Laws Question? Ask here!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122277340#Comment_122277340

I get it - but my proposal would be this would then be the only mechanism by which things could be reviewed, so you'd do away with all of the other stoppages and reviews, and essentially unless something was challenged play moves on. In this case - you'd only have max 4 or so stoppages per game (unless the referee is consistently missing things), as opposed to the current game where we probably have closer to 10.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122277710#Comment_122277710

But this is already how it works

TheRona

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122279240#Comment_122279240

In the RWC final, Barnes said 'No Knock On' twice before the NZ try which was disallowed. Now I don't know at what point the TMO got involved, but if a call is made by the ref, play should go on and the TMO shouldn't be overruling an on-field decision.

In any case, it's definitely a backwards step because the last stoppage in play could be a very long time in some cases. Are they going to scrutinise everything back to the last stoppage?

theVersatile

ROG on the 20 minute red card.

https://x.com/CianTracey1/status/1804411522489139421?t=-9EeZBieEme3D9nliyt_hA&s=19

TheRona

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122291031#Comment_122291031

It's almost a contradiction saying that he's old school, and that the red card should have a big bearing on a match. In old school rugby, a red card was reserved for only the most egregious of offences. These days it can also come from misreading a play, or poor technique.

Lost Ormond

https://super.rugby/therugbychampionship/news/the-rugby-championship-2024-law-variations/

Lost Ormond

Thoughta on law tweaks coming in to peo game from this weekend?

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123026831#Comment_123026831

Hmm, not convinced any of these ELVs are needed.

Mate of mine has a theory that ;

More scrum collapses are due to taller (longer legged) props

Taller props came about because lifting in the lineout became legal.

The law of unintended consequences

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123026831#Comment_123026831

What's the scrum half protection one about?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027210#Comment_123027210

I agree with the ruck and maul protection tweaks. Players slapping the 9s arm as they play the ball from the base of the ruck is negative spoiling behaviour and shouldn't be rewarded.

In a maul, players deliberately position themselves, while bound, towards the side of a maul and pull the maul so that they end up on the ball side, ready to break away when the 9 plays the ball. It's something that annoys me no end. In my opinion no defensive player should be allowed on the attacking side of the ball. If they find themselves there they should be made discount and retreat to the back foot. At least this will remove the attraction to end up on the wrong side and still be effective on the 9.

The scrum protection I don't agree with. I think the recent change to the 9 not being allowed beyond the flanker is enough. Hopefully this will be used by teams as a more attractive reason to play the ball quicker from the scrum, but I doubt it to be honest.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027441#Comment_123027441

Agree on 1 and 3. On the maul, I'm not so sure - in theory a maul is still a live competition for the ball and I don't see how you can stop someone coming through to challenge for it. Someone has to be allowed to, legally, swim through the maul to the ball carrier and take him down.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027469#Comment_123027469

But tackling the ball carrier is not in question here. What's in question is clean ball for the 9 to play, and the defender who is standing beside the ball carrier (not legally being allowed to tackle the ball carrier because they didn't come through the middle) being allowed to disconnect and tackle the 9 immediately on transfer. Ive never liked this.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027485#Comment_123027485

Ok sure, I agree with that but "no defensive player on the attacking side of the ball" doesn't really follow there surely?

You don't have to come through the middle you just have to not change your bind.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027532#Comment_123027532

Sorry, I should have been clearer. My point about "no defensive player beyond the ball in a maul" is something Id like to see brought in, not something under discussion in these tweaks. It's my own personal bug bear, along with many other things in pro rugby (including rucking prone players) but these for another day's discussion 😜

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027545#Comment_123027545

OK, I get that but no defensive player beyond the ball and no defensive player "on the attacking side" are fundamentally different things! The ball is generally at the back of a maul after all. Though I read "attacking side" as being in any way in front of an attacking player in the maul.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123027556#Comment_123027556

Really don't want to go off topic from the tweaks being discussed, as as I've said it's just my own musings, but, in my opinion, when a defensive player ends up standing beside the back end ball carrier (sometimes actually between the ball carrier and the 9), and not being allowed to tackle the ball carrier because they didn't come through the middle..... They should be made detach and retreat. Currently they don't have to.

At least this tweak will stop them from being allowed to disconnect and tackle the 9

sydthebeat

Actually just thinking about this a bit more, I think at the beginning we're going to see 9s buying penalties by goading these players into playing them by being slow to release away from the maul, or actively moving towards these players trying to goad them into tackling them.

ionadnapóca

Totally agree with Beirne.

Rugby was not designed to be played like this.

—————————————————————————

"I showed a few videos to referees this week and it was a bit like, 'hmm I'm not sure on that one'.

"It's making life more difficult for them in terms of that law, in terms of you can't touch the 9 within a metre of the ruck.

"When's the ruck over, when's the ball out, when can you come through the ruck?

"It's worse for me because it's something I like to do so obviously I'm not going to like it.

"The 9s are probably delighted with it.

"Look, not straight in the lineout, people will like that, it brings more flow into the game but I just [feel] they just don't want scrums in the game."

…………………………….

It doesn't make it easy. It makes it harder for fans to understand as well, learning all these laws which are continually chopping and changing.

"They're trying to make the game quicker. I see it as they're trying to protect the 9s and they're trying to get rid of scrums as much as they can as well so that's the way I would look at it."

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2025/0113/1490530-beirne-they-may-as-well-wrap-the-9s-up-in-cotton-wool/

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123053846#Comment_123053846

Article might have been better if Murray had been asked for his opinion too.

Would agree that 9's don't require further protection.

There are now, mainly thanks to Refs playing 'advantage', fewer scrums per game, but more time taken up by scrums.

Either let the forwards at it, or ping & card them, but please please no more resets.

ionadnapóca

Murray loves the new law!

ionadnapóca

This stat will be seen as direct consequence of the new law TRIAL - Not straight at uncontested lineout = play on:

– Ireland’s 23 lineouts without losing any was the most by any team to maintain a 100% success rate in a Men’s Six Nations match

https://www.irishrugby.ie/2025/02/05/opta-facts-mens-six-nations-scotland-v-ireland/

https://passport.world.rugby/laws-of-the-game/laws-news/global-law-trials-1-january-2025/

Lineout not straight

Rationale: remove unnecessary additional stoppage

 18.23a Amend sanction if ball not thrown straight with no competition

 18.23 The ball must: a. be thrown in straight along the mark of touch towards a lineout player; 

Sanction: If the non-throwing team does not lift a teammate to compete for the ball, then play shall continue. If the non-throwing team lift a teammate to compete for the ball, then they shall be offered the option of a lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw in the ball.

https://passport.world.rugby/laws-of-the-game/laws-news/global-law-trials-1-january-2025/

_________

In summary; WR DO NOT WANT SCRUMS and are doing everything they can to reduce them and also reduce the amount of LOs.

They dont need to change the Laws…Just apply Laws!

Law 18) 10. Each team forms a single line parallel to and half a metre from the mark of
touch on their side of the lineout between the five-metre and 15-metre lines .
The gap between the lines must be maintained until the ball is thrown in .
Sanction: Free-kick .

Ben O'Keefe is playing FK Advantage to Ireland from this LO - Law 18) 10. Closing 'The Gap'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gadsz3tFCDw

If the Touch Judge and Ref insist on the 1m gap (see aobve!) There will be less pressure on the Hooker, on the lifter, on the jumper and therefore less stoppages.

STOP CHANGING THE LAWS!

Just apply the existing Laws!

Ben O'Keefe, Holly Davidson and James Doleman on the whole had very good games.

______________________________

Dont get me started on the 1m protection barrier they have put around Antoine Dupont & co.

______________________________

And the 20min Red Card! GTFOH!!

_______________________________

What am i missing here? Does anyone see benefits to changing these laws?

ionadnapóca

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/2025/02/04/there-was-a-slickness-and-tempo-to-irelands-lineout-that-looks-good-for-the-future/

_______________

Yes technically Ireland didn’t “win” two lineouts. - PEN for shove. FK for closing the gap

England contested just 4 of Ireland’s 23 lineout throws.

_______________

Baird won 7 of Ireland’s tally, his replacement Conan, 5, James Ryan and Tadhg Beirne 3 each, Andrew Porter (low throw to front), Hugo Keenan (from Mack Hansen’s quick throw) and Bundee Aki from a lob over the top. All bar 1 of the 21 that Ireland got hands to, so to speak, was on point.

_______________

England threw into the lineout 15 times and while the official statistics list the fact that they only lost 1, when Luke Cowan-Dickie overthrew it to Itoje – the loose ball was secured by Kelleher – they lost possession from a second. Itoje, under pressure from Ryan, got the touch, but Ireland tight head Finlay Bealham was through in a flash to grab the tap back.

Ireland contested 8 of England’s first 12 lineouts, giving up possession without a challenge in the last 3throws

______

So in Total there was 38 LO and technically 37 were won.

97.4% success rate!

pickarooney

Not really a laws question but interesting nonetheless.

Lost Ormond

World rugby release theyve no plans to change law around replacements to stop 7-1 benches. Saying no medical evidence it causes more injuries

Ben Bailey

from Owen Doyle - 'The Whistleblower' - in the Irish Times

"Joel Jutge, as you know, heads up the elite match official function in World Rugby. I have known him for a long time; his game understanding is top notch, always delivered with charm and determination. When he speaks, he is well worth listening to, particularly right now on the matter of red cards. We had a long conversation on this vexing issue during the week.

Here’s what Jutge had to say as the overarching point: “We have to recognise two things which are really very important. Firstly, that there is some foul play which must get a full red card, without a replacement. And then there are those where the player is attempting to wrap an opponent with a high speed, and therefore with a lack of control – either in a tackle or cleaning out at the breakdown. For these, if there is head contact, a 20-minute red is enough.”

Jutge, and his specialist group, has categorised foul play into several headings, which will guide referees in their decision making. Here are three vital categories concerning tackling and cleaning out at the breakdown:

Attempt to wrap, with high danger: 20-minute card;

Always illegal, with high danger: Full red;

Always illegal, with low danger: 20-minute red.

The last two are defined as no attempt to wrap, clear line of sight, and leading with head or shoulder.

This is likely to become a global trial when World Rugby assemble in May. For me, there is certainly some subjectivity involved which must be ironed out, such as how to define consistently the levels of danger and also what constitutes a genuine attempt to wrap.

It is confusing that the 20-minute card is not operating in the URC or European competitions. But there is a large number of officials who need to be brought up to speed. It can’t happen overnight."

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123337427#Comment_123337427

It's interesting and on the surface I don't completely disagree. But refs see to use the "degree of danger" subjectivity to back out of a lot of clear reds.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123338928#Comment_123338928

It seems like a practical response that leaves the Referee as the principal decision maker, but allows the FPRO space to contribute in making the correct call.

But .....

Convincing the Ref group to take back the responsibility for a straight RC when they so obviously opted to pass on the hard call to the unseen FPROs will not happen.

StormForce13

What, if any, Law permits a referee to instruct a scrum half to play the ball from a scrum which is still viable i.e. hasn't collapsed, stopped moving, or turned past 90 degrees?

It occurs too frequently for my liking, sometimes (I suspect) because the ref doesn't want to award a penalty or yellow card a prop.

Thanks.

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365118#Comment_123365118

Ref Trying to manage the game. What level are you talking about. Pro or the community gsme and again adult or age grade?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123365118#Comment_123365118

"stopped moving" is the key phrase here.

A referee will instruct the ball to be used from the back of a stationary scrum (or what they consider to be a stationary scrum). The laws state this could be between 3 - 5 seconds. Now, the scurm might start moving again, but if the ref has already called use it then the ball must be played away from the scrum. Youre opinion on the scrum being stationary may be different than the referees.

as to your last point, it kind of contradicts your first question. A ref cannot penalise or card a player if the scrum hasnt collapsed. If its stopped moving, and the ball is avaiable, he calls "use it". if its wheeled through 90 its a reset.

there has been a marked encouragment to referees to get players to use available balls to speed up the game and allow it to flow better and have more ball in play time. If the ball is available, play it.

This is furthered recently by the law change which removes the option of a scrum from a free kick.