Things that annoy you about rugby...
-
@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:
-
@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:
@taniwharugby said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@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:
The Pichot rule?
-
@crucial i saw some terrible "not held, go again" on the weekend as well. You're not held because you are tackled, and the tackled players have released. Refs hate defenders.
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@crucial i saw some terrible "not held, go again" on the weekend as well. You're not held because you are tackled, and the tackled players have released. Refs hate defenders.
The only time I've seen it called is when a try was scored by getting back up (Rieko). That part of the game is becoming a bit of a joke, and it's so easy to police as well.
-
@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 said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
Tackling without the ball?
-
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@crucial i saw some terrible "not held, go again" on the weekend as well. You're not held because you are tackled, and the tackled players have released. Refs hate defenders.
The only time I've seen it called is when a try was scored by getting back up (Rieko). That part of the game is becoming a bit of a joke, and it's so easy to police as well.
@no-quarter said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@crucial i saw some terrible "not held, go again" on the weekend as well. You're not held because you are tackled, and the tackled players have released. Refs hate defenders.
The only time I've seen it called is when a try was scored by getting back up (Rieko). That part of the game is becoming a bit of a joke, and it's so easy to police as well.
The one where he wasn't actually held, then as he was getting up, the guy on the floor reached out again and put his hand on Rieko?
-
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
Tackling without the ball?
@chris-b said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
Tackling without the ball?
which i can sort of understand, except that's on paper, and rarely is that actually the case in reality.
-
@chris-b said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
Tackling without the ball?
which i can sort of understand, except that's on paper, and rarely is that actually the case in reality.
@mariner4life The whole concept of clean-outs is pretty foreign to when I played the game in the dim distant past.
Unless you're the halfback it seems you can be cleaned out if you're anywhere in the vicinity of the ruck, though presumably in theory you should be part of it.
Joe Moody's "vicinity" was just a bit broad at the weekend.
-
@mariner4life The whole concept of clean-outs is pretty foreign to when I played the game in the dim distant past.
Unless you're the halfback it seems you can be cleaned out if you're anywhere in the vicinity of the ruck, though presumably in theory you should be part of it.
Joe Moody's "vicinity" was just a bit broad at the weekend.
@chris-b said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life The whole concept of clean-outs is pretty foreign to when I played the game in the dim distant past.
Unless you're the halfback it seems you can be cleaned out if you're anywhere in the vicinity of the ruck, though presumably in theory you should be part of it.
Joe Moody's "vicinity" was just a bit broad at the weekend.
Back in the day I'm pretty sure you could bind onto any player within a metre (yard?
) of the ruck. It wasn't called a clean out in those days but effectively was. Cleaned your sprigs on the way through too. -
@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 said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@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?
I think it was originally intended to keep defending players from grabbing the halfback through the ruck and disrupting clean service that way, instead of actually pushing against the attacking players at the ruck. I mean, that would make more sense than what is actually refereed right now. Hate halfbacks swinging their arms at the touch of a finger. Little fucks!
I am also a little fuck, so I am allowed to say that (according to recent internet logic, "AS A LITTLE FUCK, I have to say that little fucks are no more discriminated against than big ones") -
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@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?
I think it was originally intended to keep defending players from grabbing the halfback through the ruck and disrupting clean service that way, instead of actually pushing against the attacking players at the ruck. I mean, that would make more sense than what is actually refereed right now. Hate halfbacks swinging their arms at the touch of a finger. Little fucks!
I am also a little fuck, so I am allowed to say that (according to recent internet logic, "AS A LITTLE FUCK, I have to say that little fucks are no more discriminated against than big ones")@tordah So, I understand the idea of not being allowed to pull the half-back into the ruck. But as you say that isn't what is being blown up now. It is just one more area where the contest is being "ruled" over.
My internal sense of rugby is that every phase should be a fair contest for the ball. And penalties should only come where someone deliberately tries to ruin that contest (including by doing something dangerous.)
There are too many areas of the game right now that don't feel like a fair contest.
Rucks ain't.
Mauls ain't.
Scrums are better but ain't going to be until refs (i) start policing the put in, and (ii) get a better grasp of who is doing what. And the powers that be allow for a bunch of early resets without penalties so everyone knows which scrum is on top.
And on defence, touchies need to start policing the offside line.
-
@tordah So, I understand the idea of not being allowed to pull the half-back into the ruck. But as you say that isn't what is being blown up now. It is just one more area where the contest is being "ruled" over.
My internal sense of rugby is that every phase should be a fair contest for the ball. And penalties should only come where someone deliberately tries to ruin that contest (including by doing something dangerous.)
There are too many areas of the game right now that don't feel like a fair contest.
Rucks ain't.
Mauls ain't.
Scrums are better but ain't going to be until refs (i) start policing the put in, and (ii) get a better grasp of who is doing what. And the powers that be allow for a bunch of early resets without penalties so everyone knows which scrum is on top.
And on defence, touchies need to start policing the offside line.
@smuts said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
My internal sense of rugby is that every phase should be a fair contest for the ball. And penalties should only come where someone deliberately tries to ruin that contest (including by doing something dangerous.)>
There are too many areas of the game right now that don't feel like a fair contest. >
Rucks ain't. >
Mauls ain't.I thoroughly agree. Rucks are so little a contest that players don't generally bother - they just try to hold up players, or rip the ball rather than contest on the ground.
Scrums also aren't much of a contest - they are a machine for running down clocks and awarding penaltues. Actually pushing the other side off the ball is rare
-
Haven't read much above.
- When there is a knock on and the ref hasn't called it a knock on and the player is in front and picks it up. Should be a scrum such a shit penalty.
- Any guy going for an intercept. Its 99% of the time not a deliberate knock down its an intercept attempt that goes wrong. Hate seeing people carded for that.
- Drop kicks and shots at goal. I reckon if they miss and it goes dead should be a scrum on the 22 to the other team (or from where the kick was taken).
- Backs.
-
Haven't read much above.
- When there is a knock on and the ref hasn't called it a knock on and the player is in front and picks it up. Should be a scrum such a shit penalty.
- Any guy going for an intercept. Its 99% of the time not a deliberate knock down its an intercept attempt that goes wrong. Hate seeing people carded for that.
- Drop kicks and shots at goal. I reckon if they miss and it goes dead should be a scrum on the 22 to the other team (or from where the kick was taken).
- Backs.
@magpie_in_aus Point 4 wasn't required to identify as a forward. Point 3 had already done that effectively.
On Point 3, a minute of arsing about forming up, crouch, bind, collapse, rinse and repeat,....random penalty to someone...
Why not restart with a toss of the coin where the winner gets a penalty on the 22 - or, at the refs discretion the loser sometimes gets the penalty?
-
Haven't read much above.
- When there is a knock on and the ref hasn't called it a knock on and the player is in front and picks it up. Should be a scrum such a shit penalty.
- Any guy going for an intercept. Its 99% of the time not a deliberate knock down its an intercept attempt that goes wrong. Hate seeing people carded for that.
- Drop kicks and shots at goal. I reckon if they miss and it goes dead should be a scrum on the 22 to the other team (or from where the kick was taken).
- Backs.
@magpie_in_aus said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Any guy going for an intercept. Its 99% of the time not a deliberate knock down its an intercept attempt that goes wrong. Hate seeing people carded for that.
Couldn't disagree more. The amount of times I've "gone for an intercept" knowing full well if the pass sticks it's a try. Catch it or get penalised - it's such a negative way to play.
