Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Thursday Aug 31, 2017

New laws explained with two very informative pitch demos

New laws explained with two very informative pitch demos
12
Comments

With the World Rugby Global Law changes already in place in the southern hemisphere and about to kick into gear in the north, here is a helpful look at what they mean for rugby viewers. Both BT Sport and Supersport have put together great demonstrations.

Referee Wayne Barnes was in the BT Sport studio for Rugby Tonight’s first episode of the new season, chatting to Ben Kay, Ugo Monye and Maro Itoje to get fans to grips with the laws surrounding the scrum feed and hooking, the ruck and the touchline amongst others.

In South Africa, Supersport’s First XV show had former Springboks Jean de Villiers, Gcobani Bobo and Warren Brosnihan to go through the laws, that are being used in the Currie Cup.

The ruck law in particular will be of interest to England fans, considering what Italy did to them in the Six Nations. As explained, all the changes are there to either simplify or speed up the game.

Both videos are worth watching as they will give you a well rounded understanding of the changes, and each have a slightly different way of explaining or demonstrating them.

The Rugby Tonight video is below, with Supersport’s demo underneath that

credit: btsport/supersport

12 Comments

  • henno
    1:10 PM 04/09/2017

    The trouble with the scrum is that professional era coaches are very good at coaching how to scrum! Players are taught how to get a penalty from the scrum. The resultant three points/field position is more valuable than the potential attacking move that might come off the back of a scrum. The law makers can't get rid of scrum penalties as that will cause more dirty tactics. Instead the law makers have to modify the rules every time a new underhanded tactic comes about. All whilst keeping player safety at the forefront!

    Reply
  • breakaway
    1:25 AM 04/09/2017

    Lifting has allowed the lineout to function much better than the flailing arms and scragging brawls that I remember and which so often ended in a scrum being called. Not to mention the regular penalties for the sneaky lifting and supporting that went on. I was a bit dubious about that change at the time but I now think it was a good one. The cards were inevitable once the authorities rightly started to crack down on the thuggery, and there was plenty of it. Of course I don't always agree with every card, in fact I think there are too many, but I have no problem with the concept. With the amount of rugby that players now play in the professional era, substitutions are necessary, and I'd rather have a bench used in an honest way than the phoney injuries that were sometimes employed. I enjoy watching rugby at least as much as I ever have. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on these things.

    Reply
  • finedisregard
    7:17 PM 03/09/2017

    I just don't think the game is as enjoyable as it was 25 years ago. Lifting in lineouts has not been positive, it has diminished 2nd row's contribution to the game. Outside of players being two stone heavier across the board, substitutions and red and yellow cards are the biggest changes. Both of which have hurt the game. Neither of which came from the playing ranks.

    Reply
  • breakaway
    3:01 AM 03/09/2017

    I don't have any false nostalgia about rugby, but generally scrums in the time that I played (when there was no ref's call) seemed to work fine. I don't recall collapses being a common thing and I don't recall anyone ever talking about them. Film of test matches etc from past decades confirm that most scrums took literally a few seconds for the whole process, packs down, ball in, ball out. Apparently all the scrum tweaking of a few years back was to do with player safety. What happened of course is that instead of scrums taking a few seconds, we had neck-scrunching 'hits' and constant resets to do some more scrunching. And forwards milling around fiddling with this and that while the ref explains to these highly paid professionals the basic laws of the scrum. Don't get me started! Anyway, as you say, I think we're roughly on the same page with most of this stuff.

    Reply
  • drg
    2:29 PM 02/09/2017

    I think we are all in the same line of thinking on a whole... and I do agree the farcical displays of scrums that we've had over the countless years have been ridiculous so it's good they have sorted that... although, I don't know if anyone remembers the days before crouch, touch, pause, engage or whatever and what that was like... I remember playing in the days before 'touch' came in.... (I think)... thought it was "crouch, engage"... but I don't recall the amount of failed scrums due to the calls... seems to me that when a scrum will go down, it'll go down... it's not particularly the calls - but I may be wrong (not being a front rower)... Back to the Italy thing, ok, granted it was a bit of an odd display, however lets say Italy pulled that trick on the kiwis...I don't think it would be a long time before the kiwis racked up an obscene score by adapting their playing style, perhaps even forcing the Italians to go back to the ruck and compete again... I personally think for me, it smacks that a top tier team, with a top tier coach was made to look a bit silly for a while and therefore something must be done.... England by 100 points suddenly wasn't happening, so instead of adapting quicker, it's a better case of looking for someone else to blame... I mean perhaps there were many other coaches that were invited, but I can't help thing that some pacific island coach was left reading hand scribbled post it note saying "yeh all us important lot had a meeting and this is what we have decided everyone has to do now".... perhaps it was just unfortunate wording that Barnes used to describe the "barnsey and the boys" meeting that I've decided to run with....... .....or maybe Wayne Barnes is a 'fucking cheat'... *whistle*

    Reply
  • redgreen
    2:49 PM 01/09/2017

    Law 20.3b meaning to abolish / amend the part that says "bind over" - use only the "under bind" method : Change the current alignment ever so slightly. Should have been done 120 years ago.

    Reply
  • finedisregard
    12:47 PM 01/09/2017

    Well put DrG. Rugby has evolved the way it has because it was by player and FOR players. Punters, casual fans, owners, and business people should not be the driving force for change. These types are not historically part of the rugby decision-making process. The game should be designed to maximize the enjoyment of the participants, not create an easy-to-understand spectacle for tv.

    Reply
  • pdg
    9:10 AM 01/09/2017

    As a coach of young players and colts im not in agreement with the new interpretation of any player hooking the ball in the scrum. When stability at the scrum has been a priority in the game, allowing props to hook or kick the ball could result in instability in the front row and subsequently the possiblity of a scrum collapsing with injuries been caused

    Reply
  • drg
    8:34 AM 01/09/2017

    Being a sport AND a business is probably possible, but I'm seeing a move more and more towards the business direction. You say you had no issue with Italy's tactics, I was the same, but obviously a few 'elite' did have an issue and wanted to change how the game looks for fans....So suddenly less than a year later, we have a law change so Italy has to go back to the drawing board.... Seems odd to me. There is too much crowd pleasing going on for me. I've played in an array of climates, dusty hard pitches where 15v15 was played a bit like a giant 7s game, frozen pitches, mud bath pitches, all of which required a different approach to the game, the game was for me and my team, the modest crowds drawn were there for a good Saturday out and to support their team -those people will be there rain, snow, or sun. This new approach is an attempt to drag across the pretty supporters who will turn their back at any moment. It's basically appeasing a bunch of fickle folk.

    Reply
  • breakaway
    4:03 AM 01/09/2017

    I think it's possible, in fact necessary in this world, to be both a sport and a business at the same time. Especially at the top levels. I never had any problem with Italy's tactics on the day and thought the "it's not rugby" complaints were nonsense. However I do think that longer term there would be more minuses than pluses for the game if the offside law wasn't tidied up at the breakdown. Something like this change was inevitable. I really don't get the need to stop a player coming through the ruck and kicking at the ball. Barnes says something like "pretty negative, isn't it". Since when? If the halfback is faffing around at the back of the ruck and the opposition player breaks through the cleanout and gets a toe to the ball, good work, play on. What's negative about it? It's not as if it happens a lot, and surely the current situation encourages the halfback to get on with it. This is fussy tweaking just for the sake of it. Barnes also mentions the abuse he'd get when a tackler legally picked up the ball from the "wrong" side and wasn't penalised. There are a few good flankers who took that abuse for years. McCaw knew the law well, although I think even under this new change he'd still snaffle more than his share, one way or another.

    Reply
  • drg
    9:48 PM 31/08/2017

    I'm not sure I'm a fan of this concept of law changes - 'we met up with some of the top referees, top coaches, Eddie, Hansen etc'.... So basically the ol' boys club had a little meet up and decided on a bunch of changes that will suit them? I'm not an Italy fan particularly, but the pregame trash talking about putting them to the sword, tons of points etc, Italy employed a tactic that was within the laws and all it ended up with was a to tier coach complaining that it wasn't right/rugby ..Even though it was within the laws....And now we get a law change to suit? Plus hearing Barnes saying "the punters come to see....".... Excuse me? Punters? So further cementing the fact that rugby is a business and not a sport....

    Reply
  • 9:20 PM 31/08/2017

    these minute changes are non-effectual -- the one thing needing change for 100 plus years now is Law 20.3b : the Hooker should "bind under the arms of the props" -- NOT OVER

    Reply


Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Amateur

View All

Player Features

View All
New laws explained with two very informative pitch demos | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos