England vs Italy.

CMOTDibbler

errlloyd wrote: »

When did Rugby Union decide to try out this shambles of a law variation? Was this the original set of Stellenbosch laws? If so how did they ever get passed the South African under 10s league we try this stuff out on.

It was trialled in NZ in the Mitre 10 cup and championships.

Law 15: The Tackle
1. The tackler must release the ball carrier then re-join the tackle behind the midpoint to play the ball.
2. The first arriving defender may play the ball as long as they are on their feet, and prior to the breakdown being formed.
3. Players off their feet are out of the game.
LAW 16: THE BREAKDOWN (PREVIOUSLY RUCK)
1. A breakdown is formed when an attacking player is over the ball on their feet.
2. At this point an offside line is in place.
3. The breakdown offside line for defenders is the hindmost foot.
4. Players joining the breakdown must do so from behind the offside line and join behind the midpoint of the breakdown.
5. Players joining the breakdown must bind onto any player, using their whole arm.
6. Players must be on their feet for the duration of the breakdown.
7. A player may be in the halfback position and remain behind the hindmost foot offside line.
8. A player in the halfback position may lift the ball from the breakdown.
9. Once the ball emerges from the breakdown it has ended.
After consideration and review by World Rugby, it remains a possibility that they would consider a global trial of some or all of these laws in 2017, and potential adoption in 2018.

molloyjh

It was abandoned as well though wasn't it?

errlloyd

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It was trialled in NZ in the Mitre 10 cup and championships.

^^ Is that the same one though

That seems to be Super Rugby, Stormers v Chiefs? Also that falls short of the breakdown described in those law variations, there is no one on their feet.

CMOTDibbler

errlloyd wrote: »

^^ Is that the same one though

That seems to be Super Rugby, Stormers v Chiefs? Also that falls short of the breakdown described in those law variations, there is no one on their feet.

It seems very close. An attacking player on their feet is all that's needed to create an offside line. No requirement for a defender to be present.

Edit: I don't know the date of swiwi's video above, but what I've linked to is actually in the works now.

errlloyd

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It seems very close. An attacking player on their feet is all that's needed to create an offside line. No requirement for a defender to be present.

Edit: I don't know the date of swiwi's video above, but what I've linked to is actually in the works now.

But that youtube video is from 2008, and those law variations are from 2016.

The mitre ten trial is a far more reasonable law then what is demonstrated in that video which is complete madness.

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

But that youtube video is from 2008, and those law variations are from 2016.

The mitre ten trial is a far more reasonable law then what is demonstrated in that video which is complete madness.

http://www.superxv.com/experimental-laws-set-to-spice-up-super-14/

its from super 14 back in 2008, known as the stellenbosch laws

it was very quickly dumped.

jaansu

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but when Hartley and Haskell went to the ref asking what's the story about the breakdown, he told them he was the ref and not the coach but then went on to explain what the rule was.

I'm not sure he should have done that as they should have known the rules, them being professional rugby players and all.

It was only after this they seemed to cope better.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

Was this the original set of Stellenbosch laws?

sydthebeat wrote: »

its from super 14 back in 2008, known as the stellenbosch laws

it was very quickly dumped.

I'll take that as a yes so.

Buer

jaansu wrote: »

I'm not sure he should have done that as they should have known the rules, them being professional rugby players and all.

It was only after this they seemed to cope better.

I don't see anything wrong with a referee providing clarification and instruction in relation to the laws. They do it multiple times in every match in relation to the scrum or breakdown area. The only difference is that this was something that is almost never seen.

Jack McGrath, for example, sought clarification from Nigel Owens on the scrums during a break in place in our match and benefitted significantly from doing so.

sydthebeat

jaansu wrote: »

I'm not sure he should have done that as they should have known the rules, them being professional rugby players and all.

they looked for clarification, and they were right to.

Launchbury reached out at one stage and grabbed an italian jersey, forming a ruck, but Poite told him he couldnt do that (which he was incorrect to say)

so hartley and haskell were certainly right to seek clarification on what they could do.
They didnt exactly frame the questions right though

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

I'll take that as a yes so.

sorry, didnt see that post

connemara man

sydthebeat wrote: »

they looked for clarification, and they were right to.

Launchbury reached out at one stage and grabbed an italian jersey, forming a ruck, but Poite told him he couldnt do that (which he was incorrect to say)

so hartley and haskell were certainly right to seek clarification on what they could do.
They didnt exactly frame the questions right though

He wasn't incorrect in saying not a ruck. There was a directive from world rugby that it doesn't count. It's in the link below. It's a fairly long article

France tried the 'tackle-only' tactic against Ireland but Nigel Owens was on the ball http://the42.ie/3261610

CMOTDibbler

sydthebeat wrote: »

they looked for clarification, and they were right to.

Launchbury reached out at one stage and grabbed an italian jersey, forming a ruck, but Poite told him he couldnt do that (which he was incorrect to say)

I don't agree really. If Eddie Jones can throw the toys out of the pram and say it isn't rugby, there's even more cause to suggest that pulling on somebody's jersey isn't creating a ruck.

The law is clear on what a ruck is: One player minimum from each team, on their feet in physical contact close around the ball on the ground. Even if you can stretch your credulity to include grabbing somebody's jersey as physical contact, close around the ball isn't necessarily true unless the jersey tug gets the guy into the ruck and then that's not a ruck either if they're not on their feet.

It happens in mauls too, but I'm not particularly happy with that interpretation either. Grabbing somebody not in a ruck or maul is a tackle without the ball imo.

sydthebeat

connemara man wrote: »

He wasn't incorrect in saying not a ruck. There was a directive from world rugby that it doesn't count. It's in the link below. It's a fairly long article

France tried the 'tackle-only' tactic against Ireland but Nigel Owens was on the ball http://the42.ie/3261610

thanks for that, i didnt realise there had been a directive like that

Poite, therefore, would have clarified the situation for himself before the game and it transpires that World Rugby have informed referees that the attacking team cannot form a ruck by grabbing an opposition player.

its a strange directive as it seems to give control of the ruck area immediately to the defending team, which in my opinion is against the spirit of a fair contest over the ball

CMOTDibbler

sydthebeat wrote: »

its a strange directive as it seems to give control of the ruck area immediately to the defending team, which in my opinion is against the spirit of a fair contest over the ball

Ahem, tackle area.

Why should the attacking team want a fair contest for the ball? It's up to the defending team to choose whether to contest for it or not. A lot of rucks go uncontested in order to maintain the defensive line. NZ are masters of knowing which rucks to contest and which ones to leave.

Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

thanks for that, i didnt realise there had been a directive like that



its a strange directive as it seems to give control of the ruck area immediately to the defending team, which in my opinion is against the spirit of a fair contest over the ball

It's necessary though, to keep the attacking team honest too.

So imagine you're defending the fringe of the ruck (but not actually bound to it). Suddenly, an arm emerges, grabs you and pulls you into the ruck, leaving a yawning gap for the attacking scrum half to run through...

Podge_irl

It's essentially grabbing a player off the ball, I don't really understand how it could be legal.

CMOTDibbler

Podge_irl wrote: »

It's essentially grabbing a player off the ball, I don't really understand how it could be legal.

Yeah, as I said above, it happens in mauls too and it infuriates me if refs ignore it.

Poite clearly took the time to analyse the laws once he'd got the heads up from Conor O'Shea. He was very clear in his mind as to what was allowed and what wasn't.

I think he's an excellent ref and has a very calm demeanour. He also has a sense of humour that's quite engaging. He did a great job under a lot of pressure and kept his cool throughout. I imagine though, that he'll be dining out on the story for years.

evil_seed

As hilarious as it was to see pro players ask what the laws are, there was 2 things wrong here.
1 - the phrasing of the question
2 - Haskell asking as opposed to the captain. Surely the captain can only question the referee

Teferi

evil_seed wrote: »

As hilarious as it was to see pro players ask what the laws are, there was 2 things wrong here.
1 - the phrasing of the question

Yeah, this is a point I saw on twitter - the way the question was phrased may have thrown off a non-native speaker whereas a native speaker would have understood the gist of what he was asking. When they rephrased the question later in the game they got a better answer.

evil_seed wrote: »

2 - Haskell asking as opposed to the captain. Surely the captain can only question the referee

It's up to the ref who he'll allow talk to him. Generally you're directed to put everything through your captain but you can get away with the odd question if your captain is beside you.

Rightwing

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yeah, as I said above, it happens in mauls too and it infuriates me if refs ignore it.

Poite clearly took the time to analyse the laws once he'd got the heads up from Conor O'Shea. He was very clear in his mind as to what was allowed and what wasn't.

I think he's an excellent ref and has a very calm demeanour. He also has a sense of humour that's quite engaging. He did a great job under a lot of pressure and kept his cool throughout. I imagine though, that he'll be dining out on the story for years.

I don't like refs courting cause celebre. Owens is another one of them.

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

Poitest. What Eddie Jones churlishly did after the match.

Mawwiage. When two people join together in holy matrimony.

No-one else likes the Princess Bride

Or else I'm not remotely funny (also distinctly possible)

CMOTDibbler

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't like refs courting cause celebre. Owens is another one of them.

He's hardly courting it. And certainly not on the basis of a throwaway comment by an anonymous poster on a bulletin board from an island in the westernmost point of the European continent. :rolleyes:

PetKing

CMOTDibbler wrote:

Poite clearly took the time to analyse the laws once he'd got the heads up from Conor O'Shea. He was very clear in his mind as to what was allowed and what wasn't.

He got a heads up on his tactics? Is this normal procedure? Genuine question.

PetKing

PetKing wrote: »

He got a heads up on his tactics? Is this normal procedure? Genuine question.

Before the game the coaches can ask for clarifications on the laws. It's not telling him "hey were going to do this" it more "if we did something like this, how would you interpret it".

It's completely common.

CMOTDibbler

PetKing wrote: »

He got a heads up on his tactics? Is this normal procedure? Genuine question.

Yeah, the ref is available before the match to discuss how they are going to interpret certain aspects of the game. It's a pretty standard procedure. Sometimes it can be around how they're going to ref the breakdown, or the scrum, what they're looking for to prevent penalties being conceded. Refs are absolutely open to this since it brings a bit of clarity.

First Up

PetKing wrote: »

He got a heads up on his tactics? Is this normal procedure? Genuine question.

Yes, both teams meet the referee before the game. In the half time discussion on ITV, Dalaglio made exactly the point that Italy would have clarified this with Poite in advance.

Yeah_Right

swiwi_ wrote: »

No-one else likes the Princess Bride

Or else I'm not remotely funny (also distinctly possible)

Sorry I must have missed this post. The Princess Bride is one of the greatest movies ever made.

As for your second point, you are remotely funny. Only remotely

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Before the game the coaches can ask for clarifications on the laws. It's not telling him "hey were going to do this" it more "if we did something like this, how would you interpret it".

It's completely common.

They also say "hey we're going to do this." Which is absolutely no problem.

.ak