The Official English Rugby Thread

[JM2K6]

Line of the waist is not below the waist though is it. And the waist starts before the sternum.

But their statement says line of the waist and below n ot between the waist and the sternum (midriff?)
Anway don't want to go round this loop again so let's see what they finally come up with in the trainig documents and FAQ's prior to the law changes.

Very hard to tackle someone at waist height and not be also hitting belly above and other bits below, what with the waist line being just a line and someone's shoulder and arms being quite thick in comparison...

But importantly - not "below the waist". That's not what they said at any point. It didn't stop all the drama queens claiming everyone would be KO'd by knees they were being forced to tackle every time, but what can you do eh

[Kawazaki]

Line of the waist is not below the waist though is it. And the waist starts before the sternum.

But their statement says line of the waist and below n ot between the waist and the sternum (midriff?)
Anway don't want to go round this loop again so let's see what they finally come up with in the trainig documents and FAQ's prior to the law changes.

I'm happy to say they should have been clearer. But people saying below the waist are just straight up wrong, and there's not even the excuse that the RFU haven't been clear enough when you say that.

Eh? The RFU explicitly wrote 'line of the waist and below' - that means the waist is the absolute highest allowed. Describing that as meaning 'below the waist' is entirely consistent.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Line of the waist is not below the waist though is it. And the waist starts before the sternum.

A lot of people seem to have gotten very cross in response without looking into what was meant, though this is a world where people object to things intended to keep them safer, whether vaccines, seatbelts or whatever. That said there's been very little attention as to the carrier being asked not to dip and to adhere instead to 'principles of evasion'

[JM2K6]

Line of the waist is not below the waist though is it. And the waist starts before the sternum.

A lot of people seem to have gotten very cross in response without looking into what was meant, though this is a world where people object to things intended to keep them safer, whether vaccines, seatbelts or whatever. That said there's been very little attention as to the carrier being asked not to dip and to adhere instead to 'principles of evasion'

Tbf there's been very little detail on that so I can understand why

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Line of the waist is not below the waist though is it. And the waist starts before the sternum.

A lot of people seem to have gotten very cross in response without looking into what was meant, though this is a world where people object to things intended to keep them safer, whether vaccines, seatbelts or whatever. That said there's been very little attention as to the carrier being asked not to dip and to adhere instead to 'principles of evasion'

Tbf there's been very little detail on that so I can understand why

But people haven't reacted to there being little detail consistently. They've run screaming from an imagined burning building on point (a) and then decided yes point (b) might be a bomb but there's probably plenty of time until it explodes so we'll come back to that later

[Raggs]

[SaintK]

Rugby Football Union council members, who voted to lower the tackle height, are to seek guidance from their clubs over the controversial law change.
It was announced last week the legal height of the tackle would drop to the waist for levels below the Premiership, Championship and Premier 15s.
The news was met with uproar by those in the community game, who weren't consulted over the decision.
"We did not get the communication right this time," said one RFU councillor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64395234

[JM2K6]

That image alone could've saved a lot of grief tbh, along with some clarity on what is expected of the ball carrier.

[Kawazaki]

If I was a rugby referee I'd likely be contemplating that this is likely my last season I'll be a rugby referee.

[SaintK]

If I was a rugby referee I'd likely be contemplating that this is likely my last season I'll be a rugby referee.

I'm sure they will get round to discussing it with the Societies at some stage.
Can imagine the County disciplinary committees will be sitting once a week rather than once a month next season

[Rhubarb & Custard]

If I was a rugby referee I'd likely be contemplating that this is likely my last season I'll be a rugby referee.

They get issued guidelines/updates all the time.

Normally these are more or less glossed over if not wholly forgotten about within a dozen games or so of the new guidelines being issued, but either way there's nothing new in this for the refs. Perhaps one could argue they're going to get a load of grief, but if that's the case there's little of worth to worry about in terms of losing the refs and thus the game, or maybe people could stand back a moment from their ignorance and conviction the world wants to hear them whine

[JM2K6]

Hmm. I am sympathetic to anyone being unhappy about major change even though I believe it's for the best. However, I don't see how this so badly affects referees. It's largely a clear situation for refereeing the tackler.

The questions still to be answered are:

- How do you handle "grabs" above the belly, i.e. a shirt grab or an arm that goes for the ball
- What is the guidance on what the ball carrier is allowed to do and how is that refereed
- How much leeway is given for soak tackles / being upright when someone runs into you (related to the previous point)
- How is holding up players handled - particularly in the dead ball area

On the plus side, no need to try and work out if that KO was a legal tackle or not...

For the record I'd be happy to see a reduction in "ball held up" stuff. It's a huge time sink in the game, it becomes a massive breakdown of the laws with a lot of things thrown out of the window, and it's messy as fuck. So much illegality is allowed in service of trying to prevent a try, and that's before the ball even gets over the line. We end up with this mad scramble and it's just... so odd. You can't play the ball on the floor anywhere else but here it's a weird bunfight that has no rules until the ref blows the whistle and someone makes a decision.

I do appreciate what we'd lose if that went away, don't get me wrong, but I think we'd gain a fair amount.

[Kawazaki]

Forget about players leaving the game, without refs there's no rugby. If the professional refs with the help of 20 cameras and a TMO keep getting it wrong then what chance the poor sod tasked with managing a game on his own? The game is so complicated now, it's just bound in red tape.

[Brazil]

Hmm. I am sympathetic to anyone being unhappy about major change even though I believe it's for the best. However, I don't see how this so badly affects referees. It's largely a clear situation for refereeing the tackler.

The questions still to be answered are:

- How do you handle "grabs" above the belly, i.e. a shirt grab or an arm that goes for the ball
- What is the guidance on what the ball carrier is allowed to do and how is that refereed
- How much leeway is given for soak tackles / being upright when someone runs into you (related to the previous point)
- How is holding up players handled - particularly in the dead ball area

On the plus side, no need to try and work out if that KO was a legal tackle or not...

For the record I'd be happy to see a reduction in "ball held up" stuff. It's a huge time sink in the game, it becomes a massive breakdown of the laws with a lot of things thrown out of the window, and it's messy as fuck. So much illegality is allowed in service of trying to prevent a try, and that's before the ball even gets over the line. We end up with this mad scramble and it's just... so odd. You can't play the ball on the floor anywhere else but here it's a weird bunfight that has no rules until the ref blows the whistle and someone makes a decision.

I do appreciate what we'd lose if that went away, don't get me wrong, but I think we'd gain a fair amount.

I thought that when Tom Curry scored against Ulster (I think). There was a big debate about whether he placed the ball immediately, but no debate about whether the tackler had released him, as he should. No idea what the solution is, other than maybe that a player has to be bound on in a proper tackle as the tackled player crosses the line, rather than charging in from any angle in a last ditch effort to get under the ball after.

[sockwithaticket]

If I was a rugby referee I'd likely be contemplating that this is likely my last season I'll be a rugby referee.

I'm sure they will get round to discussing it with the Societies at some stage.
Can imagine the County disciplinary committees will be sitting once a week rather than once a month next season

According to that diagram the thresholds for cards haven't changed, so what do you see as driving an increase in disciplinaries? Abuse of officials?

[Raggs]

Why on earth would you interview someone who's been done for stamping on someones head, missiling himself into rucks, high tackles and damn near broke another players neck, with regards to changes to the community game with an eye to making it safer?

Rhodes is on the same level as Callum Clarke for me.

[JM2K6]

Forget about players leaving the game, without refs there's no rugby. If the professional refs with the help of 20 cameras and a TMO keep getting it wrong then what chance the poor sod tasked with managing a game on his own? The game is so complicated now, it's just bound in red tape.

I don't think it's clear that this complicates the game. Very much wait and see on this one.

Making it harder to ref is definitely a negative, no doubt about it. But the assumption is a strange one. The current laws require a huge amount of subjective opinion from the ref and what determines the level of sanction is a complicated process requiring a clear view of what happened. Dropping the tackle height would seem to make that much clearer. We don't have enough details on the ball carrier laws yet to make a judgment on that.

The French trial seemed to suggest everyone was happy with the changes, which would include the refs.

[JM2K6]

Hmm. I am sympathetic to anyone being unhappy about major change even though I believe it's for the best. However, I don't see how this so badly affects referees. It's largely a clear situation for refereeing the tackler.

The questions still to be answered are:

- How do you handle "grabs" above the belly, i.e. a shirt grab or an arm that goes for the ball
- What is the guidance on what the ball carrier is allowed to do and how is that refereed
- How much leeway is given for soak tackles / being upright when someone runs into you (related to the previous point)
- How is holding up players handled - particularly in the dead ball area

On the plus side, no need to try and work out if that KO was a legal tackle or not...

For the record I'd be happy to see a reduction in "ball held up" stuff. It's a huge time sink in the game, it becomes a massive breakdown of the laws with a lot of things thrown out of the window, and it's messy as fuck. So much illegality is allowed in service of trying to prevent a try, and that's before the ball even gets over the line. We end up with this mad scramble and it's just... so odd. You can't play the ball on the floor anywhere else but here it's a weird bunfight that has no rules until the ref blows the whistle and someone makes a decision.

I do appreciate what we'd lose if that went away, don't get me wrong, but I think we'd gain a fair amount.

I thought that when Tom Curry scored against Ulster (I think). There was a big debate about whether he placed the ball immediately, but no debate about whether the tackler had released him, as he should. No idea what the solution is, other than maybe that a player has to be bound on in a proper tackle as the tackled player crosses the line, rather than charging in from any angle in a last ditch effort to get under the ball after.

There's all kinds of recent examples of how much of a chaotic shitshow it can be. It's definitely an odd quirk of the game.

Then again I've been pretty bitter about how the game breaks down at the tryline ever since Shontayne Hape was shoulder charged by Toeava (IIRC).

[inactionman]

Forget about players leaving the game, without refs there's no rugby. If the professional refs with the help of 20 cameras and a TMO keep getting it wrong then what chance the poor sod tasked with managing a game on his own? The game is so complicated now, it's just bound in red tape.

I don't think it's clear that this complicates the game. Very much wait and see on this one.

Making it harder to ref is definitely a negative, no doubt about it. But the assumption is a strange one. The current laws require a huge amount of subjective opinion from the ref and what determines the level of sanction is a complicated process requiring a clear view of what happened. Dropping the tackle height would seem to make that much clearer. We don't have enough details on the ball carrier laws yet to make a judgment on that.

The French trial seemed to suggest everyone was happy with the changes, which would include the refs.

This is the crux of it. Currently, the line between a good hit and a red card is too fine, with a degree of subjectivity and with a whole bunch of mitigations, each of which can be argued.

This change looks like making it a much, much clearer distinction (noting they need to clearly define the lines and levels to everyone's understanding), loosely and glibly anything below midriff is fine, anything between midriff and tit is a penalty, anything north of that is a card, and no-one should realistically be able to claim 'accident' for a head high tackle except in a very exceptional cases.

Still need to sort the dive at the tryline though. I'd prefer to change the rules relating to attacking, maybe to require a shift of the ball back to 5 metres out so the players can't just dive off the base of rucks. It's simply not possible to tackle low in those situations.

[JM2K6]

Why on earth would you interview someone who's been done for stamping on someones head, missiling himself into rucks, high tackles and damn near broke another players neck, with regards to changes to the community game with an eye to making it safer?

Rhodes is on the same level as Callum Clarke for me.

Hahah, yeah. I will admit to being deeply amused that some of the most vocal opponents of this have the worst disciplinary records - Rhodes can join Marler and Hamilton in that group.

I also suffered a severe case of whiplash when McCall was complaining about the changes only to then pivot to trying to excuse Jamie George being allowed back on to the field after being sparked out. Not entirely sure player welfare is high on the agenda here.

Side note - I'm definitely keen to see what all these guys would do with the raw data they're asking for. Who knew so many people in the rugby community were data analysts and statisticians? COVID sure did increase everyone's natural ability to assess studies and data I guess!

[SaintK]

If I was a rugby referee I'd likely be contemplating that this is likely my last season I'll be a rugby referee.

I'm sure they will get round to discussing it with the Societies at some stage.
Can imagine the County disciplinary committees will be sitting once a week rather than once a month next season

According to that diagram the thresholds for cards haven't changed, so what do you see as driving an increase in disciplinaries? Abuse of officials?

Hadn't thought of that.

[JM2K6]

Forget about players leaving the game, without refs there's no rugby. If the professional refs with the help of 20 cameras and a TMO keep getting it wrong then what chance the poor sod tasked with managing a game on his own? The game is so complicated now, it's just bound in red tape.

I don't think it's clear that this complicates the game. Very much wait and see on this one.

Making it harder to ref is definitely a negative, no doubt about it. But the assumption is a strange one. The current laws require a huge amount of subjective opinion from the ref and what determines the level of sanction is a complicated process requiring a clear view of what happened. Dropping the tackle height would seem to make that much clearer. We don't have enough details on the ball carrier laws yet to make a judgment on that.

The French trial seemed to suggest everyone was happy with the changes, which would include the refs.

This is the crux of it. Currently, the line between a good hit and a red card is too fine, with a degree of subjectivity and with a whole bunch of mitigations, each of which can be argued.

This change looks like making it a much, much clearer distinction (noting they need to clearly define the lines and levels to everyone's understanding), loosely and glibly anything below midriff is fine, anything between midriff and tit is a penalty, anything north of that is a card, and no-one should realistically be able to claim 'accident' for a head high tackle except in a very exceptional cases.

Still need to sort the dive at the tryline though. I'd prefer to change the rules relating to attacking, maybe to require a shift of the ball back to 5 metres out so the players can't just dive off the base of rucks. It's simply not possible to tackle low in those situations.

It isn't, but it's also very hard to put a shoulder in legally under any of the laws of the last decade or so. Grab-and-hold is your best bet and I'm curious to see how that is approached (see my point about the soak tackle, also the data guy's comments about this) but it's definitely an area that needs clear understanding.

I don't want to butcher the amateur game but at pro level the pick and go is another mess. It's not something that really exists short of the tryline. It's only effective for trying to gain a yard, and the game has largely moved beyond that in all other areas. It currently requires refs to: a) check players pre-bind legally. b) check offsides. c) check for correct wrapping in the tackle. d) check that supporting players stay on their feet. e) check that players release correctly. f) check for grounding.

all in a tiny space with everything happening much quicker as a result, and with a high concentration of bodies.

Your idea is in line with my comments about maybe adjusting by having 5m scrums/lineouts be 10m instead, and I quite like the simplicity of your idea. Just that bit of extra space would make a huge difference and like all good tweaks, yours is better supported by existing laws (5m being a thing already, players having to be x yards back from scrums + lineouts already), so I'm going to adopt that as my preference.

There's an awful lot of people who regularly bemoan pick-and-go who would kick up a fuss if it disappeared, but I think it'd be replaced with something similar that maybe encourages a bit more skill rather than just Harry Williams. And it'd make guys like Simmonds and LCD with their remarkable close carrying stand out even more.

The big negative is that is far more the core of rugby than the bunfight over the line is or chest-high tackles are. It might be actively shit at pro level but it's a big part of everyone's experience in the forward as an amateur and I'd be very cautious about changing that.

[Kawazaki]

What about the hand-off?

If you knock away the fend or grab the arm and use it to pivot the ball carrier to the ground then both of those are, at best, a penalty.

[JM2K6]

What about the hand-off?

If you knock away the fend or grab the arm and use it to pivot the ball carrier to the ground then both of those are, at best, a penalty.

I don't think they will be.

[inactionman]

The soak tackle, arm grab etc do pose different questions.

I thought Jamie George's card vs Edinburgh was interesting - he looked to be almost backing away, so all he would reasonably be able to do is to soak. The attacking player drove through, and there was a head clash. George needs to get lower, it's up to him as defender (and the attacker was doing what he's supposed to do, not drop height just to make legal tackling harder), but it is certainly a different scenario compared to a tackler launching in at head height.

[JM2K6]

Oh. Apparently the pick and go has been somewhat illegal in amateur rugby in France for ages, in that you can only go to ground intentionally if tackled, so you can't drive towards the ground.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Oh. Apparently the pick and go has been somewhat illegal in amateur rugby in France for ages, in that you can only go to ground intentionally if tackled, so you can't drive towards the ground.

Given that the pick and go is high on a long list of boring shite in rugby, that sounds like a good idea.

[Tichtheid]

[Kawazaki]

What about the hand-off?

If you knock away the fend or grab the arm and use it to pivot the ball carrier to the ground then both of those are, at best, a penalty.

I don't think they will be.

Well it's an above waist tackle. This is such a mess. Just read this thread, everyone is suggesting more Laws to try and make this new Law workable. It's all on the referees. And what's the betting that the first the referees heard this was coming in was the same time the rest of us heard about it?!

[inactionman]

Oh. Apparently the pick and go has been somewhat illegal in amateur rugby in France for ages, in that you can only go to ground intentionally if tackled, so you can't drive towards the ground.

I was convinced - utterly certain - that falling to the ground to avoid a tackle was already prohibited, but I had a look at the Laws (yes, it was raining that day) and couldn't find any reference to it.

Seems a very good Law/ruling/whatever to me.

[inactionman]

Much as their laughter's contagious, I'm still not sure what the actual joke is.

[Kawazaki]

Much as their laughter's contagious, I'm still not sure what the actual joke is.

They thought she was going to say, "Have a wank"

It's not really that funny. Probably had to be there.

[Tichtheid]

repeated post

[inactionman]

Much as their laughter's contagious, I'm still not sure what the actual joke is.

I'm glad we haven't fully eradicated the puerile from the professional game

[Paddington Bear]

Italy game well on course to be the lowest attendance since the South Stand was being redeveloped. Only themselves to blame for dire product on the pitch and a cheapest ticket of £93. That's over doubled in six years

[Ovals]

What about the hand-off?

If you knock away the fend or grab the arm and use it to pivot the ball carrier to the ground then both of those are, at best, a penalty.

I don't think they will be.

Well it's an above waist tackle. This is such a mess. Just read this thread, everyone is suggesting more Laws to try and make this new Law workable. It's all on the referees. And what's the betting that the first the referees heard this was coming in was the same time the rest of us heard about it?!

I'm sure that if the French can manage it, so will we - just as soon as people stop being such drama queens about it.

[JM2K6]

What about the hand-off?

If you knock away the fend or grab the arm and use it to pivot the ball carrier to the ground then both of those are, at best, a penalty.

I don't think they will be.

Well it's an above waist tackle. This is such a mess. Just read this thread, everyone is suggesting more Laws to try and make this new Law workable. It's all on the referees. And what's the betting that the first the referees heard this was coming in was the same time the rest of us heard about it?!

When has grabbing an arm ever been considered within the tackle framework. You can grab someone's arm in a match today, have it be above shoulder height, and not be penalised for it.

You don't need to go looking for weird ways in which you think this will be refereed. They're not interested in trying to penalise players for doing their best and not hitting people in the chest.

[Kawazaki]

I don't think they will be.

Well it's an above waist tackle. This is such a mess. Just read this thread, everyone is suggesting more Laws to try and make this new Law workable. It's all on the referees. And what's the betting that the first the referees heard this was coming in was the same time the rest of us heard about it?!

I'm sure that if the French can manage it, so will we - just as soon as people stop being such drama queens about it.

The only references to the 'it's ok in France' are from people with absolutely no idea what's happened in France other than the people who made the law change saying 'it's ok in France'. Any YouTube videos?

[Kawazaki]

I don't think they will be.

Well it's an above waist tackle. This is such a mess. Just read this thread, everyone is suggesting more Laws to try and make this new Law workable. It's all on the referees. And what's the betting that the first the referees heard this was coming in was the same time the rest of us heard about it?!

When has grabbing an arm ever been considered within the tackle framework. You can grab someone's arm in a match today, have it be above shoulder height, and not be penalised for it.

You don't need to go looking for weird ways in which you think this will be refereed. They're not interested in trying to penalise players for doing their best and not hitting people in the chest.

Ok, but you agree that a fend fundamentally compromises how a defender has to tackle?

[Ovals]

Well it's an above waist tackle. This is such a mess. Just read this thread, everyone is suggesting more Laws to try and make this new Law workable. It's all on the referees. And what's the betting that the first the referees heard this was coming in was the same time the rest of us heard about it?!

I'm sure that if the French can manage it, so will we - just as soon as people stop being such drama queens about it.

The only references to the 'it's ok in France' are from people with absolutely no idea what's happened in France other than the people who made the law change saying 'it's ok in France'. Any YouTube videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=deskt ... oEkB41T11Q