50:22 and more to be globally trialled by WR

[Leonormous Boozer]

I haven't read the article because life is tiresome enough as it is but are they suggesting that you can choose the player to take off? That's ******* bananas.

 

[Groundhog]

I haven't read the article because life is tiresome enough as it is but are they suggesting that you can choose the player to take off? That's ******* bananas.

So my reading is (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the captain can activate a power play, which means that the other team has to drop to 14 for 10 minutes. I also think the captain can choose specifically which opposition player he wants gone which is so idiotic. Raises questions like can I nominate the replacement for an injured player leaving them with an out of position replacement (imagine the chaos if I can axe the other teams sub 10 on minute 70 and the original 10 is hurt)? Can I stack it on actual yellow cards? Does it become a safety issue eventually?

They clearly took the name from ice hockey, but a power play in hockey is just when a team is numbers down for fouls.

 

[ncurd]

They clearly took the name from ice hockey, but a power play in hockey is just when a team is numbers down for fouls.

We have power plays in Cricket as well, which originally when introduced was about opposing teams further limiting or opening up fielding restrictions. It never really worked and now is used a term for opening overs where there are fielding restrictions that are suppose to encourage high risk, high reward batting.

This though is just ******* stupid.

 

[ncurd]

Also in Hockey, just about every penalty comes with a timed man down rule. As penalties are just about as common as rugby this means they are common and due to the rotating nature of the bench special teams are used to either beef up defence or attack. Most teams will play their two best attacking players on separate attacking lines but on the power play they'd use both to maximise their chance to score whilst the opposition are a man down.

So its a completely different situation and bloody stupid to apply to a game where these things occur over extensive amount of time.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

If a player goes to ground they have to drink half a pint of pickle juice and eat a banana. If they don't they have to leave the game. Problem solved.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

World Rugby laws: 'Shot clock' timer introduced for penalties and scrums

World Rugby have announced law changes that will come into effect on January 1, 2023 which the governing body hopes will improve the quality on the pitch.

www.planetrugby.com

These seem reasonable. 60 second shotclock for penalties and giving refs more authority to 'do a Raynal'. At least they acknowledge TMO time is excessive but I don't think they are fully grasping the issue of far too many things being checked.

No mention of killing water breaks during cold winter weather, killing the ruddy Caterpillar box kicks, players leaving the field after all treatment and cant come on until the ball is dead, or teams challenges being required to initiate TMO referrals (like NFL or cricket) - which are all on my wishlist when it comes to keeping the game flowing.

We shall see, but I don't see a radical improvement in the experience from these proposals on paper.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

none of those are law changes. They have been on the books for years now.

 

[stus768]

RFU going to copy French trial on tackle heights. Seen positive comments about French trial but would like to understand how restrictions on the ball carriers height works

 

[McTallshort]

Allow rucking again will reduce concussions.

No unsupported jumping of the ball. No tackling in the air.

No more tactical substitutions, players will reduce body mass, less damage, less concussions.

Concussion is the elephant in the room and although it's great having massive "units" smashing into each other and people getting kicked out the back of the scrum doesn't look nice having early onset Alzheimer's trumps it all

 

[Scotty]

Allow rucking again will reduce concussions.

No unsupported jumping of the ball. No tackling in the air.

No more tactical substitutions, players will reduce body mass, less damage, less concussions.

Concussion is the elephant in the room and although it's great having massive "units" smashing into each other and people getting kicked out the back of the scrum doesn't look nice having early onset Alzheimer's trumps it all

I dont agree with 'no tactical substitutions' that would be a terrible rule for the game.

Subs change the dynamic of a game, and make it more interesting for the fans.

 

[McTallshort]

I dont agree with 'no tactical substitutions' that would be a terrible rule for the game.

Subs change the dynamic of a game, and make it more interesting for the fans.

It's not about the fans it's about the players. Bringing in a whole lump of fresh players going in hard on tired players increases the risk of injury. Several prominent coaches wrote to the IRB regarding this.

Also if players know they have to play 80 minutes they will lose body mass which will quicken the game up. Just watch any of the test matches between the Lions and SA in 97 for an example.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Subs change the dynamic of a game, and make it more interesting for the fans.

As Tallshort says it's about the players. But 9 times out of 10 I think that bench being emptied just spoils the flow of the game.

I don't know what it's like in the amateur game now, but I assume that there simply aren't the players for large benches. But as an ex front rower if I'd regularly only been getting 50 or 30 minutes I'd have demanded reduced subs and rapidly found myself something else to do on a Saturday afternoon.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Personally I'd like to limit the bench size and reduce the amount of subs.

1 prop who has to cover both sodes
1 hooker
1 lock/ backrow
1 back
1 more back


I'd also like to reduce the number of tactical substitutions but I feel that teams would just fake injuries and cheat.

 

[McTallshort]

Personally I'd like to limit the bench size and reduce the amount of subs.

1 prop who has to cover both sodes
1 hooker
1 lock/ backrow
1 back
1 more back


I'd also like to reduce the number of tactical substitutions but I feel that teams would just fake injuries and cheat.

They would and used to when the rules didn't allow tactical substitutions but it wasn't very common, for example you had blood gate etc but the SA front row wouldn't all come down with a knock at 50 minutes.

 

[Scotty]

As Tallshort says it's about the players. But 9 times out of 10 I think that bench being emptied just spoils the flow of the game.

I don't know what it's like in the amateur game now, but I assume that there simply aren't the players for large benches. But as an ex front rower if I'd regularly only been getting 50 or 30 minutes I'd have demanded reduced subs and rapidly found myself something else to do on a Saturday afternoon.

About the players in which context?

It can spoil the flow if the game, or make it so much better. Tactical subs allow you to change your gameplan to suit the new players that come on.

I love it when you see a player come off the bench for the last 20 and up the tempo. SH is a great example of this.

 

[McTallshort]

About the players in which context?

It can spoil the flow if the game, or make it so much better. Tactical subs allow you to change your gameplan to suit the new players that come on.

I love it when you see a player come off the bench for the last 20 and up the tempo. SH is a great example of this.

Player welfare like I said. Having fresh players charging about on tired bodies will and does cause injury. Like I have already said (not sure if you are just ignoring it) several prominent coaches wrote to the IRB about tactical substitutions.

You might love seeing a player run on the pitch in the last 20 minutes but you haven't got to tackle him after already playing 60 minutes

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

About the players in which context?

It can spoil the flow if the game, or make it so much better. Tactical subs allow you to change your gameplan to suit the new players that come on.

I love it when you see a player come off the bench for the last 20 and up the tempo. SH is a great example of this.

While I agree, I also think that you see a whole bunch of forwards sub on and it creates less space in the game which is bad for both spectators and players. But I get what you mean.

 

[stus768]

Allow rucking again will reduce concussions.

No unsupported jumping of the ball. No tackling in the air.

No more tactical substitutions, players will reduce body mass, less damage, less concussions.

Concussion is the elephant in the room and although it's great having massive "units" smashing into each other and people getting kicked out the back of the scrum doesn't look nice having early onset Alzheimer's trumps it all

How would rucking reduce concussions?

 

[Scotty]

While I agree, I also think that you see a whole bunch of forwards sub on and it creates less space in the game which is bad for both spectators and players. But I get what you mean.

I would be much more open to less subs or se as now but can only use 4 of the 8 or something along them lines.

But no tactical subs at all is bad for the game and the pros dont outway the cons IMO

 

[big ginger 8]

Not having tactical subs so as to reduce injuries is a new one to me. One of the arguments for tactical subs I always heard was to reduce injuries...when you're tired injury risk goes up as probably the risk of getting lazy with tackle height.