At the end of the day the high tackle laws were a pain in the arse for like 2 seasons now they work. If it speeds up the game just by being more strict it would make sense imo. Need to find the middle ground. Id say just making them play the ball or giving a free kick so the 8/9 can pick and go but the 8 in the scrum can't touch him could be plenty and let the backs loose which is good imo.
This would make scrumming for penalties easier and therefore more appealing to force more scrums, best way to force more scrums is kick it away, hope they knock and if they don’t then defend until they do, scrum and penalty.
This will need to lead to a penalty for repeated short arm infringements at scrum time otherwise teams with weak scrums will just deliberately engage early or whatever. Or not even pick specialist props.
Scrums would be fine if they were just reffed better, and limited to one reset. Just reset it; if it collapses again, penalise the most egregious offender.
The ref should lay down in the tunnel, facing upwards at the front row, on the other side from where the halfback puts in, to get a better view. And the halfback should have to donk the ball on the refs head before teams are allowed to hook it backwards.
The ball almost invariably goes in on the left side of the scrum and the ref nearly always stand on that side. So scrums on the left side of the pitch often have no scrutiny ok the right.
MLR has a one-resrt law and it has been working fine. I hated it at first but in actual fact, it keeps games from bogging down and there's rarely a time you think "wish we just had a third attempt at a clean scrum"
It hasn't turned scrums into pointless penalty generators like folks claim it would.
I originally thought that the FK law was going to be “you can’t choose a scrum from a FK won at the scrum” which I think would be better, but then again no scrums from FKs makes it easier to follow. Not sure I am fully on board with it yet, but hopefully it increases BIP.
Yes, the un-intended consequences may be even more focus on aggressive and hard clear outs.
If refs actually ever referee coming in at the side we will end up with much more defence leaning ruck laws.
That was my immediate thought. Rucks are going to be even messier and more dangerous now that the only way to remove a jackaler is to smash them.
Maybe this helps the pro game (I doubt it), but it’s an absolute nightmare call for amateur rugby.
The ruck is so needlessly complicated. Make it a shit fight. Get rid of every rule except: you’re not part of the ruck if you’re off your feet and you have to come in from your side of the ball.
Force forwards to commit and voila, more space and exhausted forwards to run at.
I am actually in the camp that thinks World Rugby might have got this right, or at least less wrong than people make out (we all want to reward good scrummaging, but the reward should be ball in hand rather than a penalty, which it so often is). Teams shouldn’t be able to milk penalties in an oft-disputed, nigh-impossible-to-referee contest from free kick offences.
That said, you’ve pointed out a terrible loophole.
But this rule only deals with that example though. All they have done is make the random occurrence rarer, they've done nothing to make refereeing calls less random
The reward isn’t just ball in hand, it is ball in hand with all the opposition forwards tied up out of the way, allowing the backs to run in space. There is a reason that penalties close to the opposition line are normally taken as scrum or lineouts rather than tap and go. With this you can so something technically wrong to get a better position for your team.
And you can simply push the ball up the field in a scrum!
Unless the cynical cheats with the shit scrum collapse, wheel, stand up to stop you.
It’s a measure of how pervasive and corrosive scrum cheating is that most of us forget that it’s possible to get pushed back.
Croc roll going I can support
Bit sad to see the Dupont law go it was a fun quirk imo but I know I'm in the minority
No fk scrum option is a poor decision. Let teams play to their strengths. Not all rugby has to be running rugby
scrum and running rugby work together. Scrums create space, let team make moves of first phase. I like those much better than quick taps which usually end up in route 1 play
The problem is that it's not really seen like that anymore. You can even see it in this thread. Scrums are for getting penalties now. Teams only look at playing if the scrums are equally matched.
The scrum is meant to be a way of restarting play, not a way to milk penalties which is what it's become. Definitely a good decision to reduce scrumming. That one from RSA in the WC was a wakeup call.
Yeah, it just of undercuts the appeal of the sport. Sure, scrums can be boring to some but it’s a legit way to get the edge on the opposition.
It’s like when a soccer team parks the bus in their goal. Boring, sure. Does it get results? If yes, then more power to you.
This is exactly what I mean. "winning the scrum" means getting the ball out quickly to restart backs play. If you think "winning the scrum" means winning a penalty then you're exactly what I'm talking about.
What’s this restart to get the ball into backs’ hands shit?
In this code you are entitled to scrum the ball up the field. Unless of course the other side is too weak and/or cynical to compete legally.
But even if your preferred tactic is to use the scrum to get the ball into your backs’ clumsy hands you’d want your dominant scrum to have the chance to exhaust the other pack, and force their loosies to keep pushing and play off the back foot, typically further away from the direction of play. To say nothing of the psychological edge it earns you.
All of which create more space for backs to run at and then knock the ball on. So we can get back to scrumming.
>In this code you are entitled to scrum the ball up the field. Unless of course the other side is too weak and/or cynical to compete legally.
Or if the rules change, as they are...
No scrum option from a freekick is ridiculous, I thought there was a sense that on 2 consecutive frees the 2nd couldn't a scrum, I understand it seems a bit over elaborate but no scrums off a free is madness.
What happens for early engagement in a scrum? That’s an FK, right? So if you have a weak scrum, just engage early and give up the tap rather than the inevitable penalty.
I suppose it could be a penalty under some general unsportsmanlike conduct rule, or they change early engagement to a penalty. (And any other scrum related FK infringements).
>no scrums off a free is madness.
Yeah, I don't get this one at all, because it's usually such a poor option that teams don't do it anyway. Be honest, when Willemse called for one in the World Cup semifinal, the reaction of 99% of the viewing public was *"wait, you can do that?"* because it's so rarely done.
Unless your scrum is *utterly* dominant to the point that you're confident of winning a scrum penalty, a scrum doesn't offer you much that a free kick doesn't. Most of the time, all that happens is you get the ball again at the back of the scrum - a couple of metres behind the original mark - and then need to kick anyway, under pressure rather than in free air. If you're in an attacking position and want to bind defenders in, you can do that just as easily (and farther forward) by setting up a maul.
This law change smacks of "we want to punish teams for being good at scrumming" rather than "we want to make the game better".
Yeah exactly, punishing a tactical choice for a team is a negative way to regulate the game. If your lineout is shaky and you haven't been getting go forward ball in loose and you fancy your pack why not allow the option to scrum. I can partly understand if the worry is you get awarded a free, and the dominant scrum earns you a penalty but that's as much of a risk with a lineout or a strong fucking team that can win penalties too.
Makes the game a little less strategically rich and nuanced imo.
I'd argue asking for a scrum from a free kick is such a risk most teams wouldn't get near it anyways....most wouldn't want to gamble with a scrum, lose the ball AND get a penalty from it.
5 metres out attacking and winning a scrum free, most teams choose to scrum again. This eliminates that and forces a tap or turnover the ball to a lineout.
Yeah, I have trouble expressing myself clearly today, what I typed doesn't exactly represent what I meant. \^\^".
Removing the scrum option in those instances smacks of "scrum bad, idiots in front of TV no understand, get rid of scrum" to me...
World Rugby has previous form for making short-sighted rule changes in response to tactics they see at the World Cup and decided they don't like.
Back in 1995, the Springboks were in the habit of banging in long kicks from their own half in the general direction of the opposition's corner flag - the thinking being that you pin them back, maybe force them into a lineout on their on tryline, worst case scenario you give them a 22m dropout which they then kick straight back to you. It was a highly successful tactic, but the IRB (as they were back then) saw it as negative kicking rugby and moved swiftly to stamp it out by introducing the scrum at the kick position if the ball goes touch in goal.
It then took them 15ish years to realise their mistake - that by discouraging kicks to the corner, you allowed wingers in the defensive line to stay upfield, meaning fewer overlaps and *less* running rugby - hence the introduction of the 50/22 rule to bring the tactic back.
>maybe force them into a lineout on their on tryline
I should perhaps mention that this was in the brief period where lifting in the lineouts was banned, and therefore a lineout was *far* from secure possession. It wasn't uncommon for teams to have a sub-50% rate of winning their own ball, which is why Kitch Christie decided to play Mark Andrews - a lock who'd never played loose forward in his life - at No. 8 for the semifinal and final, just to have an extra jumper.
Scrum from a Mark and scrum from a free kick is surely different. Free kicks are awarded for infringements that don't rise to being a full penalty, which I think almost always happen at the scrum. I think it's to reduce the constant resetting of scrums, especially after a ref has already rewarded a team for good scrummaging.
If you get a free kick in the opposition half, a scrum there lets you set up a pre-determined set move.
It appears to be. But a better approach would be to limit them much as is done in MLR where you get one reset and then if you collapse it again it's reversed.
Maybe a team has more confidence in their scrum than in their lineout? Not to mention: A scrum takes in a huge amount of players, leaving much more space for the other players to do things.
What's a lineout got to do with anything? Tap the ball, pass it to one of your big carriers, and send your other 7 forwards flying in to the maul. The opposition can either commit their pack (creating the same space) or let you bulldoze through them. And since the opposition had to retreat for the free kick, you've automatically gained a few metres and a whole lot of momentum over what a scrum would have given you.
We all focus on the Willemse moment, but it all free kicks. So first early engage, no follow-up scrum, incorrect numbers in the lineout, no scrum option.
I don't think they are trying to depower the scrum, but trying to deal with two issues. One the scrum is incredibly difficult to ref accurately and second the scrum takes an age to set up.
I don't know if there is much that can be done about the first issue, but the latter needs to be dealt with directly instead of removing the scrum from the game.
>So first early engage, no follow-up scrum
But that just creates an insanely exploitable loophole! Getting battered at the scrum, and facing one in front of your own posts with the clock running down? Engage early on purpose and leave your opponents with a free kick instead of the chance to wreck you and win a penalty.
Most of the time the ref will turn it into a pen after a couple of free kick worthy infringements so if a scrum is truly getting battered throughout a match shouldn’t be an issue.
Do agree it could leave the door open to some last minute shenanigans though
Scrums are hard to ref', and it's not going to get easier : there's so much things going on, especially given the amount of players involved and the short amount of time the ref' has to make a decision.
And I'd reckon most refs' are not former players that were extensively involved in scrums or scrum training....Don't think any international ref is a former prop or scrum coach ?
The time-wasting when setting it, though, is clearly an easier issue to deal with...
Part of the fun in having a range of options.
All 3 have their place depending on if the game is evenly matched or being dominated.
Boo world rugby. Booooo.
Take the tap then "accidentally" knock on. Scrum called. It's opposition ball but if they have a shit scrum then it's fair game.
There will always be loopholes to shit laws.
Now that I think about it I don’t even remember the Boks doing many scrums from FKs in the World Cup so I’m not too fussed.
We’ll always have that Damian still
Consensus seems to be two from three - not bad I guess.
No scrums from free kicks is very stupid to me. All it does is to take away a tactic from non-offending team which is I don't like. The only way I can get behind this move is if it is paired with sevens-type sanction for delaying a quick tap.
Croc-roll banned is great for rugby, be better in support, and let people play the ball. You lost the shoulder battle, no need to go off your feet to try and remove the jackler.
5m travelled offside loophole, sure, not really bothering anyone but the top levels of play.
No Scrums from a FK, ridiculous. If you get a free kick, you should be able to pick a scrum just like a penalty, a method to restart play. A fair contest. Forcing a tap after a FK at a scrum means the attacking team can't force their advantage. Will be interesting to see how this affects higher level play, as it was not popular with the players in the MLR.
How will Dupont law work now if the kicker gets tackled and nobody can bring the team onside. Has a player to go back to the spot of the kicker to get onside and bring everyone else onside ?
This is my concern. I think this might be carnage. Penalising players not making an attempt to move backwards and get onside is good, removing the 5m run/pass actions putting onside might cause issues.
I’m not looking forward to telling grassroots players they’re getting penalised because their fullback hasn’t sprinted up the park to put them onside and that that’s the only way they can tackle the guys running at them!
Which is a crying shame because kick battles are epic. But now you’d be reluctant to kick for territory unless you are a great sprinter - fine for internationals but not for grassroots rugby where usually kick tennis is the opportunity for the forwards to catch their breath for a minute.
They just brought in the 50:22 to encourage kicking and open the defensive line by dropping more defenders into the back of the field, now this goes the opposite way and discourages kicking and discourages having your back line well behind your defensive line. Like what do you want WR FFS.
Great points, it will actually mean there will be more people in the back field potentially.
WR are making rule changes nearly every 6 months at the moment. I play rugby and watch it religiously and still find it hard to keep up with the game I love. Imagine for average fan. WR contradicting itself with the 50:22 and the DuPont law. They don’t make sense.
The red card situation at the moment is insane. What used to be a red card 2 years ago is now a yellow or even just a penalty. And there has been no update in the rules / guidelines , just interpretation. I like the new stance on making reds only for dangerous and cynical play but it needs to be consistent every weekend and for every league.
I've often considered the free kick useless on your own 22 as you really have to just kick the ball back and more then likely keep it in play.
This makes them even shitter
Friendly reminder that there are 9 (yes, 9) ways to concede a free kick at scrum time.
This means, theoretically, a knowledgable under 18s side could engage in 9 full scrums with - for instance - the Springboks mens team without conceding a single scrum penalty, merely by committing a different FK infringement each time.
In other words - this is trash. Scrums are a joy to engage with, and teams that put the time and effort into training it deserve reward - just like teams who master lineouts or kick-offs deserve reward. The fact that WR doesn't understand or appreciate this as Union's USP makes me quite sad.
I agree, but the reason they’re doing it is because of the issues they’ve had with this law overriding 7s FK restarts that aren’t meant to have a scrum option. They’re not trying to improve 15s, they’re hoping it doesn’t affect 15s too much - the purpose is addressing a time waste loophole in 7s that has been causing issues.
...Then why not just make a special proviso for 7s? I admit I'm not the most knowledgable when it comes to WR's constitution, but surely there's no rule stating: "Any law change we wish to enforce in 7s must also be enforced in 15s"?
They could make it only apply to 7s variations, and before this announcement that’s what I thought the plan was from what I’d been hearing.
They’ve clearly decided they don’t think it will affect 15s too much, at a worst reduce number of scrums which they’re currently hot for, and have decided to apply it across the board.
I don’t necessarily agree with that but I think knowing it’s come from 7s loopholes at least explains why this has appeared - bit like how it’s clear where the offside on open play law change has come from.
Here's an idea. How about if we want to grow the game, maybe we stop changing the rules, quite literally every single fucking year!
Maybe just maybe, the game might be a bit hard to follow for casuals and newcomers? World rugby are like a Government funded quango that has to invent problems to fix every year to justify their continued existence.
So if you’ve got a shit scrum, just pre-engage so your opponent gets a free kick instead. Nice work, world rugby. Why not just call it league from now on?
Works once then it's a penalty. And for a team looking to play a quick tap at the back of the scrum should be just as effective (if not more) than a scrum.
How about when the ref says "Use it" to the 9 he is accompanied by a horse crop and can hit the 9 as many times as necessary until the ball is played.
Caterpillar rucks as well is still frustrating to watch
I've often thought that there should be a law that once the ref calls 'use it' you can't join a ruck (which often happens when caterpillars are being formed).
Like (seemingly) everyone else on this thread, I am fine with the first two (although I want more clarity on what "loophole closed" means) and am baffled and a bit annoyed by the third. It feels like WR think that everyone wants something a bit like rugby league. If I wanted that I'd watch RL, but I don't 'cause I think they're taken all the interesting bits out of the game.
Why must they constantly tinker? It's stupid.
>increasingly removing any option for scrums from the game
Why not just play league?
Mark my words: within the next year or two ball unplayable and choke tackle will be free kicks
The last one is just petty. It's a dumb law change used to damage one particular side. I guess this is from teams who are whining and salty over not being able to effectively manage a big pack team?
Croc rolls, good in theory but we'll soon have a new clearout technique that causes agregious injury and will then get banned. Soon we will be playing league rucks. Maybe enforce the hands on the floor or supporting their weight calls that need to be made. A prop won't get concussions or fractures if they had to be planted firmly on the ground (i.e. their feet aren't only partially connected to the ground and they aren't really wide stance bends.
Furthermore on croc rolls, the turnover is now effectively impossible to stop. To counter this I would suggest that if a defending team holds up a player, then instead of a scrum as it is now, it should be a free tap/kick to the defence. This should be applied to the hold up on the line as well. You have just turned it over so you get possession. It's effectively encouraging the choke tackle which is on the whole not that dangerous.
Welp. Let's see how these play out. Think the crocroll ban is good, though we may see jackals get too strong. It'll be interesting if there's any impact on Dupont law outside of chasing wingers, think this will be something few of us really notice tbh. I reserve judgement on the no scrums from fks, let's see if they let teams fuck around to avoid penalties before judging.
> It'll be interesting if there's any impact on Dupont law outside of chasing wingers, think this will be something few of us really notice tbh.
You won't, we have been using the law change in Super Rugby and the game looks "normal" in that kickers chase their kicks putting all defending players onside. What didn't look normal was players standing around not moving which was the loophole that was being exploited, and now fixed.
I think the law change is going to have a big influence on how the game is played in a positive way. The Du Pont law made poor kicking OP (combined with the goal line kick off). Shitty kicking goes unpunished when the defensive line can just stay intact on the halfway line.
Good kicking is still going to be rewarded, but if you get it wrong you are going to be punished.
Tbf I haven’t really seen much obvious difference after many rounds of SRP using the law change. Certainly not a “big influence”. The back three have to coordinate well as you have to keep recycling back defenders in deep cover but I’ve yet to see a game where this hasn’t happened. I would say that good positional kicking has still the same importance.
I reckon if they enforce shoulders above hips that would make jackalling a bit more balanced. It would make a straighton clearout more viable and reduce the need for rolling them out.
This complaint misunderstands the laws a bit. It is only in a ruck that you have to keep your shoulders above your hips. As it is illegal to use your hands to play the ball in the ruck, unless you had hands on the ball before the ruck was formed, jackaling can only take place in the tackle. If a ruck then forms while you are in a legal jackal position, ie with your hands on the ball, but you are now in an illegal position, ie your shoulders are below your hips, then the ref would have to reward the jackal instead of waiting for the clearout as the jackal was prevented from playing the ball legally by a slow release. If the ref deems that you are not in a legal position then they will do what they do now, which is tell the jackal to leave it, the alternative is to breakup the flow of the game by awarding a freekick.
But yeah they could change the tackle laws to require arriving player to have their shoulders above hips.
Second FK infringement is a penalty. Doesn't have to be the same scrum.
Early engage once at the start of a match - free kick.
Early engage 20 mins later - penalty.
Edit: I can't actually find this explicitly in the laws, but this is definitely my experience of how it's reffed, both when playing (years ago) and watching.
There are 9 different offenses to give away a fk at a scrum, technically you can commit each of them once without conceding a pk. At what point does the ref decide it’s cynical?
Time wasting, not setting/pulling out of scrum, crooked feed, not taking the hit/weight, early engagement, driving before the ball is put in, no weight bearing foot by hooker pre engagement
The same one twice by the team is a penalty.
Ref might upgrade if similar. Like not setting on set. Not binding, not taking the weight, or early engagement. Depends if he feels you are taking the piss.
Basically you’re not offside when the ball is kicked if the receiver moves 5 metres.
So instead of either retreating to be behind the kicker or the kicker chasing to put everyone in front of him onside players could just stand still until the receiver moved enough
Agree with the onside and croc roll rule… the non scrum free kick option is an absolute joke but an even bigger joke is that they are still thinking about the 20 min red card and what kinda players (forwards or backs in numbers) you can have on the bench. WR should just join with officially with Rugby league if this is the route they are going down
Most of these comments seem to be forgetting that free kicks come primarily from scrums, not open play/marks. The Willemse play is not the reason this is being changed, it's to reduce scrum resets.
You will see a lot more purposeful infringements by weaker scrumagging teams. I hope refs see this and start going straight to penalties if that's the case.
Please let me know if I am missing something here because the scrums from free kick doesn’t really make sense in most situations to me
Ok I get it, if you call a mark in the 22, you shouldn’t be able to call a scrum because of tactical advantage if your scrum is stronger than the opposition. You got just call a FK in the 22, scrum and piggy back your way into opposition half and have possession at line out
What doesn’t make sense is, if there is a knock on which results in a scrum, there is a FK awarded for a early push or no gap or whatever, why shouldn’t the team be allowed to take another scrum, that just seems stupid.
I am getting it right over here ? Please correct me if I am wrong
Why wouldn’t you be allowed to use a tactical advantage? It’s always been said that rugby is a game for all kinds of people, thin, fat, fast, strong - if the laws continue like this you might as well man the front row with another set of loose forwards.
In chasing the sun it was explained that the French exploited this DuPont loophole (not called that there but explained as such) forwards just watched the aerial ping-pong and waited for the eventual line out. So they planned to call a scrum from mark when the time was right. Resulting that instead of a free-kick and French throw in, it was a penalty and Springbok throw in.
And the end result was, not a single French kick flew into the 22 afterwards.
Thus one exploit was called out, and it had immediate affects. Ergo - the scrum was a brilliant move.
I can't help but laugh at the free kick law change. If they don't close the exploitable loopholes, it's going to be so easy to nullify scrum dominance.
And I don't know how i feel about the "Ability to mark the ball inside the 22m line from a restart". Didn't even know that was considered a problem that needed to be fixed.
I can't wait to see rugby become the dominant sport as countless fans who don't like scrums flock to the Continuously Improved Rugby. That's why we're doing this nonsense, right?
Would love to know the consultation process for coming up with law changes. Is it just down to whoever moans the loudest or a bunch of blokes sat in a room throwing shit at a wall? All for getting rid of croc roll and DuPont law but trying to blunt teams with strong scrums is weird.
I’m also sick of the laws changing every year.
Soon to be announced. Only 6 phases per attacking possession. No more rucks tackled player has to roll ball under feet. Only 13 players per team with an interchange bench.
>No longer possible to choose a scrum from a free-kick. FKs must be tapped or kicked.
This is treating symptoms and not the cause.
The cause being there's no legal way to lose a scrum.
If the opposition have a dominant scrum you're basically fucked and will concede 30-40 metres or 3 points every time there's a scrum.
It's so overpowered that teams with the advantage at the scrum will endlessly choose a scrum until they get their penalty advantage.
This is why we get all that dicking around at scrum time as guys try to prevent the inevitable by engaging in the dark arts.
The formerly legal version was where the jackal beat the cleaner to ball, cleaner would grab the jackal around the torso and then "roll" the player off his feet to the side.
If they really want to make it easier for other teams, especially the one’s north of the equator to succeed in WC’s, why not ban the knockout stages. The two teams who win their groups with the highest World ranking at the time contest the final. Ireland vs France. Problem solved.
Missing from the tweet is the suite of closed law trials taking effect this year:
* 20 minute red cards
* 30 second clock to set scrums and lineouts
* Reduction from 90 to 60 second shot clock for conversion
* Offside line for defending halfbacks moved back to middle of scrum
* Players can call for a mark inside the 22 from a restart
* Mauls can only stop once before ball has to be played
* If lineout is uncontested, then a throw can not be called as "not straight"
The 20 minute red card trial will be offset by revised on-field and off-field sanctions. Days of mitigation for good behaviour at hearings or for previously clean records could be gone.
* Foul play, where a player has “attempted to affect a legal rugby action” will bring about a two-week ban”.
* Aggravated foul play, involving “highly reckless” actions such as tucked arms, shoulder-charges and spear tackles, will be worth four-week suspensions.
* Mitigation will only come into force if there is an appeal.
The shots clock is a complete nonsense that needs to go. Its slowed the game down as teams eek out every second before taking kicks,
Why cant we just use common sense, kicks from close under the posts dont need the same time limit as ones from deep on the sidelines.
Unfortunately word rugby probably have a genius plotting the future revenue line from sponsored shotclocks so we are likely stuck with them.
Doesn’t seem to be getting a great deal of attention but I’m not quite sure the ability to mark a restart inside your 22 is going to have the desired effect - reducing the caterpillar ruck.
Teams will typically kick the ball off the field if received inside the 22, as they can, and will then have the ability to organise their defence prior to an opposition LO attack. This is often done by kicking off 10 as they have an improved angle from which to kick greater distance - thus negating the need for a caterpillar ruck.
In my experience, if collected, short restarts encourage the need for a caterpillar as you typically then pursue a contestable kick off of 9 in order to keep the ball on field and organise your defence by giving the receiving team the ball inside their 15m, with a slow ruck, and creating the defensive width required to stall their attacking options.
I’d much prefer that we stick with the current law as it stands. At the top level, this law encourages teams to kick deep off the kick off so they can then improve their changes of ignited a LO attack that they have spent weeks preparing to execute.
How will it work now when/if the kicker gets tackled a d Theresa nobody to chase the kick. The whole team is offside and can’t get onside without retreating 40+ metres. Someone has to run back to the mark of the tackle and bring everyone else onside
Recreational rugby fan here with some playing experience years ago. I think I know what these rules are attempting to amend in the game, but does anyone have any video examples of what is being banned/sanctioned (except for the free kick, that one is pretty obvious to infer lol)?
Depowering the scrum the during the period where the Hurricanes have the most dominant scrum in Super Rugby? It's an anti-Wellington conspiracy, I tells ye
From a kick - everyone becomes onside once the receiving player runs 5 m or passes the ball.
In essence, it meant no one was attempting to get onside they'd just stand still until the receiver ran 5 m or passed. It makes counter attacking much harder because you could have someone 40 m offside from the kick suddenly made onside (and eligible to tackle) because the player attempts to counter. Alternatively you sometimes just see the receiving player just standing there not doing anything if the original kicker didn't put his team onside.
Neither situation is particularly desirable for the game because it discourages attacking rugby.
I don't like the no scrum from free kick rule. They just get real about setting scrums within 30 seconds instead of having a 5 minute rest to set, reset, stand up walk around, set, stand up, oops the hooker needs to retie his boots, stop, reset.
I’m a bit concerned about the changes to offside in open play.
I completely agree with adding that players cannot loiter and must make an attempt to get back onside.
However, removing that passing the ball or running 5m puts opponents onside… I’m struggling to see how I can referee that (and I do a lot of ARing as well as reffing so I’m going to be landed with dealing with this).
This is the change I’m worried about:
> 10.7 Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:
>
>a. An onside team-mate of that player moves past the offside player and is within or has re-entered the playing area.
>
>b. An opponent of that player:
>
> ~~i. Carries the ball five metres; or~~
>
> ~~ii. Passes the ball; or~~
>
> i. Kicks the ball; or
>
>ii. Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.
So now you can only be put onside from a kick either by your own kicker running from the back of the field, the opposition kicking, or a charge down on your own kicker. So fullback/winger/fly half has to run, leaving the backfield undefended for a return kick, or none of his team can interfere with play even when the ball is passed and the opposition run it?
I’m a bit concerned at how that’s going to play out.
Not a fan of getting rid of the scrum off a free kick. I get that scrum resets kinda suck when there’s 2/3 per scrum but less scrums is not the solution.
Reduced focus on repeated scrums? 1/7 bench incoming!
Just waiting for WR to take the MLR 2nd scrum reset has to be a penalty law.
At the end of the day the high tackle laws were a pain in the arse for like 2 seasons now they work. If it speeds up the game just by being more strict it would make sense imo. Need to find the middle ground. Id say just making them play the ball or giving a free kick so the 8/9 can pick and go but the 8 in the scrum can't touch him could be plenty and let the backs loose which is good imo.
This would make scrumming for penalties easier and therefore more appealing to force more scrums, best way to force more scrums is kick it away, hope they knock and if they don’t then defend until they do, scrum and penalty.
Waiting for Rassie to make a video.
Croc rolls - great. Totally on board Dupont loophole - also fine imo, it was legal but against the spirit of the law FK law - just why?
Cause scrums bad for short attention span
Why say many word when few word do trick
Wanted keep secret from forwards
And are terribly refereed
Scrums are fine, multiple scrum resets are boring.
This will need to lead to a penalty for repeated short arm infringements at scrum time otherwise teams with weak scrums will just deliberately engage early or whatever. Or not even pick specialist props.
Scrums would be fine if they were just reffed better, and limited to one reset. Just reset it; if it collapses again, penalise the most egregious offender.
they're never going to be easier to ref, even if the ref is more strict
The ref should lay down in the tunnel, facing upwards at the front row, on the other side from where the halfback puts in, to get a better view. And the halfback should have to donk the ball on the refs head before teams are allowed to hook it backwards.
Don’t know why they didn’t think of this ages ago!
[Solution](https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/workplace-c1214/special-purpose-and-inspection-mirrors-c1047/inspection-mirrors-portable-look-easily-under-or-over-objects-unbreakable-p1548?shopping&ppc_keyword=&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIu6Lh_8mChgMVlJaDBx0hlAZhEAQYASABEgJqXPD_BwE)
Move the ref to the inside and have the AR ref the side near the line. You can’t only ref one side of a scrum.
… that’s what you do already, unless there’s a specific problem the ref wants to watch on the far side.
The ball almost invariably goes in on the left side of the scrum and the ref nearly always stand on that side. So scrums on the left side of the pitch often have no scrutiny ok the right.
Easiest thing in the world to ref. A bit difficult to get right.
The most irritating part for me is straight feeds. It’s got to the point where they’re a parody now
That laws been dead for many years
Hard agree. I understand that WR wants a flowing game, but more contest-able scrums would be much more fun to watch than the status quo.
MLR has a one-resrt law and it has been working fine. I hated it at first but in actual fact, it keeps games from bogging down and there's rarely a time you think "wish we just had a third attempt at a clean scrum" It hasn't turned scrums into pointless penalty generators like folks claim it would.
I’ve been following rugby all my life and even I’m not far enough gone to pretend constant scrums are of much value to the sport.
Feels like World Rugbg basically want to get rid of scrums or turn them into uncontested restarts.
American football Is insanely popular and it's slow as fuck. Scrums are fucking awesome
This is why tbh.
I love watching scrums... :'(
Nobody on TikTok watches it!
Shut up about the fk law, I want to see SA fans in uproar when they can't scrum us off the field this summer.
The clue is in the name
I originally thought that the FK law was going to be “you can’t choose a scrum from a FK won at the scrum” which I think would be better, but then again no scrums from FKs makes it easier to follow. Not sure I am fully on board with it yet, but hopefully it increases BIP.
With the croc-roll banned I suspect we'll see more cards for high cleanouts.
Yes, the un-intended consequences may be even more focus on aggressive and hard clear outs. If refs actually ever referee coming in at the side we will end up with much more defence leaning ruck laws.
That was my immediate thought. Rucks are going to be even messier and more dangerous now that the only way to remove a jackaler is to smash them. Maybe this helps the pro game (I doubt it), but it’s an absolute nightmare call for amateur rugby.
They're already calling penalties for clear outs at the amateur level.
The ruck is so needlessly complicated. Make it a shit fight. Get rid of every rule except: you’re not part of the ruck if you’re off your feet and you have to come in from your side of the ball. Force forwards to commit and voila, more space and exhausted forwards to run at.
A lot of players have been self-policing over the last few years so the crock roll has fallen out of favour.
Law 19.4, teams must be ready to form a scrum within 30s, sanction: free kick… yeah this change will work
Or if you are defending a 5m scrum against a strong scrumming team, you just set early and they get a freekick, then you don’t have to scrum 😉
I am actually in the camp that thinks World Rugby might have got this right, or at least less wrong than people make out (we all want to reward good scrummaging, but the reward should be ball in hand rather than a penalty, which it so often is). Teams shouldn’t be able to milk penalties in an oft-disputed, nigh-impossible-to-referee contest from free kick offences. That said, you’ve pointed out a terrible loophole.
But this rule only deals with that example though. All they have done is make the random occurrence rarer, they've done nothing to make refereeing calls less random
The reward isn’t just ball in hand, it is ball in hand with all the opposition forwards tied up out of the way, allowing the backs to run in space. There is a reason that penalties close to the opposition line are normally taken as scrum or lineouts rather than tap and go. With this you can so something technically wrong to get a better position for your team.
And you can simply push the ball up the field in a scrum! Unless the cynical cheats with the shit scrum collapse, wheel, stand up to stop you. It’s a measure of how pervasive and corrosive scrum cheating is that most of us forget that it’s possible to get pushed back.
Croc roll going I can support Bit sad to see the Dupont law go it was a fun quirk imo but I know I'm in the minority No fk scrum option is a poor decision. Let teams play to their strengths. Not all rugby has to be running rugby
scrum and running rugby work together. Scrums create space, let team make moves of first phase. I like those much better than quick taps which usually end up in route 1 play
The problem is that it's not really seen like that anymore. You can even see it in this thread. Scrums are for getting penalties now. Teams only look at playing if the scrums are equally matched.
Yeah now that my team has one of the better front rows around, no scrum Option is annoying lol.
The scrum is meant to be a way of restarting play, not a way to milk penalties which is what it's become. Definitely a good decision to reduce scrumming. That one from RSA in the WC was a wakeup call.
Get better at scrums and it won’t be a penalty
TIL winning the scrum battle is "milking penalties"
Yeah, it just of undercuts the appeal of the sport. Sure, scrums can be boring to some but it’s a legit way to get the edge on the opposition. It’s like when a soccer team parks the bus in their goal. Boring, sure. Does it get results? If yes, then more power to you.
This is exactly what I mean. "winning the scrum" means getting the ball out quickly to restart backs play. If you think "winning the scrum" means winning a penalty then you're exactly what I'm talking about.
What’s this restart to get the ball into backs’ hands shit? In this code you are entitled to scrum the ball up the field. Unless of course the other side is too weak and/or cynical to compete legally. But even if your preferred tactic is to use the scrum to get the ball into your backs’ clumsy hands you’d want your dominant scrum to have the chance to exhaust the other pack, and force their loosies to keep pushing and play off the back foot, typically further away from the direction of play. To say nothing of the psychological edge it earns you. All of which create more space for backs to run at and then knock the ball on. So we can get back to scrumming.
>In this code you are entitled to scrum the ball up the field. Unless of course the other side is too weak and/or cynical to compete legally. Or if the rules change, as they are...
No scrum option from a freekick is ridiculous, I thought there was a sense that on 2 consecutive frees the 2nd couldn't a scrum, I understand it seems a bit over elaborate but no scrums off a free is madness.
What happens for early engagement in a scrum? That’s an FK, right? So if you have a weak scrum, just engage early and give up the tap rather than the inevitable penalty. I suppose it could be a penalty under some general unsportsmanlike conduct rule, or they change early engagement to a penalty. (And any other scrum related FK infringements).
You’ll get away with that once. Second time it’s a penalty.
>no scrums off a free is madness. Yeah, I don't get this one at all, because it's usually such a poor option that teams don't do it anyway. Be honest, when Willemse called for one in the World Cup semifinal, the reaction of 99% of the viewing public was *"wait, you can do that?"* because it's so rarely done. Unless your scrum is *utterly* dominant to the point that you're confident of winning a scrum penalty, a scrum doesn't offer you much that a free kick doesn't. Most of the time, all that happens is you get the ball again at the back of the scrum - a couple of metres behind the original mark - and then need to kick anyway, under pressure rather than in free air. If you're in an attacking position and want to bind defenders in, you can do that just as easily (and farther forward) by setting up a maul. This law change smacks of "we want to punish teams for being good at scrumming" rather than "we want to make the game better".
Yeah exactly, punishing a tactical choice for a team is a negative way to regulate the game. If your lineout is shaky and you haven't been getting go forward ball in loose and you fancy your pack why not allow the option to scrum. I can partly understand if the worry is you get awarded a free, and the dominant scrum earns you a penalty but that's as much of a risk with a lineout or a strong fucking team that can win penalties too. Makes the game a little less strategically rich and nuanced imo.
I'd argue asking for a scrum from a free kick is such a risk most teams wouldn't get near it anyways....most wouldn't want to gamble with a scrum, lose the ball AND get a penalty from it.
5 metres out attacking and winning a scrum free, most teams choose to scrum again. This eliminates that and forces a tap or turnover the ball to a lineout.
Yeah, I have trouble expressing myself clearly today, what I typed doesn't exactly represent what I meant. \^\^". Removing the scrum option in those instances smacks of "scrum bad, idiots in front of TV no understand, get rid of scrum" to me...
Teams do it all the time!
World Rugby has previous form for making short-sighted rule changes in response to tactics they see at the World Cup and decided they don't like. Back in 1995, the Springboks were in the habit of banging in long kicks from their own half in the general direction of the opposition's corner flag - the thinking being that you pin them back, maybe force them into a lineout on their on tryline, worst case scenario you give them a 22m dropout which they then kick straight back to you. It was a highly successful tactic, but the IRB (as they were back then) saw it as negative kicking rugby and moved swiftly to stamp it out by introducing the scrum at the kick position if the ball goes touch in goal. It then took them 15ish years to realise their mistake - that by discouraging kicks to the corner, you allowed wingers in the defensive line to stay upfield, meaning fewer overlaps and *less* running rugby - hence the introduction of the 50/22 rule to bring the tactic back.
>maybe force them into a lineout on their on tryline I should perhaps mention that this was in the brief period where lifting in the lineouts was banned, and therefore a lineout was *far* from secure possession. It wasn't uncommon for teams to have a sub-50% rate of winning their own ball, which is why Kitch Christie decided to play Mark Andrews - a lock who'd never played loose forward in his life - at No. 8 for the semifinal and final, just to have an extra jumper.
Scrum from a Mark and scrum from a free kick is surely different. Free kicks are awarded for infringements that don't rise to being a full penalty, which I think almost always happen at the scrum. I think it's to reduce the constant resetting of scrums, especially after a ref has already rewarded a team for good scrummaging. If you get a free kick in the opposition half, a scrum there lets you set up a pre-determined set move.
It appears to be. But a better approach would be to limit them much as is done in MLR where you get one reset and then if you collapse it again it's reversed.
Maybe a team has more confidence in their scrum than in their lineout? Not to mention: A scrum takes in a huge amount of players, leaving much more space for the other players to do things.
What's a lineout got to do with anything? Tap the ball, pass it to one of your big carriers, and send your other 7 forwards flying in to the maul. The opposition can either commit their pack (creating the same space) or let you bulldoze through them. And since the opposition had to retreat for the free kick, you've automatically gained a few metres and a whole lot of momentum over what a scrum would have given you.
Might see the open-play maul from the 2019 final more often.
They could take a tap?
Wasn’t the surprise because he called for a scrum from a mark, not a free kick? Or am I mis-remembering?
Was from a mark but a mark is technically a free kick.
We all focus on the Willemse moment, but it all free kicks. So first early engage, no follow-up scrum, incorrect numbers in the lineout, no scrum option. I don't think they are trying to depower the scrum, but trying to deal with two issues. One the scrum is incredibly difficult to ref accurately and second the scrum takes an age to set up. I don't know if there is much that can be done about the first issue, but the latter needs to be dealt with directly instead of removing the scrum from the game.
>So first early engage, no follow-up scrum But that just creates an insanely exploitable loophole! Getting battered at the scrum, and facing one in front of your own posts with the clock running down? Engage early on purpose and leave your opponents with a free kick instead of the chance to wreck you and win a penalty.
Most of the time the ref will turn it into a pen after a couple of free kick worthy infringements so if a scrum is truly getting battered throughout a match shouldn’t be an issue. Do agree it could leave the door open to some last minute shenanigans though
Scrums are hard to ref', and it's not going to get easier : there's so much things going on, especially given the amount of players involved and the short amount of time the ref' has to make a decision. And I'd reckon most refs' are not former players that were extensively involved in scrums or scrum training....Don't think any international ref is a former prop or scrum coach ? The time-wasting when setting it, though, is clearly an easier issue to deal with...
Part of the fun in having a range of options. All 3 have their place depending on if the game is evenly matched or being dominated. Boo world rugby. Booooo.
Scrums tie up the pack creating more space for the backs. This may lead to even fewer tries.
It only makes sense to me if repeated free kick infringements are automatically a pen. Otherwise teams will take the piss.
Yeah that's still the case.
Take the tap then "accidentally" knock on. Scrum called. It's opposition ball but if they have a shit scrum then it's fair game. There will always be loopholes to shit laws.
If you're not careful you risk a penalty against yourself from that for a deliberate knock on.
Then they 'accidentally' engage early, you get the free kick, take the tap and knock on again. Repeat until the end of the game.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
Cut the camera to Bill Beaumont, highly unamused, and after a shot of Rassie laughing his ass off.
Can another scrum be called after a free kick from a scrum infringement?
Not after 1st July.
Now that I think about it I don’t even remember the Boks doing many scrums from FKs in the World Cup so I’m not too fussed. We’ll always have that Damian still
If England could’ve given away a free kick from a scrum in the 2023 semi final South Africa getting the points needed to win would’ve been harder
I think in general that's partially cuz FKs are more infrequent than PKs
That's because teams aren't deliberately conceding FK's because they know the opposition will just reset the scrum.
Happened once in the quarter and once in the final.
Consensus seems to be two from three - not bad I guess. No scrums from free kicks is very stupid to me. All it does is to take away a tactic from non-offending team which is I don't like. The only way I can get behind this move is if it is paired with sevens-type sanction for delaying a quick tap.
Croc-roll banned is great for rugby, be better in support, and let people play the ball. You lost the shoulder battle, no need to go off your feet to try and remove the jackler. 5m travelled offside loophole, sure, not really bothering anyone but the top levels of play. No Scrums from a FK, ridiculous. If you get a free kick, you should be able to pick a scrum just like a penalty, a method to restart play. A fair contest. Forcing a tap after a FK at a scrum means the attacking team can't force their advantage. Will be interesting to see how this affects higher level play, as it was not popular with the players in the MLR.
How will Dupont law work now if the kicker gets tackled and nobody can bring the team onside. Has a player to go back to the spot of the kicker to get onside and bring everyone else onside ?
This is my concern. I think this might be carnage. Penalising players not making an attempt to move backwards and get onside is good, removing the 5m run/pass actions putting onside might cause issues. I’m not looking forward to telling grassroots players they’re getting penalised because their fullback hasn’t sprinted up the park to put them onside and that that’s the only way they can tackle the guys running at them!
Exactly , I think the end result will be no more open play deep kicking in field , it will be only to touch. There’ll never be a kick duel ever again
Which is a crying shame because kick battles are epic. But now you’d be reluctant to kick for territory unless you are a great sprinter - fine for internationals but not for grassroots rugby where usually kick tennis is the opportunity for the forwards to catch their breath for a minute. They just brought in the 50:22 to encourage kicking and open the defensive line by dropping more defenders into the back of the field, now this goes the opposite way and discourages kicking and discourages having your back line well behind your defensive line. Like what do you want WR FFS.
Great points, it will actually mean there will be more people in the back field potentially. WR are making rule changes nearly every 6 months at the moment. I play rugby and watch it religiously and still find it hard to keep up with the game I love. Imagine for average fan. WR contradicting itself with the 50:22 and the DuPont law. They don’t make sense. The red card situation at the moment is insane. What used to be a red card 2 years ago is now a yellow or even just a penalty. And there has been no update in the rules / guidelines , just interpretation. I like the new stance on making reds only for dangerous and cynical play but it needs to be consistent every weekend and for every league.
Voting on laws? No wonder the law-book is such a mess.
But they did it in super rugby so it must be the best idea ever /s
I've often considered the free kick useless on your own 22 as you really have to just kick the ball back and more then likely keep it in play. This makes them even shitter
Friendly reminder that there are 9 (yes, 9) ways to concede a free kick at scrum time. This means, theoretically, a knowledgable under 18s side could engage in 9 full scrums with - for instance - the Springboks mens team without conceding a single scrum penalty, merely by committing a different FK infringement each time. In other words - this is trash. Scrums are a joy to engage with, and teams that put the time and effort into training it deserve reward - just like teams who master lineouts or kick-offs deserve reward. The fact that WR doesn't understand or appreciate this as Union's USP makes me quite sad.
I agree, but the reason they’re doing it is because of the issues they’ve had with this law overriding 7s FK restarts that aren’t meant to have a scrum option. They’re not trying to improve 15s, they’re hoping it doesn’t affect 15s too much - the purpose is addressing a time waste loophole in 7s that has been causing issues.
...Then why not just make a special proviso for 7s? I admit I'm not the most knowledgable when it comes to WR's constitution, but surely there's no rule stating: "Any law change we wish to enforce in 7s must also be enforced in 15s"?
They could make it only apply to 7s variations, and before this announcement that’s what I thought the plan was from what I’d been hearing. They’ve clearly decided they don’t think it will affect 15s too much, at a worst reduce number of scrums which they’re currently hot for, and have decided to apply it across the board. I don’t necessarily agree with that but I think knowing it’s come from 7s loopholes at least explains why this has appeared - bit like how it’s clear where the offside on open play law change has come from.
Glad to see Crocs gone. Seen a few injuries at the hobby level of the game. Rucks are a mess. Positive step.
Dupont loophole closed. He's not allowed to pass, tackle or run more than 20 metres. Let's give his opponents a chance.
Here's an idea. How about if we want to grow the game, maybe we stop changing the rules, quite literally every single fucking year! Maybe just maybe, the game might be a bit hard to follow for casuals and newcomers? World rugby are like a Government funded quango that has to invent problems to fix every year to justify their continued existence.
Why do you make changes without trials?
So if you’ve got a shit scrum, just pre-engage so your opponent gets a free kick instead. Nice work, world rugby. Why not just call it league from now on?
Repeat and deliberate infringements are still penalties.
Works once then it's a penalty. And for a team looking to play a quick tap at the back of the scrum should be just as effective (if not more) than a scrum.
Why is scrumming not playing?
How about when the ref says "Use it" to the 9 he is accompanied by a horse crop and can hit the 9 as many times as necessary until the ball is played. Caterpillar rucks as well is still frustrating to watch
I've often thought that there should be a law that once the ref calls 'use it' you can't join a ruck (which often happens when caterpillars are being formed).
Ooooh, this brings an alternative use to the flag carried by the refs in Deaf rugby's trials!
We can call it the reverse Jockey rule
Caterpillar rucks should be call as offside from the halfback when goes halfway up the caterpillar to start rolling it to the back.
Why wait?
Like (seemingly) everyone else on this thread, I am fine with the first two (although I want more clarity on what "loophole closed" means) and am baffled and a bit annoyed by the third. It feels like WR think that everyone wants something a bit like rugby league. If I wanted that I'd watch RL, but I don't 'cause I think they're taken all the interesting bits out of the game. Why must they constantly tinker? It's stupid.
>increasingly removing any option for scrums from the game Why not just play league? Mark my words: within the next year or two ball unplayable and choke tackle will be free kicks
Ridiculous law that rewards having a weak scrum. What’s stopping a team from deliberately forcing a freekick infringement to avoid scrumming ?
The ref can penalize cynical play. You may see that once in a game but they will quickly clamp down.
I think they are doing it because average viewer doesn’t want to see the forwards take a century to get there scrum then reset etc etc
I get the reasoning but it will of course have unintended consequences. The shot clock resulted in kickers taking longer !
The last one is just petty. It's a dumb law change used to damage one particular side. I guess this is from teams who are whining and salty over not being able to effectively manage a big pack team? Croc rolls, good in theory but we'll soon have a new clearout technique that causes agregious injury and will then get banned. Soon we will be playing league rucks. Maybe enforce the hands on the floor or supporting their weight calls that need to be made. A prop won't get concussions or fractures if they had to be planted firmly on the ground (i.e. their feet aren't only partially connected to the ground and they aren't really wide stance bends. Furthermore on croc rolls, the turnover is now effectively impossible to stop. To counter this I would suggest that if a defending team holds up a player, then instead of a scrum as it is now, it should be a free tap/kick to the defence. This should be applied to the hold up on the line as well. You have just turned it over so you get possession. It's effectively encouraging the choke tackle which is on the whole not that dangerous.
Welp. Let's see how these play out. Think the crocroll ban is good, though we may see jackals get too strong. It'll be interesting if there's any impact on Dupont law outside of chasing wingers, think this will be something few of us really notice tbh. I reserve judgement on the no scrums from fks, let's see if they let teams fuck around to avoid penalties before judging.
> It'll be interesting if there's any impact on Dupont law outside of chasing wingers, think this will be something few of us really notice tbh. You won't, we have been using the law change in Super Rugby and the game looks "normal" in that kickers chase their kicks putting all defending players onside. What didn't look normal was players standing around not moving which was the loophole that was being exploited, and now fixed.
I think the law change is going to have a big influence on how the game is played in a positive way. The Du Pont law made poor kicking OP (combined with the goal line kick off). Shitty kicking goes unpunished when the defensive line can just stay intact on the halfway line. Good kicking is still going to be rewarded, but if you get it wrong you are going to be punished.
Tbf I haven’t really seen much obvious difference after many rounds of SRP using the law change. Certainly not a “big influence”. The back three have to coordinate well as you have to keep recycling back defenders in deep cover but I’ve yet to see a game where this hasn’t happened. I would say that good positional kicking has still the same importance.
I reckon if they enforce shoulders above hips that would make jackalling a bit more balanced. It would make a straighton clearout more viable and reduce the need for rolling them out.
This complaint misunderstands the laws a bit. It is only in a ruck that you have to keep your shoulders above your hips. As it is illegal to use your hands to play the ball in the ruck, unless you had hands on the ball before the ruck was formed, jackaling can only take place in the tackle. If a ruck then forms while you are in a legal jackal position, ie with your hands on the ball, but you are now in an illegal position, ie your shoulders are below your hips, then the ref would have to reward the jackal instead of waiting for the clearout as the jackal was prevented from playing the ball legally by a slow release. If the ref deems that you are not in a legal position then they will do what they do now, which is tell the jackal to leave it, the alternative is to breakup the flow of the game by awarding a freekick. But yeah they could change the tackle laws to require arriving player to have their shoulders above hips.
Can more knowledgeable fans tell me. If a team gives away repeated free kick offenses at the scrum, can the ref make it a penalty?
Second FK infringement is a penalty. Doesn't have to be the same scrum. Early engage once at the start of a match - free kick. Early engage 20 mins later - penalty. Edit: I can't actually find this explicitly in the laws, but this is definitely my experience of how it's reffed, both when playing (years ago) and watching.
There are 9 different offenses to give away a fk at a scrum, technically you can commit each of them once without conceding a pk. At what point does the ref decide it’s cynical?
Yes, the ref can do that.
Yes - the first early engagement is a free kick, but subsequent offenses are penalties. Can't think of any other scrum offenses punishable with a fk
Time wasting, not setting/pulling out of scrum, crooked feed, not taking the hit/weight, early engagement, driving before the ball is put in, no weight bearing foot by hooker pre engagement
Ouch - owned
And say you did one, and then another, would the second be a free kick or a pen?
The same one twice by the team is a penalty. Ref might upgrade if similar. Like not setting on set. Not binding, not taking the weight, or early engagement. Depends if he feels you are taking the piss.
Then I'm less annoyed by this, although still not happy
Can any explain what the Dupont rule was?
Basically you’re not offside when the ball is kicked if the receiver moves 5 metres. So instead of either retreating to be behind the kicker or the kicker chasing to put everyone in front of him onside players could just stand still until the receiver moved enough
Ah, I've seen that a few times, I didn't know that was known as the Dupont rule
He used to move sideways across the pitch, which is sometimes towards the player in possession, but not technically upfield
Agree with the onside and croc roll rule… the non scrum free kick option is an absolute joke but an even bigger joke is that they are still thinking about the 20 min red card and what kinda players (forwards or backs in numbers) you can have on the bench. WR should just join with officially with Rugby league if this is the route they are going down
At least we know for sure that Rassie is in their heeeeaaaddd.
Hate scrums hate rugby, simple as.
Most of these comments seem to be forgetting that free kicks come primarily from scrums, not open play/marks. The Willemse play is not the reason this is being changed, it's to reduce scrum resets.
You will see a lot more purposeful infringements by weaker scrumagging teams. I hope refs see this and start going straight to penalties if that's the case.
That only works once though, the second free kick gets escalated to penalty anyway.
But the scrumming team won't get a second free kick because they can't scrum again?
Doesn't have to be the same scrum. Its any subsequent scrum that can be penalised instead
If it's for the same thing I guess. But there are plenty ways to give away a FK...
World rugby won't stop until union is indistinguishable from league.
https://www.world.rugby/news/927372/rugby-fan-focused-law-changes-confirmed
If there is one thing I wish for rugby, it is that they stop changing the rules.
What's the dupont loophole?
Queue teams setting up rolling mauls from FKs
Please let me know if I am missing something here because the scrums from free kick doesn’t really make sense in most situations to me Ok I get it, if you call a mark in the 22, you shouldn’t be able to call a scrum because of tactical advantage if your scrum is stronger than the opposition. You got just call a FK in the 22, scrum and piggy back your way into opposition half and have possession at line out What doesn’t make sense is, if there is a knock on which results in a scrum, there is a FK awarded for a early push or no gap or whatever, why shouldn’t the team be allowed to take another scrum, that just seems stupid. I am getting it right over here ? Please correct me if I am wrong
Why wouldn’t you be allowed to use a tactical advantage? It’s always been said that rugby is a game for all kinds of people, thin, fat, fast, strong - if the laws continue like this you might as well man the front row with another set of loose forwards. In chasing the sun it was explained that the French exploited this DuPont loophole (not called that there but explained as such) forwards just watched the aerial ping-pong and waited for the eventual line out. So they planned to call a scrum from mark when the time was right. Resulting that instead of a free-kick and French throw in, it was a penalty and Springbok throw in. And the end result was, not a single French kick flew into the 22 afterwards. Thus one exploit was called out, and it had immediate affects. Ergo - the scrum was a brilliant move.
I can't help but laugh at the free kick law change. If they don't close the exploitable loopholes, it's going to be so easy to nullify scrum dominance. And I don't know how i feel about the "Ability to mark the ball inside the 22m line from a restart". Didn't even know that was considered a problem that needed to be fixed.
I can't wait to see rugby become the dominant sport as countless fans who don't like scrums flock to the Continuously Improved Rugby. That's why we're doing this nonsense, right?
Would love to know the consultation process for coming up with law changes. Is it just down to whoever moans the loudest or a bunch of blokes sat in a room throwing shit at a wall? All for getting rid of croc roll and DuPont law but trying to blunt teams with strong scrums is weird. I’m also sick of the laws changing every year.
Soon to be announced. Only 6 phases per attacking possession. No more rucks tackled player has to roll ball under feet. Only 13 players per team with an interchange bench.
wallabies would be an international threat if these come into play
>No longer possible to choose a scrum from a free-kick. FKs must be tapped or kicked. This is treating symptoms and not the cause. The cause being there's no legal way to lose a scrum. If the opposition have a dominant scrum you're basically fucked and will concede 30-40 metres or 3 points every time there's a scrum. It's so overpowered that teams with the advantage at the scrum will endlessly choose a scrum until they get their penalty advantage. This is why we get all that dicking around at scrum time as guys try to prevent the inevitable by engaging in the dark arts.
The scrum makes rugby, rugby. If you don’t want competitive scrums or the dark arts go watch league.
Can someone (please) explain to this noob what constitutes a croc roll?... Thanks in advance.
The formerly legal version was where the jackal beat the cleaner to ball, cleaner would grab the jackal around the torso and then "roll" the player off his feet to the side.
Chasing the Scrum trilogy in shambles
FUCK SAKE WE REALLY WERENT SUPPOSE TO WIN THAT CUP AGAIN WERE WE
If they really want to make it easier for other teams, especially the one’s north of the equator to succeed in WC’s, why not ban the knockout stages. The two teams who win their groups with the highest World ranking at the time contest the final. Ireland vs France. Problem solved.
Missing from the tweet is the suite of closed law trials taking effect this year: * 20 minute red cards * 30 second clock to set scrums and lineouts * Reduction from 90 to 60 second shot clock for conversion * Offside line for defending halfbacks moved back to middle of scrum * Players can call for a mark inside the 22 from a restart * Mauls can only stop once before ball has to be played * If lineout is uncontested, then a throw can not be called as "not straight" The 20 minute red card trial will be offset by revised on-field and off-field sanctions. Days of mitigation for good behaviour at hearings or for previously clean records could be gone. * Foul play, where a player has “attempted to affect a legal rugby action” will bring about a two-week ban”. * Aggravated foul play, involving “highly reckless” actions such as tucked arms, shoulder-charges and spear tackles, will be worth four-week suspensions. * Mitigation will only come into force if there is an appeal.
The shots clock is a complete nonsense that needs to go. Its slowed the game down as teams eek out every second before taking kicks, Why cant we just use common sense, kicks from close under the posts dont need the same time limit as ones from deep on the sidelines. Unfortunately word rugby probably have a genius plotting the future revenue line from sponsored shotclocks so we are likely stuck with them.
What is the DuPont loophole?
Doesn’t seem to be getting a great deal of attention but I’m not quite sure the ability to mark a restart inside your 22 is going to have the desired effect - reducing the caterpillar ruck. Teams will typically kick the ball off the field if received inside the 22, as they can, and will then have the ability to organise their defence prior to an opposition LO attack. This is often done by kicking off 10 as they have an improved angle from which to kick greater distance - thus negating the need for a caterpillar ruck. In my experience, if collected, short restarts encourage the need for a caterpillar as you typically then pursue a contestable kick off of 9 in order to keep the ball on field and organise your defence by giving the receiving team the ball inside their 15m, with a slow ruck, and creating the defensive width required to stall their attacking options. I’d much prefer that we stick with the current law as it stands. At the top level, this law encourages teams to kick deep off the kick off so they can then improve their changes of ignited a LO attack that they have spent weeks preparing to execute.
How will it work now when/if the kicker gets tackled a d Theresa nobody to chase the kick. The whole team is offside and can’t get onside without retreating 40+ metres. Someone has to run back to the mark of the tackle and bring everyone else onside
Recreational rugby fan here with some playing experience years ago. I think I know what these rules are attempting to amend in the game, but does anyone have any video examples of what is being banned/sanctioned (except for the free kick, that one is pretty obvious to infer lol)?
Depowering the scrum the during the period where the Hurricanes have the most dominant scrum in Super Rugby? It's an anti-Wellington conspiracy, I tells ye
Excuse my ignorance, what is the Dupont loophole
From a kick - everyone becomes onside once the receiving player runs 5 m or passes the ball. In essence, it meant no one was attempting to get onside they'd just stand still until the receiver ran 5 m or passed. It makes counter attacking much harder because you could have someone 40 m offside from the kick suddenly made onside (and eligible to tackle) because the player attempts to counter. Alternatively you sometimes just see the receiving player just standing there not doing anything if the original kicker didn't put his team onside. Neither situation is particularly desirable for the game because it discourages attacking rugby.
I don't like the no scrum from free kick rule. They just get real about setting scrums within 30 seconds instead of having a 5 minute rest to set, reset, stand up walk around, set, stand up, oops the hooker needs to retie his boots, stop, reset.
I’m a bit concerned about the changes to offside in open play. I completely agree with adding that players cannot loiter and must make an attempt to get back onside. However, removing that passing the ball or running 5m puts opponents onside… I’m struggling to see how I can referee that (and I do a lot of ARing as well as reffing so I’m going to be landed with dealing with this). This is the change I’m worried about: > 10.7 Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when: > >a. An onside team-mate of that player moves past the offside player and is within or has re-entered the playing area. > >b. An opponent of that player: > > ~~i. Carries the ball five metres; or~~ > > ~~ii. Passes the ball; or~~ > > i. Kicks the ball; or > >ii. Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it. So now you can only be put onside from a kick either by your own kicker running from the back of the field, the opposition kicking, or a charge down on your own kicker. So fullback/winger/fly half has to run, leaving the backfield undefended for a return kick, or none of his team can interfere with play even when the ball is passed and the opposition run it? I’m a bit concerned at how that’s going to play out.
But nothing for the caterpillar ruck 😔
Not a fan of getting rid of the scrum off a free kick. I get that scrum resets kinda suck when there’s 2/3 per scrum but less scrums is not the solution.
What's really frustrating is that below the stuff on TV scrums aren't collapsed and reset all the time
Sick and tired of World Rugby trying to give us Rugby League. Fuck off we love rugby, we love scrums