Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Latest World Rugby law directives include shot clock from January 1

England kicker Owen Farrell (Photo by Alex Davidson/The RFU Collection via Getty Images)

World Rugby have announced a package of directives for implementation from January 1, including the use of a shot clock to hurry up kickers taking conversions and penalty kicks at goal. Speeding up the game, less reliance on TMO reviews, fewer water carrier interventions, the penalising of negative player actions, and clarity on deliberate knock-ons will all be measures aimed at improving the sport ahead of the 2023 Rugby World Cup. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Last month’s Shape of the Game conference in London resulted in attendees instructing World Rugby to speed the game up, enhance the spectacle and advance safety for both the short and long term. 

Despite a law change moratorium that is in operation twelve months out from the men’s Rugby World Cup, World Cup officials have come up with as series of directives under five different headings with a view to improving the sport. 

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

A statement read: “World Rugby have announced a series of law applications which will be implemented game-wide from January 1, 2023.

“The guidelines, which are designed to assist match officials, players and coaches and to enhance fan experience are part of a drive by the international federation to speed up the game and reflect key outcomes of the Shape of the Game conference in November. 

Related

“With Rugby World Cup 2023 fast approaching, the new directives are designed to support a quicker, more entertaining game while balancing safety and spectacle.” From January 1, the following will apply:

Speeding up the game 
Players and match officials are reminded of the following existing laws which must be strictly adhered to: 

  • Law 8.8d Conversion. [The kicker] takes the kick within 90 seconds (playing time) from the time the try was awarded, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed; 
  • Law 8.21: Penalty Kick: The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed and a scrum is awarded;
  • Law 9.7d: A player must not waste time. Sanction Free-kick;
  • Law 18.12 Lineout: Teams form the lineout without delay. Sanction: Free-kick;
  • Law 19.4 Scrum: Teams must be ready to form the scrum within 30 seconds of the mark being made. Sanction: Free-kick.

The whole sport is encouraged to apply these guidelines to speed up the game and elite matches competitions will be encouraged to use a ‘shot clock’ as trialled in the LNR/FFR competitions. 

ADVERTISEMENT

World Rugby director of rugby Phil Davies said: “World Rugby, member unions and competitions will work with broadcasters and match hosts to implement on-screen (stadia and broadcast) shot clocks for penalties and conversions to ensure referees, players and fans can view the countdown. 

Less reliance on Television Match Official (TMO) reviews 
Match officials are reminded that the current TMO protocol is aimed at identifying and ensuring clear and obvious offences are dealt with on-field. 

Davies added: “There was excellent debate at the Shape of the Game conference on this topic, including leading match officials, coaches and player representatives. It was agreed that reviews can often take too long, suggesting the offence being reviewed is not clear and obvious.

“While we can always enhance the technology interaction to speed up the process, the match official teams – led by the referee – should attempt to make speedier decisions and limit replays where not necessary.” 

ADVERTISEMENT

World Rugby will be working with match official managers to ensure consistent application of the process. 

Fewer water carrier interventions 
The global law trial on limiting the number of water carriers to two, and reducing the times they enter the field, has successfully reduced unnecessary stoppages. However, creating set windows for water breaks has created the impression of disrupting the game, even if that water was taken during a natural stoppage (try/injury/TMO review). 

Davies added: “Following discussions with stakeholders, an amendment to the current global law trial covering water carriers will allow water onto the field when a try is scored. Participating competitions and unions are reminded of the 60/90 second limits on kick times. Only in a game with no tries, should a natural stoppage be used.” 

This amendment to the current trial protocol was supported by the technical zone/water carrier working group. This group includes players, coaches, referees and competition representatives. 

Penalising negative player actions 
Reinforcing rugby’s values, referees will be asked to be strong on negative player actions. For example, Trapping players into ruck, and first arriving players (the jackler) not aiming to play the ball. 

Players are reminded about their responsibilities not to hold the ball or walk off with the ball at penalties – this reduces attacking options by the non-offending team and slows the game down unnecessarily and will be sanctioned. 

Penalising players with hands on the floor to support body weight 
Players who put their hands on the floor at tackles, rucks and mauls are subject to sanction, although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability. 

Law definitions and relevant clauses:

  • Off feet: Players are off their feet when any other part of the body is supported by the ground or players on the ground;
  • On feet: Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground; 
  • Tackle law 14.8a Other players must: Remain on their feet and release the ball and the ball carrier immediately, and 14.8b Remain on their feet when they play the ball;
  • Ruck law 15.12: Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck;
  • Maul law 16.9: All other players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. 

Clarity on deliberate knock-ons 
What is and what isn’t a deliberate knock-on often causes debate. All participants are reminded of the following existing laws: 

  • 11.3 A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with a hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty;
  • 11.4 It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession. 

Players must endeavour to catch the ball. Referees are asked to show good judgement when deciding if a player has a reasonable expectation of catching and gaining possession, and then in determining a sanction. 

World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont said: “As a sport, a movement and a family, we must always challenge ourselves to be better. That means taking time to consider what fans and players want the future of our sport to be, a future where more people want to play and support the game, where injury risk is reducing and where all involved in the game have their say. 

“These law application guidelines are a step on the road to reimagining our sport and come directly from the Shape of the Game conference in London in November, attended by players, coaches, referees, union CEOs and competition owners.

“By working together, we can achieve positive outcomes. I would like to thank the match officials specifically for implementing the directives and we look forward to seeing the results.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 5 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search