Elv 12???
 

I am confused about identification of the scrum half offside line, specifically Example b. Does this mean the defensive SH can only move between the back foot of her #8 and the nose of the ball on the offensive SH side of the scrum OR move back behind the new 5 m offside line? Is she allowed to come around the opposite side of the scrum? ELV 12 says "...the non-ball-winning scrum...must not overstep that offside line" but I'm not clear in which direction, ie. step over the line toward the offensive pack or toward her backline.

Sorry I can't answer, but I'm curious. Does "the new 5 m offside line" apply generally, or only to this ELV? Which countries are using it? Is it 5 m behind the ball, 5 m behind the center of the scrum, 5 m behind the original mark of the scrum, or 5 m behind the last foot? Does it apply only to set scrums, or to rucks & mauls too?

Robert

I know USA Rugby is using new laws at every level...don't know about the rest of the world (although we just had a small U19 women's tournament with Ontario Canada team that appeared to use new laws).

New scrum offside line for both teams is now 5 m back from the last foot in scrum; old rule was the offside line went through the last foot in the scrum (i.e., the 8-man's back foot). I found the answer to my original question: defensive SH cannot come around side opposite the put-in; the SH is free to roam between her own 8-man back foot and the nose of the ball on the put-in side. If she leaves the scrum she must retreat back to the new 5 m offside line along with the rest of her backline. The whole point is to give the offense more space to be more creative...this is good for the game but I fear that competitive imbalances will be hugely exaggerated.

Oops...new 5 m offside law is only for set piece scrum. Other laws: okay to pull down maul; quick throw-in from touch can now go backwards; no requirement to match-up in lineouts; in line-outs, defensive hooker must stand between touch and 5 m line (old law) but now also must be 2 m in from 5 m line; touch judges have more recognition as game officials and are required to be more interactive with referee; I think there are a few more but I'm drawing a blank...

Cheers,
Dave

I thought they had plenty of space before. I dislike all these artificial-seeming restrictions, although in retrospect one could see it coming for the scrum in the decades since similar changes were made to the lineout.

Actually I think there was more room for true creativity in cx with the set scrum years ago before all the restrictions regarding its composition & conduct. You used to be able to pack 5, before that you could pack a minimum of 3. And so on & so forth. It's just one person's opinion of creativity vs. another's.

Robert

These are all experimental?

I guess they decided it might not be so dangerous after all to collapse a maul, or at least not so dangerous as not to experiment with allowing it. I'm of 2 minds about that one. You still have someone carrying the ball, seems to make sense s/he'd be subject to tackling, and if everyone around goes down too, that's their problem.

Allowing a quick throw to go backward I like, and I bet referees will love it because they're hardly ever in position to tell if it's straight. If you don't have to match the number or length in the lineout, does that mean there's no use for a short lineout any more? Requiring the opposing thrower-in to be infield of the 5 m, let alone at least 7 m in from touch, seems totally unfair; now the thrower-in is unmarked in case the ball's batted quickly back to hir. Just as unfair as allowing the scrum half of the side with the ball to follow it around to the other side of the scrum and not the opposing scrum half.

If it were up to me there'd be mandatory quick throws in many circumstances, and you'd never have to throw in straight. The whole line-out business is a game-delaying construct that unfortunately now has a big skill set and tactical interest associated with it. Encouraging the quick throw by allowing it to go backward is at least a step in my direction.

Robert

Yes, experimental. I'm still on the fence about pulling down the maul...we'll see how it plays out this fall season (in women's collegiate).

I'm hoping new quick throw-in law will decrease the rarity of this play...this could be an effective weapon once it catches on. Now if we could only keep helpful fans from picking up the ball when it goes into touch...

Your comment on refs being out of positition on this was funny and true...here's a new rule I learned last month vis-a-vis referee positioning: if the referee is outside the 22 when a team scores a try he must buy a round for all officials present at the match.