summary of law changes, proposals and trials ?

[Taff]

I put the question out to my society and got a stony silence. Very strange. What's the point of a trial if it's not discussed afterwards.

It probably was discussed by those who needed to know.

[Dickie E]

I understand the motivations for the changes. Worth a try. One big question is the goal-line drop-out. I assume we will now get a 10-metre line rather than rely on our decison that the DO has actually travelled the 10 metres ? ( Shares in Whitewash companies suddenly go up 10% ! )

We had this last year in the NRC. From memory, the 5 metre line was used.

But might be moot because nobody appears to be trialling it :

Where to see the trials in action in 2020
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa | Super Rugby – High Tackle Technique Warning
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Uruguay and USA |Americas Rugby Championship – 50:22 kick
France – Top 14 and Pro D2 – High Tackle Technique Warning
Community Rugby: C 2nd and 3rd federal division – Federal B – Excellence B – Women’s Federal 1,C = Regional series – Honour Reserves – Rugby entreprises – Women’s’ Federal 2 – U19 League 1 and 2 – U16 League 1 and 2 – Women’s Federal U18 , D = Game with 10 players – Waist High Tackle
South Africa | Varsity Cup – 50:22 kick
Fiji | Kaji competition, Deans Schools, Skipper and Vanua and Women’s competitions – Waist High Tackle
Georgia | U16 and U18s – 50:22 kick
Italy | Top 12, Serie A, B, C, Women, U18 and U16 – 50:22 kick

[frenchie851]

The area I am confused on it the the tackle height. They did one trial on the tackle height being chest height and it was found that reducing the tackle height cause more head injuries? (I think that's correct) so they have now decided to reduce it (for the trial) to waist height? I can't see the logic here!

[Pinky]

The area I am confused on it the the tackle height. They did one trial on the tackle height being chest height and it was found that reducing the tackle height cause more head injuries? (I think that's correct) so they have now decided to reduce it (for the trial) to waist height? I can't see the logic here!

I think the problem with the tackle height of chest was that there were more head injuries to tacklers, and I think less to ball carriers, but net was an increase. I think they are trying the waist high tackle to see if that reduces head injuries overall.

[chbg]

Bump …

The Times of London had an article yesterday on the progress of Law Trials, mainly in France (you have to excuse the sub-editors, harrumph). It may be behind a paywall:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/s...ugby-03xzzxb7t

There may be a World Rugby report, to which this refers, but I haven't looked for it (too much 'self-isolation' DIY). But a highlight seems to be:
"The key findings from the first half of the season [in Federale 2, the fourth tier of French club rugby] were a 60 per cent drop in the number of head impacts and a threefold reduction in match injuries plus a 31 per cent increase in line breaks and a 67 per cent decrease in the amount of kicking."

What was also informative was a reader's comment:
"The law changes are from Fédérale 2 downwards not solely in that division. They were difficult to referee at start of the season and difficult for players used to the old laws but they favour better « ball players » ahead of big ball carriers charging straight into defenders. The « pick and go » has been illegal in amateur rugby in France for years (you can only go to ground intentionally if tackled) so that hasn’t changed this season and you can still dive for the line to score. The rub is that if you don’t touchdown it’s a 5m penalty to the opposition. The other experimental tackle law not mentioned in the article is that simultaneous two man tackles are illegal. Players took time to get used to this but it favours defenders who have « proper » tackle techniques and their team also benefits from more turnover possibilities as the player who would have been the second tackler is often free and on his feet near the tackle. A second defender cannot « block » the ball carrier’s arms so the offload is fairly easy to do rather than go to ground. As the ball cannot be blocked by the defending team (it can be ripped directly from the ball carrier’s hands but defenders cannot wrap the ball carrier’s arms) the maul has become an offensive weapon chosen by the attacking team rather than « suffered » after their ball carrier has been wrapped up. All the changes have lead to some basketball scores particularly at the start of the season but teams adapted their defences and will no doubt continue to adapt."

Any of our French referees care to comment further?

[didds]

Thanks for that CHBG... that's really interesting.,

I think - without having had the benefit oif seeing what actually happens wrt "not helkd up" stuff, is whether this emans that ball carriers contact technaiue can be even more shambolic as if they go into contact too upright they have no danger of being wrapped up and end up with a scrum turnover ie they are "guaranteeed" to get the ball back even if their technique is shit. WRT to the maul now being an attacjking weapon as per the text above, does French rugby see MORE in play mauls now as a result? It woud seem logical as the maul is a difficult tactic to defend once set and in place and moving...


any french rugby watchers here able to comment?
didds

[Bairneacc]

Hi,
just reading the the new guidelines on the breakdown ,what changes will they bring ?
looks like the jackler now has the advantage as they longer need to survive the clear out while rolling forward “man on fire “ may no longer be allowed ?

regards
Bairneacc