Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Laws Question. Ask here! 2016 Laws changes Post #113

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ormond lad
    replied
    https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-pos...097296-May2020

    Leave a comment:


  • Oldschoolsocks
    replied
    Originally posted by Piquet View Post
    The 42 has a piece by Murray Kinsella about the new interpretation of the Breakdown Laws.

    He says:
    "Too often, referees have been thinking, “I’ll get the really clear and obvious penalties but I need to let this game flow.” Now World Rugby needs to fully encourage referees to be as strict as possible until players and coaches learn the hard way.

    If something is costing them a chance of winning, we can be certain that professional teams will immediately stop doing it."

    and



    "When rugby gets back up and running, it may be no bad thing to see a game involving a huge penalty count around the breakdown.

    Rugby actually imposing the laws it has set out for itself is long overdue."
    It might be better if referees just decide which laws to apply based on whatever they think is material. Discuss

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    The 42 has a piece by Murray Kinsella about the new interpretation of the Breakdown Laws.

    He says:
    "Too often, referees have been thinking, “I’ll get the really clear and obvious penalties but I need to let this game flow.” Now World Rugby needs to fully encourage referees to be as strict as possible until players and coaches learn the hard way.

    If something is costing them a chance of winning, we can be certain that professional teams will immediately stop doing it."

    and



    "When rugby gets back up and running, it may be no bad thing to see a game involving a huge penalty count around the breakdown.

    Rugby actually imposing the laws it has set out for itself is long overdue."

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    Originally posted by mr chips View Post

    Also, it would be remiss of me not to highlight this particular sentence - "After an initial increase in the number of penalties for high tackles, those figures dipped in December and January."
    Imagine, who'd a thunk it?

    Leave a comment:


  • mr chips
    replied
    Not so sure about the goal-line drop-out, but I'm hugely encouraged by the 50-22 kick and in particular tackling at or below waist height.

    Also, it would be remiss of me not to highlight this particular sentence - "After an initial increase in the number of penalties for high tackles, those figures dipped in December and January."

    Leave a comment:


  • mr chips
    replied
    Rugby news, Munsterfans!

    Gerry Thornley: Changes to tackle laws could transform rugby by time of next World Cup

    Whenever life returns to something resembling what we once called normal, and sport and rugby also come back into our lives, nothing will clearly ever be quite the same again.

    Of course, in its basic sense, rugby will resume as a gladiatorial contest between two teams of 15 players, but all the indications from World Rugby’s trialling of amended or new laws in the French fourth tier in the first half of this suspended season suggests it could be a radically different sport by the time the 2023 World Cup comes around.

    In March last year, World Rugby held a three-day symposium in Marcoussis, France’s training centre south of Paris, to generate ideas aimed at making rugby both safer and a better spectacle, and came up with six law trials.

    The most eye-catching and most discussed was the so-called 50-22 kick, a variation on rugby league’s 40-20, which rewarded teams who found touch in the opposition 22 from inside their own half with the ensuing throw-in.

    This would oblige defending teams to keep more players in the back field, so creating more opportunities for the attacking team, while also reducing the number of collisions. That was trialled in Australia’s National Rugby Championship (NRC) this year.

    But even more revolutionary was lowering the height of a legal tackle from the armpit to the waist, and also prohibiting double tackles.

    Roxana Maracineanu, the French minister for sport, addressed the conference and French rugby was reeling from four deaths in rugby union over the previous 12 months. Bernard Laporte, president of the FFR, said the game had to fundamentally change both the mentality of players and the laws, with regard to tackling.

    World Rugby’s research shows that the tackle is responsible for 50 per cent of all injuries and 76 per cent of all concussions (of which 72 per cent occur to the tackler). This was partly the consequence of an increase of ball-in-play time by 50 per cent since RWC 1987 to 35 minutes at RWC 2019, and a 252 per cent increase in tackles over the same period.

    While The High Tackle Sanction Framework trialled at two Under-20 World Cups and brought into the elite game had helped to lower injury rates (by 15 per cent) and concussion rates (by 30 per cent) at the 2019 World Cup in Japan, the game’s governing body know they need to go further.

    Hence, in tandem with lowering the tackle height to the waist, and thus forcing the tackler to bend lower, under the trials the ball carrier had to remain upright rather than dip into tackles. The FFR trialled the tackle amendments in their fourth tier, Federale 2 this season.

    Hugely encouraging
    It was also decided to award a goal-line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player who brings the ball into in-goal is held up over the line. This should force attacking teams to be more inventive or run the risk of turning over possession with pick-and-jams or one-off runners ad infinitum, while also rewarding good defending. This was trialled in Australia’s NRC.

    Another trial was to allow officials to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play and upgrade the offence to a red card if needs be.

    There was also the introduction of a penalty limit for teams, upon which a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction.

    The initial findings over the first half of the season in Federale 2 were hugely encouraging. For starters, there was a 60 per cent drop in the number of head impacts, down from an average of 9.8 per game in 2018-19 to four this season. This came with a threefold reduction in match injuries, from an average of one per game in 2018-19 to one every three games.

    After an initial increase in the number of penalties for high tackles, those figures dipped in December and January.

    Following on from the evident increase in offloading as a result of the High Tackle Sanction Framework, the number of offloads out of the tackle in Federale 2 increased from 6.7 per cent in September-October 2018 to 8.7 per cent over the same months in 2019. These numbers jumped further to 11.2 per cent in December and January.

    Kicks out of hand also dropped from 16 in September-October 2018 to 14 over the same months in 2019, and then decreased to six in December and January. Furthermore, there was a 31 per cent increase in line breaks and a 16 per cent increase in passing.

    Less kicks also led to less lineouts, down 21 per cent, whereas the number of scrums remained similar.
    Meanwhile, in Australia’s abbreviated 2020 NRC, there were 14 cases of 50-22 kicks which found touch in the opposition 22 from inside halfway and three of them led to a try as a result of the subsequent attacking throw-in.

    While there was less evidence to go on, not surprisingly the trial in rewarding the 50-22 kick actually led to a slight reduction in kicks out of hand, but then in punishing defending teams for keeping 14 in a line, it rewards the attacking team for keeping the ball in hand. There was less data regarding the goal-line drop out.

    Global trials
    World Rugby’s response has been to describe the findings as “compelling”. The changes and amendments could be approved for global trials within the next World Cup cycle and be made permanent at least in time for the 2023 Rugby World Cup in France.

    It remains to be seen whether some or all of these trials become enshrined laws of the game. Clearly, for example, ball carriers cannot remain upright when diving for the try line.

    But first and foremost, the prospect of less concussions overrides everything else. The additional bonus of safer waist-high tackling and no double hits, leading to more offloads and opportunities for the attacking team, is genuinely exciting.

    Rugby, it seems, is set to become a radically different sport, and historians will probably look back and say it had to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Waterfordlad
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowboy View Post

    A list if you will of referees and assistant referees you think would be able to handle a 6 year olds birthday party with 35 attendees. I'll get the ball rolling as it were,



    ...............
    Pre- or post- social distancing?

    Leave a comment:


  • redherring
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    what do you see as a consistent application of the offside law?
    I think the way refs are managing it as a whole is quite consistent
    Every offside is not the same. If you are pillar at a tackle/ruck being offside is not the same as if you are in midfield and it's different again if you are offside on the far wing from a tackle/ruck
    But if the out half/first receiver forward receives the ball and one of the defensive centres has shot up offside he stops any ball being passed beyond the attacking centres or if it does he makes the tackle quicker or shuts off the space. This is definitely something that happens every match. And I would also argue a large percentage of these offsides are only called when attacking teams are in or close to the opposition's 22. This is often overlooked outside of these two areas. Personally I can't agree with this as it's restricting teams playing more open rugby in certain parts of the pitch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowboy
    replied
    Originally posted by fitzy73 View Post
    Why can't the AR / touch judge look at the offside line?
    A list if you will of referees and assistant referees you think would be able to handle a 6 year olds birthday party with 35 attendees. I'll get the ball rolling as it were,



    ...............

    Leave a comment:


  • fitzy73
    replied
    GPS is accurate to about +/- 3m. Military GPS is accurate to within 1cm, but good luck asking the military to open up their satellite systems to measure the offside line in rugby!

    Why can't the AR / touch judge look at the offside line?

    Aside form that, I haven't seen a straight, contestable line out in about 10 years, and feeding the second row at the scrum happens about 90% of the time imho.

    Leave a comment:


  • Waterfordlad
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowboy View Post
    Everything is fine Comrade Chips.

    "Our power comes from perception of our power"


    The reactor is fine, impossible it has detonated
    Ock, my dilithium crystals won’t hold it Captain

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowboy
    replied
    Originally posted by mr chips View Post
    That GPS idea sounds like an eminently workable solution to me. How accurate are they, to within a metre? Less? If a margin of error of say 50cm was viable, it wouldn't be hard to bring in for the top flight.

    Nice one Cowboy - that's a whole lot better than refusing to acknowledge that the current situation is detrimental to the game and implying that anyone who highlights it is just a crank.
    Everything is fine Comrade Chips.

    "Our power comes from perception of our power"


    The reactor is fine, impossible it has detonated

    Leave a comment:


  • mr chips
    replied
    That GPS idea sounds like an eminently workable solution to me. How accurate are they, to within a metre? Less? If a margin of error of say 50cm was viable, it wouldn't be hard to bring in for the top flight.

    Nice one Cowboy - that's a whole lot better than refusing to acknowledge that the current situation is detrimental to the game and implying that anyone who highlights it is just a crank.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowboy
    replied
    Originally posted by mr chips View Post

    There may not have been regular calls for changes to the offside law, but as Piquet and others have said it's implementation of EXISTING LAWS that we want to see. So looking at the last time there was a change in the offside law, I'll ask you for the third time for a proper and full response to my question. What is the purpose of defining the hindmost foot of a ruck as the offside line?
    If the GPS unit in the spine of the professional jersey can track a distance covered in training why can't it be used to track an offside line?

    Give an arbitrary portion of time for a fatty to rumble back into the onside defensive line and if the fat bastard doesn't do it make the referee know via his smart watch saying 1 offside etc

    The pro game has two choices imo

    Re-power the referee alone so he's not listening to other voices constantly

    De-power him even more because the punters feel they're all below the level of the game nowadays and let Hawkeye decide where the hindmost GPS unit is

    Leave a comment:


  • mr chips
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    its not daft at all actually when you look at actual management and best control of a game.
    I'm talking about over the long term and media coverage. If offside was as big an issue as some here have been making it out to be then why has there not been regular calls for changes to the offside law.
    It's not an issue as coaches aren't saying much about it if anything at all. Its not coming up in feedback for refs to alter their approach to facilitating games.
    you cant have a rigid approach to the laws. The game becomes unrefereeable then. You must allow flexibility otherwise you have the mess that is Gaelic football between how refs are treated, how the game is reffed, how the game is played.
    There may not have been regular calls for changes to the offside law, but as Piquet and others have said it's implementation of EXISTING LAWS that we want to see. So looking at the last time there was a change in the offside law, I'll ask you for the third time for a proper and full response to my question. What is the purpose of defining the hindmost foot of a ruck as the offside line?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X