Changes to laws

Been kicking around for a while so most of you have probably seen but here yu go. Apologies for the england site rather than wr but it popped up on twitter.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/world-rugby-announce-six-law-changes/

Negates the italy tactic. Negates Itoje kicking the ball out of rucks (boo). Having any front row player hook for the ball is interesting. Hookers will have to hook or its a free kick.

Sigh. My prediction that the RFU would just change the rules to suit themselves came true.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Sigh. My prediction that the RFU would just change the rules to suit themselves came true.

What on earth has this got to do with the RFU? It's the World Rugby Law Review Group again. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The most notable variations are the tackler only being able to play the ball from his side of the tackle "gate" and a change in regards to what constitutes a ruck.

Under the new laws, one attacker or defender on his or her feet over the ball create a ruck (instead of the current requirement for both), and therefore the offside line.

It's understood England were opposed to putting this set of laws put through for trial, which is ironic considering they were the ones done over by Italy's shock tactic in this year's Six Nations

A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler)

The wording of this is confusing me, does this mean that once a tackle is completed a tackled player can get to their feet and create a ruck?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Sigh. My prediction that the RFU would just change the rules to suit themselves came true.

Apparently England voted against the trial changes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/94588352/rugbys-law-book-to-be-shredded-by-50-per-cent-to-make-it-easier-to-understand

marty2086 wrote:

A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler)

The wording of this is confusing me, does this mean that once a tackle is completed a tackled player can get to their feet and create a ruck?

No. But you only need 1 player to arrive at the tackle to make it a ruck, instead of 1 from each team. It's basically banning the Italian ruck defense.

The tackler only being able to jackal from an "onside" position (behind the "gate" will make turnovers harder. It does change the law to be what most non-NZ fans thought it was when McCaw was playing mind

Yes sorry it's the wr who have made the changes just couldn't be bothered looking for it on their site when I'd read it on England's!

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Sigh. My prediction that the RFU would just change the rules to suit themselves came true.

Apparently England voted against the trial changes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/94588352/rugbys-law-book-to-be-shredded-by-50-per-cent-to-make-it-easier-to-understand

"Apparently". It's just convenient that it happens to be the same year as the England-Italy fiasco. Looks like a few disgruntled NZ voices played a part as well.

Ah well, let's see how it turns out.

Marty. Yes or any other player. Stops the italy situation which if repeated would have caused a major headache for the ref involved.

No apparently rory.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler)

The wording of this is confusing me, does this mean that once a tackle is completed a tackled player can get to their feet and create a ruck?

No. But you only need 1 player to arrive at the tackle to make it a ruck, instead of 1 from each team. It's basically banning the Italian ruck defense.

The tackler only being able to jackal from an "onside" position (behind the "gate" will make turnovers harder. It does change the law to be what most non-NZ fans thought it was when McCaw was playing mind

Not to be pendantic, however, if say an openside flanker gets over the ball to attempt a steal, does he get pinged for "hands in the ruck", ie the ruck he instantly created by just being there himself?

No 7&1/2 wrote:No apparently rory.

Yes, apparently. I haven't read any details except that England (how specific) were opposed to this new set of rules. Very vague, with no details. They may be opposed to the number of changes overall - there are a lot more proposed changes than just the offside line at the ruck. I doubt they would oppose that particular change given the fiasco of the Italy-England game. The reality is that none of us know the details. However, I predicted that after that particular game that things would be changed when the RFU complain. Perhaps the RFU asked for changes and don't like what has resulted? Who knows.

Either way, it's speculation, hence my use of the word "apparently". And that is the last I will discuss with you on the matter, given your tendency to travel in endless circles which I can't be bothered doing.

Its all as clear as mud, it is and isn't like I thought

If WR want to clear up the ruck then they should be pushing refs to penalising holding on quicker, how many times do you see someone get over the ball and either get cleared out, told to get ands off or even get the ball and get penalised even though the first offence is holding on

Fair enough rory it looks like you have a real bee in your bonnet when it comes to England so probably for the best.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Marty. Yes or any other player. Stops the italy situation  which if repeated would have caused a major headache for the ref involved.

No headache for the ref, he was quite clear on it all it was a headache for Hartley and co

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Sigh. My prediction that the RFU would just change the rules to suit themselves came true.

Apparently England voted against the trial changes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/94588352/rugbys-law-book-to-be-shredded-by-50-per-cent-to-make-it-easier-to-understand

"Apparently". It's just convenient that it happens to be the same year as the England-Italy fiasco. Looks like a few disgruntled NZ voices played a part as well.

Ah well, let's see how it turns out.

It's worth noting that most of these changes were trialled in the NZ Mitre 10 cup & in lower levels of Irish rugby last year. The no kicking in the ruck law appears to be a response to the NZ trial, where players tried kicking through a lot to disrupt possession since jackaling was "too hard"


The Law changes were thought up by a committee that in 2015 consisted of:
Ben Whittaker (ARU)
Pablo Bouza (UAR)
Rob Andrew (RFU) (presumably he was replaced by someone else English when he left the RFU)
Didier Retiere (FFR)
David Nucifora (IRFU)
Steve Hansen (NZR, who replaced Dave Rennie, who was unavailable due to competition commitments)
Giulio de Santis (FIR)
Rachael Burford (Rugby Athletes’ Commission)
Andre Watson (SARU)
Chris Paterson (SRU ambassador)
Nigel Whitehouse (WRU, who replaced Ryan Jones, who was unavailable due to competition commitments
World Rugby attendees: Brett Gosper (Chief Executive), Joël Jutge (High Performance Match Officials Manager) and Mark Harrington (Head of Technical Services).

Paul O’Connell and Richie McCaw appeared before the committee to give them a player's view of the proposed changes


The separate Law Simplification project committee was:.
Mark Harrington & Ross Tucker (World Rugby)
Chris Cuthbertson (RFU)
Tappe Henning (SARU)
Rod Hill (NZR)

Manky-Flanker wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler)

The wording of this is confusing me, does this mean that once a tackle is completed a tackled player can get to their feet and create a ruck?

No. But you only need 1 player to arrive at the tackle to make it a ruck, instead of 1 from each team. It's basically banning the Italian ruck defense.

The tackler only being able to jackal from an "onside" position (behind the "gate" will make turnovers harder. It does change the law to be what most non-NZ fans thought it was when McCaw was playing mind

Not to be pendantic, however, if say an openside flanker gets over the ball to attempt a steal, does he get pinged for "hands in the ruck", ie the ruck he instantly created by just being there himself?

Yep.

Unless he was the tackler. Based on last year's NPC, players stopped trying to jackal and focused their efforts on counter rucking or fanning out to defend the next attack. The play did progress at a much faster rate as a result.

It's going to look a lot like rugby league I fear.

Well there was a problem as Poite knew the tactic was going to be employed was specifically looking out for it but still made mistakes in calling tackle vs maul very understandably. There's mistakes around it quite a lot and most teams take up their lines to avoid an offside even when no maul has technically been formed. It's almost a default setting and this now makes it so under the laws to avoid that confusion .

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough rory it looks like you have a real bee in your bonnet when it comes to England so probably for the best.

Awk, don't take it personally Number almost 8. I hate everyone equally.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Manky-Flanker wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler)

The wording of this is confusing me, does this mean that once a tackle is completed a tackled player can get to their feet and create a ruck?

No. But you only need 1 player to arrive at the tackle to make it a ruck, instead of 1 from each team. It's basically banning the Italian ruck defense.

The tackler only being able to jackal from an "onside" position (behind the "gate" will make turnovers harder. It does change the law to be what most non-NZ fans thought it was when McCaw was playing mind

Not to be pendantic, however, if say an openside flanker gets over the ball to attempt a steal, does he get pinged for "hands in the ruck", ie the ruck he instantly created by just being there himself?

Yep.

Unless he was the tackler. Based on last year's NPC, players stopped trying to jackal and focused their efforts on counter rucking or fanning out to defend the next attack. The play did progress at a much faster rate as a result.

It's going to look a lot like rugby league I fear.

That's my fear also. To be honest, less amendments would be the most beneficial thing. Changing the rules every couple of years only increases confusion. How can referees be expected to be consistent with these constant amendments?

I'll be very disappointed if the ruck gets dumbed down - it will be interesting to see how NH teams react to the changes.

For me, the scrum changes are very clever. Making a hook mandatory effectively removes the option to feed the ball into the second row - if it's not in the tunnel, you can't hook for it. And by focusing on the hook rather than the feed, it means that the ARs can look out for it from the touchline, leaving the ref to concentrate on binds and body angles.

If it's actually enforced, then it could be the answer to Brian Moore's prayers...

The hooking requirement will reduce teams milking scrum penalties won't it? NH scrums like to leave the ball in and walk over it and milk penalties. Read a few weeks ago that most hookers don't hook anymore because it de-powers the scrum (~30%). Dane Coles is one of the few that does hook the ball (apparently).

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Rod Hill (NZR)

Think I read that Dave Rennie replaced Hill.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Rod Hill (NZR)

Think I read that Dave Rennie replaced Hill.

I think you're right - I found Hill in an article from late 2015

I'm for the one that reduces scrum penalties, but it would be a shame if that negated the requirement for big bad front-row players. I'm not sure about the ruck, I'll have to see it first - apparently all these law changes were trialed during the JWC which I didn't see much of. Can anyone confirm?

mikey_dragon wrote:I'm for the one that reduces scrum penalties, but it would be a shame if that negated the requirement for big bad front-row players. I'm not sure about the ruck, I'll have to see it first - apparently all these law changes were trialed during the JWC which I didn't see much of. Can anyone confirm?

Not sure about the JWC, but the ruck stuff (except for the kicking-through one) was trialled in NZ NPC, Irish IAL & French U18s.

It was a disaster in NPC, lots of fly-hacking in rucks (hence that change) as it was by far the easiest way to disrupt opposition ball

Striking after the throw-in

Law 20
Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball

So in theory this is good too ...there has to be an effort to hook for the ball. In theory they shouldnt be getting pushed beyond or off the ball before its had time to get to the hookers feet ( and it doesnt have to be the hooker who hooks) unless someones pushing early...so a legal put in should always result in the opportunity to hook whoch they now have to attempt.
It does give the opposition more opportunity to conest the scrum by not hooking and having all 3 front rows fully committed to the drive. 
The partner change to this allows the scrum half to "cheat over" a bit to their own side, so the ball should come in on their side legally; again allowing a clean hook.  

Teams can still hold the ball in the scrum, if anything allowing the 8 to pick up from the second row (which Faetaus been allowed to do for the last few years anyway ) makes that easier and less risky. So they can still look to milk penalties from teams who refuse to be driven back.

Theres no exscuse for refs to allow the diagonal put in now just to promote game flow. Its still weighted heavily in the attacking teams favour, whilst giving the opportunity for the defending team to push over if the hook is screwed up.

The impact here could be on individuals as hookers, itll be interesting to see if it changes the George vs Hartley situation. 


Kicking out of the ruck ...Id assumed that was a response to players having been booted in the head as a consequence of legal play. Interesting to here the trails reasoning given above.

Changes to the ruck sound a bit confussing but I'm sure its better understood in the communicatiosn to teams and referees. I need to go read the stuff on the refs forums about this. But overall it does sound like it shoudl clear up the ambiguity and inconsistency in the way this has been handled previously. The fiasco in the England Italy game shouldnt be repeated, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on with that tactic it was emabaressing for World Rugby to have to admit they didnrt have a definitive answert to the correct law interpretation. The way it was handled led to a game that didnt look like what rugbys supposed to be; and ultimately the only point in having laws at all is to guide the game to a certain type of competition.

Overall I like the approach WR are taking to law changes now. As well as their own trails like these individual competitions are able to try their own variations and put them forward for consideration. Bringing in packages of changes that are well thought out and beta tested (including teams trying to find the loopholes) is the way to avoid unforseen consequences. 





Off teh back of this referees really should have no excuse but to enforce the straight put in.

ebop wrote:The hooking requirement will reduce teams milking scrum penalties won't it? NH scrums like to leave the ball in and walk over it and milk penalties. Read a few weeks ago that most hookers don't hook anymore because it de-powers the scrum (~30%). Dane Coles is one of the few that does hook the ball (apparently).

I know a good carpenter if you ever want to get that chip removed ebop.

Don't tar all Northern Hemisphere teams and eras with the same brush. Prior to the current engagement sequence, some teams did play for penalties - England 2007-11 springs to mind, but mainly because Sheridan and then Corbisiero were particularly destructive looseheads. Wales also had a strong front row (particularly well versed in the dark art of fooling your sometime countryman Mr Walsh) and played for penalties as late as 2013.

But the current engagement laws have changed that significantly, albeit at the expense of squint feeds and reducing the scrum as a contest. The proposed new law stands a good chance of fixing both of those, in my opinion.

And while I hate to ride all roughshod over your opinion with a few facts, the Lions front row conceded as many penalties as the All Blacks one in the test series.

Poorfour wrote:

ebop wrote:The hooking requirement will reduce teams milking scrum penalties won't it? NH scrums like to leave the ball in and walk over it and milk penalties. Read a few weeks ago that most hookers don't hook anymore because it de-powers the scrum (~30%). Dane Coles is one of the few that does hook the ball (apparently).

I know a good carpenter if you ever want to get that chip removed ebop.

Don't tar all Northern Hemisphere teams and eras with the same brush. Prior to the current engagement sequence, some teams did play for penalties - England 2007-11 springs to mind, but mainly because Sheridan and then Corbisiero were particularly destructive looseheads. Wales also had a strong front row (particularly well versed in the dark art of fooling your sometime countryman Mr Walsh) and played for penalties as late as 2013.

But the current engagement laws have changed that significantly, albeit at the expense of squint feeds and reducing the scrum as a contest. The proposed new law stands a good chance of fixing both of those, in my opinion.

And while I hate to ride all roughshod over your opinion with a few facts, the Lions front row conceded as many penalties as the All Blacks one in the test series.

The other change was forcing players not in the ruck to stand furtehr back. In theory this made the scrum a better attacking platform to encourage teams to get the ball out quickly and look to run off it.

As it stands though ...similar to mauls...if one team is incapable of scrummaging properly I dont see it as unreasonable that the opposition should be allowed to drive them if they so choose. If that team refuses to be driven and instead collapses then they should be penalised.
Otherwise why bother with a proper scrum at all.

Its also interesting that certain NZ posters werent whinging about the scrum when they did OK against the Lions in the penalty count, instead were trumpeting how great scrummagers their props were when they wanted to be.

The scrum is not just a method of restart ala Rugby League! It is a key weapon aswell. If you have strong props and a strong scrum then use it...and you should not be penalised for doing so.

Its up to the opposition to improve their scrum! For example....We at the falcons have been poor in that area ( despite the stats contradicting that) and that is at our feet to fix the problem! No-one elses.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The scrum is not just a method of restart ala Rugby League! It is a key weapon aswell. If you have strong props and a strong scrum then use it...and you should not be penalised for doing so.

Its up to the opposition to improve their scrum! For example....We at the falcons have been poor in that area ( despite the stats contradicting that) and that is at our feet to fix the problem! No-one elses.

Completely agree.

cascough wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The scrum is not just a method of restart ala Rugby League! It is a key weapon aswell. If you have strong props and a strong scrum then use it...and you should not be penalised for doing so.

Its up to the opposition to improve their scrum! For example....We at the falcons have been poor in that area ( despite the stats contradicting that) and that is at our feet to fix the problem! No-one elses.

Completely agree.

Mostly agree. Penalties for physical dominance are one thing, penalties for being better at conning the ref I am less happy about.

So imagine a tackled player on the floor with the ball and the first player there is the attacking Scrum-half. What does the first defender do (not the tackler)? Does he play the ball or the play the 9?

If the presence of the 9 creates a ruck you basically have to play the 9, ie join the 1 man ruck, but playing the 9 is a penalty under current rules

If the 9 doesn’t create a ruck, then you have to play the ball but that’s also a penalty for “hands in the ruck” which the defender created himself just by being there.

So what does a defender (who is not the tackler) do if the 9 is the only one there and standing above the ball?

He can hook the ball back with his foot as long as the scrum half hasn't picked it up and ended the ruck obviously or join the ruck by binding on the player. The fact he has 9 on his back would be irrelevant.

If I have read it right, the criterion shifts from "opponents in contact contesting the ball" to "feet over the ball"

If the player can get hands on the ball without being in contact with a player on their feet, they get freedom to pick it up and play it, but can be tackled once they have hands on.

If, instead, the player chooses to step over the ball then the moment it's between their feet they have created a ruck and can be cleared out - but have created a gate for any arriving player that protects the scrum half somewhat.

In either scenario, the tackled player has to release the ball.

I'd expect that if a player is there on their own, it makes more sense to go for the ball, because even if you are tackled there will be more of a delay before the tackler can go for the ball. If two players arrive together, the first one will probably create the ruck so that the second one has more protection to go for the pass - but it will depend on how strictly ball carrier releasing the ball is enforced.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He can hook the ball back with his foot as long as the scrum half hasn't picked it up and ended the ruck obviously or join the ruck by binding on the player. The fact he has 9 on his back would be irrelevant.

If the ruck ends with the 9 picking up the ball surely he himself is penalised for hands in the ruck (remember as you say the 9 on his back is irrelevant)

If he's there alone he can pick it up immediately. If he doesn't and an opposition player joins the ruck he can't and can only hook the ball back or compete at the ruck.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If he's there alone he can pick it up immediately.

In your opinion does the same hold true for a defending 7? In other words, he is exempt from the new law that says 1 player over the ball creates a ruck.

It does state first there can use their hands immediately. defending or attacking team.

Ahh ok. So 1 player over the ball doesn't create a ruck immediately. Its a race condition, How many seconds elapse before they are beaten by their own ruck?

Sounds like they're introducing more timing issues into the game and more interpretation about what constitutes "immediately". Like a tackled player has to place the ball immediately in one direction, however in reality they roll over a few more times than is necessary then feign a pass then put the ball on the ground (just as support arrives, conveniently ). Or the 5 second law at rucks, one man's 5 seconds is another man's 10...

It creates a ruck as soon as he's there in terms of offside but he can then pick up the ball and play. What's constitutes immediately for the tackled player to release the ball? It'll vary slightly from ref to ref but to my mind.you get to the ball and pick it up the second you can.

It will be interesting to see how the NH interpret and adapt to these changes, as if I'm right (?) this is the first time any changes have been introduced in the north ahead of the SH season.

I think I saw a couple of NPC games last year when spying Earle playing for Canterbury and Kiwi's being what they are, they appeared to see it as an opportunity to break the ball in play / unnecessary passes world record. Not sure the Aviva sides will take the same approach.

The more I think about these changes, specifically the ruck, the more I'm concerned that we've reduced the opportunity to compete for the ball (this sentiment applies to both scrum and ruck), which is obviously the keystone differential between union an league. Endless uncompetitive rucks, if that is consequence of these changes, would surely unbalance the nature of the game effecting 'a game for all shapes and sizes' etc. And surely takes too us far towards League (no slight intended but if I want to watch League I'll watch Saint's v Pies rather than Bath v Quins thank you very much). Yours, Brigadier Fearful, Kings own Elder fields (retrenched).

It's going to stop as much competition from guys going in with the boot ie Itoje as big jim Hamilton has already pointed out in a the in cheek way. I'm. Not sure it will.stop the poacher though that's the point in trialling it to see.if.you get unintended consequences. As long as it's reviewed and not forced through whatever lit should be good. Blame the Italians and their coaches!

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's going to stop as much competition from guys going in with the boot ie Itoje as big jim Hamilton has already pointed out in a the in cheek way. I'm. Not sure it will.stop the poacher though that's the point in trialling it to see.if.you get unintended consequences.  As long as it's reviewed and not forced through whatever lit should be good. Blame the Italians and their coaches!

Blame the RFU for moaning, you mean. The Italians did nothing wrong and it isn't their fault the England players were robots who couldn't adapt or didn't know the rules. As Poite said "I'm not your coach".

To recap the rfu didn't want these trials. But we saw again on Saturday how hard it can be reffing the ruck tackle but with the opposing team not trying to systematically take advantage. The only time we've seen it done as a major tactic we sawajor.inconsistency and identified that it would be a nightmare to ref where even a.ref warned.in advance got a lot of the decisions incorrect. Hard decisions to make granted.

I can see the mandatory hook being enforced as much as the straight put in has been. Will this mean TMO stoppages to check if there was a hook?
How exactly do you get a turnover at ruck time now if it's immediately a ruck with hands out being called? Do you actually have to drive over to win the ball? Will this commit more forwards to the rucks or will rucks become more like the league restarts?

No 7&1/2 wrote:To recap the rfu didn't want these trials. But we saw again on Saturday how hard it can be reffing the ruck tackle but with the opposing team not trying to systematically take advantage. The only time we've seen it done as a major tactic we sawajor.inconsistency and identified that it would be a nightmare to ref where even a.ref warned.in advance got a lot of the decisions incorrect. Hard decisions to make granted.

I wasn't talking about the trials. I was talking about that specific rule (the offside at the ruck rule) and what was said after the game. As I assume you were also, with your comment about Italy.

Look, the tactic was used sparsely because teams could quickly adapt. England couldn't until Eddie Jones talked to them at half-time.

All fine. Slow to adapt before a bonus point win etc. Gt your point. The blame italy and their coaches point is in response to this new ruck rule which is seemingly to end the possibility of a team taking advantage of this again. Too hard to ref consistently and if you look at the majority of the games teams are lining up in defence when they don't have to. Italy s good tactics showed.up a flaw in the rules which wr hope.to close through this.