New laws

One for the sole rugby section but I like the international bit. New rules are being trialled ahead of the 2023 world cup including waist height and below tackling and from the bbc:

'What else is in the laws trials?A basketball-style team foul limit that sees the final player to infringe given a yellow card as their team reaches the specific number of penalty or free-kick limit.A 50:22 kick giving a team put-in to the line-out if they kick into touch indirectly (ie on the bounce) when kicking either from their own half into the opposition 22m or from inside their own 22m to the opposition half. The law aims to force wingers to drop deep out of the defensive line, creating space for the attacker to run the ball.Review of a yellow card during a player's sin-bin period to ensure serious foul play is upgraded to a red card.Defending team awarded a drop-out from own tryline when attacking player is held up over the line. The current law is to award an attacking scrum five metres out.World Rugby is also considering trials in reducing the number of replacements and a requirement for players to move away from the ball immediately when off their feet at a ruck.'

One I definitely like is the finite number of fouls before a yellow. Takes a little bit of interpretation out. Few questions on whether that will then still include yellows for the incidents close to the try line suspect it will but then will advantages played which arent technically fouls still be counted?

There's a few of them I don't like.
The waist tackle ruling whilst of admirable intent does not really work in reality. For the simple reason that if the waist is the primary place for a tackler to aim then it becomes the obvious place for the attacker to protect. The easiest way to protect the waist is to use the torso, and by obvious extension the head, to defend the waist. Making head to shoulder collisions probable. In effect placing rugby advantage with the attacker and the risk of sanction on the defender.
The 50:22 decision further complicates the game. In effect announcing that attacking rugby is superior to defensive rugby. Yet there is, to some purists, a relative beauty in the defensive game. Whilst I can understand the desire to make rugby more "exciting" and appealing to the masses. However we must consider that football has attacking teams and defensive teams. Yet more people turn out every week to watch second and third tier football in Britain than they do rugby. There are double the number in tries in the average rugby game than there is goals in a football game. The way to popularise rugby is not to transform it to basketball.
Reducing replacements is a sensible and obvious step. Ideally we could change to a limited tactical alterations and a larger number of injury replacements. Perhaps allowing one forward, one back substitution and one joker substitution of fully fit players. That way all front five players would have to prepare the cardiovascular fitness to play a full game (and therefore presumably become lighter and smaller) rather than just sixty minutes or would mean knackered players come 60-70 minutes and more space on late on. Limiting replacements risks penalising teams who suffer injuries, perhaps at the fault of the opposition (i.e Kearney's 'tackle' on Hogg in the pro14 final). Whereas if you have a greater number of injury replacements at the discretion of the referee. Perhaps in some circumstances transferable replacements if a player is injured by an illegal challenge from the opponents.

The 50:22 seems to easy. Will we not see more Exter style play.

I like the being held up over the line. Will make teams be smarter at the line. If you are doing pick and drive at the line going over now means you could lose the ball. I am sure defence coaches will be working on a choke type tackle to bring the attacking player over the line but killing the ball.

I dont like the idea of holding up a try being a turnover. They are often borderline calls and it seems grossly unfair to not only deny a try but also give the defending side a chance to clear their lines. Get stopped one inch short you can recylce possession and go again, get stopped over the line and the opposition gets a drop out? Im wondering what the logic is.
Are they trying to discourage camping on the opposition try line and driving over? I can understand a dislike of 5m scrums as they inevitably slow the game down a lot and sometimes end up milking cards and penalty trys.

The count to a yellow makes sense in terms of getting rid of the controversy over repeat infringing. But its also going to lead to some rather odd situations.

Logic of reducing replacements? Im not so sure on that either. Is it to encourage more athletic mobile players over units? Reduce the number of fresh legged hard hitting impact subs running into knackered beat up players whove already taken a kicking for 80 minutes? Redress the balance between the unions with bigger squads to call on and the smaller ones?
The idea of discretionary injury replacements isnt workable. It would leave referees open to all kinds of legal liability. As we know from history its easy enough for teams to fake injuries too, even blood ones.
I find this one a bit odd all round, the talk not long ago was of rolling benches and subs able to come on and off at will during breaks in play. Again would like to see the detailed justification for it.

The kicking one too seems to be yet more tinkering with the endlessly complex kicking laws. Remember the glorious ELVs that were supposed to stop kicking but ended up encouraging it?
Englands current tactic of endlessly kicking for territory and lineouts would be affected by this change for sure. Maybe not a bad thing to some, but its not like England dont tend to get high scoring open games despite their approach.

If they are that concerned about a lack of space in the game maybe they should get rid of flankers and make the opposition back off 10m after a tackle.

The general feeling on waist tackles does seem to be that it just wont work. As a minimum you'd have to ban running with dipped waists and penalise shoulder charges too. We've also seen a number of players knocked out cold by hip to temple contact performing waist tackles in a time when they are rare, if every tackle is like that expect a lot more of these as well as knees and boots to the head. According to the BBC article the previous trail on this led to more concussions not less.
And of course those low hitting tackles can very easily become spears.
Its worth a trail if the evidence shows that chest tackles are genuinely a major source of dangerous impacts, but I dont think this sounds like a workable solution.

Goal line drop outs and 50 22 seem a bit rugby league for me. I actually like rugby league, but I’m not sure we need to take ideas from them.

Not a fan of the 40:20 rip off or the goal line drop outs

5m attacking scrums are some of the best moments in tight games, why get rid of them? The 50:22 kick will just lead to even more attempted kicks, the skilled kickers will take that as a percentage play every time its on

123456789. wrote:T
The waist tackle ruling whilst of admirable intent does not really work in reality. For the simple reason that if the waist is the primary place for a tackler to aim then it becomes the obvious place for the attacker to protect. The easiest way to protect the waist is to use the torso, and by obvious extension the head, to defend the waist. Making head to shoulder collisions probable. In effect placing rugby advantage with the attacker and the risk of sanction on the defender.

The report I read mentioned waist-high tackles. This to me suggests that a defender will not be penalised if the ball carrier drops their height.

I live in Yorkshire and quite like Rugby League, I've been to a few games and watch it on TV, however I have no desire to see Rugby Union turned into a version of it.
Do I detect the hand of the ARU desperately trying to turn the game into RL to bolster their playing numbers/viewers? Drop outs, 40/20's and the waist tackle will kill the game completely as it will be impossible to form a maul by holding a player up - also in a "Pick and Go" where a player is going towards the opposition with their head and shoulders down and forward how do you tackle them around the waist?

The dropout angle I hadn't considered is that it will make teams try and score "clean" tries, rather than driving over. It adds risk to the pick and go, you could end up with the ball 60m back.

The 50-22 is meant to pin the wingers back to create more space in the defensive line. Certainly in the Six Nations this year we saw a lot of under-resourced back fields. England vs France was probably the most striking example.

Waist high tackles are obviously to reduce concussion, but it does create an issue in that offloads are basically impossible to stop. It could really change the game in an unintended way.

The team yellow card is notionally fine. It formalises what is quite an arbitrary rule at the moment. The only thing I'd want to know more about is how the guidance would intersect with yellow card and red card offences.

Not liking the team foul limit = YC. In the NBA, exceeding the team foul limit means a team gets to shoot two free throws the next time there’s a foul. 2 measly pts in a game where 100+ points are typically scored in a game by each side. A YC seems a disproportionate penalty in rugby for exceeding an arbitrarily set ‘foul limit’. All this would do is introduce new ways for players to ham up incidents (like the flop in basketball) to get the opposition into a compromising position. This idea along with the ‘below waist’ tackle are a disgrace and embarrassment to the sport.

Last season saw the deaths of at least 3 players due to tackle injuries. Something has to be done. Not sorry if it offends your sensibilities. 

As to the automatic yellow card for multiple offences - it really only formalises what happens now and will have the benefit of standardising. Teams that do not like it just need to cheat less.

3 deaths? Is that all. More people die of heart attacks whilst playing rugby. Next thing you’ll be banning bacon London tiger.

LondonTiger wrote:As to the automatic yellow card for multiple offences - it really only formalises what happens now and will have the benefit of standardising. Teams that do not like it just need to cheat less.

Depends on how it’s applied. If it’s x number of consecutive penalties then ok that has potential. But if the limit is 5 and a team is at 4 but the other team infringes then is it re-set? Carry on infringing 4 more times. Is the referee expected to keep a count? Would it be fair that the count is re-set? Or do you think it’ll be penalties per half, or god forbid, over the full game!? If you watch basketball you’d see this rule results in flop upon flop upon flop and it’s quite embarrassing to see grown men fall over at the slightest touch to ‘draw’ a foul. Is this really what you want rugby to become?

Why would it be reset? You already get warnings from the ref so presumably you feel the cheating to get another pen already happens.

Because rugby is a game of fluctuating momentum and you’d be naive to think teams don’t give away penalties to test the referee

This could well stop that deliberate cheating then. Win win.

ebop wrote:Because rugby is a game of fluctuating momentum and you’d be naive to think teams don’t give away penalties to test the referee

It just adds another layer of tactics, TMO tracks pen count for each team and informs ref when count hits 10 (you can be sure the coaches will be communicating this to the players who will try and figure out when is best to give soft pens etc). Rugby is a great multi-faceted game and this doesn't stand out as being outwith the spirit of the game

With regards to your "deaths in rugby" comment, it appeared fairly callous. Do you play rugby at all? I think any death caused in rugby is shocking considering its a game played in schools and values heavily influence by care and camaraderie for your fellow team mates and opponent.

Actually, your death comment is fairly disgusting. Nah mate, i don't think you play the game. And if you do/did, i'm sorry you didn't take anything positive from the game.

Lol, Tramptastic

You’re a sensitive petal

People die of heart attacks playing rugby, it’s a ‘fact’. There was nothing disgusting about what I said.

If anything, I query ‘your’ character with an overreaction like that. Do you think it’s disgusting that rugby players are dying of heart attacks?

ebop wrote:Lol, Tramptastic

You’re a sensitive petal

People die of heart attacks playing rugby, it’s a ‘fact’. There was nothing disgusting about what I said.

If anything, I query ‘your’ character with an overreaction like that. Do you think it’s disgusting that rugby players are dying of heart attacks?

I believe its tragic that anybody should die of a heart attack, i've got family members who have passed due to them and some who have suffered from them.

I'd suggest a heart attack experienced in a game of rugby is a condition caused, ultimately, by factors outwith the game of rugby itself such as the player in questions overall health, lifestyle choices, lifestyle impositions, genetics etc.

But a dismissal of deaths caused by head trauma as a direct consequence of rugby being dangerous is tragic. If something can be done to avert these deaths then it should be investigated and solutions should be trialed. I'd be devastated if any of my team mates died playing the sport we love and I'd genuinely question how the sport has come to a point where death is a real and possible risk.

Fact's don't provide an excuse to be callous about people dying. You are right, people do die, all the time. It's a big part of life. But people dying in their prime whilst playing a sport that is based on chucking a ball about is awful, and dismissing those deaths with a big "meh" is quite disrespectful to the people who died.

No 7&1/2 wrote:This could well stop that deliberate cheating then. Win win.

No, it could open up a whole new realm of ‘managing’ the cheating within an ‘officially’ sanctioned set of parameters

So you believe it happens already. We did see Care throw himself all over the place vs NZ last Autumn. Despite the fouls he was ignored

Because just accepting that "people are going to die playing our sport" isn't good enough. I dont care for constant tinkering of the laws for making the sport "more interesting", that kind of stuff annoys me because I think its fun enough as it is!

But when it comes to law changes to try and combat head injuries to help prevent head trauma, dementia, death etc, ive got respect for that.

It isn't manly or tough to say "yeh I play a sport where people could die due to unfortunate head/neck trauma". Nah, not got time for that. Accidents happen, this is true but helping cut down on dangerous play (RG Snyman on Retallick at ruck time?) should be phased out.

Apologies for calling you callous, there's too many "old boys" in scottish rugby that harp on about "back in my day we were tougher and got back up after a concussion". It's a dangerous and irresponsible attitude to have in a contact sport and it winds me up no-end!