Two Referees and New Breakdown and Offside Laws

Just saw this article on ESPN.  The NPC in New Zealand will trial some new Laws Variations.  I chose that expression specifically because the proposals seem to me to have a vague connection the old ELVs.  The philosophy behind the ELVs was there was not enough attacking Rugby, and the sport was not sufficiently entertaining to compete with other sports.  

In brief:
Two referees - the second referee would mostly referee the breakdown
Ruck - only one attacker required over the ball.
Ruck - Attacking and defending players will no longer be required to enter the breakdown through the gate
Tackle - The tackler would not have 360 degree rights to the ball
Ruck - New offside line one metre behind the hindmost foot in the breakdown

What do you think?  
The second referee with a specific area of responsibility could work, but we don't want games becoming penalty fests (players can adapt eventually?). I do have concern when the overriding raison d'être for these proposals seem to come from the same concept as the old ELVs (some of those did have merit and the few good ones were adopted).  

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/14387008/npc-matches-feature-two-referees-part-world-rugby-trial

The ESPN article references article which has more detail:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/75216263/nz-rugby-to-trial-two-refs-new-laws-in-national-provincial-championship-in-2016

Tackle - The tackler would not have 360 degree rights to the ball

Doc can you translate this into English, for the hard of thinking, please?

Ruck - Attacking and defending players will no longer be required to enter the breakdown through the gate

Since the best team in the world do this, is this just formalising it for the rest?

Ruck - New offside line one metre behind the hindmost foot in the breakdown
Rucks within 5 metres of the line would then result in almost certain tries from pick and drives, surely?

The 1m line offside is unlikely to be wellenforced - but should at least ensure defences are at the back foot. The constant offside by defensive lines at breakdowns frustrates me.

jimbopip wrote:Tackle - The tackler would not have 360 degree rights to the ball

Doc can you translate this into English, for the hard of thinking, please?

Ruck - Attacking and defending players will no longer be required to enter the breakdown through the gate

Since the best team in the world do this, is this just formalising it for the rest?

Ruck - New offside line one metre behind the hindmost foot in the breakdown
Rucks within 5 metres of the line would then result in almost certain tries from pick and drives, surely?

1) 360 degree - atm tackler canget to his feet and play the ball from anywhere, I guess now he willhave to swing round to his teams side of the ball

2) Probably

3) Nah, try line will still be the offside line as now where you can be in front of the back foot if that goes behind the try line.

3) Nah, try line will still be the offside line as now where you can be in front of the back foot if that goes behind the try line..

Agreed LT, but what I mean is that if the ruck is four yards out and the defence have to be a metre behind the hindmost foot then the momentum of a fatboy forward would be unstoppable so we can expect a lot more tries from pick and drives.

100% guaranteed we will get something happening that the law makers did not anticipate.

LondonTiger wrote:

jimbopip wrote:Tackle - The tackler would not have 360 degree rights to the ball

Doc can you translate this into English, for the hard of thinking, please?

Ruck - Attacking and defending players will no longer be required to enter the breakdown through the gate

Since the best team in the world do this, is this just formalising it for the rest?

Ruck - New offside line one metre behind the hindmost foot in the breakdown
Rucks within 5 metres of the line would then result in almost certain tries from pick and drives, surely?

1) 360 degree - atm tackler canget to his feet and play the ball from anywhere, I guess now he willhave to swing round to his teams side of the ball

2) Probably

3) Nah, try line will still be the offside line as now where you can be in front of the back foot if that goes behind the try line.

LT interpreted it the same as me.

To start with, I don't like the notion Rugby isn't good enough to compete with other sports. Secondly, the idea that players can now enter a ruck from the side (more than current) is a safety concern for me. These laws proposals give a huge advantage to the attacking team. Really minimises the breakdown as a significant part of the game. The excuse I can see coming is the breakdown is being made simpler to referee, but I don't buy it.

Absolutely agree Jimbopip that a breakdown close to the line is a virtual score because of the head start it gives the attacking team. This proposal will help make Rugby look like Basketball.

So players will be able to clear out rucks from the side? Happy with that as it will prevent players like Armitage lying on their belly to win a penalty.

Not so sure I like clearing from the side, greater risk of injury to the jackler there.

So what do you think?
Are these good ideas?
You think Rugby needs for radical correction like this?

Can you imagine Clownshoes and the Gibbon both on the pitch at the same time??
 
Or Barnes and Joubert both blowing their whistle all the time??

Doesn't bear thinking about!!

What do I think? If only is what I think... If only this rule had came in when Richie McCaw was still playing rugby .

My major concerns is that any defender who tackles a ball carrier from behind has no rights to the ball, until he has rolled away/ got to his feet and retreated to the advantage line then if hes still on his feet can have a go for the ball.

What this does is give the team in possession a lot of advantage over the defending team. One would have thought that some emphasis should have been on the ball carrier to release the ball far more quickly.

mikey_dragon wrote:What do I think? If only is what I think... If only this rule had came in when Richie McCaw was still playing rugby .

Mikey, its the other way round, in the late 90s the IRB saw Richie coming and thought 'Bloodee hell how are we going to contain this guy" so they decided to bring in "the gate", even though Rugby had been chuggin along just fine for over a hundred years without anything as stupid as a gate at ruck time.

So Richie had to put up with it all through his career,. soon as he announces hes going to retire they look to make changes to get rid of the gate.

They shouldnt have tried to fix something that wasnt broken.

doctor_grey wrote:Ruck - Attacking and defending players will no longer be required to enter the breakdown through the gate
Tackle - The tackler would not have 360 degree rights to the ball

If players do not have to come through the gate surely that includes the tackler. Surely they are not suggesting that other players have to come through the gate but the tackler does. That would be bizarre.

Why can they not leave the rules as they are? The last time ELVs ruined the game for about two years.

No it just means they have to enter the ruck from an onside position, like what used to happen back in the good old days.

So NZ lose their best ever 7 and now they change the ruck laws ?

Hmmmm

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No it just means they have to enter the ruck from an onside position, like what used to happen back in the good old days.

I can't speak for the rest of you animals, but I have never been offside a day in my life..........

The obvious consequence of this is that teams can just pick and drive and keep forcing the opposition back, a bit like league...but without the limit on tackles.
Pretty much the same thing happened last time they over loaded advantage to the attacking team in the ruck and made competingf or the ball almost impossible. Instead of encouraging teams to paly expansive fast passing rugby (which is what people really mean when they say attacking rugby) it encouraged teams to keep the ball tight and either edge ground or draw penalties.

That said lets see how it pans out. The new system of allowing Unions to trail their law ideas in relatively low profile leagues is a really good one. The chances are this wont go anywhere, but will show what does and what doesnt work in real competitive game situations without risking the top level game.