Fun thread... let's rewrite the Law book

[Grandpa]

Yeah, that's what I don't get either. People saying red cards are killing the game - they're not, head contact is killing the game, and killing players / former players.

If you want to stop players being sent off, increase the sanction so it's a proper deterrent. So there's a law change - draw a line under previous precedent for suspensions. No time off for being polite, not having done it before etc, that's the minimum expectation. If you don't behave well at the hearing you get an additional suspension. Your second red card adds a percentage on from a baseline, third a higher percentage etc.

So you start at six weeks for red card from a head contact

If you do it again, it's eight. Third time ten. Etc etc. That will mean players losing money, owners losing money and coaches losing jobs, if they don't sort it out.

No problem with that at 100% agree, but that's all after the match. During the match...card (10, 15 or 20 mins, I don't care) and forced substitution of the offender.
Afther the match, throw the book at them. The worse the history, the longer the ban.

I think bans have to be a lot longer... and no tackle school. Should be months off.. not weeks.. that will stop them doing it again...

[Blake]

Reserve players limited to warming up on the sideline, nowhere near the in goal.

THIS!

Massive pet peeve of mine. Their presence in the in-goal has an impact.

FUCK OFF. Warm up onthe sideline.

[inactionman]

Yeah, that's what I don't get either. People saying red cards are killing the game - they're not, head contact is killing the game, and killing players / former players.

If you want to stop players being sent off, increase the sanction so it's a proper deterrent. So there's a law change - draw a line under previous precedent for suspensions. No time off for being polite, not having done it before etc, that's the minimum expectation. If you don't behave well at the hearing you get an additional suspension. Your second red card adds a percentage on from a baseline, third a higher percentage etc.

So you start at six weeks for red card from a head contact

If you do it again, it's eight. Third time ten. Etc etc. That will mean players losing money, owners losing money and coaches losing jobs, if they don't sort it out.

Still think tackle height should be lowered even further, to change the fundamental approach. We're already handing out red cards and big bans and it's not shifting the dial a great deal (to coin a corny phrase) - I just can't see what extending that will achieve if the threat of a month or more off is not already working.

It's all very well all of us saying 'go low' but the game is essentially set and geared for big impacts (we even monitor 'dominant tackles'), gainline success and attacking the ball in the tackle - going lower makes it harder to achieve these things, so players are not likely to do so. If we make all the 'dominant tackles' and ball dislodging hits fundamentally unachievable, by making tackle height even lower, we'll get rid of chest-high tackles which are the issue. Most head shots are misjudged chest-high attempts, and chest high attempts are still perfectly legal and give competitive advantage. Make players tackle at midriff and below and the emphasis will shift to what it was years ago - get the player to ground quickly to get a shot at pinching the ball. It means size of impact isn't such a factor.

[Biffer]

Yeah, that's what I don't get either. People saying red cards are killing the game - they're not, head contact is killing the game, and killing players / former players.

If you want to stop players being sent off, increase the sanction so it's a proper deterrent. So there's a law change - draw a line under previous precedent for suspensions. No time off for being polite, not having done it before etc, that's the minimum expectation. If you don't behave well at the hearing you get an additional suspension. Your second red card adds a percentage on from a baseline, third a higher percentage etc.

So you start at six weeks for red card from a head contact

If you do it again, it's eight. Third time ten. Etc etc. That will mean players losing money, owners losing money and coaches losing jobs, if they don't sort it out.

Still think tackle height should be lowered even further, to change the fundamental approach. We're already handing out red cards and big bans and it's not shifting the dial a great deal (to coin a corny phrase) - I just can't see what extending that will achieve if the threat of a month or more off is not already working.

It's all very well all of us saying 'go low' but the game is essentially set and geared for big impacts (we even monitor 'dominant tackles'), gainline success and attacking the ball in the tackle - going lower makes it harder to achieve these things, so players are not likely to do so. If we make all the 'dominant tackles' and ball dislodging hits fundamentally unachievable, by making tackle height even lower, we'll get rid of chest-high tackles which are the issue. Most head shots are misjudged chest-high attempts, and chest high attempts are still perfectly legal and give competitive advantage. Make players tackle at midriff and below and the emphasis will shift to what it was years ago - get the player to ground quickly to get a shot at pinching the ball. It means size of impact isn't such a factor.

We’re not handing out big bans

[inactionman]

Yeah, that's what I don't get either. People saying red cards are killing the game - they're not, head contact is killing the game, and killing players / former players.

If you want to stop players being sent off, increase the sanction so it's a proper deterrent. So there's a law change - draw a line under previous precedent for suspensions. No time off for being polite, not having done it before etc, that's the minimum expectation. If you don't behave well at the hearing you get an additional suspension. Your second red card adds a percentage on from a baseline, third a higher percentage etc.

So you start at six weeks for red card from a head contact

If you do it again, it's eight. Third time ten. Etc etc. That will mean players losing money, owners losing money and coaches losing jobs, if they don't sort it out.

Still think tackle height should be lowered even further, to change the fundamental approach. We're already handing out red cards and big bans and it's not shifting the dial a great deal (to coin a corny phrase) - I just can't see what extending that will achieve if the threat of a month or more off is not already working.

It's all very well all of us saying 'go low' but the game is essentially set and geared for big impacts (we even monitor 'dominant tackles'), gainline success and attacking the ball in the tackle - going lower makes it harder to achieve these things, so players are not likely to do so. If we make all the 'dominant tackles' and ball dislodging hits fundamentally unachievable, by making tackle height even lower, we'll get rid of chest-high tackles which are the issue. Most head shots are misjudged chest-high attempts, and chest high attempts are still perfectly legal and give competitive advantage. Make players tackle at midriff and below and the emphasis will shift to what it was years ago - get the player to ground quickly to get a shot at pinching the ball. It means size of impact isn't such a factor.

We’re not handing out big bans

In many cases they're not exactly inconsequential. What duration are you proposing?

[Guy Smiley]

We’re not handing out big bans

In many cases they're not exactly inconsequential. What duration are you proposing?

I agree with the idea of lowering tackle height... one of my reasons is that mitigation plays too much of a role in the grey area of sanction application. If you lower the required height, then any contact above that can be sanctioned more effectively. Take intent out of it. Ban any contact to the head.

Coupled with that, I think suspensions should be served at the level the offence occurs at.

[inactionman]

We’re not handing out big bans

In many cases they're not exactly inconsequential. What duration are you proposing?

I agree with the idea of lowering tackle height... one of my reasons is that mitigation plays too much of a role in the grey area of sanction application. If you lower the required height, then any contact above that can be sanctioned more effectively. Take intent out of it. Ban any contact to the head.

Coupled with that, I think suspensions should be served at the level the offence occurs at.

This is very much my view.

Make it utterly black and white, if you feck it up so badly that you scone someone, there's no mitigation* or subjectivity as you should be nowhere near the head. There needs to be a clear and very distinct gap between what is a good tackle and what's s shocker. At the minute it seems like it can be a few inches. It needs to be measured in feet.

* although we still need to consider ball carriers dipping into contact - I can't recall the game but I saw one premiership match last year where the carrier ducked into contact so much his head was lower than hips - you'd have to say if the tackler would have hit hips then any head contact is the carrier's fault.

[Guy Smiley]

Fair enough....

perfect illustration of the problems with trying to change Law application, really... I like the pure black and white approach but of course, there are circumstances out of the player's control that have to be considered fairly.

[sockwithaticket]

We’re not handing out big bans

In many cases they're not exactly inconsequential. What duration are you proposing?

6 week starting point, scrap the mitigation criteria in the current sentencing (half off for saying sorry and good conduct in the hearing is a nonsense, tackle school is silly), bans go up by a minimum of two weeks for a repeat offence.

Clubs can cope with losing a player for 2 - 4 weeks as is currently the case. Start imposing longer bans and they'll feel the absence more acutely and then might make more of an effort to change player behaviours.

[weegie01]

I have not read the thread so apologies if this has been said already.

Apart from the usual 'ref the laws' do so in particular reference to the tackle / ruck. At the moment it is only the tackler who is reffed for not rolling away, but the tackled player should also be getting out of the way immediately after placing the ball and not preventing opposition players getting to the ball. At the moment they spend all their time doing the exact opposite getting the ball as far away as possible then making as big an obstacle as they can of themselves with no recourse from the ref. This has always been illegal, just in the old days if the ref was not dealing with it, players got shoed. Then that was stopped, but the refs let the tackled player away with murder. Players wanting to bring back 'real rucking' are really wanting to bring back the onus on the tackled player to get out of the way or suffer the consequences, which should be a penalty

Another pet hate is players flying over the ruck, which the ref refuses to penalise as the defender stepped away from the hit. Since when was it the defenders responsibility to make sure an attacker stays on their feet? If they come flying in and are unable to stay on their feet if the defender has moved then they are out of control and should be penalised.

[weegie01]

And bring back the old time 'if you are in front of the ball and interfering with play you are offside.' Note the full stop. Anyone moving in a way that interferes with play by blocking etc is offside with no mitigation, force the buggers to get back onside. One of your players runs behind you and the tackler can't get to them, then you are offside. So much happens behind a screen of offside players, most off whom are being cute and making sure they interfere with play because they know they will get away with it.

[Ymx]

Oh dear god, most of the ideas are so bad, they must have come from refry himself.

[Niegs]

1. Tackles from chest height down. To answer someone's question about dipping player... you square up to a carrier, you run the risk of being too high = more tackles from the side. (I played gridiron in school, it can be a 'game of inches'. Rugby shouldn't have this mentality with 'dominant' tackles and such.)

2. Breakdown simplified, aim for it to be a pushing contest with players more likely to stay on their feet. Shoulders above hips stressed. No anchoring to the tackled player will invite defenders to get stuck in for counter-push. Ball is out if it is past body parts on ground/those pushing over. Defender arriving before attacking support must step over tackled player and endeavour to pick and go or pass, or step over and allow the next player to pass away. No 'on the ball' allowances or players sticking a hand in. Release immediately, or penalized immediately (goes for both tackled player and first defender to arrive)

3. Maul stops once or goes sideways, "Use it now!" No such thing as "Same maul!" any more. If it breaks apart or shears, "Use it now!" as it's even more blatant obstruction than Enz claims mauls are.

4. Ref puts ball into the middle of the scrum.

5. No more lifting at the lineout. ... less likely to see teams milk pens and go for the lineout catch-and-drive.

[Gumboot]

I don't get why everyone watching needs to be privy to the discussions between all the officials over every contentious decision. It's almost like World Rugby is marketing all these TMO intrusions as some sort of progress and PR coup. Which I suppose it almost is, for rugby. But let's get real, compared to the speed and accuracy of almost all NFL officiating calls these days, it just doesn't cut the mustard. And the fans hate the current system.

So I propose we fully embrace every aspect of the NFL officiating process for a full season, and see how it works out.

And if that doesn't work, in terms of lowering the number of head injuries and improving the speed of the game, just can it and try something new. At the moment, World Rugby is failing miserably on all fronts, imho.

[Gumboot]

And when I mean every aspect of NFL officiating, that includes more on-field refs and nobody adjudicating from a screen-filled caravan far afield.... unless they're called upon to do so. I fully agree with Shag on this. The current TMO system is a bust.

[mat the expat]

Ball must go in the centre at a scrum, feeding back is penalty..

[Gumboot]

Ball must go in the centre at a scrum, feeding back is penalty..

Yep, if the ball doesn't go into the middle, what purpose does the scrum serve as a contest?

[Guy Smiley]

I don't watch other codes at all, really... time is limited and rugby wins the contest for it.

So, I have no familiarity with the processes used by say, the NFL or NRL for TMO reviews... BUT if they are superior in any way then Union should get on board and take whatever they can out of that and make it work.

As for putting the ball in straight... I'm pretty sure that's already in the Laws along with things like binding and staying on your feet at rucks. I'm all for reffing to the letter of the Laws. It would make a refreshing change for many of us.

[Gumboot]

If hardcore supporters feel that nothing's making a difference, it's time for those in charge to make a difference.

[Mahoney]

As for putting the ball in straight... I'm pretty sure that's already in the Laws

They explicitly changed it to allow you to put the ball in half a person's width to your side:

19 Scrum
15. When both sides are square, stable and stationary, the scrum-half throws in the ball:
...
f. Straight. The scrum-half may align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, thereby standing a shoulder-width closer to their side of the scrum.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/19/

[Ymx]

Let’s just rewind time.



Those rucks

[Gumboot]

Let’s just rewind time.



Those rucks

Also great to see the Prince of Centres in action.

[dabooldawg]

Caterpillar rucks, pillar blocks by forwards and slow downs at rucks will stop immediately with 1 simple rule change.

The second the scrumhalf touches the ball, whether it be hands, feet or anything else the ball is considered out and opposition players can pounce. If he has to dig it out then tough titties.

Hell we might even see the return of the dive pass..

Small bugbear for me but kicking tees should be standardised. Everyone uses the exact same one.

No offence for ball carriers palming, forearm smashing or elbowing the defending player. Should be all on the tackler to go low enough.

[Niegs]

I don't get why everyone watching needs to be privy to the discussions between all the officials over every contentious decision. It's almost like World Rugby is marketing all these TMO intrusions as some sort of progress and PR coup. Which I suppose it almost is, for rugby. But let's get real, compared to the speed and accuracy of almost all NFL officiating calls these days, it just doesn't cut the mustard. And the fans hate the current system.

I've sometimes noticed moments where either an AR or a TMO wants to correct the ref, especially when it was something really obvious we all saw at home, and they seemed too afraid of having an argument / embarrassing the ref in front of 1000s and many more at home. Completely unnecessary to let us in on the discussion. Just give us the call and why.

[Sandstorm]

I don't get why everyone watching needs to be privy to the discussions between all the officials over every contentious decision. It's almost like World Rugby is marketing all these TMO intrusions as some sort of progress and PR coup. Which I suppose it almost is, for rugby. But let's get real, compared to the speed and accuracy of almost all NFL officiating calls these days, it just doesn't cut the mustard. And the fans hate the current system.

I've sometimes noticed moments where either an AR or a TMO wants to correct the ref, especially when it was something really obvious we all saw at home, and they seemed too afraid of having an argument / embarrassing the ref in front of 1000s and many more at home. Completely unnecessary to let us in on the discussion. Just give us the call and why.

I disagree. Rugby TMO works well because everyone knows what the ref and 4th official are thinking and they work it out (usually effectively) because it’s transparent.

Try watching soccer where it all happens in silence and everyone is confused why a decision was made.

[Gumboot]

I don't get why everyone watching needs to be privy to the discussions between all the officials over every contentious decision. It's almost like World Rugby is marketing all these TMO intrusions as some sort of progress and PR coup. Which I suppose it almost is, for rugby. But let's get real, compared to the speed and accuracy of almost all NFL officiating calls these days, it just doesn't cut the mustard. And the fans hate the current system.

I've sometimes noticed moments where either an AR or a TMO wants to correct the ref, especially when it was something really obvious we all saw at home, and they seemed too afraid of having an argument / embarrassing the ref in front of 1000s and many more at home. Completely unnecessary to let us in on the discussion. Just give us the call and why.

I disagree. Rugby TMO works well because everyone knows what the ref and 4th official are thinking and they work it out (usually effectively) because it’s transparent.

Try watching soccer where it all happens in silence and everyone is confused why a decision was made.

Rugby TMO does not work well. Doing it publicly doesn't make it transparent, it makes it a misguided marketing exercise for PR people who think it's making the sport more inclusive, or bringing the fans closer to the action, or some other bullshit. But in reality makes the involved officials much more susceptible to outside influence.

[Gumboot]

Anywho, it's cricket season, so I'll leave it there.

[Gumboot]

Oops, wrong fred.

[ASMO]

Caterpillar rucks to be fucked off to hell.

No box kicking outside your own 22

Ball comes straight out of the scrum, none of this waiting for a penalty

Lower tackle height to below the chest,and bans that actually hurt, none of this good behaviour bullshit

TMO can only intervene on foul play, let the ref,ref and if he fucks up, so be it.

[Sandstorm]

Caterpillar rucks to be fucked off to hell.

No box kicking outside your own 22

Ball comes straight out of the scrum, none of this waiting for a penalty

Lower tackle height to below the chest,and bans that actually hurt, none of this good behaviour bullshit

TMO can only intervene on foul play, let the ref,ref and if he fucks up, so be it.

Yes
No
No
Yes
No

[Guy Smiley]

Nigel Owens has (perhaps predictably) chimed in on the issue... I like Nige and his opinions are generally worth heeding.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/133 ... troversies

Nigel Owens, the retired referee who took charge of the 2015 Rugby World Cup final, used his latest column for a Welsh publication to express his deep frustration after the showpiece tournament in France was marred by controversy.

“I think rugby itself is at a crossroads at the moment,” Owens wrote on WalesOnline.

“For me, there are three big issues that need to be looked at. For one, the laws and directives around things like head contact, because current laws and sanctions are not changing player behaviour and we're still seeing inconsistencies in decisions.

“Then there are the laws over being held up over the goal line. It so often rewards defensive play and that's not what the game should be about. Rewards should always be for attacking play, and for that reason I would consider getting rid of the goal line drop out now. It hasn't worked and never will.

“The other issue then is technology and the bunker. It just feels like the TMO is refereeing games at the moment and that's not right.

“Your best man is on the field and they should be making more of the big decisions. Between the on-field officials, TMO and the bunker you had six people having a view or opinion on a decision. Too many cooks in the kitchen has never been so true.”

“It shouldn't be sent to a bunker. They're not international referees, but they're making international refereeing decisions.

“Wayne Barnes was appointed to referee that final because he was deemed the best person to referee that final. He's the one who should be making those decisions.

“Certainly if I was reffing that game, there's no way I'd want to send it to two people in the bunker to make that decision. It also means that now referees are no longer giving red cards themselves on field and to me that is wrong.

“What's more, it's not doing anything to eliminate the controversy. At the moment there are red cards being given for highly contentious incidents, and it's in danger of spoiling the appeal of the game for supporters.

“I also think that when you have these sorts of red cards dished out for debatable decisions, it does open referees up to the sort of abuse we've seen recently.

“That's not to excuse it in any way. It's still utterly wrong. But when there's controversy, everyone's going to have an opinion and that's inevitably going to be taken too far by some.”

[Gumboot]

I don't get why everyone watching needs to be privy to the discussions between all the officials over every contentious decision. It's almost like World Rugby is marketing all these TMO intrusions as some sort of progress and PR coup. Which I suppose it almost is, for rugby. But let's get real, compared to the speed and accuracy of almost all NFL officiating calls these days, it just doesn't cut the mustard. And the fans hate the current system.

I've sometimes noticed moments where either an AR or a TMO wants to correct the ref, especially when it was something really obvious we all saw at home, and they seemed too afraid of having an argument / embarrassing the ref in front of 1000s and many more at home. Completely unnecessary to let us in on the discussion. Just give us the call and why.

I disagree. Rugby TMO works well because everyone knows what the ref and 4th official are thinking and they work it out (usually effectively) because it’s transparent.

Try watching soccer where it all happens in silence and everyone is confused why a decision was made.

That's easily fixed. In the NFL the "play" is adjudicated privately (when needed) and then conveyed to the on-field referee, who then makes a quick PA announcement to the effect:

"After review, the ruling on the field stands" or

"After review, the player was found to have retained the ball before going out of bounds. The result of the play is a touchdown"

It's not rocket surgery.

[Kiwias]

We’re not handing out big bans

In many cases they're not exactly inconsequential. What duration are you proposing?

I agree with the idea of lowering tackle height... one of my reasons is that mitigation plays too much of a role in the grey area of sanction application. If you lower the required height, then any contact above that can be sanctioned more effectively. Take intent out of it. Ban any contact to the head.

Coupled with that, I think suspensions should be served at the level the offence occurs at.

Wayne Smith agree with the lowering of tackle height

Former All Blacks and Black Ferns coach Sir Wayne Smith can envisage the day when rugby’s laws are amended so that the permissible tackle height is lowered to belly-button level.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/rugby- ... JBIDZ6YWQ/

[Gumboot]

I agree with the principle of lowering the tackle height to minimise head contact, but just don't think it'll work in the split-second reality of a contact sport like rugby. If head contact on the ball carrier is the be all and end all in determining foul play, without any mitigating circumstances, we may as well be playing touch rugby.

Rugby is, or should be, a contest for the ball, after all. Rolling mauls with offside players ahead of the ball-carrier preventing defenders from reaching him is another abomination. And caterpillar rucks - fuck off! Right now, it feels like we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No wonder long-term fans are starting to look elsewhere...

[Guy Smiley]

I agree with the principle of lowering the tackle height to minimise head contact, but just don't think it'll work in the split-second reality of a contact sport like rugby. If head contact on the ball carrier is the be all and end all in determining foul play, without any mitigating circumstances, we may as well be playing touch rugby.

Rugby is, or should be, a contest for the ball, after all. Rolling mauls with offside players ahead of the ball-carrier preventing defenders from reaching him is another abomination. And caterpillar rucks - fuck off! Right now, it feels like we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No wonder long-term fans are starting to look elsewhere...

I think there's a context around protecting the head that needs to be owned... it's only been in the last few years that rugby has become aware of the long term implications of head knocks (shamefully late to it considering the work that's been in in the US on the subject). The threat to the sport these injury types presents has to be taken seriously for a couple of key reasons, one is the potential costs of litigation that may arise and the second is the need to have the game appear safe to new participants.

With that in mind, it's my view that the best option will be to lower tackle height. That will lead to a change in how the game is played... perhaps for the better if it leads to more passing and a faster game. Perhaps the outcome will be less attractive... hypotheticals on the topic would be an interesting worm hole to go down. We've seen the game change before as a result of Law changes... banning rucking and lifting in the lineout are two changes most of us will remember coming in.

It doesn't have to be a negative... but the current status quo is doing damage. The sheer number of cards in the game is not a good look.

[Gumboot]

Maybe helmets are the answer?

[Guy Smiley]

Maybe helmets are the answer?

fuck no... (besides, it hasn't helped in the NFL)


The smart mouthguard is providing solid data. Saw an article somewhere that I'll try to dig up that suggests the height of a tackle has a substantial effect on head deceleration. Not surprising... but data like that is going to be hard to duck around, even for the sidestepping trough snouters running the game.

[Guy Smiley]

Here we go...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/301 ... arch-finds

Next year approximately 7500 players globally, including the All Blacks, will wear the mouthguards, with World Rugby investing more than £2m (NZD $4.1m) into research.

Otago Researcher associate professor Melanie Bussey said they are seeing a direct link between high tackles and head acceleration events.

“The higher the tackle, the higher the acceleration of the head in the ball carrier. Greater head acceleration means that the head is moving faster, which brings with it more shaking of the brain and essentially a higher risk of concussion.”

[Gumboot]

Maybe helmets are the answer?

fuck no... (besides, it hasn't helped in the NFL)

Really? Why don't they get rid of them in that case?

Regardless of head to head contact that we in rugby would call a foul, helmets help protect NFL players in many other instances.

[Guy Smiley]

The way I understand it, a helmet will protect against impact trauma like external wounds... but the brain injury concerns we are looking at are also caused by acceleration / deceleration.. shaking the brain around, basically.

NFL players have worn helmets for years along with all the padding... but the numbers of CTE injury cases out of that code are horrific.