DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 148983--------------------------------------------------
Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Yareet
Date: February 2, 2026, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting ideas from our SH friends as they look to "further
reduce stoppages, inspire positive play and simplify the
officiating of the game" 🤔
- It will no longer be mandatory for the referee to issue a
yellow or red card to a player on the defending team when
awarding a penalty try. Any sanction will be at the discretion
of the referee. (Law 8.3)
- Accidental offsides and teams delaying playing the ball away
from a ruck will result in free kicks rather than scrums. (Law
10.5 and Law 15.17)
- After the referee has called “use it” at the ruck, no
additional players from the team in possession may join the
ruck. (Law 15.17)
- Teams will be permitted to pass the ball back into their half
before kicking a 50:22. (Law 18.8a)
- Players will be allowed to take quick taps within one metre
either side of the of the mark, or anywhere behind the mark, if
they are within that two-metre channel running parallel to the
touchlines. (Law 20.2)
- The TMO will only intervene unprompted if the referee has
overlooked an act of serious foul play (yellow card level or
above), or a clear and obvious infringement leading to a try.
The assistance of the TMO at any other time can only be
instigated by the referee
Not sure how much difference being able to pass back for a 50:22
makes. Defence will still set up the same way once you've
crossed the 10m line. And any reason to remove scrums is by
definition a bad thing
#Post#: 148984--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: poorfour
Date: February 2, 2026, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure I agree with the first one (though I recognise
that it formalises current practice), but I like all the others
- especially the 3rd one
#Post#: 148985--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Camquin
Date: February 2, 2026, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, they are still going to permit the nine to be offside at a
ruck (15.4), and use their hands in a ruck (15/11). But once
they call use it, nobody can join and make the nine more
offside.
Have they ever thought about applying the laws they already
have?
#Post#: 148986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Yareet
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> I am not sure I agree with the first one (though I recognise
that it formalises current practice), but I like all the others
- especially the 3rd one
>
--- End Quote ---
The card for a PT? I thought they normally gave one if they saw
who committed the offence
#Post#: 148989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: FrostAndFire
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> After the referee has called “use it” at the ruck, no
additional players from the team in possession may join the
ruck.
--- End Quote ---
I've been calling for this for a very long time. A good change,
as long as the ref calls "use it" quickly enough.
#Post#: 148993--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: February 2, 2026, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Yareet link ---
>
> The card for a PT? I thought they normally gave one if they
saw who committed the offence
>
--- End Quote ---
It's currently mandatory if they can identify a single culprit.
I like the change.
The 50/22 rule sucks and this change makes it suck even more.
#Post#: 148994--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: FrostAndFire
Date: February 2, 2026, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> It's currently mandatory if they can identify a single
culprit. I like the change.
>
> The 50/22 rule sucks and this change makes it suck even more.
>
--- End Quote ---
I like the current 50/22 rule, but this would be a bad change to
it.
#Post#: 148997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Rugbycat
Date: February 2, 2026, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FrostAndFire link ---
>
> I like the current 50/22 rule, but this would be a bad change
to it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just going to encourage more kicking, the presumption is that
more players will drop back to cover the kick, and open up space
to attack, but every world rugby kicking law change has created
more kicking.
The clear access , shepherding law, for example has created far
more kicking and some dangerous hi energy impacts when players
compete for the ball, so not sure how that protects the players.
I too would rather they enforce the existing laws about straight
feeds and the hooker actually striking for the ball, and the
position of the 9 like they are in the Top 14, rather than new
laws that often have unexpected consequences.
#Post#: 148998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Jedzi
Date: February 2, 2026, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As an referee in community rugby, my views are maybe slightly
different to some - refing is much more difficult than most
people think and the laws of rugby are complex and sometimes
make it much harder to do a good job. Before anyone adds
anything new in to the laws, they should have to remove or
simplify something else.
From my (albeit slightly selfish) perspective, the one about
quick taps would just be a pain. I like the one about 50:22s -
one thing less to watch out for. Equally the penalty try one is
a good move in my books. It can be much harder than you'd think
to get the right player. In community rugby, it's surprisingly
common for players not to have the correct, or even any, number.
The players struggle with law changes as well. About ten days
ago I had a 9 who was unaware of the new law on positioning at
scrums (... which does raise other questions).
From the perspective of a fan of the pro game, Matthieu Raynal's
views on this are interesting:
[They (southern hemisphere) want more passes, more tries, less
time spent in mauls and scrums. While us (northern hemisphere),
we defend these specificities, we are against the ruling
policies taken by the southern hemisphere. Our league is
working, our stadiums are full, rugby is watched by more people
than football in our country. We don't want to suffer policies
coming from countries where stadium are empty, where they're
trying to recreate spectacle and make people come back to the
stadiums at all cost by sacrificing the principles of equity and
player safety."
[/font]
#Post#: 149000--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: never sleep
Date: February 2, 2026, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The one law change that still annoys me is the held up-goal line
dropout change.
I still don't understand why we needed to get rid of 5m scrums.
Scrums are an important part of the game and, imho, nothing
beats watching a good scrum contest. I don't think that I am
alone in that view.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page