The Current State of Rugby
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
i reckon the maul becomes way less of a weapon if there is no lineout lifting, and that facet goes back to a 50/50 contest.
If you are concerned with the maul I thinks there’s law changes specific to the maul that could deal with that (only one ‘use it’, penalising the attacking team for bring it down too etc)
The lineout is still a contest, just not a 50/50 contest. The old lineouts were very scrappy. The cleaner ball helps the backs
I agree the should be formed quicker though. So your idea of a time limit on that could work..
Maybe stop caring about numbers? If the defending team over commits to the lineout there’s an overlap if you win the ball. If the defence under commits they’ll get mauled.
@Duluth all really good points, and none i fundamentally disagree with
i guess, my view is (and i know it's just my view) i would take a bit of "mess" as rugby at the elite level is so very very structured now. And i believe to the detriment of the spectacle. I have NFL that i follow religiously for that. Rugby is at its best with a bit of chaos
the problem is, professional coaches fucking hate chaos, and will do everything they can to avoid it
-
@Duluth all really good points, and none i fundamentally disagree with
i guess, my view is (and i know it's just my view) i would take a bit of "mess" as rugby at the elite level is so very very structured now. And i believe to the detriment of the spectacle. I have NFL that i follow religiously for that. Rugby is at its best with a bit of chaos
the problem is, professional coaches fucking hate chaos, and will do everything they can to avoid it
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
i guess, my view is (and i know it's just my view) i would take a bit of "mess" as rugby at the elite level is so very very structured now. And i believe to the detriment of the spectacle. I have NFL that i follow religiously for that. Rugby is at its best with a bit of chaos
Probably need fatigue to get the chaos back. Players who are gassed struggle to stay in the defence pattern, make tactical errors on attack etc. It also allows freaks like Jones/McCaw to stand out
So anything to speed up the game would be good
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
i reckon the maul becomes way less of a weapon if there is no lineout lifting, and that facet goes back to a 50/50 contest.
If you are concerned with the maul I thinks there’s law changes specific to the maul that could deal with that (only one ‘use it’, penalising the attacking team for bring it down too etc)
The lineout is still a contest, just not a 50/50 contest. The old lineouts were very scrappy. The cleaner ball helps the backs
I agree the should be formed quicker though. So your idea of a time limit on that could work..
Maybe stop caring about numbers? If the defending team over commits to the lineout there’s an overlap if you win the ball. If the defence under commits they’ll get mauled.
@Duluth didnt they trial the lineout numbers thing? Was that under the ELVs?
-
@Duluth didnt they trial the lineout numbers thing? Was that under the ELVs?
-
I've lost track of what they tried. I think you're right
@Duluth but agree it is a pointless rule, similarly, if a team chooses not to contest a lineout, then if it isnt straight (as long as caught by a player in the lineout) then it shouldnt matter.
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
i guess, my view is (and i know it's just my view) i would take a bit of "mess" as rugby at the elite level is so very very structured now. And i believe to the detriment of the spectacle. I have NFL that i follow religiously for that. Rugby is at its best with a bit of chaos
Probably need fatigue to get the chaos back. Players who are gassed struggle to stay in the defence pattern, make tactical errors on attack etc. It also allows freaks like Jones/McCaw to stand out
So anything to speed up the game would be good
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
in essence i agree but i know why it will be shouted down
Players associations will say now because player welfare
But the number of cards will skyrocket as fatigued players make bad decisions or just plain can't get to the right position. And people will hate it. -
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
i guess, my view is (and i know it's just my view) i would take a bit of "mess" as rugby at the elite level is so very very structured now. And i believe to the detriment of the spectacle. I have NFL that i follow religiously for that. Rugby is at its best with a bit of chaos
Probably need fatigue to get the chaos back. Players who are gassed struggle to stay in the defence pattern, make tactical errors on attack etc. It also allows freaks like Jones/McCaw to stand out
So anything to speed up the game would be good
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
i guess, my view is (and i know it's just my view) i would take a bit of "mess" as rugby at the elite level is so very very structured now. And i believe to the detriment of the spectacle. I have NFL that i follow religiously for that. Rugby is at its best with a bit of chaos
Probably need fatigue to get the chaos back. Players who are gassed struggle to stay in the defence pattern, make tactical errors on attack etc. It also allows freaks like Jones/McCaw to stand out
So anything to speed up the game would be good
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
I would go further and say you can make 5 substitutes fullstop, as 3 would have to be saved for front row, would limit how they do it.
But can se problems as mariner4life says player association might have a problem and maybe it would be open to abuse re HIA protocols etc. -
@Duluth didnt they trial the lineout numbers thing? Was that under the ELVs?
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Duluth didnt they trial the lineout numbers thing? Was that under the ELVs?
That trial was last year in Queensland (among some other changes)
-
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
in essence i agree but i know why it will be shouted down
Players associations will say now because player welfare
But the number of cards will skyrocket as fatigued players make bad decisions or just plain can't get to the right position. And people will hate it.@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
in essence i agree but i know why it will be shouted down
Players associations will say now because player welfare
But the number of cards will skyrocket as fatigued players make bad decisions or just plain can't get to the right position. And people will hate it.Speeding up the game, causing more fatigue, leading to more bad decisions...
Struggle to see the down side
-
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
in essence i agree but i know why it will be shouted down
Players associations will say now because player welfare
But the number of cards will skyrocket as fatigued players make bad decisions or just plain can't get to the right position. And people will hate it.@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
I would like to see a limit on the number of substitutions trialled. Keep 8 on the bench but only 4 tactical subs? It's probably too easy to game the system now though
in essence i agree but i know why it will be shouted down
Players associations will say now because player welfare
But the number of cards will skyrocket as fatigued players make bad decisions or just plain can't get to the right position. And people will hate it.I am vastly less irritated by cards towards the end of games than I am at the beginning.
-
Ok it's gone well beyond stupid now. Will post a video if I find one but this was worth a penalty at best.
https://twitter.com/SaintsRugby/status/1616812191566397440?t=CyJwuV3O7eBZWqd0z8OwHg&s=19
-
@Bones LOL WTF. A fend is now worthy of a red card? I'd get sent off every game.
@antipodean it was ruled leading with the elbow, but it fucking wasn't. It was a guy running into his elbow as he'd raised his arm to fend - the guy still complete the tackle iirc.
-
@Bones like many issues in our game, its the application of existing laws that is the problem, if they ref'd both sides the same and properly, the maul would become less of a weapon.
-
Cockerills point has a flip side.
The only teams that like the maul are those equipped to take advantage of it.
Like @taniwharugby I think that only a few law applications are required to bring balance to the force.
No second shove. Straight driving only. Make it equitable to a scrum (which is what it is). Proper binding.
If I saw an opponent with the ball and finger tip connection I would run around and tackle them then hold the ref to account. The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that. -
Cockerills point has a flip side.
The only teams that like the maul are those equipped to take advantage of it.
Like @taniwharugby I think that only a few law applications are required to bring balance to the force.
No second shove. Straight driving only. Make it equitable to a scrum (which is what it is). Proper binding.
If I saw an opponent with the ball and finger tip connection I would run around and tackle them then hold the ref to account. The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.@Crucial not to mention attacking players don't seem to be required to join from the back, but yes a full bind in mauls and rucks would go a long way to mending some issues.
-
Cockerills point has a flip side.
The only teams that like the maul are those equipped to take advantage of it.
Like @taniwharugby I think that only a few law applications are required to bring balance to the force.
No second shove. Straight driving only. Make it equitable to a scrum (which is what it is). Proper binding.
If I saw an opponent with the ball and finger tip connection I would run around and tackle them then hold the ref to account. The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that. -
Cockerills point has a flip side.
The only teams that like the maul are those equipped to take advantage of it.
Like @taniwharugby I think that only a few law applications are required to bring balance to the force.
No second shove. Straight driving only. Make it equitable to a scrum (which is what it is). Proper binding.
If I saw an opponent with the ball and finger tip connection I would run around and tackle them then hold the ref to account. The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.
it's a law they will ignore I suspect. Like touching the ball /rolling it on the ground in a ruck to make it playable - technically illegal, but let go by refs.
You are correct though; lifting a shoulder should be enough for the maul to be over. Or, technically, a scrum. Consistency from refs is critical here
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.
it's a law they will ignore I suspect. Like touching the ball /rolling it on the ground in a ruck to make it playable - technically illegal, but let go by refs.
You are correct though; lifting a shoulder should be enough for the maul to be over. Or, technically, a scrum. Consistency from refs is critical here
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.
it's a law they will ignore I suspect. Like touching the ball /rolling it on the ground in a ruck to make it playable - technically illegal, but let go by refs.
You are correct though; lifting a shoulder should be enough for the maul to be over. Or, technically, a scrum. Consistency from refs is critical here
It would simplify law application for scrums and mauls to be consistent. If the 8 in a scrum lifts a shoulder the scrum is over. Extra players can't join scrums. Scrums need to push straight (not roll deliberately). A scrum can't reform etc etc
On the other hand flankers will need to keep a full bind on the scrum until it is over (good thing)
