Super Rugby 2024 General Chat

[Wilson]

I don't think your fringe cases are covered (dropping it would be attempting to bring the ball under control, so not covered by iv, and trapping with your foot is a kick, so covered by iii

From the laws definition
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

BUt as so often with rugby, they appear to have drafted the laws to require as much interpretation as possible

Thanks, that does seem like it locks those cases down, though I'm not sure trapping it qualifies as a kick, it would still be an attempt to bring the ball under control. It does go back to my original point with these variations, I wish they published these with the exact language/change to the laws to make it as clear as possible.

 

[Braveheart81]

I wish they published these with the exact language/change to the laws to make it as clear as possible.

From everything that has been reported the law variation removes clauses 10.7 b)i) and b)ii).

Super Rugby Pacific Law Innovation

super.rugby

 

[Wilson]

From everything that has been reported the law variation removes clauses 10.7 b)i) and b)ii).

Super Rugby Pacific Law Innovation

super.rugby

Good to see them come out with the official release quickly, this is closer to what I want, though I still wish they actually stated the clauses like you have. There must be a more official and specific variation as submitted to world rugby and approved to be applied to the laws, I don't see any reason not to publish that in full.

 

[Brumby Runner]

iv is for charge downs.

I don't think so. A charge down occurs when the receiver elects to kick the ball and an opponent somehow intercepts the ball while still in proximity to the kicker.

10.7.b.111 covers any situation where the receiver kicks the ball irrespective of a charge down or not.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Charge downs are part of it, and probably the reason it hasn't been removed as part of this, but the wording as it stand also covers the situations I've described. It didn't matter too much with clauses I and II to put players onside, but with those two clauses removed it creates a bit of a weird fringe situation where the offside rule is handled differently depending on whether the receiving team takes a "clean" catch or not.

That was always the situation when I played League (1960s). Is it a League specific rule/law or has it always been in force in rugby too? I reckon referees have always ruled play on when the clean catch isn't taken.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think so. A charge down occurs when the receiver elects to kick the ball and an opponent somehow intercepts the ball while still in proximity to the kicker.

10.7.b.111 covers any situation where the receiver kicks the ball irrespective of a charge down or not.

10.7 b) iv) is the charge down clause.

I.e. if I am offside because I am in front of the kicker but the kick is charged down because a defender "intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it" then I am back onside and can play the ball immediately (e.g. the situation where a kick is touched off the boot and everyone is immediately onside).

 

[KOB1987]

People, we are organising a fantasy comp as per below, need a few more enthusiastic participants. Disclaimer: it costs money for entertainment these days, the princely sum of 12.95NZP:

https://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/c...sy-rugby-draft-2024.19370/page-5#post-1379641

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't think so. A charge down occurs when the receiver elects to kick the ball and an opponent somehow intercepts the ball while still in proximity to the kicker.

10.7.b.111 covers any situation where the receiver kicks the ball irrespective of a charge down or not.

iv) is for the defending team touching the ball in a charge-down attempt - not the receiving team.

Laws of the Game | World Rugby Laws

Individual Laws of the game of rugby union.

www.world.rugby

go to 10.7.b.iv

Click play on the video for iv - you can see the the official WR (World Rugby) example is a charge-down attempt

 

[Strewthcobber]

That was always the situation when I played League (1960s). Is it a League specific rule/law or has it always been in force in rugby too? I reckon referees have always ruled play on when the clean catch isn't taken.

League has this in their laws

An offside player is placed onside if: (a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball. (b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.

Dropping the ball in rugby doesn't put the opposition chasers onside

 

[Braveheart81]

Dropping the ball in rugby doesn't put the opposition chasers onside

I think it does. It's also 10.7 b) iv).

This image is helpful.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think it does. It's also 10.7 b) iv).

This image is helpful.

View attachment 18199

I should have added some qualifiers
Dropping the ball in rugby doesn't necessarily put the opposition chasers onside, if you have "possession"

And possession is defined as attempting to maintain control of the ball (eg bobbling it)

I've had senior refs clarify this, but absolutely agree refs in game may not rule this way. It's a pretty edge case

Also, simplify your laws WR (World Rugby)!

 

[Brumby Runner]

10.7 b) iv) is the charge down clause.

I.e. if I am offside because I am in front of the kicker but the kick is charged down because a defender "intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it" then I am back onside and can play the ball immediately (e.g. the situation where a kick is touched off the boot and everyone is immediately onside).

iv) is for the defending team touching the ball in a charge-down attempt - not the receiving team.

Laws of the Game | World Rugby Laws

Individual Laws of the game of rugby union.

www.world.rugby

go to 10.7.b.iv

Click play on the video for iv - you can see the the official WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) example is a charge-down attempt

I am more than prepared to concede if my interpretation is wrong, but in my reading, an offside player (ie defender as opposed to receiver) is put onside under iv if an opponent (ie on the receiving side) touches the ball without controlling it. Surely, if it is meant to cover a charge down situation, it would read along the lines of another of the defending side (ie the same side as the offside player - not an opponent as it reads now) touches the ball. Maybe its just a problem with the words being used, eg "opponent".

 

[Strewthcobber]

I am more than prepared to concede if my interpretation is wrong, but in my reading, an offside player (ie defender as opposed to receiver) is put onside under iv if an opponent (ie on the receiving side) touches the ball without controlling it. Surely, if it is meant to cover a charge down situation, it would read along the lines of another of the defending side (ie the same side as the offside player - not an opponent as it reads now) touches the ball. Maybe its just a problem with the words being used, eg "opponent".

A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it.

The player who is offside is on the kicking team (in front of the kicker).

They are put onside after the kick when an opponent (defending the kick) attempts a charge down, and touches the ball in flight.

The ball usually keeps going forward from the kick in this situation. It can be the slightest touch from the opponent

Click that video on the WR (World Rugby) laws website. It shows it exactly

 

[Brumby Runner]

Yeah, I concede Strewth.

Interested in any views on what might happen as a result of i and ii being discarded. If the kick receiver isn't about to be harassed by an onside opponent, can he run or pass with impunity? Just when are the offside players allowed to join the play if they are not run onside by one of their teammates? Is it likely to open up more counter attacking opportunities?

 

[Wilson]

Yeah, I concede Strewth.

Interested in any views on what might happen as a result of i and ii being discarded. If the kick receiver isn't about to be harassed by an onside opponent, can he run or pass with impunity? Just when are the offside players allowed to join the play if they are not run onside by one of their teammates? Is it likely to open up more counter attacking opportunities?

Yeah, the offside players won't be able to join the play until they've been put onside by a player on their team or have retreated to an onside position. It shouldn't change their requirement to retire though.

Definitely looks like it will open up a lot more counter attacking opportunity and that's certainly the stated intent.

 

[Strewthcobber]

It is a pretty big change, there's likely to be unintended consequence and players who don't know what they are entitled to be doing at particular points in play

Potentially, if the last man kicks and then doesn't put everyone else onside (is tackled?), the entire team could be unable to make a tackle on the ball receiver running though

Not sure 2 weeks before your comps starts is the best time to introduce such a big change, but here we go....

 

[Strewthcobber]

Just when are the offside players allowed to join the play if they are not run onside by one of their teammates

Short answer is they aren't allowed to join play.

They aren't onside until someone runs them on, or they run back behind someone who is onside.

There will be some very fit wingers this year, running up after every single kick putting all the forwards onside

 

[Wilson]

It is a pretty big change, there's likely to be unintended consequence and players who don't know what they are entitled to be doing at particular points in play

Potentially, if the last man kicks and then doesn't put everyone else onside (is tackled?), the entire team could be unable to make a tackle on the ball receiver running though

Not sure 2 weeks before your comps starts is the best time to introduce such a big change, but here we go....

In your scenario the defending team would have to retreat to the kicker, or have the nearest player retreat to the kicker (or sight of the kick) and then put them onside. It would make it difficult for them but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

As far as the timing goes, they did canvas the coaches and they were all for it, I imagine they've known it was coming for quite some time. Not sure if it has been in place for any of the trials. I do agree there is a risk with unintended consequences, same as there is with all of these changes, but for the most part it reads like a step in the right direction. Either way, that's the point of trialling these variations before encoding them in the laws.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Teams aren't going to stop kicking, they're just not going to kick long quite as often. So probably more box kicks preceded by caterpillar mauls

 

[fatprop]

Short answer is they aren't allowed to join play.

They aren't onside until someone runs them on, or they run back behind someone who is onside.

There will be some very fit wingers this year, running up after every single kick putting all the forwards onside

Yeah, workrate units like Pietsch will be channeling Dougie Howlett but I think the big change will be kickers who be using contestables much more and kicking safely for touch rather than deep looking for space