New law changes. And can they be trialled first in the NH pease, just for a change?

The hiatus on Law changes post 2011 is well over.

The economic drivers of world rugby reside in the NH.

Despite that, the fact is that all the prominent achievers are south of the equator.

So whatever law changes may be being considered (if any), surely the NH sides should have first dibs at playing them and allowing their coaches to practice their ideas on deconstructing them.

But dont the Northern hemisphere teams have to watch how the SH players do it so that they can copy what to do.

aucklandlaurie wrote: But dont the Northern hemisphere teams have to watch how the SH players do it so that they can copy what to do.

The Laws are managed by the IRB which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong Laurie) manages the global game. So it will have inputs globally.

Whatever new law changes are applied/trialled, is it not reasonable to rotate their initial application?

Portnoy wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: But dont the Northern hemisphere teams have to watch how the SH players do it so that they can copy what to do.

The Laws are managed by the IRB which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong Laurie) manages the global game. So it will have inputs globally.

Whatever new law changes are applied/trialled, is it not reasonable to rotate their initial application?

AL was joking Portnoy, but personally I think it's about time you lot up North took a turn at trying things out and let the SH have a turn at pointing and whinging .

I'd like to see somewhere other than Stellenbosch University doing the initital prototype testing too, the students there have proved to be far less inventive at exploiting loopholes in new laws than professional players.


(In fairness, the NH has been testing the 8 man bench ELV for a while)

Portnoy

Seriously.my understanding is that if a country puts forward a "project" it becomes their project and is trialled in a competition within that country,or a competition in which that country participates.The IRB does oversee the trial and manages all other interested parties ie referees.etc.and has the final say as to whether the idea progresses any further.

The current trial of the "on report system" in Super xv,came out of both the NZRFU and the ARU.

Portnoy,

It is not that the South get to trial them due to IRB favouritism.

The ERC doesn't want to trial new laws compared to SANZAR.

Staggy
Why wouldnt they want to trial something?

red_stag wrote:Portnoy,

It is not that the South get to trial them due to IRB favouritism.

The ERC doesn't want to trial new laws compared to SANZAR.

WTF does that matter Staggy?

If it's a global sport, then the introduction of new laws should be applied evenly and the governing body should rise above local (or even hemispherical) influences.

They have the option to require an alternation of law change requirements. And quite frankly NH unions are guilty of lacking nous of the bleedin' obvious - you should maximise your comparative advantage.

When is the next phase of law changes scheduled?

Portnoy
The last meeting of the laws committee was in Auckland during the World cup,Therefore I presume the next ones would be before the next Heineken cup starts.

Portnoy dont curse at me please. However what you are saying now is new. I agree they should be evenly applied. You however asked for the North to have "first dibs" and I explained that it wasn't a question of dibs or not. The ERC didn't not to trial them. SANZAR decided to trial them.

Auckland I suspect they are afraid to lose the cash cow that is the Heineken Cup by messing with a winning formula.

Another issue is that in the Northern Hemisphere we have a staggered system. So you would realistically need to trial it in all competitions not just one.

In SH you can have law variations in Super Rugby and play with them solidly for a few months before going back to the other ones for internationals or Currie Cup/Air Cup.

In NH we would be changing the law every week as we change from domestic league to European Cup to domestic cup.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Portnoy
The last meeting of the laws committee was in Auckland during the World cup,Therefore I presume the next ones would be before the next Heineken cup starts.

Tomorrow would satisfy that presumption Staggy.

Mind you, late May would be early enough...

You do seem to be uncritical of establishment dictats.
However did Ireland ever gain its independence?

Actually Staggy that makes a lot of sense,and the trial would lose integrity not only for the players but also for the officials if they had some new rogue law that they were only playing with for a couple of weeks then followed by a couple of weeks without it.

Portnoy wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Portnoy
The last meeting of the laws committee was in Auckland during the World cup,Therefore I presume the next ones would be before the next Heineken cup starts.

Tomorrow would satisfy that presumption Staggy.

Mind you, late May would be early enough...

You do seem to be uncritical of establishment dictats.
However did Ireland ever gain its independence?

This is not a history nor a political site.

Please stop quoting Irish political history on every second thread. It is nothing to do with the matter at hand.

In a nutshell I agree that any trials should take place globally.

Something tells me that I shouldnt ask,But what does Irish indepndence have to do with this?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Something tells me that I shouldnt ask,But what does Irish indepndence have to do with this?

Not a clue

Portnoy brings up Irish political history on a lot of threads these days.

Just a throwaway comment on a compliant attitude of people who display an uncritical acceptance of any status quo Laurie...

Portnoy,

I dont understand.

I told you that I felt the system is wrong.

I told you that I felt law trials should be made globally not just in SH.

What is your problem.

portnoy,sometimes you have to be a lover,if you try being a fighter all the time you miss out on things.

The SANZAR nations are far more innovative and open minded when it comes to rugby. They propose new laws and they trial them.

The European nations, and England in particular, are waaaay to conservative. Any potential change is seen as an attack by foreigners, who want to ruin their game. The idea that changes may make the game better is not even considered. They don't propose new law changes. They don't trial them.

Portnoy wrote:Just a throwaway comment on a compliant attitude of people who display an uncritical acceptance of any status quo Laurie...

So what was your opinion on the Sherrif of Nottingham's enforcement of the Norman status quo in the Midlands Portnoy?

(just throwing in an equally irrelevant historic reference)

Feckless Rogue wrote:The SANZAR nations are far more innovative and open minded when it comes to rugby. They propose new laws and they trial them.

The European nations, and England in particular, are waaaay to conservative. Any potential change is seen as an attack by foreigners, who want to ruin their game. The idea that changes may make the game better is not even considered. They don't propose new law changes. They don't trial them.

Agree with this. Theres nothing stopping us doing a trial. The only people stopping it our ourselves (the ERC and the various unions)

Staggy, I think that some of these posts got crossed during update and <send>

Laurie.
I come from a generation which raged against the machine (hippy, if you like to paraphrase it that way).

My rages have pretty much mellowed over the years from Grosvenor Square (US embassy, London) anti-Vietnam demos to rfu hokem/commercialism/ring-fencing and market exclusion etc. etc. etc.

Sad that they youth of today can't find the energy (or resistance to brain-washing) to rebel imo.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Just a throwaway comment on a compliant attitude of people who display an uncritical acceptance of any status quo Laurie...

So what was your opinion on the Sherrif of Nottingham's enforcement of the Norman status quo in the Midlands Portnoy?

(just throwing in an equally irrelevant historic reference)

No doubt you missed my post regarding this. I'm sure I did - it was in an article I remember clearly I contributed to in the mid-12th century.

Portnoy wrote:Staggy, I think that some of these posts got crossed during update and <send>

Indeed lets start over.

Now that we established change is needed what do you see as the necessary law changes that should be looked at.

A few I would like are:

- Removal of the hit. Packs fold together and there is a shove from a static position.

- For missed drop goal attempts there is a scrum back not a 22m drop out.

- If a ball is knocked on over the goal line and the ref plays advantage the defending team should get a 22m dropout if they touch down the ball.

I think the Sheriff of Nottingham was great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6I_8HXcO54

In all seriousness, I think the Northern Hemisphere Unions and clubs/teams/franchises are less interested in experimentation. Not opposed, mind, but it seems to me less interested in leading or becoming part of the experiment. Maybe its the business model. Maybe its cultural. Maybe its the status qup ante. Or simply inertia. But I am sure there are a lot of good ideas thrown around up here as well, but less interest in trialing.

red_stag wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Staggy, I think that some of these posts got crossed during update and <send>

Indeed lets start over.

Now that we established change is needed what do you see as the necessary law changes that should be looked at.

A few I would like are:

- Removal of the hit. Packs fold together and there is a shove from a static position.

- For missed drop goal attempts there is a scrum back not a 22m drop out.

- If a ball is knocked on over the goal line and the ref plays advantage the defending team should get a 22m dropout if they touch down the ball.

- Removal of the hit. Packs fold together and there is a shove from a static position.

Yes absolutely. A la the spirit of the great Baa-baas '71 game. The push is dominant over the engagement and that should enable the ref to enforce the straight feed.

- For missed drop goal attempts there is a scrum back not a 22m drop out.

Agree entirely.
Also a goal attempt/'attempt' whilst a penalty advantage is current should nullify the advantage.

- If a ball is knocked on over the goal line and the ref plays advantage the defending team should get a 22m dropout if they touch down the ball.

Not a big bugbear of mine - but I understand your point.

For me:

Long train ruck/mauls (a la Sarries/Falcons last week). Should be nipped in the bud. Each player should be bound on to at least two players once the ruck/maul is formed.

Law 19.5 (the foot in touch thingy)- as I've said before, https://www.606v2.com/t28377-how-do-you-regulate-all-those-irritating-foot-out-of-play-over-a-line-when-the-ball-is-not-going-that-way-any-time-soon. A ref call but if the ball was never going out, it shouldn't be allowed.

Not a law change, but a TV covered rule - allow sideline challenges to nullify ref gaffes.

I like your suggestion on a shot at goal removing the advantage.

I wouldnt mind seeing the TMO being able to "flag" foul play. The referee and touch judges have a lot to do.

I have to say I don't understand what you want in relation to the foot in touch thing. It over complicates a consistent and easily understood system.

Portnoy, I'm not sure if you can say a player has to be bound onto two players in a ruck or maul. For one, the ball carrier in a maul can only be bound onto one player, and two what if there is only one other player on your team at the ruck? Who do you bind onto then? Agree with Stag on the foot-in-touch thing as well, no need to change that law. The one I do agree with you though is if you have a shot at goal that should count as sufficient advantage gained.

One that I heard a rumour (maybe even on this site) about was a time limit on how long the ball could be available at the back of a ruck before the referee called you for not using it (something like 5 seconds). Inadvertently it could be the best thing to ever happen to England rugby as it could force our 9s to actually pass the thing without barking at the runners for 10-15 seconds about where he wants them!

Another I heard that was to be trialled at level 5 and below (not sure if this is intended for use at the top level or not) is rolling subs (3 subs, 12 interchanges). Not something I am at all fond of, but I'm fairly sure that will be introduced as of next year at lower levels of rugby in England.

Robbo,

Yes I had heard the "use it" at rucks thing as well. It makes sense to me - we have it for scrums and mauls.

Rolling subs are really no big deal. They are used in Scotland and Ireland at various levels. I see little if any tangiable differnce.

robbo277 wrote:Portnoy, I'm not sure if you can say a player has to be bound onto two players in a ruck or maul. For one, the ball carrier in a maul can only be bound onto one player, and two what if there is only one other player on your team at the ruck? Who do you bind onto then? Agree with Stag on the foot-in-touch thing as well, no need to change that law. The one I do agree with you though is if you have a shot at goal that should count as sufficient advantage gained.

One that I heard a rumour (maybe even on this site) about was a time limit on how long the ball could be available at the back of a ruck before the referee called you for not using it (something like 5 seconds). Inadvertently it could be the best thing to ever happen to England rugby as it could force our 9s to actually pass the thing without barking at the runners for 10-15 seconds about where he wants them!

Another I heard that was to be trialled at level 5 and below (not sure if this is intended for use at the top level or not) is rolling subs (3 subs, 12 interchanges). Not something I am at all fond of, but I'm fairly sure that will be introduced as of next year at lower levels of rugby in England.

The time a goal kicker is allowed is regulated to 60 secs.

That works doesn't it?

Portnoy wrote:

The time a goal kicker is allowed is regulated to 60 secs.

That works doesn't it?

Is that one still being enforced? I can't remember the last time I saw it called. It was a good regulation when they 1st brought it in.

I think the time-limit on kicks is a rule in name only, if it is still even a rule. I think it would be more useful to have at ruck time, and as Stag says we have it at scrum and maul. The referee wouldn't have to check his watch or anything, just one cry of use it and then the whistle if the attacker didn't comply.

When it was first brought in they used to have an onscreen countdown clock.

I'm pretty sure heard a ref tell a kicker he had 20s left with a kick within the last couple of weeks. Can't remember who (possibly in the Chiefs v Saints game)

Correct me if I am wrong, but was the NH not opposed to the new elv's in 2010 before they were even tested by SANZAR?

you can't have a group of people test a new system if they are already negatively biased toward it.

It won't get anywhere.

biltongbek wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but was the NH not opposed to the new elv's in 2010 before they were even tested by SANZAR?

you can't have a group of people test a new system if they are already negatively biased toward it.

It won't get anywhere.

Maybe Biltong it was the fact that the ELVs were designed to favour SH rugby on hard grounds and fickle public?

That's not the point Portnoy, if the NH is against a set of law changes they won't give it a fair go.

Fast ball at ruck time isn't reliant on hard grounds either.

Well actually it is the point.

In terms of global success the NH is the tail to the SH's dog.
But economically and demographically the NH is the dog and the Antipodes the tail.

Maybe if the conjecture

if the NH is against a set of law changes they won't give it a fair go.

is correct, then it may be for a good reason. That it does not fit an ethos that suits them.

Is the point of trailing new laws not about what is best for the game, rather than what doesn't suit the NH?

I'd rather spend time and IRB money impressing on refs that the current laws are the laws.

And they should enforce them.

So many law changes are made to salve a symptom rather than a cause.

Portnoy wrote:I'd rather spend time and IRFU money .

Ireland's fault again?

Another gaffe from Portnoy which was corrected inter-post. Stag. I prostrate myself at thee.

red_stag wrote:I wouldnt mind seeing the TMO being able to "flag" foul play. The referee and touch judges have a lot to do.

I agree but I'm not sure how far I would want it to go. When it comes to scoring decisions, I don't think they should be taking it further back than the act of scoring or the pass before the try was scored to check whether it was forward. I don't watch much rugby league but do they not rule out a try if there is one forward pass in a length-of-the-field score? The referees and TJs should be able to pick up forward passes.

As for scrums, I agree with the idea of removing the hit. It might be difficult to implement seeing as front-rowers have been trained a certain way for a long time. Also, anyone heard if kit suppliers are being consulted about making flaps or grips on the back and side of a front rowers shirt to help with binding? I would definitely think most would welcome the idea of law changes affecting the scrum being trialled in the NH.

Portnoy wrote:Another gaffe from Portnoy which was corrected inter-post. Stag. I prostrate myself at thee.

Nor problem. Just a Freudian slip.

Crypt - I wouldnt have a TMO pinging forward passes or offside or anything.

Just for punches, eye gouging, stamping, etc he can "flag" it and bring it to referees attention.

As for scrums, I agree with the idea of removing the hit. It might be difficult to implement seeing as front-rowers have been trained a certain way for a long time. Also, anyone heard if kit suppliers are being consulted about making flaps or grips on the back and side of a front rowers shirt to help with binding? I would definitely think most would welcome the idea of law changes affecting the scrum being trialled in the NH.

[quote]

Infers that front row players are a sub slab form of plant life.
Incapable of sentient capability. Gammas in the Brave New World scenario.

I don't want the hit to be removed, I want the feeding team to get back the benefit of calling the hit as they are feeding the scrum.

As a former prop myself, I would find it more detrimental to have to focus on listening to the referee waiting for him to engage, and still anticipating the hit from the opposition prop, it is a natural instinct to tense and release for the hit when watching the opposition prop doing the same, than trying to fight that natural instinct trying to time the referee and not releasing the tension when the opposition prop makes an early movement.

The initial engagement is critical in the modern game.

Unfortunately the current C-T-P-E laws define the scrum and causes more breakdowns than the old ref-defined engagement.

Which is why current scrums are constantly reset and the ref can't even be bothered with the straight ball feed law.

I dont care who initiates and trials new Laws and/or amendments to them. What the IRB badly need to do is, spend the next few years building consistency of intrepretation - on the Laws they already have. Constantly shifting the Law goal-posts, will only prolong this farce. The same must be done with the adjudication of and decisions taken on - foul play. Each individual body takes care of its' own interests and its own players in these matters. It's a Global joke.

Gibson wrote:I dont care who initiates and trials new Laws and/or amendments to them. What the IRB badly need to do is, spend the next few years building consistency of intrepretation - on the Laws they already have. Constantly shifting the Law goal-posts, will only prolong this farce. The same must be done with the adjudication of and decisions taken on - foul play. Each individual body takes care of its' own interests and its own players in these matters. It's a Global joke.

I couldn't agree more, it's just another case of why did the chicken cross the road?