RugbyRebels

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... y-13362123

Allowing the scrum half to basically put the ball under the hookers feet and the 8 pick it up in the second row may relieve some pressure so that's good

Additional link
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/266973

The World Rugby Executive Committee has approved the addition of six law amendments to the programme of global law trials.

The amendments, which have been tried in specific international competitions this year, relate to the scrum (Law 20) and tackle/ruck (Laws 15 and 16), and are aimed at making the game simpler to play and referee, as well as further protecting player welfare.

The six law amendments will debut in full from 1 August 2017 in the northern hemisphere, and from 1 January 2018 in the southern hemisphere, and are as follows...

Throwing the ball into the scrum
Law 20.5 & 20.5 (d) 5

No signal from referee. The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.

Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in.

Handling in the scrum – exception
Law 20.9 (b)

The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows.

Rationale: To promote continuity.

Striking after the throw-in
Law 20

Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball.

Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

Sanction: Free-kick

Law 15.4 (c)
The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”.

Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law.

Ruck
Law 16

A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.

Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

Other ruck offences
Law 16.4

A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.

Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

Sanction: Penalty

*The November 2017 Tests will operate under the full global law trials, while Women’s Rugby World Cup 2017 will operate under the package of five global law trials that has been operational in the southern hemisphere since January and was operational during the June test window.

As always it'll be referee consistency that will cause issues, the changes look logical on the face of it.

No feet at the ruck should tidy the rucks up a bit and speed up phase play which should create more space accordingly.

This statement seems contradictory: "a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in".
But anyway, I guess they're tired of refs totally ignoring the rule about straight scrum feed and have gone for a compromise (which hopefully WILL be policed), straight but at the feet of the attacking front row.
Probably a good idea.

I don't like this: "The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”."
IMO it gives too much advantage to the attacker. There's unlikely to be time for the tackler to get up AND enter through the gate before someone else arrived or the tackled player gets up.

Numbers wrote:As always it'll be referee consistency that will cause issues, the changes look logical on the face of it.

No feet at the ruck should tidy the rucks up a bit and speed up phase play which should create more space accordingly.

Yep your bang on with the consistency point ...hopefully we will not see the usual extreme interpretation and then a slackening when it gets OTT.

I am still interested to see the way things turn put. ..but .... it at least looks like the powers that be are trying to move forward and listening.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This statement seems contradictory: "a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in".
But anyway, I guess they're tired of refs totally ignoring the rule about straight scrum feed and have gone for a compromise (which hopefully WILL be policed), straight but at the feet of the attacking front row.
Probably a good idea.

I don't like this: "The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”."
IMO it gives too much advantage to the attacker. There's unlikely to be time for the tackler to get up AND enter through the gate before someone else arrived or the tackled player gets up.

The pendulum has swung from defence to attack in the last few seasons, this pushes it even further. It takes the tackler out of the ruck effectively, except at the lower levels where support could be that delayed.

ALunpg wrote:

Numbers wrote:As always it'll be referee consistency that will cause issues, the changes look logical on the face of it.

No feet at the ruck should tidy the rucks up a bit and speed up phase play which should create more space accordingly.

Yep your bang on with the consistency point ...hopefully we will not see the usual extreme interpretation and then a slackening when it gets OTT.

I am still interested to see the way things turn put. ..but .... it at least looks like the powers that be are trying to move forward and listening.

Surely it's the degree to which coaches are going to try and cheat their way around the laws, will be what causes issues.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This statement seems contradictory: "a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in".

Well, a scrum is not a drop-ball.
Scrums are awarded for a technical infringement and it's a restart. The team who gets the put in should get some sort of advantage or a least a reasonable probability that they'll get the ball from the restart. It's obvious they're trying to ensure that a gigantic pack are not guaranteed to turnover opposition ball. Which they don't deserve, because they've infringed.

kk67 wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This statement seems contradictory: "a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in".

Well, a scrum is not a drop-ball.
Scrums are awarded for a technical infringement and it's a restart. The team who gets the put in should get some sort of advantage or a least a reasonable probability that they'll get the ball from the restart. It's obvious they're trying to ensure that a gigantic pack are not guaranteed to turnover opposition ball. Which they don't deserve, because they've infringed.

They get an advantage from the timing of the put in. Same principle as the lineout, the ball should be winnable by both sides.

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This statement seems contradictory: "a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in".

Well, a scrum is not a drop-ball.
Scrums are awarded for a technical infringement and it's a restart. The team who gets the put in should get some sort of advantage or a least a reasonable probability that they'll get the ball from the restart. It's obvious they're trying to ensure that a gigantic pack are not guaranteed to turnover opposition ball. Which they don't deserve, because they've infringed.

They get an advantage from the timing of the put in. Same principle as the lineout, the ball should be winnable by both sides.

Agreed, I'm just being picky about the language.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Well, a scrum is not a drop-ball.
Scrums are awarded for a technical infringement and it's a restart. The team who gets the put in should get some sort of advantage or a least a reasonable probability that they'll get the ball from the restart. It's obvious they're trying to ensure that a gigantic pack are not guaranteed to turnover opposition ball. Which they don't deserve, because they've infringed.

They get an advantage from the timing of the put in. Same principle as the lineout, the ball should be winnable by both sides.

Agreed, I'm just being picky about the language.

It's become less of an advantage. Free kicks are also awarded for technical infringements,....but we allow the kicker some advantages to reward them.
I like a competition,....but one side has infringed and the other should get the ball. If they kick away that advantage, tough.

kk67 wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: They get an advantage from the timing of the put in. Same principle as the lineout, the ball should be winnable by both sides.

Agreed, I'm just being picky about the language.

It's become less of an advantage. Free kicks are also awarded for technical infringements,....but we allow the kicker some advantages to reward them.
I like a competition,....but one side has infringed and the other should get the ball. If they kick away that advantage, tough.

Most scrums aren't for infringements. Although they can be opted for from a penalty or free kick, so can a lineout. But that's the choice of the team who has been awarded the free kick or penalty.

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Agreed, I'm just being picky about the language.

It's become less of an advantage. Free kicks are also awarded for technical infringements,....but we allow the kicker some advantages to reward them.
I like a competition,....but one side has infringed and the other should get the ball. If they kick away that advantage, tough.

Most scrums aren't for infringements.

All scrums are awarded for technical infringements, Sandy. That's what they are.
In your example, the attacking pack are choosing the lesser version of their penalty. But that does not alter the fact that the scrum is for a technical infringement.

It must be fairly tough to legislate like this for the benefit of us all. From Elite to the grassroots.
The feeding during the 3rd test was the straw that broke this camel's back. I didn't have too many problems with the old law that stated 'some part of the ball must hit the centre line'.
My primary feeling after the 3rd test was that without some sort of straight feed we are effectively cutting 16 guys out of the game.

If you are including knock ins as a technical infringement then fair enough. Although the scrum is a means to restart the game. An unplayable ball or a mistake by the ref or an injury stop are technical infringements.

And I agree that the feed should be straight. The scrum is supposed to be a competition, not an automatic
Right to keep possession. Same as the line out, although that normally comes with an increase in territory.

Feeding has been a problem for years and it basically means a hooker the size of a prop given the need not to contort themselves to strike a ball.

Sandydragon wrote:And I agree that the feed should be straight. The scrum is supposed to be a competition, not an automatic
Right to keep possession. Same as the line out, although that normally comes with an increase in territory.

Feeding has been a problem for years and it basically means a hooker the size of a prop given the need not to contort themselves to strike a ball.

As I said earlier, it's about the enforcement, after all you are supposed to put the ball in straight as the law stands but how often do we see it. My thoughts are they will ref it for a bit then revert to ignoring it later in the season when the message starts to wear off.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And I agree that the feed should be straight. The scrum is supposed to be a competition, not an automatic
Right to keep possession. Same as the line out, although that normally comes with an increase in territory.

Feeding has been a problem for years and it basically means a hooker the size of a prop given the need not to contort themselves to strike a ball.

As I said earlier, it's about the enforcement, after all you are supposed to put the ball in straight as the law stands but how often do we see it. My thoughts are they will ref it for a bit then revert to ignoring it later in the season when the message starts to wear off.

YES...I agree absolutely.. .maintaining the standard is always an issue..but hopefully if it allows a quick feed and restart it should be in a sides interest to do it correctly. Excessive delays at the scrum is why I think refs became less diligent again under the rules as they were.

So despite what I thought at first...the opposing side must also strike rather than 8 man shove to win the ball. Logic then is that the team putting in will usually get the ball. Sides can compete for the ball but it will not be an equal competition is a fair comment.

But here is a thought ..bearing in mind that forwards coaches will be looking how to expose this change ...what happens if both sides strike and the team with the put in wins the ball but then the opposition drive them off it with an 8 man shove ...will that be legal ?

I would say as far as I see it at the moment ... it probably would be. But I am sure this will be a question yet to be answered along with other innovations that will be thought about if the competitive side of scrums becomes less of an option.

Saw my first match last Saturday with the introduction of the ammendments. It was interesting to see that the scrum feed was just as poor as always ..the 9 was feeding into the second row.

Just goes to show what has been said here that the regulators have no chance of tidying this up if the officials on the ground do not regulate it.

ALunpg wrote:[

So despite what I thought at first...the opposing side must also strike rather than 8 man shove to win the ball.

That's not how I read it. It says the team with the put in must strike for the ball.

I see that moron Clancy's interpretation of straight is a 45 degree angle

Just watched the last 15 minutes of the Cardiff game. That scrum feed is still a joke.

Lord Llandaff wrote:I see that moron Clancy's interpretation of straight is a 45 degree angle

He wasn't even waiting until they engaged.
All the offences he gives are his own fecking fault. He still blames the frontrow for it,...everytime.

kk67 wrote:

ALunpg wrote:[

So despite what I thought at first...the opposing side must also strike rather than 8 man shove to win the ball.

That's not how I read it. It says the team with the put in must strike for the ball.

You may be right ..I originally thought the same..if so it means the opposition can drive the team back and win the ball by an 8 man push so getting the put in may not be a real advantage .

However putting the ball in straight has a different meaning at the moment ...it's a straight line alright..straight to the second rows feet .

It says someone in the front row must strike for the ball just it's a bit hard to connect with the ball when it's already behind you in the second row it is a tad of a farce to say the least.

I'm a bit worried about 'everyone can strike for the ball'.

Dog and Bone.

kk67 wrote:I'm a bit worried about 'everyone can strike for the ball'.

Dog and Bone.

I was doing that for years. I'm a bit surprised it wasn't legal in he first place.