History of the Laws of Rugby Football
The First Rules
The work to draw up the first rules of Rugby football started on 25 August 1845 and ended on 28th August. The work was done by three senior pupils at Rugby School after they received instructions to codify the game of Football.
The three pupils were William Delafield Arnold, the seventeen year old son of the former headmaster, W.W. Shirley, who was just sixteen and Frederick Hutchins.
They submitted 37 Rules to the Sixth Levee; they were immediately passed and a Rule Book was printed. The rules were updated regularly over the coming years, in 1846-7 for example a large committee met to review and revise the rules but only a few minor changes were made.
In 1862 an attempt was made to "codify the customs" See 1862 Rules.
The 1871 Laws
On 26th January, 1871, The Rugby Football Union was founded in the Pall Mall Restaurant in Regent Street, London, to standardize the rules that also removed some of the more violent aspects of the Rugby School game.
Along with the founding of the Rugby Football Union a committee was formed, and three ex-Rugby School pupils (Rutter, Holmes and L.J. Maton), all lawyers, were invited to help formulate a set of rules, being lawyers they formulated 'laws' not 'rules'.
President 1871-74
(Richmond)
(Richmond)
President 1875-76
(Wimbledon Hornets)Most of the work was done by Maton as he broke his leg playing rugby and was laid up so he attempted the first draft. He did this in Holmes' law chambers. This task was completed and the laws were accepted by the full committee on 22 June 1871, and brought into force by a Special General Meeting 2 days later. The laws outlawed the practice of hacking and tripping.
Six Scottish clubs i.e. Glasgow Academicals, Edinburgh University in 1871 and Edinburgh Academicals, Royal High School and Edinburgh Wanderers in 1872, recognized that this new code was more comprehensive and up to date than their own 'Green book' and adopted it, as well as becoming members of the RFU.
Laws used for the first International
Reference: The Glasgow Herald March 25, 1871 which reported that the match would use the Rugby School rules with two minor alterations (both which were customary in the London area):
1. The ball, on going into touch, is to be thrown into the ground again from the spot where it crossed the line, and not where it first pitched into touch.2. For a try at goal, the ball is brought out in a straight line from where it was touched down. (This would eliminate the alternative choice of punting it out after a touch down).
In the London area there was a generally-observed rule that a player could gather up a ball whether rolling or bounding. Scottish clubs only allowed it in the latter case and this was agreed for the first international.
Formation of the International Rugby Football Board
In 1884 England played Scotland at Blackheath, in the second half, Kindersley of England was awarded a try by Irish Referee A Scriven. This was hotly disputed by Scotland since C.W. Berry (Scotland) had knocked the ball back immediately before Kindersley picked it up and this was illegal in the eyes of the Scots, but not the English. An important point to note was that the advantage law was not introduced until 1896 and so if this was illegal, then play had to stop. It was agreed to continue the game and refer this to the Rugby Union Committee afterwards. However, the SRU and the RFU could not agree and the match the following year was not scheduled as a result.
When the Irish Union met for their AGM in 1885 they recommended that the 4 home unions meet and discus forming a body to settle any such international disputes. The unions then met in Dublin in 1886 and at that meeting Scotland offered to drop their dispute to the 1884 result if England joined such an international body which composed and equal number of representatives from each union. The international board was then inaugurated in Manchester in 1886 but the RFU were not represented and would not accept the constitutional terms the IB was established under.
When the RFU amended their laws, the other unions did not accept this and referred the decision to the IB. The RFU then offered to allow representatives of the other unions to their committee meetings but this was ignored.
In December 1887 the IB made a statement that IB rules must apply to all international matches and that no games with England would be arranged until they joined the IB. There fore no games were played in 1888 and 1889.
The dispute then went to arbitration and Lord Kingsburgh, the Lord Justice Clerk and Major Marindin, president of the Football Association met in April 1890 and made a judgment which established the International Rugby Football Board. Hence forth all international games were played under the IRFB rules. Due to the size of the English union it was awarded 6 members on the board whereas the other unions got 2 a piece.
In 1892 a systematic revision of the laws occurred.
In 1910 the RFU volunteered to reduce its IB votes from 6 to 4.
Up till 1930 each union had its own set of laws for its home matches. In 1930 England proposed and Ireland seconded that "all matches should be played under the laws of the International board.
Report on law changes 1931-32 by E. H. D. Sewell
In 1947 New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were admitted with 2 votes each, then given to all member unions. France were admitted in 1978 and in 1991 Argentina, Canada, Italy and Japan were admitted.
So as of 2006 the IRB consists of the eight foundations Unions each with two seats - Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and France. Argentina, Canada, Italy and Japan each have one seat on the Council as does FIRA-AER.
Red and Yellow cards
The system of using yellow and red cards by the referee was invented by a Association Football referee Ken Ashton.
Aston thought of the yellow and red cards while sitting at a traffic light after attending the 1966 World Cup quarter-final between England and Argentina. Newspapers had reported that both Jack and Bobby Charlton had been booked, but there was no public indication of this from the referee. The Argentinian captain Antonio Rattin had to be led off the field after being sent off as he apparently didn't understand what was happening. Aston pondered how to make the position clearer. "As I drove down Kensington High Street, the traffic light turned red. I thought, 'Yellow, take it easy; red, stop, you're off'."
The idea was subsequently adopted by Association football at national and international level. Red and yellow cards were introduced to the game at the World Cup finals in Mexico in 1970.
In 1976, colored cards made their first appearance at League matches. However, there was still resistance from some quarters. Players complained that referees were showing the cards too often. The cards were removed between 1981 and 1987. The game became more messy so the referees and the administrators had to get together to define some ground rules for the use of the yellow and red cards. The cards returned to the field in 1988 but it wasn't until 1992 that the cards were actually incorporated into the Laws of the Game and made mandatory at all levels. Ken Ashton died aged 86 on October 23, 2001.
Yellow cards are also in use in other sports, such as volleyball, women's lacrosse, field hockey, rugby union, rugby league in many countries, and handball.
In both rugby codes, a player shown a yellow card is suspended from the game for 10 minutes (colloquially termed being sent to the 'sin bin', although neither Rugby nor Ice Hockey where the concept came from, call it a 'sin bin'). The bin lasts ten minutes within a single eighty minute game. It is playing time, it stops when the clock is stopped for injury, and does not expire at the end of the first half.
Piet Robbertse, a Test and Currie Cup Final referee and later the chairman of South African referees recounts a time when Bertie Strasheim, a top referee in the Sixties who refereed Tests and the 1968 Currie Cup Final, was once refereeing a game where he ordered a prop to sit on the touch-line till he called him back, which he did after three minutes or so. Strasheim did this as there was no middle measure between letting the nuisance stay on the field and sending him off.
Robbertse says this provoked a lot of discussion and Dr Craven tested the idea in his law laboratory at Stellenbosch where there is the highly competitive internal league.
Then South Africa proposed the concept of a 'cooler' to the International Rugby Board in 1972 but the idea was rejected. They proposed it again in 1975 and again it was rejected. But in 1979 South Africa was given dispensation to use and report on the introduction of 'the cooler'. It was allowed in domestic competition in South Africa but did not apply to matches involving teams from abroad. (Two years later rugby league in New South Wales adopted the use of the sin bin.)
The 'cooler' was not intended for repeated infringement or what has come to be called professional/cynical infringement. It was intended to do what the name suggests - cool down a player who was getting heated under the collar. It was originally set to five minutes' duration.
Eventually the sin bin or temporary suspension was introduced into the game. It was used under dispensation in the Southern Hemisphere and then on 29 January 2000 it was included in the experimental law variations that followed the 1999 Rugby World Cup (set to 10 minutes). The sin bin was then used in the Six Nations that year for the first time.
A red card is a sending off as it is in Association football.
It has been possible to send a play off since 1888 when it was written down that a player should be sent off for foul play, however, the showing of a red card is a relatively recent addition. There has also been instructions to deal with deliberate infringement i.e. 1911: Referees must deal very sharply with all cases of this nature, as this has been a growing practice through players deciding to take the risk of a penalty to gain or save a try by unfair play. This practice is so contrary to the spirit of the game, that the Board have decided to deal with it upon the same footing as rough or foul play or misconduct.
The new law stated:
10.6 YELLOW AND RED CARDS
(a) When a player has been cautioned and temporarily suspended in an
International match the referee will show that player a yellow card.
(b) When a player has been sent off in an International match, the referee
will show that player a red card.
(c) For other matches the Match Organiser or Union having jurisdiction over
the match may decide upon the use of yellow and red cards.The first yellow card shown in an international was during the All blacks 1995 tour of France when Irish referee Gordon Black showed it to the All blacks lock Mark Cooksley after he'd punched an opponent in a midweek match at Nancy. The ref later found out that it had yet to be introduced officially but it was shortly afterwards.
The first 'official' recipient of a yellow card in a Test match was Ben Clarke, playing for England against Ireland at Lansdowne Road. He stamped on his Bath club mate Simon Geoghegan in the 63rd minute and was shown a yellow card, but played on. Playing on after a yellow card remained law till after the 1999 Rugby World Cup. Then temporary suspension of ten minutes was introduced, signalled by the brandishing of a yellow card.
The first yellow card shown at a world cup was to Argentina's Roberto Grau (ARG) by referee Paddy O'Brien in the 15th minute of the match against Wales in Cardiff at RWC 1999, whereas, Italian Alessandro Moscardi holds the record for most yellow cards at a world cup. At RWC 1999, Moscardi was sent to the sin bin in matches against England, Tonga and New Zealand.
The first player sent off in a world cup match was Wales' Hugh Richards - by referee Kerry Fitzgerald in the 71st minute of the semi-final against New Zealand in Brisbane at RWC 1987.
Incidentally, the French at one stage had a white card as well. Yellow and red were for varying degrees of foul play, the white card for law infractions. The white card has subsequently disappeared.
Replacements/substitutions
The Replacement of injured players was added to the 1968-69 Laws (law 12: up to two players per team).
Mike Gibson replaced Barry John in the Lion’s first test against South Africa in 1968 was the first official replacement in a test match (although replacements happened unofficially in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia before that.
Tactical substitutions were introduced in 1996 (three replacements).
Modern Laws (provided by the IRB)
Note: For the latest laws, amendments and regulations visit the IRB website, there is a wealth of information there, well worth a visit.
Laws:
2012 IRB Laws 2011 IRB Laws 2010 IRB Laws 2009 IRB Laws 2008 IRB Laws 2007 IRB Laws 2006 IRB Laws 2005 IRB Laws 2003 IRB Laws
IRB Law Clarifications/Rulings:
Date Ruling No. Request by Laws Affected Description Included into Law 4 Nov 11 2011-04 ARU 12 Ball ripped from ball carrier by opponent (Not currently on iRB Laws site) 4 Nov 11 2011-03 ARU 11 10m Law application after ball 'touched' (Not currently on iRB Laws site) 4 Nov 11 2011-02 ARU 17 Maul going to ground (Not currently on iRB Laws site) 18 May 11 2011-01 RFU 3 Front row replacement in uncontested scrums 19 Mar 10 2010-03 WRU 22 Doubt about grounding 11 Mar 10 2010-02 WRU 13 Restart at end of match 10 Mar 10 2010-01 IRFU 3 Front row replacement in uncontested scrums 11 Nov 09 2009-09 IRFU 19 Receiver running into gap at lineout 16 Oct 09 2009-08 SRU 10 Obstruction at maul following a lineout 25 Aug 09 2009-07 USAR 10/16 binding when joining a ruck 10 Aug 09 2009-06 ARU 20/LAG^ U19 Numbers in the scrum 2009 10 Aug 09 2009-05 RFU 3 Uncontested scrums and all replacements used 11 May 09 2009-04 ARU/NZRU 15/16 Playing ball legally before ruck forms - Can player continue to handle ball? 2009 08 Apr 09 2009-03 FFR 5 Scrum Collapse after time/Lineout offence after time 2010 16 Oct 09 2009-02 Rev SARU 22 Simultaneous grounding and touch in-goal 2009 07 Apr 09 2009-02 SARU 22 Simultaneous grounding and touch in-goal 19 Mar 09 2009-01 RFU 12 Quick throw after a knock on into touch 2010 24 Sept 08 2008-04 RFU 17 Defence voluntarily leaving a maul 13 May 08 2008-03 NZRU 20 No.8 Shove on scrum engagement 2009 13 May 08 2008-02 ARU 3 Uncontested scrum sanctions 21 Jan 08 2008-01 RFU 22 Stationary & moving ball clarification 2009 1 Oct 07 2007-03 GRU 16 Defence voluntarily leaving a ruck 12 Mar 07 2007-02 IRFU 3 Substitutions at a penalty kick 17 Feb 07 2007-01 RFU 20 Scrum Engagement at all age levels 29 Nov 06 2006-09 FFR 17 Tackling the ball carrier in the maul 29 Nov 06 2006-08 FFR 16 Diving over players on the ground at a ruck 14 Nov 06 2006-07 SRU 10 Flying Wedge Question 14 Nov 06 2006-06 IRFU 10 Tackle that starts low but ends high 2009 14 Nov 06 2006-05 FFR 4 Definition of Jersey, shorts & underwear 14 Nov 06 2006-04 SARU 4 Elastic long sleeves with manufacturers mark 06 May 06 2006-03 FFR 3/LAG^ U19 - Do locks require suitable training? 10 Jan 06 2006-02 FFR 19/21 Penalty kick for goal hits post and goes into touch 10 Jan 06 2006-01 FFR 13/18 Mark after a restart 25 Oct 05 2005-07 ARU 20 Scrum half offside line at scrum 2009 30 Sep 05 2005-06 $ ARU 3 Re-request of clarification to ruling 2005-04 30 Sep 05 2005-05 IRFU 10 Spear Tackles 2009 15 Aug 05 2005-04 ARU 3 Front row replacements after a temporary suspension 30 Jun 05 2005-03 FPR 21 Intention to kick for goal, then take a quick tap 01 Apr 05 2005-02 FFR 6 Non player touching the ball in the field of play 01 Apr 05 2005-01 IRFU 16 Rucking the ball and other players 2009 24 Dec 04 2004-10 WRU 19/21 Quick throw taken into 22m & Propelling ball with thigh 23 Dec 04 2004-09 IRFU 10/22 Penalty try & Temporary Suspension 01 Sep 04 2004-08 JRFU 15 Other players in a tackle 2009 23 Jun 04 2004-07 SRU 19 Receiver in the line out 2009 04 Jun 04 2004-06 FFR 3 Front row replacements 04 Jun 04 2004-05 ARU 19 Receiver in the line out 24 May 04 2004-04 RFU 19 Receiver in the line out 2009 20 Feb 04 2004-03 JRFU 15 Players not going to ground in a tackle 2009 10 Jan 04 2004-02 FIR 3/19 Front row replacements & Played into own 22m 20 Jan 04 2004-01 WRU 3/14 Player laying on ground tackling & Front row replacements 2009 02 Sep 03 2003-14 UAR 19 Picking up a stationary ball outside the 22m with feet in 22m 2009 18 Aug 03 2003-13 SRU 15 Tackler not going to ground 2009 05 Aug 03 2003-12 RFU 3 Front row replacements 24 Jul 03 2003-11 NZRU 15/17 Forming & collapsing a maul 24 Jul 03 2003-10 NZRU 3 Blood bin over half time 24 Jul 03 2003-09 IRFU 3 Front row replacements 20 Jan 03 2003-08 IRFU 15/17 Tackling a player in a maul 03 Jul 03 2003-07 UAR 10/19 Heading a ball into touch 03 Jul 03 2003-06 SRU 17 Players forming a maul in specific order 27 Jun 03 2003-05 ARU 3 Front row replacements 12 Jun 03 2003-04 NZRU 3 Front row replacements 07 Jun 03 2003-03 SRU 15/17 Tackling the player in the maul 07 Jun 03 2003-02 SRU 3 Front row replacement management 15 Jan 03 2003-01 SARU 19 Receiver in the line out 2009 15 Nov 02 2002-09 Dutch Rugby Union 19 Receiver in the line out 2009 29 Oct 02 2002-08 Rugby Canada 20 Position of locks head in a scrum 01 Oct 02 2002-07 FPR 13 Ball kicked into touch from a kick off, but has not travelled 10m 05 Sep 02 2002-06 IRFU 6/21 Quick tap from a scrum FK or PK 05 Sep 02 2002-05 IRFU 19 Receiver in the line out 23 Jul 02 2002-04 WRU 6/8/10 Quick tap from a scrum FK or PK 23 Jul 02 2002-03 RFU 19 Receiver in the line out 17 May 02 2002-02 RFU 19 Peeling off from the line out 20 Mar 02 2002-01 SRU 3 Clarification of 15 min blood bin Full Regulations:
2011 2008 2007 Evolution of modern laws
"The History of the Laws of Rugby Football" pub 1949 contains 241 pages of changes to the laws that have occurred over the years. "The History of the Laws of Rugby Football 1949 - 1972 contains a further 83 pages.
As you can see although the basic principles remain the same today, extensive attempts have been made over decades to refine the laws, remove ambiguity and improve the enjoyment and safety of the game.
An interesting chapter in the development of the laws was the creation of "The Laws in Plain English" read the full story here.
Experimental Law Variations (ELVs)
Problems were observed with the previous laws revolving around the fact that in practice the contest for the ball was often halted through law infringements. Different referees used different interpretations of the complex laws, resulting in many games being decided by penalty goals awarded by referees for infringements that were not immediately obvious to observers or even the players.
2004 - Project launched.
2005 - Laws Project Group formed.
2006 - Laws devised with initial tests at Stellenbosch University
2007 - Trials begin of 23 rule changes
2008 - Global Trials start of 13 of the initial 23 proposed rule changes
2009 - Final set of rules proposed for approval by conference
2010 - Approved changes to be approved by council and go into effect.
The ELVs were based on proposals made in the mid 2000s, and came to wider prominence following the 2007 Rugby World Cup when outgoing IRB president Syd Millar explained that in his opinion amendments were needed because delays in the release of the ball from the contest for possession were having adverse effects. In his view, the domination of defence over attack was slowing the continuity of play, exemplified by what some viewers considered a dour final match in which no tries were scored.
Millar said that the game needed to be sped up a bit, to make it easier to play, easier to referee, easier to understand and to produce more options for the players. The amendments concentrate on rucks and mauls, but include other aspects which help keep the ball in play and reduce stoppages for infringements and penalties.
IRB's ELV Educational Video
Bernard Lapasset Chairman, International Rugby Board welcomed the decision by the IRB Council in 2004 to review the Laws of the Game following recommendations that came out of the Conference on the Playing of the Game that was held in Auckland after Rugby World Cup 2003.
Subsequently, work was undertaken by an IRB Laws Project Group to study a group of Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) with the assistance of a number of Member Unions. The IRB trialled games at Stellenbosch University in South Africa using the experimental laws in 2006.IRB Laws Project Group (The Laws Project Group was dissolved in April 2009 after selected ELV's were incorporated into the Laws of Rugby):
Laws Project Group:
- Chairman and IRB Council member Bill Nolan;
- ex-IRB president, Dr Syd Millar;
- IRB vice-chairman and former England International, Bill Beaumont
- IRB Development Manager Bruce Cook;
- IRB Medical Officer, Mick Molloy;
- former World Cup winning Wallaby coach Rod Macqueen;
- former Springbok coach Ian McIntosh;
- former Scottish coach Richie Dixon;
- former French player, coach and former IRB Regional Development Manager Pierre Villepreux;
- former All Black captain and Wellington coach Graham Mourie;
- the IRB Referee Manager Paddy O'Brien.
Resource editorial team: Steve Griffiths, Mark Harrington.
Resource consultancy team: Jean-Luc Barthes, Bernd Gabbei, Keith Hole, Tom Jones, Douglas Langley, Clive Leeke, Mike Luke, Mike Miller, Lee Smith, Greg Thomas.After the initial trials at Stellenbosch University, the laws were enacted in the following competitions:
- Scotland's Super Cup tournament for Premiership teams from January 2007.
- Cambridge University in the first division of their inter-college league.
- England's County Championship.
- The Shute Shield club competition in New South Wales.
- Brisbane club competitions.
- The defunct Australian Rugby Championship, in response to the popular feedback received from the NSW and Queensland club competitions.
- The international provincial Super 14 competition in 2008.
The South African, New Zealand and Australian rugby unions requested that the laws be introduced to the Tri Nations in 2008 as well but Syd Millar said the results in the Super 14, which is "near enough international level", needed to be studied before use in matches between nations can be sanctioned.
Following this unprecedented work, the Council approved a global trial at all levels of the Game of certain Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) which began on August 1, 2008. Lapasset also stated that this decision to implement a global trial represents an important milestone for the future of the Game.
The trial involved 13 ELVs that were undergoing practical on field experimentation in approved tournaments around the world over the previous two years.The global trial of the IRB Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) started on August 1, 2008 and lasted 12 months.
This guide introduces these 13 ELVs: Guide to the ELVs
However, due to the fact that the southern hemisphere season commenced in February there were some southern tournaments that were trialling more than the 13 ELVs that were approved for global trials from August 1. Special dispensation was given to the southern hemisphere Unions to continue the more extensive ELV trials that were already in place. These tournamentscame into line in with the global trial at the start of the following southern hemisphere season.
Obviously there was a lot of debate at the time concerning whether the ELVs would improve the game or not, here is an example featured on the IRB's Total Rugby Radio 201 on January 22nd, 2009.
For the ELVs..
- Rod Macqueen (former Wallaby coach, member of IRB Laws Project Group)
- Paddy O'Brien (IRB Referee Manager, member of IRB Laws Project Group)
Against the ELVS..
- Eddie Jones (former Wallaby coach, Saracens Director of Rugby)
- Stephen Jones (Rugby Correspondent, UK Sunday Times)
The Player's view..
- David Barnes (Bath Rugby prop, Chairman PRA)
"What the Law changes have done is advantage the defensive team.. In my mind they've been an absolute failure in terms of improving the Game."
(Eddie Jones)
"The issue with Eddie is very similar to a lot of the things that are coming out of the Northern Hemisphere - he's missing the point."
(Rod Macqueen)
"I guess the ones that have caused the strongest opinions from the players are the Maul and the Lineout..
"Some of the Laws have meant that scrummaging is now more important."
(David Barnes)The IRB next convende a meeting with representatives from the IRB Law Project Group, Executive Committee and Union representatives in March 2009
28th March, 2009
Top nations gathered in London to discuss the experimental law variations, that were being trialled on a global basis at that time. This full review of the ELV programme made recommendations to the IRB Rugby Committee which ELVs, if any, should be adopted into Law. The Rugby Committee was then to report to the IRB Council in July 2009 the IRB was then to determine one set of uniform Laws that would be played globally from August 2009 onwards.
The IRB who was organising the conference was to come armed with statistics about how ball-in-play time had increased since the ELV introductions, and how the game became more entertaining as a consequence. Any changes needed a 75% majority in May to come into force.
The RFU conducted exhaustive research into the impact of ELVs, analysing every match in the 2008-09 Guinness Premiership, as well as England’s nine internationals. Conclusions were that far from having positive impact, the changes made rugby more defence-oriented with fewer sides willing to take risks and a surfeit of kicking out of hand resulted as a consequence. Referees also complained the ELVs make their job more complicated.
Six Nations representatives met to discuss the variations during the 2009 six nations competition – England, Wales and Ireland were resolutely opposed to the vast majority, Scotland was in support, France equivocated and Italy did not attend, although Italian head coach Nick Mallett is known to oppose the maul rule.
The main supporters of the ELVs were in Sanzar, namely Australia, with New Zealand and South Africa’s position being they would have liked to see some changes30th March 2009
Following widespread criticism that the impact of the ELVs, which included removing the maul as an attacking option because the defending team were allowed to legally collapse it, has led to mindless kicking and resulted in backlines being clogged up with forwards, the IRB asked McGeechan to address a meeting of the world rugby unions and other stakeholders at the Lensbury Club in south London. McGeechan, saw his own side Wasps' try-count fall dramatically from 63 last season to only 23 under the ELVs.
31st March 2009
Senior stakeholders from the international Rugby community, including a number of the world’s top coaches, referees and administrators, met in London on Monday and Tuesday to review the Game’s Experimental Law Variations (ELV) programme. The four-year programme was to culminate in a decision in May by the IRB Council as to which ELVs might be accepted permanently into the Laws of the Game.
The aim of the Conference was to assess the impact of the global ELV trial and the additional variations being trialled by the SANZAR Unions, as well as to evaluate other ELVs being trialled by individual Unions. The Conference was hosted by the IRB Rugby Committee and Laws Project Group (LPG).
“We held a positive and constructive meeting at which all stakeholders were able to share their opinions on each of the ELVs. This was an important milestone for the ELV programme and it was crucial that robust discussion was entered into and that all positive and negative impacts of the ELVs were raised” Naturally opinions differed in several areas of the ELV programme. The IRB regards this as a healthy and positive state of affairs as the Game’s Laws have always and should continue to allow coaches and players to interpret Law so that different styles of play can be employed.”
“The Unions tabled detailed research and analysis to support their views. Everyone had the opportunity to air their views. What was clear was that there was agreement on many aspects of the ELVs and a collective will to see a return to one set of Laws to govern the Game as soon as possible.”
“This conference was not a decision-making meeting but at the end of the day the conference provided a set of collective recommendations on the ELVs to assist the IRB Rugby Committee in formulating its final recommendations for the IRB Council meeting on 13 May. Council will then decide which ELVs, if any, should be fully integrated into Law,” - Lapasset.
The Conference was the next step in the extensive global ELV consultation and evaluation process. Attendees were also presented with Game analysis and statistical surveys from over 800 matches, involving more than 3,000 players, coaches and referees at the Elite and Participation levels of the Game from 15 IRB Member Unions.
“It is has been a long road since the genesis of the ELV programme at the Conference on the Playing of the Game in Auckland in January 2004 when national coaches and administrators gathered following Rugby World Cup 2003 to debate the state of the Game,” said Lapasset.
“Collectively the participants requested that the IRB look into the Laws of the Game and mandated it to undertake a major review in areas such as the lineout, maul and sanctions, including turning penalties for technical offences into free kicks. The Laws Project Group was subsequently conceived, as were the Experimental Law Variations with initial trials starting in 2005.”
“In the past Law changes were discussed in theory and implemented without on-field testing but importantly this ELV programme has included global practical trials. The entire process is now coming to an end and the IRB would like to sincerely thank its Member Unions for their participation in what has been an unprecedented review of the Laws of the Game,” added Lapasset.
Recommendations for the IRB Rugby Committee
The following was recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law:
- Law 6 – Assistant Referees allowed
- Law 19 – Kicking directly into touch from ball played back into 22 equals no gain in ground
- Law 19 – Quick Throw permitted in any direction except forward
- Law 19 – Positioning of player in opposition to the player throwing-in to be two metres away from lineout and the line of touch
- Law 19 – Pre-gripping of lineout jumpers allowed
- Law 19 – Lifting in the lineout allowed
- Law 19 – Positioning of Receiver must be two metres away from lineout
- Law 20 – Five-metre offside line at the Scrum
- Law 20 – Scrum half offside line at the Scrum
- Law 22 – Corner Posts no longer touch in goal
The following was not recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law:
- Law 17 - Maul - Head and Shoulders not to be lower than hips
- Law 17 - Maul - Pulling Down the Maul
- Law 19 – Freedom for each team to determine Lineout Numbers
- Sanctions and Free Kicks (subsidiary recommendation for further examination)
- Tackle/Ruck Infringements (subsidiary recommendation for ruling in law to be sought by a Union to clarify interpretation of current Law)
Other Union-specific ELVs:
- Up to 15 minutes half time - recommended to Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
- Rolling substitutions for Community Game – recommended to Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
- Use of Under 19 variations at the scrum for Community Adult Game where agreed by the Union – recommended to Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
- Protocol to extend the remit of the TMO – not recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
ELV Conference attendees:
Bernard Lapasset (IRB Chairman), Bill Beaumont (IRB Vice Chairman and Laws Project Group), Mike Miller (IRB Chief Executive), Oregan Hoskins (IRB Executive Committee), Giancarlo Dondi (IRB Executive Committee), Peter Boyle (IRB Executive Committee), David Pickering (IRB Executive Committee), Jean Pierre Lux (IRB Rugby Committee), Geraint John (High Performance Director, Rugby Canada), Francis Baron (RFU), Rob Andrew (RFU), Kevin Bowring (RFU), Chris Cuthbertson (RFU), Roger Lewis (WRU), Joe Lydon (WRU), Bob Yeman (WRU), Phillip Browne (IRFU), Eddie Wigglesworth (IRFU), Owen Doyle (IRFU), Roy McCombe (SRU), Frank Hadden (SRU), Colin Thomson (SRU), Andre Watson (SARU), Johan Prinsloo (SARU), Peter de Villiers (SARU), David Nucifora (ARU), John O’Neill (ARU), Robbie Deans (ARU), Santiago Phelan (UAR), Ricardo Garcia Fernandez (UAR), Marcelo Toscano (UAR), Steve Tew (NZRU), Neil Sorensen (NZRU), Steve Hansen (NZRU), Nick Mallett (FIR), Francesco Ascione (FIR), Carlo Casagrande (FIR), Rene Hourquet (FFR), Jean Louis Barthes (FFR), Didier Retiere (FFR), Bill Nolan (Laws Project Group Chairman), Dr Syd Millar (Laws Project Group), Bruce Cook (Laws Project Group/IRB Development Manager), Ian McIntosh (Laws Project Group), Dr Mick Molloy (Laws Project Group/IRB Medical Officer), Graham Mourie (Chairman of IRB Rugby Committee & Laws Project Group), Paddy O’Brien (Laws Project Group/IRB Referee Manager), Pierre Villepreux (Laws Project Group), Richie Dixon (Laws Project Group), Rod Macqueen (Laws Project Group), Steve Griffiths (IRB Head of Technical Services), Corris Thomas (IRB Game Analysis), John Feehan (6 Nations), Derek McGrath (ERC Rugby), Ian McGeechan (British & Irish Lions), Lyndon Bray (NZRU Referee Manager), Nigel Owens (IRB Referee), Rob Nichol (IRPA), Damian Hopley (IRPA).
*At the conclusion of the conference the FFR tabled its proposal to deal with the issue of uncontested scrums. This will be further discussed by the Rugby Committee and Unions will be able to give further feedback before the May 13 Council meeting.
27th April, 2009
The International Rugby Board's Rugby Committee ratified recommendations made at the Experimental Law Variations (ELV) Conference on which ELVs should be recommended to the IRB Council for adoption into Law.
The Rugby Committee met in Dublin to review the ELV programme, including the SANZAR variations and the collective recommendations of the two-day Conference in London the previous month in order to formulate its final recommendations for the IRB Council meeting on 13 May.
In total 10 of the 13 ELVs that comprise the current global trial programme were recommended by the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law, supporting the recommendations made by the Game’s senior stakeholders at the Lensbury Conference.
These ELVs included the five-metre Scrum offside line, the quick throw-in, lifting of lineout jumpers, Assistant Referees and kicking directly into touch from the 22. The Committee also made recommendations that three Union-specific ELVs be adopted into Law, including the ability for a Union to implement a maximum 15-minute half time in matches under its jurisdiction.
The Rugby Committee evaluation was th next step in the global ELV consultation and evaluation process which began with the Conference of the Game in 2004. On 13 May the IRB Council would decide which ELVs, if any, should be fully integrated into Law.
Recommendations for the IRB Council
The following is recommended to the IRB Council for adoption into Law:
- Law 6 – Assistant Referees able to assist Referees in any way the Referee requires
- Law 19 – If a team puts the ball back in their own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch there is no gain in ground
- Law 19 – A quick throw may be thrown in straight or towards the throwing team’s goal line
- Law 19 – The receiver at the lineout must be two metres back away from the lineout
- Law 19 – The player who is in opposition to the player throwing in the ball must stand in the area between the five metre line and touch line and must be two metres from the line of touch and at least two metres from the lineout
- Law 19 – Lineout players may pre-grip a jumper before the ball is thrown in
- Law 19 – The lifting of lineout jumpers is permitted
- Law 20 – Introduction of an offside line five metres behind the hindmost feet of the Scrum
- Law 20 – Scrum half offside line at the Scrum
- Law 20 – The corner posts are no longer considered to be touch in goal except when the ball is grounded against the post
Union-specific ELVs recommended to Council:
- Unions may implement rolling substitutions at defined levels of the Game
- A Union having a jurisdiction over a Game may implement a half time interval of not more than 15 minutes
- A Union may implement the Under 19 Scrum Law Variation at a defined level of the Game under its jurisdiction
The following is not recommended to the IRB Council for adoption into Law:
- Law 17 - Maul - Head and Shoulders not to be lower than hips
- Law 17 - Maul - Pulling Down the Maul
- Law 19 – Freedom for each team to determine Lineout Numbers
The 'Sanctions regarding free kicks' and 'Tackle/Ruck' ELVs, the two most controversial ELVS, will not be recommended to the IRB Council for adoption into Law. However, the Rugby Committee has deferred these areas for further consultation. The maul, the traditional strength of northern hemisphere countries especially England, virtually disappeared from the game since the ELVs began in August the previous year.
The idea of each team determining the number of players in line-outs was also rejected and the sanctions ELV which caused most offences to be penalised with free kicks is to be reviewed.
Clarification Law 17.5 (Notice of wording error)
13th May 2009
The International Rugby Board Council ratified recommendations made by the IRB Rugby Committee and approved 10 of the 13 global Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) for adoption into the Laws of the Game.
The recommendations were unanimously approved and the integrated set of Laws will be implemented globally from May 23 or from the start of the next domestic season where competitions transcend the implementation date.
In addition to the suite of global ELVs, three Union-specific ELVs were also approved for integration into Law. These include the ability for a Union to implement a maximum 15-minute half time in matches under its jurisdiction.
“One of the recommendations of the ELV Conference held in London at the end of March was the universal application of one set of Laws that govern the Game as soon as possible after Council. This was recommended by stakeholders from the international Game, including some of the world’s top Coaches, Referees and Administrators,” said IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset.
“The implementation date approved by the IRB Council achieves that goal and represents the most suitable application date. All international matches from May 23 onwards will be captured, while domestic and regional competitions played across the implementation date will be played under the current ELVs until their conclusion,” added Lapasset.
“Today’s announcement brings to an end the extensive global ELV consultation and evaluation process which began with the Conference on the Game in Auckland in January 2004. The IRB would like to sincerely thank its Member Unions for their participation in what has been an unprecedented review of the Laws of the Game,” added Lapasset.
The following ELVs are to be adopted into Law:
- Law 6 – Assistant Referees able to assist Referees in any way the Referee requires
- Law 19 – If a team puts the ball back in their own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch there is no gain in ground
- Law 19 – A quick throw may be thrown in straight or towards the throwing team’s goal line
- Law 19 – The receiver at the lineout must be two metres back away from the lineout
- Law 19 – The player who is in opposition to the player throwing in the ball must stand in the area between the five metre line and touch line and must be two metres from the line of touch and at least two metres from the lineout
- Law 19 – Lineout players may pre-grip a jumper before the ball is thrown in
- Law 19 – The lifting of lineout jumpers is permitted
- Law 20 – Introduction of an offside line five metres behind the hindmost feet of the Scrum
- Law 20 – Scrum half offside line at the Scrum
- Law 20 – The corner posts are no longer considered to be touch in goal except when the ball is grounded against the post
Union-specific ELVs approved by Council:
- Unions may implement rolling substitutions at defined levels of the Game
- A Union having jurisdiction over a Game may implement a half time interval of not more than 15 minutes, but not at international level
- A Union may implement the Under 19 Scrum Law Variation at a defined level of the Game under its jurisdiction
August, 2009
The ELV Conference in March 2009 expressed a concern that the maul can be observed to be, and actually can be, a form of ‘legalised obstruction’. This is evidenced by players at the back of an elongated maul holding the ball whilst the maul moves forward (‘truck and trailer’).
An IRB working group concluded:
1. The maul must be formed so that the opposition can contest the maul at the formation; this includes the formation of the maul at a lineout and from a maul formed after kick-offs or restart kicks. (Match Officials were instructed to apply this from May 2009 - a DVD was circulated to all match elite match officials and Referee Managers.) Mauls from open play should be refereed in the same way as mauls formed at lineouts or from restart kicks.
2. A player may have both hands on the ball and be bound into the maul by other players involved in the maul.
3. If a player takes the ball in a formed maul and detaches whilst the players in the maul continue going forward, they are obstructing the opposition if that player continues moving forward using the players in front as a shield.
4. If the ball carrying team in the maul is moved backwards at or immediately after the formation, Law 17.6 (d) and (e) should apply :
"(d) When a maul has stopped moving forward for more than five seconds, but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered.
(e) When a maul has stopped moving forward it may start moving forward again providing it does so within 5 seconds. If the maul stops moving forward a second time and if the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered."
If the maul is moved backwards, match officials currently do not apply Law 17.6 (d) at the maul formation. If they did so it would only allow one more movement forward and it may encourage the non-ball-carrying side to commit to the maul at its formation.
Match officials also permit mauls to move sideways and do not apply 17.6 (d) and (e). Strict application may assist.
If the referee says "use it" the ball must be used and restarting the maul is not an option.5. The concern about ‘truck and trailer’ is not about the ball being one or two players back from the ball carrier when the maul is moving forward, as that replicates a scrum. The concern is about the player ‘hanging’ on the back of the maul. Strict application of the definition of a bind may assist in resolving this issue:
“Binding. Grasping firmly another player’s body between shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder”.
If the ball carrier player does not bind in this way, the maul is considered to be over and match officials insist the ball is used. If the player rejoins and binds on the players in front, the team should be penalised for obstruction. This may encourage players to bind appropriately.
The official document can be obtained here.
February, 2010 - Charging into a ruck
Players entering a ruck must do so in accordance with the Laws of the Game. Referees are reminded that appropriate binding is a requirement, and charging into a ruck is dangerous play and must be penalised as such. Video examples can be seen here.
16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.
February, 2011 - Dangerous Tackles (high tackles)
The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
A stiff-arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
At an IRB Medical Conference held in November 2010 at Lensbury the results of studies related to injuries sustained as a result of tackles were outlined. A study in England concluded that “stricter implementation of the Laws of Rugby relating to collisions and tackles above the line of the shoulder may reduce the number of head/neck injuries”. A separate study in New Zealand concluded that “ball carriers were at highest risk from tackles to the head and neck region”.
The participants at the Medical Conference generally recognised that tackles above the line of the shoulders have the potential to cause serious injury and noted that a trend had emerged whereby players responsible for such tackles were not being suitably sanctioned.
The purpose of this Memorandum is to emphasise that as with tip tackles, they must be dealt with severely by Referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.
It is recognised of course, as with other types of illegal and/or foul play, depending on the circumstances of the high tackle, the range of sanctions extends from a penalty kick to the player receiving a red card. An illegal high tackle involving a stiff arm or swinging arm to the head of the opponent, with no regard to the player’s safety, bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a red card or a yellow card being seriously considered.
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle.
