A player injured as a result of foul play can now be replaced even if you have used all your replacements. This is in the same way as an already replaced player coming on for a front row to maintain contested scrums, or a blood sub.
Referees have the option to play advantage from a collapsed scrum providing it is safe to do so.
Diving or play acting to gain a penalty is now specifically outlawed.
The definition of a throw forward now includes the words "if the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing teams dead ball line".
No player (not just a lineout player) may block a throw in from within the 5m line.
A scrum must be formed within 30 seconds of the referee making the mark.
If the ball is at the 8s feet in a scrum and the scrum is not moving forward for a reasonable amount of time (3-5 seconds) the referee will call use it and the team must use the ball "immediately".
Wheeling a scrum legally is no longer a turnover, reset, same side put in.
The non ball winning scrum half cannot move into the space between the flanker and the No s (stay out of the pocket).
No kicks to be taken within 5m of the goal line.
Law application guidelines
In a maul the ball must be moved back hand to hand. A player cannot slide backwards within the maul.
At a lineout to maul, the ripper must stay in contact with the jumper until the ball is transferred...no long arm transfers.
Arriving players must not join the maul in front of the ball carrier.
Any questions please fire away.
Law 6.A.4(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.
Can you clarify the 'no kicks to be taken within 5m'? Is this kicks to touch from a penalty awarded 5m from the opposition try line? A line out is just awarded automatically on the 5m line?
I'll be interested to see how strictly the maul laws will be enforced.
LondonRich wrote:Can you clarify the 'no kicks to be taken within 5m'? Is this kicks to touch from a penalty awarded 5m from the opposition try line? A line out is just awarded automatically on the 5m line?
I'll be interested to see how strictly the maul laws will be enforced.
I think full clarification would be helpful on the "No kicks to be taken within 5m of the goal line" because there are cases where this will create issues unless clear to players & supporters.
LondonRich wrote:Can you clarify the 'no kicks to be taken within 5m'? Is this kicks to touch from a penalty awarded 5m from the opposition try line? A line out is just awarded automatically on the 5m line?
I'll be interested to see how strictly the maul laws will be enforced.
Prior to this amendment if an "attacking" penalty was given between the goal line and the 5m line, it was taken on the 5m line.
However if a "Defending" penalty was given between the goal line and the 5m line, it was taken at the place of the offence.
This amendment now places the mark for "all" penalties between the goal line and the 5m line, on the 5m line.
It's a small change.
Regarding the maul laws, both teams were penalised for "long arm transfers" at the Ospreys game.
Law 6.A.4(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.
There was also a piece on BT Rugby Tonight on 'Law Changes' involving Wayne Barnes and Maro Itojo here. It seemed to be mostly about interpretations rather than actual law changes - and focussed on player safety when a player's head is exposed while he is on the ground and a defending player seeks to kick the ball away. Interpretation changes not Law Changes right?
That's correct...sometimes called "Law Application Gudelines". All clubs will have had a similar presentation.
The one you refer to is that players will be penalised for stepping over a ruck to kick the ball away. In the past they would have been pinged for "playing the 9". In reality it is offside becasue they are not bound to anyone so are not part of the ruck, so must stay on the back foot.
We have been told that if these players make contact with the head it is a Red Card offence. Most referees already treat it this way, but it is a clarification/guideline to make sure we all referee it the same way. Striving for consistency.
Law 6.A.4(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.
So if a player takes a ball into contact and his next two supporting players come in to the ruck then after a second or two go to ground to secure the ball what can the defending team do?
Will S wrote:So if a player takes a ball into contact and his next two supporting players come in to the ruck then after a second or two go to ground to secure the ball what can the defending team do?
Nothing, they have to stay on the back foot.
If the ruck is formed and then everyone goes to ground legally the next arriving player needs someone to bind onto, otherwise he has to stay on the back foot offside line. He can't just step over all the bodies and waggle his foot around in the vicinity of the ball.
It's similar to the old "he's ok, he came through the middle" this was an urban myth, if he comes through the middle of the ruck he isn't bound onto anyone, so isn't part of the ruck and is therefore offside.
Law 6.A.4(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.
Ruck! (ie bind) or defend, but it seems they can no longer attack the ball by coming through/over the (collapsed) ruck unbound. Hence the discussion with Itoje about how to defend such situations.
On Rugby Tonight I though Wayne Barnes suggested you can still step through and use your foot but you just have to be aware that if you make contact, even accidental, with a players head on the ground then you are looking at a red card.
"Wheeling a scrum legally is no longer a turnover, reset, same side put in."
"The non ball winning scrum half cannot move into the space between the flanker and the No s (stay out of the pocket)." (I presume that's No 8)
I like the first of them.
Obviously the incentive to legally wheel also provides an incentive to illegally wheel, and that causes chaos. Particularly given how often refs end up guessing whether a wheel is legal or not (and which team is causing a wheel).
This should mean more 'straight' scrummaging, and whilst it might see Tigers winning fewer turnovers from legal wheels, it should allow a dominant scrum to turn the screw a bit more on the weaker one. With no incentive to wheel when dominant, the ref is more likely to crack down on a weaker scrum illegally wheeling in the hopes of getting a reset.
In Super Rugby, the impact of the defensive scrum half not being able to track his opponent to the back of a scrum has been huge. I hope our 9s and 8s have been practising their moves, as the best teams - given more space - have been almost invariably scoring tries from scrums close to the opposition line.