Changing of the laws?

[durbutter]

Hey I'm just wondering, will the IRB stop tinkering with the rules every year half year?

Should they're not be a rule where the law can only be experimented with 1 year out of every 4?

It's really not fair for either the players or the referees. When will there be a time when the NH and SH are playing from the same rule book. It's making the game increasingly more frustrating to watch.

Who are the IRB trying to please? what was wrong with the rules being used in 2006/07?

If i remember rightly, it was rumored that the first raft of changes to the maul and breakdown was to depower teams like Munster and, in the world cup, England because the boring rugby was becoming to dominant.

After a myriad of changes in the law and its application, how in god's name have they improved their "product".

Discuss

 

[wertas]

Hey I'm just wondering, will the IRB stop tinkering with the rules every year half year?

Should they're not be a rule where the law can only be experimented with 1 year out of every 4?

It's really not fair for either the players or the referees. When will there be a time when the NH and SH are playing from the same rule book. It's making the game increasingly more frustrating to watch.

Who are the IRB trying to please? what was wrong with the rules being used in 2006/07?

If i remember rightly, it was rumored that the first raft of changes to the maul and breakdown was to depower teams like Munster and, in the world cup, England because the boring rugby was becoming to dominant.

After a myriad of changes in the law and its application, how in god's name have they improved their "product".

Discuss

I think changing some rules is good thing for rugby. But ELV's were total crap. I don't understand and can't see what is wrong with new breakdown rule "tackler must releas". It's good thing because Brousow and McCaw were cheaters in this area. Also referrees should penalise in scrum time much more. And everything else is quite good and shouldn't be changed.

 

[Bargoedboy]

i don`t think that laws should be changed, just enforced the same in SH ad NH.
Also enforce all the laws , not as what seems to happen at moment , concentrate on one aspect to detriment of all else.
Lets have ball in straight at scrum , lets make props bind on shirts by bringing back loose shirts for props to be able to grab onto.
lets have back row stay bound in scrum, and my favourite hands out of ruck , not wait for ref to say" hands out, Ruck" they are professional players they know what rules are , stick hands in ruck instant penalty.

 

[Teh Mite]

Take the lawbook 5 years back in time for everything, then change the scoring to Try=6 Conversion=2 Penalty=3 DG=2 then leave it be.

Simples.

 

[SavageLez]

I agree with Bullitts post. Teams get easy points for penalties and they should not be worth so many points. It should be equal to a conversion and/or they should narrow the gap between the poles to make it more difficult to convert a kick and to force players to go for a try rather than kcik.

 

[lucky number 7]

I think changing some rules is good thing for rugby. But ELV's were total crap. I don't understand and can't see what is wrong with new breakdown rule "tackler must releas". It's good thing because Brousow and McCaw were cheaters in this area. Also referrees should penalise in scrum time much more. And everything else is quite good and shouldn't be changed.

no they were not cheaters they played to the rules they were given so much better than any other players that people could not comprehend how these men..nay not men....but GODS..were so formidable at the breakdown and so labeled them cheats...

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Want to know something ...

Why don't the referees just read and take the rules as they are and stop interpreting them. Why do teams now actively seek and see the ref before a game and meet with him a couple of days to see how he is going to interpret the rules? That is unacceptable. It smacks to me the IRB and ref's have got it wrong. Teams should know the laws like the referee. The IRB are to blame just as much as the ref's. The ref's for interpreting the laws and the IRB for changing them constantly.

 

[smartcooky]

Want to know something ...

Why don't the referees just read and take the rules as they are and stop interpreting them. Why do teams now actively seek and see the ref before a game and meet with him a couple of days to see how he is going to interpret the rules? That is unacceptable. It smacks to me the IRB and ref's have got it wrong. Teams should know the laws like the referee. The IRB are to blame just as much as the ref's. The ref's for interpreting the laws and the IRB for changing them constantly.

Have you ever actually read the Laws of the Game?

It is so full of conflicts and poorly written Law that is HAS to be interpreted. Following every Law to the letter would lead to a game that has almost no open play and consisted of a continuous sequence of penalties, scrums and lineouts. About 10 years ago, the Stellenbosch Laws Group conducted a video analysis of 20 top level rugby matches from all over the world. The result showed that the average game contained over 90 technical breaches of the Laws, and about half many other infringements such as knock-ons, forward throws and accidental offsides. Do you really want to see 90 penalties and 45 scrums awarded each match. Would there actually be time in 80 minutes to have that many penalties & scrums? Of course not. Thats why referees have to decide on what is material and what is not.

You should try picking up the whistle and refereeing rugby yourself. It is not as easy as just dishing out penalties willy-nilly for every minor breach of the Laws. You need judgment, and the moment you use judgment, you are interpreting, whether you realise it or no.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Have you ever actually read the Laws of the Game?

It is so full of conflicts and poorly written Law that is HAS to be interpreted. Following every Law to the letter would lead to a game that has almost no open play and consisted of a continuous sequence of penalties, scrums and lineouts. About 10 years ago, the Stellenbosch Laws Group conducted a video analysis of 20 top level rugby matches from all over the world. The result showed that the average game contained over 90 technical breaches of the Laws, and about half many other infringements such as knock-ons, forward throws and accidental offsides. Do you really want to see 90 penalties and 45 scrums awarded each match. Would there actually be time in 80 minutes to have that many penalties & scrums? Of course not. Thats why referees have to decide on what is material and what is not.

You should try picking up the whistle and refereeing rugby yourself. It is not as easy as just dishing out penalties willy-nilly for every minor breach of the Laws. You need judgment, and the moment you use judgment, you are interpreting, whether you realise it or no.

Simmer down will you. Getting sick of your assumptions. I have reffed thank you very much.

Im afraid top level ref's are there for the reason as they are supposedly the best they are. Of course they make an odd mistake, everyone does, yet the same ref's are constantly getting it wrong! Take Kaplan for example, he reffed the last Welsh game against the All Blacks terrible, no? The answer is yes. As a man who is a ref you should therefore know how many errors Kaplan has made and also the error's he continually makes in most of his other games are simply poor. He is classed as a top international ref but really he is not.

I don't buy the argument of that they have to interpret. If they are unclear then they should seek advice from the IRB ... quite simple really. I also disagree with teams meeting the ref a few days before kick off to see how he interprets the game. Again this shows that different ref's interpret the laws differently.

You watch games in the NH and SH you see the game is reffed differently. How many games recently have you watched teams diving over the top of rucks getting penalised? Or the ref getting the calls at the scrum correct. Reffing the scrum is not as difficult as it believed. One simple solution for stopping problems at the scrum would make the props bind correctly ... no? If players stop binding on the arms then half of the problems encountered at the scrum would be solved.

Also if ref's talked a bit more through the game ala Tony Spreadbury / Nigel Owens esq then players would understand the game. Problem with Kaplan is that communication is minimal and when he is not communicating thats when the problems occur. As a player who is playing a tidy standard of rugby when a ref is communicating with you, you know where you stand and you know what you can get away with or what you can't.

 

[wayner]

Take the lawbook 5 years back in time for everything, then change the scoring to Try=6 Conversion=2 Penalty=3 DG=2 then leave it be.

Simples.

They should also move the posts to the rear of the try area like in American football, especially since penalty kicks from one's one side of the field are becoming commonplace due to the newer balls.

 

[Teh Mite]

There's no specified size of the in-goal area in the law book (and because of already existing stadia and fields is an unrealistic law to bring in), so that wouldn't work. The posts mark the pitchs length as 100 yards.

 

[smartcooky]

Tedium Warning: This post contains Law discussion which some users may find tedious, boring and difficult to understand. I advise reader discretion. Readers who are interested in the nuances and intricacies of the Laws of Rugby, are invited read on.

Im afraid top level ref's are there for the reason as they are supposedly the best they are. Of course they make an odd mistake, everyone does, yet the same ref's are constantly getting it wrong! Take Kaplan for example, he reffed the last Welsh game against the All Blacks terrible, no? The answer is yes. As a man who is a ref you should therefore know how many errors Kaplan has made and also the error's he continually makes in most of his other games are simply poor. He is classed as a top international ref but really he is not.

I don't think Kaplan in general makes any more mistakes than any other iRB panel referees. If he did, he would be stood down from the panel, or allocated lower grade games (a la Matt Goddard and Marius Jonker).

I will admit, however, that he has been off his game this season, and has been well overtaken by both Craig Joubert and Mark Lawrence among the SA Referees.

I don't buy the argument of that they have to interpret. If they are unclear then they should seek advice from the IRB ... quite simple really.

The problem is that the iRB only frames the Laws and individual unions have their own interpretation on some things. A number of National Unions are guilty of putting their own "spin" on certain aspects of the Law.

Here is a typical example of what I mean. Look at the diagram and read the associated text;

Red v Blue. This is Red's defending 22m line

► A Blue player kicks the ball and it rolls into touch at "A" and comes to a stop at "B"
► A Red player picks up the ball, takes it to "C" and takes a quick throw in to a Red player at "D"
► The Red player kicks the ball directly to touch on his 10m line

Where is the line-out?

The Law says

LAW 19.1 THROW-IN
NO GAIN IN GROUND
(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

► If you are refereeing in Europe, it is not considered that the ball has been carried back. Gain in ground is allowed, and the lineout is on the 10m line.
► If you are refereeing in a SANZAR country, Japan or the USA or any other place outside Europe, it IS considered that the ball has been carried back. Gain in ground is NOT allowed, and the lineout is opposite "D".

Why the two different interpretations? Because the Law Definition of "the 22" is unclear, and different rugby governing bodies have differing views on what they mean. In this case, Law 1 defines the "the 22" as being "the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line." .It then shows this diagram.

It is clear that "the 22" does not extend beyond the touch line, so

► in the SH we interpret the first line of Law 19.1... " When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22" to mean that if a player takes a ball that was not previously "in the 22" and throws it in to a team-mate inside his 22, then he has "caused the ball to be put into his own 22", therefore there can be no gain in ground.

► in the NH whey look at the part which says "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch" and interpreat that as excludng the other scenraio as a "no gain" situation.

Incidentally, both NH and SH agree on the following two scenarios;

CARRIED BACK______________________NOT CARRIED BACK
NO GAIN IN GROUND_________________GAIN IN GROUND

Just this one aspect of Law 19 generated several pages of discussion on the international Rugbyrefs forum (of which I am a member)

It is also just one example of where interpretations differ. There are many, many more.

You may well ask "why doesn't the iRB sort this out?". Well that would require leadership; the terms "IRB" and "leadership" are mutually exclusive, and should never be used in the same sentence.

One thing is for sure thought is this it NOT the referees' fault. They have to follow the guidelines issued by their National Unions. There are consequences for them if they don't.

I also disagree with teams meeting the ref a few days before kick off to see how he interprets the game. Again this shows that different ref's interpret the laws differently.

Absolutely agree 100% with this. Not only should there be no meeting of teams/referees prior to matches, the coaching staff should not even be allowed to comment publicly on or about the referee prior to a match. The master of this tactic of trying to get inside the head of the referee for upcoming matches was Eddie Jones. He was a shocker!!

You watch games in the NH and SH you see the game is reffed differently. How many games recently have you watched teams diving over the top of rucks getting penalised?

This is one aspect of the Laws where materiality applies. There is no blanket Law that all players going to ground MUST be penalised. They are merely liable to penalty.

► If team 'A' have the ball in the back of the ruck, and a player from Team 'A' drives an opponent to the ground, this is not considered to have a material effect. Play on

► If team 'B' have the ball in the back of the ruck, and a player from Team 'A' drives an opponent to the ground, this is considered to have a material effect, and Team 'A''s player will be penalised for going off their feet.

Also if ref's talked a bit more through the game ala Tony Spreadbury / Nigel Owens esq then players would understand the game.

The problem with Spreaders is that you couldn't shut him up!! The players got a running commentary for 80 minutes. I'll never understand why he didn't go into the media after he retired. He would have made an ideal "colour" commentator, as his understanding of Rugby's nuances was the best of any referee I have ever seen.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Tedium Warning: This post contains Law discussion which some users may find tedious, boring and difficult to understand. I advise reader discretion. Readers who are interested in the nuances and intricacies of the Laws of Rugby, are invited read on.



I don't think Kaplan in general makes any more mistakes than any other iRB panel referees. If he did, he would be stood down from the panel, or allocated lower grade games (a la Matt Goddard and Marius Jonker).

I will admit, however, that he has been off his game this season, and has been well overtaken by both Craig Joubert and Mark Lawrence among the SA Referees.

The problem is that the iRB only frames the Laws and individual unions have their own interpretation on some things. A number of National Unions are guilty of putting their own "spin" on certain aspects of the Law.

Here is a typical example of what I mean. Look at the diagram and read the associated text;

Red v Blue. This is Red's defending 22m line

► A Blue player kicks the ball and it rolls into touch at "A" and comes to a stop at "B"
► A Red player picks up the ball, takes it to "C" and takes a quick throw in to a Red player at "D"
► The Red player kicks the ball directly to touch on his 10m line

Where is the line-out?

The Law says

LAW 19.1 THROW-IN
NO GAIN IN GROUND
(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

► If you are refereeing in Europe, it is not considered that the ball has been carried back. Gain in ground is allowed, and the lineout is on the 10m line.
► If you are refereeing in a SANZAR country, Japan or the USA or any other place outside Europe, it IS considered that the ball has been carried back. Gain in ground is NOT allowed, and the lineout is opposite "D".

Why the two different interpretations? Because the Law Definition of "the 22" is unclear, and different rugby governing bodies have differing views on what they mean. In this case, Law 1 defines the "the 22" as being "the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line." .It then shows this diagram.

It is clear that "the 22" does not extend beyond the touch line, so

► in the SH we interpret the first line of Law 19.1... " When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22" to mean that if a player takes a ball that was not previously "in the 22" and throws it in to a team-mate inside his 22, then he has "caused the ball to be put into his own 22", therefore there can be no gain in ground.

► in the NH whey look at the part which says "This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch" and interpreat that as excludng the other scenraio as a "no gain" situation.

Incidentally, both NH and SH agree on the following two scenarios;

CARRIED BACK______________________NOT CARRIED BACK
NO GAIN IN GROUND_________________GAIN IN GROUND

Just this one aspect of Law 19 generated several pages of discussion on the international Rugbyrefs forum (of which I am a member)

It is also just one example of where interpretations differ. There are many, many more.

You may well ask "why doesn't the iRB sort this out?". Well that would require leadership; the terms "IRB" and "leadership" are mutually exclusive, and should never be used in the same sentence.

One thing is for sure thought is this it NOT the referees' fault. They have to follow the guidelines issued by their National Unions. There are consequences for them if they don't.


Absolutely agree 100% with this. Not only should there be no meeting of teams/referees prior to matches, the coaching staff should not even be allowed to comment publicly on or about the referee prior to a match. The master of this tactic of trying to get inside the head of the referee for upcoming matches was Eddie Jones. He was a shocker!!



This is one aspect of the Laws where materiality applies. There is no blanket Law that all players going to ground MUST be penalised. They are merely liable to penalty.

► If team 'A' have the ball in the back of the ruck, and a player from Team 'A' drives an opponent to the ground, this is not considered to have a material effect. Play on

► If team 'B' have the ball in the back of the ruck, and a player from Team 'A' drives an opponent to the ground, this is considered to have a material effect, and Team 'A''s player will be penalised for going off their feet.


The problem with Spreaders is that you couldn't shut him up!! The players got a running commentary for 80 minutes. I'll never understand why he didn't go into the media after he retired. He would have made an ideal "colour" commentator, as his understanding of Rugby's nuances was the best of any referee I have ever seen.

Fantastic post ... simple as.

I still believe that if referee's are unsure at top level then its Paddy O'Brien and the IRB's job to ensure that the laws are clear. Can understand that the rules at the top can be misleading also.

 

[Bargoedboy]

whole point of this is, the top of refs needs changing.
Why should a player who a lot of people call a cheat talk to ref and in his words not mine, right ref i will do whatever i can get away with, till you tell me hands out or stop (depending on offense) then get back on side etc ?
this is crazy as what he is saying is i will go onto field to cheat untill told to stop , so its up to ref.
Proffessional players know the laws as well as ref, as they are drummed into them by coaches and how to get around them.
If a ref starts game very hard with no nonsense and gives a yellow early on if needed, game will flow better, but too many refs have different view on what is persistent infringing, so only use the yellow as last resort , sometimes towards end of match when game is won or lost allready.

 

[smartcooky]

whole point of this is, the top of refs needs changing.

Who would you replace them with; other, less experienced referees?

Why should a player who a lot of people call a cheat talk to ref and in his words not mine, right ref i will do whatever i can get away with, till you tell me hands out or stop (depending on offense) then get back on side etc ?

Which player said that, and would you quote a reference please?

 

[Bargoedboy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/23/2013010.htm?section=world
as for more experianced refs, how about tony spreadbury, or wayne barnes who does not seem to show bias.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/23/2013010.htm?section=world
as for more experianced refs, how about tony spreadbury, or wayne barnes who does not seem to show bias.

Don't be silly... Spreadbury is pushing 50 and has retired.

As for McCaw quote above no where does he say anything to me wrong. He has every right to ask what the ref calls and that is smart play.

 

[Bargoedboy]

so tony spreadbury is pushing 50 and that means he can`t make a decision on the modern game, he is more in touch than o`brien who stopped reffing years ago and is probably older !
If you read the article it states that he will do what he can get away with untill ref stops him, same with all players to a certain extent , (not making an example of St Richie:lol to me that is not richies fault but the fault of administraters who allow this to happen.
again my point is the divide between NH and SH interpretations is getting wider, and a new person at the top would do well to clear all this mess up and take the game forward.
I mean does paddy get a job for life no matter how bad he is ? if you think Tony spreadbury is so bad who would you name ?

 

[Bargoedboy]

Don't be silly... Spreadbury is pushing 50 and has retired..

actually paddy obrien was born july 59 and spreaders mar 62 mmmmmm !

 

[smartcooky]

I see, you're talking about replacing the Referee manager. I read your original post as wanting to replace the top referees.

again my point is the divide between NH and SH interpretations is getting wider, and a new person at the top would do well to clear all this mess up and take the game forward.

Utter rubbish. Paddy O'Brien does not make the decisions about Law interpretations. You are trying to shoot the messenger.

O'Brien works as part of a team, and it is the Designated Members of the iRB Laws Committee who make these decisions, and O'Brien is just the public face of that committee. Try understanding how the system works before you make inane and ill-informed criticisms of the individuals within.

It wouldn't matter who the Referee manager is, whether its Paddy OBrien, Spreaders, Ed Morrison, Chris White or some other person.... the message will be the same!!!

Also, OBrien is not biased. If you recall, Paddy went into bat for Wayne Barnes when he copped a volley of criticism for is abysmal performance in the 2007 France v New Zealand quarter-final. Paddy copped a LOT of flak in New Zealand for his stance, but stood up for his ENGLISH referee!!