New law trials

Moderator: Puja

User avatar
Gloskarlos
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:04 pm

New law trials

Postby Gloskarlos » Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:44 pm

The Law Review Group will reconvene in March to review the trials' results before making recommendations to the Rugby Committee.

The trials were approved for the four-year law amendment review cycle that began after the 2019 World Cup following an analysis by the Law Review Group last March, with several unions expressing an interest in operating one or more of the trials.

Preventing dangerous high tackles remains a high priority for World Rugby as they look to reduce the number of concussions.

1 The High Tackle Technique Warning, which was trialled at the World Rugby Under-20 Championship and reduced concussions by more than 50%, will now be trialled in the Super Rugby championship which begins on 31 January and also the Top 14 in France.

The other amendments to be trialled across the globe are:

2 50:22 kick - If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents' 22 or from inside their own 22 into their opponents' half, they will throw in to the resultant line-out.

3 The introduction of an infringement (penalty and free-kick) limit for teams. Once a team has reached the limit, a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction.

4 The awarding of a goal-line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up.

User avatar
Gloskarlos
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Gloskarlos » Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:48 pm

Views?

1), a no brainer.

2) seems too easy for attackers and would reduce running rugby in my view, they can keep that idea.

3) seems ok in principle, interesting to see at how many offences the card is pitched, is a free kick worth half a penalty?

4) hmmm given how far people can kick these days I think this is a bit too lenient on the defending team. I can see why they would want less scrummaging generally, but to have to start your attack from somewhere nearer half way seems harsh, and/or the little dink of a dropout would retain possession immediately allowing lines to be cleared easily. I’m more for favouring the attacking team here.

fivepointer
Posts: 3857
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby fivepointer » Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:58 pm

I'm OK with No 1.
The others....no thanks.
We want to reduce the incentive to kick not to reward it.
The YC option for repeat infringements is already available. Pity the poor ref in a junior game having to make a note of how many PK/FK's they award.
The attacking side have almost scored a try and deserve the chance to try and score again. Holding the ball up over the line does give the defending side another chance to stop a try being scored. Leave things as they are.

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 9275
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Puja » Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:52 pm

Gloskarlos wrote:Views?

1), a no brainer.

2) seems too easy for attackers and would reduce running rugby in my view, they can keep that idea.

3) seems ok in principle, interesting to see at how many offences the card is pitched, is a free kick worth half a penalty?

4) hmmm given how far people can kick these days I think this is a bit too lenient on the defending team. I can see why they would want less scrummaging generally, but to have to start your attack from somewhere nearer half way seems harsh, and/or the little dink of a dropout would retain possession immediately allowing lines to be cleared easily. I’m more for favouring the attacking team here.


I would agree with you on 1 and 3, but I am intrigued to see how 2 and 4 would affect a game before dismissing them out of hand.

Paradoxically, the 50:22 kick may increase running rugby - if teams have to drop another defender or two back to cover the wiper kick to touch, then it could open up space in the midfield. I could quite easily see the overall amount of kicking remaining constant, but less of it being aimless box-kicking or high balls.

And, while I agree that 4 might be unfair to a side that's come close and been held up, it does disincentivise the Exeter style grind of going round the corner, round the corner, round the corner and incentivise chucking it wide.

I don't know if either of them would be positive, but I think it is worth doing the trial in select competitions that has been proposed.

Puja
Backist Monk

Digby
Posts: 13798
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Digby » Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:02 pm

I don't mind 4 if defenders have to start being on their feet not on their knees ready to get under the ball, I suspect not

User avatar
Gloskarlos
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Gloskarlos » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:02 pm

Puja wrote:
Gloskarlos wrote:Views?

1), a no brainer.

2) seems too easy for attackers and would reduce running rugby in my view, they can keep that idea.

3) seems ok in principle, interesting to see at how many offences the card is pitched, is a free kick worth half a penalty?

4) hmmm given how far people can kick these days I think this is a bit too lenient on the defending team. I can see why they would want less scrummaging generally, but to have to start your attack from somewhere nearer half way seems harsh, and/or the little dink of a dropout would retain possession immediately allowing lines to be cleared easily. I’m more for favouring the attacking team here.


I would agree with you on 1 and 3, but I am intrigued to see how 2 and 4 would affect a game before dismissing them out of hand.

Paradoxically, the 50:22 kick may increase running rugby - if teams have to drop another defender or two back to cover the wiper kick to touch, then it could open up space in the midfield. I could quite easily see the overall amount of kicking remaining constant, but less of it being aimless box-kicking or high balls.

And, while I agree that 4 might be unfair to a side that's come close and been held up, it does disincentivise the Exeter style grind of going round the corner, round the corner, round the corner and incentivise chucking it wide.

I don't know if either of them would be positive, but I think it is worth doing the trial in select competitions that has been proposed.

Puja


How far away would you allow the attacking team to stand from the try line in scenario 4? 5m? 10m? On the 22? Interested to see what you think is a reasonable balance. As far as 2) goes that may be a point, I can see failed attacks resorting to a long hard grubber nearly every phase, particularly against well drilled defences. I guess we’ll see.

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 9275
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Puja » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:55 pm

Gloskarlos wrote:
Puja wrote:
Gloskarlos wrote:Views?

1), a no brainer.

2) seems too easy for attackers and would reduce running rugby in my view, they can keep that idea.

3) seems ok in principle, interesting to see at how many offences the card is pitched, is a free kick worth half a penalty?

4) hmmm given how far people can kick these days I think this is a bit too lenient on the defending team. I can see why they would want less scrummaging generally, but to have to start your attack from somewhere nearer half way seems harsh, and/or the little dink of a dropout would retain possession immediately allowing lines to be cleared easily. I’m more for favouring the attacking team here.


I would agree with you on 1 and 3, but I am intrigued to see how 2 and 4 would affect a game before dismissing them out of hand.

Paradoxically, the 50:22 kick may increase running rugby - if teams have to drop another defender or two back to cover the wiper kick to touch, then it could open up space in the midfield. I could quite easily see the overall amount of kicking remaining constant, but less of it being aimless box-kicking or high balls.

And, while I agree that 4 might be unfair to a side that's come close and been held up, it does disincentivise the Exeter style grind of going round the corner, round the corner, round the corner and incentivise chucking it wide.

I don't know if either of them would be positive, but I think it is worth doing the trial in select competitions that has been proposed.

Puja


How far away would you allow the attacking team to stand from the try line in scenario 4? 5m? 10m? On the 22? Interested to see what you think is a reasonable balance. As far as 2) goes that may be a point, I can see failed attacks resorting to a long hard grubber nearly every phase, particularly against well drilled defences. I guess we’ll see.


I genuinely don't know where they'd stand from the drop-out. I had assumed 10m back, but from a 22, you just have to be behind the line, so maybe they'll do it like that?

On 2, at the moment failed attacks just belt it up in the air against well-drilled defences (I'm a Leicester fan, I know about watching failed attacks), so I'm not sure a hard grubber is significantly worse than that. We'll have to wait and see.

Puja
Backist Monk

User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 11398
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Mellsblue » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:00 pm

I just wish they’d stopping messing about with the game.

Digby
Posts: 13798
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Digby » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:25 pm

Next you'll be wanting all male director lists at the Oscars back

p/d
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby p/d » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:29 pm

Mellsblue wrote:I just wish they’d stopping messing about with the game.

This.
2 is just a load of bollocks.

p/d
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby p/d » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:30 pm

Digby wrote:Next you'll be wanting all male director lists at the Oscars back

And this.

Cameo
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:14 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Cameo » Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:50 am

Not sure on option 2 (which is the most interesting one). I fear that it just makes rugby an even more confusing game to explain but it does have potential to force teams to put more into the backfield and less in the front line.

Against someone with decent vision and a good boot I think you might need to keep three minimum back (and right back) if the attacking team is on or just behind halfway. That could open up a reasonable amount of space. Equally, it might slightly reduce the number of chasers when you kick into the 22 to avoid them kicking it back into your half and retaining the ball.

On balance, I suspect it's not a great idea but I would be intrigued to see a decent level game with it in place.

User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 3859
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Oakboy » Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:34 am

I'd like a new law, punishable by a penalty to the opposition, that prohibits the player who first picks the ball up at scrum or ruck (usually, but not necessarily the SH) from kicking the ball until he has advanced at least 5 metres.

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 9275
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Puja » Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:39 am

Oakboy wrote:I'd like a new law, punishable by a penalty to the opposition, that prohibits the player who first picks the ball up at scrum or ruck (usually, but not necessarily the SH) from kicking the ball until he has advanced at least 5 metres.


See, I suggested banning box kicks a while back, but got shouted down by the board/bored.

Puja
Backist Monk

User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 3859
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Oakboy » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:24 am

Puja wrote:
Oakboy wrote:I'd like a new law, punishable by a penalty to the opposition, that prohibits the player who first picks the ball up at scrum or ruck (usually, but not necessarily the SH) from kicking the ball until he has advanced at least 5 metres.


See, I suggested banning box kicks a while back, but got shouted down by the board/bored.

Puja


In my senile state, I can't remember that, Puja - sorry. :?

I think it is the single biggest improvement imaginable to make the game a more attractive spectacle. Plus, crucially, it would develop SH and FH skills at a time when they are declining.

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 9275
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Puja » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:42 am

Oakboy wrote:
Puja wrote:
Oakboy wrote:I'd like a new law, punishable by a penalty to the opposition, that prohibits the player who first picks the ball up at scrum or ruck (usually, but not necessarily the SH) from kicking the ball until he has advanced at least 5 metres.


See, I suggested banning box kicks a while back, but got shouted down by the board/bored.

Puja


In my senile state, I can't remember that, Puja - sorry. :?

I think it is the single biggest improvement imaginable to make the game a more attractive spectacle. Plus, crucially, it would develop SH and FH skills at a time when they are declining.


Frankly, I'm amazed that I even remembered it! I do hate (most) box kicks - it's just the no-risk, get-out-of-trying-something-free card of the game.

Puja
Backist Monk

Digby
Posts: 13798
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Digby » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:31 am

Oakboy wrote:
Puja wrote:
Oakboy wrote:I'd like a new law, punishable by a penalty to the opposition, that prohibits the player who first picks the ball up at scrum or ruck (usually, but not necessarily the SH) from kicking the ball until he has advanced at least 5 metres.


See, I suggested banning box kicks a while back, but got shouted down by the board/bored.

Puja


In my senile state, I can't remember that, Puja - sorry. :?

I think it is the single biggest improvement imaginable to make the game a more attractive spectacle. Plus, crucially, it would develop SH and FH skills at a time when they are declining.


I'm not a fan of it, but to suggest the box kick isn't representative of a high level skill is just daft, it's one of the hardest things to do on the rugby field

My broad take on this is we're just tinkering at the margins and ignoring players should be on their feet and bound at the ruck, and I still don't know why we don't even want to look at this and allowing a contest to see what happens to space

Digby
Posts: 13798
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Digby » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:34 am

Further the 10s in the game have never been more skilled as a whole. They're just having to face the best defences the game has ever seen.

You could put the current lot into the game at the turn of this century, which isn't that far back, and they'd probably giggle at the stupidly large amounts of time they had to play and the (relatively) low level physicality they had to endure

User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 3859
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Oakboy » Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:04 pm

Digby wrote:
Oakboy wrote:
Puja wrote:
See, I suggested banning box kicks a while back, but got shouted down by the board/bored.

Puja


In my senile state, I can't remember that, Puja - sorry. :?

I think it is the single biggest improvement imaginable to make the game a more attractive spectacle. Plus, crucially, it would develop SH and FH skills at a time when they are declining.


I'm not a fan of it, but to suggest the box kick isn't representative of a high level skill is just daft, it's one of the hardest things to do on the rugby field

My broad take on this is we're just tinkering at the margins and ignoring players should be on their feet and bound at the ruck, and I still don't know why we don't even want to look at this and allowing a contest to see what happens to space



I don't agree with your opinion on box-kicking. Any blind kicking is just about dropping the ball hopefully into a useful area. Passing is a precise skill.

Digby
Posts: 13798
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Digby » Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:40 pm

Oakboy wrote:
Digby wrote:
Oakboy wrote:
In my senile state, I can't remember that, Puja - sorry. :?

I think it is the single biggest improvement imaginable to make the game a more attractive spectacle. Plus, crucially, it would develop SH and FH skills at a time when they are declining.


I'm not a fan of it, but to suggest the box kick isn't representative of a high level skill is just daft, it's one of the hardest things to do on the rugby field

My broad take on this is we're just tinkering at the margins and ignoring players should be on their feet and bound at the ruck, and I still don't know why we don't even want to look at this and allowing a contest to see what happens to space



I don't agree with your opinion on box-kicking. Any blind kicking is just about dropping the ball hopefully into a useful area. Passing is a precise skill.


If they're doing it properly it's not blind kicking, it's a very difficult technical skill and important piece of tactical play. I don't like them, but they're not easy, it's nothing like heading out on the paddock and kicking the ball back and forth with a mate.

I'm not saying passing isn't difficult, merely they're both technical executions of a skill, and preference for one does't remove the skill of the other

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 9275
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Puja » Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:05 pm

Digby wrote:
Oakboy wrote:
Digby wrote:
I'm not a fan of it, but to suggest the box kick isn't representative of a high level skill is just daft, it's one of the hardest things to do on the rugby field

My broad take on this is we're just tinkering at the margins and ignoring players should be on their feet and bound at the ruck, and I still don't know why we don't even want to look at this and allowing a contest to see what happens to space



I don't agree with your opinion on box-kicking. Any blind kicking is just about dropping the ball hopefully into a useful area. Passing is a precise skill.


If they're doing it properly it's not blind kicking, it's a very difficult technical skill and important piece of tactical play. I don't like them, but they're not easy, it's nothing like heading out on the paddock and kicking the ball back and forth with a mate.

I'm not saying passing isn't difficult, merely they're both technical executions of a skill, and preference for one does't remove the skill of the other


I won't deny that there is skill involved in a good box-kick (else how could we deride Ben Youngs for being crap at them), but just because something is skillful doesn't give it an automatic right to a place in the game. Joining in as an assist tackler and competing for the ball is a skill, lineout jumping without a lift is a skill, restarts from a tee or a pile of sand is a skill - all gone from the game.

Puja
Backist Monk

User avatar
Which Tyler
Posts: 6112
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
Location: Tewkesbury
Contact:

Re: New law trials

Postby Which Tyler » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:36 pm

As a SH I absolute hate box kicking - toughest SH skill IMO; and I'd happily see them bumped down in frequency to being used only when a kick is necessary and there's no FH / FB available to do so.

Digby
Posts: 13798
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Digby » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:46 pm

Puja wrote:
Digby wrote:
Oakboy wrote:

I don't agree with your opinion on box-kicking. Any blind kicking is just about dropping the ball hopefully into a useful area. Passing is a precise skill.


If they're doing it properly it's not blind kicking, it's a very difficult technical skill and important piece of tactical play. I don't like them, but they're not easy, it's nothing like heading out on the paddock and kicking the ball back and forth with a mate.

I'm not saying passing isn't difficult, merely they're both technical executions of a skill, and preference for one does't remove the skill of the other


I won't deny that there is skill involved in a good box-kick (else how could we deride Ben Youngs for being crap at them), but just because something is skillful doesn't give it an automatic right to a place in the game. Joining in as an assist tackler and competing for the ball is a skill, lineout jumping without a lift is a skill, restarts from a tee or a pile of sand is a skill - all gone from the game.

Puja


I don't in isolation object in advance to the idea of less box kicks, indeed I'd rather like it, though I would like to know what'd happen to backfield coverage Vs defenders in the line, maybe that's addressed by the 40-20 kick but probably not. I really only objected to the idea it was illustrative of declining skills

User avatar
Spiffy
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:13 pm

Re: New law trials

Postby Spiffy » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:58 pm

fivepointer wrote:I'm OK with No 1.
The others....no thanks.
We want to reduce the incentive to kick not to reward it.
The YC option for repeat infringements is already available. Pity the poor ref in a junior game having to make a note of how many PK/FK's they award.
The attacking side have almost scored a try and deserve the chance to try and score again. Holding the ball up over the line does give the defending side another chance to stop a try being scored. Leave things as they are.


Why should the attacking side have another crack at it if they can't ground the ball? I have never liked this. Good defence (holding the attacker up) should be rewarded over the attacking side's inability to dot down. I'd keep this as a 5 metre scrum, but give the put-in to the defenders. It seems more fair.

Digby
Posts: 13798
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: New law trials

Postby Digby » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:14 am

Spiffy wrote:
fivepointer wrote:I'm OK with No 1.
The others....no thanks.
We want to reduce the incentive to kick not to reward it.
The YC option for repeat infringements is already available. Pity the poor ref in a junior game having to make a note of how many PK/FK's they award.
The attacking side have almost scored a try and deserve the chance to try and score again. Holding the ball up over the line does give the defending side another chance to stop a try being scored. Leave things as they are.


Why should the attacking side have another crack at it if they can't ground the ball? I have never liked this. Good defence (holding the attacker up) should be rewarded over the attacking side's inability to dot down. I'd keep this as a 5 metre scrum, but give the put-in to the defenders. It seems more fair.


Is lying on the floor out of the game and then being active in doing so the same things as good play? A held up over the line doesn't have to feature illegal play from the defence, but it often does, so I have some pause for thought around this even if I'm content to see what happens


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests