It appears the new laws have been given the go-ahead - what do people think??
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-au-s ... 5022-kick/
https://www.talkingrugbyunion.co.uk/wor ... /31098.htm
New laws given the go-ahead
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
New laws given the go-ahead
Hehehehehehehehe
Re: new laws given the go-ahead
TBH why not tackler/player roll away, arrivals bind over the ball and play it with feet onlytrendylfj wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:47 am It appears the new laws have been given the go-ahead - what do people think??
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-au-s ... 5022-kick/
https://www.talkingrugbyunion.co.uk/wor ... /31098.htm
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
-
RagingBull
- Super User
- Posts: 13365
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:54 pm
Re: new laws given the go-ahead
That 50:22 kicking law is music to Borthwick's ears.
Re: new laws given the go-ahead
Don’t like the rugby league drop out! 50/22 is ok I suppose kick,kick,kick. Pandering to the Southern Hemisphere again!
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Re: new laws given the go-ahead
I think Blazer Bill should stop acting like Nero, let's see proper application of the existing laws first!trendylfj wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:47 am It appears the new laws have been given the go-ahead - what do people think??
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-au-s ... 5022-kick/
https://www.talkingrugbyunion.co.uk/wor ... /31098.htm
Re: new laws given the go-ahead
Pre-latch limited to one player: I think fine, though will require a careful balance between strict interpretation to be meaningful without penalising players who are simply mistiming joining a tackle.
Need to see the exact text on this law as people will likely twist its meaning once its written down if forward passes, "control" and "possession" are anything to go by.
Targeting lower legs in rucks: Again need to see the exact text here.
Collapsing a ruck and entering from the side are already illegal and I have never understood how anyone who hasn't drank the kool aid can describe a crocodile roll as anything but collapsing the ruck from the side.
Goal line drop out: Really dislike. Brings more controversial decisions to referee and TMO. Take Cole's try v Wasps as a classic example. If he had felt 5% less confident he could have basically said "held up, try again" and no one would be worse off. This change has the false premise of certainty at its heart; it rewards good defence is th claim, and that is true, it does. But it also massively increases the importance of the referee's decision because it makes the attacking outcome of a held up significantly worse. This means referees and TMOs will correctly take longer and be under more pressure to "get it right", when "getting it right" is not actually possible in many of these situations. Which means poorer entertainment for fans, less viewers, less income.
It is a tinker without proper thought, it will have a very small impact but cumulatively these tinkers have been the biggest drag on the game over the 25 years of their constant application.
The 50-22. Again this increases the rewards for kicking, so will inevitably lead to more kicking. I know the claimed theory is that this isn't what will happen, but I notice a total void of information on how this has affected Super Rugby AU. What is the point of a "trial" if we don't know what the baselines are, or what happens when we run the trial? It will likely crop up once every couple of weeks or so, so a person who only watches 1 game a week will likely only see it once in a blue moon and despite being a fairly big fan (a game a week is a lot for people who aren't addicts like most people who comment on rugby on the internet) is just another complicated rule to learn and remember. Gaining 30 metres of territory is already a very good thing in rugby, so I just can't get my head around how this has gone from totally crackpot idea to a real rule in the space of about 18 months despite no one ever producing any evidence that it does anything positive at all.
Another pointless tinker that benefits no one, and cumulatively has a massive drag on innovation and improvement as we change the laws and the attack has to start over again to work out what is efficient and successful strategies.
Need to see the exact text on this law as people will likely twist its meaning once its written down if forward passes, "control" and "possession" are anything to go by.
Targeting lower legs in rucks: Again need to see the exact text here.
Collapsing a ruck and entering from the side are already illegal and I have never understood how anyone who hasn't drank the kool aid can describe a crocodile roll as anything but collapsing the ruck from the side.
Goal line drop out: Really dislike. Brings more controversial decisions to referee and TMO. Take Cole's try v Wasps as a classic example. If he had felt 5% less confident he could have basically said "held up, try again" and no one would be worse off. This change has the false premise of certainty at its heart; it rewards good defence is th claim, and that is true, it does. But it also massively increases the importance of the referee's decision because it makes the attacking outcome of a held up significantly worse. This means referees and TMOs will correctly take longer and be under more pressure to "get it right", when "getting it right" is not actually possible in many of these situations. Which means poorer entertainment for fans, less viewers, less income.
It is a tinker without proper thought, it will have a very small impact but cumulatively these tinkers have been the biggest drag on the game over the 25 years of their constant application.
The 50-22. Again this increases the rewards for kicking, so will inevitably lead to more kicking. I know the claimed theory is that this isn't what will happen, but I notice a total void of information on how this has affected Super Rugby AU. What is the point of a "trial" if we don't know what the baselines are, or what happens when we run the trial? It will likely crop up once every couple of weeks or so, so a person who only watches 1 game a week will likely only see it once in a blue moon and despite being a fairly big fan (a game a week is a lot for people who aren't addicts like most people who comment on rugby on the internet) is just another complicated rule to learn and remember. Gaining 30 metres of territory is already a very good thing in rugby, so I just can't get my head around how this has gone from totally crackpot idea to a real rule in the space of about 18 months despite no one ever producing any evidence that it does anything positive at all.
Another pointless tinker that benefits no one, and cumulatively has a massive drag on innovation and improvement as we change the laws and the attack has to start over again to work out what is efficient and successful strategies.
Goooooodeeeeeyyyyy!
Re: new laws given the go-ahead
I welcome the new laws around wedges and pre-latches. My only concern is that it might make officiation of mauls harder, or perhaps that won’t happen at all. It’s a case of wait and see.
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
Re: New laws given the go-ahead
Were not wedges already banned?
It will promote more kicking from just inside your own half, something there is too much of already.
Never understood why being held up when you had crossed the line was treated differently to being held up anywhere else. For me if you are held up over the line then it should be a defensive scrum or 22 drop out at he defenders choice.
If it is a case of the ref not being able to identify whether the ball was definitely held up (likely try but not proven) then there should be an attacking scrum.
As for the other changes - anyone going over a ruck should remain on their feet and be trying to play the ball. Too many "missiles" aimed at the jackaler who get away with diving over and past the ruck. Those off their feet must not play the ball at all with the tacked player releasing immediately. Rucking only until the ball is clearly back on your side of the ruck.
It will promote more kicking from just inside your own half, something there is too much of already.
Never understood why being held up when you had crossed the line was treated differently to being held up anywhere else. For me if you are held up over the line then it should be a defensive scrum or 22 drop out at he defenders choice.
If it is a case of the ref not being able to identify whether the ball was definitely held up (likely try but not proven) then there should be an attacking scrum.
As for the other changes - anyone going over a ruck should remain on their feet and be trying to play the ball. Too many "missiles" aimed at the jackaler who get away with diving over and past the ruck. Those off their feet must not play the ball at all with the tacked player releasing immediately. Rucking only until the ball is clearly back on your side of the ruck.
Re: New laws given the go-ahead
If you want to know about wedges ask Julian White.... He reacted to one i seem to remember.
I'll get me coat.
I'll get me coat.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"