phog wrote: » NZ rugby to trial two refs, new laws Proposed World Rugby law changes: 1 Two on-field referees 2 Removal of the 'gate' entry at the breakdown 3 Tackler and arriving players can enter from midpoint of breakdown as long as they come from an onside position 4 Tackler no longer has 360 degree rights to the ball 4 Offside lines one metre behind hindmost foot at breakdown
Tim Robbins wrote: » 4 Tackler no longer has 360 degree rights to the ball Not sure what this means.
Why not try something like being able to take a mark from anywhere inside your own half and get rid of the crappy box kicking?
The Lost Sheep wrote: » player could make a tackle release the ball carrier and then compete for the ball. This will be different and the tackler will have to roll away and go back the metre and then compete for the ball - I think
CMOTDibbler wrote: » I'm not sure if they have to go back the metre. By saying 180 degrees they seem to imply that he can only compete for the ball on his own side. Otherwise they wouldn't use that description.
pickarooney wrote: » Thinking about this, is the following OK under the current rules: Ball carrier is tackled and supporting players get over the ball. Defenders do not engage but instead go around the tackle area and snare the scrum half as he's picking up the ball. There's no ruck as the defenders have not bound and thus no offside line.
Quin_Dub wrote: » I read it as this - When the tackler gets to their feet they must basically step around the tackled player and only compete for the ball from their own "side". which means that in the majority of cases the ruck will be formed before the tackler can influence possession. So again heavily favouring the attacker as they now have an extra second or so to reposition before anyone can compete for the ball. As I think about it the law change around the removal of the gate at the ruck will all depend on interpretation. If it's taken to mean that a player can enter at any angle as long as the point of contact is behind the mid line of the ruck then it's going to get very messy very quickly (and potentially dangerous too) However if they interpret it to mean that they can join only parallel to the touch line but up to the mid-point then potentially that could be okay it would allow for a broader clear-out to occur beyond the ball.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Like this http://www.the42.ie/analysis-chiefs-super-rugby-tactics-2013507-Mar2015/
CMOTDibbler wrote: » I think so long as the tackler is on his own side or on either side of the tackled player he can compete for the ball. Once he goes past the 'offside line' and is on the attacking teams side he has to get back onside before competing.
CMOTDibbler wrote: » The offside line one metre back from the breakdown seems to mean that if you're not involved in the breakdown, you have to be back one metre from it. So I don't think you can come around and scrag the scrumhalf whether you're in the breakdown or not. I'm in favour of the one metre rule. As it stands, players are constantly ahead of the hindmost foot when the ball is recycled and it's very hard for the ref to police. He'd need eyes on stalks really which is probably why they're talking about a second ref to do that job only.
Everyone, except those who speak a language where inanimate objects have a gender.
swiwi_ wrote: » Not sure if similar already posted...http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/5-key-law-changes-need-know/ Expect a few people to moan at some point when they haven't realised the laws have changed. Not on this forum of course.
b.gud wrote: » Not technically a law question but I reckon this is the best place to ask. If a player qualifies to play for Ireland through the 3 year residency rule, then gets capped for Ireland. The player then leaves Ireland for, say, an English club after 4 years in Ireland, i.e. before he qualifies as a citizen. Is he still eligible to play for Ireland?
pickarooney wrote: » Is there not a taking the piss rule the IRFU would impose in such a situation?
awec wrote: » Yes. Rugby eligibility is nothing to do with citizenship. Even if they stayed for 3 years, weren't capped and then left in the 4th year they'd still be eligible to be selected (though unlikely).
b.gud wrote: » So if a kid was moved around by his family after exactly 3 years in a country by the time he was 18 he would be eligible for 6 different countries? Or does he have to actually be playing rugby there? And if so at what level?
