PDA

View Full Version : 2019 Law Book available for download



Phil E
02-01-19, 12:01
....from the WR website

It appears to have an extra two pages of content (looking at the last page number).
It states that any 2019 changes are highlighted in green, but a quick scan shows very few of these, so without comparing it line by line I can't see where the two extra pages have come from?

Nice little job for CR? :wink:

3833

crossref
02-01-19, 12:01
I will be on it later today ! :)

crossref
02-01-19, 13:01
Offside at the Ruck 15.4
They have changed it to bring it in line with Offside at the tackle

So the Offside line is the nearest part of the body of any player in the ruck (ie from either team)

Previously it was the hindmost foot of the player on your own team


Was that change made quickly as a result of the England v New Zealand Courtney Lawes decision ?

crossref
02-01-19, 13:01
this is highlighted as new

19.30. Once play in the scrum begins, the scrum-half of the team not in possession :
a. Takes up a position with both feet behind the ball and close to the scrum but not in
the space between the flanker and the number eight or

so brings into Law what we have been applying for a while

crossref
02-01-19, 13:01
and this is an interesting change in the U19 regulations -- important for everyone reffing kids

U19 VARIATON 19.6.b When a team is reduced to fewer than 15 for any reason, the number of players in
each team in the scrum must be similarly reduced.

Previously that said "may" be reduced.

So that ends all the discussions we have had about reducing scrum numbers nd whether it depended on whether a forward or a back left the pitch. Going forward 14 players always means seven in the scrum...

crossref
02-01-19, 13:01
Other changes - or corrections perhaps - have been made to the Law Book without being highlighted - Boo !

So we have a new Law
18.25. Opposition players must not block the throw. Sanction: Free-kick.
and subsequent Laws within Law 18 are renumbered to make room for it.

That Law was, of course, accidentally omitted from the 2018 book, and now happily reinstated in 2019


Interestingly, this new wording settles another long running argument / ambiguity
- opposition player blocks the throw = FK
- player from own team blocks the throw = option (LO or scrum)

So it's not just a re-instatement, it's actually (depending on how you reffed it before) a change.

PeteTheMeat
02-01-19, 19:01
Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete

PeteTheMeat
02-01-19, 19:01
and this is an interesting change in the U19 regulations -- important for everyone reffing kids

U19 VARIATON 19.6.b When a team is reduced to fewer than 15 for any reason, the number of players in
each team in the scrum must be similarly reduced.

Previously that said "may" be reduced.

So that ends all the discussions we have had about reducing scrum numbers nd whether it depended on whether a forward or a back left the pitch. Going forward 14 players always means seven in the scrum...

Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete

beckett50
02-01-19, 19:01
Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete

Yes. The RFU has mandated this for a while, and I guess that WR is bringing all Unions into 'line' (couldn't think of a more appropriate word.

crossref
02-01-19, 21:01
Yes. The RFU has mandated this for a while, and I guess that WR is bringing all Unions into 'line' (couldn't think of a more appropriate word.

Have they ?
I thought it has been as ambiguous as ever , up to now ?

Pinky
03-01-19, 00:01
Is that the intended interpretation?
If you lose 2 players to the bin - does the scrum automatically drop to 6 v 6?

Pete

That's fine until there are uncontested scrums when you are back to 8 v 8!

crossref
03-01-19, 09:01
So , as noted in the quick tap thread - another UNHIGHLIGHTED change smuggled into the 2019 book .. a significant change to wording of 10.4.c , which requires all players offside in general play to RETIRE until put onside by a team mate

mcroker
03-01-19, 11:01
So , as noted in the quick tap thread - another UNHIGHLIGHTED change smuggled into the 2019 book .. a significant change to wording of 10.4.c , which requires all players offside in general play to RETIRE until put onside by a team mate

10.4.c is the 10m rule (for kicks) - that always required a player to retire to an imaginary line across the field 10 meters from where the ball lands.

OB..
03-01-19, 20:01
10.4.c is the 10m rule (for kicks) - that always required a player to retire to an imaginary line across the field 10 meters from where the ball lands.
Historical footnote: many years ago (probably the 60s) it was legal to run towards an opponent waiting for a kick as long as you stopped 10 yards away.

Arabcheif
04-01-19, 11:01
See with the reduction of numbers in the scrum - would this not only apply if there were 7 forwards on the field? EG Red gets yellow/red card to Flanker. Blue has to reduce the number in the scrum too. Red gets yellow/red card to back, scrums stay 8 v 8 as there is no imbalance in numbers for scrums.???

crossref
04-01-19, 14:01
See with the reduction of numbers in the scrum - would this not only apply if there were 7 forwards on the field? EG Red gets yellow/red card to Flanker. Blue has to reduce the number in the scrum too. Red gets yellow/red card to back, scrums stay 8 v 8 as there is no imbalance in numbers for scrums.???

That's how it was (mostly ) reffed up until last week.
The 2019 change is that in both cases the scrum goes down to 7

.. unless it's uncontested in which case in both cases it's eight again

menace
04-01-19, 23:01
Historical footnote: many years ago (probably the 60s) it was legal to run towards an opponent waiting for a kick as long as you stopped 10 yards away.

Thugby League kept that one in their rules.

Shelflife
05-01-19, 16:01
That's how it was (mostly ) reffed up until last week.
The 2019 change is that in both cases the scrum goes down to 7

.. unless it's uncontested in which case in both cases it's eight again

Whats the logic behind this ? Why cause disruption to the scrum because a back has been YC ?

OB..
05-01-19, 18:01
Whats the logic behind this ?
(Spot the false assumption.)

crossref
05-01-19, 18:01
Whats the logic behind this ? Why cause disruption to the scrum because a back has been YC ?

I suspect the logic is to deny the team with 14 the decision on whether the play with seven or eight in the scrum (which they sort of could do by making substitution to take off or bring on a forward

mcroker
05-01-19, 21:01
IMHO The drafting is slightly ambiguous as it doesn’t say similarly reduced by comparison to what ...

The numbers in “each team in the scrum must be similarly reduced” could equally mean that if the YC causes one team to have less in the scrum the other team must similarly reduce their pack.

I really don’t fancy telling a team they must reduce their scrum because a winger got YC - so I am probably going to take the above interpretation

crossref
05-01-19, 22:01
The question is. They specifically changed the word from MAY be reduced to MUST he reduced.

What else could they have meant by it

KML1
08-01-19, 21:01
interesting thread. So in addition to a smuggled one in, they havent quite done what they previously announced (As I just discovered to my slightly red face)

You'll remember that they'd announced the new "dont drop a team mate (https://rugbyreferee.net/2018/09/27/new-law-approved-by-world-rugby/)" FK last year as a "new 9.19" and then renumber the ones after that up a number. What they've actually done is just added it to the end of the list so it's new law 9.26.

(Happy New Year everyone!)

crossref
09-01-19, 22:01
https://rugbyreferee.net/2019/01/09/rugby-law-book-whats-new-2019/?fbclid=IwAR1S135247yqj1Qjpp6w3wBbueDmwojFjmyScmg2 IjMt2BWBNfbtYFwpe2g

KML1
10-01-19, 22:01
much obliged CR!