The Current State of Rugby
-
This annoys the shit out me.
Speed and flow: Focus on aspects that keep the game flowing including speeding up the ‘use it’ call by referees at the breakdown, removing repeated scrums options, expanding the remit of the shot clock, a review of the offside law from kicks, and explore moves to provide the scrum-half with greater space and protection at the base of scrum, rucks and mauls.
The speed of the actual game is fine. It’s the time taken for injuries, water, shoe laces, reviews, cards, team chats, scrum formation and general time wasting that should be game speed focus.
@MajorRage said in The Current State of Rugby:
This annoys the shit out me.
Speed and flow: Focus on aspects that keep the game flowing including speeding up the ‘use it’ call by referees at the breakdown, removing repeated scrums options, expanding the remit of the shot clock, a review of the offside law from kicks, and explore moves to provide the scrum-half with greater space and protection at the base of scrum, rucks and mauls.
The speed of the actual game is fine. It’s the time taken for injuries, water, shoe laces, reviews, cards, team chats, scrum formation and general time wasting that should be game speed focus.
There is a philosophical difference between NH and SH rugby fans. No edict from world rugby will change that. The problem with modern rugby was illustrated by the RWc final. 15 vs 14 and briefly 14 vs 14 because of unintentional head contact. I barely watch rugby these days. The 6N has been a snore fest.
-
Talking of laws and refs etc for the @DaGrubster , here's somone you will recognise in this article.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/301009283/do-you-know-your-rugby-law-make-the-big-calls-in-the-official-referees-test
Gone from kicking your arse at college, (and my useless son), and coaching with me as well as other stuff, to New Zealand Rugby game development manager – referees. LolYeah he was pretty good at
School. He never coached me in anything but took Pe.He was always supportive of my batting in Cricket.
I think he presented me with the Horowhenua 6 a side cup that we won and I was captain.
That was the day Roger Twose headbutted the pavilion after getting dismissed
Yes, you are quite right about your son
-
I'll believe this when I see it. But have they been secretly reading the Fern?
-
I'll believe this when I see it. But have they been secretly reading the Fern?
-
I'll believe this when I see it. But have they been secretly reading the Fern?
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'll believe this when I see it. But have they been secretly reading the Fern?
Don't like this:
They will trial a law that says the ball must be played after a maul has been stopped once, not the current twice,
Mauls drag in defenders. This change sets the bar too far the other way.
Not sure what the following achieves:
and for the ability to mark the ball inside the 22 from a restart
Seems to create a stoppage rather than making a team play out of their red zone. Eliminates the mid length kick off.
Those are my whinges (so far). Otherwise good on them.
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'll believe this when I see it. But have they been secretly reading the Fern?
Don't like this:
They will trial a law that says the ball must be played after a maul has been stopped once, not the current twice,
Mauls drag in defenders. This change sets the bar too far the other way.
Not sure what the following achieves:
and for the ability to mark the ball inside the 22 from a restart
Seems to create a stoppage rather than making a team play out of their red zone. Eliminates the mid length kick off.
Those are my whinges (so far). Otherwise good on them.
@booboo I've been an advocate for the single stoppage at mauls, and IMO if it isnt moving forwards (crabbing sideways or going back) it should be classed as stopped too for the attacking team, the maul is currently far too heavily weighted for the attacking team.
-
@booboo I've been an advocate for the single stoppage at mauls, and IMO if it isnt moving forwards (crabbing sideways or going back) it should be classed as stopped too for the attacking team, the maul is currently far too heavily weighted for the attacking team.
@taniwharugby I kind of get the rationale but am wary of the law of unintended consequences. Having said that the one stop maul was tried back in the day and it didn't work*. Hence we now have the two stop.
And I also thought sideways IS classed as stopped. Could be wrong, but is that a case of applying existing laws?
-
- similar to the offside in front of the kicker law. Wasn't this what we had a few years ago? You actually had to retreat until you were put onside.
-
-
I'll wait to see if they actually try to eliminate fake stoppages. That is one of my major gripes. If you fix the intentional slowing of the game, the bench/subs problems will probably go too, because loading the bench with forwards carries risk that they can't handle a faster game. But if they want to change that too, great
-
A lot of things could be done by being strict on current rules. Look at 7s! Make people joining mauls actually join from onside rather than pretty much the side. Play the game regardless of boks, sorry players, lying on the ground. Let the game continue, no matter what. Can't get a front row as one is done, we free kick opposing team and carry on. Or you have to replace that player
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'll believe this when I see it. But have they been secretly reading the Fern?
Don't like this:
They will trial a law that says the ball must be played after a maul has been stopped once, not the current twice,
Mauls drag in defenders. This change sets the bar too far the other way.
Not sure what the following achieves:
and for the ability to mark the ball inside the 22 from a restart
Seems to create a stoppage rather than making a team play out of their red zone. Eliminates the mid length kick off.
Those are my whinges (so far). Otherwise good on them.
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Mauls drag in defenders. This change sets the bar too far the other way.
disagree, it rebalances the risk/reward on a maul. Right now they are far too lenient on attacking sides - I think this is a Good Thing.
-
WR needs to get rid of the caterpillar ruck. Limit it to being able to add only one extra player to the ruck before the halfback kicks. I have liked that the ref have tried to enforce the 5 sec rule more strictly too.
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
WR needs to get rid of the caterpillar ruck. Limit it to being able to add only one extra player to the ruck before the halfback kicks. I have liked that the ref have tried to enforce the 5 sec rule more strictly too.
i would add the half back cant stand there with their hands on the ball, we see halfbacks trying to milk penalties faking a pass
-
@taniwharugby I kind of get the rationale but am wary of the law of unintended consequences. Having said that the one stop maul was tried back in the day and it didn't work*. Hence we now have the two stop.
And I also thought sideways IS classed as stopped. Could be wrong, but is that a case of applying existing laws?
-
- similar to the offside in front of the kicker law. Wasn't this what we had a few years ago? You actually had to retreat until you were put onside.
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Having said that the one stop maul was tried back in the day and it didn't work
The maul disappeared for a period of time then Thorburn suggested the two stop law. The odds a so in favour of maul right now I doubt they'll disappear again
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
the maul is currently far too heavily weighted for the attacking team.
I'd like to see the attacking team penalised for taking down their own maul too. It rarely happens
-
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'll believe this when I see it. But have they been secretly reading the Fern?
Don't like this:
They will trial a law that says the ball must be played after a maul has been stopped once, not the current twice,
Mauls drag in defenders. This change sets the bar too far the other way.
Not sure what the following achieves:
and for the ability to mark the ball inside the 22 from a restart
Seems to create a stoppage rather than making a team play out of their red zone. Eliminates the mid length kick off.
Those are my whinges (so far). Otherwise good on them.
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Not sure what the following achieves:
and for the ability to mark the ball inside the 22 from a restart
Seems to create a stoppage rather than making a team play out of their red zone. Eliminates the mid length kick off.
The standard kickoff is long with a winger sprinting to put pressure on. I miss the 10-20m kickoffs with locks competing to win the ball. That contest has gone from the game recently. By making long kickoffs easier to deal with, it moves the kickoff back into the competitive area of the field
-
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Having said that the one stop maul was tried back in the day and it didn't work
The maul disappeared for a period of time then Thorburn suggested the two stop law. The odds a so in favour of maul right now I doubt they'll disappear again
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
the maul is currently far too heavily weighted for the attacking team.
I'd like to see the attacking team penalised for taking down their own maul too. It rarely happens
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
the maul is currently far too heavily weighted for the attacking team.
I'd like to see the attacking team penalised for taking down their own maul too. It rarely happens
i like the idea because we often see the defending team get penilised just by default when one collapses....but god im not sure i want more things on the penalty list
-
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Having said that the one stop maul was tried back in the day and it didn't work
The maul disappeared for a period of time then Thorburn suggested the two stop law. The odds a so in favour of maul right now I doubt they'll disappear again
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
the maul is currently far too heavily weighted for the attacking team.
I'd like to see the attacking team penalised for taking down their own maul too. It rarely happens
@Duluth yeah the defending teams actions are scrutinised while the attacking team are overlooked.
But agree with the other comment above, just enforce the rules as they are, proper binding for a start, IMO, this would solve several issues.
