A new list of the proposed law changes has been released by the IRB. These will be trailed later this year.
The release explained that the following laws will be put in place:
1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use it”. Sanction – Scrum.
2. 19.2 (b) (Quick Throw-In) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line.
3. 19.4 (who throws in) When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on, the non-offending team will be offered the choice of a lineout at the point the ball crossed the touch line; or a scrum at the place of the knock-on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.
4. 21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements: Lineout alternative. A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a lineout may choose a further lineout, they throw in. This is in addition to the scrum option.
5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded.
Not too difficult to understand. I like the 5 second rule at ruck time. It will force teams to use that ball a lot quicker.
Although my own team used the tactic many times to close out games it really makes me sick to see how dead a game can be made for periods longer than 5 minutes. That is certainly not the intention of the game. IRB wanted to keep the ball in play/on the move. I hope this will change that aspect of the game.
I believe those last two laws are for the 7’s only
Laws Representation Group – TMO Protocol – Trial 2012 in SA Currie Cup
Definitions
Referee is Match Referee.
Assistant Referees – also act as TJ’s
TMO – Reviews TV evidence
All are “Match Officials”
Law 6 – Extension of the role of the TMO to be trialled in a Northern and Southern Hemisphere Competition.
Law 6 (b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices known as the TMO who may be consulted:
If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving:
* a try being scored
* a touch down
* the ball being made dead on or over the dead ball line or touch-in- goal line
If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touchdown when foul play in in-goal or in the field of play may have been involved
If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area the referee, or assistant referees or TMO believe there may have been an infringement by that team in the field of play before the ball was touched down
If the match officials believe that but for an infringement by the defending team that may have taken place in the field of play a try may have been scored
If the match officials believe there may have been an act of foul play within the playing enclosure or where they are unsure as to the sanction to be applied.
To confirm the success or otherwise of kicks at goal
Qualitative and Quantitative Data Gathering will be required.
The Trial IRB TMO protocol for South Africa:
The current TMO protocol for decisions in in-goal and for in touch in in-goal in the act of scoring remain as they are.
Additional jurisdiction protocol
1. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal
1.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.
The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (Kick Off, PK, FK,L/O or Scrum), and the touch down; but not further back in play than two previous ruck(s) and/or maul(s).
1.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS, are as follows:
• Knock-on
• Forward pass
• Player in touch Off-side
• Obstruction
• Tackling a player without the ball
• Foul Play
• ‘Double movement’ in act of scoring
Referee Judgement calls for all other decisions in the game are not included in the protocol and may not be referred to the TMO.
1.3. In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use a (the) criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.
1.4. For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball i.e. were the players hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line?
1.5. If there has been an infringement the TMO will advise the referee of the exact nature of the infringement, the recommended sanction and/or where play will next restart.
1.6. The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.
2. Potential infringement by the defending team that may have prevented a try being scored
2.1. If the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement by the defending team that may have prevented a try being scored they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.
2.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. The offences will normally be an act of foul play such as obstruction or playing a player without the ball.
2.3. In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious and that but for the infringement a try would probably have been scored if he is to advise the referee to award a penalty try. If there is any doubt that a try would be scored the TMO must advise the award of an appropriate sanction in accordance with Law.
2.4 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.
3. Potential acts of foul play
3.1. If the match officials observe an act of foul play where:
• They may have only partially observed an act or acts of foul play
• They are unsure of the exact circumstances
• The views of the match officials reporting the act(s) of foul play differ
• There is doubt as to the appropriate sanctions to be applied
They may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.
3.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate that he wishes the TMO to review the potential act(s) of foul play and to make a recommendation as to the appropriate sanction(s).
3.3. In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious especially where sanctions may apply where a player is removed from the field of play either temporarily or permanently.
3.4. The other match officials may utilise the in stadium screens (where available) to form a judgement in this matter.
3.5 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.
3.6 The TMO may mention to the referee potential infringements outlined in (1.2) missed by the referee prior to the refereeing awarding a touchdown and the referee may if he sees fit ask the TMO to check.
The Referee will remain the sole judge of fact and law during a match. (Law 6.A.4)
The five Law amendments to be tried out globally are:
1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use it”. Sanction – Scrum.
This brings the ruck into line with the maul and will get rid of the annoying waste of time at the back of tackle/ rucks when the ball is clearly won.
2. 19.2 (b) (Quick Throw-In) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line.
At present the throw-in must occur between the place where the ball went out and the player’s goal-line – a confusing situation for players who expect the ball to be thrown in quickly where the line-out would have taken place.
3. 19.4 (who throws in) When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on, the non-offending team will be offered the choice of a line-out at the point the ball crossed the touch line; or a scrum at the place of the knock-on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.
Up till now the scrum for the knock-on has been normal but may well not suit a team struggling in the scrums.
4. 21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements: line-out alternative. A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a line-out may choose a further line-out, they throw in. This is in addition to the scrum option which exists at present.
5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded.
At present the kicker has a minute to take the kick from the time that his intention to take the conversion is clear.
In addition to the global trials, the IRB Council approved three specific additional trials of procedures which are not part of playing laws:
1. A trial to extend the jurisdiction of the TMO to incidents within the field of play that have led to the scoring of a try and foul play in the field of play to take place at an appropriate elite competition in order that a protocol can be developed for the November 2012 Tests.
This has been tested in South Africa. It is a good theory but the practical application needs careful thought as there is the potential for much slowing down of the game.
2. A trial has been sanctioned for the November 2012 Test window permitting international teams to nominate up to eight replacements in the match day squad for Test matches. In line with current practice at domestic elite Rugby level, the additional player must be a qualified front row player.
This was successfully introduced into France’s Top 14 as means of eliminating uncontested scrums.
3. An amendment to Law 3.4 (Sevens Variation) to enable Sevens teams to nominate up to five replacements/substitutes. Under the revision, which will operate from June 1 2012, a team may substitute or replace up to five players during a match. Approval has been granted on player welfare grounds to recognise the additional demands on players and squads owing to the expansion of the HSBC Sevens World Series where there are three blocks of three events on consecutive weekends.
That is not all. The scrum will have its chance to change its procedure at engagement. SANZAR has made much noise to get this change implemented.
The amendment that will be considered by the Group relates to the engagement sequence and will see the referee call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch then touch and using outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call “set” when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.
At present the process is crouch, touch, pause, engage with a pause after each instruction. The result was touch – pause – pause – pause, which seemed tautologous with three pauses when one was enough..
The use of set instead of engage had more impact.
http://www.sareferees.com/News/irb-allows-law-testing/2829628/
Users Online
Total 59 users including 0 member, 59 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm