KSA Shark ©

IRB cautious of changes

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :Uncategorized on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:53
Tagged with :

The International Rugby Board council is expected to approve only some of the experimental law variations for a worldwide trial, starting in August, when it debates the new rules at a momentous meeting in Dublin.

Bret Harris writes in The Australian that there has been a recommendation to the IRB by the laws project group to trial all eight of the laws, which is supported by the Australian Rugby Union, but this is unlikely to receive the necessary 75 per cent backing of the 26-man council.

Most of the opposition to the laws is coming from European nations such as Ireland and Wales and, to a lesser degree, England.

The laws which are most likely to be adopted are the standing back five metres from the scrum and not kicking out on the full when the ball has been passed back into the 22.

But there is concern about the offside line at the tackle contest, the use of hands in the ruck, the awarding of free-kicks instead of penalties for most offences and collapsing the maul.

If the council decides against trialling all of the laws, the IRB is expected to move to have the whole package trialled in a professional northern hemisphere competition such as the Anglo-Welsh club league as soon as possible.

This would allow the possibility of all of the new laws being introduced at the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand.

“It will come down to which laws are suitable and which aren’t,” IRB communications general manager Greg Thomas said.

“The recommendation is for the laws to be trialled in their entirety, but other people believe this should not be the case.

“The feeling around the world is that some of the laws are worth trialling, while others are the cause for more debate.”

The IRB is also expected to approve a recommendation to announce the next two World Cup host nations.

Tthe Rugby World Cup host is selected on a four-year cycle, but there is a belief that this system works against non-traditional rugby nations which may need longer to organise the event.


  • This whole process has been a shambles, starting from the top with that clown Paddy o’Brien.

    Communicattion has been poor and they are effectively asking the NH to vote on changes without even really trialling them.

    Add to the fact that the effect on the amateur game will be huge and suddenly this whole process is a farce.

    What is the point in forcing chanegs on millions of amateur players simply because the professional code, played by less than 10,000 players worldwide.

    For all we know the effect on the amateur game could be disastrous.
    Yet they are asking the RFU to vote on this without considering the effect on the almost 800k players in England alone.

    And then, when the RFU decide to consult their stakeholders, in this case the hundreds of thousands of amateur players, they are accused of all sorts of skulduggery by the Ozzies and Kiwis.

    Its disgraceful and I for one hope the NH tell them to shove their changes up their antipodean areas, not because I dislike the changes but simply because the antipodeans need to be shown their place once and for all.

  • Comment 1, posted at 30.04.08 12:35:46 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • Why didn’t the whole world start with the new laws all at the same time?

  • Comment 2, posted at 30.04.08 16:44:05 by racheltjiedebeer Reply

  • Other than Japan & USA, what other ‘non-traditional rugby nations’ would be willing and able to host the world cup?

  • Comment 3, posted at 30.04.08 16:46:28 by racheltjiedebeer Reply

  • Canada?

  • Comment 4, posted at 30.04.08 17:25:46 by robdylan (Sharks Forever!) Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Probably…

  • Comment 5, posted at 30.04.08 17:57:32 by racheltjiedebeer Reply


Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.