At 7:35 Barnes basicly says "fans don't want to see scrums and lineouts" That's a shame, a good scrum contest, a good lineout are good rugby. If someone doesn't like that just watch rugby league.
Scrums are awful. I'm sick of waiting 5 minutes for forwards to puff and blow just to get a penalty because apparently someone fell down first when it all just comes tumbling down in a heap due to its inherent instability. That's not rugby. They still won't put it in straight though, guaranteed.
Scrums are awful because referees don't penalize not-straight feeds, so we don't have a fair contest at scrum time, that's the problem; if i can't win the ball i just go to try win a penalty by crumbling the scrum. Maybe those new law will reduce the number of collapsed scrums, but the kill the contest at scrum time as well.
I feel at the top level they become more unstable, there's so much force going against each other that even the slightest wrong movement, intentionally or not, can cause it to collapse. I'm sure there is a lot of players trying to milk the penalties too. My solution is simple, no more scrum penalties, free kicks instead.
Not true. We can thank Italy for what they did. They had the balls to highlight a huge flaw in the laws and made the only real effort to get anything done by actually showing us how stupid it was. Good on them
Hate the law for not being able to kick a ball through a ruck, that's one of the best ways to punish a team who don't protect the ball and 9 with enough space or men, and it's gonna be entirely subjective as to whether a player has gone to hook the ball or just kick it
I spent a lot of time on the floor in rucks and I'm pretty thankful that players can no longer start hacking away trying near my face to try and kick the ball out of the ruck.
It's a good rule in terms of protecting players though. Forwards could aim a kick at the ball with their size 13 boots, miss it completely and kick someone in the head and they would be excused because they were 'attempting' to play the ball.
If youre on the floor of a ruck youre very exposed to feet either way and unless youre the ballcarrier could find yourself liable to penalties. So this law change still isnt great
Plus after playing with these laws for a few months, in my experience I've found that a foot attempting to hook the ball backwards, especially when off balance, is far more dangerous due to your body often being between the ball and where they are attempting to hook it to, resulting in studs coming directly towards your body
The new rule that does not allow the player to put a foot on the line before catching the kick to cause a favourable line out is complete bollocks, why are they limiting intelligent play?
Rugby is game of constant chance and variable. Competition for the ball at every phase and every moment is intrinsic & unique to rugby. I like watching scrums, lineouts, rucks and mauls. The new rules are trending the game towards a structured and regimented style : Almost like rugby league, a series of boring sets and restarts. Rugby Union was not meant to be a track meet ; that is another sport altogether. We need the state of flux , chaos and turmoil which is Rugby.
In the new ruck law one player can go over the tackle & PAST his mate on the floor without playing the ball or engaging an opponent. That is blocking, shielding, obstruction and Off side. Rugby is a game of chance , opportunity and unpredictability : The Last thing we want to do is clean it up - Player should be required by law to play the ball if available.
New laws to reduce the contest at the breakdown further. All we'll see is pick and go because defenders are less able to contest the breakdown. And why have they not demanded a straight put in at the scrum? It beggars belief that they bottled on that yet again. I'd rather see a real contest at scrum and breakdown which allows more turnovers from which backs can attack.
Now THIS I could get behind. Makes the refs feed. If they're so damned concerned about straight feeds and hooking, let them set the engagement, set the timing, and restart. Have the side judges watch for infringements.
Absolutely hate that World Rugby are constantly trying to punish smart defensive play. Italy are getting punished for actually knowing the rules? How does that make sense?
They have made it clear that they want to encourage more exciting rugby to make the game more of a spectacle for the fans. What happened in that game was boring to watch. Yes it was smart play from the Italians and nullified the English attack, but it borderline killed the game for those watching it. By changing that rule, it encourages a more expansive and fun game for the fans to enjoy. Italy weren't punished for knowing the rules, they clearly gained an advantage for using their brains and playing the rules to their advantage. This is not a punishment at all, it is a recognition by World Rugby that the rules were wrong and needed changing
So it's about entertaining people that don't understand the sport and maximising TV revenues. Why don't World Rugby just watch and play League or even Soccer.
I totally agree. I'll decide myself what is 'entertaining.' I don't agree with changing the rules; it's up to the players to find a way around good defensive play. Changing the rules will only invite new ways to play them. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did the rule read out after the clip about kicking for a lineout when clock is in the red have nothing to do with kicking for a lineout when clock is in the red?
I like the srcum put in rule, crooked feeds are wayyyyyyy to common. I like how the ball can be picked up earlier by the 8, but tbh i didnt even they could only really do so when it wss at their feet lol. No foot in the ruck is a little harsh, it was a good way to punish teams for weak ball security, but i can live with it. The tackler getting on his feet and now having to get onside is a huge gamechanger, every team has a group of players who are great at capitalising in this situation. I hope they officiate this consistently thougb, cos i sense a lot of penalties are about to come from this. The offside line appearing as soon as atking teams player has secured the breakdown, whether the opposition is there or not is a good one imo. The azzuris were smart to capitalise on this technicality, but there barnes was right when he said it just didnt look rigjt. Ne law is just common sense imo.
Wow. I'm already not happy about the Italy law change. The All Blacks have used that tactic for YEARS in different games and all of a sudden it's a problem because England had it done on them by Italy and NOT the ABs. Lame change but at least they're making the offside line more consistent. We'll see if they call it right.
Vardy broheim Actually, I was more referring to the fact that England took on the ABs many times where this EXACT TACTIC was used and they didn't take umbrage THEN when it was done. Why the outrage by Eddy Jones when Italy did it? Was it because former England coaches recognized it as a legit tactic or is Eddy Jones just a little cranky in his shorts? What New Zealand does wasn't the point of my comment, more that England are pushing a rule change at a curious time, IMO.
Referring Itlaly Law it looks like an age old situation which has not yet been addressed. The supporting player(s) stand over & beyond the ball. They were not engaged with an opponent ; yet they go past the ball and shield it from being played. That is obstruction and playing the man without the ball from an offside position even if he was there ; Which he was not. THE PLAYER IN SUPPORT MUST PLAY THE BALL -- IF NOT THEN GO BACK BEHIND IT AND STARE AT IT !!!
It's done to make the ruck simpler to ref and also means it's harder for the defensive team to jackal encourages attacking quick rugby one of the law changes I actually agree with
As a no.7 I hate both new breakdown laws. Is a line out not rugby anymore? Why are we encouraging the ball to stay in play when 1 of the 2 set peice arts is being reduced by these money grabbing rules. It is literally encouraging the less rugby educated fans to keep watching.
Rugby was meant to be the running game. Loosen the rules to let the forwards beat themselves up in scrums, mauls and rucks : They will tire quickly creating more space & time in the open. Then change back to the old fat ball with FULL 20 meter try zones and the game will open up.
A lot changes here that Rugby League stopped, in some cases 20+ yrs ago. The kicking at the ruck (RL has play the balls) was banned when I was 13yrs old & I'm 43 now.
Not quite. If it was that smart a tactic teams would have used it much more than just Italy on one occasion (and Australia I think a year or two before). The only reason Italy did it was so they wouldn't get absolutely thrashed at Twickenham, so they exploited a rulebook loophole. It was the most unsportsmanlike 'tactic' I've ever seen playing the game. If Italy had played that way against Ireland or Wales everybody would be saying the same thing, but because it was against England everyone loved it.
It's really quite simple let's get a away a bit from this present day rock'em, sock'em style of rugby and back to its original form of wide open flare and excitement. This can be accomplished by dispensing of the torpedo ball now in use, and going back to the original more rounded ball. Doing so will promote using two hands on the ball instead of tuck it and crash like american football. Secondly the old style ball has a softer more predictable bounce, promoting the chip & chase / recover, Up & Under, etc. Full length try zones would also enhance this part of the game. There would be more movement and transition with the old type ball. This is what we want ; not the stolid chess matches with wide flat lines and man to man defense reminiscent of trench warfare. The open, flowing game is attainable without adding more limits and rules on rucking and mauling. When the ball carrier hits the ground the ball should already be presented and playable. This process needs to be completed by the time the ball carrier comes in contact with the ground : And is solely & totally his responsibility. Show less REPLY
I think they’ve had a typo here. They’ve accidentally called Wayne Barnes a “top ref.” Which I don’t think I even need to explain why that’s wrong. I’m sure they’ll fix it.
changing the rules to make it easier for the already advantaged top tier nations... HOW on Gods earth is that supposed to develop the game? these rule changes were precipitated by the cunning and cleaver tactics employed by teams that were out gunned or inferior are we to penalise cleaver tactics by giving in to big boys crying over the fact they havn't thrashed smaller teams by 50, 60 ,70pts? No one want's to see teams getting hammered I want competitive games WITH Scrums and Lineouts and engagement if I wanted to watch a game of hard running and no lineouts and scrums I'd look at league!
Lol, Wayne Barnes basically in the English camp, allowed to officiate all black and English games, him and poite are as crooked as my knob. Barnes Not happy unless he's blowing a penalty against the blacks or has a camera in his face, I've got an idea Wayne, shut YOUR mouth and call the game properly.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
At 7:35 Barnes basicly says "fans don't want to see scrums and lineouts" That's a shame, a good scrum contest, a good lineout are good rugby. If someone doesn't like that just watch rugby league.
Agreed. And it's nothing to do with the referees, or shouldn't be.
I love lineouts and a good rolling maul, scrums however have become a penalty machine.
Scrums are awful. I'm sick of waiting 5 minutes for forwards to puff and blow just to get a penalty because apparently someone fell down first when it all just comes tumbling down in a heap due to its inherent instability. That's not rugby. They still won't put it in straight though, guaranteed.
Scrums are awful because referees don't penalize not-straight feeds, so we don't have a fair contest at scrum time, that's the problem; if i can't win the ball i just go to try win a penalty by crumbling the scrum. Maybe those new law will reduce the number of collapsed scrums, but the kill the contest at scrum time as well.
I feel at the top level they become more unstable, there's so much force going against each other that even the slightest wrong movement, intentionally or not, can cause it to collapse. I'm sure there is a lot of players trying to milk the penalties too. My solution is simple, no more scrum penalties, free kicks instead.
Loved what Italy did, these law changes are protectionist measures
100%
If the All Blacks or England did what Italy did, everyone would be raving about how great they are!
Not true. We can thank Italy for what they did. They had the balls to highlight a huge flaw in the laws and made the only real effort to get anything done by actually showing us how stupid it was. Good on them
People WERE raving about how good what Italy did was!
What Italy did during that England game is quite similar to what Richie McCaw does. They were playing smart rugby.
David C I agree, 100%!
People already do rave about how great the All Blacks are. England are good but not great.
Hate the law for not being able to kick a ball through a ruck, that's one of the best ways to punish a team who don't protect the ball and 9 with enough space or men, and it's gonna be entirely subjective as to whether a player has gone to hook the ball or just kick it
I spent a lot of time on the floor in rucks and I'm pretty thankful that players can no longer start hacking away trying near my face to try and kick the ball out of the ruck.
It's a good rule in terms of protecting players though. Forwards could aim a kick at the ball with their size 13 boots, miss it completely and kick someone in the head and they would be excused because they were 'attempting' to play the ball.
It almost looks like an agenda to merge both codes ?
If youre on the floor of a ruck youre very exposed to feet either way and unless youre the ballcarrier could find yourself liable to penalties. So this law change still isnt great
Plus after playing with these laws for a few months, in my experience I've found that a foot attempting to hook the ball backwards, especially when off balance, is far more dangerous due to your body often being between the ball and where they are attempting to hook it to, resulting in studs coming directly towards your body
The new rule that does not allow the player to put a foot on the line before catching the kick to cause a favourable line out is complete bollocks, why are they limiting intelligent play?
If they can't make a meaningful change they should just let it sit.
toilet paper yes
Rugby is game of constant chance and variable. Competition for the ball at every phase and every moment is intrinsic & unique to rugby. I like watching scrums, lineouts, rucks and mauls. The new rules are trending the game towards a structured and regimented style : Almost like rugby league, a series of boring sets and restarts. Rugby Union was not meant to be a track meet ; that is another sport altogether. We need the state of flux , chaos and turmoil which is Rugby.
In the new ruck law one player can go over the tackle & PAST his mate on the floor without playing the ball or engaging an opponent. That is blocking, shielding, obstruction and Off side. Rugby is a game of chance , opportunity and unpredictability : The Last thing we want to do is clean it up - Player should be required by law to play the ball if available.
New laws to reduce the contest at the breakdown further. All we'll see is pick and go because defenders are less able to contest the breakdown. And why have they not demanded a straight put in at the scrum? It beggars belief that they bottled on that yet again. I'd rather see a real contest at scrum and breakdown which allows more turnovers from which backs can attack.
Now THIS I could get behind. Makes the refs feed. If they're so damned concerned about straight feeds and hooking, let them set the engagement, set the timing, and restart. Have the side judges watch for infringements.
Absolutely hate that World Rugby are constantly trying to punish smart defensive play. Italy are getting punished for actually knowing the rules? How does that make sense?
They have made it clear that they want to encourage more exciting rugby to make the game more of a spectacle for the fans. What happened in that game was boring to watch. Yes it was smart play from the Italians and nullified the English attack, but it borderline killed the game for those watching it. By changing that rule, it encourages a more expansive and fun game for the fans to enjoy. Italy weren't punished for knowing the rules, they clearly gained an advantage for using their brains and playing the rules to their advantage. This is not a punishment at all, it is a recognition by World Rugby that the rules were wrong and needed changing
So it's about entertaining people that don't understand the sport and maximising TV revenues. Why don't World Rugby just watch and play League or even Soccer.
I totally agree. I'll decide myself what is 'entertaining.' I don't agree with changing the rules; it's up to the players to find a way around good defensive play. Changing the rules will only invite new ways to play them. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Good call on the league suggestion.
They did adjust in the second half and punished them brutally by running through the middle.
Why did the rule read out after the clip about kicking for a lineout when clock is in the red have nothing to do with kicking for a lineout when clock is in the red?
I like the srcum put in rule, crooked feeds are wayyyyyyy to common.
I like how the ball can be picked up earlier by the 8, but tbh i didnt even they could only really do so when it wss at their feet lol.
No foot in the ruck is a little harsh, it was a good way to punish teams for weak ball security, but i can live with it.
The tackler getting on his feet and now having to get onside is a huge gamechanger, every team has a group of players who are great at capitalising in this situation.
I hope they officiate this consistently thougb, cos i sense a lot of penalties are about to come from this.
The offside line appearing as soon as atking teams player has secured the breakdown, whether the opposition is there or not is a good one imo.
The azzuris were smart to capitalise on this technicality, but there barnes was right when he said it just didnt look rigjt.
Ne law is just common sense imo.
What great shows. Thanks for the explanations Wayne!
4:26
Wayne Barnes ‘hands on’
Wow. I'm already not happy about the Italy law change. The All Blacks have used that tactic for YEARS in different games and all of a sudden it's a problem because England had it done on them by Italy and NOT the ABs. Lame change but at least they're making the offside line more consistent. We'll see if they call it right.
New Zealand will adapt as always. They don't need to use Italian tactics to beat England. STFU.
Vardy broheim Actually, I was more referring to the fact that England took on the ABs many times where this EXACT TACTIC was used and they didn't take umbrage THEN when it was done. Why the outrage by Eddy Jones when Italy did it? Was it because former England coaches recognized it as a legit tactic or is Eddy Jones just a little cranky in his shorts? What New Zealand does wasn't the point of my comment, more that England are pushing a rule change at a curious time, IMO.
Referring Itlaly Law it looks like an age old situation which has not yet been addressed. The supporting player(s) stand over & beyond the ball. They were not engaged with an opponent ; yet they go past the ball and shield it from being played. That is obstruction and playing the man without the ball from an offside position even if he was there ; Which he was not. THE PLAYER IN SUPPORT MUST PLAY THE BALL -- IF NOT THEN GO BACK BEHIND IT AND STARE AT IT !!!
BigBlack81 give me a link to wear the ab used that I think they were just offside
The tackler law is bs. It is simple as it is. come through the gate unless youre a tackler prior to a formed ruck. simple as
It's done to make the ruck simpler to ref and also means it's harder for the defensive team to jackal encourages attacking quick rugby one of the law changes I actually agree with
As a guy who loved to jackal that way i am biased i hated it. and as a ref, it was an easy law to judge.
As a no.7 I hate both new breakdown laws. Is a line out not rugby anymore? Why are we encouraging the ball to stay in play when 1 of the 2 set peice arts is being reduced by these money grabbing rules. It is literally encouraging the less rugby educated fans to keep watching.
Rugby was meant to be the running game. Loosen the rules to let the forwards beat themselves up in scrums, mauls and rucks : They will tire quickly creating more space & time in the open. Then change back to the old fat ball with FULL 20 meter try zones and the game will open up.
One substitution for the entire match - if they don't like it ; they can always take up tennis.
@@gordon7527 stop subs altogether? Unless someone is genuinely hurt !
Good, we are getting back to basics.
Rugby Union.
Now, if they would just get rid of the 'fair catch' rule. Would love to see more up and unders with the ball being contested near the tryline.
Then that’s all anyone would do, there would be no incentive to actually go for the line if they could just kick into the goal area all the time.
Just asking but why do they not use in the new pro14 season
A lot changes here that Rugby League stopped, in some cases 20+ yrs ago. The kicking at the ruck (RL has play the balls) was banned when I was 13yrs old & I'm 43 now.
5.30 Eddie Jones and England complain about a smart tactic Italy uses, So yeah IRB let’s change this so England don’t struggle, WTF.
Not quite. If it was that smart a tactic teams would have used it much more than just Italy on one occasion (and Australia I think a year or two before). The only reason Italy did it was so they wouldn't get absolutely thrashed at Twickenham, so they exploited a rulebook loophole. It was the most unsportsmanlike 'tactic' I've ever seen playing the game. If Italy had played that way against Ireland or Wales everybody would be saying the same thing, but because it was against England everyone loved it.
It's really quite simple let's get a away a bit from this present day rock'em, sock'em style of rugby and back to its original form of wide open flare and excitement. This can be accomplished by dispensing of the torpedo ball now in use, and going back to the original more rounded ball. Doing so will promote using two hands on the ball instead of tuck it and crash like american football. Secondly the old style ball has a softer more predictable bounce, promoting the chip & chase / recover, Up & Under, etc. Full length try zones would also enhance this part of the game.
There would be more movement and transition with the old type ball. This is what we want ; not the stolid chess matches with wide flat lines and man to man defense reminiscent of trench warfare.
The open, flowing game is attainable without adding more limits and rules on rucking and mauling. When the ball carrier hits the ground the ball should already be presented and playable. This process needs to be completed by the time the ball carrier comes in contact with the ground : And is solely & totally his responsibility.
Show less
REPLY
Top ref my arse!
I think they’ve had a typo here. They’ve accidentally called Wayne Barnes a “top ref.” Which I don’t think I even need to explain why that’s wrong. I’m sure they’ll fix it.
So suits curtain teams but not all.....great!
What’s the club called in red and black
Is this only for the premiership?
With the Italy game I thought, this is good England are struggling
Sounds like the refs just asked Eddie Jones what Eddie Jones would like.
This would have been great ...but why do the players demonstrating have the same colour shirts!!
It's funny because they described Wayne Barnes as a "top ref"
Logan Williams he is
changing the rules to make it easier for the already advantaged top tier nations... HOW on Gods earth is that supposed to develop the game? these rule changes were precipitated by the cunning and cleaver tactics employed by teams that were out gunned or inferior are we to penalise cleaver tactics by giving in to big boys crying over the fact they havn't thrashed smaller teams by 50, 60 ,70pts? No one want's to see teams getting hammered I want competitive games WITH Scrums and Lineouts and engagement if I wanted to watch a game of hard running and no lineouts and scrums I'd look at league!
Where would Rugby Union be without Barnes making a dog’s breakfast of the interpretation of the rules...Come back Nigel...all is forgiven!
Consulted Hansen and Jones. There is your answer. All to negate the Springboks winning again....
Lol Nigel Owens is better
Rugby is becoming less popular and thses CONSTANT rules changes AREN'T helping. Less fans, less players, less people wanting to coach and referee.
Or just watch Rugby League instead
Re inventing the wheel. Typical english. Just got to be in charge. The laws have slowly taken responsibility away from the players themselves.
"Top Ref" is a bit generous for Barnesy #Useless
VERY generous. XD
over complicated...
When was Wayne Barnes ever a top referee......
I still don't like Barnes
Top ref 😂😂😂
Wayne Barnes, top ref?? Laughable!! Worst ref to ever step on a rugby field
Wayne Barnes talks about keeping continuity but most games he keeps stopping play. Talking bullshit Wayne
worst ref in international rugby, bar none
Wayne Barnes worse ref ever
Lol, Wayne Barnes basically in the English camp, allowed to officiate all black and English games, him and poite are as crooked as my knob.
Barnes Not happy unless he's blowing a penalty against the blacks or has a camera in his face,
I've got an idea Wayne, shut YOUR mouth and call the game properly.
Shame about your knob.
Wayne Barnes can't ref