Rule change

World Rugby has announced an immediate amendment to Law 3 to stipulate that a match cannot restart until a player leaving the field of play for a blood injury or Head Injury Assessment (HIA) has been temporarily replaced.

Law 3 – Game – Temporary Replacements

Amendments to Law 3 are set out in bold below.



TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT - BLOOD INJURY

25. When a player has a blood injury, that player leaves the field of play and may be temporarily replaced. The injured player returns to play as soon as the bleeding has been controlled and/or covered. If the player is not available to return to the field of play within 15 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent.



26. In international matches, the match-day doctor decides whether an injury is a blood injury necessitating a temporary replacement. In matches which have been approved in advance by World Rugby for use of the HIA process, the game cannot restart until the player with the blood injury has been temporarily replaced.



TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT - HEAD INJURY ASSESSMENT (HIA)

27. In matches which have been approved in advance by World Rugby for use of the HIA process, a player who requires an HIA:

a) Leaves the field of play; and

b) Is temporarily replaced (even if all the replacements have been used). The game cannot restart until the player who requires an HIA has been temporarily replaced. If the player is not available to return to the field of play after 10 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent.

Another step in the right direction for player safety.
In regards to Monye and his protocols I do think how refs are told or taught to interpret things should be with the laws. As it was it's up to the ref at the time of the wales game to decide.

Monye was right the ref got all the big calls wrong in that game.

From failing to ping Wales in particular Francis after the first scrum & as for Biggar climbing on Itoje what was the TMO doing?

Having a kitkat.

this is the Bad Losers thread

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Monye was right the ref got all the big calls wrong in that game.

From failing to ping Wales in particular Francis after the first scrum & as for Biggar climbing on Itoje what was the TMO doing?

The ref was good. You’re just a sore loser.

Before the attempted derailing I thought it was going well.

Never seen World Rugby act so fast in getting a new rule through, I guess because it was always an unwritten rule based on good sportsmanship it made sense to turn it into a rule.

I do like rugby union weekly.

Going well...the thread was on fire, haaaaawt, you'd even introduced confectionary to slow the pace

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Monye was right the ref got all the big calls wrong in that game.

From failing to ping Wales in particular Francis after the first scrum & as for Biggar climbing on Itoje what was the TMO doing?

Seeing as you’re blowing your load over the ref getting everything wrong, why didn’t World Rugby intervene over Biggar’s tackle?

How sad, that the day before an England game, that three “supporters” concerned themselves with trivial matters rather than the next game. Warm up games too mind. Talk about obsessed.

Apologies. Some of it went into the day of the next game.

God forbid people debate a change in the laws. Get a grip risca.

New rule change to the high tackle red card.

Now Referees will have to check with the Television Match Official before handing out a red card for a high tackle at this year's Rugby World Cup.

https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/446186

Should be the same on here.

maestegmafia wrote:New rule change to the high tackle red card.

Now Referees will have to check with the Television Match Official before handing out a red card for a high tackle at this year's Rugby World Cup.

https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/446186

I wonder what this really means in practice. I can't recall a recent red card high tackle NOT being subjected to a TMO review. Whether the ref saw it first, or one of the other officials flagged it, all such incidents seem to get reviewed. One or two of these incidents have later been overturned, and the cards rescinded, but that has happened in the disiplinary panel convened after the match.

Perhaps the message is that the TMO has to actively agree with a red card decision by a referee, rather than just saying "your call", and accepting he has primary authority. It would be interesting to know whether, in post match reviews, the officials have admitted they disagreed, but let the referee have the final decision.

I think that is the sense of it. The BBC news article said that both the Ref and TMO had to follow the high tackle framework, quoting the following excerpt from the amendment:

World Rugby Law Amendment wrote:"If the referee determines that a dangerous high tackle or shoulder charge warrants a red card, then the referee must firstly verify the decision with the TMO. Both the referee and TMO should use the High Tackle Sanction Framework to determine whether a red card is the correct sanction."

It doesn’t state it outright, but the implication is that they have to agree that they’ve followed the protocol properly.

I am not yet sure what I think about that. I think given it’s a new and relatively complex framework, and that there have already been some controversial decisions, it certainly makes sense to involve the TMO.

But I have two major reservations:
1) It is the first instance we have seen where (implicitly) the referee is no longer the sole arbiter of the law. We will only know how significant that is in the longer term
2) From what I have seen so far, the biggest issue with the framework is not that refs are overapplying or even underapplying it in the instances they look at, but that instances that should be looked at - like the Biggar incident - are being missed altogether. If the TMO is being given new powers, one that I would like to see is the ability to say “Sir, I think we need to look at this incident together.”

Another observation is that I still think we need clarification of how the framework affects the deliberate knock on rule, or we are going to see some controversial yellow cards.

That said, World Rugby are moving pretty quickly to respond to what they’re seeing in the warm-up games, so I would expect to see further clarifications issued before the pool stages kick off.

Theres been a number of incidents during these warm ups where I've thought people were slightly fortunate not to get citings. The biggar one for me wasnt a red but I've seen them cited before. I thought may and Kearney got away with 2 last week. Consistency is always an issue but there seems to have been a relaxation of some incidents due to the world cup looming.

New amendment to new rule change just in:  Referee must now consult with TMO to decide the winner of each game with reference to genuine ability verses fluke performance.

About time.  That loophole that allowed teams that scored most points to win was an unmitigated disaster.

New amendment to the amendment to the new rule: 606v2 will have 24 hours after the game to decide on the moral winner. Any opinions using evidence will be discounted. If an agreement cannot be reached then the winner will be the side who come first in the alphabet, noting that Argentina and Australia will be known by their nicknames - Los Pumas & Wallabies.

Thus as this forum can never agree on anything the 1/4 finals will be:

Ireland v Italy
England v Georgia
Canada v Japan
Fiji v France

God bless the referee

Prick of a job

LondonTiger wrote:New amendment to the amendment to the new rule: 606v2 will have 24 hours after the game to decide on the moral winner. Any opinions using evidence will be discounted. If an agreement cannot be reached then the winner will be the side who come first in the alphabet, noting that Argentina and Australia will be known by their nicknames - Los Pumas & Wallabies.

Thus as this forum can never agree on anything the 1/4 finals will be:

Ireland v Italy
England v Georgia
Canada v Japan
Fiji v France

Ah... but Wales will be known as Dragons, so that knocks Japan out...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Theres been a number of incidents during these warm ups where I've thought people were slightly fortunate not to get citings. The  biggar one for me wasnt a red but I've seen them cited before. I thought may and Kearney got away with 2 last week. Consistency is always an issue but there seems to have been a relaxation of some incidents due to the world cup looming.

Having read the framework, the Biggar tackle was definitely at least a yellow - direct contact with the head or neck with no mitigating factor - but the question is whether it would have been regarded as high or low level of danger.

Intuitively, you'd say low, but the narrative around the red card in the U20 RWC mentioned "completing the tackle" and "attempting a dominant tackle" as factors in determining that it was a red. Biggar wasn't going for a dominant tackle in the traditional sense, but he chose to jump onto Itoje's neck rather than tackle his legs, and definitely completed the tackle. So it's not clear how it would be decided if it had been reviewed.

I haven't seen a replay of the clearout on Heinz, but I suspect that might have been more clear cut, given it resulted in an HIA on a player who wasn't involved in contact.

High Tackle Framework