IRB to trial new laws

ray jay

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2062222.html#irb+unions+sanction+global+law+trials

There are some very interesting proposals in the above article, highlights below.

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 it”. 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 above global trials, there are a couple of other rules being considered which are very interesting:

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.

There's also mention of changing the ref's scrum calls to "crouch, touch, set", omitting the pause step. This is supposed to reduce the number of early engagements.

irishbucsfan

23 man squads?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

GerM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

23 man squads?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Very interesting. Basically guarantees that we'll see at least one of Macklin, Hagan, Fitzpatrick (most likely I reckon), Loughney or Archer capped in the autumn. Could damage Tom Court's international career too if a dedicated loosehead gets decent game time next season.

Podge_irl

Court essentially is a dedicated loosehead at Ulster now though isn't he? He's decent enough on that side of the scrum, not sure who I'd have ahead of him there anyway.

irishbucsfan

It'll be Wilkinson v. Court. I'd rate Court higher, especially when he can focus on loose head, just look at what he did to the very highly rated Leicester THs this season.

TH spot needs development this summer.

Tox56

GerM wrote: »

Very interesting. Basically guarantees that we'll see at least one of Macklin, Hagan, Fitzpatrick (most likely I reckon), Loughney or Archer capped in the autumn. Could damage Tom Court's international career too if a dedicated loosehead gets decent game time next season.

Excellent that those lads will get a chance, hopefully Fitzpatrick can impress in the Barbarians game, that could solve a whole host of problems in one.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Podge_irl wrote: »

Court essentially is a dedicated loosehead at Ulster now though isn't he? He's decent enough on that side of the scrum, not sure who I'd have ahead of him there anyway.

Wilkinson isn't necessarily ahead of him but is imo level with him could deserve a LH spot ahead of Court depending on form. Court is a very good LH. MacAlister isn't ahead of him at Ulster but could easilly overtake him with the next year since he is always improving.

GerM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Court essentially is a dedicated loosehead at Ulster now though isn't he? He's decent enough on that side of the scrum, not sure who I'd have ahead of him there anyway.

He's certainly second choice at the moment for me also but if someone like Kilcoyne, McAllister, Wilkinson or even McGrath gets significant game time next season I can see a clamour starting to include them in the squad. Court is 32 this year and I reckon it this trial becomes permanent it could take a year or two off his international career.

ambid

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.

Oh good. More scrums :mad:

Crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down... crouch..touch..fall down...

Legion2008

Interesting,, how will they police the length of time a conversion kick takes .... and what is the penalty, forfeit of the 2 points? What happens if the usual kicker was injured in the build up of the try?

Would it not of been better to simply stop the clock while the conversion is taking place.

Zzippy

Legion2008 wrote: »

Would it not of been better to simply stop the clock while the conversion is taking place.

This should have been done a long time ago. The ref stops the clock for all sorts of stoppages now, its a very simple thing to stop the clock as soon as a try is scored and restart it once the conversion is kicked.

George Clancy sounded pretty annoyed at Sexton the last day for taking too long over a conversion, I'm not sure how long it was but it did seem an inordinately long time - meaning less time the ball is in play subsequently.

Foxtrol

Is there not some sort of ruling already in place for the time allowed for kicks? I seem to remember a ref making a point of it in a game or two that I've seen.

profitius

I like the look of those laws. More options to avoid scrums will speed up the game. Also the 5 sec rule will help speed up the game too.

.ak

Foxtrol wrote: »

Is there not some sort of ruling already in place for the time allowed for kicks? I seem to remember a ref making a point of it in a game or two that I've seen.

It's supposed to be a minute. But that was from when the player places the ball. This is different in the fact it's from the moment the try is scored.

WeeBushy

As long as refs give a bit of leniency for messy rucks, with players almost barging through etc., when the ball is technically playable, I like that rule. It's something that many attacking teams employ already.

shuffol

WeeBushy wrote: »

As long as refs give a bit of leniency for messy rucks, with players almost barging through etc., when the ball is technically playable, I like that rule. It's something that many attacking teams employ already.

It'll stop the old ploy of running down the clock with the ball at the back of a ruck, should lead to more exciting finishes to games. As long as the refs are sensible with the interpretation it'll be a very welcome rule.

twinytwo

shuffol wrote: »

It'll stop the old ploy of running down the clock with the ball at the back of a ruck, should lead to more exciting finishes to games. As long as the refs are sensible with the interpretation it'll be a very welcome rule.

there is already a rule against time wasting.... this could have been used to prevent the crap at rucks but never was

Fireball07

Good rules, really.

Time wasting at rucks really annoyed me, that's brilliant news. As for 23-man squads internationally, that could make a huge difference to Ireland in particular. You'd hope for no more repeats of St. Patrick's day.

The extension of the TMO is good too.


The scrum in general is still the main problem with the game today imo, and I don't think the removal of the "pause" thing will solve it. It's just impossible to ref and I'd like to see it addressed somehow.

chupacabra

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.

Is it just me or are these rules utterly pointless? Seems like filler to me.

Sindri

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.

That will just make the game messier and I'd bet my house that it more than likely will not be enforced correctly. :rolleyes: Also I'd be pretty pissed if I'd just busted my bollix to win possession and then I'm told if you don't use it and possibly do something risky in which you could lose possession you WILL lose possession and will have to work hard again to get it back. I think once you have possession you should get some discretion with how and when you use it within reason.

It'll be messier because it'll force teams to play at a higher octane, which may suit Leinster, but coming into the last 20 I'd expect to start seeing a lot more mistakes. But that doesn't matter as it won't be enforced properly and then we'll all have something else to give out about.

Eoin

twinytwo wrote: »

there is already a rule against time wasting.... this could have been used to prevent the crap at rucks but never was

I wonder if the problem was that the ball was still in play, and therefore the opposition had the option of going for it.

Fireball07 wrote: »

The scrum in general is still the main problem with the game today imo, and I don't think the removal of the "pause" thing will solve it. It's just impossible to ref and I'd like to see it addressed somehow.

Glad they're trying something anyway. Did I read correctly that 20 minutes of one of the 6N games was used up entirely by scrums? I would hate to see it being removed as a competitive part of the game and just used as way to restart play, but it's gotten very bad.

I might be grossly over-simplifying it, but I wonder would having the front rows a bit higher help. When so much of your bodyweight is way over your centre of gravity, it's going to be much harder to keep the scrum up, even if you're not at fault.

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.

Was there a load of cynical free kick offences or something at the lineout that provoked this one?

Chucky the tree

chupacabra wrote: »

Is it just me or are these rules utterly pointless? Seems like filler to me.

Handy way to avoid more scrums. Also if your team is poor at scrumming it will quite useful.

WeeBushy

shuffol wrote: »

It'll stop the old ploy of running down the clock with the ball at the back of a ruck, should lead to more exciting finishes to games. As long as the refs are sensible with the interpretation it'll be a very welcome rule.

If that's the case then I like it.

.ak

.ak wrote: »

It's supposed to be a minute. But that was from when the player places the ball. This is different in the fact it's from the moment the try is scored awarded.

fyp

TMO stuff to be included obviously.

JustinDee

chupacabra wrote: »

Is it just me or are these rules utterly pointless? Seems like filler to me.

Nah. Instead of taking a scrum, the team awarded the sanction when a knock-on occurs, can opt for the lineout instead. Suits a weaker scrummaging team with a decent lineout, for example.
Good option I'd say.

Quick-throw parameters just being clarified.

Again, the lineout just being thrown in to add to sanction options.

As for the 'use it' trial, I think it is absolutely necessary. Teams faffing about at ruck when it is perfectly presentable will not do so any more, if implemented. A halfback mucking about instead of moving ball is the one of the most frustrating parts of rugby union, in my opinion.
Next thing to work on is penalising teams pretending a ball is unavailable or being slowed down with the halfback yelling 'release' like Alan Partridge yelling for 'Dan'.

leftleg

JustinDee wrote: »

Next thing to work on is penalising teams pretending a ball is unavailable or being slowed down with the halfback yelling 'release' like Alan Partridge yelling for 'Dan'.

couldn't help it - classic

CatFromHue

I'd liked to have seen the touch judges being in charge of the off side line trialled.

I think this is how it's done in Rugby League.

DeDoc

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

I hope refs show some sensible discretion here - e.g. in the case of the kicker being hurt etc. I'd prefer to see the existing laws used and refs ensuring that there isn't time-wasting (As they can already do).

.ak

The biggest thing for SH rule for me is hopefully we'll see teams stop wasting the clock at the end of a game.

ray jay

DeDoc wrote: »

I hope refs show some sensible discretion here - e.g. in the case of the kicker being hurt etc. I'd prefer to see the existing laws used and refs ensuring that there isn't time-wasting (As they can already do).

I presume if the ref calls time off, the 90 second count pauses.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Munster could have done with the scrum changes last year when they had Buckley. Something that can reduce the number of scrums in a game has to be good for teams that struggle in the scrum.

CatFromHue

How often do you get a knock on going into touch? I don't think it currently happens that often.

I wonder though if there is a knock on and then a player from the opposing team boots the ball into touch what would the options be then? For example if you had a weak scrum this could advantageous as there could be the possibility of getting a line out instead.

Podge_irl

I don't think we'll see the ruck law being used much except in the last few minutes of a game and I think we all agree that something had to be done about that. I think all the changes are good.

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

How often do you get a knock on going into touch? I don't think it currently happens that often.

I wonder though if there is a knock on and then a player from the opposing team boots the ball into touch what would the options be then? For example if you had a weak scrum this could advantageous as there could be the possibility of getting a line out instead.

I'd imagine it applies to anything that happens during the advantage, and I suppose that could include an oppo player kicking it into touch

shaungil

If lineout option is to be taken instead of a scrum owuld like to see that it must be a full lineout to keep more space on the pitch. Memories of Leinster try against Cardiff show what you can do off a good lineout, though they could do something similar off a scrum too.

Podge_irl

It's up to the team throwing in to decide numbers in the lineout.

A2LUE42

What's the chance of introducing a rule where the ball has to be straight going into a scrum, similar to the lineout rule ? :rolleyes:

conf101

A2LUE42 wrote: »

What's the chance of introducing a rule where the ball has to be straight going into a scrum, similar to the lineout rule ? :rolleyes:

And similar to the rule that already exists but is never enforced

A2LUE42

conf101 wrote: »

And similar to the rule that already exists but is never enforced

That was my point, and the reason for the roll eyes. You would have to hand the ball to the number 8 to have the ref do anything at this stage.

Theta

No one noticed the engagement change suggested. They have changed it to Couch....Touch.....Set removing the pause and engage to try and eliminate early engagements I think.

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 “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.

.ak

Theta wrote: »

No one noticed the engagement change suggested. They have changed it to Couch....Touch.....Set removing the pause and engage to try and eliminate early engagements I think.

Doesn't matter, they'll still be a joke because ref's don't know what to do about them.

Eoin

It's been mentioned alright.

Interesting to see if it is the pause which destabilises the scrum. I wonder if not withdrawing the hands from the opposing prop's shoulder could help.

It seems that the loosehead trying to get his bind can cause a lot of the problems, so maybe if it was easier for him to get the high bind it could improve things.

Theta

Reading into the ruck rule more, its 5 seconds from when the ref shouts "use it" so its not 5 seconds from when the ref thinks the ball is playable.

http://www.footintouch.co.uk/exclusive-experimental-law-variations-2012

chris85

Eoin wrote: »

It's been mentioned alright.

Interesting to see if it is the pause which destabilises the scrum. I wonder if not withdrawing the hands from the opposing prop's shoulder could help.

It seems that the loosehead trying to get his bind can cause a lot of the problems, so maybe if it was easier for him to get the high bind it could improve things.

The pause can be difficult due to the differing cadence which refs use to call the four part setup. My view has always been the pause when said represents the physical pause but many refs say pause and then give a long pause before calling engage. This is where so many of the early engagements happen and poor illegal binds are got and the scrums go down.

Will be interesting to see how it work out with the new way.

profitius

I think they changed the word 'engage' to 'set' because set is a shorter, sharper word. Thats another good development.

davidpfitz

A2LUE42 wrote: »

What's the chance of introducing a rule where the ball has to be straight going into a scrum, similar to the lineout rule ? :rolleyes:

Why not get the ref to put the ball into the scrum? It's not as mad as it sounds at first.

Fishooks12

davidpfitz wrote: »

Why not get the ref to put the ball into the scrum? It's not as mad as it sounds at first.

good god no!

irishbucsfan

How on earth would getting the ref to put the ball in do anything but cause a mountain of more problems!

.ak

Yeah there'd be a load of problems, but it's done in other sports isn't it? Basketball, GAA etc

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

Yeah there'd be a load of problems, but it's done in other sports isn't it? Basketball, GAA etc

And who is the attacking team at each scrum? Line up with two defensive formations?

The punishment for a knock on is a 50/50 scrum? Under pressure in the opponents half? Boot the ball off the end of the pitch and get a 50/50 scrum. And so on.

Fishooks12

I can only imagine the **** storm that would ensue if Pearson was put in charge of handling a ball