Reaction to suggested law changes

Not all agreement

Peter Shortell of Cheltenham who takes a keen interest in the laws, their history and workings,, has sent us his reaction to the suggested law changes that emerged from experimentation done at the University of Stellenbosch recently.

For a summary of those suggestions, click here. As we noted at the time, those suggestions were just that and needed refinement and working – if they are to be accepted at all. Shortell's queries help in the refining process.

Where there are quotations from the original suggestions we have them in italics. The rest is what Shortell writes:

1. Posts and flags around the field

Corner post, and post at corner of touch-in-goal and dead-ball line are moved back two metres for consistency of touch along the entire length of the touch-line and touch-in-goal-line.

Why not simply say that the posts are NOT to be considered as a continuation of the lines? They currently perform a useful function in making it easy for players to see where crucial limits are. Goal posts can, of course, continue to count as part of the goal-line.

2. Inside the 22-metre line

When a defending player gets the ball outside his 22-metre line and passes, puts or takes the ball back inside the 22 the following can occur.

a. If the ball is then kicked directly into touch the line-out is in line with where the ball was kicked.

b. If a tackle, ruck or maul is subsequently formed and the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the line-out is where the ball crossed the touch line.

Does this mean that ONLY a tackle, ruck, or maul can allow the defenders to gain ground? Or will a second pass suffice?

3. Line-out

a. On a quick throw in, the ball can be thrown straight or backwards towards the defenders' goal-line, but not forward towards the opposition goal-line.

b. A player peeling off at the front of the line-out may do so as soon as the ball leaves the thrower's hands.

c. The receiver in a line-out must stand two metres from the line-out.

d. The non-throwing hooker does not have to stand between the five-metre line and the touch-line. He must conform to law wherever he stands.

e. There is no maximum number of players in the line-out but there is a minimum of two.

f. No team determines numbers in the line-out.

g. Pre-gripping is allowed.

All seem sensible simplifications.

4. Tackle/Post tackle area

a. Players entering the tackle/post tackle area must do so through the gate.

Good.

b. If the ball is unplayable at the tackle/post tackle, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a free kick which must be tapped to bring it into play.

This makes it much easier to turn the ball over at a tackle. I am not keen.

c. All free kicks are required to be tapped first to bring the ball into play. After that the ball may be kicked, carried or passed. This applies also if a player receives a kick in general play and is swamped so that the ball becomes available.

d. There are only two penalty offences (not including dangerous play) at the tackle/post tackle.

(i) Off-side for not coming through the gate

(ii) Off-side where defenders are in front of the last man on their side of the tackle/post tackle.

This is a massive change since it implies that a tackle now creates an off-side line, i.e. one right across the pitch. That creates significant problems for the rush defence practised by the South Africans and Wasps (among others). I strongly oppose this.

e. Touch judges can indicate off-side at the tackle by raising their flag horizontally in the direction of the offending team.

f. Repeated infringements can be dealt with as per current law.

g. All Free Kicks are tap kicks including the free kick at a mark. The kicker is required to tap the ball before playing it. Taking a scrum instead of the kick remains an option.

h. Dangerous play will not be tolerated, e.g. diving over the post tackle

The defence has been handed a massive incentive to kill the ball. The referee has to decide between penalty to attackers (diving over) or free kick to defenders (legitimate play). The dividing line is almost imperceptible in many cases. I mathematics this is chaos theory – a minute change in input produces a major change in output. It is surely the wrong way to go, and will make life almost impossible for referees.

i. The halfback/scrumhalf should not be touched unless he has his hands on the ball.

I don't think he should be touched if he is trying to drag the ball out from under bodies either.

5. Maul

a. Defending players can pull down the maul.

Why have they decided this is no longer dangerous?

b. Players joining the maul must do so through the gate.

Good.

c. Touch judges can indicate offside at the maul by raising their flag horizontally in the direction of the offending team.

d. There is no use it or lose it.

A retrograde move. The current one seems to work well enough.

e. The 'truck and trailer' is no longer an offence.

If there is no limit to this, then the players will be able to charge on down field. Will it be legal to tackle the non-ball-carriers in front? Will the offside line still exist? I see no problem in the current laws provided players are allowed a reasonable amount of time to readjust. I do not like to see blocking runners in rugby – keep it for grid-iron.

6. The Game

Penalty kicks will be given only for offside and foul play (Law 10). All other kicks will be Free Kicks

Is everything in Law 10 regarded as Foul Play?

10.4 provides for Intentionally Offending, so I would expect more penalties now to be given under this provision. Otherwise players will be happy to concede a mere free kick.

Here is a list of penalties that become free kicks.

3.2 Too many players

6.A.5 Disputing the referee's decision

9.A.2 (d) Preventing a penalty kick from going over

12.1 (e) Intentional knock-on

13.17.(b) preventing a drop-out illegally

14 All the offences relating to a player falling on the ball.

15 All the various tackle offences

16 Most of the rucking offences, including 16.3 (c) & (f), which are described as dangerous play.

17 Maul similarly (17.2 (e))

18.7 (a) Charging a player after a Mark has been awarded.

19 Multiple line-out offences (except the offside ones, presumably).

20 Various scrum offences. 20.1 (j), 20.8 (h) & (i), 20.9 (a)

21.7 (d) Does the second penalty now become a free kick?!

While I agree there is plenty of scope from some tidying, particularly in regard to technical offences, I think they have gone too far, unless we stretch 10.4 to the limit.