The Current State of Rugby
-
I have some memory of Justin Marshall wanking on about how every failed intercept should be a YC for negative play? Might be making that up, but I do remember comms going on about how refs need to punish players that get it wrong.
@No-Quarter he got justice boners about it for years. I think he has softened on his stance (ahem) now. At least in cases where you clearly see the player is making a genuine go at the ball. In most of those cases they almost get the ball and it was worth a crack. I agree that anyone making a super low % play and/or clearly knocking the ball down should get pinged.
-
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
whats next?
I feel anything ive read about is a review of the existing laws which is very different
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
whats next?
I feel anything ive read about is a review of the existing laws which is very different
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/world-rugby-launches-new-simplified-law-book/
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
whats next?
I feel anything ive read about is a review of the existing laws which is very different
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/world-rugby-launches-new-simplified-law-book/
-
@Crucial ....exactly....a review of the existing laws, anything from after this exercise as this was all about what was going to happen
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial ....exactly....a review of the existing laws, anything from after this exercise as this was all about what was going to happen
My comment was in reply to this statement..
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
1 - The law book is a mess, poorly written - ambiguous, contradictory, vague - and should be re-written from the ground up even if they don't change any laws (and we all agree they need to change some of them).
I was pointing out that exactly this happened only a few years back. Almost 50% of text was cut out. Descriptions replaced with diagrams etc
I'm not arguing any quality of laws just that stating that it is a mess and poorly written appears based on the law bokk prior to this re-write.
eg: there is no deliberate knock-on. It clearly, and unambiguously, states that a player cannot intentionally knock the ball forward. I seem to remember that the old law book firstly defined a 'knock-on' then set laws around that definition.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial ....exactly....a review of the existing laws, anything from after this exercise as this was all about what was going to happen
My comment was in reply to this statement..
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
1 - The law book is a mess, poorly written - ambiguous, contradictory, vague - and should be re-written from the ground up even if they don't change any laws (and we all agree they need to change some of them).
I was pointing out that exactly this happened only a few years back. Almost 50% of text was cut out. Descriptions replaced with diagrams etc
I'm not arguing any quality of laws just that stating that it is a mess and poorly written appears based on the law bokk prior to this re-write.
eg: there is no deliberate knock-on. It clearly, and unambiguously, states that a player cannot intentionally knock the ball forward. I seem to remember that the old law book firstly defined a 'knock-on' then set laws around that definition.
@Crucial @gibbon-rib said they should be re written form the ground up....and you said they had been before posting a story about a review of the existing laws...thats not the same
thats also an article about what they planned to do, i would like to see if they actually did it
-
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@dogmeat i feel the real rugby nerds enjoy seeing every mistake from player or ref picked up and punished/corrected....where as the casual fan or those of us that forget about most mistake pretty quickly (unless i read about them on here) enjoy rugby much less
I think maybe the opposite Kiwiw, I am a rugby nerd or nutter etc, and I think like most understnd you will get the odd things missed. I actually think the problem comes from the team fans/nerds who will search for any minor offence against their team etc (usually helped by commentators, replays etc) and while many claim to be fans etc, an awful lot are fans of winning teams not the teams themselves.
either way i think we're losing the casual fan
@Kiwiwomble we are mate, and almost getting to stage of losing incredibly rusted on fans like me. I never thought I would say the day would come when I going to a test, and thinking I not sure I wouldn't rather just be at Kaponga to watch them. Perhaps it just the frustration, but I am someone who would travel from Aus to here in NZ when I lived there to watch rugby, at moment I for first time in my 67 years am not as excited as once was at the thought.
-
@No-Quarter I think you are right, Marshall is in the all 'deliberate knocks' be a YC.
It is a risk reward situaiton, like you say, throwing a long cut out pass is risk reward; you have taken a risk on throwing a pass that might get taken, but if not, you should be in, if not, scrum or the opposition gets it or scores.
Why is it, the opposing team dont have the same risk/reward? If you take it, you should be in, if not, scrum or opposition gets it or scores.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@No-Quarter I think you are right, Marshall is in the all 'deliberate knocks' be a YC.
100% Marshall banged on about it. I brought that up a couple of years ago when I was arguing against yellows for failed intercepts. Didn't get much traction at the time because a lot of people on here seemed in favour of yellows cards.
-
knocking the ball on is not a penalty
for some reason deliberately knocking the ball on is
but i'm fucked if i can see how a ref can be sure he "deliberately knocked it on" and didn't just stuff up a catch.
This is just some bullshit rule brought in because some winger some time slapped a ball down to stop a try, a team lost because of it, someone whinged like fuck and we used a sledgehammer to "make sure it never happens again" (spoiler: it happened again).
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
knocking the ball on is not a penalty
for some reason deliberately knocking the ball on is
Seriously? You think deliberately knocking the ball on should not be penalised?
What happens then is that players catching a pass but coming up to be tackled throw the ball up in the air, and then run past the player to catch it. Players holding the ball can't pass it forwards, but if it is on the ground can bat it forward, past the defence line, to let their own side run on to it. Chip kicks would be replaced by Aussie Rules style hand bats, with much more control.
And don't give me "that's throwing the ball in the air" because then we are right back where we started with definitions.
Deliberate knock-ons must be penalised, or the game turns to farce. It's been in the laws forever -- it is not some recent thing, just because you have started noticing.
The fact that you don't see players often very deliberately knocking the ball on is precisely because it is heavily penalised. If it were free for all, then players would do it all the time -- why would they not?
-
@Kiwiwomble we are mate, and almost getting to stage of losing incredibly rusted on fans like me. I never thought I would say the day would come when I going to a test, and thinking I not sure I wouldn't rather just be at Kaponga to watch them. Perhaps it just the frustration, but I am someone who would travel from Aus to here in NZ when I lived there to watch rugby, at moment I for first time in my 67 years am not as excited as once was at the thought.
but its different now. For one every big game is on TV. Professional rugby has meant needing a diff set of rules and has changed the game. More sport options in nz. Internet means we can all watch our fill of rugby
Add in boring super rugby with one team always winning and poor decisions like expansion .
-
Lately I have been wondering if I need a change of thinking towards yellow, especially if the boffins are going to continue they way are going. Maybe I have to accept them as part of the game, a bit like Ice Hockey Power plays. I don't want cards to be part of the game, but the alternative is me giving up watching.
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
knocking the ball on is not a penalty
for some reason deliberately knocking the ball on is
Seriously? You think deliberately knocking the ball on should not be penalised?
What happens then is that players catching a pass but coming up to be tackled throw the ball up in the air, and then run past the player to catch it. Players holding the ball can't pass it forwards, but if it is on the ground can bat it forward, past the defence line, to let their own side run on to it. Chip kicks would be replaced by Aussie Rules style hand bats, with much more control.
And don't give me "that's throwing the ball in the air" because then we are right back where we started with definitions.
Deliberate knock-ons must be penalised, or the game turns to farce. It's been in the laws forever -- it is not some recent thing, just because you have started noticing.
The fact that you don't see players often very deliberately knocking the ball on is precisely because it is heavily penalised. If it were free for all, then players would do it all the time -- why would they not?
@Chester-Draws said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
knocking the ball on is not a penalty
for some reason deliberately knocking the ball on is
Seriously? You think deliberately knocking the ball on should not be penalised?
i dont, i think lots of things should just be dealt with was a scrum or free kick
let defending teams sack mauls, let players knock it down...play fucking on!
maybe its because the teams i support do a lot more defending that attacking
-
Just on the initial post I couldn't agree more. I was someone who went to sometimes extreme lengths to watch or even get rugby results when living overseas. Fark I remember the stress of waiting for the live update to refresh. I used to stress about getting home on time to watch Super games on Friday night. I didnt want to miss a game. Every AB loss was like a knife to the heart.
Now I'm starting to not even give a shit. A game that is by its very nature dangerous has been sanitised within an inch of its life. It's almost as stop-start as NFL ffs. The game has been destroyed as a spectacle. Just think, they've had to change red card rules because there are so fůcking many of them now.
They say they play rugby in heaven, well I hope to fůck it isn't this version.
-
@Crucial @gibbon-rib said they should be re written form the ground up....and you said they had been before posting a story about a review of the existing laws...thats not the same
thats also an article about what they planned to do, i would like to see if they actually did it
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial @gibbon-rib said they should be re written form the ground up....and you said they had been before posting a story about a review of the existing laws...thats not the same
thats also an article about what they planned to do, i would like to see if they actually did it
Seriously? You didn't notice the new law book come out but you want to keep arguing that it didn't happen?
They changed the structure, lots of the wording, altered a couple of laws for clarity (using already published clarifications), brought in pictures to help clarify....
People can be quick to throw stones at WR without even keeping up with the times. Again, not saying that the quality of the work is good just that some of the things called for has actually been done.
There was also a comment about old gin soaks out of touch yet the revamped law book was "....... product of nearly two years’ work by a specially constituted group of experts and follows a comprehensive consultation and feedback process with World Rugby’s 120 member unions and all six regional associations."
"The eight-person group includes law experts, referees, a club coach, a sports scientist as well as a web designer/illustrator" -
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial @gibbon-rib said they should be re written form the ground up....and you said they had been before posting a story about a review of the existing laws...thats not the same
thats also an article about what they planned to do, i would like to see if they actually did it
Seriously? You didn't notice the new law book come out but you want to keep arguing that it didn't happen?
They changed the structure, lots of the wording, altered a couple of laws for clarity (using already published clarifications), brought in pictures to help clarify....
People can be quick to throw stones at WR without even keeping up with the times. Again, not saying that the quality of the work is good just that some of the things called for has actually been done.
There was also a comment about old gin soaks out of touch yet the revamped law book was "....... product of nearly two years’ work by a specially constituted group of experts and follows a comprehensive consultation and feedback process with World Rugby’s 120 member unions and all six regional associations."
"The eight-person group includes law experts, referees, a club coach, a sports scientist as well as a web designer/illustrator"@Crucial my point was, its still not a ground up rewriting of the laws of the game, which is what we were talking about
-
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
whats next?
I feel anything ive read about is a review of the existing laws which is very different
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
we can't even agree on 3. Despite the physics being explained, videos being presented, etc. The difference between forward relative to the runner and forward relative to the ground are just not understood. See also Barnes, W.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
we can't even agree on 3. Despite the physics being explained, videos being presented, etc. The difference between forward relative to the runner and forward relative to the ground are just not understood. See also Barnes, W.
@nzzp jeez...i really dont want to get into that again, i think my stance is different to most so will leave it
-
Just on the initial post I couldn't agree more. I was someone who went to sometimes extreme lengths to watch or even get rugby results when living overseas. Fark I remember the stress of waiting for the live update to refresh. I used to stress about getting home on time to watch Super games on Friday night. I didnt want to miss a game. Every AB loss was like a knife to the heart.
Now I'm starting to not even give a shit. A game that is by its very nature dangerous has been sanitised within an inch of its life. It's almost as stop-start as NFL ffs. The game has been destroyed as a spectacle. Just think, they've had to change red card rules because there are so fůcking many of them now.
They say they play rugby in heaven, well I hope to fůck it isn't this version.
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Current State of Rugby:
Just on the initial post I couldn't agree more. I was someone who went to sometimes extreme lengths to watch or even get rugby results when living overseas. Fark I remember the stress of waiting for the live update to refresh. I used to stress about getting home on time to watch Super games on Friday night. I didnt want to miss a game. Every AB loss was like a knife to the heart.
Now I'm starting to not even give a shit. A game that is by its very nature dangerous has been sanitised within an inch of its life. It's almost as stop-start as NFL ffs. The game has been destroyed as a spectacle. Just think, they've had to change red card rules because there are so fůcking many of them now.
They say they play rugby in heaven, well I hope to fůck it isn't this version.
It does make you wonder if the 'old game' is fit for purpose with bigger, faster players.
Watching a game of decent club rugby or an age group/women's game is much more enjoyable and simple.
You could either change the pro laws to suit the players or, as suggested, change some of the laws around subs to pull the pro game back toward 'normality'.
It's the hemisphere difference that puzzles me. Is it a parochial thing? How is it that 'their' game doesn't see the same problems? It's not as if accidents don't happen when you cross an equator. The NH game isn't a 10 man one any more either so the loss of players from the field has a similar effect. Or is it media driven? There was an Irish Times article the other day that made the ABs out to be vicious thugs out to cripple people. -
I'm convinced the simple solution to everything is to have the ball in play more. Don't stop because someone wants to tie up a shoelace or put in a contact lens. Don't get to the lineout quickly enough? Short arm penalty. Fuck around at scrum time, short arm penalty. Water is for half time.
-
I'm convinced the simple solution to everything is to have the ball in play more. Don't stop because someone wants to tie up a shoelace or put in a contact lens. Don't get to the lineout quickly enough? Short arm penalty. Fuck around at scrum time, short arm penalty. Water is for half time.
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm convinced the simple solution to everything is to have the ball in play more. Don't stop because someone wants to tie up a shoelace or put in a contact lens. Don't get to the lineout quickly enough? Short arm penalty. Fuck around at scrum time, short arm penalty. Water is for half time.
That has also (supposedly) changed already.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial ....exactly....a review of the existing laws, anything from after this exercise as this was all about what was going to happen
My comment was in reply to this statement..
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
1 - The law book is a mess, poorly written - ambiguous, contradictory, vague - and should be re-written from the ground up even if they don't change any laws (and we all agree they need to change some of them).
I was pointing out that exactly this happened only a few years back. Almost 50% of text was cut out. Descriptions replaced with diagrams etc
I'm not arguing any quality of laws just that stating that it is a mess and poorly written appears based on the law bokk prior to this re-write.
eg: there is no deliberate knock-on. It clearly, and unambiguously, states that a player cannot intentionally knock the ball forward. I seem to remember that the old law book firstly defined a 'knock-on' then set laws around that definition.
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial ....exactly....a review of the existing laws, anything from after this exercise as this was all about what was going to happen
My comment was in reply to this statement..
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
1 - The law book is a mess, poorly written - ambiguous, contradictory, vague - and should be re-written from the ground up even if they don't change any laws (and we all agree they need to change some of them).
I was pointing out that exactly this happened only a few years back. Almost 50% of text was cut out. Descriptions replaced with diagrams etc
I'm not arguing any quality of laws just that stating that it is a mess and poorly written appears based on the law bokk prior to this re-write.
eg: there is no deliberate knock-on. It clearly, and unambiguously, states that a player cannot intentionally knock the ball forward. I seem to remember that the old law book firstly defined a 'knock-on' then set laws around that definition.
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial ....exactly....a review of the existing laws, anything from after this exercise as this was all about what was going to happen
My comment was in reply to this statement..
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
1 - The law book is a mess, poorly written - ambiguous, contradictory, vague - and should be re-written from the ground up even if they don't change any laws (and we all agree they need to change some of them).
I was pointing out that exactly this happened only a few years back. Almost 50% of text was cut out. Descriptions replaced with diagrams etc
I'm not arguing any quality of laws just that stating that it is a mess and poorly written appears based on the law bokk prior to this re-write.
eg: there is no deliberate knock-on. It clearly, and unambiguously, states that a player cannot intentionally knock the ball forward. I seem to remember that the old law book firstly defined a 'knock-on' then set laws around that definition.
No, I'm talking about the current 2022 version, and the one preceding it. Maybe it was even worse before, but if it's been recently rewritten then they did not do a good job of it.
The deliberate knock on is a good example. The law book defines what a knock on is. Then it defines the sanction for an intentional knock on. Then it specifies what doesn't count as intentional knock on. But it doesn't actually define what an "intentional knock on" is.
So we're left to guess - is it any knock on that is not covered by the "not an intentional knock on" section? Is it a literal interpretation i.e the ref has to decide what was in the player's mind?
Convention seems to be a bit of both - they talk about whether it was a "realistic" attempt (this is from the "not an intentional knock on" definition) but the whole thing relies on implication and interpretation. Just write the law properly FFS, it shouldn't be this difficult.
