World Rugby to test waist-height tackles as part of trial.

[Hornet]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/49281949

Also:-

What else is in the laws trials?
A basketball-style team foul limit that sees the final player to infringe given a yellow card as their team reaches the specific number of penalty or free-kick limit.

A 50:22 kick giving a team put-in to the line-out if they kick into touch indirectly (ie on the bounce) when kicking either from their own half into the opposition 22m or from inside their own 22m to the opposition half. The law aims to force wingers to drop deep out of the defensive line, creating space for the attacker to run the ball.

Review of a yellow card during a player's sin-bin period to ensure serious foul play is upgraded to a red card.

Defending team awarded a drop-out from own tryline when attacking player is held up over the line. The current law is to award an attacking scrum five metres out.

World Rugby is also considering trials in reducing the number of replacements and a requirement for players to move away from the ball immediately when off their feet at a ruck.

Believe some of these have been previously mentioned.

[Ruckedtobits]

The trial on the tackle height is going to be the biggest test for Referees and if it's not conducted at some professional level, will be considered irrelevant.

BTW, if they intend to bring this Law in, they (World Rugby) need to firmly clarify whether a player may attempt to 'hurdle' tackles a la Eben Etchebeth last weekend playing for the Springboks against Argentina.

Quoted afterwards, he said that the current Laws made it illegal to tackle a player in the air and he believed that he could not be tackled if he was in the air. I have been unable to locate this interview but, if true, it makes a nonsence of what they are trying to do for safety.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

That was a joke. I thought the first one was just a natural response to a loopy pass but the next two were so blatant.

I have to say it really bugs me that WR are trying these fairly radical changes without getting the basics right first. I hate the idea of this tackle rule but safety is paramount so fair enough it might be necessary, but surely we should see what the effects of correctly policing offside would be first? Or making sure that nobody hinged at rucks? Or making it illegal to tackle with your head on the wrong side? I really am sick of them coming up with these constant changes but never getting to the root of the problem. Have we stopped seeing high tackles since the law changes a couple of years ago? No, because it's still attractive for players to tackle high and they still get into positions where a high tackle is hard to avoid because of things like offside not being policed properly.

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind the 50:22 rule is. If it's to create more space to attack then I hate it. If it's to create more space which will lead to fewer collisions then I can see the logic but reckon there must be other solutions, and the same goes if it's meant for both. It just seems so gimmicky to me, and we don't need more of that.

To me it feels like the Development team have meetings where they try and outdo each other in terms of being creative, as opposed to just identifying the problem and solving it.

[kermischocolate]

That was a joke. I thought the first one was just a natural response to a loopy pass but the next two were so blatant.

I have to say it really bugs me that WR are trying these fairly radical changes without getting the basics right first. I hate the idea of this tackle rule but safety is paramount so fair enough it might be necessary, but surely we should see what the effects of correctly policing offside would be first? Or making sure that nobody hinged at rucks? Or making it illegal to tackle with your head on the wrong side? I really am sick of them coming up with these constant changes but never getting to the root of the problem. Have we stopped seeing high tackles since the law changes a couple of years ago? No, because it's still attractive for players to tackle high and they still get into positions where a high tackle is hard to avoid because of things like offside not being policed properly.

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind the 50:22 rule is. If it's to create more space to attack then I hate it. If it's to create more space which will lead to fewer collisions then I can see the logic but reckon there must be other solutions, and the same goes if it's meant for both. It just seems so gimmicky to me, and we don't need more of that.

To me it feels like the Development team have meetings where they try and outdo each other in terms of being creative, as opposed to just identifying the problem and solving it.