World Rugby’s executive committee has approved 10 optional law trials designed to help reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
Unions can apply to implement one or more of the temporary law amendments as domestic trials in line with the world governing body’s return to play guidance.
A World Rugby statement said the trials “provide limits to scrum options with no scrum resets, limits for players joining rucks and mauls, time to play the ball at the base of scrums and rucks reduced from five to three seconds and only one movement permitted for a maul.”
The trials, underpinned by World Health Organisation guidance, were considered by a specialist Law Review Group consisting of coaches, players, match officials, medics and law specialists following detailed analysis of 60 matches.
World Rugby say the ruck and maul measures could “reduce contact exposure for tight five players by more than 30 per cent, reduced exposure at the ruck by up to 25 per cent and reduce maul exposure by 50 per cent.”
“The health and well-being of the rugby family is paramount,” said World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont.
“We have extensively evaluated the perceived risk areas within the game in partnership with our unions.
“This has enabled an evidence-based assessment of risk areas and playing positions, which led us to develop optional temporary law amendments.”
The 10 optional law trials cover scrum, tackle, ruck and maul.
The two recommendations on tackling are to reinforce the high tackle sanction framework for high tackle offences and to remove the choke tackle from the game.
In addition to the on-field law trials, a number of hygiene measures are recommended for playing and training.
These include mandatory hand and face sanitisation before and after the match, regular sanitisation of the match ball, single-use water bottles, changing kit at halftime, a ban on huddles and celebrations plus the prevention of spitting and nose clearance.
GusTee
Roar Pro
Rugby is the ultimate contact sport. What is the point of reducing bits of that "contact" by 30% in a contest that lasts >90 minutes. Just window dressing - no more no less! The only valid elements of this are in the final paragraph: the hygiene measures. Commons sense, anyway.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Still don’t understand how no scrum resets would work? Team with the feed gets the ball? Which incentivises what - team with feed ensuring scrum doesn’t set? Or only if they aren’t feeling confident about winning the feed? Or their backs are useless?
Kane
Roar Guru
A maul going to ground does not always become a ruck, when it does the referee’s play it as one. When it doesn’t the referee’s correctly award a scrum to the opposition as per the rules. When the ball isn’t immediately available and that can happen because someone is in the road, then they’re not in the wrong. A scrum is awarded. Immediately doesn’t mean let’s allow a few moments for players to roll away it means instantly. It’s a punishment for not protecting your ball.
The Ferret
Roar Rookie
The ball should be immediately available as when it goes to ground it becomes a ruck. Players must release ball, tacklers must release the ball carrier and roll away. What happens is the ref blows the whistle to fast and awards a scrum the moment the maul drops. The ref should wait 20 seconds, see if the players follow the laws applied to rucks and then blow their whistle. I could be wrong in my interpretation of the laws but that is how I read them.
AndyS
Guest
If they can't keep infected players off the field with certainty, that's what will happen. They won't be able to say "Never mind if some of them got through testing, we got rid of scrum resets, it's all good". That applies to any changes they make on the field, including if they made no changes. But people expect there to be impacts, and might worry things weren't being taken seriously if there wasn't some.
AndyS
Guest
I'm sure they've thought about it and know exactly what I am talking about. When setting up these sorts of measures, you make certain the non-negotiable stuff gets put in place as a priority. Everything after that is then just human factors.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
It’s either safe to play or it’s not. Half measures are no measures.
soapit
Roar Guru
yeah thats fine but i think it shouldnt have to be immediately playable if theres players from the maul in there give them time to get out of the way if possible. and if they cant get away it should be the team going forwards ball. this essentially never happens, its always ruled to be a collapsed maul and a turnover
Kane
Roar Guru
They forget how often people take their mouthguard out, getting spit on their hands, that gets on the ball or other players, they then take their mouthguard out. This is total bollocks, if you have to change the game that much just delay it until it can be played with minimal changes.
Kane
Roar Guru
Shouldn't they just postpone all rugby if it is in fact that risky?
Kane
Roar Guru
That currently is the case. But only if the ball is touching the ground and immediately playable. Most of the time the ball isn't touching the ground.
Ex force fan
Guest
I think you may be right Andy. The problem could be that many test negative without symptoms and still is infectious. Would be good to get the view of medical experts as it also doesn’t make 100% sense.
Ex force fan
Guest
Then there is the famous Ballerina quote from Peter de Villiers along the same line but neither he or me understood what he wanted to say. I think of rugby players as employees...you should be able not to go to work if you are in a high risk group. Working from home doesn’t always work, however as with going to work the employer still have the obligation to provide as safe as work place as practical. I am sure World Rugby is as reluctant to introduce the new law variationS as my workplace was to only allow two persons at a time in the lifts. The alternative is not to play....
soapit
Roar Guru
andy, i think they have probably thought about all that and have access to experts and skills that you perhaps dont. im not going to argue with you regarding your numbers. perhaps forward them to those making the decisions as im sure theyve some of their own theyve used in forming their own opinion. given they are the professionals im happy to go with their conclusions rather than pull some numbers out of the air to counter yours.
LeftRight
Guest
Optional???
AndyS
Guest
And it is that exclusion that is the key. With that done well, I see no problem with the game progressing. But also no issue with it progressing as normal, provided they are assuring no-one on the field has it. The rest for mine is just window dressing, to give the illusion of taking every action. It is perception over reality, but perhaps that is what they consider more important than the actual game. They are almost certainly less worried about that than how it looks to policy makers, and whether they'll be allowed to sell it.
AndyS
Guest
It is indeed a real thing. On the field players will have their heads in close proximity, will be breathing hard, and will be actively knocking the puff put of each other in close contact. It is just about the textbook for transmission, when a bus driver can catch the disease from a passenger sitting quietly but then coughing or by someone having a brief meet-and-greet with an actor. But it is also pretty simple math - even if it was only a 10% chance of catching it from the sprt of close contact you'll get on a rugby field, by the tenth time someone has tackled him or he has set a scrum the chances that he hasn't passed it on is down to 30%. If he is involved in 15 scrums, tackles, mauls and line-outs collectively, it is down to 20%. But if it turns out it is actually a 15% likelihood from a given contact, then 15 opportunities would mean there is more than a 90% chance he has infected someone. The protection is all about preventing that player being there. After that it is Russian roulette.
soapit
Roar Guru
if what you say is correct then sure. i assume that this has been considered by the people who spent time looking into this and have better access to top advice than you or i. it would seem they have decided that there is a point reducing contact which wouldnt be the case if transmission was likely 100% no matter what they did. im not disagreeing as i dont know but i can see how it could be managed if that was the case (and like i said why would they bother if it wasnt) ps when i say small risk, that includes all the situations where no one on the field has it. obviously its not small if thats not the case
Mirt
Roar Rookie
Every player should have a green card to show the ref before going to the snot bin
AndyS
Guest
I'd have to disagree. Two teams walking quietly across the field well spaced out might be a low likelihood, but players sharing breath in a scrum or breakdown would be as near 100% certain as you'd get with this virus. Doesn't matter which scrum or how many players in the breakdown, the protection is in preventing an infected player onto the field rather than in what happens once there. Fail in that first thing and the second is more or less a given. People have transmitted the disease by casually meeting someone and chatting quietly with separation, let alone knocking the breath out of someone in close contact.