Rugby or NFL
-
@MajorRage what's next, TMO ruling on incorrect ruck entry, not behind the last feet, I mean why not, these are in the same league as many other things they seem to be able rule on.
-
@canefan said in Rugby or NFL:
@mohikamo said in Rugby or NFL:
very wierd
i think it may have something to do with having been the most rabidly amateur (i.e. conservative) sport on the planet for over a century
and now, seemingly incable of making the "market/commenrcial/product" adjustments
see how even a sport like cricket has changed!
Rugby has always been arrogant. They think their game is the best and that the fans should be grateful
Lol canefan,I personally think the game is best (which is why I follow it so avidly) and I am grateful that I have got it to watch. If I didn't think it was best I would wander off and watch something else, as I am sure some people do.
-
@MajorRage said in Rugby or NFL:
The calls on the lineout mauls really got under my skin. They are the sort of thing that the referee is for. Not the TMO.
The player in front at the initial setup of the maul isn't hard to see in real time. At least by the TJ.
But the rule is almost only enforced when a try is scored now.
A bit of a tangent but the balance of rugby would be better if the refs were stricter on the attacking teams in mauls
-
I think a good game of rugby is better than a good game of almost any other sport.
BUT....
Scrums drive me stupid, watch a game from the 70' or 80's and a scrum was set, feed, and the ball was out in literally seconds. Why does the ref have to give the pack a quick re-cap of how to scrummag before every scrum, as if neither pack have seen a scrum before.
Also, scrum penalties, I'd get rid of them unless someone shoots someone.
Getting a dominant scrum and your forwards walking over the opposing forwards is reward enough. You have the ball with a dominant platform to play it.And also knock on advantage, if one team knocks on and the other team gets the ball and can cleanly play it from the resulting ruck, then that's it, you have the ball, advantage over. Why wait 20 seconds just to go back and have a scrum in the same place you got the ball 20 seconds ago.
-
@WestieFella said in Rugby or NFL:
I think a good game of rugby is better than a good game of almost any other sport.
BUT....
Scrums drive me stupid, watch a game from the 70' or 80's and a scrum was set, feed, and the ball was out in literally seconds. Why does the ref have to give the pack a quick re-cap of how to scrummag before every scrum, as if neither pack have seen a scrum before.
Also, scrum penalties, I'd get rid of them unless someone shoots someone.
Getting a dominant scrum and your forwards walking over the opposing forwards is reward enough. You have the ball with a dominant platform to play it.And also knock on advantage, if one team knocks on and the other team gets the ball and can cleanly play it from the resulting ruck, then that's it, you have the ball, advantage over. Why wait 20 seconds just to go back and have a scrum in the same place you got the ball 20 seconds ago.
Firstly: injuries. There were far too many when it was a free for all and players are bigger and likely to injure opposition caught awkwardly.
Secondly, am pretty sure the rule of thumb is a couple of phases or couple of passes not under pressure. And perhaps a kick not under pressure (re two examples of kicks going out on the full under advantage on the weekend - France judged to have gained advantage, Fiji not got advantage: both correct IMO). Could be wrong about all of that though.
-
I think, though, the TMO is better than it was 3-5 years ago. I remember the repeated stoppages, endless replays on the big screen of behind-the-play things, taking 5-10 minutes each time.
And now we are getting better at fixing bad calls in real time. Paul Williams blew a knock-on against the Tahs on Saturday night that clearly came off the Lions (but an understandable error nonetheless). By the time the scrum was set, the TMO had reviewed and seen there was no knock-on and the scrum feed rightfully changed.
I'm happy with that intervention.
-
@barbarian said in Rugby or NFL:
I think, though, the TMO is better than it was 3-5 years ago. I remember the repeated stoppages, endless replays on the big screen of behind-the-play things, taking 5-10 minutes each time.
And now we are getting better at fixing bad calls in real time. Paul Williams blew a knock-on against the Tahs on Saturday night that clearly came off the Lions (but an understandable error nonetheless). By the time the scrum was set, the TMO had reviewed and seen there was no knock-on and the scrum feed rightfully changed.
I'm happy with that intervention.
The 2023 RWC was definitely a low point. I don't want to hear the TMO constantly chattering to the ref over minutiae
-
@WestieFella said in Rugby or NFL:
I think a good game of rugby is better than a good game of almost any other sport.
BUT....
Scrums drive me stupid, watch a game from the 70' or 80's and a scrum was set, feed, and the ball was out in literally seconds. Why does the ref have to give the pack a quick re-cap of how to scrummag before every scrum, as if neither pack have seen a scrum before.
Also, scrum penalties, I'd get rid of them unless someone shoots someone.
Getting a dominant scrum and your forwards walking over the opposing forwards is reward enough. You have the ball with a dominant platform to play it.And also knock on advantage, if one team knocks on and the other team gets the ball and can cleanly play it from the resulting ruck, then that's it, you have the ball, advantage over. Why wait 20 seconds just to go back and have a scrum in the same place you got the ball 20 seconds ago.
while seeing your points re scrums mate, but the reason scrums got changed from how they were is unfortunately the same reason we have seen tackling being moved lower etc, player safety. We had a series of broken necks in 80s , a lot from scrums going down , so unfortunately they had to make changes.
I was at a game in Levin when a young fella broke his neck, and ended up in a wheel chair. For some reason there was a series of them about same time that was killing the game.
Sorry @booboo , I see you had already replied the same. Also pretty sure you got it right for the advantage too. -
@barbarian said in Rugby or NFL:
I think, though, the TMO is better than it was 3-5 years ago. I remember the repeated stoppages, endless replays on the big screen of behind-the-play things, taking 5-10 minutes each time.
And now we are getting better at fixing bad calls in real time. Paul Williams blew a knock-on against the Tahs on Saturday night that clearly came off the Lions (but an understandable error nonetheless). By the time the scrum was set, the TMO had reviewed and seen there was no knock-on and the scrum feed rightfully changed.
I'm happy with that intervention.
I’m a bit 50/50 on interventions like that even though a mistake was made by the ref.
If I was a captain today at every stoppage my strategy would be to get in the ref’s ear with, “check for the knock on”, “make sure you get this right”, “you’ve got the TMO, you might as well use him to get it right”
And yes I played halfback so this will come all naturally!
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Rugby or NFL:
@taniwharugby said in Rugby or NFL:
@Crazy-Horse
I feel the same as the poster who said they have fallen out of love with rugby and only watch on muscle memory. I watch because it's NZ rugby, because I always have, but I am watching a little less each year. Cards have ruined it for me. But I think that horse has bolted along with the TMO.Dunno if that was me but I’m certainly in the same club. I don’t even flinch when we score, let alone get excited, because it doesn’t count until Murphy has said so. That on Saturday was a 57% chance if we crossed the line, not exactly compelling odds.
Murphy certainly lived up to his law, if slightly altered “if something could possibly be wrong, I’ll find it”.
-
100%!
when the shoulder of the ball carrier at the back of the maul detaches - that is the end of the maul
the referees should be absolutely red hot on it!
if the shoulder bumps off the maul even the minutest amount and reconnects - that's obstruction - penalty
i dont mind players joining behind the ball carrier, but i think it should be obstruction as soon as the ball is passed back thru the maul . . . but that's another story . . .
-
One thing that the review system in cricket has really helped with is taking the heat off the umpires. There is so much less scrutiny on them these days. If an umpire gets a call wrong, then the expectation immediately falls on the players to review. If they don't review, then it's much harder to just blame the umpire when the professional players didn't notice either. Then in the scenario where the umpire gets a call wrong and the players don't have any reviews left, the first comment is they shouldn't have wasted their reviews on calls they got wrong and the umpire got right. I think that's been a really good thing overall.
Rugby is a very different sport to cricket though, but some form of onus on the players also making the right call would help, at the moment the assumption is all the players on the field except the ref knew what happened in the moment, and that won't be true at all.
-
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
One thing that the review system in cricket has really helped with is taking the heat off the umpires. There is so much less scrutiny on them these days. If an umpire gets a call wrong, then the expectation immediately falls on the players to review. If they don't review, then it's much harder to just blame the umpire when the professional players didn't notice either. Then in the scenario where the umpire gets a call wrong and the players don't have any reviews left, then the first comment is they shouldn't have wasted their reviews on calls they got wrong and the umpire got wrong. I think that's been a really good thing overall.
Rugby is a very different sport to cricket though, but some form of onus on the players also making the right call would help, at the moment the assumption is all the players on the field except the ref knew what happened in the moment, and that won't be true at all.
Good God.
If Rugby allowed players to review that might kill the game stone dead. Imagine if Jonny Sexton was still playing ?
-
understand everything you say
but i think more onus should be put on the dominant scrum to keep the front row up
every time the front row collapses i'd like to see someone yellow carded (all squads have an extra front row so lots of subs available)
if a player goes head-first into the ground anywhere else on the field its a send off
on that - two front rows in every squad! - that's just rewarding bad behaviour! - if your kids were carrying on like front rowers you'd be going off your head!
i know what you say - i met a guy who was roped into a corporate pick up game
because he was a kiwi they thought he could play anywhere and put him in the front row - you know the rest . . .should go back to the 2-3-2 scrum - haha
shouldn't be forgotten that rugby became NZ's national game, and took them to the top of world rugby, on the back of the 2-3-2 scrum
the 2-3-2 scrum was universal in NZ for 50 years and there was a lot of resistance to the change to the power 3-4-1 scrum
NZ changed in the early 1930's when we were ranked No 1 - lost the No 1 ranking to SA a few seasons later (the 3-4-1 scrum was a SA thing of course) and it was two decades before NZ got back to the top
end of history lesson
-
@MN5 said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
One thing that the review system in cricket has really helped with is taking the heat off the umpires. There is so much less scrutiny on them these days. If an umpire gets a call wrong, then the expectation immediately falls on the players to review. If they don't review, then it's much harder to just blame the umpire when the professional players didn't notice either. Then in the scenario where the umpire gets a call wrong and the players don't have any reviews left, then the first comment is they shouldn't have wasted their reviews on calls they got wrong and the umpire got wrong. I think that's been a really good thing overall.
Rugby is a very different sport to cricket though, but some form of onus on the players also making the right call would help, at the moment the assumption is all the players on the field except the ref knew what happened in the moment, and that won't be true at all.
Good God.
If Rugby allowed players to review that might kill the game stone dead. Imagine if Jonny Sexton was still playing ?
The idea being it removes the TMO from intervening, or intervening much less. At the moment the TMO is randomly intervening, causing huge delays in some games where he thinks there's a lot to make calls on.
Little Jonny could blow his only two reviews in the first 10 minutes then bitch and moan about calls against him for the rest of the game, and it'd fall on deaf ears because he wasted his reviews on calls he got wrong.
-
@Dan54 OK, I totally understand the safety aspect and that has to be paramount.
It's just annoying when teams use scrums just as a means to get a penalty.
I'd make the penalty threshold higher, it just seems like you get a penalty just for being better at scrumaging.
Name another sport in which you get penalised just because the other team is better than you.
If a team goes backwards at a scrum it usually results in a penalty, does it t mean there is foul play, or just that the other team was better/stronger?
If your scrum is going forward is that not reward enough?
Take the rwc for example, if a top nation is playing a complete minnow then pretty much every scrum results in a penalty, and sometimes a yellow card.
Basically the minnow is being penalised for being a minnow... -
@mohikamo said in Rugby or NFL:
100%!
when the shoulder of the ball carrier at the back of the maul detaches - that is the end of the maul
the referees should be absolutely red hot on it!
if the shoulder bumps off the maul even the minutest amount and reconnects - that's obstruction - penalty
i dont mind players joining behind the ball carrier, but i think it should be obstruction as soon as the ball is passed back thru the maul . . . but that's another story . . .
Was going to upvote until the last paragraph.
-
haha
during the NFL off-season conference this year by far the most controversial issue was the "tush-push"
this is basically a maul play in which the offensive line powers forward and the QB just pushes in behind for a TD or a first-down
the Philadelphia Eagles have perfected it, and so if they need a yard for a first-down or TD they have it 100% guaranteed
it was a big part of their SB win this yeara lot of teams wanted it banned, the criticism being "IT'S A RUGBY PLAY" and we dont want it in our game
they needed 24 (75%) votes to get rid of it, and got 22
even the Bills who are probably next best at it, voted to ban it
i think it will be banned eventuallyso much for the maul . . .
as for the scrum . . .
may be rugby could swap their ultra messy scrum for the much more tidy NFL scrimmage line
offensive linemen and frontrowers are all the same, all fat bastards -
@WestieFella said in Rugby or NFL:
@Dan54 OK, I totally understand the safety aspect and that has to be paramount.
It's just annoying when teams use scrums just as a means to get a penalty.
I'd make the penalty threshold higher, it just seems like you get a penalty just for being better at scrumaging.
Name another sport in which you get penalised just because the other team is better than you.
If a team goes backwards at a scrum it usually results in a penalty, does it t mean there is foul play, or just that the other team was better/stronger?
If your scrum is going forward is that not reward enough?
Take the rwc for example, if a top nation is playing a complete minnow then pretty much every scrum results in a penalty, and sometimes a yellow card.
Basically the minnow is being penalised for being a minnow...I agree on the seemingly getting penalised for going backwards, but it's really only (supposedly) when someone turns in etc, not for going back. I honestly don't know what answer is, because if you don't penalise teams, and they getting beaten at scrum, some will turn in to stop it going forward, or have their feet 'slip' out from under them. Coaches will alays use any law change to suit their team and cover weaknesses if they can.
I not a fan of a lot of scrum penalties, but neither am I a fan of illegal tactics to stop other team. I not even a fan of making them release ball quick really, because I know how hard we worked when I played (a long time back) to push teams back etc. We even set up in second row (where I played) differently to now. We all bound tight as to try and be one tight unit, I used to have to force my head between prop and hooker etc.
@mohikamo , on YCing someone everytime scrum goes down, I genuinely think in one way would be ok, but by the powers, there will be some screams then as quite often it not clear who takes it down, or if anyone is even at fault. Sometimes it just shit ground.
