IRB law clarifications

[Russ]

So stuart hogg who suffered GBH would still be red carded

[rumncoke]

the one which meets my approval is thou shall not join the maul in front of the ball carrier and thou shall not as the ball carrier join a maul already formed

While the 42 identifies Ireland as guilty of these offences I am of the opinion the worst offenders of illegal mauls at the line are the English .

Short maul line outs being the main stay of heavy packs --light packs tend to go for the run arounds , exploitation of gaps in the line out or wheels rather than the straight shove.

Interference by refs at set scrums should not be allowed until referees start penalising off side scrum halfs who interfere with their opposite number before the ball comes out.

[BaggyTrousers]

the one which meets my approval is thou shall not join the maul in front of the ball carrier and thou shall not as the ball carrier join a maul already formed

While the 42 identifies Ireland as guilty of these offences I am of the opinion the worst offenders of illegal mauls at the line are the English .

Short maul line outs being the main stay of heavy packs --light packs tend to go for the run arounds , exploitation of gaps in the line out or wheels rather than the straight shove.

Interference by refs at set scrums should not be allowed until referees start penalising off side scrum halfs who interfere with their opposite number before the ball comes out.

You been practicing Rum, that makes almost complete sense - the bit about scrums is a bit scatty as composed but it's a fair point about the scrum half - and is of almost flawless composition, furthermore none of your detractors can have any complaints for this post being quoted, win win.

OK we could quibble about the odd capital letter and I'd prefer "shalt not" to "shall not" for it sounds awfully like comandments, but all in all, a worthy effort.

[Mac]

Liberal maul interpretations set to be tightened

We’re steering away from stats on this fine Thursday, to bring you the news that the days of banging your head on the desk about how the maul is policed might be numbered. Maybe.

World Rugby – the artist formerly known as the International Rugby Board – announced on Monday that they had “moved to clarify certain aspects of law and reinforced consistency of application among match officials”.

World Rugby’s Laws Representation Group – they get their own acronym: ‘LRG’ – met in London in April, and looked at aspects of the game in relation to the laws, and how they were and are being policed. Essentially, they met – as they have every four years – to clean things up before the Rugby World Cup in September and October becomes a turgid whistle-fest.

As an aside, Australia’s NRC – and particularly its local Law interpretations and point changes – was referenced throughout this gathering, and in a good way. I’ll have a bit more on this in the next week or so.

On Monday, World Rugby announced the outcome of the LRG’s meeting:

“At a meeting in April, the World Rugby Laws Representation Group (LRG) considered a number of areas of the game where it had been agreed that law amendments were not required but that current law was to be enforced more stringently by referees, assistant referees, and television match officials.

“The areas identified for specific mention were with the laws dealing with foul play (Law 10), the scrum (Law 20), and the maul (Law 17).

“To assist with the explanation of exactly what the LRG has recommended a number of video clips have been compiled and the Rugby World Cup2015 match officials have discussed at length the issues raised by those incidents while agreeing a consistent and accountable course of action.”

LRG Chairman, John Jeffrey of Scotland, said in the statement, that the group “has sought to clarify to players, coaches, media, and spectators exactly what they can expect from referees in these key areas during the [Rugby World Cup] tournament.”

“It was felt that law changes were not necessary in these areas but that referees needed to apply the current law more effectively in some cases.”

What was missing from the statement on Monday was a ‘with effect’ date, but already there has been widespread assumption and reporting within the international rugby media that the more ‘stringent enforcement’ of the specified Laws will take effect immediately.

With the major European competitions now complete, it appears as though the LRG announcement has been timed for the start of the Super Rugby finals series. And this at least makes more sense that coming into effect for Round 16, or the week of the Final.

Regarding Foul Play, the clarifications come specifically around high tackles making contact with the head and neck area (Law 10.4e – Dangerous tackling), and challenging players in the air (Law 10.4i – Tackling the jumper in the air).

The instruction around dangerous tackles is very clear: “Every time the head or the neck is deliberately grabbed or choked, the offending player runs the risk of receiving a yellow or red card. Cleanouts around the neck must be penalised. Match officials should work together to ensure that foul play is strictly penalised and that player welfare is paramount.”

Interesting that leading-shoulder cleanouts didn’t also rate a mention, but essentially, any contact around the head and neck will now be penalised, if it hadn’t been already.

The instruction around challenging players in the air sets out clear guidelines for when play should carry on, for when a penalty only will suffice, and for when yellow and red cards should be issued. These guidelines all make decent sense, and I’d encourage you to check out the explanatory videos.

Regarding the Scrum, I’m very pleased to see that once again – and only roughly 18 months since the last ‘crackdown’ – the straightness of scrum feeds is back under the microscope, and will be enforced as per Law 20.6(d). The explanatory video highlights some terrible scrum feeds that have been allowed this season.

Also, common sense is set to prevail around Law 20.4 (e and f), with the instruction that referees will call ‘use it’ when the ball is available at the no. 8s feet once a scrum becomes stationary. Collapsed scrums fitting this scenario aren’t specifically mentioned in the clarifications, but you would like to think this would also apply.

This brings us onto the clarifications around the maul, with instructions issued on players joining the maul in front of the ball carrier (Law 17.4c), and the requirement that the ‘ripper’ must be properly bound himself (covered by Laws 17.1 and 17.2).

The instruction is to “sanction all players who join in front of the ball carrier,” and the example used in the video includes the ‘changing lanes’ scenario.

I’m not sure the instruction goes far enough though. I’ve mentioned in the past that players this season were operating under the direction that as long as they got a touch – rather than actually bind – on the ball carrier, they could then go forward of the ball.

All teams in the final six use the maul – some more than others, obviously – so will be interesting to observe a), whether these clarifications are used and evident from this weekend and onwards, and b), whether the liberal allowance of only needing to get a touch on the ball-carrier is still kosher.

Likewise, it will be interesting to watch the policing of the ‘ripper’ being bound. Often the lineout will come down and become a maul so quickly, so it might not always be possible to tell if the ripper was properly bound to the maul before the ball is moved backwards.

The World Rugby “Enforcement of Current Law” explanations, including a number of helpful videos around the specific considerations can be found here.

Referees have a fair bit on their plate already, so it will be interesting to see if these changes have any immediate effect at all. Seems like a case of staying tuned.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/06/18/li ... tightened/

[rumncoke]

For my money the farce is the amount of protection and time afforded to a scrum half at a ruck , when the out field is packed with defenders lying flat , compared to the harassment a scrum half receives at a set scrum when there is space in the outfield and effectively only man to man marking .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kofi Annan]

For my money the farce is the amount of protection and time afforded to a scrum half at a ruck , when the out field is packed with defenders lying flat , compared to the harassment a scrum half receives at a set scrum when there is space in the outfield and effectively only man to man marking .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly Half]

The "use it" command when the ball is at the 8's feet will be interesting to see if it nullifies dominant scrums. Some powerful packs hook for the ball first and get the ball to the 8, and then put in a secondary eight-man shove. So the ref is going to have to decide how long the ball has to be stationary for before calling it.

I've never understood why people get so het up about a crooked feed to the scrum. It is patently unfair to expect a hooker to hook! Doing so de-powers the pack, so effectively the side that have the put in have 7.5 v 8. This increases the chance of resets. Why not have 8 v 8 but give the side with the put in the advantage of feeding their own side - powerful packs will still have a big influence on the game.

Challenging in the air is a shambles now and open to exploitation. I'm convinced Matawalu purposely jumped in Gilroy's path to buy a penalty or card even though neither were near the ball. This 'clarification' now spells out exactly how he would have to fall to ensure how he could get his opponent sent off. Such stipulation increases the pressure on referees rather than helping them.

[MattMo]

I've never understood why people get so het up about a crooked feed to the scrum. It is patently unfair to expect a hooker to hook! Doing so de-powers the pack, so effectively the side that have the put in have 7.5 v 8. This increases the chance of resets. Why not have 8 v 8 but give the side with the put in the advantage of feeding their own side - powerful packs will still have a big influence on the game.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother but here goes.

The scrum is not an advantage to which one team should always gain the ball. It is for an infringement on the rules that was not intentional. Therefore the advantage goes to the other team, but is not subject to an automatic gain of possession, but instead, a probable, but contestable, gain of possession. Without the contestable side of this, the gain of possession is equal to that of a free kick, which is a much more onerous impingement.

If there is 8 vs 8 pushing in the scrum and the ball is put in crooked, we go back to 3 years ago, where nearly every scrum resulted in a penalty, and we had 99% of inputs won by the inputting team. That is not contestable.

If we go for 8 vs. 8 and no crooked feed, the ball sits in the middle, and we are left waiting for one team to push over. English teams attempted this, and it was a complete failure at the start of enforcing straight feeds. The scrums were 2 minutes long and Tom Youngs (worst hooker ever) was on the press yammering about hooking being dangerous (as if he'd ever tried).

The current system, when enforced, allows for the hooker, yes depowered, to hook the ball back, creating an advantage to the inputter, and the opposition to attempt to overpower them in that time, or to hook it themselves. This achieves the goal of the scrum, to be contestable and give an advantage.

Please don't talk about scrums again, as if anyone takes your view we will go back to the days of Brian Moore and his big mouth never shutting up about how scrums are pointless when i'm trying to watch the six nations.


MattMo

[BaggyTrousers]

Splendid

[LUMBERJACK]

Am I being a bit simple, both hookers can strike for the ball , once the ball is out of the scrum half hands its pretty much an equal contest.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Am I being a bit simple, both hookers can strike for the ball , once the ball is out of the scrum half hands its pretty much an equal contest.

Because of the way the front rows engage the ball will arrive first to the hooker of the team with put in, so he has a slight time advantage, plus it is designed for right-handers (leggers)

The hooker of team putting in gets to strike with his right leg/foot, his opposite number either strikes left-footed or performs contortions with his right leg - neither of which is inclined to give him an advantage. of course some hookers may be southpaws, but in general hooking is trained for right-handed so that is what comes more naturally.

I'm an expert hooker, me!

- played the position once when our hooker failed to show - ended up in hospital and wearing a neck collar for 3 months - never went into the front row again. Wouldn't be allowed to happen nowadays of course, but back in the day, anything went.

[rumncoke]

If both hookers go for the ball it is 7.5 v7.5 . The laws also allow a prop to strike for the ball provided the ball has past the hooking foot as a tight head on the opposition put in I used to steal the ball on a 5 yard scrum .

The problem was you could only do it once a game with out your shins bring kicked to bits . It also meant that the ball had to be out quick at the back because as prop you are balancing on one leg not kind to the knees .
Of course props nowadays attempt to disrupt the opposition scrum rather than hook and before pushing .
The fact is of course there is no legal way to disrupt the opposition front row . But because all 4 props are acting illegally the refs fail to apply the laws



Sent from cyberspace