World Rugby to introduce law trials

[mxyzptlk]

I think you missed the sarcasm.

It was the old classic let's turn it into rugby league suggestion.

Hell, you could open up even more space by just nixing 8 players per side, and de-power the scrum by limiting it to just the hookers and props. Maybe limit the time played per half to somewhere south of 10 minutes, so fatigue doesn't become too much of a factor and you just get constant flowing play. That would be a revolution.

Seriously though, the argument that reducing the number of players would open up more space -- a la league -- always makes me wonder. Would it? Or would it just change how defenses work in order to shut down space? If you watch any rugby league, particularly NRL, most of the game occurs within 10 meters of the ruck (or "ruck"), and all that vaunted space goes unavailed. That's partly because the 6-tackle rule limits what a side will actually risk doing with the ball, but it's also because they've just adjusted to close down that space as fast as possible.

You could go down to 11 players (gridiron), and it wouldn't make that much difference. We're talking about mainly a running game, and 11-player gridiron defenses close down the running game pretty quickly as well (and they get blockers).

So if those arguing for reducing players to create space were serious, they'd have to go with something like 10s or 7s, and just skip league all together.

 

[Quick Hands]

Whatever law changes occur, coaches will always look for ways around them.

 

[Omar Comin']

In water polo it's a 20 second exclusion in a match which lasts 28 minutes, which is vastly different to a 10 minute sin bin in a game which lasts 80 minutes. i.e 1/84th of a match as compared to 1/8th.

You haven't addressed the concern about scrum penalties, which must by extension involve more cards for these infringements. At the moment we see scrum penalties which by my rule of thumb involve the referee getting in right 1/3 of the time, getting wrong 1/3 of the time and the other 1/3 the penalty could have gone either way. Currently some of these penalties result in 3 points (if they are within range) and some don't. If we have players carded on the basis of this guesswork, it involves teams being a man down when in many cases they haven't actually infringed.

The other point I make is that going from penalty goals to cards doesn't minimise referee impact (particuarly in the case of error), it increases it.

But those exclusions happen very regularly and often result in goals. Missing 1 in 6 (field) players is a much harder thing to deal with than missing 1 in 15.

In the NRC you don't see many cards given out at scrum time. Conceding a scrum penalty means you lose possession and 20 metres or so of territory. Surely that is enough of a punishment. But I'd be quite happy to have a rule of no cards from scrum penalties (with the exception of foul play). Or even just free kicks only from scrum infringements. I don't think it's as big an issue as you do though.

 

[Braveheart81]

From the areas announced as being of focus at the RWC, hopefully we see a considerable focus on a quick 'use it' call when the ball is at the back of the scrum.

I think the scrum will be considerably improved if referees reduce the opportunity for sides to have a delayed second shove when the ball has already been won in the middle of the park.

 

[Lee Grant]

Quick Hands

Those are interesting ideas.

Since the power hit was made ineffectual by cracking down on early charges (which was in the laws all the time), and also by disguising the timing of the throw into the scrum, I have found it easier to detect the culprits responsible for collapsing scrums.

Well, often after a replay or two. A lot of collapses are delayed now compared to before and the build up to them can be inspected better.

I think that the TV commentators are getting better at analysing it also; they could scarcely have got worse.

But I have been disappointed that the referees have not improved their recognition skills at scrum time as much as they should have.


As for referees imposing laws that are not there, they are following the practice of their fathers and grandfathers who established conventions that younger referees followed.

Their interpretations became quasi-law as I mentioned in an earlier post. Some of these conventions were good: the law stated that a player couldn't put his hands into the ruck, but as the years ticked by the scrum half was permitted to fish the ball out of the ruck and it sped the game up.

In my young days that would have been penalised every minute of every day of every week.

The conventions prevail, including some pertaining to the scrum as you have mentioned. World Rugby has to be good enough to track what is going on and steer the officials in the right direction. What they don't want to do is to change the laws every five minutes.

It is a pity that punters like us can't be involved in WR (World Rugby) proceedings to state our case that some of the conventions are harmful.
.

 

[liquor box]

No scrum option at penalties or free kicks

I think a scrum should be allowed, it gives a great opportunity for a slick backline move which can be great for the game.

The problem is trying to get another penalty from the scrum to work your way down the field.

 

[liquor box]

Their interpretations became quasi-law as I mentioned in an earlier post. Some of these conventions were good: the law stated that a player couldn't put his hands into the ruck, but as the years ticked by the scrum half was permitted to fish the ball out of the ruck and it sped the game up.

In my young days that would have been penalised every minute of every day of every week.


.

I am guessing in your young days the scrum half would have also had cut and bruised hands from an opponents boots if he tried this

 

[Lee Grant]

^^^^^^
Yeah they would have if it was allowed, but it wasn't then.

Not quite to the point but about ten years ago, a defender was penalised at Sydney University when he came around a ruck to grab the scrummie, but he was pinged for being offside.

He said: "But he had his hands on the ball".

The ref replied: "Hands on is not ball out."

For referees and players back in the day that would have been a conversation scripted by Kafka.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

But those exclusions happen very regularly and often result in goals. Missing 1 in 6 (field) players is a much harder thing to deal with than missing 1 in 15.

It's now only 5 field players, but the point remains that it is much easier to score when the opposition are short of players. And by the way, I'm agree with you that referees need to use cards more often, my argument was that it doesn't solve the problem of referees impacting the result.

You are correct in saying that there are more exclusions in water polo - one of the reasons is that the time involved is so small that referees are inclined to use it more often. To equal a rugby yellow card in terms of impact the water polo exclusion time would have to change from 20 seconds to three and a half minutes.

This could be solved by broadening the scope of cards available.

Yellow cards - 10 minutes for foul play type offences only

Introduce a 5 minute or a 2 minute card (or both) for a range of less serious or more technical matters.

For example a 5 minute suspension for cynical infringements at the breakdown etc and a 2 minute suspension for scrum and other more technical infringments. (i.e. incorrect feed - 2nd time you're off for 2 minutes, scrum collapse same) and no penalty goal option either.

Unless something like this is done, then the reduction of the penalty goal will, at the higher levels anyway, just encourage sides to give away penalties.

As an example in rugby league, there is now a general aversion to taking the 2 points from a penalty goal by some teams. So what tends to happen is that the other side gives away 3 or 4 penalties inside their 20m zone as they know their opponents won't kick two points. Eventually they either take the 2 or make a mistake and lose possession. I'd hate for this to happen in rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^^
Yeah they would have if it was allowed, but it wasn't then.

Not quite to the point but about ten years ago, a defender was penalised at Sydney University when he came around a ruck to grab the scrummie, but he was pinged for being offside.

He said: "But he had his hands on the ball".

The ref replied: "Hands on is not ball out."

For referees and players back in the day that would have been a conversation scripted by Kafka.
.

The fundamentally ludicrous nature of the interpretation that you give seems lost on the current generation of referees.

i.e. no player may handle the ball in a ruck or a scrum, therefore if the attacking half is able to pick it up then so is his opponent.

 

[Omar Comin']

As an example in rugby league, there is now a general aversion to taking the 2 points from a penalty goal by some teams. So what tends to happen is that the other side gives away 3 or 4 penalties inside their 20m zone as they know their opponents won't kick two points. Eventually they either take the 2 or make a mistake and lose possession. I'd hate for this to happen in rugby.

I don't think it'd happen in rugby because of the cards for repeated infringements or obviously cynical infringements. In rugby league that doesn't happen. But giving away a lot of penalties is not a winning strategy even in rugby league (giving teams repeated sets on your own line is a recipe for disaster). It'll never be a winning strategy in rugby union (even without the issuing of cards, you don't want to be defending consistently against 5m lineouts/scrums/taps).

Don't mind the idea of a 5 minute card btw. Could see that happening one day.

 

[Braveheart81]

The fundamentally ludicrous nature of the interpretation that you give seems lost on the current generation of referees.

i.e. no player may handle the ball in a ruck or a scrum, therefore if the attacking half is able to pick it up then so is his opponent.

The defending player is offside if they come around to pick up the ball when it hasn't left the ruck.

I think the current interpretation is fine.

It would slow the game down immensely if the halfback couldn't touch the ball until it was out of the ruck.

 

[Quick Hands]

The defending player is offside if they come around to pick up the ball when it hasn't left the ruck.

I think the current interpretation is fine.

It would slow the game down immensely if the halfback couldn't touch the ball until it was out of the ruck.

How?

Wouldn't it stop teams holding the ball in until they were ready?

Wouldn't it thus get the ball back into play more quickly?

Can't a play in the ruck simply push the ball back with his foot to the half?

This is what used to happen (based on many years of playing halfback). Coaches then began to get teams to hold the ball at the back until they were ready for the next phase.

 

[Braveheart81]

How?

Wouldn't it stop teams holding the ball in until they were ready?

Wouldn't it thus get the ball back into play more quickly?

Can't a play in the ruck simply push the ball back with his foot to the half?

This is what used to happen (based on many years of playing halfback). Coaches then began to get teams to hold the ball at the back until they were ready for the next phase.

There are two main situations I guess.

Firstly where the ball is accessible and there is a player on their feet protecting the ball. If the halfback wasn't allowed to touch the ball until that player was no longer protecting the ball (and keeping it in the ruck), you'd presumably have the halfback tapping the player on the back to rake the ball back so they can pick it up. That would slow things down.

The main one though is when there are players on the ground around the ball and currently the halfback reaches in to pick the ball up. If they weren't able to do that, how do you get the ball exactly? A newly arriving player can't really ruck it back because there are bodies in the way and you're not allowed to ruck.

I think the interpretation of the breakdown laws is pretty good at the moment. Attacking teams can play quickly and attack but if they get isolated the defensive team has a good opportunity to win a penalty or a turnover.

 

[liquor box]

^^^^^^
Yeah they would have if it was allowed, but it wasn't then.

Not quite to the point but about ten years ago, a defender was penalised at Sydney University when he came around a ruck to grab the scrummie, but he was pinged for being offside.

He said: "But he had his hands on the ball".

The ref replied: "Hands on is not ball out."

For referees and players back in the day that would have been a conversation scripted by Kafka.
.

I once described that as the "bird shit rule"

The ball is clear of the ruck when a bird flying over the ruck could shit on the ball, if someones hands are on the ball or a body over the ball then the said bird shit would not hit the ball so it is still in the ruck.

 

[Lee Grant]

The defending player is offside if they come around to pick up the ball when it hasn't left the ruck.

I think the current interpretation is fine.

It would slow the game down immensely if the halfback couldn't touch the ball until it was out of the ruck.

Agree - the offending player was naive in thinking that he could rely on a literal interpretation of the law book when the practice was that the scrummie could have his hands in the ruck to fetch the ball out like a miner - and had been for yonks.

I just mentioned the event to illustrate how conventions have changed the game - and I indicated earlier this was one of the good conventions.

They are over-balanced by a lot of bad ones though, and there are some matters that are just up in the air - as we have noted in this thread recently.

The new thing about players not being able to come around and nab the scrummie until he has picked the ball up is not a convention - it is a clarifying directive for the referees, which is not in the law book.

World Rugby needs more of these for the guidance of referees and once the matters have proved themselves and not caused unintended consequences, there should be bulk changes to the laws themselves.

After every RWC would be a good idea.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

There are two main situations I guess.

Firstly where the ball is accessible and there is a player on their feet protecting the ball. If the halfback wasn't allowed to touch the ball until that player was no longer protecting the ball (and keeping it in the ruck), you'd presumably have the halfback tapping the player on the back to rake the ball back so they can pick it up. That would slow things down.

The main one though is when there are players on the ground around the ball and currently the halfback reaches in to pick the ball up. If they weren't able to do that, how do you get the ball exactly? A newly arriving player can't really ruck it back because there are bodies in the way and you're not allowed to ruck.

I think the interpretation of the breakdown laws is pretty good at the moment. Attacking teams can play quickly and attack but if they get isolated the defensive team has a good opportunity to win a penalty or a turnover.

I don't have a particular problem with the half reaching in and picking up the ball, particularly in the second situation. However, what many referees allow is not only for the half to reach in, but they allow him to remain with his hands on the ball sometimes for a few seconds. There are only two reasons for the half doing so: his supports aren't ready so he's waiting for them, or he's trying to contrive a penalty against his opponents (in both instances he's slowing the game down). If we are going to allow him to reach in and pick it up in order to speed up the game, I can live with that, provided the opposition are permitted to tackle him once he's done so. By picking up the ball, he has in fact ended the ruck, so offside lines no longer exist and the prohibition on cleaning out the half no longer exists.

 

[Quick Hands]

Agree - the offending player was naive in thinking that he could rely on a literal interpretation of the law book when the practice was that the scrummie could have his hands in the ruck to fetch the ball out like a miner - and had been for yonks.

I just mentioned the event to illustrate how conventions have changed the game - and I indicated earlier this was one of the good conventions.

They are over-balanced by a lot of bad ones though, and there are some matters that are just up in the air - as we have noted in this thread recently.

The new thing about players not being able to come around and nab the scrummie until he has picked the ball up is not a convention - it is a clarifying directive for the referees, which is not in the law book.

World Rugby needs more of these for the guidance of referees and once the matters have proved themselves and not caused unintended consequences, there should be bulk changes to the laws themselves.

After every RWC would be a good idea.
.

Unfortunately LG, referees have taken this a step further and prevent defenders coming around until the half has extracted the ball from the line of bodies - even though he has picked it up and thus ended the ruck. No ruck, no offside lines.

 

[Lee Grant]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The world turns outside of the law as it does in real life, but so long as the players (or population) know what the officials allow, or don't allow, there can be no real complaint.

And if what they do frees up the game (or their lives) it can be a good thing for them.

Problems arise when the officials treat the players (or population) differently from time to time, or from place to place, or when they all travel down the wrong path.

Opportunities arise when some officials allow practices outside of the law and they are of benefit to the players (or people).

In both cases it is time for officials to be put on the right turn of the path by their superiors either by directing them where to go (clarifications) or by changing the road map (the laws).

Evolution of the law can be a good thing if handled with care.
.

 

[wamberal]

The only way scrums can ever be fairly administered is if there is an overhead camera at every game, and the TMO is empowered to advise the referee when the sort of ludicrous infringing that ruined the Third Lions Test occurs.


Either adjudicate the scrums properly, or return them to what they used to be, a simple restart after a minor transgression in which the non-offending team has a clear advantage, no penalties (except for foul play), in and out and on your way.