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

  • aupa les rouges
    replied
    Somebody should tell Owen Doyle - Irish Times today.

    ''Unexpectedly, forward passes must be referenced. Very marginal calls have suddenly appeared and we have listened to match officials referencing the whitewashed lines to assist in making these judgements. It’s wrong and officials are in danger of misleading themselves.

    Here’s why:

    If the ball carrier crosses, for example, the opponents’ 22m line as he passes the ball, laterally or backwards to a teammate, then that ball will often be caught on the far side of the 22m line.

    It’s called relative velocity – the ball will naturally travel forward over the ground, because the player is running forward. If a tackle stops the ball carrier in his tracks the visual effect is greater.

    Assistants who are standing still need to think very carefully about calling these, they seem drawn to watching the flight of the ball. And when the assistant is running with play he has the correct perspective and not calling. TMOs need to take care over persuasive intrusion.

    Utilising a convenient white line to decide or assist the decision is wrong.

    The only criterion for judging a pass to be forward is “did the ball leave the passer’s hands in a forward direction?”

    If not, get on with it, play on.''

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Originally posted by mr chips View Post
    Just watching the Wales-Fiji game on delay, and 20 minutes in there was chat on the commentary about the laws pertaining to the forward pass - apparently the "movement of the hands" thing is gone now, and it's back to a simple decision as to whether the direction of travel of the ball is towards the opposition tryline. Maybe the rest of ye were aware of this, but it had passed me by!
    yeah it changed. Better off for change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Waterfordlad
    replied
    Were they .... Welsh... or Scottish commentators???

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    and they are still getting it wrong

    Leave a comment:


  • mr chips
    replied
    Just watching the Wales-Fiji game on delay, and 20 minutes in there was chat on the commentary about the laws pertaining to the forward pass - apparently the "movement of the hands" thing is gone now, and it's back to a simple decision as to whether the direction of travel of the ball is towards the opposition tryline. Maybe the rest of ye were aware of this, but it had passed me by!

    Leave a comment:


  • lawrence
    replied
    Originally posted by Piquet View Post
    Ah no, Lar. Even he must be protected, annoying and all as he is.
    We will have to agree to disagree so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    Ah no, Lar. Even he must be protected, annoying and all as he is.

    Leave a comment:


  • lawrence
    replied
    Originally posted by Piquet View Post
    The NZH has a report on a Club game in Dunedin where, late in the game, the Ref called over a player and his captain. He issued a Red Card and was punched by the player.

    The article continues:

    "The incident has been reported and a hearing will take place.

    Possible further action may be considered. "

    PK's emphasis.

    Now I have had disagreements with Referees over the years here and elsewhere, but as far as I'm concerned, any player who strikes an Official must never be allowed to play the game again
    That’s a bit harsh, someone might give Ben Whitehouse a dig someday and should be rewarded for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    The NZH has a report on a Club game in Dunedin where, late in the game, the Ref called over a player and his captain. He issued a Red Card and was punched by the player.

    The article continues:

    "The incident has been reported and a hearing will take place.

    Possible further action may be considered. "

    PK's emphasis.

    Now I have had disagreements with Referees over the years here and elsewhere, but as far as I'm concerned, any player who strikes an Official must never be allowed to play the game again
    Last edited by Piquet; 29th-July-2019, 19:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • desert man
    replied
    One thing that seems to be happening a lot more recently is that the jackal is not trying to contest the ball but wrap tackled player and ball in an effort to win a not releasing penalty.

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post
    A quick query ;
    I presume they are talking about introducing these proposed law changes after Rwc 19?

    and hopefully, commencing with a trial period in some lower / university league to fully assess the likely outcomes??
    Of course. Will be after world cup. Just like past few world cups and trialled in similar competitions as then.
    Trialled in club/university/lower pro level comps in different countries and then if successful likely go on global trial

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    A quick query ;
    I presume they are talking about introducing these proposed law changes after Rwc 19?

    and hopefully, commencing with a trial period in some lower / university league to fully assess the likely outcomes??

    Leave a comment:


  • red exile
    replied
    I don't see how they can outlaw the jackall without completely negating the contest for the ball. A player on his feet must be able to challenge for the ball on the floor after the tackle otherwise you may as well just hand it back to the attacking team.

    EDIT: Perhaps it is not the Jackall they should be outlawing but the hitting of a player with the shoulder whilst he has his hands on the ball. Maybe if they interpreted the law as the player with hands on the ball is now in possession and the laws of the tackle be applied rather than entering a ruck. ie. full arm wrap below the shoulders etc.
    Last edited by red exile; 28th-March-2019, 12:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    Interesting article in the Guardian Breakdown on the proposed new rucking laws.

    "Last week’s player welfare symposium in Paris organised by World Rugby looked at ways of creating a greater contest at the ruck. And then it was revealed that the days of the jackal could be numbered if an attempt to stop players arriving at a breakdown from handling the ball is endorsed.

    The proposal has been made with safety in mind. The early retirement of Wales captain Sam Warburton highlighted the risk of jackalling – standing over the ball after a tackle to win a turnover, with opposition players charging in to make body challenges and thump the scavenger to the ground."
    The law book requires a player joining a ruck to do so from behind the offside line and to bind on to a teammate or an opponent before, or at the same time as, making contact. The safety of jackallers would be enhanced were those stipulations enforced, but with the contest element of the game now minimised in the quest for continuity, attacking teams are given latitude.

    The symposium reflected on the way the game has changed since it went open in 1995. The ball-in-play time has virtually doubled, the average number of scrums in a match has decreased by 75%, there are half the number of lineouts with kicking tactically for touch now a rarity. Breakdowns, meanwhile, have increased fivefold.

    As a consequence, defensive lines across the field have led to constant collisions. Some teams, notably New Zealand, rarely take play beyond a few phases, kicking the ball in the expectation of quickly receiving it back and then counterattacking. Others, including Ireland, hold on to the ball for long periods, abetted by the way the laws are applied.

    Outlawing jackalling would mean a return to rucking as the lawmakers intended, supporting players remaining upright and looking to drive forward, playing the ball only with their feet. The intention of the law experiment is to commit more players to the breakdown, preferably forwards, and create space behind – but would it enhance safety if laws were applied as loosely as they are now? Not just through the risk of the tackler or his victim being stamped on, but players charging in to repel a drive. Would it increase the prospect of turnovers? In this year’s Six Nations, the chances of a team retaining possession at a breakdown were 94%, with set-pieces also returning a figure in the 90s.

    The essential difference between the two codes of rugby is that union is a contest for possession, but the game itself has become a contest for money. As a result, its more arcane features have been ditched to make it less complex to casual viewers.

    World Rugby is proposing a Nations League, worth an estimated £5bn over 12 years, while the Six Nations, as self-serving an organisation as any in sport and disdainful of outside ambition, has been talking to private equity companies. It is prepared to concede commercial control, and with it free-to-air television coverage, in return for a lump sum that for some will match their annual turnover and the loss to the game of some 27% of profits each year.

    The game is putting its soul up for sale. The increasing dependence on financial backers drives law reform as much as player welfare. Union may never be as readily understood as football, but by diluting the contest for possession and making it increasingly resemble rugby league, it is moving in that direction.

    How many put-ins to the scrums in the Six Nations were straight? How many crooked feeds resulted in a free-kick? Any throws went down the middle of a lineout? And how many scrums resulted? Referees look to keep the game flowing: the days of 30-plus penalties in a match are history, and if that is welcome, it is less down to an improvement in discipline but at a conniving of offences, especially by the side in possession, in the quest for entertainment.

    Who wants to watch a mangle of scrum collapses or hookers repeatedly wiping a ball with a towel before throwing in? The law experiments announced last week are an attempt to cajole toothpaste back into a tube. Moves to create space on the field have tended to backfire because coaches devise ways of ensuring they have the opposite effect to that intended: it was the rule requiring backs to stand five metres behind a scrum that prompted the collapses and resets that caused consternation earlier in the decade.

    Today, referees often wave play on when a scrum goes down in the interest of flow. How long before it goes the way of rugby league which uses the set-piece as an uncontested means of restarting the game? As well as being a contest for possession, union has prided itself on being a sport for all shapes and sizes; while league does not have any flankers, it is props that it lacks.

    Leave a comment:


  • red exile
    replied
    Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post

    I think you will find it was the Castres tight head being cleared out that was the penalty/ no try offence.
    No, he inexplicably wanders off to the open side and pushes their blindside flanker who was guarding that side of the ruck in field. You can see it on the video here about 40 seconds in
    Munster face Gloucester this coming Saturday at 1pm in Thomond Park in Round two of the Heineken Champions Cup. The 'Cherries' opened their campaign this aftern...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X