Podge_irl wrote: » France also I believe. I may be wrong here, but I think playing for Wales U20 only makes you ineligible for other teams if you played versus France? Having an U20 team as a "second" team is a joke anyway - they should just not have a designated second team if that was possible.
pickarooney wrote: » The France v Wales U20 game is the only one in the six nations that can lock any players in. It could happen that a dual English/Welsh player deliberately misses this match to keep his options open a while longer.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Really? So if a Welsh player played against Ireland at U20 for example, they can choose another country afterwards? I thought that it was the case that if you played for the "nominated 2nd team" (U20's in Wales case) then that was it, regardless of who they played against? Interesting if that is the case - Wonder if many potential dual status guys might "pull a hammy" before the French fixture to keep their options open later??
The Lost Sheep wrote: » The main amendments are: The replacement of a player injured following foul play does not count as one of the allotted number of replacements available to that team
The Lost Sheep wrote: » Advantage may be played following a scrum collapse if there is no risk to player safety
The Lost Sheep wrote: » Play acting or “simulation” is specifically outlawed in the game in a move that formalises resistance to a practice that has been creeping into the game in recent years. Any player who dives or feigns injury in an effort to influence the match officials will be liable for sanction
The Lost Sheep wrote: » Teams must be ready to form a scrum within 30 seconds of the scrum being awarded, unless the referee stops the clock for an injury or another stoppage Was there really a problem here that needed to be addressed? Wonder how referees feel about adding another thing to check? I assume that it will only come into play if a team is being stupid and trying to slow down the game. The Lost Sheep wrote: » At a re-set scrum following a 90-degree wheel, the ball is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in rather than the team not in possession This may help with deliberate wheels but you'll still get the step to one side and push movements, it could lead to a greater number of wheeled scrums as one defensive tactic against the step to one side (which is not always spotted by referees) is to whip the scrum around and although IIRC it's still a penalty offence to deliberately wheel a scrum if one teams steps to the side first and the other team pushes on I can easily see a referee calling it as six of one and half a dozen of the other. There's potential for this to lead to messier scrums I think. The Lost Sheep wrote: » The scrum-half of the team not in possession at a scrum may not move into the space between the flanker and number eight Good positive step. The only reason for a scrum half to be in that position is to disrupt. Hopefully this step will clean up the game a little. The Lost Sheep wrote: » When the ball has been at the number eight’s feet in a stationary scrum for 3-5 seconds, the referee will call “use it” and the attacking team must use the ball immediately What's the sanction? Scrum turnover? (I tried clicking on the link within your link but I'm getting a mimecast page which looks very much like a phishing site to me which makes me worried about what's got on my computer). Was this a problem that really needed to be addressed?
The Lost Sheep wrote: » At a re-set scrum following a 90-degree wheel, the ball is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in rather than the team not in possession
The Lost Sheep wrote: » The scrum-half of the team not in possession at a scrum may not move into the space between the flanker and number eight
The Lost Sheep wrote: » When the ball has been at the number eight’s feet in a stationary scrum for 3-5 seconds, the referee will call “use it” and the attacking team must use the ball immediately
Clearlier wrote: » Possible blonde moment here but I don't see what the practical implications of this are? You're already allowed to use all of your subs.
sydthebeat wrote: » yes, but you cannot bring back in a player that was tactically substituted. so how this will impact would be in a situation like this. 65 mins gone, team A has made all substitutions. No 8 from team B knees Teams A's lock in the back and the lock cannot continue. therefore for the rest of the game Team A must play with 14 players and with 7 in the scrum and with a player out of position in the row. this law change would prevent that as the lock could be replaced.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Not quite sure how they'll police that one to be honest.. In circumstances where a guy gets injured right there and then (taken out in the air and gets knocked out for example) it's fairly clear , it'll be a card of some colour for the offender and the other guy goes straight off..But in your example above , let's say Lock A tries to run it off but doesn't succeed and needs to be replaced 5-10 minutes after the act of foul play , but still as a direct result of it... Who decides if that is covered under this new ruling? In principle I agree with the concept , just think it could get very messy for referees to adjudicate.
From a playing point of view this is a good change but I'm hoping that some kind of research has been done about how well referees can identify risks to player safety in scrums.
It's a shame that there's a need for this to come in and I hope that it doesn't in a perverse way push people to get better at simulating injury.
Was there really a problem here that needed to be addressed? Wonder how referees feel about adding another thing to check? I assume that it will only come into play if a team is being stupid and trying to slow down the game.
This may help with deliberate wheels but you'll still get the step to one side and push movements, it could lead to a greater number of wheeled scrums as one defensive tactic against the step to one side (which is not always spotted by referees) is to whip the scrum around and although IIRC it's still a penalty offence to deliberately wheel a scrum if one teams steps to the side first and the other team pushes on I can easily see a referee calling it as six of one and half a dozen of the other. There's potential for this to lead to messier scrums I think.
Good positive step. The only reason for a scrum half to be in that position is to disrupt. Hopefully this step will clean up the game a little.
What's the sanction? Scrum turnover? (I tried clicking on the link within your link but I'm getting a mimecast page which looks very much like a phishing site to me which makes me worried about what's got on my computer). Was this a problem that really needed to be addressed?
The Lost Sheep wrote: » Anyone played under the new laws changes for this season yet? Any thoughts/criticisms of the changes?
The Lost Sheep wrote: » Anyone?
Losty Dublin wrote: » The new ruck laws have been causing a lot of fun and game in the pro games; plenty of pings for stepping in and around.
Risteard wrote: » Strange one at a match I was at today which we were all bemused by. Our winger made a break and was running at two opposition players, ball in two hands and options outside. Opposition winger turns his back on ours to run back and the winger pushes him out the way (whilst still bring the ball carrier) Ref gives a penalty for pushing. Is that right? I'd argue it was a hand off, not the ball carriers fault the opposition turned his back on him.
Quintis wrote: » Anyone see Jake Ball's yellow against Ulster at the weekend, seemed initially for kicking the ball out of the 9s hands at the ruck but the ball seemed to be on the ground, surely he is entitled to play the ball on the ground in a ruck with his feet, i.e. ruck the ball?
Losty Dublin wrote: » Kicking the ball out of the hands of a player is a big no-no and must be called up by the match official. See below for a clarification from the powers that be on the matter.http://www.arlb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/150911-CL-Law-Clarification-7-2015.pdf
Quintis wrote: » Thanks, I know they are clamping down on it this year too, just can't understand the yellow?https://youtu.be/qd6DF4WVcY4?t=2397
Shelflife wrote: » I wouldnt consider that kicking the ball out of a players hand. For me the ball must be off the ground and in the players hands. But if thats what he pinged him for fair enough, I thought it was for stepping over the ruck which he was in fact entitled to do.
Quintis wrote: » I find it hard to blame the ref in this instance, live it seemed he kicked the ball out of Pienaars hands, slowed down this doesn't seem to be the case, if anything it highlights the difficulty involved in being a ref
Interested Observer wrote: » I don't think that's what the law clarification was intended for either, at all. Or else you just keep your hand on the ball in a ruck and any time someone competes with their feet they're committing a penalty offence.
Losty Dublin wrote: » The clarification was sought to address an element of foul play not covered with an explicit mention in the law book. In an instance such at this I don't think it's fair for a player picking up or about to pick at a ruck to be at risk of having his hands kicked to bits. Delaying ball at a ruck is already dealt with by means of the "Use It" call.
Interested Observer wrote: » You're allowed use your feet in a ruck. Pienaar didn't have the ball, it's there to be won. I don't see how you can possibly rule for someone having not picked it up but is about to pick it up.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
