Six new law amendments focusing on the scrum and ruck will have a global trial in a bid to make the game easier to play and referee, World Rugby has announced.
The changes will be trialled in the northern hemisphere from August 1, extended to the south from January 1, and will include Australia’s spring tour of Europe.
The laws have been approved for an extended trial by the World Rugby Executive Committee after positive outcomes at the recent Under-20 Championship in Georgia, as well as other smaller regional tournaments.
Three of the trialled laws relate to the scrum in a bid to make it a fairer contest, including allowing all members of the front row to attempt to ‘strike’ for the ball after it has been put into the scrum.
Added to that, the No.8 at the back of the scrum may pick up the ball at the feet of the locks, rather than the current rule that says he must wait for it to make its way to between his legs.
And although the halfback must put the ball in straight into the scrum, they may now stand with their shoulder aligned to the middle of the scrum, allowing them to be further to their side of the set-piece.
World Rugby hopes that the alterations ensure that the team putting the ball in maintains the advantage at the set-piece, as the non-offending side.
The other three law amendment trials all relate to the ruck.
The first of these states the ruck is formed when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball on the ground, creating the offside line. Players on their feet will now be able to pick up the ball on the floor as long as no opposition player has joined the ruck.
If the ruck has resulted from a tackle, the tackler must get to his feet before he can play the ball, and must do so from his side of the contest, through the ‘gate’ and not from the side as they could previously.
Players may also no longer kick the ball out of a ruck, but can ‘hook’ it back towards their own side.
The trials give World Rugby a year to decide which, if any, should be formally implemented into the laws of the game for the 2019 World Cup, to be staged in Japan.
In Brief
Guest
Hate to reply to my own comment, but it's crazy to keep looking at new minor law changes. Go back to the ELVs which were developed by the game's greatest thinkers and extensively trialled right up to super rugby level. They simplified the game and removed the grey area from the breakdown. Let common sense prevail.
In Brief
Guest
The great thing about the ELVs was they were extensively trialled right up to super rugby level. So you can forget all your conjecture and actually look at the evidence.
ClarkeG
Guest
Jeez.......
ClarkeG
Guest
The trial laws used in the NPC last year did not result in the desired effect...far from it. Those outcomes you refer to generally come about because teams simply decided not to contest the tackle/ruck.
ClarkeG
Guest
The proposed trial was for there to be an offside line one metre back. This proposal never got as far as the NPC...it was thrown out after some early rounds of club rugby prior to the NPC. There was also the proposal to trial two referees...also thrown out.
soapit
Guest
i think the ref calls the timing now doesnt he? i recall going back to the half deciding when to feed was another of the earlier trial rule options that hasnt made it further by the looks. could well be completely wrong tho.
soapit
Guest
cheers peter, thought i would have remembered it if it was an ongoing tactic.
DavSA
Guest
More? The game needs less. Already too many scrum laws.
PeterK
Roar Guru
soapit - wallabies against boks twice from memory. AAC and Hooper . No not a frequent tactic just spontaneous. Really confused the boks and the ref.
Bob
Guest
Jeez you kiwis are thick. It's not the English that had the law introduced it's because no one wants to see a team implement these tactics in a test match again. The kicking in a ruck is simply to protect heads. World rugby are shitting themselves over potential class action and so they should be. Meanwhile the NRL are leaving themselves wide open! The scrum changes are designed to reduce player stress loads.
soapit
Guest
what games did the wallabies use it? as part of a frequent tactic?
soapit
Guest
https://www.instagram.com/p/BCTV-eaST8D/ seems to me that the only real distress is caused by brown trying to kick the ball back with his heel and hitting it forward is only a nudge motion as i described. to kick forward your foot has to get between the player and the ball (usually a small distance from the ball) and push away from the player. to kick back ur going straight toward the player from an unrestricted position ie. more power. so thats one instance thats not addressed by the rules and even if it were on its own wouldnt really be evidence of too many instances.
soapit
Guest
yeah i think it was the repeated use that forced their hand on it.
Bakkies
Guest
disagree. The Mike Brown/Conor Murray incident was a classic example of why this was brought in. Brown wasn't even cited.
PeterK
Roar Guru
soapit - at lower levels Chiefs, saracens and toulouse have used it a bit. At test level Wallabies did it a few times before Italy but no where near as much as Italy did.
PeterK
Roar Guru
piru - I found this article , which substantiates quite clearly the law change was driven by England re the Italy game http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-4265060/Is-rugby-facing-ruck-ruin-Italy-s-tactics.html
soapit
Guest
i mean its the first time ive been aware of the tactic being used in a test thats all i mean. i could be wrong and its not the first but it managed to get enough press to get my attention and likely the same thing happened to the irb. or the english conspiracy thing,
Unanimous
Guest
What do you mean 'would have no matter who the opposition was'. The opposition has been a number of non England teams over the past few years. But no change to the rules until it happens once at Twickenham and England is embarrassed because they were unaware of a tactic at least 3 years old and their team looked a bit befuddled for a while. It has happened quite a few times in a number of sports where as soon as England is on the wrong side of a controvesial tactic it gets banned, but until then not.
PeterK
Roar Guru
yes that would get them back onside, my mistake. Still I see support players tackled before they past where the tackle was made. Of course refs could ignore that offside as they do many others (up within 5 metres of the scrum, inside the 10 metres of a lineout and so on).
soapit
Guest
your final sentence is pretty important (not sure if more than the rest but ...anyway)... ...their stated intention was to make it easier to play and ref and this simply doesnt, even if they get it right its just more stoppages rewarding an attacking team for not being very good at their ruck work.