PDA

View Full Version : Experimental Law 2007



Martin Axon
26-07-07, 12:07
I take it these are not being applied across the board yet!

IRB EXPERIMENTAL LAW VARIATIONS FOR THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP 2007

20th April 2007 -

This year's RFU County Championship will be played using Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) which has been instigated by the IRB as part of their long term strategy to review the future development of the game.

This is a world wide initiative which the RFU together with other major Unions are supporting to ensure robust research into how Rugby Union Football should be played.

Inside the 22

When a defending player receives the ball outside the 22 metre line and passes, puts or takes the ball back inside the 22, the following can occur.

- If the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is in line with where the ball was kicked.

- If a tackle, ruck or maul is subsequently formed and the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is where the ball crossed the touch line.
Breakdown 1

Players entering the breakdown area must do so through the gate. RIGIDLY APPLIED

Immediately the tackle occurs there are offside lines.

The offside lines run parallel to the goal lines through the hindmost part of the hindmost player at the tackle.

A tackled player must immediately play the ball and may not be prevented from playing the ball by any player who is off their feet.

Any other player playing the ball at the breakdown must be on their feet. OFF FEET OUT OF PLAY

If the ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a FK.
Breakdown 2

If the ball is received directly from a kick and a tackle occurs immediately, and the ball becomes unplayable, the FK is given to the team who received the kick.

There are only 3 penalty offences (not including dangerous play) at the breakdown.

- Offside for not coming through the gate.

- Offside where defenders are in front of the last man on their side of the breakdown. i.e. the offside line

- A tackled player must immediately play the ball and may not be prevented from playing the ball by any player who is off their feet
Breakdown 3

Repeated infringements can be dealt with as per current law.

All FKs are tap kicks including a mark and a scrum option is available for all FKs.

Dangerous play not tolerated. Eg. Diving over the breakdown.

The half back should not be touched unless he has his hands on the ball.
Maul

Defending players can pull down the maul.

Players joining the maul must do so through the gate. RIGIDLY APPLIED

If a maul becomes unplayable, the team not in possession at the start of the maul receives a FK.

The ''truck and trailer" not an offence.
Scrum

The offside line will be 5 metres back from the hindmost foot of the scrum.

Rgds Martin :biggrin:

Gareth-Lee Smith
26-07-07, 12:07
The only Law there worth anything is the 22m kicking law.

The rest are ridiculous. I remember reading these and thinking the same. I can see it causing a lot of headaches for referees, especially if it's rolled out throughout the country/world.

dave_clark
26-07-07, 13:07
I like the 22 law and have been a supporter of this for some time. Collapsing a maul is dangerous so, if this is passed into law it will be reversed after the first law suit, and what's wrong with giving a penalty for killing the ball? why would free kick make sense?

Gareth-Lee Smith
26-07-07, 14:07
I think they're trying to encourage more try-scoring rugby

Davet
26-07-07, 14:07
Blue 13 tackled, ball placed by tackled player - who releases it, tackler gets clear, ruck forms. So far all good stuff.

Red 7, on his feet, places a big hand over the ball and pulls it into Blue 13's chest as he lays on the floor - holding it firmly in place and preventing Blue from playing quick ball.

Current Laws - PK against Red 7

Proposed Law - No offence committed by Red 7. If the ball remains unplayable then Red 7 has won a FK for his team.

In addition - should Blue 6 resent the ball killing and attempt to ruck the ball out of Red 7's grasp he may well get penalised for dangerous play.

Would the proposed Law result in a better, more free-flowing, more interesting game with a good contest for the ball? Or is it a recipe for tackle, followed by turnover almost every time?

beckett50
26-07-07, 17:07
Would the proposed Law result in a better, more free-flowing, more interesting game with a good contest for the ball? Or is it a recipe for tackle, followed by turnover almost every time?

Bet Ritchie MacCaw is salivating with joy and hoping it is brought into Law!

There are 2 points to raise here though.

First lets not get into too much of a lather over this announcement since the key word in Martin's initial posting is "County Championship" matches. Very few of us will be lucky enough to officiate at these games, and those that do will have the benefit of RFU coaching and a qualified team of 3.

Also, should any of these be accepted into Law it will be January 2008 at the earliest before we are affected. However, I think that the 22m ELV will be written into Law first since this is easier to implement at ALL levels of the game - as per the change to the scrum engage sequence this January.

I have said before that the current tackle Law is fine, it just needs better policing at the top level, and with 6 pairs of eyes it is surprising that so much gets by!

Also this 5m off-side line at a scrum. What chance have we got at Old Duffers 5ths v New Farts 6ths? Lucky to get any sort of TJ for that game let alone one that will police some stupid off-side line:nono: :Nerv:

Lets wait and see what Paddy does with it all....:rolleyes: :sleep:

FlipFlop
26-07-07, 17:07
First lets not get into too much of a lather over this announcement since the key word in Martin's initial posting is "County Championship" matches. Very few of us will be lucky enough to officiate at these games, and those that do will have the benefit of RFU coaching and a qualified team of 3.

Indeed I look forward to being asked to officiate these games, but suspect due to the lack of time travel machines, the games will be forever officiated but the lucky few from last season. :rolleyes:

But lets not get all uptight about it now, lets wait until we hear an official announcement about what is actually going to happen and when..... :sleep:

David J.
26-07-07, 19:07
I'm excited about these changes.

There will defintely be headaches during the adjustment period, but once the laws are widely known and accepted, refereeing the breakdown will become much much easier. The 5m at the scrum will take some adjustment, but all team-of-one games make do at line outs now.

From a players viewpoint, the revised tackling laws will require quick recycling of the ball if the support isn't there. The offsides line at the tackle will change the 7s game immensely. The importance of the kicker will go down, with the reduction of penalties and the 22m change. There will be fewer line outs and more scrums, as teams will choose a scrum over free kick if they can't get the kick away quickly or they need the rest.

I do think the truck and trailer and the maul collapsing are absurd and dangerous.

I believe that we will be saying goodbye to the term 'ruck' in rugby. Is that anyone else's interpretation?

But in short, quicker ball + less kicking = more exciting rugby.

Gareth-Lee Smith
26-07-07, 20:07
I look forward to it all as a player. Collapsing the mauls is very attractive to me ;)

Davet
26-07-07, 22:07
But in short, quicker ball + less kicking = more exciting rugby.


Where will this quick ball come from? Instead of a ruck we will get players hands all over the ball - legally - and it will remain stuck, then blown up and turnover ball with a FK.

And what's wrong with kicking - a line-outs are \hugely important parts of the game, with a good contest going on, and lots of opportunity to launch attacks. They are NOT simply a restart - any coach who believes that is going to lose a lot of games.

David J.
26-07-07, 22:07
Quick ball will come from attacking players avoiding contact, passing out of contact, and recycling the ball immediately in contact. With an offsides line at the tackle and the threat of a turnover if the ball gets stuck, the attacking team that delays getting the ball out will be at a disadvantage. Play will be much more dynamic; think 7s.

Kicking for touch is fine, but there will far less kicking for points (because there'll be fewer penalties). Do you think a point kicking contest is more exciting than a running, try scoring game?

beckett50
26-07-07, 23:07
With an offsides line at the tackle

David J I hate to be the bearer of bad news but,... there always have been off-side lines at the tackle zone.

The only difference between now and what is being proposed is that now they are only in the locale - i.e within 1m of the tackle hence the phrase entering through the gate with bums to posts:chin: - and what is proposed is that the off-side lines will be the same as the ruck/maul in that they extend across the pitch from the hindmost foot immediately and not when the ruck is formed.

As to this quicker game scenario, I believe that you are in a minority in your belief that the ruck law change will move the game to a more attacking platform. All that will happen is that you'll get a series of rolling mauls, and we all know how much less dynamic a maul can be when compared to a tackle-ruck phase of play. can already visualise the Leicester forwards coaches formulating their game plans:=

David J.
27-07-07, 04:07
David J I hate to be the bearer of bad news but,... there always have been off-side lines at the tackle zone.

It's hard to tell when someone is being intentionally condescending online, but I certainly am feeling those vibes. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's unintentional.

A couple points. No, there is no offsides line at a tackle. By definition an offsides line extends the width of the field. Calling the present law regarding the options to other players at the tackle "offsides" simply breeds confusion amongst players and fans. The word "offsides" does not appear anywhere in Law 15. And if you don't see a material difference between the current law and the proposed change, I'm not sure if I am the best one to explain it to you. I do see the change as being very influential in 15s and huge in 7s.



As to this quicker game scenario, I believe that you are in a minority in your belief that the ruck law change will move the game to a more attacking platform.

I am quite comfortable being in the minority when it comes to strategic thinking. In fact, I think I prefer it.

Perhaps we can revisit this thread in a year and a half and see if the game has changed more in the way I think it will or the way you do. Surely we are both expressing opinions here about an unknowable future.

jboulet4648
27-07-07, 05:07
Because of the law variations, in that a player on his feet can hold the ball in, and if he is successful, his side is awarded a FK, will result in attacking teams either playing the ball more and avoiding contact, or attacking teams needing to have support players with them securing the ball. The amount of running by players in this game is going to be huge, the level of fitness of players and referees will need to be raised as games become track meets.

Have seen the ELV in a few matches on video. Current laws and ELVs each have their perks. But whether we like them or not, a year from Sept, thats what we will be refereeing.

beckett50
27-07-07, 10:07
No, there is no offsides line at a tackle. By definition an offsides line extends the width of the field

Law 15.6(c) is the relevant passage that defines the scenario.


At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must
do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled
player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Penalty: Penalty Kick

I agree that it doesn't specifically mention the word off-side, however that is what is being defined. A player that goes 'in at the side' or from 'the wrong side' is in fact off-side and that is the reason for the offence and why it is pinged.

What the Law makers are attempting with the ELV is to "formalise" the off-side line and prevent players from loitering away from the tackle zone on the wrong side - if you get my drift.

I am still of the opinion that allowing players to compete for the ball on the ground with hands after a 'ruck' has formed will cause flash points and unnecessarily slow the game down whilst this wrestling match takes place. It will also negate positive defence, since all a defender now needs to do to win a FK is to hold the ball against the tackled player.

You could argue that with the new off-side Law any attackers in-front of the tackle area are out of the game and so it may prompt a defender to quickly get the ball away and go for the break. I still do not believe that this particular re-write enhances the 'fair contest for the ball' that we all want to see.

Oh, and I didn't mean to come across as condescending

Davet
27-07-07, 12:07
Quick ball will come from attacking players avoiding contact, passing out of contact, and recycling the ball immediately in contact.


But that's what teams are seeking to do now.

What will change is what happens when the ball is not moved instantly. Currently the laws prevent opposition players slowing down the ball, in future they will encourage it.


But whether we like them or not, a year from Sept, thats what we will be refereeing.

No, we won't. Or least I won't. If the law is changed in this way then I will quit. If anybody then wants to set up a Trad iRB or Trad RFU then I will join that.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Simon Thomas
27-07-07, 13:07
Martin

Following IRB trials and study group work in South Africa and Australia, these ELVs were used in English County Championship back in May - they are not being applied across the board. Only RFU Panel Refs with Panel TJs officiated and they had a number of briefings, both from RFU and IRB beforehand, as did the County XV squads.
All the the learnings are being fed back to IRB, along with similar trials in Scotland, Australia and elsewhere.
After the World Cup the IRB Laws Committee meets and recommendations will then be made, consultation with all member unions takes place and final decisions made and any new Laws or ELVs introduced on 1st January 2008 as Beckett said - not September 2008 as jboulet suggests.
But all unknown for now - it may be all the ELVs you mention, or it could be none, or even different ones - no one knows as yet.

madref
27-07-07, 22:07
Hi

One of my friends is a panel ref and he did a few county games, said the players coaches and he personally liked the laws. Made a faster flowing game.

David

jboulet4648
27-07-07, 23:07
After the World Cup the IRB Laws Committee meets and recommendations will then be made, consultation with all member unions takes place and final decisions made and any new Laws or ELVs introduced on 1st January 2008 as Beckett said - not September 2008 as jboulet suggests.
But all unknown for now - it may be all the ELVs you mention, or it could be none, or even different ones - no one knows as yet.

IRB Laws council meeting at start of year 2008. Few months to get input from member nations, and all other necessary stuff, plus final ruling and date of implementation, won't be for another year before all is said and done.

PaulDG
29-07-07, 09:07
I agree that it doesn't specifically mention the word off-side, however that is what is being defined.

If a player from the non ball carrying side who was ahead of the tackle attempted to intercept a pass from that tackle, would be be liable to penalty?

No, as he's not offside. There is no offside at the tackle in the contact game.

(FWIW, they are offside in Tag. (Offside at the tackle is actually the only offside line in U8s & U7s Tag.))

Obviously many tackles lead to rucks forming and then there's an offside line. But not until then.

Dixie
29-07-07, 12:07
If anybody then wants to set up a Trad iRB or Trad RFU then I will join that.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

First member had better be OB. Then the rest of us will be armed with the wherewithal to decide what amounts to "traditional". I eagerly await the return of the 25 yd line, the removal of post pads, insistence on the sort of boots the Bash Street Kids used to wear, laced leather balls, plus many other gems of the traditional game that OB could doubtless point out if he didn't have a thousand more constructive things to do.

OB..
29-07-07, 13:07
many other gems of the traditional game
... such as playing the ball with the foot after a tackle?

"I may be laudator temporis acti, but hold very firmly that the football of the fifties and early sixties was the finest form that football has ever attained." Thomas Hughes, author of Tom Brown's Schooldays


(1850s and 1860s, of course)

Davet
29-07-07, 16:07
I appreciate the sentiments, gentlemen, and the gentle implication that the game is constantly evolving and that I may be in danger of being a fossil.

However, the essence of Rugby Union is the contest for the ball. If, in the pursuit of ever more "free-flowing" and exciting rugby that contest is dimished then the nature of the game will be changed utterly. We may as well play Rugby League - which, frankly, bores the pants off me.

If the iRB feel that the game needs souping up to make it more exciting then I suggest that they watch a video of the 1973 All Blacks vs Barbarians game - and tell me in what way was that stodgy and boring?

beckett50
29-07-07, 17:07
If a player from the non ball carrying side who was ahead of the tackle attempted to intercept a pass from that tackle, would be be liable to penalty?

No, as he's not offside. There is no offside at the tackle in the contact game.

(FWIW, they are offside in Tag. (Offside at the tackle is actually the only offside line in U8s & U7s Tag.))

Obviously many tackles lead to rucks forming and then there's an offside line. But not until then.

Paul, you are partly correct in your assumption.

However, the 'offside lines' to which I have been referring are "near" the tackle zone. And we all know - coz it used to be defined in the LotG - that "near" means within 1m.

The player to whom you refer is not offside - per se - because he is still in open play.

Subtleties:chin:

OB..
29-07-07, 21:07
I think it is bad practice to talk of offside lines in relation to a tackle, because it is misleading. Even if you know the correct details, players etc do not.

PaulDG
30-07-07, 10:07
I think it is bad practice to talk of offside lines in relation to a tackle, because it is misleading. Even if you know the correct details, players etc do not.

And nor do the spectators, esp down at the levels I'm involved in. The half dozen spectators standing right on the touch line grumbling about "offsides" that are not offsides at all does nothing for the temper of the game.

SimonSmith
30-07-07, 14:07
Penalty signal.
Semaphore signal like a traffic cop.
Penetrating voice <I'm deceptively loud for a small guy> "Red 7, not through the gate".

Offside doesn't get mentioned