Big changes for lawbook
-
Not needed. It's called rugby league.
-
So the article headline is a little misleading. They have admitted the law book is too verbose and they are simplifying the language, not removing laws
The date of the trial laws is interesting:
Should World Rugby sign off, the trials of these seven laws will go ahead in the southern hemisphere from January 1 next year, and in the northern hemisphere from August 1 this year.I don't recall the Northern Hemisphere trying experimental laws first?
-
Don't want to misinterpret your flippant comment, Billy Tell, but if I could down vote it I would.
The rules of rugby have become far too complicated in recent years for all the participants IMO, fans, commentators, referees, players. Not to mention different interpretations of the laws in northern and southern hemispheres which is absurd.
Don't have to look back very far to see that there is far too much leeway for common sense laws to be poorly applied.
So I am all in favour of simplification of the rules for all and sundry.
So if the law book is being simplified and cut in half so there is more certainty on the field of endeavour, I am all in favour.
This concept concerns me though..
"I've had three three-day lockups, where we've got through everything in the law book and said 'how do we make it easier to read and easier to understand'," he said.
Hill said the revised book was based on a comprehension level of school years eight and nine, with it run it through computer software to ensure it meets those levels.
I think if they sat Justin Marshall in front of the new comprehension of the laws and he could understand them, so we are probably talking years 4 and 5, then we would be good to go.
-
Not sure the rules ... laws ... are necessarily unnecessarily complicated. Its more IMO that there are complicated aspects of play that happen in a blink of an eye that officials can't determine what or when a law is transgressed with 100% accuracy.
There is ambiguity in simple games like soccer, roolz or loigue. So there is ambiguity in in a sport that requires a bit more intellectual investment.
Making the laws "simpler" will just lead to situations where we go "that doesn't look right" or "gee that's wrong/ambiguous and not covered" and they'll have to chock that loop hole back up again ... leading it back to "complication".
I think we need to accept human error/judgement. PS am over Poite. Wayne Barnes ... not so much.
Re the process. To my mind it seems a little simplistic and truncated. Any bunch of rule changes may seem fine on paper but turn out to be fucking retarded in action: ELVs, 2016 NPC ...
Some have worked though ... the changes in the 90s to 5 point tries, use it or lose it (although that initially looked very unrugby when you were so focussed on last team going forward, and they realised the partial error and brought rucks back to how they are now), "supporting" the lineout jumpe etc.
A further problem is they need to trial in a meaningful comp and it seems they can't or won't tweak it on the go so they ruin an entire comp. Wouldn't have a problem if they said after say week 3 "right that law is being exploited so we'll tweak this ... ".
-
Whatever changes are made, within a year smart coaches will have found the work-around, and fans will be clamoring for changes to the laws.
I don't think there is much wrong with rugby at the moment. But there is too much interference by officials. The recent Lions series has packed with great rugby, but also faaaaar too many stoppages for the refs to have a chat. Fuck the TMO off for everything but scoring tries. And even then, only the last phase of a try. You get away with something up to then? Well the other 3 guys should have seen it, or it was too slight an infraction to be picked up on.
And cut back the use of yellow cards! Far too many guys end up in the bin for accidental infractions.
And fuck the French off...
-
@mariner4life I don't even think its a case of finding workarounds. I'd just like the officials given a simpler job, with fewer things to look at. At that point we stop noticing them.
I had to ref a game of Third Grade a few weeks ago after the ref didn't show up to our home fixture. Thank goodness it was a thrashing against our blokes, because I was doing a shit job.
-
@NTA i would love to see how we could give the refs less to look at during every breakdown without destroying the fabric of the game.
And as i say, within months someone would be exploiting it, an interpretation will be issued, and gradually we will end up back where we are now.
-
They're needlessly complicating a simple fix; make people stay on their feet at the ruck.
-
-
-
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@hydro11 said in Big changes for lawbook:
I can't remember the last time in a game a referee actually didn't know the law.
11 days ago, Roman Poite?
He knew the law. Just took a while to judge what he thought the player actually did.
-
@booboo said in Big changes for lawbook:
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@hydro11 said in Big changes for lawbook:
I can't remember the last time in a game a referee actually didn't know the law.
11 days ago, Roman Poite?
He knew the law. Just took a while to judge what he thought the player actually did.
And yet he came up with the wrong answer ... as did Garces. And Kaplan is an enabler, and didn't agree with the call ... and if you're from the NH, you think Garces is a genius.
I was being flippant, but while the refs generally know the lawbook, I'm not sure players do. And sometimes the calls are just a bit silly... like jumping into a tackle at the end of the second test match
-
I would be concerned that by reducing the laws we might end up giving the refs even more discretion and room for judgement calls. I am interested to see how this looks, but I don't think there's much wrong with the laws currently.
Having said that, I'm a big fan of the trial to remove the right of the tackler to play the ball from any direction - it's just too hard to referee correctly, and about 50% of the time the referees (even the top ones) get it wrong.
-
As far as the complexity/ confusion of the current law book goes you only have to read forums like RugbyRefs to see how much debate and variation exists among referees. In many cases the pertinent law itself is undefined and you need to assume that the situation will be dealt with according to the way a different situation is.
Whether making the law book less wordy solves or increases that confusion I don't know. I would have thought that simplification leaves even more open to interpretation however it could be a case of leaving out the ifs and buts and making the laws more cut and dried.
eg players joining rucks. A clear law that says 'must stay on their feet and remove themselves if on the ground' leaves little room for argument -
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@booboo said in Big changes for lawbook:
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@hydro11 said in Big changes for lawbook:
I can't remember the last time in a game a referee actually didn't know the law.
11 days ago, Roman Poite?
He knew the law. Just took a while to judge what he thought the player actually did.
And yet he came up with the wrong answer ... as did Garces. And Kaplan is an enabler, and didn't agree with the call ... and if you're from the NH, you think Garces is a genius.
I was being flippant, but while the refs generally know the lawbook, I'm not sure players do. And sometimes the calls are just a bit silly... like jumping into a tackle at the end of the second test match
Don't you need to make the rule book longer to deal with that? The rule book would have to distinguish between tackled in the air from a kick and tackled in the air from a pass.
-
For fans the trick would be to bring in an application of common sense.
With the tackle in the air for a pass scenario why not apply the same logic as dealing with a late tackle? If the tackler is already committed and can't pull out then no fault. If someone jumping to catch a high ball jumps into a stationary player on the ground (eg the Finn Russell example) then don't penalise the guy who was meant to guess what was going to happen. The jumper took the risk.
If an incident is obviously accidental then don't penalise. -
@Crucial said in Big changes for lawbook:
For fans the trick would be to bring in an application of common sense.
With the tackle in the air for a pass scenario why not apply the same logic as dealing with a late tackle? If the tackler is already committed and can't pull out then no fault. If someone jumping to catch a high ball jumps into a stationary player on the ground (eg the Finn Russell example) then don't penalise the guy who was meant to guess what was going to happen. The jumper took the risk.
If an incident is obviously accidental then don't penalise.ie: what we have now. Just applied properly.
-
@Crucial said in Big changes for lawbook:
As far as the complexity/ confusion of the current law book goes you only have to read forums like RugbyRefs to see how much debate and variation exists among referees. In many cases the pertinent law itself is undefined and you need to assume that the situation will be dealt with according to the way a different situation is.
Don't be confused by what the name of the website is. Anyone can post there and claim they're a referee.
-
@antipodean said in Big changes for lawbook:
@Crucial said in Big changes for lawbook:
As far as the complexity/ confusion of the current law book goes you only have to read forums like RugbyRefs to see how much debate and variation exists among referees. In many cases the pertinent law itself is undefined and you need to assume that the situation will be dealt with according to the way a different situation is.
Don't be confused by what the name of the website is. Anyone can post there and claim they're a referee.
Of course. I have posted there myself. You do get to know who the real ones are. Some are even assessors.
