January 2025 changes on the way

[Mipper]

Quite, oh dear

There are two things Marc, that would help if you understood;

a) I don't disagree with the view that the changes are being forced through largely by the needs (or perceived needs) of the pro/TV game.
b) I am not advocating for all these changes. I am open to seeing how they go. Some I like, some I don't.

My question remains, how do they negatively affect the grass roots game?

Despite your evident rant above, it is stilll unclear to me.

Just to take the three examples you covered;
1. 30 seconds to set a scrum. This is not yet a law in my games so I don't know how this would work. However, I checked this during my game on saturday, and with no cajoling 15 of the 17 scrums would have been 'legal'. The other two could easily have been managed.
"Bo yo uwant to ping them?" - No I don't.
See point (b) above and don't forget, I am not advocating these laws/law changes.

2. Kick tennis/'Dupont Law' - I agree that this is not a significant issue at grass roots level. But how has this made things difficult/worse for grass roots rugby? I simply don't see that it has. In fact it is pretty much how I understood the laws for the last 50 years.

3. Ball being fed offset into a scrum. Now here I would support for the ball going back to the middle of the tunnel. This has taken one of the skills of the hooker (striking against the head) away. Ironically, this isn't much of an issue anyway as (in my experience) I do still see hookers striking against the head because quite simply the scrums don't get as low as they do in the pro game, so if the ball is straight, then there is still competition at grass roots. The main difference here is that many hookers don't bother striking but instead concentrate on pushing.

So in conclusion, I do not see these changes being negative for the grass roots game. I am though, still very open to be convinced otherwise.

Also;
I understand that some people don't like change.
I understand some (many) people see the past as being better than the present.
I understand that some people don't like the changes being enforced because of issues (real or perceived) at the pro/TV game.

All of these emotions are just part of human nature and quite normal. If one looks at the changes objectively though, one may get a different sense or perspective.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Try to understand this:

I have no issue with change. Is that simple enough for you?

I don't like change that is brought in because pro rugby can / will not play by the laws. If they will not play by the laws PING them until they do!

Cut the amateur psycho babble. It does not suit you and you are not very good at it.

 

[Phil E]

I don't like change that is brought in because pro rugby can / will not play by the laws. If they will not play by the laws PING them until they do!

I don't think that's the issue behind the changes. I think the issue is pressure from the TV money people to speed up the game, remove stoppages, make it more appealing to a none rugby audience, and not "ruin the spectacle".

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't disagree that its something that nobody was asking for. As for "stupid" that seems to be the mission statement for WR generally. I can see (I think!) the reasoning behind it, creating more contestable kickoffs/restarts, avoiding kicking tennis from the word go etc, but I'm not sure why it should lead to more injuries?

Contestable kicks in the air? Not what I call low risk

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't think that any of us can expect, or even want an exhaustive list, so we agree there.

Agreed on 20 minute red cards too. Don't like that. That said, i'm not sure that we'll necessarily get that at my level anyway.

Breakdown shit show? Because i'm quite old, I recall the horrible old rucks. I know that people often bemoan the loss of rucking, missing the feel of sharp stud on prone flesh, but for me, I just recall that it used to be an area where lunatics could get away with the most heinous acts. So I prefer todays breakdown.

Question on strikes againts the head? Assuming you mean then vs now? Well certainly more in the past, and that is a shame.

Mark in 22 - presumably referring to the mark from a restart. I don't care one way or another really, if it does discourage long restarts then I reckon that is a good thing. More injuries? I don't see that.

I remembr rucks generally being policed tolerably. The number of really bad injuries was minimal. How many head injuries do we get in the current breakdown? Allowing latching to deny the counter ruck? Tackled player not rolling away? There is close to zero competition at the breakdown - and that is a policy decision esigned to keep the attck on the offensive with ball in hand.

There is no viable competition at the scrum. Somewhere in our archives there's a post from some fella called Brian Moore. Claims he knows a bit about front rows. You want to stop all the messing about in the FR? Mandate straight put ins where there can be competition. It stops the FR playing silly buggers.

You seriously don't think having players full speed into a competition in mid air isn't going to cause more injurues? I have a bridge for sale...

 

[SimonSmith]

Quite, oh dear

There are two things Marc, that would help if you understood;

a) I don't disagree with the view that the changes are being forced through largely by the needs (or perceived needs) of the pro/TV game.
b) I am not advocating for all these changes. I am open to seeing how they go. Some I like, some I don't.

My question remains, how do they negatively affect the grass roots game?

Despite your evident rant above, it is stilll unclear to me.

Just to take the three examples you covered;
1. 30 seconds to set a scrum. This is not yet a law in my games so I don't know how this would work. However, I checked this during my game on saturday, and with no cajoling 15 of the 17 scrums would have been 'legal'. The other two could easily have been managed.
"Bo yo uwant to ping them?" - No I don't.
See point (b) above and don't forget, I am not advocating these laws/law changes.

2. Kick tennis/'Dupont Law' - I agree that this is not a significant issue at grass roots level. But how has this made things difficult/worse for grass roots rugby? I simply don't see that it has. In fact it is pretty much how I understood the laws for the last 50 years.

3. Ball being fed offset into a scrum. Now here I would support for the ball going back to the middle of the tunnel. This has taken one of the skills of the hooker (striking against the head) away. Ironically, this isn't much of an issue anyway as (in my experience) I do still see hookers striking against the head because quite simply the scrums don't get as low as they do in the pro game, so if the ball is straight, then there is still competition at grass roots. The main difference here is that many hookers don't bother striking but instead concentrate on pushing.

So in conclusion, I do not see these changes being negative for the grass roots game. I am though, still very open to be convinced otherwise.

Also;
I understand that some people don't like change.
I understand some (many) people see the past as being better than the present.
I understand that some people don't like the changes being enforced because of issues (real or perceived) at the pro/TV game.

All of these emotions are just part of human nature and quite normal. If one looks at the changes objectively though, one may get a different sense or perspective.

You are painting this as change resistance, or nostalgia.

It isn't.

I am reminded of Lucius Cary's adage "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change"

There is no imperative for any of these changes, or others I have listed, except for the perceived needs of the Elite game and TV. At the grassroots, there is no imperative at all. So, if the changes aren't necessary, why make them?

 

[Mipper]

You are painting this as change resistance, or nostalgia.

It isn't.

I am reminded of Lucius Cary's adage "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change"

There is no imperative for any of these changes, or others I have listed, except for the perceived needs of the Elite game and TV. At the grassroots, there is no imperative at all. So, if the changes aren't necessary, why make them?

Thats a very reasonable question Simon.

I guess that the answer is that we do have necessary changes to the game, albeit the pro game for the reasons that Phil E notes above. That, in turn raises the question of whether we keep the game as one game, or split between the Top of teh game, and the rest of it (grass roots etc).

Some of the changes are not 'necessary' at grass roots. We are in agreement there. My point remains though, that what problems do these changes cause?

The alternative is to create two games, right?

Thats a good quote, not come across it before. Dont agree with it, but its good. I prefer Soctrates' "The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but building the new".

 

[Mipper]

I remembr rucks generally being policed tolerably. The number of really bad injuries was minimal. How many head injuries do we get in the current breakdown? Allowing latching to deny the counter ruck? Tackled player not rolling away? There is close to zero competition at the breakdown - and that is a policy decision esigned to keep the attck on the offensive with ball in hand.

There is no viable competition at the scrum. Somewhere in our archives there's a post from some fella called Brian Moore. Claims he knows a bit about front rows. You want to stop all the messing about in the FR? Mandate straight put ins where there can be competition. It stops the FR playing silly buggers.

You seriously don't think having players full speed into a competition in mid air isn't going to cause more injurues? I have a bridge for sale...

We all have different experiences of course, so I don't speak for yours, but my experience is considerable competition at the breakdowns in my games. Scrums too are competitive, although as already stated I would prefer the ball to be put down the middle of the tunnel.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I don't think that's the issue behind the changes. I think the issue is pressure from the TV money people to speed up the game, remove stoppages, make it more appealing to a none rugby audience, and not "ruin the spectacle".

If they refereed the laws the spectacle would be there.

 

[didds]

Contestable kicks in the air? Not what I call low risk

well - we are just back to why do they permit contestable kicks in the air if that's perceived as a problem.

 

[didds]

Tackled player not rolling away?

well, I dont recall/believe the tackled player has EVER rolled away - as opposed to gone to ground, and presented. So thats nothing new at all.

 

[didds]

You seriously don't think having players full speed into a competition in mid air isn't going to cause more injurues? I have a bridge for sale...

so ban catching in the air.
Simples. then ALL the risks for ALL kicks goes away.

until it doesnt but at leats now its a PK for trying it
And how much of a problem is this at grass roots anyway ? getting back to the core debate ...

 

[SimonSmith]

well, I dont recall/believe the tackled player has EVER rolled away - as opposed to gone to ground, and presented. So thats nothing new at all.

Back when I started refereeing - West of Scotland and Hampshire, 1994ish - there was a clear protocol: tackler/tackled/others. The first point of non compliance is your decision.

Christ. It's 30 years. How many miles and hours have I spent on this?!

 

[SimonSmith]

Thats a very reasonable question Simon.

I guess that the answer is that we do have necessary changes to the game, albeit the pro game for the reasons that Phil E notes above. That, in turn raises the question of whether we keep the game as one game, or split between the Top of teh game, and the rest of it (grass roots etc).

Some of the changes are not 'necessary' at grass roots. We are in agreement there. My point remains though, that what problems do these changes cause?

The alternative is to create two games, right?

Thats a good quote, not come across it before. Dont agree with it, but its good. I prefer Soctrates' "The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but building the new".

I think you're starting from the point that the changes at the top are necessary.

I'm not sure that's been proven. In fact, I suspect rather the the other case. Scrums are unwatchable for the main. We're now having to tinker with mauls and lineouts because the laws, as written, aren't being implemented. Unless someone makes a mistake, possession is retained.

Here's an interesting stat. In recent Australia/SA test, ruck retention was (respectively) 95% and 96% which represented 93 and 88 rucks won. Does that sound like a viable area of competition for you?

I've largely given up watching rugby at any level, except the 6 Nations because Scotland. I can get far better entertainment sports-wise on the tv at most times of year. NRL, AFL, cricket. I watched every moment of the recent NRL Grand Final; any time Union is on, I'm reading at the same time.

 

[Mipper]

Here's an interesting stat. In recent Australia/SA test, ruck retention was (respectively) 95% and 96% which represented 93 and 88 rucks won. Does that sound like a viable area of competition for you?

No it doesn't.

In my sphere of experience I don't get that level of retention (not that its measured). My view of competition at the breakdown is grass roots, where there is proper competition (maul, scrum, lineout too).
So I wholly understand why changes are being made to better the spectacle at the top level.
I also agree that its (mostly) not needed at grass roots level.

My point is that we either accept the changes at grass roots, as I do because in my view the changes make little difference. Or, we create two similar but distinct games.

 

[didds]

Back when I started refereeing - West of Scotland and Hampshire, 1994ish - there was a clear protocol: tackler/tackled/others. The first point of non compliance is your decision.

Christ. It's 30 years. How many miles and hours have I spent on this?!

aye - my contention is that even when tackler has fulfilled their duties the tackled player has NEVER rolled away - just presented. I can not recall a single tackled player pinged for not rolling away if the ball was made available eg not laying on top of it, but presented

 

[SimonSmith]

aye - my contention is that even when tackler has fulfilled their duties the tackled player has NEVER rolled away - just presented. I can not recall a single tackled player pinged for not rolling away if the ball was made available eg not laying on top of it, but presented

You should have watched some of my games. Ball presented badly, possible counter ruck blocked because the D doesn't want to step on the BC - penalty.

I want a good, and fair, competition. If you're the player preventing that, you are at risk of being penalized.

 

[SimonSmith]

No it doesn't.

In my sphere of experience I don't get that level of retention (not that its measured). My view of competition at the breakdown is grass roots, where there is proper competition (maul, scrum, lineout too).
So I wholly understand why changes are being made to better the spectacle at the top level.
I also agree that its (mostly) not needed at grass roots level.

My point is that we either accept the changes at grass roots, as I do because in my view the changes make little difference. Or, we create two similar but distinct games.

This is where we differ. I don't want that as a "spectacle". I want to see an actual competition

 

[jdeagro]

Marking inside the 22m line: Players can now mark the ball inside the 22-metre line from a restart, encouraging more contestable kick-offs.

Would someone mind explaining this change to me? At face value it sounds like simply they're planning to allow a mark to be called when receiving a kick from kickoff. Is there more to it than that? I'm confused by all the back and forth particularly around this one, or why some people find this dangerous? Am I missing something?

 

[Dickie E]

aye - my contention is that even when tackler has fulfilled their duties the tackled player has NEVER rolled away - just presented. I can not recall a single tackled player pinged for not rolling away if the ball was made available eg not laying on top of it, but presented

Yes, that's law 14.7.b. It really is a nonsense to expect the tackled player to immediately "move away from the ball or get up"