IRB introduce new laws for trial - More TMO authority, 23 rather than 22 and 5second rucks included

First topic message reminder :

Brian Moore has just tweeted that the IRB are to introduce a new 5 sec law for keeping the ball at the back of a ruck.

What are people's thoughts/opinions on this ?

Slow balls infuriates me - should give Philip's a kick up the arse

So as I say LordDowlais team with a dominant scrum and ruck on the line can now wait for scrum award on purpose then push over the other team scrum and win the penalty. Stupid law.

Can be used on purpose to convert broken phase into set piece even though ball is switching. So can be used as advantage instead of the sanction and that is what is wrong.

Only the IRB committee can come up with an idea to making the game speed up by introduce more opportunity for the slowest most broken part of game.

Yes converting open play to a scrum (slowest most broken part of game) is clearly going to speed the game up

No, that's wrong, AWOP. The sequence is: ref judges ball is available, says "use it", if not used, the other side gets a scrum.

So teams have no incentive to "wait for scrum", because it would mean losing possession - unless they are so confident of winning one against the head that they want to go for it anyway, in which case good luck to them. The main issue is if the ref declares "use it" and then the side not in possession goes for a counter-ruck to try to force the scrum. There would need to be a measure to prevent that - presumably either treating "use it" as also meaning "leave it" to the other side, or resetting the count if there's a disruptive counter-ruck.

The other changes all seem sensible. The 8-man bench will make for some interesting tactical changes. I am very much looking forward to watching Marler trot on at 60 mins in the AIs (if he hasn't nailed the starting spot by then).

No, I think you are misunderstanding the rule, when a ruck is formed as per normal then it is still game on, but when the ball comes back and is presented you only get 5 seconds to decide what you are going to do with it. If the scrum half takes ages like Mike Phillips does, then you will loose the ball, and the scrum will be awarded to the opposition, so if you are at the oppositions try line it would be in your best interest to get it out quickly, if the ball is stuck in the ruck then it is a scrum anyway as it always has been, if the ball is not coming back and is being held illegally then it is a penalty as it is always been, this new law is for when the ball is clearly visible and accessible at the base of a ruck and the scrum half is waiting for ages to either run the clock down, or because he cannot make a decision, I for one think that this is a good rule.

I think the 8 man bench will benefit those teams who have multi purpose props the most, if you have a guy on the bench that can scrum either side of the scrum and you hooker who could also scrum at prop, then that leaves you 6 reserves for tactical changes.

biltongbek wrote:I think the 8 man bench will benefit those teams who have multi purpose props the most, if you have a guy on the bench that can scrum either side of the scrum and you hooker who could also scrum at prop, then that leaves you 6 reserves for tactical changes.

But aren't they just bringing the bench into line with (European) club rugby, where the extra man is one of 3 designated Front Row replacements, who must be recognised props or hookers? So while your preferred prop replacement might be someone who can play both sides, your extra man would still need to be another front row player, which would limit his effectiveness as a tactical replacement.

Which said, Tom Youngs could always be used in the centres and Marler's unfeasibly quick for a prop, so perhaps England could use Stevens as their replacement prop and play him on the wing?

Possibly, mate, not sure the criteria of the bench.

wales606 wrote:
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.

Like all of these amendments, but particularly this one a lot. As an Englishman, Dickson really was taking the pee during the 6N. Enforcing this law will prevent this is future, and allow more time for a bit of rugby to be played!

Biltongbek,

Bench doesn't work that way. You have to have a full front row on the bench. The 8th sub has to be a prop it cant be another backrow or something.

red_stag wrote:Biltongbek,

Bench doesn't work that way. You have to have a full front row on the bench. The 8th sub has to be a prop it cant be another backrow or something.

True.

But SA for example could play Schalk Britz as hooker/backrow and John Smit as hooker/prop on the bench

(Damn, why did they have to sack PDV )

bluestonevedder wrote:

wales606 wrote:
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.

Like all of these amendments, but particularly this one a lot. As an Englishman, Dickson really was taking the pee during the 6N. Enforcing this law will prevent this is future, and allow more time for a bit of rugby to be played!

The strange thing about this is at Saints Dickson's delivery is very fast. The incredible slow delivery for England must have been as instructed by the England coaching staff.

I like all these laws changes which will be trialed. Seem generally consistent with what many people have been looking for. I am sure the point about the 'use it' at the breakdown is only once the ball is clearly playable. The last few minutes of matches will become more of a contest.

Poorfour wrote: No, that's wrong, AWOP. The sequence is: ref judges ball is available, says "use it", if not used, the other side gets a scrum.

So teams have no incentive to "wait for scrum", because it would mean losing possession - unless they are so confident of winning one against the head that they want to go for it anyway, in which case good luck to them. The main issue is if the ref declares "use it" and then the side not in possession goes for a counter-ruck to try to force the scrum. There would need to be a measure to prevent that - presumably either treating "use it" as also meaning "leave it" to the other side, or resetting the count if there's a disruptive counter-ruck.

The other changes all seem sensible. The 8-man bench will make for some interesting tactical changes. I am very much looking forward to watching Marler trot on at 60 mins in the AIs (if he hasn't nailed the starting spot by then).

Surely better solution is that after 5 seconds referee calls "ball is out" and everyone onside. This is better solution than scrum.

doctor_grey wrote:
The strange thing about this is at Saints Dickson's delivery is very fast. The incredible slow delivery for England must have been as instructed by the England coaching staff.

Exactly what I thought Dr Grey. The only reason I can think of the coaching staff instructing him to do that was to allow the team to organise themselves, but to be honest, it looked more like time-wasting.

anotherworldofpain wrote: Surely better solution is that after 5 seconds referee calls "ball is out" and everyone onside. This is better solution than scrum.

That would make things very interesting!

bluestonevedder wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
The strange thing about this is at Saints Dickson's delivery is very fast. The incredible slow delivery for England must have been as instructed by the England coaching staff.

Exactly what I thought Dr Grey. The only reason I can think of the coaching staff instructing him to do that was to allow the team to organise themselves, but to be honest, it looked more like time-wasting.

I saw Saracens using either the excellent young Ben Spencer as well as ageing warhorse Peter Stringer twice vs Ospreys and once at HQ vs Quins. In all three games Saracens spent a huge amount of time keeping the ball out of play, doing nothing rousing jeers around HQ from the 80,000 rugby fans present. Quite the spectacle.

Very much seemed to be an organised tactic, to slow the ball down, waste time etc. Similarly as pointed out with Dickson who does for England but does not do it for Saints.

Hopefully the new implementation will avoid this, and not waste the fans money.

We pay to watch rugby, and not to watch blokes standing around doing nothing.

I can't believe for a moment that this is remotely requiring a new law.

It has to be covered by a maul going forward at least (which also isn't a law).

Refs need to learn the laws first and be headstrong enough to apply them as they see them.

It's not the laws that need constant re-tweaking. It's the ffffin' interpretations.

LordDowlais wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:At last the 23rd man! On the whole they seem good. 5 secs from ruck to play though- could see a lot more deliberate slowing down of opposition ball to win the scrum there

Thunor, I think it will be 5 seconds after the ball has been presented. Then you will get the use it warning.

I ain't Thunor, but thanks

Can anyone provide an initial source for the OP?

Or a credible subsequent reference?

So far as I can see nothing (not even impending) has been announced.

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/164137.html

So there we have it: ESPN is the source.

IRB : Dumbstruck apparently.

Did all the other sources fly in the side rather through the gate?

And why have none of the essential refs' interpretations been addressed?

Why are you asking us?

Portnoy, its been on the IRB official website since yesterday

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2062222.html#irb+unions+sanction+global+law+trials

Finally we can sack off Stevens and get Marler in to the squad.

Oh and the other laws are interesting too.

Although i can't see refs bothering to impliment the time taken for kicks

Portnoy wrote:Can anyone provide an initial source for the OP?

Or a credible subsequent reference?

So far as I can see nothing (not even impending) has been announced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18080733

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/164137.html (from my original article on this, which seems to have been merged with another thread which doesn't provide any article)

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2062222.html#irb+unions+sanction+global+law+trials

From what I recall, the ref was shouting use it at Dickson during the England v Wales game wasn't he? Though obviously he couldn't do much. I'm glad we won't see that kind of tactic again to be honest.

23 man squad is great too.

If only contributors could provide credible a source of stats or attributable references.

I'd like to know where and when any new laws/interpretations would be applied.

Source of queries:

https://www.606v2.com/t28434-new-law-changes-and-can-they-be-trialled-first-in-the-nh-pease-just-for-a-change
https://www.606v2.com/t28797-law-changes-are-there-any-in-the-offing-and-when-and-how-do-we-learn-about-the-process

ChequeredJersey wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:At last the 23rd man! On the whole they seem good. 5 secs from ruck to play though- could see a lot more deliberate slowing down of opposition ball to win the scrum there

Thunor, I think it will be 5 seconds after the ball has been presented. Then you will get the use it warning.

I ain't Thunor, but thanks

sorry ChequeredJersey, I was reading a post by Thunor before yours and got you both mixed up.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Change to the TMO will be a big mess. Will be working like in rugby league when referee calls for TMO to interefere more selective for some team than others. Angle for the camera mean a lot of things like pass can be call forward from TV when not looking like it in live. Meanings a lot of try be liquidated just because they referred.

Why do IRB get involved with so many change all the time when it is easy for all fans to see where the problem is occur.

Great so now they awarding the scrum all time when the phase ball is slowed down? Wjy? To "make the game faster"? When we know the scrum take 2-3 minute to finish every time and end up with the penalty 40% of time. This new rule is stupidest.

ALSO means team with dominant scrum can take the ball slowly to ruck on purpose and use as tactic to get scrum and winning the penalties.

Always is "law of unindented consequence" with rule change. Like how the ELV lead to kicking ping-poing match instead of rugby when was suppose to make more running.

Im not sure it would really pay to force the scrum giving away possession unless the dominance is beyond the level england had over ireland but i agree on the rest of what you say.

More TMO means more breaks in play and less tries awarded, anything that comes from a close in ruck they will be able to find an offence somewhere in the passage of play. Also as we've seen from this years 6ns TMOs rarely get to make clean cut calls and can end up inflaming more controversy than they solve sometimes. Endless replays of incidents just lead to more furious misunderstandings of laws and there application combined with selective viewing, great for the pundits terrible for the internets. As I understand it this one is only up for consideration though, not definitely being trailed yet

On the positive side they may also be moving closer to the 8 bench (although im guessing the aussies will do there best to stop that happening), again though thats only up for consideration.

Most of the law changes are helpful,NH trialing them first,Scrum Changes also in the pipeline.With the SH trialing stricter Breakdown,offside,and tip tackle rulings plus reporting players after the match has ended.Things should improve in the
future,now if we can get squint feeds fixed?.The extra prop now means 2 specialist props on the bench instead of a utility prop is concerned.TMO hopefully will mean less arguments about refs effecting results.

Sorry, stricter tip tackle rules? Jiffy will sh1t the bed over that

5 second ruck?

Where's the ref going to have to stand to see where the ball is presented?
Excellent charter for the other team to wander offside.

Great idea, nightmare to ref.

The ref counts to five? Hmmm. Get ten people in a room and ask them to count to five and press a buzzer. Those buzzers won't be buzzing in unison, I guarantee it.

So another fan fury issue is created as they debate incessantly about when five seconds are actually 4.78 seconds.... or indeed the criminally deviant 5.28 seconds allowed to Munster by the celebrated "biased" Irish ref!

I assume it will be done with a " use it" warning.
Judging 5 seconds is no different to may of the other things refs are asked to judge in the game, one mans forward pass is an australians " great flat pass"
the point of trialling it is to test to see if its workable or not

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I assume it will be done with a " use it" warning.
Judging 5 seconds is no different to may of the other things refs are asked to judge in the game, one mans forward pass is an australians " great flat pass"
the point of trialling it is to test to see if its workable or not

Of course. Nothing wrong with trials...but as you say, all these little sub-rules and breakings of said rules thereafter quickly becomes a lot of nonsense on these boards as the usual suspects discuss the details................ em, in great detail.

It's that prospect that frightens me, not the idea of one ref thinking five seconds is six seconds and another one thinking it is four. It's the mind-numblingly boring arguments post-match whereby the ref will be metaphorically hung drawn and quartered on the inaccuracy of his interpretation of when the ball is presented and when five nuclear clock seconds have elapsed !

At least with the 5 second rule its trying to fix a problem in the game, that the rules make it far too easy for a team that doesnt want to play to avoid playing. So long as its done with a warning when the ref thinks the 5 seconds are about up I cant really see calls being too contentious, its very rare that the situation at a static ruck would have developed significantly in the extra 0.2 seconds given

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:At least with the 5 second rule its trying to fix a problem in the game, that the rules make it far too easy for a team that doesnt want to play to avoid playing. So long as its done with a warning when the ref thinks the 5 seconds are about up I cant really see calls being too contentious, its very rare that the situation at a static ruck would have developed significantly in the extra 0.2 seconds given

There will be blood, Peter. Mark my words. There will be blood about watched and rewatched footage with stop watches at hand.....

Far too many posts to see what the generally consensus is regarding the 5s rule, but I have some concerns.

Yes it is fairly dull when the ball is at the back of the ruck for 30s but what I can see happen is scrumhalves have to rush the ball away when no one is ready, and you just get a big prop crashing into the ruck again or the game just becomes so loose and unstructured that it loses all we love about rugby.

What I personally would like to see is the ref to use his judgement and, if he thinks the scrummy is extracting the urine then shout "use it or lose it" or something like that, and then give them 5s.

I just think a 5s per ruck time limit would a) be far too difficult to judge (when is the ball really ready for the scrummy?) and b) make the game for too frantic and unstructured.

The ball (I can almost guarantee) will be held just outside the scrummy's grasp - there will be more long tunnel rucks and mauls.

Portnoy wrote:The ball (I can almost guarantee) will be held just outside the scrummy's grasp - there will be more long tunnel rucks and mauls.

Wise words Portnoy and well deduced.

SecretFly wrote:

Portnoy wrote:The ball (I can almost guarantee) will be held just outside the scrummy's grasp - there will be more long tunnel rucks and mauls.

Wise words Portnoy and well deduced.

If I'm right, Law change 2013: Once ruck/maul has been called, each arriving player must bind with at least two players.
But my bet is that refs won't be ordered/advised to ensure that the squint scrum feed is straight.
And the cholera-like epidemic of scrum collapses won't have been addressed.

I really worry about the cornerstone spectacles of the RU game - and that the Australian Union will be at the at the hub of screwing it up.

Also, what will the punishment be if the ball is there longer than 5s - a free kick? Leading to a scrum? That'll speed the game up...

RDW_Scotland wrote:Also, what will the punishment be if the ball is their longer than 5s - a free kick? Leading to a scrum? That'll speed the game up...

+1.

IMO this is an unecessary "rule" and in practice won't make any difference to the speed of the game. We have enough rules and speed away from the ruck should be a ref call "use it or lose it".

The IRB should be putting more effort into the shambles that is the scrum and the awful statistics around srum collapses and time wasted. Crooked feeds are now endemic.

The sanction for a stopped maul is a scrum. that doesn't speed the game up. Unless of course the players shift the ball when told. which is what will happen with the rucks. The refs sometimes tell players to play the ball at the scrum when there's no specific law so I don't see why one is need at the ruck.

What I would do is penalise the attacking team if their ruck isn't flawless. So binding, being off feet and not getting out of the way, etc. I don't the ball should have to be played but it need's to be competable (is that a word?)

Why not just an overall 'time-wasting' rule - that would be effective at anytime in the game when the ref considered the actions of one team to be against the spirit of the game - ie, overly long ball at the back of the ruck when a team is trying to count down a clock...walking lethargically up to a line out when also trying to run down time etc, etc, etc.

Rather than precise rules that the ref will be asked to make a personal judgement on anyway, just allow him to read the game in progress and either penalise the slowing down techniques or accept them as players perhaps trying to find best options to continue attack. You can't just simply push along players using the blanket ban on various methods of attack each side uses. I mean to say, you can't enforce rules to make Munster play like Leinster. There are always competing styles of play and that's what makes many games intriguing. All the little sub rule proposals are it seems meant to create a more generic paint-by-numbers game with precise timing for the bloody TV companies who hate 'overtiming'.

Why not equally make the Laws sensible and not paradoxical?.

A tackle is complete when the tackled player hits the deck. End of.

The tackler must release the tackler. And the tacklee must immediately let go of the ball (and if he wasn't in the right position to present it to his team, then that's TS).

Portnoy wrote:Why not equally make the Laws sensible and not paradoxical?.

A tackle is complete when the tackled player hits the deck. End of.

The tackler must release the tackler. And the tacklee must immediately let go of the ball (and if he wasn't in the right position to present it to his team, then that's TS).

I asked this question recently. So both players are bad boys. The tackler Doesn't release the player with ball and the player with ball Doesn't release that ball.
Which does the referee penalise?
How does he make the judgement about which infringement happened first, if that is to be his criteria? It's a fast game out there. I've seen it over and over that one player in such a jumble gets penalised when the other player is equally committing an offence. I suppose that's your paradox So how to get over the paradox? Should the nonsense of players having to be released and reheld be allowed to continue or should the nonsense of a player not being given enough time to present the ball to his team be allowed to continue? In the real world one of them has to go to allow the ref to do his job more effectively and get rid of a paradox.

SecretFly wrote:Why not just an overall 'time-wasting' rule - that would be effective at anytime in the game when the ref considered the actions of one team to be against the spirit of the game - ie, overly long ball at the back of the ruck when a team is trying to count down a clock...walking lethargically up to a line out when also trying to run down time etc, etc, etc.

Rather than precise rules that the ref will be asked to make a personal judgement on anyway, just allow him to read the game in progress and either penalise the slowing down techniques or accept them as players perhaps trying to find best options to continue attack. You can't just simply push along players using the blanket ban on various methods of attack each side uses. I mean to say, you can't enforce rules to make Munster play like Leinster. There are always competing styles of play and that's what makes many games intriguing. All the little sub rule proposals are it seems meant to create a more generic paint-by-numbers game with precise timing for the bloody TV companies who hate 'overtiming'.

Nice writing SecretFly I agree with your points. There is two thinking in there for me about what is for time wasting purpose.

First is a team try to run out time by wasting so end of the game coming sooner and other team is not allowing to try to win.

Second is the team try to wasting time to slowing down the game and stealing the momentum and give the fattest players a rest from running side to side and back and forth.

Both is boreder line call about when is "tactical" to play slowly and force the game to set piece and second is team too slow to restart the game. I think is so difficult for referee to penalise the player for walking "too slow" to lineout or throw in too slow or make the kick too slow. Already we see the referee tell to "play on" when some player fake the injury to sit down and two last years I saw south african player suffer the penalty because he took off the boot and sit down to stop the lineout. So already the referee having this power to discretion.

I still think call "ball out" when the half back is delay is the best solution than the scrum.

Planet Rugby's review

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_7769153,00.html

wales606 wrote:Planet Rugby's review

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_7769153,00.html

One of the ruck concepts doing the rounds at the moment is called the 'centipede' ruck: that one where a stable ruck already over as a contest is nevertheless joined by two or three players at the back one behind the other, in order to buy a scrum-half either time to make a decision, room to kick, or time to waste as the clock runs down. Saracens, the Bulls and Munster are all masters of it. It's horrible to watch, as we've opined in this column before.

The new law appears designed to crush the centipede underfoot, as well as to eliminate the ludicrous posturising time-wasting that goes on between scrum-halves and first receivers seeking to wind down the clock in a tight game.

How Planetrugby? It will encourage it.

Plus scrummies who don't have the posturing DNA in all reality shouldn't have a 9 on their back. They'll always moan about something - I can't think of a top pro era one that hasn't exploited it to its maximum potential.

seeking to wind down the clock in a tight game

It's not a winding the game down issue either it will become a contagion reviled as much as the hopeless scrum set and feed laws and the interpretation of the breakdown.

Once again the IRB frolic around the symptoms whilst ignoring the cause.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=cholera+well&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=dmo&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&biw=1366&bih=579&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=ul1LeqkAes4j6M:&imgrefurl=http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/frec480/cholera/cholera2.html&docid=k_7xawXrlarz1M&imgurl=http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/frec480/cholera/wells.jpg&w=633&h=587&ei=L0e6T-ntNe6R0QWPk-3QBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=220&vpy=46&dur=171&hovh=216&hovw=233&tx=125&ty=126&sig=112092907440510976659&page=1&tbnh=121&tbnw=130&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0,i:104

160 years on and still the hunt for the cure of the symptom persists...