The Current State of Rugby
-
Hmmm. I see 7s as the gateway drug for referees sin-binning anything & everything that never deserved a card. Wasn't a fan.
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
Hmmm. I see 7s as the gateway drug for referees sin-binning anything & everything that never deserved a card. Wasn't a fan.
Was certainly more prevalent earlier in sevens and bloody annoying then too. I just made the comment in the sevens thread that 6 on 7 is a hard watch for two minutes.
We really do need a better system for discipline than sending players off. The fans pay the real price for it.
-
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
Hmmm. I see 7s as the gateway drug for referees sin-binning anything & everything that never deserved a card. Wasn't a fan.
Was certainly more prevalent earlier in sevens and bloody annoying then too. I just made the comment in the sevens thread that 6 on 7 is a hard watch for two minutes.
We really do need a better system for discipline than sending players off. The fans pay the real price for it.
@Snowy sometimes i have wondered, in the case of proper foul play (high tackle etc) whether a penalty try regardless of where on the field and no sending off wouldn't keep the game going, the player obviously doesn't get punished but maybe thats where after match sanctions come in
-
@Snowy sometimes i have wondered, in the case of proper foul play (high tackle etc) whether a penalty try regardless of where on the field and no sending off wouldn't keep the game going, the player obviously doesn't get punished but maybe thats where after match sanctions come in
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Snowy sometimes i have wondered, in the case of proper foul play (high tackle etc) whether a penalty try regardless of where on the field and no sending off wouldn't keep the game going, the player obviously doesn't get punished but maybe thats where after match sanctions come in
Hard to come up with a solution but we need one. The above would probably just give more power to pedants officiating. They can directly affect the outcome, rather indirectly like now when one team can have 79 minutes to overcome opposition with 14 men.
The worst bit is that so many of the red cards are accidental. Negligent sure, but often just a reflex, fling an arm out stuff.
A yellow for a deliberate knock on isn't actually in the law book, the sanction is a penalty - unless it is cynical / prevents a try being scored. Seems to be an awful lot of cynicism and probable tries...
Most of those are just fling an arm out stuff as well, yet we end up without 30 players on the field.The most obvious deliberate knock ons that I have seen are from halfbacks when a penalty has been awarded and they want to take the kick. That is cynical but they never get penalised certainly not sent off. (TBF I haven't noticed it much lately, maybe they got told).
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Snowy sometimes i have wondered, in the case of proper foul play (high tackle etc) whether a penalty try regardless of where on the field and no sending off wouldn't keep the game going, the player obviously doesn't get punished but maybe thats where after match sanctions come in
Hard to come up with a solution but we need one. The above would probably just give more power to pedants officiating. They can directly affect the outcome, rather indirectly like now when one team can have 79 minutes to overcome opposition with 14 men.
The worst bit is that so many of the red cards are accidental. Negligent sure, but often just a reflex, fling an arm out stuff.
A yellow for a deliberate knock on isn't actually in the law book, the sanction is a penalty - unless it is cynical / prevents a try being scored. Seems to be an awful lot of cynicism and probable tries...
Most of those are just fling an arm out stuff as well, yet we end up without 30 players on the field.The most obvious deliberate knock ons that I have seen are from halfbacks when a penalty has been awarded and they want to take the kick. That is cynical but they never get penalised certainly not sent off. (TBF I haven't noticed it much lately, maybe they got told).
@Snowy yeah, good points
ive been saying for a while the only way forward is "just let shit go"...so just accept cynical (not like punching and high shots but deliberate knocks for example) and accidental stuff as part of the game...play so as to make cynical stuff harder to do....but obviously thats not an option, fans and officials arent suddenly going to accept all that stuff just so there is less to moan about...
thats why fixing the game is such a tough idea
-
@Snowy yeah, good points
ive been saying for a while the only way forward is "just let shit go"...so just accept cynical (not like punching and high shots but deliberate knocks for example) and accidental stuff as part of the game...play so as to make cynical stuff harder to do....but obviously thats not an option, fans and officials arent suddenly going to accept all that stuff just so there is less to moan about...
thats why fixing the game is such a tough idea
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
thats why fixing the game is such a tough idea
Indeed it is.
When you put words like "deliberate" in any law you are asking for trouble. It is almost impossible to prove intent, we aren't mind readers. NZ tax law is full of "intent" wording and an absolute minefield.
For deliberate knock ons - Intercepts are exciting they add to the drama. Detering players from having a crack and sending them off is fucked (in my opinion of course). Leave the onus on the passer not to give the opposition a sniff at it.
How many times have we seen a player pass to an AR or into the crowd? If it was in the last second of the game, and you are ahead, a kick to touch could be charged, you "pass" it out. Was it thrown out? Deliberately? SBW knocked one dead a while back, (probably forgot which code he was playing) if he had fumbled it dead, it would have been O.K. It was obvious in that case, but should it be an interpretation? That's where league is getting it right and union wrong. Let them do it, in this case anyway. You can run into touch, kick into touch, but not pass into touch, or it's a penalty. A bit random isn't it?
Just clearer, less ambiguous laws, would be a start. Refs have hard enough time without leaving it up to them to decide if something was deliberate. Only one person knows what was intended and FFS leave thirty guys on the field, sort out thuggery separately.
-
I've banged on a bout it heaps, but rugby's problem is, so much stuff is legal right up until it's not. Hand in the ruck is the best illustration. But there are so many infringements in the game that are completely reliant on the referees judgement, around timing, around angle, around intent. You simply cannot expect consistency between referees when these things happen at speed.
And all VAR has done is move the judgement from one guy to another guy. A guy looking at things in slow motion, which actually distorts everything.
League has the advantage that it is a very very simple game. And the only place that judgement comes in to it is the strip. This black and white view though has led to some stupid outcomes, mainly around obstruction. But it is a far simpler game to referee.
Rugby will never be this simple because it is a constant contest
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
thats why fixing the game is such a tough idea
Indeed it is.
When you put words like "deliberate" in any law you are asking for trouble. It is almost impossible to prove intent, we aren't mind readers. NZ tax law is full of "intent" wording and an absolute minefield.
For deliberate knock ons - Intercepts are exciting they add to the drama. Detering players from having a crack and sending them off is fucked (in my opinion of course). Leave the onus on the passer not to give the opposition a sniff at it.
How many times have we seen a player pass to an AR or into the crowd? If it was in the last second of the game, and you are ahead, a kick to touch could be charged, you "pass" it out. Was it thrown out? Deliberately? SBW knocked one dead a while back, (probably forgot which code he was playing) if he had fumbled it dead, it would have been O.K. It was obvious in that case, but should it be an interpretation? That's where league is getting it right and union wrong. Let them do it, in this case anyway. You can run into touch, kick into touch, but not pass into touch, or it's a penalty. A bit random isn't it?
Just clearer, less ambiguous laws, would be a start. Refs have hard enough time without leaving it up to them to decide if something was deliberate. Only one person knows what was intended and FFS leave thirty guys on the field, sort out thuggery separately.
@Snowy said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
thats why fixing the game is such a tough idea
Indeed it is.
When you put words like "deliberate" in any law you are asking for trouble. It is almost impossible to prove intent, we aren't mind readers. NZ tax law is full of "intent" wording and an absolute minefield.
For deliberate knock ons - Intercepts are exciting they add to the drama. Detering players from having a crack and sending them off is fucked (in my opinion of course). Leave the onus on the passer not to give the opposition a sniff at it.
How many times have we seen a player pass to an AR or into the crowd? If it was in the last second of the game, and you are ahead, a kick to touch could be charged, you "pass" it out. Was it thrown out? Deliberately? SBW knocked one dead a while back, (probably forgot which code he was playing) if he had fumbled it dead, it would have been O.K. It was obvious in that case, but should it be an interpretation? That's where league is getting it right and union wrong. Let them do it, in this case anyway. You can run into touch, kick into touch, but not pass into touch, or it's a penalty. A bit random isn't it?
Just clearer, less ambiguous laws, would be a start. Refs have hard enough time without leaving it up to them to decide if something was deliberate. Only one person knows what was intended and FFS leave thirty guys on the field, sort out thuggery separately.
agreed on all counts, leave lots of stuff up to the players to attack or defend better rather than using the laws to try (fail) to do it
-
I've banged on a bout it heaps, but rugby's problem is, so much stuff is legal right up until it's not. Hand in the ruck is the best illustration. But there are so many infringements in the game that are completely reliant on the referees judgement, around timing, around angle, around intent. You simply cannot expect consistency between referees when these things happen at speed.
And all VAR has done is move the judgement from one guy to another guy. A guy looking at things in slow motion, which actually distorts everything.
League has the advantage that it is a very very simple game. And the only place that judgement comes in to it is the strip. This black and white view though has led to some stupid outcomes, mainly around obstruction. But it is a far simpler game to referee.
Rugby will never be this simple because it is a constant contest
@mariner4life I agree with what you're saying, and I wasn't suggesting that union got dumbed down to league levels (tongue firmly in cheek) , merely that league has got some things right that union could use. Probably too arrogant to do so, but some simplification wouldn't be too hard. I have even given a couple of examples.
-
A few weeks on from the RWC and I haven't watched any rugby since - not even any highlights. Just like I followed Cricket with a passion and then simply lost interest, I'm starting to get the same vibes about Rugby. Reasons?
Refereeing: Not the referee's as I think they do a pretty good job overall but the erratic, constantly changing, re-assessed, re-applied, dis-applied rules around tackling, TMO input, disciplinary outcomes and, well, just about everything. I want a game of rugby, not a fucking lottery where some bloke in a truck randomly sees something and acts on it.
Rules: I'm not thick or senile, but struggle to keep up with the changes and variances between countries and tournaments. No the only one - a local bloke who's a pretty good ref admitted he gets as confused as me.
Supporters (some of). Maybe a transitory thing but there seems to be way too much tribalism creeping in with booing and taunting the players. Not to be confused with passion, groaning at a decision or chanting/singing support for your team. Twickenham was appalling 10-15 years ago for this but the atmosphere has been great recently with maybe more passion than ever.
Respect: One of the great things about Rugby was its total opposite to the cynicism you see in Soccer. Not any more as the dividing line is getting blurrier and blurrier. The abuse handed out to the officials at this RWC was bang out of order. Criticise the Ref by all means but death threats? Threats to kill his family?
Player attitudes: There's always been dickheads but (maybe I'm just old) there now seems more of them and their actions now almost seem to be not only tolerated but celebrated. Sexton may be a great 10 but he's one fucking awful rugby player.
Journalists. Acerbic analysis is great but we now seem to have a competition on who can be the most insulting, ignorant and stir up the most trouble. The same loons who say spent years attacking Umaga are now complaining about the mental pressure put on Farrell....by the media. Wise up arseholes - you're the ones who incubated this poisonous shit.
Coaches. They aren't more important than the players, aren't gods, miracle-workers or rocket scientists. Waving coloured lights about or saying "We have to improve our defence and kicking game" doesn't make you a genius or savior of the universe. Time we stopped thinking they are and putting them on a pedestal or casting them into the 9th level of Hell.
Smaller nations. Constantly screwed by the money men and the bigger nations. I'd love to see more of the likes of Portugal and Georgia against top-flight sides (even the top sides B teams). Fat chance, so I'm calling World Rugby's bullshit on growing the game.
Could go on and there are good things like the women's game, but I shake my head about the state of the game overall and where it is going.
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
Supporters (some of). Maybe a transitory thing but there seems to be way too much tribalism creeping in with booing and taunting the players. Not to be confused with passion, groaning at a decision or chanting/singing support for your team. Twickenham was appalling 10-15 years ago for this but the atmosphere has been great recently with maybe more passion than ever.
I'm confused, you start off by saying times are bad, but end up saying it's great?
Anyway, supporters seem as good as ever. The pre RWC final warm up at twickers had a fantastic atmosphere. Bit of banter as you'd expect, but good spirits all around.
Mind you, might have been different if the scorecard was reversed...
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
Supporters (some of). Maybe a transitory thing but there seems to be way too much tribalism creeping in with booing and taunting the players. Not to be confused with passion, groaning at a decision or chanting/singing support for your team. Twickenham was appalling 10-15 years ago for this but the atmosphere has been great recently with maybe more passion than ever.
I'm confused, you start off by saying times are bad, but end up saying it's great?
Anyway, supporters seem as good as ever. The pre RWC final warm up at twickers had a fantastic atmosphere. Bit of banter as you'd expect, but good spirits all around.
Mind you, might have been different if the scorecard was reversed...
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm confused, you start off by saying times are bad,
I'll explain. I started off saying what I think is wrong with the game and then split it down into sections.
but end up saying it's great?
On supporters, my main point was there was too much tribalism creeping in. I also said some supporters were as good as ever and Twickenham has done a great job in cleaning up most of the shit behaviour we've had there in the past.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
It has the fun missing from the top-level 15 man game
Normally I would agree with you, but it lacks a lot of the (now well documented on here) frustration as well.
As @Machpants has now mentioned.
@Snowy said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
It has the fun missing from the top-level 15 man game
Normally I would agree with you, but it lacks a lot of the (now well documented on here) frustration as well.
As @Machpants has now mentioned.
I'm agreeing with you @Machpants! I'm saying 7s has all the fun that's missing from the 15 man game
-
You'll never get enough buy in
If you go to other parts of rugby social media fans from other jurisdictions want more cards, and are more than happy with the current state of affairs.
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
You'll never get enough buy in
If you go to other parts of rugby social media fans from other jurisdictions want more cards, and are more than happy with the current state of affairs.
I'm certain that will change as soon as they're on the receiving end. And then I hope it doesn't.
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
You'll never get enough buy in
If you go to other parts of rugby social media fans from other jurisdictions want more cards, and are more than happy with the current state of affairs.
I'm certain that will change as soon as they're on the receiving end. And then I hope it doesn't.
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
You'll never get enough buy in
If you go to other parts of rugby social media fans from other jurisdictions want more cards, and are more than happy with the current state of affairs.
I'm certain that will change as soon as they're on the receiving end. And then I hope it doesn't.
@mariner4life well if they want more cards the upside is that I will end up watching svns anyway (fuck that is stupid, are "e"s expensive or something?). The number of cards mean that union games (can't calls them "matches" as it implies an even contest) seem to be down to league numbers on the field, so they might as well keep going.
If @antipodean is correct, then until it happens to these other social media fans, rugby union 15s has fallen completely off my list of pleasurable pastimes.
-
Boks to play Portugal in July. This is good news for the smaller countries - hope the other Tier One nations follow suit.
-
@Tim said in The Current State of Rugby:
Love Gatland, but that is muddled, contradictory thinking.
Too much kicking in the game in one breath, and then 'remove the mark' in the next.
If you remove the mark we'll see more not less kicking.
-
I've not really watched any Rugby since the Rugby World Cup. Maybe I'll get back into it when the 6 Nations and Super Rugby roll around, but at the moment I'm not missing it.
@sparky said in The Current State of Rugby:
I've not really watched any Rugby since the Rugby World Cup. Maybe I'll get back into it when the 6 Nations and Super Rugby roll around, but at the moment I'm not missing it.
Must admit at end of WC I thought I was ready for a break. That lasted about a week-10 days and then started back watching Galagher championship etc etc.
I suspect I have a slight rugby problem. -
Don't mind his proposals generally.
- Expanding 50:22 forces space for attack.
- reducing subs increases fatigue
- admitting the goal line drop-out is a fail allows sides to attack the line
Agree with Mike above about removing the mark. Not sure what that gains.
Another change I'd like to see a change to the free kick. Allow fks to be kicked directly to touch on the full and award the lineout where it crosses to touch. Teams often have little option but to reset a scrum when a fk is awarded with resultant time lost. Allowing them to clear and contest a lineout should cut down some scrum resets. IMO.
