• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

IRB and Unions Sanction New Law Trials

Status
Not open for further replies.

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
IRB and Unions sanction global Law trials
(IRB.COM) Tuesday 15 May 2012

The International Rugby Board and its Member Unions have sanctioned a global trial of five aspects of Law amendments following an extensive process of consultation and evaluation.

The trial, approved by the IRB Council at its Annual Meeting in Dublin on Tuesday, will commence at the start of the next season in each hemisphere (August 2012 in the north and January 2013 in the south) and will be applicable to both international and domestic competition.

Aspects of Law approved for trial include limiting the time that the ball is available at the back of a ruck and the positioning of taking a quick throw-in. In addition to the suite of seven Laws approved for global trial, three additional trials will operate during 2012.

A trial extension of the jurisdiction of the Television Match Official will be introduced later this year, while the number of nominated replacements in Test Rugby will be increased to eight for a trial in the November window.

The global trial has been sanctioned after an unprecedented evaluation process that kicked off with submissions and recommendations for 20 potential amendments from Member Unions and has culminated with recent trials of amendments to seven aspects of Law as a package at dedicated playing environments in Cambridge and Stellenbosch.

This evaluation process is in line with the remit of the Laws Amendment Process approved by the IRB Council in December 2009.

Unlike previous amendment processes, the process of selection, monitoring and evaluation has been steered by an independent Laws Representative Group, comprising technical representatives from each of the 10 Tier 1 Unions covering elite and community Rugby and representatives of the IRB Rugby Committee.

Extensive evaluation of the Cambridge and Stellenbosch University trials undertaken earlier this year determined that each of the seven amendments could have a positive effect on the Game or clarify existing areas of Law and therefore a recommendation was made to the IRB Council via the IRB Rugby Committee to approve a global trial of all seven amendments.

The five Law amendments to be trialled globally are:

1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use it”. Sanction – Scrum.

2. 19.2 (b) (Quick Throw-In) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line.

3. 19.4 (who throws in) When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on, the non-offending team will be offered the choice of a lineout at the point the ball crossed the touch line; or a scrum at the place of the knock-on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.

4. 21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements: Lineout alternative. A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a lineout may choose a further lineout, they throw in. This is in addition to the scrum option.

5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded.

In addition to the global trials, the IRB Council approved three specific additional trials:

1. A trial to extend the jurisdiction of the TMO to incidents within the field of play that have led to the scoring of a try and foul play in the field of play to take place at an appropriate elite competition in order that a protocol can be developed for the November 2012 Tests.

2. A trial has been sanctioned for the November 2012 Test window permitting international teams to nominate up to eight replacements in the match day squad for Test matches. In line with current practice at domestic elite Rugby level, the additional player must be a qualified front row player.

3. An amendment to Law 3.4 (Sevens Variation) to enable Sevens teams to nominate up to five replacements/substitutes. Under the revision, which will operate from June 1 2012, a team may substitute or replace up to five players during a match. Approval has been granted on player welfare grounds to recognise the additional demands on players and squads owing to the expansion of the HSBC Sevens World Series where there are three blocks of three events on consecutive weekends.

Council also approved the referral by the Laws Representative Group of one potential Law amendment that was successfully trialled at Cambridge and Stellenbosch for further consideration by the specialist Scrum Steering Group (overseeing scrum force project) to be considered alongside the ongoing review of the scrum.

The amendment that will be considered by the Group relates to the engagement sequence and will see the referee call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch then touch and using outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call “set” when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.

“We have a collective responsibility to ensure that the Game is as enjoyable to play, officiate and watch as possible at every level while player welfare is of paramount importance,” said IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset.

“Rugby is currently in good health with participation growing around the world, but there is collective responsibility to ensure that a structured process can be implemented to allow for global analysis and to monitor trends relating to the shape and character of the Game as it evolves.”

“The approval of five aspects of Law for global trial is the culmination of the Laws Amendment Process which was agreed by the IRB Council in 2009. The journey to this point has been exhaustive and collaborative and has involved full stakeholder consultation and I would like to thank Member Unions for their buy-in and commitment to the process from the outset.”

“The Laws Representative Group were encouraged by the outcomes of the initial trials in Cambridge and Stellenbosch. The next step is a global trial with full buy-in and which has been approved by Council on the basis that the amendments can have a positive effect on the playing of the Game.”

“The global trials are not fait accompli. It is essential at the end of the global trial process that decisions made are in the best interest of Rugby worldwide,” added Lapasset.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
So does the 8 replacements law mean that your bench must have two props and a hooker?

Seems like the front-rowers union has plenty of muscle at the IRB.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
So does the 8 replacements law mean that your bench must have two props and a hooker?

Seems like the front-rowers union has plenty of muscle at the IRB.

Clearly the world is aligning on the path to goodness with the front rowers union taking their rightful place leading the way
 

rugbysmartarse

Alan Cameron (40)
I hear that is the intention, and it's the way it works in some of the Euro domestic comps. If it gets rid of uncontested scrums then I am all for it. I thik the "crouch, touch, set" will get adopted as well, ther has been nothing but complaint about the extra "pause" and the IRB are great at Knee Jerk reactions so it will likely go.
 

antimony

Herbert Moran (7)
It will be interesting to see how the Use it or lose it law at the ruck will be applied. I'd imagine Its designed to speed up play and stop the endless farting around waiting for peopl to set up pods or for a box kick and I like the setiment. Its just it resulting in a scrum is hardly going to speed up the game.

At the same time a realise its the same sanction as a use it or lose situation at mall time and a half arm is probably a bit harsh for such a minor infringment.

I guess I hope it has has the desired effect without having to be inforced to often.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I think the law that allows a new lineout to be taken from a penalty or free kick at a lineout is a smart one.

My assumption is that it will be used when there is a lineout 5m out and the attacking team gets a penalty for a collasped maul or something.

By being able to retake the lineout it removes the need for someone to do a dinky kick into touch again just so another 5m lineout can be formed.

Whilst it will only save a few seconds, this sort of thing seems like common sense improvements to the laws of the game.
 

Dam0

Dave Cowper (27)
It will be interesting to see how the Use it or lose it law at the ruck will be applied. I'd imagine Its designed to speed up play and stop the endless farting around waiting for peopl to set up pods or for a box kick and I like the setiment. Its just it resulting in a scrum is hardly going to speed up the game.

At the same time a realise its the same sanction as a use it or lose situation at mall time and a half arm is probably a bit harsh for such a minor infringment.

I guess I hope it has has the desired effect without having to be inforced to often.

I wouldn't worry about it slowing the game down. My guess is that it will hardly ever be used, the ref will tell the halfback to use it, and he will do so quickly. It just gives the ref some ammunition to tell the player to use it. I know I (as a ref) often will tell a halfback to hurry up, but currently there is no sanction for him if he ignores me.

Very few people know that there is currently exactly the same rule at a scrum. Have you ever seen a scrum turnover because the halfback leaves the ball in the back of a stationary scrum for more than 5 seconds? I haven't, because the ref says to use it, and he does.
 

Dam0

Dave Cowper (27)
I think the law that allows a new lineout to be taken from a penalty or free kick at a lineout is a smart one.

My assumption is that it will be used when there is a lineout 5m out and the attacking team gets a penalty for a collasped maul or something.

By being able to retake the lineout it removes the need for someone to do a dinky kick into touch again just so another 5m lineout can be formed.

Whilst it will only save a few seconds, this sort of thing seems like common sense improvements to the laws of the game.


And it will give the option of a lineout when time is up!

Also when the defending team does a technical infringement (ie a short arm) the attacking team gets another chance at a lineout, rather than losing that option as currently.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I think the ball at the back of the ruck law will be used at the end of games when teams are trying to run out the clock.

It is one of the worst spectacles of rugby when a team is in the lead and has possession and leaves the ball on the ground for about 30 seconds at each ruck just soaking up time.

It is a terrible way for a game to end when the majority of crowd is booing what is really poor sportsmanship by the team in the lead.
 

suckerforred

Chilla Wilson (44)
I wouldn't worry about it slowing the game down. My guess is that it will hardly ever be used, the ref will tell the halfback to use it, and he will do so quickly. It just gives the ref some ammunition to tell the player to use it. I know I (as a ref) often will tell a halfback to hurry up, but currently there is no sanction for him if he ignores me.

Very few people know that there is currently exactly the same rule at a scrum. Have you ever seen a scrum turnover because the halfback leaves the ball in the back of a stationary scrum for more than 5 seconds? I haven't, because the ref says to use it, and he does.

I wonder if a side effect of this will be more penalities for interferring with the half-back. I.e. - Ref calls use it, and someone sticks their arm or leg out in the way of the ball / half-back. Not saying it will be a bad thing just wondering if it will clarify two areas of the ruck with one rule change.
 

Bruce Ross

Ken Catchpole (46)
In the main the Law variations being trialled meet the very important criterion of not making the game even more complex to referee. I would like to have seen some attempt at simplifying the Laws but we all have our dreams that will never be fulfilled.

I note that:

"5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded."

replaces the existing:

"9.B.1 (e) The kicker must take the kick within one minute from the time the kicker has indicated an intention to kick. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or the player makes a mark on the ground."

This may marginally speed things up but 90 seconds still leaves plenty of time to collect some sticks, light a fire, boil the billy, add tea leaves, swing the billy in a giant arc a few times, and pour a mug for yourself and the referee. Admittedly it would probably be too hot for more than a sip before the kick has to be taken.
.
 

suckerforred

Chilla Wilson (44)
This may marginally speed things up but 90 seconds still leaves plenty of time to collect some sticks, light a fire, boil the billy, add tea leaves, swing the billy in a giant arc a few times, and pour a mug for yourself and the referee. Admittedly it would probably be too hot for more than a sip before the kick has to be taken.
.

Off topic I know.... but Bruce you need to attend this event..... http://www.australiancampovenfestival.com.au/. We have bill boiling competitions and could try out your theory.
 
L

laps

Guest
Still would have liked to see something about not beeing abot to take a shot at goal for dumb scrum penalties, maybe like a warning system, after 3 offences teams can start taking shots...
 

Bardon

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Glad to see the test subs bench finally changing to the NH club structure. Also like the look of the other amendments and the 5 second rule is a really good one. Also the expansion of the role of the TMO should deal with some problems that have been brought up here in threads throughout the year.

Will be interesting to see how the changes to the sequence at the scrum actually work out at elite level.
 

Refabit

Darby Loudon (17)
The 90 second conversion rule seems a sound one. I always thought it strange that "The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand". I would have thought it was the skipper pointing to the posts. Or someone scoring a try & thinking it might be a good idea to attempt a conversion. In games I ref, if teams are too slow bringing out tee I always tell kicker to take a drop-kick anyway. They bring the tee qicker for next attempt.

And the amendment "For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line". I thought that was already the Law?
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Agree Bardon.

In particular, adding a prop will be a good thing for rugby as it will lessen the incidence of uncontested scrums, as we have witnessed in the NH where they are hardly ever seen.

Although it is not unprecedented in Oz, as we have it in amateur club rugby, it will disadvantage Oz in test matches and Super Rugby as our prop pool is so small. That serves us right.

One can foretell that the SAffers will be trotting out their two bench props to replace the two starting props at the same time with some regularity as is seen often in the Top14.

As for the other changes to be trialled: folks should not be too perturbed, nor too dogmatic in opposition to them, for they are only trials and the sky will not fall.

I think the IRB missed a trick in not trying to get rid of the power hit by the simple change of requiring front rows not to charge in "from any distance" on the engage instead of "from a distance" as it is now. This would stop the sprint across a very small distance before the scrum even starts and avoid a lot of collapses.

Am looking forward to seeing the effect of trials and how nice opinions about them are borne out on the park, or not.
.
 

Karl

Bill McLean (32)
In the main the Law variations being trialled meet the very important criterion of not making the game even more complex to referee. I would like to have seen some attempt at simplifying the Laws but we all have our dreams that will never be fulfilled.

I note that:

"5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded."

replaces the existing:

"9.B.1 (e) The kicker must take the kick within one minute from the time the kicker has indicated an intention to kick. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or the player makes a mark on the ground."

This may marginally speed things up but 90 seconds still leaves plenty of time to collect some sticks, light a fire, boil the billy, add tea leaves, swing the billy in a giant arc a few times, and pour a mug for yourself and the referee. Admittedly it would probably be too hot for more than a sip before the kick has to be taken.
.


What would you like to see Bruce?

And when will we see a wider trial of the 2 point penalty, 3 point conversion we saw tested in SA recently with such fantastic results?
 
J

Jiggles

Guest
It'll be interesting to see how the ruck "use it or loose it" law goes. It sounds good in theory, just like a lot of the ELVs did, but perhaps there are some unintended consequences.

Firstly I can foresee the ruck becoming even less of a contest. The defending team may just make the tackle and fan out having 14 men in defense. The attacking team will have to commit 1 or 2 players to make sure the ruck is secure, and this leaves only 13 or 12 men to attack with.

Secondly teams could sit on the fringes and create an absolute cluster fuck around the ruck. Certain teams are pretty good at this already, and it could get worse if the start to anticipate the “use it” call.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I don't understand at all how the situations you foresee will arise from the ball having to be used within 5 seconds of it become available at the back of the ruck.

Why would teams stop contesting the ball because of this rule?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top