What the proposed law changes might mean

I HAVE finally been able to get my hear round the implications of the recent World Rugby Laws Review Group (LRG) meeting in London last week. The LRG is chaired by oor ain John Jeffrey, and the London meeting was a follow-on from previous discussions in Marcoussis in France.

Several laws amendments will now be trialed in “closed trials,” whatever that means, with, as Sir Bill Beaumont, the head of World Rugby keen to point out: player welfare is at the heart of the proposals.

Sir Bill Beaumont

What we will be seeing trialed are:

50:22 kick proposal. If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents’ 22 or from inside their own 22 into their opponents’ half, they will throw in to the resultant lineout. Rationale: To create space by forcing players to drop back out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.


• Reducing the tackle height to the waist. Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.
  
  
• Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play. Rationale: To ensure players who are guilty of serious foul play do not escape with a yellow card when they deserved red. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.
  
  
• The introduction of an infringement (penalty and free-kick) limit for teams. Once a team has reached the limit, a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction. Rationale: To encourage teams to offend less. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.
  
  
• The awarding of a goal line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up. Rationale: To reward good defence and promote a faster rate of play. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.
  
  
• One additional replacement per team be allowed during extra-time in a sevens match. Rationale: To manage player fatigue and workload. Recommendation: To approve for closed trial at the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series and HSBC World Rugby Women’s Sevens Series.
  
  
• The High Tackle Technique warning has been successfully trialled at the World Rugby U20 Championship for the last two years. Rationale: Head Injury prevention strategy. Recommendation: To approve further closed trials.
  
  
• A number of potential changes to tackle law were discussed by the group, with a particular reference to the community level in France. Rationale: To reduce injury rates in the domestic game. Recommendation: Approve for closed trials in designated FFR competitions.
  
  

Consideration was also given to means of “cleaning-up” the ruck/breakdown:

• Off feet at the ruck – players must move away from the ball without delay. Rationale: To ensure more space and time is afforded to the attacking side. Recommendation: Specialist working group should be formed to assess all issues regarding the ruck/ breakdown.
  
  

However, the LRG decided not to approve for trial one suggestion around the ruck. This proposal would have referred to:

• Delaying the movement of the defensive line at the ruck until the ball has reached the first attacking player or until the receiver opts not to pass. Rationale: To give the team in possession more time and space on the ball.
  
  

There was one further announcement, which read:

• Following a detailed discussion on the risks associated to front-row players’ necks during the scrum engagement process, the LRG also supported a proposed amendment to Law 19 (Scrum) that, if approved, will outlaw the practice of front-rows placing their heads onto opposition players’ shoulders between the call of ‘bind’ and ‘set’. It has been shown that this practice has resulted in potentially dangerous levels of axial loading on front-rows’ cervical spines. Given this issue has significant potential welfare implications, it will be actioned immediately.
  
  

LRG Chairman John Jeffrey said: “This meeting is another important step on the road to further law improvement within the next four-year Rugby World Cup cycle. There is no doubt that the sport is committed in its collaborative effort to reduce injuries, particularly head injuries, and the outcomes from this productive meeting certainly underscored that approach.

John Jeffrey

“The level of expertise and engagement in the meeting was impressive. The members of the LRG clearly want what’s best for the game and are determined to make the sport as safe, simple and enjoyable to play as it can be at all levels. I look forward to considering the LRG recommendations with my colleagues from the Rugby Committee next month.”

The LRG, which is made up of law experts, players, coaches, match officials and elite competition representatives, considers the applications, edits or clarifications of existing law and the introduction of new laws deemed appropriate for closed or global trials. The process could culminate in law amendments within the next Rugby World Cup cycle.

So, we have a lot of potential changes coming down the track, and much to talk about, however, once again, in my view, the game's power brokers have refused to even consider the biggest single change which would benefit the game – a return to good old-fashioned rucking.

I remain convinced, this would make the game safer – eliminating at a stroke those horrendous injuries we see when players in the “Jackal” position are simply thumped by a flying opponent – it would also, by forcing the players to first of all play the ball with their feet in a ruck, to stay on their feet, and, I am sure, it would create quicker ball and more space.

But, for some reason, real rucking is not to be considered for a return.

Also, in his remarks Bill Beaumont appeared quite proud of the fact, ball in play time had risen considerably from the inaugural Rugby World Cup in 1987. The former England and Lions captain seemed proud that the ball was now in-play for 40 minutes at elite level.

Much as I hate to take issue with big Bill, but, a game lasts 80 minutes. So, by Bill's reckoning, all these people paying a lot of money to attend internationals or elite-level club rugby, are paying to watch the players faffing about for half the time.

Why not bring-in official time-keepers, stop the clock when the ball is not in-play and ensure, the public gets the 80 minutes of rugby action they have paid for? Sure, a game might then last over two hours, but, the crowd would be getting value for money, and, the clubs and unions would have more time to sell them food and drink.

Come on now, surely that alone would appeal to the likes of TCD and the other money men.

It might even stop some props mucking about at the scrums. No point in messing things up, since the clock is stopped, better to get the ball in and out and get on with the game.