World Rugby to trial experimental scrum & ruck Laws

[waiopehu oldboy]

World Rugby will begin trialling six law variations in the Northern Hemisphere from 1 August (including EOYT's) & Southern Hemisphere from 1 January:

1. Law 20.5 and 20.6 (d)
No signal from referee. The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).

2. Law 20.9 (b) Handling in the scrum – exception
The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows.
Rationale: To promote continuity.

3. Law 20.8 (b) Striking after the throw-in
Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball.
Sanction: Free-kick
Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

4. Law 15.4 (c)
The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”.
Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law.

5. Law 16 Ruck
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

6. Law 16.4: Other ruck offences
A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.
Sanction: Penalty
Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/266973

Thoughts? As always I'm esp interested in the unintended consequences that will doubtless occur.

 

[Braveheart81]

I reckon they're all fine.

Most of these were in place in the Under 20 World Champs and I didn't notice any particular issues that eventuated.

Number 4 is probably for the best. The tactic of not creating a ruck so there is no offside line is probably not in the game's best interests.

 

[Slim 293]

6. Law 16.4: Other ruck offences
A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.
Sanction: Penalty
Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

This, I do like............

 

[amirite]

I feel like when test level coaches sink their teeth into these rule changes we'll see less competition at the opposition breakdown, and more bodies in the D line.

It will be marginal, but I think we'll see more congestion and less opportunity for space on attack. Law of unintended consequences.

However, it's equally possible that the law around making it harder for the tackler to compete will create quicker ball and more attacking opportunities. It will be interesting to see this unfold.

 

[TOCC]

1 and 2 should speed the scrum up, but removes some of the competition of the scrum with the ball been fed off centre and the number 8 been able to reach forward to grab it.

Rule 3, not 100% sold on the merit of this and question whether its actually necessary, its states a player must strike for the ball. But what time frame must that be done under.. Ive seem some fantastic scrums where neither hooker have been able to hook for the first 5-10 seconds. Fiji vs Wallabies in the 2015 RWC had some great scrums like this, inevitably one team will gain ascendancy or a player will manage to hook for the ball.

Rule 4 and 5, I'm wary of the unintended consequences of these rule changes, is it reducing the ability to compete at the ruck and what will that mean?

Rule 6, seems like a fairly good change, kicking the ball out is a bit petty in terms of disrupting the play and just looks shit.

 

[Slim 293]

Rule 6, seems like a fairly good change, kicking the ball out is a bit petty in terms of disrupting the play and just looks shit.

I also think it's one law where there's not a lot of consistency from refs as to whether or not the player is onside when they kick the ball........

It should help to tidy up the breakdown.

 

[amirite]

1 and 2 should speed the scrum up, but removes some of the competition of the scrum with the ball been fed off centre and the number 8 been able to reach forward to grab it.

Rule 3, not 100% sold on the merit of this and question whether its actually necessary, its states a player must strike for the ball. But what time frame must that be done under.. Ive seem some fantastic scrums where neither hooker have been able to hook for the first 5-10 seconds. Fiji vs Wallabies in the 2015 RWC had some great scrums like this, inevitably one team will gain ascendancy or a player will manage to hook for the ball.

Rule 4 and 5, I'm wary of the unintended consequences of these rule changes, is it reducing the ability to compete at the ruck and what will that mean?

Rule 6, seems like a fairly good change, kicking the ball out is a bit petty in terms of disrupting the play and just looks shit.

Spot on.

I don't mind the 8 pick up rule, because often this was functionally happening anyway, but the rules around the feed are fine and there's no need for change!

 

[Braveheart81]

Rule 3, not 100% sold on the merit of this and question whether its actually necessary, its states a player must strike for the ball. But what time frame must that be done under.. Ive seem some fantastic scrums where neither hooker have been able to hook for the first 5-10 seconds. Fiji vs Wallabies in the 2015 RWC had some great scrums like this, inevitably one team will gain ascendancy or a player will manage to hook for the ball.

Hopefully for this to be a positive it means that if the scrum goes for a long time and the team feeding can't get a strike on it then it becomes a free kick to the opposition rather than being a reset or a dubious penalty where it wasn't clear who had ascendancy or caused the collapse.

I certainly don't want to see a situation where an active scrum is whistled to a stop.

 

[liquor box]

5. Law 16 Ruck
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

so if three players are at the breakdown you cant use your hands at all or is this only the attacking team?

I read this as saying that if you for example receive a kick you just need to run the ball back and have one member of your team very close by, when you are tackled your team mate becomes involved at the tackle and then no player can pick up the ball.....is this the end of 7's stealing the ball at ruck?

I imagine that this is designed so the attacking player does not just get up and run again after a tackle but I am concerned that it may be poorly written and have bad consequences.

 

[Braveheart81]

5. Law 16 Ruck
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

so if three players are at the breakdown you cant use your hands at all or is this only the attacking team?

I read this as saying that if you for example receive a kick you just need to run the ball back and have one member of your team very close by, when you are tackled your team mate becomes involved at the tackle and then no player can pick up the ball...is this the end of 7's stealing the ball at ruck?

I imagine that this is designed so the attacking player does not just get up and run again after a tackle but I am concerned that it may be poorly written and have bad consequences.

The only real change here is that an offside line is created even if no defender forms a ruck.

Nothing has really changed in terms of a defender contesting the ball. They already need to be on the ball before a ruck is formed.

 

[liquor box]

Hopefully for this to be a positive it means that if the scrum goes for a long time and the team feeding can't get a strike on it then it becomes a free kick to the opposition rather than being a reset or a dubious penalty where it wasn't clear who had ascendancy or caused the collapse.

I certainly don't want to see a situation where an active scrum is whistled to a stop.

QLD are in trouble if Moore is on the field, does he know how to strike?

With a guaranteed strike the defensive team will wait and there will be a massive push at the moment of the strike.

I wonder if the strike has to contact the ball? Can it be argued that a step forward is an attempt at striking by a member of the front row?

 

[cyclopath]

Of course, the biggest variable will be in the application. Scrums are supposed to be fed straight, but have not been for more than a year.
I'd have liked some clarity around the tackled, then released quickly, player who just gets up and keeps going. Far too many times we see players fairly tackled allowed to go again. I reckon if you're tackled and go to ground (knee or more on ground), regardless of whether anyone is holding you, you should have to release the ball then re-gather before playing on. It's so poorly and variably officiated.

 

[TOCC]

Of course, the biggest variable will be in the application. Scrums are supposed to be fed straight, but have not been for more than a year.
I'd have liked some clarity around the tackled, then released quickly, player who just gets up and keeps going. Far too many times we see players fairly tackled allowed to go again. I reckon if you're tackled and go to ground (knee or more on ground), regardless of whether anyone is holding you, you should have to release the ball then re-gather before playing on. It's so poorly and variably officiated.

I was whining about this the other day, it really gives me the shits because the kiwi teams do it better then Aussie ones...

I think there certainly needs better clarification, perhaps a single knee on the ground is a bit much, but certainly if you have a hand and knee on the ground whilst a player is still grasping you. Rolling more then 90degress to present the ball should be banned as well..

I think if they clarified this up then there would be less examples of tacklers holding on too long and not rolling away.

 

[Proud Pig]

The rule saying that the attacking team must strike at the ball concerns me. A principal reason that a front rower does not strike is to stabilise the scrum when under pressure. I can see this just leading to more collapsing as an unsteady and under pressure front row panic strike losing their base. This could cause problems to both weak and dominate scrums as the tactic will be to time a push at the moment the strike is attempted. Now, often a dominant scrum will choose to try to push over the ball rather than strike as striking does weaken your push stability.

The other problem I see with these rules are the impact at the ruck. They will severely hamper the pilfering forward from competing. It will increase the onus on the attacking team to make sure they have support players at the tackled players as quickly as possible. A nasty side effect could almost be to push a more conservative attacking game plan as risk of losing the ball is almost zero if you keep things simple. The other issue is as it is going to be more difficult to pilfer as a defensive team why would you commit more than a single player to the breakdown leaving a stronger defensive line.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

3 worries me.
If the hooker - assuming he will normally be the striker - can't strike he'll be penalised.
Assuming that, there'll be increased incentive for the side not putting in the ball to pack lower and/or to otherwise compromise the strike.
If the props start striking to overcome that risk it will destabilise the scrum.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The only real change here is that an offside line is created even if no defender forms a ruck.

Nothing has really changed in terms of a defender contesting the ball. They already need to be on the ball before a ruck is formed.

One change I think might result is that the tackled player won't be able to (pretend to) release the ball and pick it up again as he regains his feet if there is one of his own players "on his feet and over the ball", and thus forming a ruck. Will be interesting to see how the referees handle this situation, as I think it has been a blight on the game the way it has been officiated over recent years.

 

[Brumby Runner]

QLD are in trouble if Moore is on the field, does he know how to strike?

With a guaranteed strike the defensive team will wait and there will be a massive push at the moment of the strike.

I wonder if the strike has to contact the ball? Can it be argued that a step forward is an attempt at striking by a member of the front row?

Well, nothing can be argued in the heat of a game. It will rest entirely on the referee's interpretation, as always.

Plenty for the fans to argue after the game of course.

 

[Merrow]

Well, nothing can be argued in the heat of a game. It will rest entirely on the referee's interpretation, as always.

Plenty for the fans to argue after the game of course.

Or throughout the game if you're Shiggins

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm glad that the ridiculous situation of referees signalling to halfbacks to feed the ball has been removed. As an old halfback I hated it from day 1. It remains to be seen for how long the requirement of a straight feed will be enforced - it is already the only scrum law that is rarely enforced. My money is on fanatical enforcement for a while and then a return to a free for all.

Hooker having to strike is interesting - this was once the law at U19s but was done away with years ago. I suspect that the interpretation will be key - exactly what will constitute a strike at the ball?

The rest, if enforced properly, should help to clean up the tackle a bit but we'll see.