Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed new rules to be tried out.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • red exile
    replied
    Originally posted by lawrence View Post

    There is a strong possibility of it being unfair to the attacking team, there will be ambiguity on where the line is drawn between held up, not releasing and playing the ball on the ground when off feet / not releasing / rolling away to allow the attacking team recycle?

    Defending players could be rewarded with turnover of possession on their line for movements that would yield an attacking penalty out the field
    I'm not sure I understand this. There will be a definite line (the try line) if the ball is over the line it is held up if it is not it would be not releasing.

    It isn't a turnover in the true sense in that the defenders will have to kick the ball back.

    Leave a comment:


  • lawrence
    replied
    Originally posted by AwayFromHome View Post

    This one sounds interesting. Would require close in pick and gos to be more controlled and would reduce the scourge of 5 minutes of game time being lost to 5m scrum resets.
    There is a strong possibility of it being unfair to the attacking team, there will be ambiguity on where the line is drawn between held up, not releasing and playing the ball on the ground when off feet / not releasing / rolling away to allow the attacking team recycle?

    Defending players could be rewarded with turnover of possession on their line for movements that would yield an attacking penalty out the field

    Leave a comment:


  • AwayFromHome
    replied
    Originally posted by Piquet View Post


    Award a Drop out from the Goal line when an attacking player is held up over the line.
    To be trialled in the NRC.
    This one sounds interesting. Would require close in pick and gos to be more controlled and would reduce the scourge of 5 minutes of game time being lost to 5m scrum resets.

    Leave a comment:


  • lawrence
    replied
    I like the idea of the 50:22, it could really favour 12’s who can kick like scannell.

    I would like to see them evolve the penalty try conversion rule to directly awarding 7 points for any team that scores under the posts in play and do away with stupid unmissable conversions.

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Merge into laws thread... 50-22 law will be interesting to see. Works well in league

    Leave a comment:


  • Waterfordlad
    replied
    Agreed Balla, I was thinking the same. Good for Owen Farrell too, mind you...

    Leave a comment:


  • Balla Boy
    replied
    Could work well for us. Carbery, JJ and Tyler all have a tactical boot and a running threat of different degrees, and our line out is generally solid.

    Leave a comment:


  • aupa les rouges
    replied
    "Reducing the number of players in the defensive frontline was discussed at the Symposium, leading to the suggestion of a ’50/22′ law for kicking.

    This would be a simple tweak whereby a kick from within your own half [your own 50-metre area] that bounces in the field of play before crossing the touchline in the opposition 22 would result in the kicking team getting the throw into the lineout.


    An adaptation of the 40/20 kick in rugby league, the hope would be that the threat of these kicks would see defences keep more players in the backfield in order to prevent the kicking team securing an advantageous attacking lineout in the 22.

    That, in turn, could produce more space in the defensive frontline and mean fewer tackle events.

    The 50/22 law amendment suggestion was popular at the Symposium and it would be no surprise to see it brought forward to the trial phase in the next cycle after this year’s World Cup."

    ROG would have loved this.

    Leave a comment:


  • aupa les rouges
    replied
    https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-law...51248-Mar2019/

    "Another suggestion that will be presented to World Rugby’s Law Review Group [LRG] is that yellow cards would be followed by in-game reviews by the citing commissioner, who would have the possibility of upgrading the sanction to a red card within the 10-minute sin-bin window.

    The intention would be to ensure a greater number of correct red cards for foul play and fewer incidences of teams losing the in-game benefit they may be missing out on when referees erroneously show yellow cards to the opposition instead of reds."

    Bye Bye Castres
    Last edited by aupa les rouges; 29th-June-2019, 15:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • i_like_cake
    replied
    Originally posted by jagawayagain View Post

    Makes a kicking 10 quite an asset, it will b interesting to see how that works.

    wish they’d done something about the missile like diving over the ruck or when clearing out (eg sarries) and blatant infringement of laws on offside atruck and crooked put ins to scrum and line out. To me it’s lack of strict enforcement of the laws we have is the problem- not that we need new laws.
    Watching the súper rugby semi finals... There are some real rib breakers on show... For ruck clearing...

    Leave a comment:


  • kahalui
    replied
    Originally posted by Piquet View Post

    From RTÉ:
    • Reducing the tackle height to the waist. Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.
    Can't see how they'd enforce that. Most players these days bend down/forward (head first) when going into contact, especially in the tight.
    Last edited by kahalui; 29th-June-2019, 00:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • jagawayagain
    replied
    Originally posted by Piquet View Post
    The "logic", if that's the right word, is to encourage/force teams to take players out of their defensive line so as to cover each touch-line and open up more space for the attacking team.
    Makes a kicking 10 quite an asset, it will b interesting to see how that works.

    wish they’d done something about the missile like diving over the ruck or when clearing out (eg sarries) and blatant infringement of laws on offside atruck and crooked put ins to scrum and line out. To me it’s lack of strict enforcement of the laws we have is the problem- not that we need new laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    Originally posted by kahalui View Post
    '...Lower the tackle height to the waist.
    To be trialled.'

    No tackles above the waistline??
    From RTÉ:
    • Reducing the tackle height to the waist. Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    The "logic", if that's the right word, is to encourage/force teams to take players out of their defensive line so as to cover each touch-line and open up more space for the attacking team.

    Leave a comment:


  • kahalui
    replied
    '...Lower the tackle height to the waist.
    To be trialled.'

    No tackles above the waistline??

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X