RugbyRebels

Five law changes, aimed at reducing negative play, increasing ball in play time and improving player welfare have been confirmed following approval by the World Rugby council late last year.
Apart from the law trials, a more stringent application of the tackle law (relating to high tackle) will also come into immediate effect in the Southern Hemisphere once the 2017 season kicks off.
A new law ruling and clarification regarding the rolling ball was introduced to simplify the law and make it easier to understand. In brief, a player standing with his foot in-goal, who gathers a rolling ball which is still in the field of play and then grounds the ball in the in-goal area, is now deemed to have carried the ball over. In the past a 22m drop was awarded, but according to the new law ruling, the referee will now award a scrum to the attacking team.
The experimental laws will affect the following areas of play: uncontested scrums, time, advantage, penalty tries, touch and the lineout. Below is a simplified, brief summary of each of the approved global law trials, which includes its reasoning.
Law 3: Number of Players – The Team
Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from deliberate infringements and going to uncontested scrums.
Law 5.7 (e): Time (applied in Super Rugby in 2016, now on trial globally)
If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from infringing in the dying moments of the game.
Law 8.1 (a): Advantage
When there are multiple penalty infringements by the same team, the referee may allow the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous of the penalty marks.
Reasoning: To discourage repeat offending when advantage is already being played and to reward teams against whom repeat offending has taken place.
Law 9 (a.1): Method of Scoring
If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded. No conversion is attempted and value of the try is seven points.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from illegally preventing a probable try from being scored while also saving time on the clock by negating the need for a conversion.
Law 19: Touch and Lineout
A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball.
Reasoning: This brings into law something that is already applied in practice. It means that a player "juggling” the ball does not have to be in contact with it at the exact moment of touching the touchline or the ground beyond it for the ball to be deemed to be in touch. This makes it easier for the match officials to adjudicate. Please see footnote.
• If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.
• If the ball-carrier reaches the plane of touch but returns the ball to the playing area without first landing in touch, play continues.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.
• In this case, if the ball has passed the plane of touch when it is caught, then the catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not passed the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up, then the catcher is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, regardless of whether the ball was in motion or stationary.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.
Illegal (high) tackle
World Rugby recently redefined illegal (high) tackle categories and increased sanctions to deter high tackles via a law application guideline, with the new law applying from the beginning of January. As a result, the two new categories of dangerous tackles will carry penalty offences to deter and eradicate high tackles:
Reckless tackle
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway.
This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.
The minimum sanction for this offence is a yellow card while a red will be shown for a maximum transgression.
Accidental tackle
When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent's head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned.
This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle. In this instance, the minimum sanction is a penalty.

More tampering. I wish they would do this on a four yearly cycle. I'm more than happy for changes based on safety concerns to be brought in whenever. However, I'd like set laws for every World Cup cycle.

Mells - it's not really more tampering; just the same changes that have been in effect for hte last 8 weeks.

Which Tyler wrote:Mells - it's not really more tampering; just the same changes that have been in effect for hte last 8 weeks.

Plus some others. The law about allowing penalty kicks to touch after the 80 minutes are up that was trialled by Super Rugby and Connacht last year is very sensible. It's always been unjust that a side with a good lineout drive is stopped from using it while a side with a good scrum isn't. Although I'm willing to bet that there'll be at least one incident where someone who hasn't got the message kicks a penalty straight off to secure a victory and is appalled to find out they've just triggered a lineout.

The stuff about not being able to make a rolling kick go dead by having a foot in touch or catching a ball with a foot in to make it out on the full is just meddling though. Not that it's not a good law, but it does seem relatively pointless.

Puja

Puja wrote:Plus some others. The law about allowing penalty kicks to touch after the 80 minutes are up that was trialled by Super Rugby and Connacht last year is very sensible. It's always been unjust that a side with a good lineout drive is stopped from using it while a side with a good scrum isn't. Although I'm willing to bet that there'll be at least one incident where someone who hasn't got the message kicks a penalty straight off to secure a victory and is appalled to find out they've just triggered a lineout.

The stuff about not being able to make a rolling kick go dead by having a foot in touch or catching a ball with a foot in to make it out on the full is just meddling though. Not that it's not a good law, but it does seem relatively pointless.

Good points, well made; sorry then, as you were.

Having thought about it, that change with how the ball goes dead has created an awful lot of footnotes and uncertainty for something intended "to simplify law". What was so complicated about that law the way it was - a player who has any part of their body in touch counts as being in touch. Now it's a player who has any part of their body in touch counts as being in touch except when the ball doesn't cross the plane, and even if it does cross the plane, a player can jump across and throw it back. I doubt it'll make a huge difference to the game and I don't find it simpler in the least.

Puja

Da plane Da plane

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

The amendments, which have been tried in specific international competitions this year, relate to the scrum (Law 20) and tackle/ruck (Laws 15 and 16), and are aimed at making the game simpler to play and referee, as well as further protecting player welfare.

The six law amendments will debut in full from 1 August 2017 in the northern hemisphere, and from 1 January 2018 in the southern hemisphere, and are as follows...

Throwing the ball into the scrum
Law 20.5 & 20.5 (d) 5

No signal from referee. The scrum-half 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.

Handling in the scrum – exception
Law 20.9 (b)

The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows.

Rationale: To promote continuity.

Striking after the throw-in
Law 20

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.

Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

Sanction: Free-kick

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.

Ruck
Law 16

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.

Other ruck offences
Law 16.4

A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.

Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

Sanction: Penalty

*The November 2017 Tests will operate under the full global law trials, while Women’s Rugby World Cup 2017 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.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/world- ... 99451364=1

They've been tampering with the rules for as long as I've been following rugby, and it's not the same game now as it was in the amateur era - not remotely. As many predicted it would, the XV man game has begun to resemble its XIII man offshoot with sheer physical brawn playing a much larger role than it used to. That's not to say individual skills have dissipated. Quite the reverse, in fact because the quality of play in general is much higher than it was in the late 70s & early 80s. Only one thing has remained a constant - general confusion about the rules themselves!

Interesting debate from the Guardian. Should tackling be banned in schools: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... are_btn_fb

I say no. Kids don't get hurt so easily and this is the best time to develop the skills and instincts necessary to survive as your opponents get big and faster and meaner.

rowan wrote:Interesting debate from the Guardian. Should tackling be banned in schools: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... are_btn_fb

I say no. Kids don't get hurt so easily and this is the best time to develop the skills and instincts necessary to survive as your opponents get big and faster and meaner.

That article's quite old and the "movement" let by the idiot who wanted the ban has petered out to absolutely nothing. A load of unscientific mince that was given far too much publicity at the time.

Puja

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:Interesting debate from the Guardian. Should tackling be banned in schools: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... are_btn_fb

I say no. Kids don't get hurt so easily and this is the best time to develop the skills and instincts necessary to survive as your opponents get big and faster and meaner.

That article's quite old and the "movement" let by the idiot who wanted the ban has petered out to absolutely nothing. A load of unscientific mince that was given far too much publicity at the time.

Puja

Thanks. I'm a bit sloppy at checking the dates of articles I pick up off facebook! But, yeh, this is hogwash/ If you don't develop the tackling instincts as a kid, it'll never be second nature to you as an adult.

This one's a little more positive - and only about 5 months old

15 reasons why children SHOULD play Rugby Union

Getting kids off the sofa and onto the rugby pitch brings a wide variety of physical, mental and social skills which will bode well for them as they reach adulthood and beyond.

And obviously, we would say that. But in order to prove our point, we’ve compiled no less than 15 reasons why kids need to grow up playing rugby union.



Continues here: https://www.ruck.co.uk/15-reasons-why-c ... gby-union/

Puja wrote:Having thought about it, that change with how the ball goes dead has created an awful lot of footnotes and uncertainty for something intended "to simplify law". What was so complicated about that law the way it was - a player who has any part of their body in touch counts as being in touch. Now it's a player who has any part of their body in touch counts as being in touch except when the ball doesn't cross the plane, and even if it does cross the plane, a player can jump across and throw it back. I doubt it'll make a huge difference to the game and I don't find it simpler in the least.

Puja

Legal eagle fecks making everyone's life a misery with their double-plus-good-speak shite.

'to promote continuity'.
The English won't like that.

rowan wrote:Interesting debate from the Guardian. Should tackling be banned in schools: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... are_btn_fb

I say no. Kids don't get hurt so easily and this is the best time to develop the skills and instincts necessary to survive as your opponents get big and faster and meaner.

No, no, no, no, no.

I'm all for size based groupings rather than age based, and for keeping the scrum highly regulated. But take tackling out of the game is plain stupid.

In saying that, I never played rugby myself at primary school, but tackling was actually my main attribute when I did take it up in my youth. I think I may have developed a natural instinct for it in another game we used to play at primary school - bull rush. You might have another name for it, but that's where one kid stands in the middle of the field and tries to tackle someone as all the others run past him/her to the other end. The tackled individual then joins him in the middle, and so on until everybody has been tackled. I guess it was also a good way to develop elusive running skills (as was tag). But the last thing anybody was concerned about was getting hurt, and both girls and boys participated together.

Piers Morgan? Really?

Let some clueless, bias do-gooder with an axe to grind ruin the game you love or agree with Piers Morgan? It's a close run thing.

Mellsblue wrote:Let some clueless, bias do-gooder with an axe to grind ruin the game you love or agree with Piers Morgan? It's a close run thing.

Let me simplify it for you with some home spun wisdom. A Gentleman would never shoe a Lady.
However, there's also a saying that a Gentleman should never give his Mistress an orgasm as it's unfair to give her something you never give the Wife. Not sure how they relate but it seems apropos.

I think what I'm trying to say is......don't give the Ladies a shoeing and wait until you're in the baths and drown Piers when no one's looking.

New law book to make rugby easier to understand

Approved at the November World Rugby Council meeting, the simplified law book is designed to make the laws easier to understand while not altering the meaning of them or how the game is played.

The book is the product of nearly two years’ work by a specially constituted group of experts and follows a comprehensive consultation and feedback process with World Rugby’s 121 member unions and all six regional associations. The eight-person group includes law experts, referees, a club coach, a sports scientist as well as a web designer/illustrator.

The result is a law book that is more logically laid out, clearer in its explanations and, with various repetitions and contradictions removed, 42 per cent shorter than the current version.

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/299688

Super simplified in the Guardian:

Law 3: Definition. A team consists of 15 players. A substitute replaces a team-mate for tactical reasons. A replacement replaces a team-mate with a tactical injury.

3.3: A Union may authorise matches to be played with fewer than 15 players in each team. When that happens, all laws of the game must apply except the one that says a team must consist of 15 players.

5.1: Duration of a match. A match lasts no more than 80 minutes, plus time lost and the hours it takes for referrals to the television match official and reset scrums.

6.a.4: The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match, until he or she consults the television match official.

8.2: Advantage. The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough. If the non-offending team do not gain an advantage after 10 minutes or that team’s scrum-half demands a penalty, the referee blows the whistle and, if he or she remembers where it is, brings play back to the place of the infringement.

10.2.d: A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that player was subject to foul play or any other infringement committed by an opponent. So if a player is punched, he or she must not go to ground and must hide any bleeding.

10.3.1: A player must not repeatedly infringe any law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact based on opinion. The question of whether the player intended to infringe is irrelevant because none of them knows the laws.

10.4.c: A player must not deliberately kick an opponent. Claiming to mistake a bald head for the ball is not an excuse that will be accepted by a disciplinary panel.

10.4.h: A player must not charge into a ruck or a maul unless his team are in possession.

10.4.k: Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul by accident.

10.4.1: A player must not retaliate unless he or she does so first.

11.1: General play. A player is offside when he or she is not onside. Loitering without intent is no excuse. A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised but always is.

12.1.f: Intentional knock or throw forward: A player must not deliberately knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Hands or arms are another matter.

16: Ruck: Definition: A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground and then fall on it.

16.7.c: When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played, the referee will call “Use it” after which the ball must be played within five seconds. No extra time is allowed for players who do not understand English.

17.2.6: Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding but this law is not often binding.

18: Definition: To make a mark, a player must make a clean catch from an opponent’s kick and do so with his mouth open.

19.7.c: A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball into a lineout not straight. The definition of not straight is not patently crooked. If the ball goes straight to the thrower’s scrum-half, the non-offending team shall be awarded a scrum when it will be allowed to put in the ball crookedly.

20.5: Throwing the ball into the scrum: The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight – straight to his or her No8 so there is every chance of getting the ball away quickly with the referee not having to worry about a reset.

20.12.b: Offside at the scrum: When a team have won the ball in a scrum, the scrum-half of that team is offside if both feet are in front of the ball while it is still in the scrum. If the scrum-half has only one foot in front of the ball, he is half off and half on.

21.3.c: Penalty and free-kicks: The kicker must use the ball that was in play unless the referee decides that he or she is defective.

Bill Beaumont, the World Rugby chairman, reckons the slimline law book will make rugby union easier to understand: “The laws can be difficult for new participants and fans and the new law book goes a long way towards simplifying it as we continue to strive to make the sport accessible to all,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... ebook-2018

rowan wrote:In saying that, I never played rugby myself at primary school, but tackling was actually my main attribute when I did take it up in my youth. I think I may have developed a natural instinct for it in another game we used to play at primary school - bull rush. You might have another name for it, but that's where one kid stands in the middle of the field and tries to tackle someone as all the others run past him/her to the other end. The tackled individual then joins him in the middle, and so on until everybody has been tackled. I guess it was also a good way to develop elusive running skills (as was tag). But the last thing anybody was concerned about was getting hurt, and both girls and boys participated together.

We called it British bulldogs, same rules and good fun in concrete playgrounds.

The simplified rules aren’t a bad thing; the main question is whether refs will enforce them. Feeding the ball in straight at the scrum has always been an easy law to understand, it it must the one of the most flouted in most matches.