Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Mixed reaction to World Rugby's 10 temporary law changes

(Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images)

It’s fair to say that the temporaty World Rugby law amendments have not been universally accepted by the public. In a pursuit to reduce contact exposure in rugby and facilitate a quicker return to playing during the Covid-19 pandemic, ten optional law changes were announced on Thursday with the aim of reducing the amount of time in scrums, rucks and mauls. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Reducing such fundamental elements of the game of rugby union has obviously led to suggestions that this is moving closer to rugby league, where in one instance the concept of a goal-line drop-out has been taken from the other code. 

On top of that, many have been quick to highlight that rugby is a contact sport, and that it is ultimately a tough job in overcoming that to reduce the spread of the virus. But many also are acutely aware that this is the best approach in seeing a return to rugby as soon as possible. 

Video Spacer

Ex-Saracens back row Jacques Burger guests on The Lockdown, the RugbyPass pandemic interview series

Video Spacer

Ex-Saracens back row Jacques Burger guests on The Lockdown, the RugbyPass pandemic interview series

Aside from the concerns that these law amendmens are a way of World Rugby speeding up the game through the backdoor, chiefly by reducing the number of scrums, fans have been cherry-picking which law changes could potentially be carried forward when normal service resumes. 

The idea of an orange card attracted some interest, as it will help with making fairer decisions by giving television match officials a greater chance to analyse an offence. 

https://twitter.com/garethreynolds/status/1265942345066962944?s=20

https://twitter.com/dannychips__/status/1265977533029376000?s=20

Similarly, the goal line drop out idea has not been as emphatically dismissed as some other suggestions have. This will be awarded to a defending team when they have held the opposition up over their line, therefore eliminating the scrum. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Many people have always seen the five-metre scrum as an unfair response to holding a team up, as it essentially rewards the attacking team with a platform to score and moreover punishes the defending team for their good defence. 

Other changes, such as removing the effectiveness of the choke tackle, have had different responses, which may largely be down to where people come from. 

https://twitter.com/AlexDS_Rugby/status/1265979656391610368?s=20

The very fact that these changes are optional and have already been turned down by some unions – such as New Zealand’s upcoming Super Rugby Aotearoa – suggests they may not be as damaging as some are fearing. 

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 6 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.

146 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks' 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks'
Search