Law trials 2026: the annual tinkering:

[Marc Wakeham]

The five variations are as follows:

• It will no longer be mandatory for the referee to issue a yellow or red card to a player on the defending team when awarding a penalty try. Any sanction will be at the discretion of the referee. (Law 8.3)
• Accidental offsides and teams delaying playing the ball away from a ruck will result in free kicks rather than scrums. (Law 10.5 and Law 15.17)
• After the referee has called "use it" at the ruck, no additional players from the team in possession may join the ruck. (Law 15.17)
• Teams will be permitted to pass the ball back into their half before kicking a 50:22. (Law 18.8a)
• Players will be allowed to take quick taps within one metre either side of the of the mark, or anywhere behind the mark, if they are within that two-metre channel running parallel to the touchlines. (Law 20.2)

Super Rugby Pacific introduces further law variations for 2026 season

Super Rugby Pacific has continued its push to provide an entertaining spectacle as is possible, with five further law variations announced for the 2026 season.

www.espn.com.au

 

[didds]

all seem reasonable, though Im not convinced with #2, and is purely driven by the time aspect of elite level scrums IMO... an issue not seen typically at 99.9% of rugby globally.

 

[Balones]

It seems to me that this is another squeezing of the scrum out of the game. The TV players only have themselves to blame because of the way they behave at a scrum. Penalisation hasn’t really worked.
At much lower levels scrums are of considerable benefit. It gets 16 ‘big’ players out of the way while the backs, with more space, get on with the game.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

The five variations are as follows:

• It will no longer be mandatory for the referee to issue a yellow or red card to a player on the defending team when awarding a penalty try. Any sanction will be at the discretion of the referee. (Law 8.3)

I like that.

• Accidental offsides and teams delaying playing the ball away from a ruck will result in free kicks rather than scrums. (Law 10.5 and Law 15.17)

Not Convinced , agree with Didds, purely caused by elite level dicking about in scrums

• After the referee has called "use it" at the ruck, no additional players from the team in possession may join the ruck. (Law 15.17)

About time

• Teams will be permitted to pass the ball back into their half before kicking a 50:22. (Law 18.8a)

Not a fan of this, just copying RL 40-20 for no reason. Will passing back inside 22 be ok next?

• Players will be allowed to take quick taps within one metre either side of the of the mark, or anywhere behind the mark, if they are within that two-metre channel running parallel to the touchlines. (Law 20.2)

Super Rugby Pacific introduces further law variations for 2026 season

Super Rugby Pacific has continued its push to provide an entertaining spectacle as is possible, with five further law variations announced for the 2026 season.

www.espn.com.au

They dothat anyway at to Elite level don't they? when was the last time somebody was brought back to the mark?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For me:

• It will no longer be mandatory for the referee to issue a yellow or red card to a player on the defending team when awarding a penalty try. Any sanction will be at the discretion of the referee. (Law 8.3)
I agree with this. I dislike mandatory cards. Let the referee manage the game.
• Accidental offsides and teams delaying playing the ball away from a ruck will result in free kicks rather than scrums. (Law 10.5 and Law 15.17)
NO. Free kicks are pretty useless options. However, a possible "compromise"; Allow a kick out on the full with "gain of ground". At least there would be some reward without the throwing in advantage on top.
• After the referee has called "use it" at the ruck, no additional players from the team in possession may join the ruck. (Law 15.17)
Reasonable
• Teams will be permitted to pass the ball back into their half before kicking a 50:22. (Law 18.8a)
Are we going to allow the same leeway on passing back into the 22? if not why not? This does not need changing.
• Players will be allowed to take quick taps within one metre either side of the of the mark, or anywhere behind the mark, if they are within that two-metre channel running parallel to the touchlines. (Law 20.2)
Effectively, this is managed now. I ask for "near" the mark.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

They dothat anyway at to Elite level don't they? when was the last time somebody was brought back to the mark?

Not quite. They see to allow about 5 or 10 meters and being "near". Well until the 78th minute when they pull a player back for being a meter and a half away.

 

[Rich_NL]

The five variations are as follows:

• It will no longer be mandatory for the referee to issue a yellow or red card to a player on the defending team when awarding a penalty try. Any sanction will be at the discretion of the referee. (Law 8.3)

Good call, I'd keep an advisory to generally issue a card though.

• Accidental offsides and teams delaying playing the ball away from a ruck will result in free kicks rather than scrums. (Law 10.5 and Law 15.17)

Not using it - fair enough, it's a quick turnover against a team trying to slow things down. Accidental offsides I don't see the point/benefit besides to reduce scrums.

• After the referee has called "use it" at the ruck, no additional players from the team in possession may join the ruck. (Law 15.17)

I like this.

• Teams will be permitted to pass the ball back into their half before kicking a 50:22. (Law 18.8a)

It makes it easier to ref, at least. But more complex because of inconsistency with other taken-back laws.

• Players will be allowed to take quick taps within one metre either side of the of the mark, or anywhere behind the mark, if they are within that two-metre channel running parallel to the touchlines. (Law 20.2)

I'm not sure I get this, it seems needlessly bad... They already can, unless I want to manage something. And I'd like the opportunity to manage things that need managing. Am I missing the point here?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I don't get the problem with the "taken back" side of the 50:22. Is the "taken back" into the 22 a problem to manage? I've never seen a lot of issues with it. Why is the half way line so different to the 22?

 

[didds]

I don't get the problem with the "taken back" side of the 50:22. Is the "taken back" into the 22 a problem to manage? I've never seen a lot of issues with it. Why is the half way line so different to the 22?

I can only presume the PTB want to further empower the 50:22, rather than making decisions easier ?

 

[crossref]

I don't get the problem with the "taken back" side of the 50:22. Is the "taken back" into the 22 a problem to manage? I've never seen a lot of issues with it. Why is the half way line so different to the 22?

I think ball crosses the half way more frequently and people aren't general conscious of it so much

 

[Rich_NL]

I don't get the problem with the "taken back" side of the 50:22. Is the "taken back" into the 22 a problem to manage? I've never seen a lot of issues with it. Why is the half way line so different to the 22?

It's not management that's a problem, it's just mentally harder to keep track of. Once you're in the 22, things change a lot more than going back and forth over the halfway line - laws change, you're more alert to repeated/'red zone' offences, teams are much more likely to go for a long clearing kick, and only one team has the advantage. At the halfway line the taken back applies to both teams, a 50:22 attempt is less likely than a clearing kick, play is generally more free with deeper passes back to the back line that you don't see in the 22.

If the defending team is just out of the 22, you're primed to check whether the ball is taken back. If there's a set piece near the 22, you are often asked (or volunteer) whether the ball is inside or outside. You rarely have a clear set-up for a 50:22 where you can tell it's on the cards and mentally check it, it's an opportunistic (and sometimes just plain lucky) play. So the triggers just aren't there... it's obviously not impossible to manage, but I also think a lot of the time it's simply missed or guessed.

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't get the problem with the "taken back" side of the 50:22. Is the "taken back" into the 22 a problem to manage? I've never seen a lot of issues with it. Why is the half way line so different to the 22?

Because then we would be back in the days of yore when 10 would stand in the 22, and get a long pass from well outside the 22m and then kick it fucking miles - the very thing that the 'carried back' law was introduced to stop.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's not management that's a problem, it's just mentally harder to keep track of. Once you're in the 22, things change a lot more than going back and forth over the halfway line - laws change, you're more alert to repeated/'red zone' offences, teams are much more likely to go for a long clearing kick, and only one team has the advantage. At the halfway line the taken back applies to both teams, a 50:22 attempt is less likely than a clearing kick, play is generally more free with deeper passes back to the back line that you don't see in the 22.

If the defending team is just out of the 22, you're primed to check whether the ball is taken back. If there's a set piece near the 22, you are often asked (or volunteer) whether the ball is inside or outside. You rarely have a clear set-up for a 50:22 where you can tell it's on the cards and mentally check it, it's an opportunistic (and sometimes just plain lucky) play. So the triggers just aren't there... it's obviously not impossible to manage, but I also think a lot of the time it's simply missed or guessed.

I'm watching for the 50:22. A lot of grassroots side around here use it a lot. I don't find a quick mental note a problem. I did worry at first but that went quickly.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Because then we would be back in the days of yore when 10 would stand in the 22, and get a long pass from well outside the 22m and then kick it fucking miles - the very thing that the 'carried back' law was introduced to stop.

Totally agree but we will have a lot more 50:22s if this is adopted. Why risk running from half way when you can have a line out deep in the 22? For me it is no passback at all but let's be consistant.

 

[crossref]

I note that pro-refs announce at almost every kick '50/22 on' '50/22 not on' , even kicks that are nowhere near going to touch.

I think this is both for the benefit of the AR, if it does go out, so they know what the situation is, but also a good habit for refs as forces them to always pay attention to the possibility.
I have tried to develop this habit myself

 

[shep]

Totally agree but we will have a lot more 50:22s if this is adopted. Why risk running from half way when you can have a line out deep in the 22? For me it is no passback at all but let's be consistant.

More 50:22 attempts is what they want to happen. It's the whole point of making the change.

They don't want more clearing kicks from the 22, so they won't make that change

 

[Dickie E]

More 50:22 attempts is what they want to happen. It's the whole point of making the change.

They don't want more clearing kicks from the 22, so they won't make that change

They want the non-attacking team to keep a winger deep to protect against the 50:22 kick thereby thining the defensive line and encouraging ball in hand attacks

 

[crossref]

They want the non-attacking team to keep a winger deep to protect against the 50:22 kick thereby thining the defensive line and encouraging ball in hand attacks

Next they'll be trialling netball-like laws, confining different players to different parts of the pitch

 

[Dickie E]

Next they'll be trialling netball-like laws, confining different players to different parts of the pitch

If they were inventing rugby today and given size, speed & skills of current players, I wonder how many players there would be per team? IMO 7 would be too few and 15 too many