Updated law change

Sadly not by anyone in an official capacity but by Scott Johnson. The quotes lifted from Wales Online:

'Johnson calls for radical law change
Former Wales boss Scott Johnson wants rugby's powerbrokers to mirror basketball in a bid to crack down on foul play. The flamboyant Australian, who took the Wales helm after Mike Ruddock's controversial departure and also coached the Ospreys, lobbied World Rugby to create more space and speed in the game with the new 50:22 and goal-line dropout laws, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Having been the driving force behind those changes, as well as pitching plans for a 20-minute red card which would lead to a replacement coming on for a sent off player after that period, Johnson is now advocating another radical new law.

This time he wants to stamp out teams repeatedly offending when under the cosh in defence with an automatic yellow card after a certain number of infringements, rather than leave it to the referee's discretion. This would include any offences which occur when a penalty advantage is already being played, but which tend to get overlooked.

The plan would mirror what happens in basketball where individual players have a five-foul limit and teams also get a limit before they are forced to exit the action. Johnson says something similar needs to happen in rugby, with the penalty count kept on a scoreboard for transparency and the 12th offence automatically leading to the player infringing being carded.

"Once you hit your mark, a player goes off," he said. "People are scared of it, but if you take the time to analyse it I could show you 15 clips in the last 12 months where there are three advantages or more in one passage of play. I sit there going ‘why isn’t it all that counted?’

“When they come back on, the count starts again at six, or whatever number you come up with. Make it transparent, put it on the scoreboard. That’s what I am pushing next. I will keep pushing.”'


I do overall like the idea of making it more a hard rule of 5 pens and yellow or whatever line in the sand you want to draw. There have been grumbles in the past on here about the number some teams get away with, NZ I think go through more pens before losing a man than any other at the top end of the game. Perhaps slightly too simplistic to have a straight number of pens though as Johnson asks for? The first thing that strikes you which isn't touched upon here but perhaps is just taken as a given is the cynical pen on your try line. Never enough on its own to say you've definitely denied a try or even prevented a line break but designed to allow the defence to align say.

That overflows to asking are all pens the same? Johnson clearly looking at defence here, specifically mentioning being under the cosh, but not all pens are given for such. Watching England at their most disorganised best in attack, I've seen them lumber up slowly to clear rucks, go off their feet to secure ball and even knock on and pick up the ball from an offside decision. Are they really comparable pens to slowing the ball down or even a high tackle? Something like Isiekwe's foul where a maul drove under him before he landed would be a strike with this. Would 1 scrum pen in say the 7th scrum, 6 of which you've won mean you're down to 14?

The final consideration would be advantages played. While discussing how a ref potentially favoured one team over another a point on number of pens vs yellows with the point that team A got a yellow after x amount of pens whereas team B got away with amount y. Ignored the fact that despite the official counts of penalties conceded the stat never counts advantages played. These are still fouls committed but not penalties. Would they continue to be ignored? Sometimes very cynical to kill the ball several times in a phase or 2 in defence so would it be right or wrong to go from 0 trikes to 3 despite potentially given 1 pen away and 3 points?

Very worth considering but potentially a more complex question than first appears.

Whilst it is a slightly blunt instrument – it would appear to treat all penalties as being equal and as you point out possibly not include some fouls where advantage is played – it will remove some of the inconsistencies we see with referees.  Some seem to have far too much leniency with teams giving away penalty after penalty.  It will also take away some of the advantage that ‘clever’ teams like New Zealand seem to have when breaking the rules.

I also like the idea of the 20 minute red card.  In the Italy v Ireland game and the England v Ireland game in this 6 Nations, one foul effectively ended the game for both teams.  Neither foul appeared to be premeditated or malicious - just poor technique or split second misjudgement.  Is deliberately collapsing a scrum less serious than either of these events?  Having had a hooker at my club break his neck as a result of a collapsed scrum, I would suggest not. It just seems unfair than one penalty can have such a significant impact on a game, whereas teams can get away with committing a stream of less serious penalties carried out to stop a try being scored.

Going to tag this in here, reported through the BBC
My view on each, wasn't a really big fan of the 50:22 to start and I'm still a bit undecided. Personally I don't think it's impacted the game to the extent that was initially thought in terms of defence. It was all about creating space and defences are still up as much as ever haven't seen any noticeable space created and it still annoys me when a team is attacking and you see an intercept of turnover and then a long punt which results in a lucky bounce and that team keeping the ball.

Hate the goal line dropout. Kept because it promotes safety....really? Teams are still driving for the line as there's no other real option when you're that far out. For me it was an attempt to nullify the likes of Exeter being very good at the pick and go. Tick there I suppose this season! I still think an attacking scrum would be fairer or even a free kick to the attacking side.

Pre-bound pods. Agree with that one, we already had it banned for a player binding each side of the ball carrier anyway. No issues with that one.

Lower limb clearouts - agree, just think they should actually consider widening that one to include twisting players off the ball too.

Latching - well I've seen players deliberately fall to help seal off but on the whole don't like this one either as a lot of the time not deliberate and just a natural part of the tackle and doesn't actually stop people competing for the ball.

:

Five laws aimed at improving player welfare have been officially adopted after successful trials.

The World Rugby Council voted to add 50:22, goalline drop-out, pre-bound pods of players, penalising lower-limb clearouts and latching to the laws.

World Rugby said the move reflected an "ongoing commitment to injury prevention".

Focus on the risk of brain damage increased when ex-players began legal action against the game's authorities.


The council also voted that the scrum brake foot law - where hookers must extend a foot towards the opposition as they prepare for a scrum - that was trialled in the Six Nations would be tested globally and feature at World Cups.

The five laws adopted had been trialled for a year and World Rugby said it would continue to look at their impact on improving player welfare and preventing head injuries.

It also said there would be renewed focus on side entry at the breakdown in July's international fixtures.

What are the new laws?
A successful 50:22 kick will give a team put-in to the line-out if they kick into touch indirectly (ie. on the bounce) when kicking from their own half into the opposition 22m. The law aims to force players to drop deeper in the defensive line, creating space for attackers.
In the in-goal area, if an attacking player is held up, there is an attacking knock-on or an attacking kick is grounded by the defensive side, play will restart with a goalline drop-out. This is intended to reduce the number of scrums, reward good defence, encourage counter-attacking and increase the rate of ball in play.
Pre-bound pods of players: The practice of pods of three or more players being pre-bound before receiving the ball has been outlawed. The sanction will be a penalty kick.
Sanctioning the lower-limb clearout: Players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler at the ruck - the player trying to steal the ball - will be penalised. The sanction will be a penalty kick.
Tightening law relating to latching: A one-player latch will be permitted, but this player has the same responsibilities as a first arriving player (ie. must stay on feet, enter through gate and not fall to floor). The sanction will be a penalty kick.

There's a lot here. My take on the new laws/trials/interpretations and so on....

I agree the 50:22 has not seemed to me to have much impact. When the season started it appeared wingers were a step or two back on defence. Now, seems the same as it ever was. This law can stay or go, I doubt it will have much impact either way.

Goal-line Drop seems to punish the attacking team for doing a lot of good things to get into attacking position and then over the line, but rewards the defensive team for simply holding the ball up. It can go to the scrap-heap.

Outlawing the pre-bound pods is, to me, a. good idea. Pure safety, no down side.

Sanctions for going after the legs of a jackler is also a good idea. I think it happens less than assumed, but is a clear safety enhancement.

What I really want to see, though, is a return to real scrummaging and a put-in actually going to the hooker's feet, where we might see actual hooking. I know I am asking for far too much.....

No law change required there as its punishable if they don't strike.

Should have said as well these are obviously the ones that passed. The 20 min red has thankfully been dropped.

doctor_grey wrote:There's a lot here.  My take on the new laws/trials/interpretations and so on....

I agree the 50:22 has not seemed to me to have much impact.  When the season started it appeared wingers were a step or two back on defence.  Now, seems the same as it ever was.  This law can stay or go, I doubt it will have much impact either way.

Goal-line Drop seems to punish the attacking team for doing a lot of good things to get into attacking position and then over the line, but rewards the defensive team for simply holding the ball up.  It can go to the scrap-heap.

Outlawing the pre-bound pods is, to me, a. good idea.  Pure safety, no down side.

Sanctions for going after the legs of a jackler is also a good idea.  I think it happens less than assumed, but is a clear safety enhancement.  

What I really want to see, though, is a return to real scrummaging and a put-in actually going to the hooker's feet, where we might see actual hooking.  I know I am asking for far too much.....

Agree with this. Also need to sort out the caterpillaring at rucks.

mountain man wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:There's a lot here.  My take on the new laws/trials/interpretations and so on....

I agree the 50:22 has not seemed to me to have much impact.  When the season started it appeared wingers were a step or two back on defence.  Now, seems the same as it ever was.  This law can stay or go, I doubt it will have much impact either way.

Goal-line Drop seems to punish the attacking team for doing a lot of good things to get into attacking position and then over the line, but rewards the defensive team for simply holding the ball up.  It can go to the scrap-heap.

Outlawing the pre-bound pods is, to me, a. good idea.  Pure safety, no down side.

Sanctions for going after the legs of a jackler is also a good idea.  I think it happens less than assumed, but is a clear safety enhancement.  

What I really want to see, though, is a return to real scrummaging and a put-in actually going to the hooker's feet, where we might see actual hooking.  I know I am asking for far too much.....

Agree with this. Also need to sort out the caterpillaring at rucks.

Couldn't agree more.

Thought I'd tag these here. Got it from Walesonline and on first viewing I think some of them are bonkers. I do like the trial law of 30 seconds to form the scrum after mark being set....as it's already an existing law which is ignored. Brings to mind the thought that if the officials reffed to the actual laws as they are it would improve quite a lot of games:

Full new trial laws and time limits
Five seconds to exit the ruck after referee calls to ‘use it’
30 seconds to pack scrum from when mark is set
60 seconds to take penalty kicks, 90 seconds for conversions, 30 seconds to restart after a conversion
30 seconds to throw lineout from when mark is set.
All above infringements results in a tap only, no option to scrum.

Scrum reset if no clear sanction in the first instance, with a free kick to feeding team if it happens twice.
Defending scrumhalf cannot go beyond midline of scrum
Only contested throws to lineout can be adjudicated as not straight
Only players within the lineout formation can join a maul formed at a lineout
Focus on tackler not rolling, must make effort to roll immediately towards sideline
Deliberate knockdown to be refereed as either a ‘deliberate attempt to catch’, or a ‘deliberate attempt to knock down’, which will result in a penalty kick only.
Three phases and then advantage over, with territorial and tactical consideration at referees’ discretion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought I'd tag these here. Got it from Walesonline and on first viewing I think some of them are bonkers. I do like the trial law of 30 seconds to form the scrum after mark being set....as it's already an existing law which is ignored. Brings to mind the thought that if the officials reffed to the actual laws as they are it would improve quite a lot of games:

Full new trial laws and time limits
Five seconds to exit the ruck after referee calls to ‘use it’
30 seconds to pack scrum from when mark is set
60 seconds to take penalty kicks, 90 seconds for conversions, 30 seconds to restart after a conversion
30 seconds to throw lineout from when mark is set.
All above infringements results in a tap only, no option to scrum.

Scrum reset if no clear sanction in the first instance, with a free kick to feeding team if it happens twice.
Defending scrumhalf cannot go beyond midline of scrum
Only contested throws to lineout can be adjudicated as not straight
Only players within the lineout formation can join a maul formed at a lineout
Focus on tackler not rolling, must make effort to roll immediately towards sideline
Deliberate knockdown to be refereed as either a ‘deliberate attempt to catch’, or a ‘deliberate attempt to knock down’, which will result in a penalty kick only.
Three phases and then advantage over, with territorial and tactical consideration at referees’ discretion.

I wonder who comes up with these ideas?  I like the time limits.  This will help with more ball in play time.  But on the other hand, most of those laws suggestions are nuts.  The one I do like is "Only contested throws to lineout can be adjudicated as not straight".  The rest?  Fuggetaboutit.