Things that annoy you about rugby...
-
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@rebound said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Players being allowed to roll when on the ground, preventing the player on his feet from playing the ball. Should be a penalty like it always used to be. but now you can roll, crawl and whatever you please and its play on. Here I thought rugby is a game played on your feet
Hate this so much along with this "not held" rubbish. If you're tackled and not held you should still have to release the ball before you get to your feet to continue. It would make it so much easier to ref. Its a no brainer.
A post from 6 months ago... but still so relevant.
The thing that has me shouting at the TV more than ever now is when a ball carrier will be brought to ground, the tackler will release (as required by law) and then the ball carrier will just get to his feet and keep running, with a cry of 'not held' from the ref.
Does my fkn head in.
@barbarian said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@rebound said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Players being allowed to roll when on the ground, preventing the player on his feet from playing the ball. Should be a penalty like it always used to be. but now you can roll, crawl and whatever you please and its play on. Here I thought rugby is a game played on your feet
Hate this so much along with this "not held" rubbish. If you're tackled and not held you should still have to release the ball before you get to your feet to continue. It would make it so much easier to ref. Its a no brainer.
A post from 6 months ago... but still so relevant.
The thing that has me shouting at the TV more than ever now is when a ball carrier will be brought to ground, the tackler will release (as required by law) and then the ball carrier will just get to his feet and keep running, with a cry of 'not held' from the ref.
Does my fkn head in.
Me three
Thing is, it's really pretty easy to referee I would have thought.
Makes me despair what's happening at refs meetings
-
Knocking the ball down isn't negative, unless your definition of negative is "stops an attack". It's been part of the game forever. The ball is still in play, after all.
Does a player in a tricky position who kicks the ball into touch to avoid a turnover get called "negative"? In that instance there's a deliberate ending of the play. Players even kick the ball backwards to do it.
Is dotting the ball down in your own goal, rather than running it out also "negative"? Again stopping play merely for your own advantage.
Is kicking the ball out at full time "negative"? Stopping play just because you can to prevent the other side from winning is not really positive rugby.
It's not that I think you're wrong, it's I don't even understand how legally playing the ball while keeping it in play can ever be negative.
-
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@nzzp said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@booboo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@kiwimurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing i've noticed a lot this year is defending teams intentionally knocking an attacking pass backwards/down as they face their own goal-line chasing in defense.
It's legal - as the goes backwards not down/forwards but to me seems a bit of a cheap cop out. There is no intention to catch the ball whatsoever - its a very negative play.
It's clever. If a team makes a stupid pass too close to defenders why should they be rewarded?
Yep, like calling for the ball when you're running a defensive line behind someome. Seems to work well, and it's just smart play
I think so too. However there was a massive thread on the refs forum a while back about whether calling for a pass from the opposition was contrary to the spirit of the game and should be penalized. Daft idea in my view, but there you go. Was split fairly evenly if I recall correctly.
That refs forum really does have a hardcore collection of imbeciles. Why would you argue for more subjective interpretation of player's intentions? "I was running back and called inside to let my other defenders know where to go, and then the attacker threw the ball in my direction, so I caught it and you want to penalise me?" There's a reason why non-vision impaired players wear what are supposed to be distinctive uniforms.
Quite frankly, if you're passing close enough that someone can swat the ball backwards to their own line and beat you to it, you've thrown a poor pass and deserve to lose possession.
@antipodean said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@nzzp said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@booboo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@kiwimurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing i've noticed a lot this year is defending teams intentionally knocking an attacking pass backwards/down as they face their own goal-line chasing in defense.
It's legal - as the goes backwards not down/forwards but to me seems a bit of a cheap cop out. There is no intention to catch the ball whatsoever - its a very negative play.
It's clever. If a team makes a stupid pass too close to defenders why should they be rewarded?
Yep, like calling for the ball when you're running a defensive line behind someome. Seems to work well, and it's just smart play
I think so too. However there was a massive thread on the refs forum a while back about whether calling for a pass from the opposition was contrary to the spirit of the game and should be penalized. Daft idea in my view, but there you go. Was split fairly evenly if I recall correctly.
That refs forum really does have a hardcore collection of imbeciles. Why would you argue for more subjective interpretation of player's intentions? "I was running back and called inside to let my other defenders know where to go, and then the attacker threw the ball in my direction, so I caught it and you want to penalise me?" There's a reason why non-vision impaired players wear what are supposed to be distinctive uniforms.
Quite frankly, if you're passing close enough that someone can swat the ball backwards to their own line and beat you to it, you've thrown a poor pass and deserve to lose possession.
Agree on all counts.
-
@booboo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@kiwimurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing i've noticed a lot this year is defending teams intentionally knocking an attacking pass backwards/down as they face their own goal-line chasing in defense.
It's legal - as the goes backwards not down/forwards but to me seems a bit of a cheap cop out. There is no intention to catch the ball whatsoever - its a very negative play.
It's clever. If a team makes a stupid pass too close to defenders why should they be rewarded?
In my opinion as a viewer a pass in this instance is a positive attacking piece of play - when this is occuring typically the defender is facing their own goal line which means the attacking team is making/made a break and has momentum - knocking it down with no intention of catching it is a negative play and just takes away the momentum in a cheap way.
I just find it negative just like how an intentional knock forward is penalised instead of a straight knock on or like how intentionally knock the ball out of play is penalised (e.g. SBW v France last year).
However to be clear I'm not talking about changing the rule cos I understand it could then open up a can of worms (e.g. knocking the ball back from a lineout etc). It just annoys me is all.
@kiwimurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@booboo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@kiwimurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing i've noticed a lot this year is defending teams intentionally knocking an attacking pass backwards/down as they face their own goal-line chasing in defense.
It's legal - as the goes backwards not down/forwards but to me seems a bit of a cheap cop out. There is no intention to catch the ball whatsoever - its a very negative play.
It's clever. If a team makes a stupid pass too close to defenders why should they be rewarded?
In my opinion as a viewer a pass in this instance is a positive attacking piece of play - when this is occuring typically the defender is facing their own goal line which means the attacking team is making/made a break and has momentum - knocking it down with no intention of catching it is a negative play and just takes away the momentum in a cheap way.
I just find it negative just like how an intentional knock forward is penalised instead of a straight knock on or like how intentionally knock the ball out of play is penalised (e.g. SBW v France last year).
However to be clear I'm not talking about changing the rule cos I understand it could then open up a can of worms (e.g. knocking the ball back from a lineout etc). It just annoys me is all.
SBW wasn't penalised because he knocked it out of play - he could have passed it (intentionally) and still been penalised.
Not being allowed to tap or knock the ball in any direction really does put paid to a lot of options though. What about a tap down from a lineout where the opposition threw in? A tap on from a team mate under pressure? Tapping the ball to keep it in play when it's just about to roll out?
-
@kiwimurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@booboo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@kiwimurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing i've noticed a lot this year is defending teams intentionally knocking an attacking pass backwards/down as they face their own goal-line chasing in defense.
It's legal - as the goes backwards not down/forwards but to me seems a bit of a cheap cop out. There is no intention to catch the ball whatsoever - its a very negative play.
It's clever. If a team makes a stupid pass too close to defenders why should they be rewarded?
In my opinion as a viewer a pass in this instance is a positive attacking piece of play - when this is occuring typically the defender is facing their own goal line which means the attacking team is making/made a break and has momentum - knocking it down with no intention of catching it is a negative play and just takes away the momentum in a cheap way.
I just find it negative just like how an intentional knock forward is penalised instead of a straight knock on or like how intentionally knock the ball out of play is penalised (e.g. SBW v France last year).
However to be clear I'm not talking about changing the rule cos I understand it could then open up a can of worms (e.g. knocking the ball back from a lineout etc). It just annoys me is all.
SBW wasn't penalised because he knocked it out of play - he could have passed it (intentionally) and still been penalised.
Not being allowed to tap or knock the ball in any direction really does put paid to a lot of options though. What about a tap down from a lineout where the opposition threw in? A tap on from a team mate under pressure? Tapping the ball to keep it in play when it's just about to roll out?
@bones said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Not being allowed to tap or knock the ball in any direction really does put paid to a lot of options though. What about a tap down from a lineout where the opposition threw in? A tap on from a team mate under pressure? Tapping the ball to keep it in play when it's just about to roll out?
Did you read the last part of what you quoted?
-
Don't forget that knocking a ball back toward your line also carries some degree of risk. You are usually putting the ball past your defence into a space to be contested by attacking players running forward. You also completely disrupt whatever organisation exists in your teams defence.
It adds an unusual happening to the game and I don't see it as particularly negative. -
@bones said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Not being allowed to tap or knock the ball in any direction really does put paid to a lot of options though. What about a tap down from a lineout where the opposition threw in? A tap on from a team mate under pressure? Tapping the ball to keep it in play when it's just about to roll out?
Did you read the last part of what you quoted?
@kiwimurph Hah! Obviously not sorry. My thoughts is - it often looks a bit wrong and when it happens against your team is annoying as fuck, but just something to be dealt with. Looks wrong when someone comes and picks up the ball at the back of your teams ruck too (which some bugger should do to Murray).
-
@bones said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Not being allowed to tap or knock the ball in any direction really does put paid to a lot of options though. What about a tap down from a lineout where the opposition threw in? A tap on from a team mate under pressure? Tapping the ball to keep it in play when it's just about to roll out?
Did you read the last part of what you quoted?
@kiwimurph you realise you are on the fern right, reading what you are replying to isnt a pre-requisite
-
Knocking the ball down isn't negative, unless your definition of negative is "stops an attack". It's been part of the game forever. The ball is still in play, after all.
Does a player in a tricky position who kicks the ball into touch to avoid a turnover get called "negative"? In that instance there's a deliberate ending of the play. Players even kick the ball backwards to do it.
Is dotting the ball down in your own goal, rather than running it out also "negative"? Again stopping play merely for your own advantage.
Is kicking the ball out at full time "negative"? Stopping play just because you can to prevent the other side from winning is not really positive rugby.
It's not that I think you're wrong, it's I don't even understand how legally playing the ball while keeping it in play can ever be negative.
@chester-draws said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Knocking the ball down isn't negative, unless your definition of negative is "stops an attack". It's been part of the game forever. The ball is still in play, after all.
Does a player in a tricky position who kicks the ball into touch to avoid a turnover get called "negative"? In that instance there's a deliberate ending of the play. Players even kick the ball backwards to do it.
Is dotting the ball down in your own goal, rather than running it out also "negative"? Again stopping play merely for your own advantage.
Is kicking the ball out at full time "negative"? Stopping play just because you can to prevent the other side from winning is not really positive rugby.
It's not that I think you're wrong, it's I don't even understand how legally playing the ball while keeping it in play can ever be negative.
Can I like this twice?
-
Does 'negative play' include running back toward your line and kicking the ball 'back' to make it dead at the end of a game?
It is accepted practice now but years ago you wouldn't catch anyone doing it without getting booed for killing the game in a negative manner. -
Does 'negative play' include running back toward your line and kicking the ball 'back' to make it dead at the end of a game?
It is accepted practice now but years ago you wouldn't catch anyone doing it without getting booed for killing the game in a negative manner.@crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Does 'negative play' include running back toward your line and kicking the ball 'back' to make it dead at the end of a game?
It is accepted practice now but years ago you wouldn't catch anyone doing it without getting booed for killing the game in a negative manner.I suppose. What really started that though was hooters. Schoolkids still don't do it, because they're never certain time is up. Before that you still kicked it out, you just did it up-field, just in case.
Repeated rucks with no intention of gaining ground to eat up time before the end of time is much more negative to me.
(And I would still expect any NZ team to do all of the above. Your opponents can rant all they want about "negative" play, but a win's a win.)
-
Had to search out this thread after the weekend's games (in both hemispheres)
My latest bugbear is tackled players placing the ball behind them, realising the support is a little slow so regathering the ball, sometimes even after fully releasing contact, sometimes jst a pull back.
It happened a lot in the Stormers/Chiefs game and in the Leinster/Racing game.
Only time I saw it whistled was by Barnes in one that even he couldn't ignore as it was so blatent and exposed. -
Had to search out this thread after the weekend's games (in both hemispheres)
My latest bugbear is tackled players placing the ball behind them, realising the support is a little slow so regathering the ball, sometimes even after fully releasing contact, sometimes jst a pull back.
It happened a lot in the Stormers/Chiefs game and in the Leinster/Racing game.
Only time I saw it whistled was by Barnes in one that even he couldn't ignore as it was so blatent and exposed. -
@crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Does 'negative play' include running back toward your line and kicking the ball 'back' to make it dead at the end of a game?
It is accepted practice now but years ago you wouldn't catch anyone doing it without getting booed for killing the game in a negative manner.I suppose. What really started that though was hooters. Schoolkids still don't do it, because they're never certain time is up. Before that you still kicked it out, you just did it up-field, just in case.
Repeated rucks with no intention of gaining ground to eat up time before the end of time is much more negative to me.
(And I would still expect any NZ team to do all of the above. Your opponents can rant all they want about "negative" play, but a win's a win.)
@chester-draws said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Repeated rucks with no intention of gaining ground to eat up time before the end of time is much more negative to me.
I wouldn't have such a problem with it if every team didn't clearly prevent a competition for the ball by sealing off.
-
@chester-draws said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Repeated rucks with no intention of gaining ground to eat up time before the end of time is much more negative to me.
I wouldn't have such a problem with it if every team didn't clearly prevent a competition for the ball by sealing off.
@antipodean This is related to my bugbear - "rucks" where no offensive player is left on their feet but defenders can't step over and win the ball because you can't play the halfback.
The rule should be that if no one from the other side is on their feet, ruck is over and no whinging if your halfback gets driven off the ball.
-
Unfortunately the attacking team seems to get much more leeway from the refs. You only have to look at the maul, where defenders are penalised for entering from the side, or "swimming" as some refs call it, but players from the team in possession can join a maul from anywhere.
-
it doesn't seem they are playing the change in rule at the breakdown very strictly either, meaning the tackling player cant get to his feet and attack the ball without having to get up and get himself back through the gate.
-
@antipodean This is related to my bugbear - "rucks" where no offensive player is left on their feet but defenders can't step over and win the ball because you can't play the halfback.
The rule should be that if no one from the other side is on their feet, ruck is over and no whinging if your halfback gets driven off the ball.
@smuts the not taking the halfback rule is absurd, and i don't understand the need for it at all. As you say, sometimes the halfback is the only guy on his feet, the counter-ruck is good, of course they hit the halfback, penalty!
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
-
@smuts the not taking the halfback rule is absurd, and i don't understand the need for it at all. As you say, sometimes the halfback is the only guy on his feet, the counter-ruck is good, of course they hit the halfback, penalty!
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
@mariner4life the amusing thing is, it is usually restricted to just the guy wearing 9, as you clean out or pull into the ruck a guy playing halfback but not wearing 9 and you are more often than not, ok...so seems a very odd rule, one suspects made up by a halfback to protect himself from the forwards :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:
