Experimental Law Changes

Downtime · 10-03-2006 10:43am #1

The IRB are trialing Experimental Law Changes in Stellenbosch in South Africa. I don't know if anyone saw the IRB's Rugby Show on Sky Sports a few weeks ago when they indicated how the trials we doing.

Some of the Laws trialled during the week and which will continue to be evaluated during competitions at Stellenbosch are:

Allowing the ball to be played with the hand at the breakdown
Players can go off their feet at the ruck
Only foul play (Law 10) and offside resulting in penalty kicks - all other offences resulting in free kicks.
Free kicks are taken by a tap kick or a scrum option only.
Teams no longer have to match up numbers in the lineout.
Bringing the maul to ground by the defending team
If attaching team cannot retain ball at ruck - defending team gets it.

Some food for thought there - leads to a much quicker game with less mauls and more positive actions by players. Will be interesting to see how this progresses.

More here: IRB Rugby

CJhaughey · 10-03-2006 11:02am

Bringing down a rolling maul sounds dangerous to me, I was under the impression that that was why the law was made in the first instance.

Downtime · 10-03-2006 11:34am

CJhaughey wrote:

Bringing down a rolling maul sounds dangerous to me, I was under the impression that that was why the law was made in the first instance.

Nothing really dangerous about it. The IRB did some intensive research into these changes keeping the playing charter in place. There have been no serious injuried in the area in 6/7 years.

Maccattack · 10-03-2006 11:45am

Yet another pathetic attempt by the Rugby Union to make that tired mess more appealing to the masses. They slag off Rugby League for a century for allowing the game to evolve and only now that they have had professionalism forced upon them - and they have to openly pay players instead of the under the table payments they used to give - is it 'ok' to make the game more appealing for the people who watch.

They should just admit they were wrong all along and adopt Rugby League rules, thats where its heading anyway.

finlma · 10-03-2006 11:51am

Maccattack wrote:

They should just admit they were wrong all along and adopt Rugby League rules, thats where its heading anyway.

Yawn....if rugby league is so exciting to watch why do union followers outnumber them by 10 to 1? League is a boring sport to watch - all crash and bash.

Good to see union expermineting with new rules to improve the game.

Downtime · 10-03-2006 12:02pm

Have to agree with finlma - these new laws will make for a better game and it will still look nothing like League (bish bash bosch)

Maccattack wrote:

Yet another pathetic attempt by the Rugby Union

Nothing to do with the Rugby Union, it's the IRB

Eoin · 10-03-2006 2:12pm

Some interesting ones here - I would have liked to have seen some more progressive rules about safety in the scrum though. My pet hate is the one about being penalised if a front row player pops up. 99% of the time he has to do this because the opposing team is driving upwards forcing the neck to bend forwards. Most referees (at J1 level anyway) have little idea of what happens in the front row.

"Allowing the ball to be played with the hand at the breakdown"
combined with
"Players can go off their feet at the ruck"

So a player off his feet on the wrong side of a ruck can handle the ball and get it back on his side? Don't really like the sound of that - if nothing else, it could mean a lot more "footwork" in the ruck to stop an opposing player doing it.

"Only foul play (Law 10) and offside resulting in penalty kicks - all other offences resulting in free kicks."
Could mean a lot of "professional fouls" being committed to break up play.

"Free kicks are taken by a tap kick or a scrum option only."
Is that not the same now? Excuse my ignorance (prop here)!

"Teams no longer have to match up numbers in the lineout."
Don't like that idea at all, lineouts have become a lot more interesting with the many 3/4/5 man options that teams are trying these days. It makes the other team have to react quickly. What's the point if you can still put 7 into the lineout against 3?

Having said that, if the other team has a shorter lineout because someone is sin binned, then the other team should not have to drop a man from their lineout.

"Bringing the maul to ground by the defending team"
Interesting one. Don't think it is particularly dangerous. Would pretty much screw up the game plan of most the teams my club plays!

"If attacking team cannot retain ball at ruck - defending team gets it."
What does "retain" mean in this case - ball does not go to ground? Sounds like this is pretty much the case at the moment.

Downtime · 10-03-2006 3:05pm

eoin_s wrote:

Most referees (at J1 level anyway) have little idea of what happens in the front row.

Harsh but fair - it is a difficult area though especailly considering most referees were former backs.

So a player off his feet on the wrong side of a ruck can handle the ball and get it back on his side? Don't really like the sound of that - if nothing else, it could mean a lot more "footwork" in the ruck to stop an opposing player doing it.

Basically yes - but it will encourage teams to play the ball quciker at ruck time and look for support players. Worked very well on the videos I saw. Footwork may be a problem though - true but again thats foul play (apparently)

"Only foul play (Law 10) and offside resulting in penalty kicks - all other offences resulting in free kicks."
Could mean a lot of "professional fouls" being committed to break up play.

Would mean a lot of guys resting for 10.

"Free kicks are taken by a tap kick or a scrum option only."

Is that not the same now? Excuse my ignorance (prop here)!

Inside the 22 you can kick directly to touch - you can still kick anyway at present - won't be allowed to if ELV's come in.

"Bringing the maul to ground by the defending team"
Interesting one. Don't think it is particularly dangerous. Would pretty much screw up the game plan of most the teams my club plays!

Will mess up a lot of team game plans but as it the defending side can bring down a maul if no one from their team is part of it, so not a huge change.

"If attacking team cannot retain ball at ruck - defending team gets it."
What does "retain" mean in this case - ball does not go to ground? Sounds like this is pretty much the case at the moment.

By retain i mean: If A bring a ball into a tackle and B successfully kill the ball or A cannot get continuity i.e. the ball back. Then B get the scrum. It is trying to encourage quicker recycling at tackle.

Eoin · 10-03-2006 3:25pm

Downtime wrote:

Harsh but fair - it is a difficult area though especailly considering most referees were former backs.

Probably just as well, wouldn't like to many props from 20 years ago trying to ref a game! Still, that rule drives me crazy.

Downtime wrote:

By retain i mean: If A bring a ball into a tackle and B successfully kill the ball or A cannot get continuity i.e. the ball back. Then B get the scrum. It is trying to encourage quicker recycling at tackle.

Then they shouldn't allow you to play the ball with your hands or let players off their feet play the ball. It will be impossible to play the ball quickly if the opposing team can do this.
Also, does this mean that the tackled player will be the only player not able to play the ball with their hands? Doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with someone at the back of a ruck being able to reach and retrieve the ball (i.e. the ball is pretty much at their feet, and they are putting it behind them for the scrum half - most referees will currently allow this, but we were penalised off the park for this a few weeks ago.

The lineout rule (not having to match numbers) is the worst idea of the lot of them to me though.

WallysWorld · 10-03-2006 3:33pm

I think these are broadly positive moves, by reducing the chance of giving a penalty away at the breakdown and allowing the ball to be played with the hand rucks will get far more competitive, opening it up from a situation where a few lads lie in to one where its a 3 on 3 struggle for possesion, I think it will effectivly turn it into a little minigame in itself much like a scrum.

Downtime · 10-03-2006 3:37pm

eoin_s wrote:

Probably just as well, wouldn't like to many props from 20 years ago trying to ref a game! Still, that rule drives me crazy.

Then they shouldn't allow you to play the ball with your hands or let players off their feet play the ball. It will be impossible to play the ball quickly if the opposing team can do this.
Also, does this mean that the tackled player will be the only player not able to play the ball with their hands? Doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with someone at the back of a ruck being able to reach and retrieve the ball (i.e. the ball is pretty much at their feet, and they are putting it behind them for the scrum half - most referees will currently allow this, but we were penalised off the park for this a few weeks ago.

The lineout rule (not having to match numbers) is the worst idea of the lot of them to me though.

The tackled player will still be able to play it - it sounds messy but works well. Turnover seemd to go from 6% to 25% while penalties dropped a huge amount.

Eoin · 10-03-2006 3:45pm

WallysWorld wrote:

I think these are broadly positive moves, by reducing the chance of giving a penalty away at the breakdown and allowing the ball to be played with the hand rucks will get far more competitive, opening it up from a situation where a few lads lie in to one where its a 3 on 3 struggle for possesion, I think it will effectivly turn it into a little minigame in itself much like a scrum.

But I thought they were trying to speed up the breakdowns, and this would seem to do the opposite?

shmaido · 10-03-2006 4:06pm

I'd have to say i generally like the direction they're trying to bring the game because lets be honest the real reason anybody wants to play rugby is to run and pass with the ball in hand and IMO the less stagnation with rucking, mauling and scrumaging the better, (now don't get me wrong I do like some elements of those parts of the game,after all I'm a number 8 - I have to), I think they're really trying to aim towards offloading in the tackle and hence towards the key word "continuity". I totally agree with comments about rugby league, it was never a complete solution to any of unions drawbacks like they continuously claim and while I'll admit its fun to play, its a nightmare to watch(my hat goes off to all yea avid fans of league,you are true supporters to be able to stick with such a boring game) hopefully union will never get to that level of monotony

Downtime · 10-03-2006 4:10pm

eoin_s wrote:

But I thought they were trying to speed up the breakdowns, and this would seem to do the opposite?

On paper it looks like it will be slowed down but in theory there seems to be less breakdowns and more continuity (guys popping passed as they go to ground - guys throwing ball back rather that bringing it with them - if there is a breakdown there seems to be more turnover

WallysWorld · 10-03-2006 4:26pm

eoin_s wrote:

But I thought they were trying to speed up the breakdowns, and this would seem to do the opposite?

Possibly your right here i may have misinterpreted the rules to suit my own point of view, as a back row forward the more freedom i get in rucks to spoil and turnover without being penalised the better!

I agree with Downtime I think there will be more turnovers, due to plenty of other backrows seeing things the same as above!, so you can never be sure of a ruck, seems to me that people will start using a more take the hit and pop the ball style, try to keep it alive which i would like to see.

Eoin · 10-03-2006 4:52pm

WallysWorld wrote:

Possibly your right here i may have misinterpreted the rules to suit my own point of view, as a back row forward the more freedom i get in rucks to spoil and turnover without being penalised the better!

I agree with Downtime I think there will be more turnovers, due to plenty of other backrows seeing things the same as above!, so you can never be sure of a ruck, seems to me that people will start using a more take the hit and pop the ball style, try to keep it alive which i would like to see.

I suppose be a good thing, I certainly agree that a defending player should be able to try and rip the ball in a ruck - but only if he is on his feet. What maybe goes with that though, is that the tackled player should have more time to release the ball.

I really don't want to see the traditional "forward" (e.g. mauls and scrums) areas of play being regarded as something to get rid of.

Downtime · 10-03-2006 4:59pm

eoin_s wrote:

I really don't want to see the traditional "forward" (e.g. mauls and scrums) areas of play being regarded as something to get rid of.

Mauls will still be there as will scrums - and to make you happy Truck and Trailer are out aswell (forgot that earlier)

As I mentioned earlier - the Playing Charter will be upheld.

Eoin · 10-03-2006 5:18pm

Downtime wrote:

Mauls will still be there as will scrums - and to make you happy Truck and Trailer are out aswell (forgot that earlier)

As I mentioned earlier - the Playing Charter will be upheld.

I know they'll still be there, I was just saying I don't want them to end up on a hit list! Scrummaging below J1 level has been changed so you can only push for a meter or two. If a scrum wheels, it is just reset rather than a turnover. It is supposed to be because of safety, but that isn't the way to go. Especially for a lot of players who hover between J1 and J2 levels. They have to go from rugby league style "leaning in" scrums to full-on scrummaging.

Do you mean truck and trailer won't be penalised anymore? Personally I thought it was a bit silly, given that the logistics of a maul dictate that anyone ahead of the ball carrier is obstructing the defending team...

Downtime · 10-03-2006 5:18pm

eoin_s wrote:

I know they'll still be there, I was just saying I don't want them to end up on a hit list! Scrummaging below J1 level has been changed so you can only push for a meter or two. If a scrum wheels, it is just reset rather than a turnover. It is supposed to be because of safety, but that isn't the way to go. Especially for a lot of players who hover between J1 and J2 levels. They have to go from rugby league style "leaning in" scrums to full-on scrummaging.

I know your misery only too well.

WallysWorld · 10-03-2006 5:19pm

Can you clarify the truck and trailer thing, do you mean that you cant be penalised for being the 'trailer' in the maul now, that its ok just to have a hand or an arm on the lad in front?

qwertyup · 11-03-2006 9:19am

Teams no longer have to match up numbers in the lineout.
Bringing the maul to ground by the defending team

We trialled these rules (amongst others) this year for the RFU in our league.

The lineout one had very little bearing on things.

Being able to bring the maul to ground efffectively nullified a lot of team's forward game, as the opposing team would just drag down most maul as soon as it formed. Do not think it's a good rule in that sense. I wouldn't really share the concern over safety.

daveirl · 11-03-2006 9:55am

This post has been deleted.

qwertyup · 11-03-2006 1:15pm

As a forward, mauls are something I cherish. Personally I don't give a damn if they aren't as enjoyable to watch for a spectator as a scything run from a back, I play for my enjoyment, and not the audiences.

I can see the logic behind trying the rule. I just feel its use makes renders forwards in the true sense more inconsequential.

Nukem · 11-03-2006 1:35pm

Bringing a maul down is opening a whole can of whoop ass - lets say you try bring down and Munster or a Big french pack in a maul down. You bring down one player but the ball moves and they just pretty much walk right over you like a door mat!

Bad idea IMO and players allowed to go off there feet in a ruck? Thats just opening up for someone to stick the boot in to get them outta the way isnt it?

Nukem

LostinBlanch · 11-03-2006 8:14pm

Well the indo seems to be positive about the changes:

"In essence, the proposals are an attempt to force players to be more positive, to keep the ball alive, off-load in the tackle and reduce the inclination to become involved in a free-for-all at the breakdown.

The effects of the trial matches played in South Africa under the new laws, astonished IRB officials.

In particular, there was a five-fold increase in tries from two to 10, while penalty kicks decreased significantly and turnovers nearly doubled.

The stats for the core issue of turnovers answers the critics who point out that it has become almost impossible to win the ball against a side in possession that does not make mistakes."

Here's the link if you want to read the full article:
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=97&si=1579085&issue_id=13798

Downtime · 16-03-2006 4:58pm

Full list on planet rugby here although the Inside the 22-metre line changes have been thrown out.

Eoin · 16-03-2006 5:07pm

I have to say the proposed lineout rules really bug me - I am a big fan of the short lineout, and think it adds a good bit of variety to the game.

www.planetrugby.com wrote:

e. There is no maximum number of players in the line-out but there is a minimum of two.

f. No team determines numbers in the line-out.

e. and f. mean that a team may pack as many players as it can fit between five and 15 metres from touch. Numbers are no longer a factor.

The short line-out, especially in defence, may become a less desirable option.

Just noticed this one (with regards to mauls):

d. There is no use it or lose it.

This means that a maul may be stopped and restarted and go sideways and so on.

Seems like a strange one, given that they seem to want to move away from traditional forward play - even though I know the maul can now be brought down.

Downtime · 16-03-2006 5:11pm

Welcome back EOS's 15 man line out.

Eoin · 16-03-2006 5:14pm

Downtime wrote:

Welcome back EOS's 15 man line out.

Wouldn't want to be the guy tackling that maul!

MarVeL · 19-03-2006 11:31pm

Wasn't that Warren Gatland's? Don't mention L**s

daveirl · 20-03-2006 12:33pm

This post has been deleted.

Experimental Law Changes

Comments