IRB tweaks laws
16 May 2012
The IRB has sanctioned a global trial of five aspects of law amendments following an extensive process of evaluation.
The trial, approved by the IRB Council at its annual meeting in Dublin on Tuesday, will commence at the start of the next season in each hemisphere (August 2012 in the north and January 2013 in the south) and will be applicable to both international and domestic competition.
Aspects of law approved for trial include limiting the time that the ball is available at the back of a ruck and the positioning of taking a quick throw-in. In addition to the suite of five laws approved for global trial, three additional trials will operate during 2012.
A trial extension of the jurisdiction of the TMO will be introduced later this year, while the number of nominated replacements in Test rugby will be increased to eight for a trial in the November window.
The global trial has been sanctioned after an unprecedented evaluation process that kicked off with submissions and recommendations for 20 potential amendments from member unions and has culminated with recent trials of amendments to seven aspects of law as a package at dedicated playing environments in Cambridge and Stellenbosch.
This evaluation process is in line with the remit of the laws amendment process approved by the IRB Council in December 2009.
Unlike previous amendment processes, the process of selection, monitoring and evaluation has been steered by an independent Laws Representative Group, comprising technical representatives from each of the tier-one unions covering elite and community rugby and representatives of the IRB Rugby Committee.
Extensive evaluation of the Cambridge and Stellenbosch University trials undertaken earlier this year determined that each of the seven amendments could have a positive effect on the game or clarify existing areas of law and therefore a recommendation was made to the IRB Council via the IRB Rugby Committee to approve a global trial of all seven amendments.
The five law amendments to be trialled globally are:
1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck following a warning from the referee to ‘use it’. Sanction – Scrum.
2. 19.2 (b) (Quick throw-in) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goalline.
3. 19.4 (Who throws in) When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on, the non-offending team will be offered the choice of a lineout at the point the ball crossed the touch line; or a scrum at the place of the knock-on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.
4. 21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements: Lineout alternative. A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a lineout may choose a further lineout, they throw-in. This is in addition to the scrum option.
5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded.
In addition to the global trials, the IRB Council approved three specific additional trials:
1. A trial to extend the jurisdiction of the TMO to incidents within the field of play that have led to the scoring of a try and foul play in the field of play to take place at an appropriate elite competition in order that a protocol can be developed for the November 2012 Tests.
2. A trial has been sanctioned for the November 2012 Test window permitting international teams to nominate up to eight replacements in the match day squad for Test matches. In line with current practice at domestic elite rugby level, the additional player must be a qualified front row player.
3. An amendment to Law 3.4 (sevens variation) to enable sevens teams to nominate up to five replacements/substitutes. Under the revision, which will operate from June 1 2012, a team may substitute or replace up to five players during a match. Approval has been granted on player welfare grounds to recognise the additional demands on players and squads owing to the expansion of the Sevens World Series where there are three blocks of three events on consecutive weekends.
The council also approved the referral by the Laws Representative Group of one potential law amendment that was successfully trialled at Cambridge and Stellenbosch for further consideration by the specialist Scrum Steering Group (overseeing scrum force project) to be considered alongside the ongoing review of the scrum.
The amendment that will be considered by the group relates to the engagement sequence and will see the referee call ‘crouch’ then ‘touch’. The front rows crouch then touch and using outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call ‘set’ when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.
56 Comments
16 May 2012, 07:35 am
Not again …
16 May 2012, 07:41 am
WHat’s the difference between the previous quick throw-in rule and the new one? Maybe it’s my English, but I cant see the difference.
16 May 2012, 07:56 am
Wtf !!!!!!!!!! Again……… Why don’t they just change the name of the game while they at it, since we won’t be recognizing the game as rugby one day.
16 May 2012, 08:03 am
20 potential amendments and an extensive process of evaluation and this is what they come up with? What a waste of time and money!
Only worthwhile change is the extended TMO powers which is something that should have happened 4 years back!
16 May 2012, 08:08 am
bring back full brawls..!!!…*sigh*
16 May 2012, 08:14 am
full house brawls
16 May 2012, 08:31 am
Actually think that the ruck law where you have to play the ball within 5 seconds when it is available is good.
16 May 2012, 08:37 am
@Mr Incredible(siphamade)-7:
however would the ab’s have cheated a wc win with that law in place..?…
16 May 2012, 08:38 am
All these laws are imposed to speed up the game, notice how scrums are going to get fewer.
I can think of a few ways to avoid scrums and focus only on lineouts.
Interesting.
16 May 2012, 08:40 am
@Mr Incredible(siphamade)-7:
i agree… but to be clear…
it is not simply when the ball is available…
but when it is available and the ref calls “use it”… so basically they have 5 seconds within which to react to the ref’s call…
16 May 2012, 08:43 am
8 bakkies… Thats the Bulls favourite tactic…
16 May 2012, 08:50 am
Now if they can just do something about the silliness of the quick tap penalty and players not being back ten. If you want to use the element of surprise, then you forgo the luxury of ten open meters, says the katman.
Also, the silliness of the driving maul. There is no way to counter this, when the ball is shifted back to some bloke standing at the back of a worm of 8 players. Invariably this ends in a penalty for sacking the maul, and I find this stupid.
And finally, this new habit of extending the back of a ruck by three or four vaguely connected people and rolling the ball back 6 or 7 meters from the opposing team so that the scrummie has time to get his kick away. That’s also not really rugby, is it?
Maybe it’s just me, but these things really irritate me when watching the game.
16 May 2012, 09:09 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-12:
Aggree with quick tap. Take it and lose the 10m advantage.
16 May 2012, 09:12 am
@THE MAULER(THE MAULER)-11:
i wouldnt say so.
i think up and unders more so.
ag its debatable.
16 May 2012, 09:12 am
Jeepers, people getting all hot under the collar for nothing. I bet some of you didnt even read the amendments properly.
All are to help speed the game up and limit time wasting which, to me, is the most frustrating part of the game at the moment.
16 May 2012, 09:14 am
Bakkies well true… But its one of their strengths…
16 May 2012, 09:14 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-12:
Ya that train thing that the Bulls seem to be big proponents of irks me to no end.
16 May 2012, 09:17 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-12:
Totally agree with everything……brilliant
As for extending bench to 8…… hopefully this will erase those golden oldie scrums…….teams should be penalised in some way if this occurs.
16 May 2012, 09:20 am
@THE MAULER(THE MAULER)-16:
they have many strengths.
that is why they are on top of the comp log.
16 May 2012, 09:22 am
@John Galt(John Galt)-17:
i like driving mauls, wouldnt want to see it go away.
16 May 2012, 09:24 am
@John Galt(John Galt)-17:
Legal according to current rules, and very clever indeed.
Give that bulls a bells!!
16 May 2012, 09:28 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-12: I concur…but are you proposing a blanket ban of the rolling maul? Or a maul can only be rolled if the ball carrier is conjoined to, say, only one man between him and the opposing team? Or the ball carrier is the oke at the front of the maul with his back turned to the oppostion?
One thing that annoys me, is this seemingly new trend to have two forwards standing at first receiver, one takes the pass and starts galloping towards the opposition defence, and the other bloke hurls his mate forward before impact. It’s not only dangerous, its stupid
16 May 2012, 09:35 am
@RedMan(RedMan)-22:
Another Bulls invention to hit the defence line hard.
Bulls been doing it for years.
16 May 2012, 09:38 am
The way the Stormers killed us with their rolling mauls on Saturday I would not mind rolling mauls being taken out completely. lol
16 May 2012, 09:38 am
Bring back rucking!!
16 May 2012, 09:51 am
to be fair, everyone will have an issue with some law or other.
the laws are all generally okay in my opinion.
the issue,has,and always will be the refs applying them on the field.
There is no place for a “refs interpretation”.
I’ll harp on here withregards to Bryce Lawrence and that game.
There will be no clearer evidence of one team playing to the law and the ref applying a completely different interpretation or even not even adhereing to the laws himself.
tackler release,ruck is formed,hands off the ball.
still the major issues in any given game.
16 May 2012, 10:01 am
Me likes…..especially that you can opt for lineouts, too bad victor is retired.
I imagine one of the implications of the 5 sec rule is that you could interpret that the ball is available if you have time to get five players neatly queing up while sarel ties his shoe laces.
Katman I think the rolling maul is great it is a key facet of they way the boks and bulls play. The only way to counter it is with strong forwards and preventing it from being set. They already make it hard enough without getting an obstruction penalty and i think it is quite skillfull the way they manage to get it going. I do think milking a penalty by not engaging is bs…you should suffer the consequences if you decide to not defend.
Not sure i agree with the quick tap suggestion, perhaps on a free kick but a penalty should ultimately be harsh enough to encourage the other team to not infringe again!!
Something counter productive to a flowing game is when the ball being held up at try time, i think this should be a penalty instead of a scrum as it sucks that a team gets over the line without scoring and in theory the tackler should release the player….
Go Bulls!!!
16 May 2012, 10:05 am
For another look at the maul worm that the Bulls are so fond of, see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FeTL0tjkYYw
16 May 2012, 10:08 am
Wow katman keep your beastiality **** for your other forum!!!!
16 May 2012, 10:36 am
@trupisero(trupisero)-25:
farken hell..!
give yourself a bells..!….
16 May 2012, 10:37 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-28:
chop…
16 May 2012, 10:39 am
that is super fark funny.
16 May 2012, 12:01 pm
Its lackadaisical reffing that has led to so many problems. We need accuracy from refs first and foremost.
The IRB need to eliminate the “hit” from the scrum completely. It is the primary source of destabilization in the scrum and injuries will result. Player’s jerseys also need to be looser for binding in the scrum and rucks and mauls.
The real problem is that the laws are not applied in favour of “managing” the game.
The laws are there to be applied. It a game gets stilted because the ref is blowing it up, that is the player’s fault not the referees.
Rucking laws are fine, they are simply not applied. Attacking teams are allowed to offend the laws except in the most blatant of instances. If these laws are applied properly, more players will be drawn to the ruck thus opening more space in the field. Players now rip a player out of the ruck instead of binding and driving, this is both extremely dangerous (someone’s neck is going to be broken. If it goes wrong, it will be fatal) and blatantly illegal. So is charging into the ruck to “clean out”. Players must bind and drive, not charge. Again, the laws are simply not applied so this has become “accepted practice”.
Other major beef of mine is the scrum put in. It is a farce and referees need to do their frikken jobs properly. They are well paid professionals so have no excuses for not spotting infringements.
I’m tired of the interpretation issue. Refs must apply the law and the players must adapt (commentators too) not the other way around.
I like the TMO additions though.
16 May 2012, 12:09 pm
At ruck time no players are allowed to put their hands in. Nobody.
A team has to drive over the ball and the ball must pop out the back. Yet every single game we see multiple hands in the ruck so the attacking team can get the ball, this disincentives the defending team from committing numbers to drive back. Refs need to blow this up as a penalty every time, no matter how irritating this is.
Also, attacking teams are often allowed to go off their feet and kill the contest before it begins, because the ball comes out reasonably quickly this is let go. It is unacceptable, the penalty must be blown because the defending team is immediately prejudiced so doesn’t bother because it become impossible to compete for the ball. Also the scrummie puts his hands into the ruck to get the ball out whilst the ruck is still going – according to the laws he can’t do this and it is a penalty every time.
Bad reffing is the source of the law changes. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. The players will adapt, the laws are fine, we just need accuracy.
Can you imagine if a run-out in cricket is not given because the umpire would rather manage the game than apply the laws “its too close to call so I’ll let him continue batting, its good for viewership figures after all”.
16 May 2012, 12:33 pm
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-33: Could not agree more. The existing rules are simply not applied because:
a.) that’s not how rugby works
b.) it would ruin the spectacle
c.) it’s too damn hard
Take your pick.
16 May 2012, 13:04 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-35:
One wonders why they bother having any rules at all sometimes…
16 May 2012, 13:08 pm
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-36: As you said earlier, scrum feeds are a complete joke. Try explaining to your non-rugby friend what the scrummie is meant to do with the ball come scrum time, according to the rules. He’ll think you’ve been puffing the bong all morning.
16 May 2012, 13:17 pm
@houston, we have a problem…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-8:
Dont know, but whatever the laws were in RWC 2011, the Boks were boarding the plane and you and HG were crying like little pathetic babies, in fact its still going on as you have shown on this thread.
So i thank you for being pathetic.
16 May 2012, 13:29 pm
@Mr Incredible(siphamade)-7: Shame….The 5 second rule will give Fourie du Preez no time to wave his arms about and chat to the referee (something he must have learnt from Joost)
16 May 2012, 13:29 pm
We’ve had 150 yrs of rugby.
You’d think this kind of craap would be unnecessary by now. Would you not.
Why can’t they just leave things alone for a while.
Putting a time restriction on the half back ( or whoever) to release the ball at rucks is just plain petty bullshit.
If Your Team has control of the ruck,
you should have the privilege of releasing the ball when YOU see fit.
16 May 2012, 13:32 pm
@houston, we have a problem…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-31:
But you did watch it to the finish,
didn’t you.
8)
16 May 2012, 13:33 pm
I actually think the proposed changes in the refs calling at scrums is good:
1) “Engage” is a two syllable word – using “set” would get rid of a lot of confusion
2) Why is it needed to say the word “pause” – why not just pause
16 May 2012, 13:33 pm
@cane(cane)-40: We’re not talking about balls and rucks anymore, are we? I’m afraid you MUST return the Webb Ellis to us in 2015.
16 May 2012, 13:46 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-37:
Almost as tough as explaining why the 3rd placed team on the S15 log has less points than those below it…
16 May 2012, 13:49 pm
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-44: That simply can’t be explained. Unless we’re talking about some kind of AAA (Australian Affirmative Action).
16 May 2012, 13:49 pm
@cane(cane)-40:
Agreed
Also on the rucks, if its taking too long the other side must commit players to drive the team off the ball.
This just encourages more players to fan out from the ruck, closing down field space.
IRB need to take on their refs – maybe we actually need more refs and bugger this amateur thing about the ref. In professional rugby they should have plenty of refs, like they do in NFL for example.
We care about the RIGHT decision first and foremost, not “playing the ref better than the other side” or “adapting to interpretations”. What BS; and what a let down by so-called professional administrators of a so-called professional sport.
16 May 2012, 13:50 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-45:
Yes, it is a truly offensive quota system…
16 May 2012, 14:08 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-12:
Mauling is glorified obstruction…i remember when playing rugby being told…if someone is blocking your path to the ball take him out.
16 May 2012, 14:12 pm
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-44:
It happens in the strongest conference where no team in derby matches are guaranteed 4/5 points. Whereas the weakest conference the Lions and Cheetahs give up their points easily in the derby games.
16 May 2012, 14:12 pm
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-48: Correct. If you do that now they take you to the Human Rights Commission.
16 May 2012, 14:13 pm
@cane(cane)-40:
I agree.
16 May 2012, 14:17 pm
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-48:
I agree 100% Wally,
Technically every player in a rolling maul is offside.
16 May 2012, 14:24 pm
@cane(cane)-52:
We will have to stop agreeing like this Wally.
The Saffa’s will construe “our agreeing” as another,………………………………..”Let’s get the Jappies” conspiracy.
8)
16 May 2012, 14:25 pm
@cane(cane)-53: You can’t deny there are similarities…
16 May 2012, 14:33 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-54</a.
I don't deny it.
Get the Jappies before they get you.
We Anzac's are too slow in putting the slipper in.
8)
16 May 2012, 14:37 pm
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-48:
Agreed
It is obstruction. The ball carrier used to have to be in contact with the opposition, which led to the real rolling maul of left shoulder or right shoulder, changing possession.
I do think the maul needs to go back to its roots and the ball carrier must be in contact, otherwise its obstruction.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.