• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

IRB and Unions sanction global Law trials

Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
509
http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediaz...22.html#irb+unions+sanction+global+law+trials

In short:

The five Law amendments to be trialled globally are:

1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use itâ€. Sanction – Scrum.

2. 19.2 (b) (Quick Throw-In) 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.

3. 19.4 (who throws in) 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 the ball crossed the touch line; or a scrum at the place of the knock-on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.

4. 21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements: 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.


5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded.

In addition to the global trials, the IRB Council approved three specific additional trials:

1. A trial to extend the jurisdiction of the TMO to incidents within the field of play that have led to the scoring of a try and foul play in the field of play to take place at an appropriate elite competition in order that a protocol can be developed for the November 2012 Tests.

2. A trial has been sanctioned for the November 2012 Test window permitting international teams to nominate up to eight replacements in the match day squad for Test matches. In line with current practice at domestic elite Rugby level, the additional player must be a qualified front row player.

3. An amendment to Law 3.4 (Sevens Variation) to enable Sevens teams to nominate up to five replacements/substitutes. Under the revision, which will operate from June 1 2012, a team may substitute or replace up to five players during a match. Approval has been granted on player welfare grounds to recognise the additional demands on players and squads owing to the expansion of the HSBC Sevens World Series where there are three blocks of three events on consecutive weekends.

Council also approved the referral by the Laws Representative Group of one potential Law amendment that was successfully trialled at Cambridge and Stellenbosch for further consideration by the specialist Scrum Steering Group (overseeing scrum force project) to be considered alongside the ongoing review of the scrum.

The amendment that will be considered by the Group relates to the engagement sequence and will see the referee call “crouch†then “touchâ€. The front rows crouch then touch and using outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call “set†when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.
 
Lee Dickson won't like that five second law!
I suppose it was only a matter of time before we saw 23 man squads.
 
about time they added 8 man benches with two front rowers, now teams won't have to bother always selecting a player who can double up on both sides, for Wales it will be 17 James/Bevington, 18 Mitchell from November

bad news for players like Matt Stevens, who is only on the England bench because he plays both sides, probably not the second best at either though on current form
 
about time they added 8 man benches with two front rowers, now teams won't have to bother always selecting a player who can double up on both sides, for Wales it will be 17 James/Bevington, 18 Mitchell from November

bad news for players like Matt Stevens, who is only on the England bench because he plays both sides, probably not the second best at either though on current form
Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. Good news for Bevington, and it allows us to give some other tightheads a shot.
Dragons need to hurry up and get Mitchell.
 
My take on all of them:
1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use it”. Sanction – Scrum.
Good idea. The last five minutes of plenty of high stakes games can be tedious due to teams just winding down the clock.

2. 19.2 (b) (Quick Throw-In) 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.
What's the current law and how does this differ to it? (Edit- Just read Smartcooky's explaination on another thread. It's a good idea)

I'd like to see some red tape cut through and allow a quick throw in be taken regardless of if it's the same ball or if somebody other than the defending team touch it first.

3. 19.4 (who throws in) 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 the ball crossed the touch line; or a scrum at the place of the knock-on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.
Fine. With the scrum an absolute shambles, lineout ball may offer a better attacking platform.

4. 21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements: 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.
Again, makes sense.

5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded.
Good idea since it allows more time for the ball to be in play.

1. A trial to extend the jurisdiction of the TMO to incidents within the field of play that have led to the scoring of a try and foul play in the field of play to take place at an appropriate elite competition in order that a protocol can be developed for the November 2012 Tests.
Will have to see how this works in practice. Who decides how far back in a referee can seek TMO assistance. Is it one phase, two phases etc?

2. A trial has been sanctioned for the November 2012 Test window permitting international teams to nominate up to eight replacements in the match day squad for Test matches. In line with current practice at domestic elite Rugby level, the additional player must be a qualified front row player.
It was only a matter of time. Good idea. It's worked really well in European competitions.

3. An amendment to Law 3.4 (Sevens Variation) to enable Sevens teams to nominate up to five replacements/substitutes. Under the revision, which will operate from June 1 2012, a team may substitute or replace up to five players during a match. Approval has been granted on player welfare grounds to recognise the additional demands on players and squads owing to the expansion of the HSBC Sevens World Series where there are three blocks of three events on consecutive weekends.
I don't watch much Sevens but it's interesting that the IRB state this is in the interest of player welfare. I think it's only a matter of time before we see Sevens style rolling substitutions in the fifteen man game "on player welfare grounds".

The amendment that will be considered by the Group relates to the engagement sequence and will see the referee call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch then touch and using outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call “set” when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.
How is it different to the "Crouch an hold....engage" sequence of a few years ago? Referee the scrum properly (ie no pushing before the ball is put in) and a lot of problems are solved instantly.
 
Last edited:
snoopy obviously you have not played in the front row, I feel that the new call will be better all up to the referees to be educated on what goes on at scrum time is the real case.
 
I'm actually not too fused on the first law, I normally enjoy grinding it out at the end of a tight match it makes me feel comfortable and safe considering I don't have a bunch of flankers trying to eat me (due to the ability to create a nice stable ruck) lol But I can see the positive, it will do wonders for watching the sport.
 
I like the ruck amendment, I think everyone bar scrum halves thinks that. Amended ref call at the scrum might help that aspect but as Snoopy says, the pre-push and the feeding needs looking at too. All of them are good things for the game. Are the IRB aware they've done something half decent?
 
This is the most idiotic thing I ever seen since the Lourens Prinsloo Adriaan Richter incident. Everytime a NH nation moans the IRB jumps and then ammend some laws. They go mess with new laws when the players struggle to cope with the previous changes.

Who actually came up with this idiotic rule?

1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use itâ€. Sanction – Scrum.

Clearly they have not play a game of professional rugby in their life.
 
snoopy obviously you have not played in the front row, I feel that the new call will be better all up to the referees to be educated on what goes on at scrum time is the real case.
You're right, I don't play in the front row at present. The new law may be slightly better than what currently exists but it's no different really to the "crouch and hold....engage" sequence of the recent past. The scrum was a problem then too. I don't want slight improvement, I want the blight eradicated. Go to 3:30 of this clip:

A scrum is awarded. There's no pushing before the ball is put in. 25 seconds later, the ball is out. In the modern game, that would take 2 minutes+, there'd be at least one reset and a 50:50 chance of a penalty being awarded. The scrum is sucking the life out of the game. Time to fix it properly and not put a band aid on it every year or two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will have to see how this works in practice. Who decides how far back in a referee can seek TMO assistance. Is it one phase, two phases etc?
Television Match Official Protocol

Area of Adjudication

The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6.8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:

Try
No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
Touch down by a defender
In touch – line-out
Touch-in-goal
Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed.

The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).

You're right, I don't play in the front row at present. The new law may be slightly better than what currently exists but it's no different really to the "crouch and hold....engage" sequence of the recent past. The scrum was a problem then too. I don't want slight improvement, I want the blight eradicated. Go to 3:30 of this clip:

A scrum is awarded. There's no pushing before the ball is put in. 25 seconds later, the ball is out. In the modern game, that would take 2 minutes+, there'd be at least one reset and a 50:50 chance of a penalty being awarded. The scrum is sucking the life out of the game. Time to fix it properly and not put a band aid on it every year or two.

Yes look where half of the Australian scrum is standing. Next to it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
....it will do wonders for watching the sport.
You've hit on a major point here. Sport is entertainment. When the entertainment dries up, TV and sponsors won't come calling. The IRB must strive to speed the game up in pursuit of extra finance and giving the sport a broader appeal among the non rugby playing public.

TV is a much bigger influence on the sport than we might like to think. Already we've seen Sky successfully appeal for a longer half time (more ad breaks = more money for them) and in Australia there's a proposal to have stoppages in Rugby League games so a couple more 30 second ads can be shown. Those advertising slots will only be appealing if there's a good "product" for us to watch.
 
Everytime a NH nation moans the IRB jumps and then ammend some laws. They go mess with new laws when the players struggle to cope with the previous changes.

wasn't it SANZAR who dreamt up those ELV's that changed the game into kick tennis for a year?
 
wasn't it SANZAR who dreamt up those ELV's that changed the game into kick tennis for a year?
No everyone moaned about that law because the England scumhalf was polishing his nails for 5 minutes.
Before that was Wales losing to France when time was up and France kicked off directly into touch. Baawaaa! IRB change that laws.

Tell me something do you know why that 5 second law is stupid and a complete fail?
 
wasn't it SANZAR who dreamt up those ELV's that changed the game into kick tennis for a year?
Yes and no. The ELVs were intended to be trialled as a full package but that never happened. The 6 Nations basically picked and chose which laws they were willing to trial which lead to the farce that was kick tennis. Had all the ELVs been implemented, who knows what might have happened. We may have had a better sport to watch (or alternatively, it could have been far worse!).
 
Why don't the IRB do something more usefull. Like stop making laws that protects the cheaters. Rugby is all about incentive. But currently the incentive is much greater for the cheaters.
 
Why don't the IRB do something more usefull. Like stop making laws that protects the cheaters. Rugby is all about incentive. But currently the incentive is much greater for the cheaters.
Like what? In my opinion yellow cards should be brandished more frequently sort of like ice hockey's disciplinary process. Why do referees need to say "next time, you're going in the bin" to players who know exactly what they're doing? You're cheating, get off the field for 10 minutes is my view.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top