Law changes

[whatisthejava]

So far this week I’ve read several articles pretty much demanding WR change the laws.

Steven ‘greatest journo’ in the world Jones says the caterpillar ruck will be banned but for me that’s the result of the ruck becoming uncompetitive.

I’m still keen on a total shake up of the rugby laws and the effective banning of Jacklers but I doubt they will go there.

What’s everyone’s thinking about potential law changes

[Lizard]

I'm generally more of an "Enforce The Laws We Already Have" kind of a guy.

For instance, if you want to stop (or at least minimise) the "caterpillar" ruck, then enforce Law 15.7 which says, when joining a ruck, "A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player." "Binding" is defined in the laws as "Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder." Just holding someone's jersey is not "binding" and any player not fully bound is not in the ruck, so if the ball is at their feet, it is out and the ruck is over.

Also Law 15.11 (no handling the ball in a ruck) applies to scrum-halves as much as anyone. If the scrum-half has their hands on the pill (e.g. rolling it back into a more favourable position etc.) then either they are illegally handling it, or the ruck is over and they can be tackled. You quite often see scrum-halves breaching Law15.16(f) as well - returning the ball to the ruck.

I would also like to see straight scrum-feeds.

One change I would advocate is penalties for technical scrum infringements. You shouldn't get 3 points just because the opposing prop isn't good or strong enough. Make it a free kick, or reset the scrum 5m down the field.

[stevedog1980]

I don't know how to fix it but the maul gives way too much of an advantage to the attacking team once moving. Potentially remove the offside line when a maul is in motion?

[General Zod]

I would bring back real rucking. There, I said it. Apart from to the head.

4 named substitutes max. Minimum two front rows on bench. Specialist hookers aren’t that important any more as no-one really hooks and you can teach anyone to throw in.

And I have just thought of one this instant. Any kicks to touch can only generate a line-out as far as the opposition’s 22. I literally thought of this in the last few seconds because my brain has been addled by having to sit through I’m a Celebrity. I just want to see the return of the wall penalty.

[Lizard]

I would bring back real rucking. There, I said it. Apart from to the head.

4 named substitutes max. Minimum two front rows on bench. Specialist hookers aren’t that important any more as no-one really hooks and you can teach anyone to throw in.

And I have just thought of one this instant. Any kicks to touch can only generate a line-out as far as the opposition’s 22. I literally thought of this in the last few seconds because my brain has been addled by having to sit through I’m a Celebrity. I just want to see the return of the wall penalty.

Real rucking would be a good idea, but it just ain't ever gonna happen. The game is generally cleaner, but players are much bigger now. In the amateur era, the worst (legal) fate in a ruck against the All Blacks would have been a bit of slipper from legendary, World Cup winning prop Richard Loe, all-round thug and the heaviest amateur All Black* listed at 188cm (6'2"), 116kg (18 stone 4lbs). Since then, 36 All Blacks have been as heavy or more. I don't know about you but I reckon being stood on by 136kg of Tialata might smart.

*i.e. entire test career completed before 1996

[Cameo]

I don't know quite what the change would be but I would still like to see more done about staying on your feet at rucks. They have tightened up on players flying in, which is good, but once the ruck has formed the attacking side seem to be allowed to lie all over it or, at a minimum, have their hands on the floor. It stops any contest and means 9s can afford to spend ten minutes setting up a beautiful caterpillar. As a defender, if you try a counter ruck and lose your balance beyond the ball, it seems to be an immediate penalty.

It might need to be done in conjunction with getting rid of jackling though (which I am in two minds about) as otherwise the defensive team might have two many tools to disrupt.

[Cameo]

Generally, I would like them to keep going with the current version for a bit but make sure they also enforce offsides. Give teams half a metre extra space and that instantly changes the balance back towards attack.

I'd also like them to tighten up offsides from kicks. I don't know quite how but there seem to be too many people who can form a solid wall in the middle of the pitch without ever having had to retreat.

[septic 9]

as Lizard says, just apply the laws for a start, then we could see what needed changing. Rugby's biggest problem is that instead of applying laws, they just change them, or change interpretations every bloody season, making every season a trial before refs quietly drop the latest fad (probably under instruction).

There's an interview with Nigel Owens (on RugbyPass IIRC) where he has a couple of interesting ideas. One is the ever popular reduce the number of subs. I won't deal with that in this post except to say I think its a bad idea and in any case very unlikely to have the effect its proposers think it will. The other idea he has is in relation to mauls, which he thinks are a problem. He thinks perhaps refs should apply the laws better and only allow legally set up mauls.

All that shouting at the TV - now I know it was worth it. I was fucking right! The mauls are all too often illegally formed and Owens is a muppet with no self awareness

[septic 9]

Right.
Single biggest thing to improve play is applying one law better - keep players on their feet at a ruck. No hands on ground, no kneeling, no driving over n to belly even if that is to clear an opponent. No judo throws - dangerous and not an attempt to bind, often aggressor goes off his feet to leverage the throw, and would mainly end neck holds. Immediate card for anyone launching over a ruck, whether they make contact with anyone or not - no contact YC, and contact, don't care where, RC. It would stop PDQ

Reason for this apart from all of the above being illegal under the laws is that it means that counter rucking is more viable, which means teams need to commit more to the breakdown in attack to keep the ball, which in turn means more defenders since if the defence does not match man for man then pick and go gets easy yards time and again. More players around the breakdown, more space elsewhere

[stevedog1980]

I don't know quite what the change would be but I would still like to see more done about staying on your feet at rucks. They have tightened up on players flying in, which is good, but once the ruck has formed the attacking side seem to be allowed to lie all over it or, at a minimum, have their hands on the floor. It stops any contest and means 9s can afford to spend ten minutes setting up a beautiful caterpillar. As a defender, if you try a counter ruck and lose your balance beyond the ball, it seems to be an immediate penalty.

It might need to be done in conjunction with getting rid of jackling though (which I am in two minds about) as otherwise the defensive team might have two many tools to disrupt.

This is really sporadically applied, in the England v Wales game the other week I can't remember if it was in the build up to a Welsh try or just a penalty but 3 of them absolutely levelled the English player at the ruck with no attempt to stay on their feet

[af73]

Laws applied equally (to both attack and defense) and consistently (during the 80 mins and from game to game)

How hard can it be?

Bugbears of mine are as above, for the attacking team
- the anything goes clear out to "allow the game to flow".
- The lineout maul that is impossible to stop legally..yet attacking teams get two chances to get it moving
- The placing of the ball at the ruck. It's done immediately not arranged and rearranged until you are happy with it. Similarly the tap dance of the half back. Once he has touched it with hand or foot its open play.

Defenses are getting away with this either.
- The jackal which isn't a jackal at all. More like a bear hug that traps the ball against the attacking player. No attempt to win the bill it's just to milk a penalty. In "my day" that was known as preventing fair release.
- The choke tackle/maul turnover. Why is a collapsed maul from a lineout nearly always a penalty but in open play it's a turnover? Mauls (unless static) usually collapse for a reason.
- The frontal blockade to protect the full back fielding a kick. Not changing your line isn't sufficient reason to allow obstruction. If you are standing still, it's obstruction as you have no intent to compete for the ball.

Scrums - a mess. However removing the incentive to gain a penalty might improve the contest. Simply going forward isn't a penalty. There is nothing in the laws about "rewarding the dominant scrum". If the the retreating team collapse then that's an infringement = penalty. But simply being less strong isn't. If the team going forward is in control then play on. Only if it the retreating team collapses, breaks up or commits an identifiable offence should it be a penalty.

Sometimes scoring seems to be dominated by a sequence of scrum > penalty > kick to touch > lineout drive > penalty/repeat/yc > try.
Teams can gain 50 metres and 7 points simply by being better in the gym and an undefendable maul under the laws. Not really anything to do with a rugby ball.

[stevedog1980]

What is the actual definition for being part of the tackle? I've seen it a lot lately where the secondary "tackler" still has hands on the attacker and helps the primary tackler put the attacker to ground. They never show clear release and immediately contest the ball

[no sleep]

Anyone holding or touching the tackled player should show a clear release.

[no sleep]

Not applied when someone drags the tackled player into touch...

[stevedog1980]

Anyone holding or touching the tackled player should show a clear release.

That was my assumption, if you look at any game this weekend I guarantee you'll see plenty of players in contact with the tackled player during the tackle that don't release prior to competing. It seems to be that if one tackler goes to ground, anyone else involved in the tackle that stays on their feet is fair game to compete (or as others have noted, bear hug the tackled player and prevent release) without any sign of release.

[septic 9]

having had a go at the ruck/breakdown, I'm now going to take up Nigel Owens on his "maybe refs could apply the laws better to lineouts"
Again it is really just a matter of applying existing laws instead of routinely ignoring them

Lets start with the hooker. Feet behind the touchline, not on it or even heels barely touching it, behind it. Throw is just that bit more challenging, but also hooker is that bit further from the back of the inevitable maul from many lineouts. Can make a difference
Then we have the committee meeting, after which the LH (usually) runs to tell the hooker what the call is. A committee meeting is delaying the throw. Free kick. Speed the game up
Next, the walk in and throw. Refs have been told to clamp down on this, but don't
The gap. Refs need to ref this consistently. Been so obvious in some recent games that they don't.
The lifters - must be at the side or behind the jumper relative to the opponents goal line. Too often they bring the jumper down behind them (one Ulster try the other night a clear example). This prevents a sacking as soon as the jumper lands and a point for the driving maul. Its illegal
The maul - refs have gone back to allowing the ball to be passed not to the man behind the jumper and smuggled back, but further back. Illegal and allows maul to drive sooner without risk of dropping the ball.

Two final ones, which are probably the most important.

The laws state that no player may leave the lineout until the ball has left the thrower's hand. This is totally ignored. watch some choreographed position changes by eg Exeter. (they are not alone). Often see 2, 3 even 4 players standing behind the jumper ready to drive as soon as he hits the ground. They have left the lineout before ball leaves thrower's hand. This means the maul is formed and driving as soon as the jumper hits the ground to a degree impossible if players do not leave it until they should - it is of course a bit difficult for a single player line to stop a 2/3 man deep driving maul.

And finally, joining a maul. If a defender does this from in front of the rear feet, immediate pen adv. If an attacking player does the same, rarely penalised unless he attacks a defender who has come through the middle legally. This is simply poor, and allows the attacker to roll the maul round much more easily.

I'd point out hw much the ref has to watch out for, but they must do better. If I can see this from my armchair then a ref, nearside TJ and TMO can and must do much much better. And once you clamp down, the player and coaching changes, for the better

[Lizard]

This newfangled lifting in the line out is just a bunch of cheating Saffer bullshit and has to go.

[septic 9]

This newfangled lifting in the line out is just a bunch of cheating Saffer bullshit and has to go.

anyone who remembers the shambles that was called a lineout before lifting might disagree. I had serious doubts abut lifting when it started, but the game is much the better for it The issue is as above -not reffed properly as per the laws. And I forgot to add above, holding a man up a second longer to milk a pen is also not reffed as I would like. Currently best you get is the ref having a word after they have just done it! Holding the player up to deliberately tempt an early drive is to put that player at risk. Its reckless and dangerous, and should be an immediate penalty against the side throwing in. It would stop overnight

[whatisthejava]

I don't know quite what the change would be but I would still like to see more done about staying on your feet at rucks. They have tightened up on players flying in, which is good, but once the ruck has formed the attacking side seem to be allowed to lie all over it or, at a minimum, have their hands on the floor. It stops any contest and means 9s can afford to spend ten minutes setting up a beautiful caterpillar. As a defender, if you try a counter ruck and lose your balance beyond the ball, it seems to be an immediate penalty.

It might need to be done in conjunction with getting rid of jackling though (which I am in two minds about) as otherwise the defensive team might have two many tools to disrupt.

I think the jackal has probabbly had the biggest impact in rugby, the law makers are desperate to keep it but i think if they were willing to sacrafice it they could fix so many of the problems we currently have.

[Croft_No.5]

One of my bugbears is the so called "Latch". No player should be bound on to the ball carrier prior to a tackle and if they are should have to stay on their feet and not go down with the tackle.

Also any player joining a ruck must stay on their feet and bind as per the laws.

I think as with most folk, it would be good to actually see the laws implemented, especially around the tackle area and the offside lines, especially in defence. I sometimes wonder what the Assistant Refs actually do!

[septic 9]

One of my bugbears is the so called "Latch". No player should be bound on to the ball carrier prior to a tackle and if they are should have to stay on their feet and not go down with the tackle.

and mine.
While it has been great to see Exeter rise to win championships and the HC, take a way the latch and their triumphs would have been far less likely. They are not alone but by a distance the best exponent. Their latcher either goes to ground as you describe to prevent a far contest (which should be penalised out of sight this season); or goes beyond or partially in front of the ball carrier to prevent a tackle; or latches off at the point of tackle to take out a would be defender or tackler - if this isn't tackling a man without the ball it (it often is) then it must be a ruck and he very obviously is not entering from behind the rear feet.

IMHO when a player latches on it should be called as a flying wedge, pen to defending team

Another one World Rugby have ignored and so the relationship between the game a splayed and the laws it is supposed to be played under becomes more and more distant. And then some complain the laws are too complicated - they are because we pick and choose which ones to apply, then have to build clarification on top of clarification on top of tweak on top of directive.

And the solution is so obvious. Clear the decks, instruct refs to ref according to the law book, not to manage a spectacle. And ban antipodeans from any input to law making

[General Zod]

One of my bugbears is the so called "Latch". No player should be bound on to the ball carrier prior to a tackle and if they are should have to stay on their feet and not go down with the tackle.!

Yeah, that gets on my nerves too. Sometimes it’s just a timing issue, but deliberate-not-deliberate latching is creeping in. The defender should be able to smash the latcher and get a penalty for obstruction.

Whilst I’m all for enforcing the laws, I hope they don’t go down football’s VAR offside line route for kick chases and defensive offside. A game would take forever.

[septic 9]

Whilst I’m all for enforcing the laws, I hope they don’t go down football’s VAR offside line route for kick chases and defensive offside. A game would take forever.

see Mon General, this is sort of the mind set WR have far too often, and its wrong. Reduced to the ranks

I've no issue at all with TMO or VAR or whatever used properly to get a correct decision (and still they will get things wrong sometimes in our opinion, but far far less often than they will bet them right).

At its most basic, if a player "cheats" and is not sanctioned, they will continue to cheat. Far too many kick chases are not policed properly - the kickoff to start/restart being a farce these days in some games. Penalise it. Repeat offences can and should result in a card.
Same with all offences. Its failing to do this with rigour and consistency that has us where we are. Penalise, sin bin, players learn but more importantly so do coaches. Learn and change

[septic 9]

Yeah, that gets on my nerves too. Sometimes it’s just a timing issue, but deliberate-not-deliberate latching is creeping in. The defender should be able to smash the latcher and get a penalty for obstruction.

I've actually see a pen go against the defender for tackling a man (latcher) without the ball. Such is the bizarro world of rugby at times

[Cameo]

Off topic a bit but should they ban lifting from open play. Thinking of restarts here. Loads of great restart kickers but, except when Scotland play, restarts end up with the same formula.