a breakdown infringement differently.



  • They had to wait for Ritchie to retire before introducing this trial.....



  • I'm not sure if I trust World Rugby to make choices if their stats is anything to go by
     
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/75301573/all-blacks-praised-for-attacking-prowess-in-official-2015-rwc-report

    • Kicks have decreased from 59 to 39 per match and scrums have more than halved from 23 to 13.


  • There aren't enough refs for 2 to become the norm.



  • They had to wait for Ritchie to retire before introducing this trial.....

    Came here for this. Fuck imagine how good etc...



  • If unbound players have to be 1 meter behind the breakdown to be onside, how do you traverse that one meter in order to bind in a legal fashion?



  • Hmm Hard to comment with not much detail. Don't really understand the takler rights bit because the article suggests the a tackler instead of now having to show a clear release ie. hands in the air, before going for a turnover would have to tackle, get back a metre then go for the steal. Am i interpretting that right?

    I sincerely hope not. World rugby seem hell bent on getting rid of the contest for possession aspect of the game.

    Some weird laws that don't really need changing/tweaking and nothing about making a maul (and I still love mauls) a fairer 'contest'.

    The single biggest blight on the game.



  • I wish they stopped messing with the rules! %$*+@#%^ 
     
    NZ Herald:

    Rugby: Tries to be worth six points in NPC
    8:17 AM Wednesday Dec 23, 2015
     
    Tries are set to have greater value in next year's Mitre 10 Cup after a scoring change was revealed this morning.
     
    New Zealand Rugby's Neil Sorensen has confirmed to TAB Sport Radio that tries will now be worth six points in the 2016 national provincial championship, with penalties dropping in value to from three to two points.
     
    Formerly known as the ITM Cup, the Mitre 10 Cup has been chosen to host the initiative which will place an emphasis on try-scoring and attacking rugby, and decrease the amount of penalties being kicked.
     
    Additionally, according to a report by World Rugby, NZ Rugby are also looking at experimenting with two referees next year in the competition.

    • More to come


  • I don't see what increasing the points for a try achieves in NZ rugby. We already play the game to score tries more than penalties.



  • I don't see what increasing the points for a try achieves in NZ rugby. We already play the game to score tries more than penalties.

    yeah my thoughts exactly.
     
    Being worth more does what to the way the game is already played in NZ?
     
    A trial of this sort would be better in England (if it is needed at all)



  • A few more details in this article on Stuff:

    Tries to be worth six points in New Zealand rugby's NPC
     
    Tries will be worth six points in New Zealand's national rugby championship next year.
     
    The change was confirmed by New Zealand Rugby's Neil Sorensen in an interview with TAB Sport Radio on Wednesday.
     
    The changes will also include penalties being reduced from three points to two points.
     
    The moves are part of World Rugby's trials to make the sport more attacking and appealing.
     
    Australia's national championship and Welsh leagues have already been operating under the new scoring system.
     
    Next year's Pacific Challenge Cup and Under-20 trophy will also feature the same scoring rewards along with other European competitions
     
    Giving greater points for tries and less for penalties is seen as a positive move.
     
    New Zealand are also set to trial two referees in the 2016 NPC.

    If penalties are devalued to 2 points, isn't that an invitation to more offending? Or are the two refs going to hand out more cards as well?



  • Horrible, horrible, horrible. Why is World Rugby intent on destroying the penalty as a practical method of scoring points? I doubt I will be watching any ITM Cup rugby next season. As Crucial said, how many ITM Cup games is point scoring not rewarded? People are kidding themselves if they think that people aren't turning up because the rugby isn't exciting enough. People don't turn up to the ITM Cup because the rugby is seen as irrelevant.



  • A few more details in this article on Stuff:
     
     
    If penalties are devalued to 2 points, isn't that an invitation to more offending? Or are the two refs going to hand out more cards as well?

    In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.



  • In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.

    In 79 ITM Cup games we had 45 yellow cards and 2 red cards.
     
    This means that if we are to emulate the NRC, the amount of yellow cards will increase 2.75 times. Great news if you are a referee; bad news if you think one of the problems with rugby is close games being decided by referees.



  • In the NRC this year there were 61 yellow cards and 4 red cards over 39 games. If you want to see unbalanced games decided upon controversial refereeing decisions then you have the perfect rules.

    Define "unbalanced" - in the context of a player deliberately infringing in certain situations, and receiving his due for it.


Log in to reply