The Current State of Rugby
-
-
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
The only way this will change is if TMO interventions are clearly in favour of the All Blacks. Right now the rugby world still seems to watch us have our comeuppance.
For me, I'm happy to have the TMO, but it needs to be applied to everything or nothing at all. And RCs need (outside of egregious foul play) need to go to judiciary. Right now cards are defining outcomes and ruining the game.
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
And RCs need (outside of egregious foul play) need to go to judiciary. Right now cards are defining outcomes and ruining the game.
As I've said before - Cyril Brownlie got a red card in 1925. Pinetree got the next one (for us) in 1967.
Now you have eight dished out in this RWC.
They've fundamentally changed the nature of the game, but not the penalty.
Instead of being called "red cards" maybe they should be called "the shit-coloured snitch".
As a brief re-cap, in JK Rowling's Quidditch - if you catch the snitch you win the game - regardless of whatever all the other players have been up to in regards to scoring goals and points.
It is a shit game (that would never be played as she envisages it).
-
The obsession that WR has with cards is really insane. Thinking they can fix head knocks by ruining as many games as possible by carding players making errors of judgement in a fast paced game. Just madness.
Honestly, if I was taking WR to court over head knocks and early dementia etc, my angle wouldn't be that the refs didn't crack down enough, my angle would 100% be that all of the changes to the laws recently have been geared towards slowing the game down that massively benefits larger players. The larger the players, the larger the collisions, the larger the chance of serious head injury (among a host of other serious injuries). I know it's all been said before, but if they are actually concerned about head knocks they'd look to speed the game up big time, and there's some pretty obvious and easy changes they could make to the rules around the bench alone that would help.
-
The obsession that WR has with cards is really insane. Thinking they can fix head knocks by ruining as many games as possible by carding players making errors of judgement in a fast paced game. Just madness.
Honestly, if I was taking WR to court over head knocks and early dementia etc, my angle wouldn't be that the refs didn't crack down enough, my angle would 100% be that all of the changes to the laws recently have been geared towards slowing the game down that massively benefits larger players. The larger the players, the larger the collisions, the larger the chance of serious head injury (among a host of other serious injuries). I know it's all been said before, but if they are actually concerned about head knocks they'd look to speed the game up big time, and there's some pretty obvious and easy changes they could make to the rules around the bench alone that would help.
@No-Quarter said in The Current State of Rugby:
The obsession that WR has with cards is really insane.
Look at Ireland, 1 card this year I think, and a handful this cycle. It is not WR obsession only, it is the player's being shit and not accurate enough. You can talk dynamic game etc, but the world No1/2 most successful team this RWC cycle(*) did it with fuck all cards. Especially ABs and Oz, who play with refs who are lenient and rules that are lenient.
(*)until we smashed 'em in the quarters haha
-
Problems with world rugby - well 2 for me.
-
The TMO in their God-box minutely reviewing the game and over-ruling the ref - the technology should be there to help the ref make a decision or for the players to challenge a refs decision.
-
Having a squad of 23 effectively means you can sub over half the team, this can take the "fatigue factor" almost completely out of the game (something to their credit SA have recognized and exploited better than everyone else) . We should do something like football where there's a large number of available subs on the bench - but only allowed to use 4 or 5 tactical subs in the game.
This would help the game flow more (less interruptions) and also allow a freer, more expansive game (especially in the second half when fatigue sets in).
-
-
Problems with world rugby - well 2 for me.
-
The TMO in their God-box minutely reviewing the game and over-ruling the ref - the technology should be there to help the ref make a decision or for the players to challenge a refs decision.
-
Having a squad of 23 effectively means you can sub over half the team, this can take the "fatigue factor" almost completely out of the game (something to their credit SA have recognized and exploited better than everyone else) . We should do something like football where there's a large number of available subs on the bench - but only allowed to use 4 or 5 tactical subs in the game.
This would help the game flow more (less interruptions) and also allow a freer, more expansive game (especially in the second half when fatigue sets in).
@Windows97 said in The Current State of Rugby:
Problems with world rugby - well 2 for me.
- The TMO in their God-box minutely reviewing the game and over-ruling the ref - the technology should be there to help the ref make a decision or for the players to challenge a refs decision.
The Ref should be able to over rule the TMO also, pretty sure he can. Case in point would be Smiths disallowed try where TMO went back several phases of play earlier
-
-
@Windows97 said in The Current State of Rugby:
Problems with world rugby - well 2 for me.
- The TMO in their God-box minutely reviewing the game and over-ruling the ref - the technology should be there to help the ref make a decision or for the players to challenge a refs decision.
The Ref should be able to over rule the TMO also, pretty sure he can. Case in point would be Smiths disallowed try where TMO went back several phases of play earlier
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
-
The obsession that WR has with cards is really insane. Thinking they can fix head knocks by ruining as many games as possible by carding players making errors of judgement in a fast paced game. Just madness.
Honestly, if I was taking WR to court over head knocks and early dementia etc, my angle wouldn't be that the refs didn't crack down enough, my angle would 100% be that all of the changes to the laws recently have been geared towards slowing the game down that massively benefits larger players. The larger the players, the larger the collisions, the larger the chance of serious head injury (among a host of other serious injuries). I know it's all been said before, but if they are actually concerned about head knocks they'd look to speed the game up big time, and there's some pretty obvious and easy changes they could make to the rules around the bench alone that would help.
This may sound absurd but could it be possible that attacking players could intentionally go into a situation where a defender is likely to make a head high tackle to milk a card. For instance, the Sam Cane example, could Kriel have seen that Cane is standing upright and had no chance of tackling low and would most likely receive a penalty or card? Kriel knows the impact is going to be high because he uses his arm to minimise the impact.
This is pure speculation but the frequency of cards being dished out could actually increase head knocks
-
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
-
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
If the rule about two phases still exists, then a competent TMO shouldn't be raising it with the ref to begin with.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
That's not what the protocol says.
-
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
That's not what the protocol says.
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
That's not what the protocol says.
went to find it. Some extracts.
first sentence!
The referee remains the lead decision-maker of the refereeing teamand then
Where match officials believe a Clear and Obvious infringement may have occurred in the immediate two phases of play leading to a try being scoredthe next section is clear that foul play has no two phase limit. So it's very very clear, and shouldn't have been breached.
I have seen arguments that there were tackles rather than 'phases' - but I am not sure that stacks up. https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf
-
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
Is protocol law, though?
A system of rules and accepted behaviour? Yes, otherwise why bother mentioning 'the immediate two phases of play'?
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
All due respect to the man, but he is preaching to the converted. He needs to be talking to the administrators, journalists, pundits and fans in the NH who think there's nothing wrong with the game and that it is incumbent on players and coaches "to do better".
-
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
-
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
All due respect to the man, but he is preaching to the converted. He needs to be talking to the administrators, journalists, pundits and fans in the NH who think there's nothing wrong with the game and that it is incumbent on players and coaches "to do better".
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
All due respect to the man, but he is preaching to the converted. He needs to be talking to the administrators, journalists, pundits and fans in the NH who think there's nothing wrong with the game and that it is incumbent on players and coaches "to do better".
There’s certainly an element within the pundits that trot out that mantra, though I think in private it might be different. A bit of “toeing the party line” to keep your job. Rugby fans in general up here though have much the same doubts and concerns about the state of the game today.
-
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
Yep. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I was at a dinner and Q&A with Rob Baxter a couple of years ago and there was a question about de-powering scrums to stop constant re-sets and he highlighted the knock on effects of such a strategy.
-
The officiating from every angle is what is doing my head in and I think the single biggest thing WR can do to improve things is to stop changing the bloody rules and guidelines every few months. We had loads of issues about jumping in the air a few years back and that soon settled down as the rules were clear and constant.
Sticking to a single set of rules and/or guidelines for at least a season or two would help bed down consistency and make life a heck of a lot easier for Refs, players and spectators alike - and reduce the need for the TMO.
-
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
Yep. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I was at a dinner and Q&A with Rob Baxter a couple of years ago and there was a question about de-powering scrums to stop constant re-sets and he highlighted the knock on effects of such a strategy.
@Catogrande said in The Current State of Rugby:
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
Yep. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I was at a dinner and Q&A with Rob Baxter a couple of years ago and there was a question about de-powering scrums to stop constant re-sets and he highlighted the knock on effects of such a strategy.
This type of second-order thinking is exactly why you don't, and will never, work in rugby administration.
