Law trials and changes
-
-
I have long thought that the biggest problem rugby has as a viewing spectacle is that the jerseys are too close
So bravo to world rugby for actually fixing their biggest issue
-
Law Clarifications | World Rugby Laws
Clarifications in law for the game of rugby union, as requested by unions or individuals.
In a recent World Sevens Series fixture in Hong Kong an attacking player carrying the ball into in-goal, placed the ball down on what he believed was the ground, but actually placed the ball on the corner post which had been dislodged by the tackler and was now lying in in-goal.
Could the referee have awarded a try?Had the ball carrier placed the ball on a non-player - the refereeās foot, a physio, or an encroaching spectator - then law 6.12 gives the referee the power to determine what would likely to have happened next and to rule accordingly. We think this should be the same outcome for this situation. Therefore, the referee may award a try if they believe a try would have been scored had it not been for the flag in the way.
The same would be the case if some other item had been left/discarded/blown into in-goal and the ball āgroundedā on it. In the next law cycle, World Rugby will look to amend 6.12 to include other objects as well as non-players. -
Something I have been thinking about for a while and the scenario raised it's head again last night. Player from Team A commits an offence that earns a yellow or red card. Player from Team B is not able to take the field again owing to an injury inflicted by the Team A Player. Therefore Team B has to use one of it's subs earlier than planned. This is probably not so much of an issue when a red card means the Player is lost for the remainder of the game, but for yellows and especially 20 minute Reds Team B is disadvantaged because of Team A's actions. I wonder whether in such instances Team A should lose a like for like sub as well?
-
Not a law trial or change, but an upcoming policy change:
This section is currently guidance for all competitions.
From 1st January 2025, this will become policy applicable to all World Rugby run competitions. It will remain guidance for all other non-World Rugby competitions.
Media release:
Latest News | World Rugby
The latest World Rugby news, including about the World Rankings, Tournaments, Player Welfare and the Laws of the Game
Document with guidelines/policy:
I've only skimmed through it, but this is an interesting document.
-
-
@Machpants Maybe South Africa will wear their alternate jersey?
From the media release:
In some rare cases, an alternate kit may still pose a challenge if there is not enough colour or design differential. Such was the possibility for the Portugal v Wales Group C encounter on 16 September in Nice where the Welsh alternate kit (black) would have clashed with Portugal's primary kit (dark red). In a move applauded by World Rugby as a positive display of the sportās values and support for inclusivity, both Portugal and Wales have confirmed they will each wear their alternative kit in support of the cause. Other participating teams have also committed to show their support by wearing alternate jerseys for certain games including Georgia, Ireland, Tonga and South Africa.
-
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
-
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
Havenāt got the time to go into all the details but there are a few articles on the web on the history of the mark. Originally you could take a mark anywhere and score points from the subsequent kick. Itās only in the 22 since the 70s I think.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Law trials and changes:
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
Havenāt got the time to go into all the details but there are a few articles on the web on the history of the mark. Originally you could take a mark anywhere and score points from the subsequent kick. Itās only in the 22 since the 70s I think.
Wasnāt looking for a history lesson
Was looking for thoughts to the questions posed and the game going forward
-
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?the irony is that more contests generally lead to better attacking. If there was more contest on the ground for the ball, yuo'd suck more players into rucks, and then you'd open up space out wide. Choke tackles exist because ruck contests are very hard to win.
Personally I wouldn't start with the mark, I'd start with the goal line drop out being eliminated
Pet bugbear of mine. Then I'd follow up with just one usage for Mauls; use it or lose it, high risk.as for the mark, I can see it leading to far more league style bombs - possibly even bringing back the Garyowen. You'd have huge issues with jumpers contesting (like now), getting ahead of the ball and taking out defenders. So yeah - lots more kicking I expect
-
@nzzp on the maul, it needs to be moving forward, as an attacking team, sideways and back is not the direction you need, so why get more chances to set it up therefore it should be classed a stopped as well.
From the couch it seems some minor tweaks would solve many of the games issues, yet the powers that be cant see this?
Bring back proper binding would certainly help both mauls and rucks too.
-
@taniwharugby said in Law trials and changes:
Bring back proper binding would certainly help both mauls and rucks too.
I'd like this post twice if I could.
-
can see the theory behind the goal line drop out - it's meant to stop the boring drive for the line over and over again by the fatties as soon as you're 5m out rather than passing it and finding a gap. those close-in drives are a lot easier to be held up, and aren't a great spectacle.
admittedly it hasn't worked yet, I think mostly because teams are slow to adapt - but hopefully it will. A bit like how most teams (particularly us) are still not exploiting the 50/22 rule to its full extent. -
@reprobate said in Law trials and changes:
can see the theory behind the goal line drop out - it's meant to stop the boring drive for the line over and over again by the fatties as soon as you're 5m out rather than passing it and finding a gap. those close-in drives are a lot easier to be held up, and aren't a great spectacle.
admittedly it hasn't worked yet, I think mostly because teams are slow to adapt - but hopefully it will. A bit like how most teams (particularly us) are still not exploiting the 50/22 rule to its full extent.I think the players are starting to adjust. It has taken a long time
On the 50/22 I would like to see a 22/50 as well. That would force the wingers back more often.. creating space for a long range attack
