Law Changes in the pipeline

[smartcooky]

Those of us with our ears to the ground and informants in all the right places have been hearing about likely Law changes to kick in from the beginning of the 2012 Super Rugby season

1. Scrum Law: Change in the engage sequence from the current "Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage" to "'Crouch, Touch, Set". The reasons behind this is that "pause" is something that should be done rather than said, so effectively, the engage sequence is "Crouch" *pause* "Touch" *pause* "Set" (the pauses are silent). The word "Set" replaces "Engage" because it is one syllable, and will help reduce the incidence of early engagement.


2. Ruck law: A 5 second time limit will be imposed from the time the ball is available, similar to the 5 second restart Law for the Maul. No further details available, but some of us are assuming that the referee will be required to say "use it" at this stage.

3. Maul Law: The unplayable turnover is to go, being replaced by the scrum being awarded to the team going forward when the Maul ends unsuccessfully.

4. The Drop Goal: If a drop kick at goal is unsuccessful, and goes dead in goal, then the scrum back option will be offered to the defending team. So the drop kick at goal is treated just like any other kick.


Also, the iRB are trialling a change to the points scoring system in South Africa's Varsity Cup. They will use the following scoring system:

Try.......................5 points
Conversion............3 points
Penalty Goal......... 2 points
Drop Goal............. 2 points

[TRF_Getofmeland]

Couple of interesting ones there...

I agree with the Scrum Law, believe the Pause is not necessary and believe Set will be easier to hear... again the Ruck Law makes sense means more likely to get quick ball and attacking rugby... and I think a Drop goal should be treated like any other kick if it goes dead...

As for the points, I don't think these should change, dropping penalties and drop goal's devalues them and they shouldn't be devalued in terms of the game... A conversion is less significant than a penalty (IMO)

[Tricia McMillan]

I like all of those rule changes except for the points value changes. The points values for tries, conversions, and kicks for goal are perfect as they are, in my opinion.

[TRF_Olyy]

I'm a big fan of all of those, apart from the points change

[Little Guy]

I like the ruck law should prevent some of those annyoing end of game moments where a team just sits there and does nothing until the game ends, will at least force them to pick and go at the very least. Point system changes are utterly awful and are so stupid they might ruin the varsity cup this season and I'm meh to the maul rule, don't really see why it needed to be changed.

[TRF_Cymro]

The Maul law is another that goes down to interpretation of the referee which could cause debate. Basically if a team defends a maul well ... they lose out.

[Gavin]

Don't like the possible new maul law. Does that mean that if the law was enforced during the World Cup, when Ireland held up the Australian attacker on several occasions would the Wallabies have gotten a scrum instead of Ireland? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Little Guy]

Don't like the possible new maul law. Does that mean that if the law was enforced during the World Cup, when Ireland held up the Australian attacker on several occasions would the Wallabies have gotten a scrum instead of Ireland? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Canada won the game vs. Tonga at the very end by holding up a maul as well it was a great moment in the match.

[TRF_Darwin]

I agree with others: I like the look of most of the changes.

Not at all convinced by the points system changes being trialed though: the most important person in a team is already the goal-kicker, so I don't know why you would want to increase the value of conversions (which I personally think are too valuable already). The aim of the game is to score tries - it shouldn't matter that much whether you score them under the post or out wide. Indeed many of the better tries are actually scored out wide, with tries under the posts quite often reflecting a score against the run of play (for example from an intercept). If anything I would increase the value of tries from 5 points to 6 points, and lower the value of conversions from 2 points to 1 point.

Likewise I'm not a big fan of decreasing the value of penalties - I can see an increase in negative play by the defensive team if this was the case. With this scoring system you could afford to give away numerous penalties, as four penalties would still only be as valuable as a converted try! I can only assume that this rule change would be to encourage more attacking play - for example going for an attacking lineout rather than taking a shot at goal. Personally my preferred option (which I'm sure a lot of people won't agree with) is to make it so that you can only kick penalty goals if the penalty offense occurs inside the oppositions 22. This would lead to more attacking play, as teams would have to take a lot more quick taps or attacking lineouts from penalties. I don't think it will ever happen as it would be a huge (and probably unnecessary) change to the game, but personally I think would lead to a more interesting game of rugby from a spectators point of view (as they would get to see more rugby, rather than a goal-kicking contest).

[TRF_Olyy]

With the proposed new points structure, France won the WC Final 8 - 7 :p

[smartcooky]

With the proposed new points structure, France won the WC Final 8 - 7 :p

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my smileys/rugbyfirstsmiliefishing.gif


Its not that simple.

Different points scoring might lead to different on field decisions being made.

Besides which France would not have even been in the final, because Wales would have won their semifinal 7 - 6 !!

Nice try though http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/my smileys/horse.gif

[Jayatron]

Interesting changes if they are enforced. But not sure if any are going to work. The idea of the ruck change is to encourage running rugby? Then what's stopping a team from just picking and going anyway and killing a game. That's what they do all ready. I'll have to see them in action and play a little first before making a opinion on them.

Also I think IRB are looking to the wrong areas to encourage running rugby. One thing I would change without a doubt is; if a defending team in lineout doesn't put up a defender then, if the ball is not thrown straight, just play on as it would have no effect on the game. And not picking up on every single knock on, like when a scrum-half taps the ball forward by mm when trying to get the ball out of the ruck. Just simple things rather than revolutionary things like that.

[Invictus]

That ruck law is quite possibly my favourite of all time.

[Tricia McMillan]

Interesting changes if they are enforced. But not sure if any are going to work. The idea of the ruck change is to encourage running rugby? Then what's stopping a team from just picking and going anyway and killing a game. That's what they do all ready. I'll have to see them in action and play a little first before making a opinion on them.

Nothing, but there will be more breakdowns which could potentially result in a turnover.

[smartcooky]

One thing I would change without a doubt is; if a defending team in lineout doesn't put up a defender then, if the ball is not thrown straight, just play on as it would have no effect on the game.

What if the reason the team isn't putting up a defender is because the referee has been allowing squint throws all game so they have given up trying to compete.

We already have crooked scrum feeds at epidemic proportions right now, so I see no reason to offer crooked line-out throws to that mix.

Personally, I would like to see crooked line-out throws given as a free kick. You watch them suddenly get a lot straighter were that to happen.

[Saintjay]

What if the reason the team isn't putting up a defender is because the referee has been allowing squint throws all game so they have given up trying to compete.

We already have crooked scrum feeds at epidemic proportions right now, so I see no reason to offer crooked line-out throws to that mix.

Personally, I would like to see crooked line-out throws given as a free kick. You watch them suddenly get a lot straighter were that to happen.

Why don't they get a grip of the crooked scrum laws, I support a team reliant at having a heavy dominantt scrum.

It really grips me that the scrums tend to be a farce these days.

It strikes me that you need to get the rules right that you have before tinkering with the rest.

[TRF_Cymro]

What if the reason the team isn't putting up a defender is because the referee has been allowing squint throws all game so they have given up trying to compete.

We already have crooked scrum feeds at epidemic proportions right now, so I see no reason to offer crooked line-out throws to that mix.

Personally, I would like to see crooked line-out throws given as a free kick. You watch them suddenly get a lot straighter were that to happen.

Or ... some referees are pedantic.

Take for instance the referees that my own club Aberystywth have had over the last couple of weeks, their calling of not straight for lineouts has been diabolical. Some have been slightly off a straight line ... and bang referee blows his whistle instead of letting it go because in reality it is straight but not in his interpretation.

Also I never intend to throw the ball 'crooked' ... and I think you would find it hard press for a professional player to say they intentionally do. So I don't think its fair to make that assumption.

[dullonien]

Bloody hell, IRB proposing sensible law changes, what's the world coming to? I'm not sure about any changes in the points system, but tbh I'd need to see it used before making any final judgements. I may be in favour of reducing the value of a drop-goal to 2, because I feel it's over-used in todays game. It might also encourage teams to go for a try from a penalty advantage instead of having a pot-shot at a drop goal like most teams do nowerdays (although I still don't understand the reasoning there).

I'm also not sure on the Maul proposal. I think what Ireland have perfected over the past year involves great skill and ultimate strength, and they should be commended for it, no matter how annoying it is to be on the recieving end.

The ruck law is long, long overdue, even if some refs already implement it (Nigel Owens tends to say 'use it' after roughly 5 seconds already).

The scrum change is a minour improvement and might help reduce the frequency of teams getting pinged for going early. Getting rid of the word 'pause' also makes sense, it simply doesn't make sense at present. I still don't think it's gone far enough, and it'll still be a problem area in the game, but it's a start and we can see how these minour rule manges help before seeing if more drastic measures need to be implemented (i.e. getting rid of the hit altogether which is what I think ultimately needs to happen).

Again, changing the drop goal rulings so that it's treated like every other kick is sensible. It might reduce the number of pot-shot, long range drop goal attempts, because currently you are almost guaranteed the ball back in roughly the same position from the 22m drop-out.

[Peat]

Also I never intend to throw the ball 'crooked' ... and I think you would find it hard press for a professional player to say they intentionally do. So I don't think its fair to make that assumption.

Once upon a time a scrum-half might have said the same thing about his feeding.

I automatically don't like them as I think we need to let the rules settle and see how they effect things once people have thought about them rather than changing them every five seconds. I also think we have too many rules already which is leading to simply being mediocre as a ref being a considerable challenge, so more rules is stupid. So the following critique is based on that...

The scrum change - Doesn't go far enough but not bad. I'm ok with this one.

The ruck law - Stupid. The biggest change I think this could lead to is attacking teams putting more men into rucks so they've automatically got the pick and go pod available if things go wrong while the defensive team can suddenly leave them alone - this gives the attacking team a numerical disadvantage going forwards, which means its either time for a safe pick and go or a tactical kick. Might also lead to scrum-halves doing less sniping. Other possible knock-on I can see is if the ref's watching the ruck, the offside line becomes more malleable - again, not good for running rugby. I understand the frustration with 'cappucino time' service and very slow ball movement at the end of the game, but as a rule, making the attacking team's platform less secure has not been good for running rugby.

The maul law - Someone didn't enjoy Ireland's defence. Personally, I enjoy watching it and think its clever rugby. Won't change too much, but I won't enjoy the change.

The drop goal law - ok, this one is genuinely good and sensible.

The points change - If you want to encourage running rugby, don't go and encourage opposition players to cheat unrepentently at the breakdown. That is what the change in the points does. It reduces the deterrent dramatically, particularly when you consider that not conceding a try is more important. The main deterrent becomes the yellow card, which is likely to whinging about refs ruining the game by being overly pedantic.

In short - change 1 is ok but probably should have waited until they had a more comprehensive solution, change 4 is good, change 3 is bad, and change 2 and 5 are potentially imbecilic beyond all belief. We shall see how it plays out on a field should it come to it, but it took me all of three seconds to spot how a team in a negative mindset would thrive off of them, I'm not very optimistic.

[Invictus]

Five seconds is a long time. I think the law should really be a bit more open - perhaps simply that teams can't just hold the ball at the base of the ruck for extended periods of time. Teams will soon work out how long the ref will allow it, but it really shouldn't be that long.

Basically the only time you see teams hold the ball at the ruck for significantly longer than five seconds is when they want to shut the game down, and the opposition can't contest the ball when it's sitting at the back of the ruck. It's negative play and should not be allowed.

[TRF_nickdnz]

Suprisingly I like all the changes.

The scrum ones make much more sense. The ruck ones will stop players killing 5 minutes of the game towards the end when they are a few points up (or at least make it harder to do so). I like the points system changes. I think it remains like it currently is, teams are awarded too much for their ability to follow the interpretations of the laws from the referees persepctive. It doesn't endear the gameto new fans. Often the majority of points in a game comes from penalties, which is different from pretty much any other sport I can think of.

I agree with Darwin's idea. I personally would be happy to see a try go to six points and keep the conversion two, or make a try seven points and make a conversion 1 point. If you raised this slightly, there would just be that much more incentive to go for a try. In my opinion it should be at the least:

Try: 6
Con:1
Pen:2
DG: 3

[smartcooky]

The points change - If you want to encourage running rugby, don't go and encourage opposition players to cheat unrepentently at the breakdown. That is what the change in the points does. It reduces the deterrent dramatically, particularly when you consider that not conceding a try is more important.

Interesting point of view..

The change of points did not have the effect you have describe here back in 1971 (when the try went from 3 points to 4 points). It also did not have the effect you describe in 1992 (when the try when from 4 points to 5 points), so I see no reason why it would do so if the suggested points scheme was adopted.

If you think about it, when a converted try was worth five points (3+2), the conversion was worth 2/5ths, or 40%, of the value
When it went up to 6 points (4+2) the conversion's worth dropped to 1/3rd, or 33.3%, of the value.
Under the current scheme (5+2) it is worth 2/7ths, or 28%, of the value
Making a conversion 3 points makes it worth 3/8ths, or 37.5%, of the value, restoring it almost back to what it once was.

[ORothlain]

I agree so far with most everyone. Everything is good, except for the point system...LEAVE IT BE!

[Little Guy]

I can see wanting to make the try a higher value but why the emphasis on the conversion, makes centering the ball under the posts almost as important as scoring the try in the first place. I don't think drop goals are overused either we saw twenty of them in the RWC this year, three of which took place within five minutes thanks to Theuns Kotze. Including :o two by New Zealand and :o one by Samoa (Shockingly the fans didn't boo these particular succesful kicks unlike 80% of the other attempts;) ).

[TRF_Cymro]

Like to know who proposed the changes ... hopefully not the same clowns that introduced some of the ELVs

@Peat ... once upon a time ... maybe 80 years ago. Watched footage of games from the last 40 years and the scrum halfs have always tended to put the ball in crooked.

[ZeFrenchy]

I'm a big fan of all of those, apart from the points changeThis.

[Jayatron]

What if the reason the team isn't putting up a defender is because the referee has been allowing squint throws all game so they have given up trying to compete.

We already have crooked scrum feeds at epidemic proportions right now, so I see no reason to offer crooked line-out throws to that mix.

Personally, I would like to see crooked line-out throws given as a free kick. You watch them suddenly get a lot straighter were that to happen.

Personally I have never heard of any team not contesting a lineout because they are frustrated with the referee. I personally think, and this may annoy some people, that lineouts and scrums are ways to restart game and should be treated like so. Though the lineout is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable part of rugby I still think only if something happens that stops the defending team from competing fairly for the ball it should just be played on.
As for scrums unless a prop brings down a scrum on purpose then no penalties should be given. So if a team wins the ball and keeps driving through in attempt to win a penalty then the ref should shout "use it". It's way to restart the game and should be used as a attacking platform not a way to kick 3 points.

Though the iRB's proposed changes are interesting I really think they should be looking at the little things, but I won't stick by this until I see the new ones in action.

[JW.]

Interesting point of view..

The change of points did not have the effect you have describe here back in 1971 (when the try went from 3 points to 4 points). It also did not have the effect you describe in 1992 (when the try when from 4 points to 5 points), so I see no reason why it would do so if the suggested points scheme was adopted.

If you think about it, when a converted try was worth five points (3+2), the conversion was worth 2/5ths, or 40%, of the value
When it went up to 6 points (4+2) the conversion's worth dropped to 1/3rd, or 33.3%, of the value.
Under the current scheme (5+2) it is worth 2/7ths, or 28%, of the value
Making a conversion 3 points makes it worth 3/8ths, or 37.5%, of the value, restoring it almost back to what it once was.

You didn't really reply to what his main point was, which was that reducing the points of a penalty would ofcourse make cheating easier. Because one could just give away a penalty to avoid conceding a try because what are 2 points.

The points are fine as they're imo. Funny point would these laws been implemented, which I hope they won't France would've won the RWC final and not NZ :p. Ofcourse that is a very blunt point of view, but a penalty is there for a reason to punish cheaters and 2 points is not enough punishment IMO.

[JW.]

Personally I have never heard of any team not contesting a lineout because they are frustrated with the referee. I personally think, and this may annoy some people, that lineouts and scrums are ways to restart game and should be treated like so. Though the lineout is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable part of rugby I still think only if something happens that stops the defending team from competing fairly for the ball it should just be played on.
As for scrums unless a prop brings down a scrum on purpose then no penalties should be given. So if a team wins the ball and keeps driving through in attempt to win a penalty then the ref should shout "use it". It's way to restart the game and should be used as a attacking platform not a way to kick 3 points.

Though the iRB's proposed changes are interesting I really think they should be looking at the little things, but I won't stick by this until I see the new ones in action.

Then boring into the opposition hooker and by that way winning the scrum should be legal in your opinion?!

[Peat]

Interesting point of view..

The change of points did not have the effect you have describe here back in 1971 (when the try went from 3 points to 4 points). It also did not have the effect you describe in 1992 (when the try when from 4 points to 5 points), so I see no reason why it would do so if the suggested points scheme was adopted.

If you think about it, when a converted try was worth five points (3+2), the conversion was worth 2/5ths, or 40%, of the value
When it went up to 6 points (4+2) the conversion's worth dropped to 1/3rd, or 33.3%, of the value.
Under the current scheme (5+2) it is worth 2/7ths, or 28%, of the value
Making a conversion 3 points makes it worth 3/8ths, or 37.5%, of the value, restoring it almost back to what it once was.

First off, I might be overreacting, I accept this - I strongly believe that the game needs an extended period without rules changes.

Secondly, as JW points out, the main thrust of my argument involves the reduced reward for penalties at least as much as the improved reward for conversions. The percentage value of the conversion is more or less irrelevant to how much teams will run it (although personally I'd rather bias success towards tries rather than achieving the kick anyway) - the point is that if infringing is cheap and tries are dear, then the various ruck shenigans become that much more worthwhile. Which produces slow ball and scrappy possession (unless the ref is in top of it) which produces ugly rugby. The rules of rucking have changed so much since the last changes I find it difficult to draw comparisions.

Who knows, I could be wrong. But it seems a very obvious route for some teams to take.

@Cymro - Hah, fair point. But less crooked. I don't think I've ever seen one feed a ball direct into the second row in the old videos. Maybe I'm wrong mind. The point is, the average rugby player will take every advantage given to him if the rules suddenly go lax. Gods knows most of the hookers I've met fall into that category. They'd definitley throw squint if they thought they could get away with it.

Jayatron - What about if the defending scrum deliberately wheels it past ninety? Or players start to unbind before the scrum is done?

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

It's hard to say how these laws will play out until we see them trialled for an extended period. That said, my initial opinions are as such.

The scrum needs to be sorted out because it's a total mess. Anything which can improve it, even slightly, gets a thumbs up from me. I personally think that referees should be a lot stricter on teams pushing before the ball is put in and unless that is enforced, the current malaise affecting this area of the game will continue.

The intention of the maul idea is good. Rather than defences pulling the ball down as a means of stopping the maul, they may now concentrate on being positive and trying to push the opponent back. This could work although I agree with others, the choke tackle Ireland in particular have adopted could be an unintended victim of this law change.

I really like the idea behind the 5 second ruck change. Killing the clock at the end of the game is a blight on the sport and needs to be eradicated.

The drop goal/scrum back law will finish Frans Steyn's career! It's a good idea.

I'm not sure about the proposed points scoring system. I'm not averse to changing it, in fact I'd prefer to see the same points scoring system as rugby league. I don't think it should matter if a team scores a try out wide or a try under the posts. Under the proposed system, a try under the posts becomes far more important since it's far easier to convert and the value of a converted try increases by about 15%.

While it's okay trialling these laws at amateur level, it's only when they're implemented in the professional game, the game's showcase worldwide, that we'll see the full effect of these laws. As such, why not trial them in Barbarians games? They're effectively just spectacles rather than competitive games anyway and the input top referees and top players can give on these laws will be invaluable.

[Me 1]

Besides which France would not have even been in the final, because Wales would have won their semifinal 7 - 6 !!

CHANGE.THE.LAWS.NOW. :p

[Seaton]

While it's okay trialling these laws at amateur level, it's only when they're implemented in the professional game, the game's showcase worldwide, that we'll see the full effect of these laws. As such, why not trial them in Barbarians games? They're effectively just spectacles rather than competitive games anyway and the input top referees and top players can give on these laws will be invaluable.

Just to say that the Varsity Cup is very much in the professional bracket much the way American university football teams are, all games are televised as well so there is much room for post match scrutiny.

[smartcooky]

First off, I might be overreacting, I accept this - I strongly believe that the game needs an extended period without rules changes.

Secondly, as JW points out, the main thrust of my argument involves the reduced reward for penalties at least as much as the improved reward for conversions. The percentage value of the conversion is more or less irrelevant to how much teams will run it (although personally I'd rather bias success towards tries rather than achieving the kick anyway) - the point is that if infringing is cheap and tries are dear, then the various ruck shenigans become that much more worthwhile. Which produces slow ball and scrappy possession (unless the ref is in top of it) which produces ugly rugby. The rules of rucking have changed so much since the last changes I find it difficult to draw comparisions.

Who knows, I could be wrong. But it seems a very obvious route for some teams to take.

@Cymro - Hah, fair point. But less crooked. I don't think I've ever seen one feed a ball direct into the second row in the old videos. Maybe I'm wrong mind. The point is, the average rugby player will take every advantage given to him if the rules suddenly go lax. Gods knows most of the hookers I've met fall into that category. They'd definitley throw squint if they thought they could get away with it.

Jayatron - What about if the defending scrum deliberately wheels it past ninety? Or players start to unbind before the scrum is done?

No, I don't think you are overreacting, I think your points (no pun intended) as regards the value of the Penalty goal are valid enough.

Since it IS a trial in one competition, I think the Lawmakers have missed a real opportunity to put a virtual end to the cheap (cynical) penalty, while still decreasing the points value of a penalty goal.

What they SHOULD have done was trial the points at the values they are going to do so, but make a change in the restart Law. After a successful penalty goal, instead of going to halfway for a restart, they should go to a scrum at the place of infringement with the non-infringing side feeding. This would stop teams who deliberately infringe to relieve the pressure of field position or to prevent a try being scored.

Scenario:
Red are being pressed hard on defence by Blue. 10m out in front of the posts, Red gives up a cynical penalty for hands in the ruck. Blue kicks the penalty goal (2 points) then the game restarts with a scrum 10m out from red's goal line, in front of the posts,with Blue to feed.

Watch the cynical penalties all but dry up. The only ones you might see is where a defending player infringes because he can see that his defence is disorganised. If he offends, he's likely to give up 2 points AND still be defending.

[Dizzy]

I haven't read the entire thread. I've only read the first two pages but it seems I'm the only one who agrees with the Points System being changed.. Too many games are won by numerous penalty goals. It's pathetic. A team could be playing much much much better RUGBY than the other but the other team are getting drop goals and penalty goals and end up winning the game...

Conversions being more valuable than penalty goals would be much better because it encourages TRIES... Instead of making the 5 second rule on rucks. They should be referring back to their rules and implementing them better. When the Super Rugby season started, Referee's were exceptionally strict on the tackler releasing the tackled player BEFORE he released the ball... Then as the year went on they slacked off and at times went back to the old rules.

[Conal]

in my mind would be easier to have conversions at two points

therefore all goals are two points

[UilamOsa]

Scenario:
Red are being pressed hard on defence by Blue. 10m out in front of the posts, Red gives up a cynical penalty for hands in the ruck. Blue kicks the penalty goal (2 points) then the game restarts with a scrum 10m out from red's goal line, in front of the posts,with Blue to feed.

Watch the cynical penalties all but dry up. The only ones you might see is where a defending player infringes because he can see that his defence is disorganised. If he offends, he's likely to give up 2 points AND still be defending.

It's a good idea in principle, but for me the risk is that players that genuinely opt for the counter-ruck or even just feel like they have a genuine shot at the ball getting penalised off the park on the Referee's interpretation.

You've basically ended Richie McCaw's influence (and any other decent player) anywhere between the 22m line and the Try line.

That said - agree with the rules and like some of the people here - happy with the points as it stands. Even the dropkick.

[psychic duck]

Those of us with our ears to the ground and informants in all the right places have been hearing about likely Law changes to kick in from the beginning of the 2012 Super Rugby season

1. Scrum Law: Change in the engage sequence from the current "Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage" to "'Crouch, Touch, Set". The reasons behind this is that "pause" is something that should be done rather than said, so effectively, the engage sequence is "Crouch" *pause* "Touch" *pause* "Set" (the pauses are silent). The word "Set" replaces "Engage" because it is one syllable, and will help reduce the incidence of early engagement.


2. Ruck law: A 5 second time limit will be imposed from the time the ball is available, similar to the 5 second restart Law for the Maul. No further details available, but some of us are assuming that the referee will be required to say "use it" at this stage.

3. Maul Law: The unplayable turnover is to go, being replaced by the scrum being awarded to the team going forward when the Maul ends unsuccessfully.

4. The Drop Goal: If a drop kick at goal is unsuccessful, and goes dead in goal, then the scrum back option will be offered to the defending team. So the drop kick at goal is treated just like any other kick.


Also, the iRB are trialling a change to the points scoring system in South Africa's Varsity Cup. They will use the following scoring system:

Try.......................5 points
Conversion............3 points
Penalty Goal......... 2 points
Drop Goal............. 2 points

1. not a scrum expert but that sounds sensible enough

2. excellent, Bath in the HCup on Sunday stood for the last 20 seconds with the ball available just waiting for the clock to finish, but there must be clarity on when the ball becomes playabele

3. don't see the point
4. ​good rule

[smartcooky]

OK, so here is some more detail on my original post.

Sixteen new ELV's are currently being trialled. Nine are being trialled at Stellenbosch and seven at the Cambridge University Law Labs

They will then supply statistics to the IRB, and from those, and from trial reports, the IRB will choose any that they want to go on with. These will be incorporated in the 2013 Laws of the Game as ELV's. After a one year global trial, a review will be conducted during which there may be some discarded, and what is left will be incorporated law for the 2014 law book. This will give all countries another year to play under the new Laws before the next World Cup.

The seven being trialled by Cambridge soon are as follows:

1. RUCK – UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK - Law 16.7
The ball has to be played within 5 seconds of it being at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use it”.
Sanction: (1) Scrum or (2) Free Kick
Protocol: (1) When the referee observes that the ball is clearly at the back of a ruck (but it has not emerged) which is no longer being contested, the referee will indicate that the ball must be played by saying “use it”. The team in possession has 5 seconds to ensure that the ball emerges and is played. If the ball does not emerge and is not played within the 5 seconds, the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession will throw in the ball.
Sanction: Scrum
Protocol: (2) When the referee observes that the ball is clearly at the back of a ruck (but it has not emerged) which is no longer being contested, the referee will indicate that the ball must be played by saying “use it”. The team in possession has 5 seconds to ensure that the ball emerges and is played.
Sanction: Free Kick
This is intended to address the issue of rucks being won and then the "ruck winning" team sitting on the ball and doing nothing with it.


2. TOUCH AND LINE OUT – QUICK THROW IN - Law19.2 (b)
For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line.
Addresses an issue that the current law doesn't permit the player to come all the way back to where the ball was kicked from if it goes directly into touch from a defender's kick outside his 22m line.


3. TOUCH AND LINE-OUT – WHO THROWS IN - Law 19.4
When the ball goes into touch from a knock on, the non-offending team will be offered the choice of a lineout at the point where the ball crossed the touchline, or a scrum at the place of the knock on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.
Protocol: When the ball is knocked on into touch or subsequently goes into touch, the referee will permit the non-offending team to take a quick throw-in
An innovation that effectively extends "scrum advantage" beyond the touchline.


4. SCRUM - FORMING A SCRUM - Law 20.1 (g)
(g) The referee will call “crouch” and then “touch”. The front rows crouch and using their outside arm each prop touches the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will call “set” when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.

AIUI, the rationale for this change is as follows;

Currently the sequence is effectively "Crouch!" **pause** "Touch!" **pause** "Pause!" ** pause** "Engage!". NOTE: **pause** is a physical but unspoken gap between the words.

Firstly, taking out the word "pause" recognises a fact that most rugby referees and fans understand completely; that the word "Pause!" serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

Secondly, replacing the word "Engage!" with "Set!" replaces a two-syllable word with a one-syllable word, making it more difficult for the players in the scrum to use the "en" in "Engage" as a cue for getting the jump on their opponents.

So the new sequence will effectively be "Crouch!" **pause** "Touch!" **pause** "Set!"

This is nearly identical to the sequence that was trialled in the ITM Cup in 2010; "Crouch!" **pause** "Touch!" **pause** "Engage!"

This is obviously another attempt to fix the endless and boring scrum resets that are such a blight on the game, but IMO it could turn out to be yet another rearranging of the deck chairs on RMS Titanic.


5. SCRUM - OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM - Law 20.12 (b)
Offside for scrum-halves. When a team has won the ball in the scrum, the scrum half of the other team is offside if both feet are in front of the centre line of the scrum while the ball is still in the scrum. The offside line is parallel to the goal lines and remain parallel even if the scrum wheels. Please note that current Laws 20.12 (d) and (e) apply.
(d) The scrum half whose team did not win possession of the ball must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and overstep the offside line. For that scrum half, that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty Kick
(e) The scrum half whose team did not win possession of the ball must not move away from the scrum and then remain in front of the offside line. For that scrum half, that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty Kick
The will give the ball-winning scrum half more time and space to distribute the ball. It is effectively an Under 15 Law being trialled at adult level.


6. PENALTY AND FREE KICK OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS - Law 21.4
Lineout alternative: A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a lineout may choose a further lineout. They throw in.
This is in addition to the scrum option above (Law 21.4(a))
Makes logical sense. A team that doesn't want to scrummage can take the line-out instead. The Aussies will like this! :lol:


7. IN-GOAL – BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN –GOAL - Law 22.8
Remove reference to drop goal in Law 22.8. Amend the first sentence as follows
If a team kicks the ball through their opponent’s in-goal into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful conversion or penalty kick, the defending team has two choices either
To have a drop out or to have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.
All I can say is, at long, long last, we have something that adds an element of RISK to those tedious 60m Drop Goal attempts that players like Francois Steyn seem to like indulging in.

Under the current Law, if you try it from your own 10m and miss, and the ball goes dead in goal you gain 38m (dropout 22) and have a chance to compete for the ball

Under this ELV, you will gain ZERO metres, instead, coming back to where you kicked it from and giving up the feed to a scrum. Saffas will hate this. :lol:

[TNT88]

Thanks SC. Interesting ELV's. The last one will definitely stir things up a bit.

[InsaneAsylum]

just read through the new elv's. i like them, hope they work as well as they sound

[TRF_nickdnz]

OK, so here is some more detail on my original post.

Sixteen new ELV's are currently being trialled. Nine are being trialled at Stellenbosch and seven at the Cambridge University Law Labs

They will then supply statistics to the IRB, and from those, and from trial reports, the IRB will choose any that they want to go on with. These will be incorporated in the 2013 Laws of the Game as ELV's. After a one year global trial, a review will be conducted during which there may be some discarded, and what is left will be incorporated law for the 2014 law book. This will give all countries another year to play under the new Laws before the next World Cup.

The seven being trialled by Cambridge soon are as follows:

1. RUCK – UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK - Law 16.7
The ball has to be played within 5 seconds of it being at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use it”.
Sanction: (1) Scrum or (2) Free Kick
Protocol: (1) When the referee observes that the ball is clearly at the back of a ruck (but it has not emerged) which is no longer being contested, the referee will indicate that the ball must be played by saying “use it”. The team in possession has 5 seconds to ensure that the ball emerges and is played. If the ball does not emerge and is not played within the 5 seconds, the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession will throw in the ball.
Sanction: Scrum
Protocol: (2) When the referee observes that the ball is clearly at the back of a ruck (but it has not emerged) which is no longer being contested, the referee will indicate that the ball must be played by saying “use it”. The team in possession has 5 seconds to ensure that the ball emerges and is played.
Sanction: Free Kick
This is intended to address the issue of rucks being won and then the "ruck winning" team sitting on the ball and doing nothing with it.


2. TOUCH AND LINE OUT – QUICK THROW IN - Law19.2 (b)
For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line.
Addresses an issue that the current law doesn't permit the player to come all the way back to where the ball was kicked from if it goes directly into touch from a defender's kick outside his 22m line.


3. TOUCH AND LINE-OUT – WHO THROWS IN - Law 19.4
When the ball goes into touch from a knock on, the non-offending team will be offered the choice of a lineout at the point where the ball crossed the touchline, or a scrum at the place of the knock on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.
Protocol: When the ball is knocked on into touch or subsequently goes into touch, the referee will permit the non-offending team to take a quick throw-in
An innovation that effectively extends "scrum advantage" beyond the touchline.


4. SCRUM - FORMING A SCRUM - Law 20.1 (g)
(g) The referee will call “crouch” and then “touch”. The front rows crouch and using their outside arm each prop touches the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will call “set” when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.

AIUI, the rationale for this change is as follows;

Currently the sequence is effectively "Crouch!" **pause** "Touch!" **pause** "Pause!" ** pause** "Engage!". NOTE: **pause** is a physical but unspoken gap between the words.

Firstly, taking out the word "pause" recognises a fact that most rugby referees and fans understand completely; that the word "Pause!" serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

Secondly, replacing the word "Engage!" with "Set!" replaces a two-syllable word with a one-syllable word, making it more difficult for the players in the scrum to use the "en" in "Engage" as a cue for getting the jump on their opponents.

So the new sequence will effectively be "Crouch!" **pause** "Touch!" **pause** "Set!"

This is nearly identical to the sequence that was trialled in the ITM Cup in 2010; "Crouch!" **pause** "Touch!" **pause** "Engage!"

This is obviously another attempt to fix the endless and boring scrum resets that are such a blight on the game, but IMO it could turn out to be yet another rearranging of the deck chairs on RMS Titanic.


5. SCRUM - OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM - Law 20.12 (b)
Offside for scrum-halves. When a team has won the ball in the scrum, the scrum half of the other team is offside if both feet are in front of the centre line of the scrum while the ball is still in the scrum. The offside line is parallel to the goal lines and remain parallel even if the scrum wheels. Please note that current Laws 20.12 (d) and (e) apply.
(d) The scrum half whose team did not win possession of the ball must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and overstep the offside line. For that scrum half, that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty Kick
(e) The scrum half whose team did not win possession of the ball must not move away from the scrum and then remain in front of the offside line. For that scrum half, that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty Kick
The will give the ball-winning scrum half more time and space to distribute the ball. It is effectively an Under 15 Law being trialled at adult level.


6. PENALTY AND FREE KICK OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS - Law 21.4
Lineout alternative: A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a lineout may choose a further lineout. They throw in.
This is in addition to the scrum option above (Law 21.4(a))
Makes logical sense. A team that doesn't want to scrummage can take the line-out instead. The Aussies will like this! :lol:


7. IN-GOAL – BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN –GOAL - Law 22.8
Remove reference to drop goal in Law 22.8. Amend the first sentence as follows
If a team kicks the ball through their opponent’s in-goal into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful conversion or penalty kick, the defending team has two choices either
To have a drop out or to have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.
All I can say is, at long, long last, we have something that adds an element of RISK to those tedious 60m Drop Goal attempts that players like Francois Steyn seem to like indulging in.

Under the current Law, if you try it from your own 10m and miss, and the ball goes dead in goal you gain 38m (dropout 22) and have a chance to compete for the ball

Under this ELV, you will gain ZERO metres, instead, coming back to where you kicked it from and giving up the feed to a scrum. Saffas will hate this. :lol:

Just looking at this bit.

It seems like someone like Richie McCaw or David Pocock could really take advantage of this. It wouldn't be too difficult to make it hard for a halfback to clear the ball from a ruck within 5 seconds, especially if the ball hasn't yet emeraged.

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

On paper/my laptop screen. I agree with 6 of those 7 laws which are being trialled.

As has been said, the amendment of the forming a scrum law will likely make no material difference to what we currently experience. I don't see how "crouch, touch, set" is much different to "crouch and hold, engage" which was used a few years ago. It seems as though the IRB are desperate not to be seen to depower the scrum and are willing to trial multiple variations of the same failed system in the hope that one will work.

[Seaton]

Can't disagree with any of those ELVs, however I think this should pretty much spell the end of those 50/50 opportunity drop goals outside the 22.

Not that I am complaining that those useless long range drop goal attempts will be gone, but I suppose everything comes with a price.

[smartcooky]

On paper/my laptop screen. I agree with 6 of those 7 laws which are being trialled.

As has been said, the amendment of the forming a scrum law will likely make no material difference to what we currently experience. I don't see how "crouch, touch, set" is much different to "crouch and hold, engage" which was used a few years ago. It seems as though the IRB are desperate not to be seen to depower the scrum and are willing to trial multiple variations of the same failed system in the hope that one will work.

This!

Apparently, a slightly different sequence is being trailed at Stellenbosch

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Can't disagree with any of those ELVs, however I think this should pretty much spell the end of those 50/50 opportunity drop goals outside the 22.

Not that I am complaining that those useless long range drop goal attempts will be gone, but I suppose everything comes with a price.
I fully agree. As a Leinster fan, Jonny Sexton's opportunistic drop goal from the half way line in the 2009 Heineken Cup final sticks in my memory. Under the new law, the possibility of losing a chunk of field position would make such a shot at goal too risky to even contemplate. Those sort of drop goals will be an unintended victim of this law but on balance I think the new law is right.

[TRF_Cymro]

The 5 second nonsense will be tedious and it will sort of have various interpretations with different referees.

[Seaton]

The 5 second nonsense will be tedious and it will sort of have various interpretations with different referees.

Inviarably though if you don't get the ball away quickly well without the ruck being contested you are just giving the opposition more time organise, so it may serve as useful reminder to some scrummies who like to flap about and stick their heads up like gazelles, telegraphing a potential move to the opposition.

I hope that the law serves to eradicate those drawn out phases of play in the final few minutes by the leading team, which I can't think of anyone in their right mind enjoys watching.

[psychic duck]

The IRB want you to give feedback on these rule changes by doing this survey.

https://www.research.net/s/irblawstrials-en