New law amendments

[Epaminondas Pules]

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/world- ... 99451364=1

The World Rugby Executive Committee has approved the addition of six law amendments to the programme of global law trials.

The amendments, which have been tried in specific international competitions this year, relate to the scrum (Law 20) and tackle/ruck (Laws 15 and 16), and are aimed at making the game simpler to play and referee, as well as further protecting player welfare.

The six law amendments will debut in full from 1 August 2017 in the northern hemisphere, and from 1 January 2018 in the southern hemisphere, and are as follows...

Throwing the ball into the scrum
Law 20.5 & 20.5 (d) 5

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.

Handling in the scrum – exception
Law 20.9 (b)

The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows.

Rationale: To promote continuity.

Striking after the throw-in
Law 20

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.

Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

Sanction: Free-kick

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.

Ruck
Law 16

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.

Other ruck offences
Law 16.4

A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.

Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

Sanction: Penalty

*The November 2017 Tests will operate under the full global law trials, while Women’s Rugby World Cup 2017 will operate under the package of five global law trials that has been operational in the southern hemisphere since January and was operational during the June test window.

[Puja]

That all seems remarkably common-sense and actually simplifying the laws of the game. Who are these people and what have they done with the real IRB?

The one which maintains that a player on the put-in side must strike for the ball or concede a free kick is especially interesting. No more driving over the ball anymore and there's going to be a real premium on quick hooks and timing between 9 and 2. Proper rugby and I'm all in favour.

Putting the ball in straight to the scrum? Seems like we've heard that one before - we'll see if it's reffed more than once a game. Requiring a hook will make it interesting - if it's put into the second row then will the refs penalise no hook?!

Allowing the 8 to reach into the scrum is just common sense and avoids finickity technical penalties. Wiping out the rule that a tackler can compete from any side just saves confusion - far simpler and more consistent than allowing him to be an exception. No kicking out of a ruck makes sense to save players on the floor from getting a boot to the face, although it's a shame in terms of competing because what hope is there of hooking it backwards through the bodies on the ground.

And most importantly - one person over a tackle makes a ruck and an offside line, so we can bid arrivederci to that stupid Fox tactic. Also makes sense in terms of simplifying - it's easier to a casual to understand that a bundle on the floor is a ruck, rather than trying to differentiate between whether it's just a tackle and no offside.

Only thing to complain about is no clarification on accidental offside a la Scotland vs Aus and NZ vs Lions. Aside from that, good work IRB!

Puja

[Puja]

Have thought about it for a bit and in retrospect I'm not sure I like the "No kick out of a ruck" amendment. It's great when you think about stationary rucks with people flailing their legs around, but if there's an underresourced ruck and the scrum-half is present, how can one compete? You can't just drive through and ignore the ball because you'd be taking out the scrum-half, you can't handle the ball because it's in a ruck, you can't hook the ball backwards because there's a ruck in the way, and you can't kick it out because that's now against the laws. So how can one compete at a ruck? Why should anyone resource an attacking ruck beyond the first man in to clear a jackaller? Simply get someone to play scrum-half and hover over the ball and you're untouchable.

Puja

[Raggs]

Dislike the loss of tacklers rights but absolutely appreciate the simplification to make things easier. Feel the same way about the offside line.

Unintended consequences for me would be greater advantage to the dominant tackling 7 than the quick to his feet 7.

[Digby]

Unintended consequences for me would be greater advantage to the dominant tackling 7 than the quick to his feet 7.

Centres too will see a change

[Beasties]

My first thoughts were also that the non-kicking rule in rucks would be a bad thing. It will prob end up with fewer defenders in a ruck and hence an even more solid defensive line. Rucks weren't competitive enough for my liking anyway, this will exacerbate it.

Can't really argue with the rest, all sensible and simpler. Removing the ref from the put in instruction is great because it gives him one less job to do at scrums, I'm all for that.

[fivepointer]

I'm generally in favour. The scrum amendments are very sensible, the side putting the ball in can do a a bit squint but at least someone must strike for the ball. Outlawing the jackal is a bit tough but I can see why. And the offside line forming without a defending player contesting possession is a way simplifying things, as much for refs and spectators as players. kicking the ball out of a ruck? Mmm i'm not sure this was needed. Understand the desire to reduce risk to players but that was already covered under dangerous play and if possession hasnt been secured I dont see much wrong in a player toeing the ball out out of a ruck.

[Oakboy]

I applaud the removal of the referee's signal to the SH and the No8's freedom to pick up. Both help the timing of the scrum for the feeding side. The hooking requirement sounds good theoretically but will it lead to less front row stability? I'm surprised that no changes regarding binding were deemed necessary. That whole issue and its effect on stability remain unsatisfactory to my untutored spectator's eye. I don't think the percentage of completed scrums will get to decent levels until the problem is resolved.

[Puja]

The hooking requirement sounds good theoretically but will it lead to less front row stability?

If, and only if, it is refereed strongly and consistently, then it should have the opposite effect. The instability from hooking as thing stand comes from the ball sitting in the middle as two sides push against each other, until one person takes their foot off the floor to strike and then it either collapses, or starts going backwards and is then collapsed.

If hooking is mandatory and there's no option to drive over or feed the ball into the second rows, then there's no incentive to do anything but an immediate strike. The attacking side will have the advantage of timing, as they will know when the ball is coming in and thus when the drive can start in earnest. If they're competent, the ball should be hooked and all six feet on the floor before the other side have had a chance to shove. And, since the ball is now available to the 8, they've got the option of rescuing it if they do start going backwards.

Of course, this requires it to be refereed strongly and consistently, which is probably where it will all fall down. Nostrapuja predicts two free kicks early on in the first game and it will start to be entirely ignored by the second half, except for one random time that it's picked up.

Puja

[Oakboy]

The hooking requirement sounds good theoretically but will it lead to less front row stability?

If, and only if, it is refereed strongly and consistently, then it should have the opposite effect. The instability from hooking as thing stand comes from the ball sitting in the middle as two sides push against each other, until one person takes their foot off the floor to strike and then it either collapses, or starts going backwards and is then collapsed.

If hooking is mandatory and there's no option to drive over or feed the ball into the second rows, then there's no incentive to do anything but an immediate strike. The attacking side will have the advantage of timing, as they will know when the ball is coming in and thus when the drive can start in earnest. If they're competent, the ball should be hooked and all six feet on the floor before the other side have had a chance to shove. And, since the ball is now available to the 8, they've got the option of rescuing it if they do start going backwards.

Of course, this requires it to be refereed strongly and consistently, which is probably where it will all fall down. Nostrapuja predicts two free kicks early on in the first game and it will start to be entirely ignored by the second half, except for one random time that it's picked up.

Puja

I bow to your greater knowledge, of course, but the cynic in me wonders what the defending side will do to spoil it. Coaches will already be working on disruption, no doubt.

I wish there was some way to incentivise both sides to compete fairly. Maybe something like it being compulsory for referees to issue demerit points for every uncompleted scrum - one each if he doesn't know who is at fault - with 3 demerits leading to an automatic yellow card for a front rower.

[Epaminondas Pules]

the main thing I don't like (most are fine) is the one man ruck. All because Italy had some fun with the laws we decide to change them. Seems terribly knee jerk and wholly unnecessary.

[Raggs]

I don't like that the ruck offside has changed, but the difficulty for the ref to follow what was and wasn't a ruck and therefore offside, was too much. Even in a game where the ref was deliberately following it he got it wrong a number of times.

[16th man]

The hooking requirement sounds good theoretically but will it lead to less front row stability?

If, and only if, it is refereed strongly and consistently, then it should have the opposite effect. The instability from hooking as thing stand comes from the ball sitting in the middle as two sides push against each other, until one person takes their foot off the floor to strike and then it either collapses, or starts going backwards and is then collapsed.

If hooking is mandatory and there's no option to drive over or feed the ball into the second rows, then there's no incentive to do anything but an immediate strike. The attacking side will have the advantage of timing, as they will know when the ball is coming in and thus when the drive can start in earnest. If they're competent, the ball should be hooked and all six feet on the floor before the other side have had a chance to shove. And, since the ball is now available to the 8, they've got the option of rescuing it if they do start going backwards.

Of course, this requires it to be refereed strongly and consistently, which is probably where it will all fall down. Nostrapuja predicts two free kicks early on in the first game and it will start to be entirely ignored by the second half, except for one random time that it's picked up.

Puja

I bow to your greater knowledge, of course, but the cynic in me wonders what the defending side will do to spoil it. Coaches will already be working on disruption, no doubt.

I wish there was some way to incentivise both sides to compete fairly. Maybe something like it being compulsory for referees to issue demerit points for every uncompleted scrum - one each if he doesn't know who is at fault - with 3 demerits leading to an automatic yellow card for a front rower.

Unfortunately I think we're now at the point that any increase in the sanctions for an offending team just increases the motivation of both sides to try to con the ref.

[Digby]

Ruck
Law 16

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.

I get how one offside line is created by there being one player over the ball, but how is the 2nd line created by one player over the ball? Can you simply arrive from anywhere in front of the back foot of the one player?

[Puja]

the main thing I don't like (most are fine) is the one man ruck. All because Italy had some fun with the laws we decide to change them. Seems terribly knee jerk and wholly unnecessary.

Quite apart from the Italy game, if the IRB are looking at ways to make the laws easier to ref and easier to understand, that's an obvious and easy win. There's no real cause to for some breakdowns to create an offside line and others not to - it's just an extra source of confusion.

Puja

[Puja]

Ruck
Law 16

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.

I get how one offside line is created by there being one player over the ball, but how is the 2nd line created by one player over the ball? Can you simply arrive from anywhere in front of the back foot of the one player?

Good point. I would imagine that the offside line for the side who haven't put a player in would be the line of the tackled player. And anyone entering the ruck area would have to come through the gate anyway.

Puja

[Epaminondas Pules]

the main thing I don't like (most are fine) is the one man ruck. All because Italy had some fun with the laws we decide to change them. Seems terribly knee jerk and wholly unnecessary.

Quite apart from the Italy game, if the IRB are looking at ways to make the laws easier to ref and easier to understand, that's an obvious and easy win. There's no real cause to for some breakdowns to create an offside line and others not to - it's just an extra source of confusion.

Puja

It's not like the law determining a ruck is a new thing. If referees can't do their job then we can always change the laws I guess.

And yes Digby, second line is interesting.

Just seems an unnecessary change for what is a really simple law in terms of ruck or no ruck.

[Puja]

the main thing I don't like (most are fine) is the one man ruck. All because Italy had some fun with the laws we decide to change them. Seems terribly knee jerk and wholly unnecessary.

Quite apart from the Italy game, if the IRB are looking at ways to make the laws easier to ref and easier to understand, that's an obvious and easy win. There's no real cause to for some breakdowns to create an offside line and others not to - it's just an extra source of confusion.

Puja

It's not like the law determining a ruck is a new thing. If referees can't do their job then we can always change the laws I guess.

And yes Digby, second line is interesting.

Just seems an unnecessary change for what is a really simple law in terms of ruck or no ruck.

Out of interest, what is the advantage of having two different sets of laws for a tackle situation with one person and a tackle situation with two people?

Puja

[Digby]

Ruck
Law 16

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.

I get how one offside line is created by there being one player over the ball, but how is the 2nd line created by one player over the ball? Can you simply arrive from anywhere in front of the back foot of the one player?

Good point. I would imagine that the offside line for the side who haven't put a player in would be the line of the tackled player. And anyone entering the ruck area would have to come through the gate anyway.

Puja

Though these days what gate?

[Puja]

I get how one offside line is created by there being one player over the ball, but how is the 2nd line created by one player over the ball? Can you simply arrive from anywhere in front of the back foot of the one player?

Good point. I would imagine that the offside line for the side who haven't put a player in would be the line of the tackled player. And anyone entering the ruck area would have to come through the gate anyway.

Puja

Though these days what gate?

The one referenced in the updated law 15.4 that's quoted in the original post will probably do. I believe it's defined as the width of the tackled player.

Puja

[Digby]

Good point. I would imagine that the offside line for the side who haven't put a player in would be the line of the tackled player. And anyone entering the ruck area would have to come through the gate anyway.

Puja

Though these days what gate?

The one referenced in the updated law 15.4 that's quoted in the original post will probably do. I believe it's defined as the width of the tackled player.

Puja

It is unusual for them to issue something so woolly. Maybe that we all seem to think it's largely common sense is part of the problem and they've overlooked nailing down what some of it actually means

[richy678]

Have thought about it for a bit and in retrospect I'm not sure I like the "No kick out of a ruck" amendment. It's great when you think about stationary rucks with people flailing their legs around, but if there's an underresourced ruck and the scrum-half is present, how can one compete? You can't just drive through and ignore the ball because you'd be taking out the scrum-half, you can't handle the ball because it's in a ruck, you can't hook the ball backwards because there's a ruck in the way, and you can't kick it out because that's now against the laws. So how can one compete at a ruck? Why should anyone resource an attacking ruck beyond the first man in to clear a jackaller? Simply get someone to play scrum-half and hover over the ball and you're untouchable.

Puja

To me it sounds like you would want to have a go at old fashioned dynamic rucking.....1980's Scotland style, a pod (dirty word) of forwards form a loose scrum and drive over the ball?
Its not going to go down well with defensive coaches who are now in the comfort zone of all players understanding defensive lines, line speed, etc for 4 or 5 forwards to be marauding around to hit rucks.
Its as ever going to a play off between contesting the ball and being organised in defence.

[richy678]

Have thought about it for a bit and in retrospect I'm not sure I like the "No kick out of a ruck" amendment. It's great when you think about stationary rucks with people flailing their legs around, but if there's an underresourced ruck and the scrum-half is present, how can one compete? You can't just drive through and ignore the ball because you'd be taking out the scrum-half, you can't handle the ball because it's in a ruck, you can't hook the ball backwards because there's a ruck in the way, and you can't kick it out because that's now against the laws. So how can one compete at a ruck? Why should anyone resource an attacking ruck beyond the first man in to clear a jackaller? Simply get someone to play scrum-half and hover over the ball and you're untouchable.

Puja

To me it sounds like you would want to have a go at old fashioned dynamic rucking.....1980's Scotland style, a pod (dirty word) of forwards form a loose scrum and drive over the ball?
Its not going to go down well with defensive coaches who are now in the comfort zone of all players understanding defensive lines, line speed, etc for 4 or 5 forwards to be marauding around to hit rucks.
Its as ever going to a play off between contesting the ball and being organised in defence.

[richy678]

The hooking requirement sounds good theoretically but will it lead to less front row stability?

If, and only if, it is refereed strongly and consistently, then it should have the opposite effect. The instability from hooking as thing stand comes from the ball sitting in the middle as two sides push against each other, until one person takes their foot off the floor to strike and then it either collapses, or starts going backwards and is then collapsed.

If hooking is mandatory and there's no option to drive over or feed the ball into the second rows, then there's no incentive to do anything but an immediate strike. The attacking side will have the advantage of timing, as they will know when the ball is coming in and thus when the drive can start in earnest. If they're competent, the ball should be hooked and all six feet on the floor before the other side have had a chance to shove. And, since the ball is now available to the 8, they've got the option of rescuing it if they do start going backwards.

Of course, this requires it to be refereed strongly and consistently, which is probably where it will all fall down. Nostrapuja predicts two free kicks early on in the first game and it will start to be entirely ignored by the second half, except for one random time that it's picked up.

Puja

Its trying to encourage hooking definitely. Especially with the ball being put in under your very short striking arc (a shoulder width your side of the centre line.) Then as long as ball is in the middle row the 8 can pick. Wow - and you can have the timing on the put in.

So scrummaging on the opponents put in..again all old fashioned stuff....your flanker is going to have to call the put in for the shove. Perhaps although the hit has been taken out of the engagement, maybe the art ofthe hooker positioning and wriggling into a spot where he is either disruptive or at best can out strike his opponent will come back....doubt it.

[Puja]

Have thought about it for a bit and in retrospect I'm not sure I like the "No kick out of a ruck" amendment. It's great when you think about stationary rucks with people flailing their legs around, but if there's an underresourced ruck and the scrum-half is present, how can one compete? You can't just drive through and ignore the ball because you'd be taking out the scrum-half, you can't handle the ball because it's in a ruck, you can't hook the ball backwards because there's a ruck in the way, and you can't kick it out because that's now against the laws. So how can one compete at a ruck? Why should anyone resource an attacking ruck beyond the first man in to clear a jackaller? Simply get someone to play scrum-half and hover over the ball and you're untouchable.

Puja

To me it sounds like you would want to have a go at old fashioned dynamic rucking.....1980's Scotland style, a pod (dirty word) of forwards form a loose scrum and drive over the ball?
Its not going to go down well with defensive coaches who are now in the comfort zone of all players understanding defensive lines, line speed, etc for 4 or 5 forwards to be marauding around to hit rucks.
Its as ever going to a play off between contesting the ball and being organised in defence.

The problem is that is that as soon as the pod makes contact with the 9, they've "taken out the half-back" and it's a penalty.

Puja