Scoring against the base of the post - gone.

[Amiga500]

https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-post-tries-law-5097296-May2020/

WORLD RUGBY HAS tweaked the laws of the game to ensure that it's no longer possible to score a try by grounding the ball against the post protectors.

Now - one guy on there was a bit sharper than the rest and posted:

So Saracens will now put 4 meter wide protectors on each post !!!

Which does raise a point - are the IRB gonna mandate a size for the post protectors? As otherwise teams could add a large immovable defender onto the try line. Completely against the spirit of the game but not against the letter of the law.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1&language=EN

When padding is attached to the goal posts the distance from the goal line to the external edge of the padding must not exceed 0.3 metres.

They need to tweak that to "when padding is attached to the goal posts, the horizontal distance from one size of the padding to the other can be no more than 0.6 metres."

The current law only talks about the projection of the pad up/down the field, not across the field.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Happy enough with that - it always a bit jammy/"gamesmanship" and some sides took the **** with it at times
Hopefully they enforce the office at the goal line a bit more stringently now that there's an extra two defenders on it

 

[Amiga500]

You'd think it'd be possible for all professional games to use these boyos:

 

[duncanb]

Happy with law change, but posts could have been moved for me.
At club level easy to move sockets back a mtr.At higher level then can move or get as pictured.

 

[munstermuffin]

You'd think it'd be possible for all professional games to use these boyos:

These were looked at a few years ago. I was at it for Munster and issue was the back post is extremely more dangerous. And each ground has different deadball areas so this would pose an issue too.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Just in time for all the rugby that's not being played!

Joking aside, it's about time, it was a ludicrous rule

 

[ncurd]

How often were they scored?

 

[stus768]

These were looked at a few years ago. I was at it for Munster and issue was the back post is extremely more dangerous. And each ground has different deadball areas so this would pose an issue too.

Might be a stupid question but why's the back post more dangerous? I assume you still have a protector on it?

 

[Every Time Ref]

Might be a stupid question but why's the back post more dangerous? I assume you still have a protector on it?

Grubber into the in-goal and 3 or 4 players at full pace diving to try and ground the ball first is a fairly common scenario. On a wet day, someone could easily break their neck even with padding

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Grubber into the in-goal and 3 or 4 players at full pace diving to try and ground the ball first is a fairly common scenario. On a wet day, someone could easily break their neck even with padding

Same with grubber to post now though, that's fairly common?

could just make it bend further so the post can be behind the deadball. Though that still could be dangerous.

Or just have holograms. Solved

 

[munstermuffin]

Grubber into the in-goal and 3 or 4 players at full pace diving to try and ground the ball first is a fairly common scenario. On a wet day, someone could easily break their neck even with padding

Exactly this as well as construction of it. At the time it was said bolted base was required

 

[Amiga500]

Exactly this as well as construction of it. At the time it was said bolted base was required

Ach, ye drop the level of the bolted flange several inches below ground level - have it surrounded with soil and the usual foam padding on top.

Accept the risk on sliding in and hitting it... but is it that much different from:

 

[munstermuffin]

Ach, ye drop the level of the bolted flange several inches below ground level - have it surrounded with soil and the usual foam padding on top.

Accept the risk on sliding in and hitting it... but is it that much different from:

Lol I was only at the conference wasn't my views or opinion.

I'm sure technology and research has advanced since then also.
Off top of my head though each ground would need it 100% accurate. Like every deadball area is different and say goals in Thomond Park could never be used in say RDS.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Same with grubber to post now though, that's fairly common?

My thoughts, almost exactly. You even reduce the odds of that happening by 1/2 by having only 1 post to the ground.

I can see only 2 arguments against it (though both are related). First, you can argue that you want a pretty similar infrastructure between pro and amateur settings, but that is already a problem with TMO and cams. The second one is money, but i am clueless about how much money are we talking about. Might be cents for big teams, small fortunes in the given the income statements of small clubs.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

does it have something to do with force absorbed? I'm not a physicist, but my thinking back to high school wouldn't having two poles in the ground spread the force through the structure so each pole doesn't have to be as sturdy, where as a one pole structure has to be stronger.

There are some college football teams that have a two post curved structure though.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

does it have something to do with force absorbed? I'm not a physicist, but my thinking back to high school wouldn't having two poles in the ground spread the force through the structure so each pole doesn't have to be as sturdy, where as a one pole structure has to be stronger.

There are some college football teams that have a two post curved structure though.

Yeah and it has to support a weight that is not directly above it, meaning it needs to support a force with leverage. That means it has to be made of material that is less flexible. That's my thinking anyway.

definitely holograms.

 

[TheOvalBall]

I'm also happy with this change. It did not make sense.

 

[profitius]

Good news for the defending team. They can now use the posts to defend and put more bodies out wide. Great for the sport to see more boshing near the line with players offside, off their feet, putting their hands in the ruck illegally etc. The condensed tryline area just got smaller.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Good news for the defending team. They can now use the posts to defend and put more bodies out wide. Great for the sport to see more boshing near the line with players offside, off their feet, putting their hands in the ruck illegally etc. The condensed tryline area just got smaller.

True. But I have sympathy for the defending team here too, given the laws and how they're policed. The attacking team is generally allowed more privilege than they deserve, but the stakes are higher at the line. The attacking team is not actually allowed to fall to the ground at the ruck, the tackled player is technically supposed to roll away, the attacking team is not supposed to have more privilege for picking up the ball in a ruck, is not technically allowed to go to ground with the ball close to the ruck,!isnt technically allowed to make double movements.

A very common occurrence close to the try line is this:
Players gets tackled, attempts to shift his body around so he can place the ball over the line, defending team tries to stop him by lying in the way. Defending team gets penalised or, if not, attacking team puts more bodies on the ground, and of course the tackled player doesn't roll away because that has literally never happened. Now there are bodies over the goal line and the defending team has to be behind those bodies. Technically the attacking team has to pick the ball up behind those bodies and behind anyone bound to the 'ruck' (=pile of bodies), instead attacking player in middle of ruck picks the ball up and illegally flops to ground, placing the ball in The middle of the pile of bodies to score a try. Or, if not, his team mates drive him over the line after he has already gone to ground, and then he scores the try.