Law changes for next season.

Redsock

From what I understand there are a number of law changes being considered that will radically alter how the game is played next year.

Most alarmingly it would seem that the Ozzies, still smarting from being choaked to death by our pack, have convinced the IRB to change the law governing the maul. The law is going to change to ensure that the attacking team taking the ball into a maul situation will get the put in to the scrum.


Other possible changes will be tier 1 competition teams given a review of ref's decisions prior to the act of a try being scored/not scored. This would ensure Peter Allan type mistakes do not decide test matches.

Other changes are in the pipeline as well. Laughably we our reverting back to a 3 call scrum engagement. What the calls might be is anyones guess.

leftleg

Redsock wrote: »

Other changes are in the pipeline as well. Laughably we our reverting back to a 3 call scrum engagement. What the calls might be is anyones guess.

wild guess touch pause engage maybe

CIARAN_BOYLE

leftleg wrote: »

wild guess touch pause engage maybe

no crouch?

Redsock

leftleg wrote: »

wild guess touch pause engage maybe

It's the IRB LL. That means that any attempt to simplify will have the opposite effect.

leftleg

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

no crouch?

well they have to crouch anyways so whats the pouint in telling them to do it if they are already doing it;

but yeah maybe crouch touch engage

irishbucsfan

Why on earth should an attacking team retain possession in a failed maul?

Let's go ahead and give them possession after knockons as well.

PhatPiggins

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

no crouch?

Nope thats gone. Both front rows face each other standing upright and just run at each other. All Irish teams are adopting the Seige of Ennis as part of their scrum drills.

One rule change I'd advocate, no more Scottish officials !! Controversial maybe but their records speak for themselves.

GerM

I believe it's been driven by the ARU. They intend to depower the scrum to ensure it is a method of restarting the game instead of a contest. Line outs will be nullified also in an effort to keep the ball in hand. In keeping with this, they have proposed that the number of players on each team be reduced to 14 and, after another year, to 13 to create more space for tries to be scored. Lastly, due to the ever changing numbers within the tournament the ARU have suggested they cease to call their competition the Super 12/14/15 and merely call it the Super League.

Then the master plan shall be complete.

Redsock

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why on earth should an attacking team retain possession in a failed maul?

Let's go ahead and give them possession after knockons as well.

It is clearly be driven by the Australians. I have been told that other changes, apart from the ones that I have already mentioned, are being considered which my source claims will super 15ise our game.

Podge_irl

Redsock wrote: »

It is clearly be driven by the Australians. I have been told that other changes, apart from the ones that I have already mentioned, are being considered which my source claims will super 15ise our game.

Told by who?

JustinDee

Don't know where you're hearing all this from but the reaction is slightly over the top.
For a law change to be implemented, it would require a MINIMUM of one season on trial at more than one level of the game.
Change hardly around the corner.

daveharnett

Redsock wrote: »

Other possible changes will be tier 1 competition teams given a review of ref's decisions prior to the act of a try being scored/not scored. This would ensure Peter Allan type mistakes do not decide test matches.

I'm having a hard time untangling this paragraph. Are we saying that the TMO's remit will extend beyond the goal area?

PhatPiggins

Redsock wrote: »

From what I understand there are a number of law changes being considered that will radically alter how the game is played next year.

Most alarmingly it would seem that the Ozzies, still smarting from being choaked to death by our pack, have convinced the IRB to change the law governing the maul. The law is going to change to ensure that the attacking team taking the ball into a maul situation will get the put in to the scrum.


Other possible changes will be tier 1 competition teams given a review of ref's decisions prior to the act of a try being scored/not scored. This would ensure Peter Allan type mistakes do not decide test matches.

Other changes are in the pipeline as well. Laughably we our reverting back to a 3 call scrum engagement. What the calls might be is anyones guess.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Its about time John O Neil realsed what we all know, Australia aren't that important.

I really am sh1t sick of listening to his agenda, its like watching a dog barking at its reflection in the mirror.

JustinDee

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Its about time John O Neil realsed what we all know, Australia aren't that important.
I really am sh1t sick of listening to his agenda, its like watching a dog barking at its reflection in the mirror.

Thing is though, what is this thread based upon? I've asked around having read the thread, and there is nothing like the original post claims going on.

Only area that would be looked at, if even at all, is certain areas of the breakdown and how fast ball gets out.

Redsock

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm having a hard time untangling this paragraph. Are we saying that the TMO's remit will extend beyond the goal area?

As I understand it it will be a similar system to that which is used in cricket. The team captains will be able to ask the ref to check something in the play that leads up to the 'scoring' of the try.

Redsock

Christ on a bike guys. I thought that this was a rugby discussion forum, hence my decision to post some thoughts relating to possible law changes that I have been told are being considered for next year. If I had of known that people would've responded as they have had I wouldn't have bothered.

Podge_irl

Redsock wrote: »

Christ on a bike guys. I thought that this was a rugby discussion forum, hence my decision to post some thoughts relating to possible law changes that I have been told are being considered for next year. If I had of known that people would've responded as they have had I wouldn't have bothered.

It's of some relevance as to where you're getting this from though. I have a hard time believing several of them are any way true.

Redsock

Podge_irl wrote: »

It's of some relevance as to where you're getting this from though. I have a hard time believing several of them are any way true.

The person who told me got if from an international referee. I wouldn't have posted it if I didnt believe what he told me was possible. That is all I have said, these changes may be being introduced. Perhaps my original thread title should've had a ????

Podge_irl

Redsock wrote: »

The person who told me got if from an international referee. I wouldn't have posted it if I didnt believe what he told me was possible. That is all I have said, these changes may be being introduced. Perhaps my original thread title should've had a ????

Fair enough.

The IRB consists of a lot more then the Aussies though. And they're not about to introduce such a raft of changes on a whim.

PhatPiggins

JustinDee wrote: »

Thing is though, what is this thread based upon? I've asked around having read the thread, and there is nothing like the original post claims going on.

Only area that would be looked at, if even at all, is certain areas of the breakdown and how fast ball gets out.

Perhaps Redsock is simply better connected then you

Hagz

I'm in favor of the idea that if the attacking team is clearly going forward before it goes to ground, that they should get the put in. Probably on my own in that respect but I just hate seeing a player make about 5 or 6 metros carrying the ball with two guys on his back and then the opposition get the put in when the ball won't come back.

MungBean

Hagz wrote: »

I'm in favor of the idea that if the attacking team is clearly going forward before it goes to ground, that they should get the put in. Probably on my own in that respect but I just hate seeing a player make about 5 or 6 metros carrying the ball with two guys on his back and then the opposition get the put in when the ball won't come back.

Thats already the case when the ball is unplayable isnt it ?

Podge_irl

MungBean wrote: »

Thats already the case when the ball is unplayable isnt it ?

Only in a ruck situation. If the ball is held up in a maul it goes to the team who didn't bring it into the maul. The idea being you aren't rewarded for an unsuccessful maul.

irishbucsfan

MungBean wrote: »

Hagz wrote: »

I'm in favor of the idea that if the attacking team is clearly going forward before it goes to ground, that they should get the put in. Probably on my own in that respect but I just hate seeing a player make about 5 or 6 metros carrying the ball with two guys on his back and then the opposition get the put in when the ball won't come back.

Thats already the case when the ball is unplayable isnt it ?

Yep, its only if a maul is formed prior to going to ground that ball is given to the opposition. Which absolutely makes sense.

JustinDee

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Perhaps Redsock is simply better connected then you

Relax. I asked on this and was told that the breakdown is actually what is being talked about.
Pre-emptive outrage about the ARU (who have just two IRB votes) is just a little quick, in my view.
And I simply pointed out how long it takes a law change to become implemented.
No biggie.

Podge_irl

JustinDee wrote: »

Relax. I asked on this and was told that the breakdown is actually what is being talked about.
Pre-emptive outrage about the ARU (who have just two IRB votes) is just a little quick, in my view.
And I simply pointed out how long it takes a law change to become implemented.
No biggie.

I think he may have been joking

I am pie

This might be a naive question, but why are the Aussies perceived to have so much influence over the IRB ? Surely there are greater opportunities to develop the game in Europe and Asia. Australasia is fairly limited continent in terms of potential participants and spectators.

Union is 3rd or 4th choice over there, with a population of just over half of the UK.

Why are the Aussies perceived to have this influence?

daveharnett

Hagz wrote: »

I'm in favor of the idea that if the attacking team is clearly going forward before it goes to ground, that they should get the put in. Probably on my own in that respect but I just hate seeing a player make about 5 or 6 metros carrying the ball with two guys on his back and then the opposition get the put in when the ball won't come back.

I disagree. First of all, remember that it takes three players to form a maul - a defender, the ball carrier, and one of his teammates. Until the team in possession decide to form a maul, any unplayable ball belongs to them.

I think that it's fundamental to the game that on occasion, the ball carrier has to live or die on his own. I love that moment when the dynamic shifts from "must carry" to "must get to ground".

Finally, allowing teams to maul the ball all day risk-free doesn't make any kind of sense at all in an era where the IRB is trying to make the game faster.

daveharnett

I am pie wrote: »

This might be a naive question, but why are the Aussies perceived to have so much influence over the IRB ? Surely there are greater opportunities to develop the game in Europe and Asia. Australasia is fairly limited continent in terms of potential participants and spectators.

Union is 3rd or 4th choice over there, with a population of just over half of the UK.

Why are the Aussies perceived to have this influence?

Good question.

Bear in mind that according to gwlad (welsh rugby forum), the Irish are the Illuminati of the rugby world: the IRB and ERC are based in Dublin, some top refs (including their own Nigel O'Wens) show a statistical bias in favor of Irish teams, Munster have prospered for more than a decade without being able to scrummage, and Paddy O'Brien is obviously an Irishman in disguise.