The IRB is firmly of the view that there is no place in Rugby for illegal or foul play and the act of eye gouging is particularly heinous.
In light of recent high profile cases, the IRB is launching a review of the existing disciplinary sanction structure relating to contact with the eye/eye area in order to send out the strongest possible message that such acts of illegal/foul play will not be tolerated and have no place in a Game that has at its core the pillars of fair play, respect and camaraderie.
The IRB has also written to the Chairman of the IRB Judicial Panel to underscore its concerns regarding all incidents of eye gouging and a memorandum will be issued to all Independent Judicial Officers reinforcing the IRB's disciplinary policy.
Under existing IRB Disciplinary Regulations only the player may appeal independent judicial decisions. In light of recent cases, the IRB will review whether the scope of the appeal should in the future extend to other appropriate parties, including the IRB itself.
The IRB works tirelessly with all 116 Member Unions and key stakeholders to ensure the safety of players and the reputation of the Game is protected.
Further Information:
Dominic Rumbles, IRB Head of Communications +353 (0) 86-852-0826, email dominic.rumbles@irb.com
|
16/06/09 - Dangerous Tackle |
|
Many of the instructions to the elite Match Officials to be frank are minutia of Law bearing little relationship to what we deal with.
However take a look at the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Dso8Gc0gc
Now read the below which
MEMORANDUM
To: Referees
Citing Commissioners
Judicial Officers
Non-legal Judicial Committee Members
From: Paddy O’Brien, IRB Referee Manager
Tim Gresson, IRB Judicial Panel Chairman
Date: 8 June 2009
Subject: Dangerous Tackles
In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws Designated Members Ruling which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.
At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and work backwards.
Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.
Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the differences between the application of the red card test by referees and judicial personnel is highlighted.
In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with severely.
To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the ground:
1) The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
2) The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
3) For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.
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 circumstances of the tackle. |
|
27/05/09 - iRB 2009 Ruling Number 4 |
|
The IRB has issued its fourth ruling of 2009, in response to a request from the New Zealand Rugby Union and the Australian Rugby Union regarding Laws 15 Tackle: Ball carrier brought to the Ground and Law 16 Ruck.
See attached.
All rulings are available on the IRB web site
Video footage
The IRB has prepared video footage which relates to 2009 Ruling
Number 4
You can also access video showing examples of obstruction Law 10.1
(b) Law 10.1 (c) which currently is going unsanctioned by Referees and as a result the opposition team is unable to defend the Maul. Match Officials are requested to ensure that this facet of play is refereed strictly and that at the formation of a Maul the ball carrier is in physical contact with the opposition team members.
Two .wmv files (“Maul obstruction” and “Hands in rucks”) can be accessed through an IRB portal at the following address and using the password
Indicated
Follow the link: https://portal.irb.com/matchofficials
User:- matchofficials@irbportal
Password: N22DeLTv
(Note: the password is case sensitive |
26th May 2009
Law Amendments 2009
The International Rugby Board (iRB) Council has 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 is to be implemented globally from 23rd May 2009 or from the start of the next domestic season where competitions transcend the implementation date. The new Laws will apply to all domestic rugby in England with effect from 1st June 2009. By this time, all domestic competition, including the County Championship, will have concluded.
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.
The Law amendments can be found as Appendix 1.
Regards
Andrew Scoular
Community Rugby Director
Appendix 1 - Law Amendments 2009
1. ELVs Adopted into Law
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
2. Union-specific ELVs approved by Council
a) Unions may implement rolling substitutions at defined levels of the Game
b) A Union having jurisdiction over a Game may implement a half time interval of not more than 15 minutes, but not at international level
c) A Union may implement the Under 19 Scrum Law Variation at a defined level of the Game under its jurisdiction
