DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 149001--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Banstead Quin
Date: February 3, 2026, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Will referees/TJs need set squares and compasses for number 5?
They can't see a player joining a ruck from in front of the back
foot so how will they judge 2 metres????
You could use automation for offsides, so why not just do that.
Yes it would slow the game down a bit whilst players adjust but
would be better in the long run.
Thanks for your post JEDZI, clearly shows that world rugby is
still 2 different games and the opposing views aren't changing
any time soon. I watch my daughters play at BUCS level and it
isn't easy for you guys with the quality of TJs and trying to
cover all bases.
#Post#: 149003--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: February 3, 2026, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: never sleep link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think that law was less about scrums themselves and more about
trying to reduce the volume relentless carrying attacks <5m from
the line. Just massive blokes running into each other over and
over and over, and if they are successfully defended they get to
go again. Basically, Exeter's success forced the law change. I
don't love it but my ideas on how to resolve the problem are
much worse :D
#Post#: 149006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: T-Bone
Date: February 3, 2026, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't like the 50:22 change. It will almost certainly lead to
more kicking, not more room for attacking.
Free kicks instead of scrums for certain infringements I'm on
the fence about. We shouldn't be repowering or removing the
scrum. It's a key part of the game. However, they do take a very
long time and you can end up with the team that infringes then
benefitting from their superior scrum.
Not particularly fussed either way about the others
#Post#: 149007--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: February 3, 2026, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ffs leave scrums alone!!
#Post#: 149008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: never sleep
Date: February 3, 2026, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> I think that law was less about scrums themselves and more
about trying to reduce the volume relentless carrying attacks
<5m from the line. Just massive blokes running into each other
over and over and over, and if they are successfully defended
they get to go again. Basically, Exeter's success forced the law
change. I don't love it but my ideas on how to resolve the
problem are much worse :D
>
--- End Quote ---
Fully understand that.
They could have simply moved the scrum back 5m to make it a 10m
scrum and then see it it changed behaviour.
The thing I really dislike is that someone goes over the line
and due to the ref being unsighted, there is no certainty that a
try was scored. So, the defending team gets a massive benefit in
that they can just hoof the ball downfield.
The punishment against the attacking team is overly harsh.
For what it is worth, I am also not convinced about benefit of
the 50-22.
I don't like the idea of converting scrums to free kicks. Free
kicks very rarely benefit the attacking team. But, we rarely see
the 5 second rule implemented and maybe a free kick for an
"accident" is probably fair.
I do like the idea that players can't join the ruck after the
"use it". (I have mentioned that on the board on previous
threads.)
#Post#: 149011--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: February 3, 2026, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: never sleep link ---
>
> Fully understand that.
> They could have simply moved the scrum back 5m to make it a
10m scrum and then see it it changed behaviour.
> The thing I really dislike is that someone goes over the line
and due to the ref being unsighted, there is no certainty that a
try was scored. So, the defending team gets a massive benefit in
that they can just hoof the ball downfield.
> The punishment against the attacking team is overly harsh.
>
> ...
>
--- End Quote ---
If the ref's unsighted they'll ask the TMO, which they normally
do anyway unless it's obvious.
Also, I think you'd need to move it a bit more than 5m back to
make a difference.
#Post#: 149012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Yareet
Date: February 3, 2026, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brown Bottle link ---
>
> If the ref's unsighted they'll ask the TMO, which they
normally do anyway unless it's obvious.
>
> Also, I think you'd need to move it a bit more than 5m back to
make a difference.
>
--- End Quote ---
I was thinking that moving teh scrum 5m back works with the
existing pitch markings. 10m obviously wouldn't. Attacking scrum
on the 22?
#Post#: 149013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Rugbycat
Date: February 3, 2026, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Banstead Quin link ---
>
> Will referees/TJs need set squares and compasses for number 5?
They can't see a player joining a ruck from in front of the back
foot so how will they judge 2 metres????
>
> You could use automation for offsides, so why not just do
that. Yes it would slow the game down a bit whilst players
adjust but would be better in the long run.
>
> Thanks for your post JEDZI, clearly shows that world rugby is
still 2 different games and the opposing views aren't changing
any time soon. I watch my daughters play at BUCS level and it
isn't easy for you guys with the quality of TJs and trying to
cover all bases.
>
--- End Quote ---
Another very difficult to apply law, and making the refs life
very difficult, I watch a lot of BUCS for the same reason, My
daugther sent me this.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3LwvZ_5MuA
#Post#: 149014--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: February 3, 2026, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Yareet link ---
>
> I was thinking that moving teh scrum 5m back works with the
existing pitch markings. 10m obviously wouldn't. Attacking scrum
on the 22?
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, that's the the trouble, imho. It becomes a seemingly
random response to what's happened.
#Post#: 149069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Super Rugby law trials
DIR By: Camquin
Date: February 4, 2026, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The drop out is meant to be a drop kick.
I always thought of them as being short range.
Player can now drop kick fifty metres.
Perhaps the answer is to look at the aerodynamics of the ball.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page