Law trials and changes
-
Like all rule changes in rugby they create as many new problems as they try to fix. The more I look at it the more I wonder if that tackle/ruck thing was made up by a committee of theorists that have never played a game in their lives (WR Refs?)
If the arriving player doesn't (or can't) step over the tackled player then the situation is no different to the current one that England bitched about when Italy played to the laws. In fact according to Rolland they now have an incentive to hang around offside in case they get put onside again.
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
-
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
Woosh.
My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.
-
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
Woosh.
My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
Woosh.
My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.
OK. Misunderstood what you were saying.
-
@Unco not that I'm a fan of the hacking at the ball at the ruck anyway, but isn't disrupting play for the other team a large part of competing for possession?
@Bones said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Unco not that I'm a fan of the hacking at the ball at the ruck anyway, but isn't disrupting play for the other team a large part of competing for possession?
Sure but there should at least be some illusion of proper competition there. To me it isn't much different than a deliberate knock on.
-
he's just setting us up for another howler
-
Not sure where else to post this, but I liked this response from Owens:
http://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/912556682877775873
http://twitter.com/Nigelrefowens/status/912579995683389440 -
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
http://twitter.com/nizzlewilliams/status/935086556422995969
http://twitter.com/Sgoss10/status/935118081449517057 -
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
http://twitter.com/nizzlewilliams/status/935086556422995969
http://twitter.com/Sgoss10/status/935118081449517057@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
http://twitter.com/nizzlewilliams/status/935086556422995969
http://twitter.com/Sgoss10/status/935118081449517057I imagine they are just trying to close off an avenue for gorilla marketing. But seems a bit extreme. From the players point of view, does it really make a difference? Do you look at it often during the game? Amateur players seem to get on fine without it so is this really that big of a deal?
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
http://twitter.com/nizzlewilliams/status/935086556422995969
http://twitter.com/Sgoss10/status/935118081449517057I imagine they are just trying to close off an avenue for gorilla marketing. But seems a bit extreme. From the players point of view, does it really make a difference? Do you look at it often during the game? Amateur players seem to get on fine without it so is this really that big of a deal?
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
http://twitter.com/nizzlewilliams/status/935086556422995969
http://twitter.com/Sgoss10/status/935118081449517057I imagine they are just trying to close off an avenue for gorilla marketing. But seems a bit extreme. From the players point of view, does it really make a difference? Do you look at it often during the game? Amateur players seem to get on fine without it so is this really that big of a deal?
-
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.
Like this guy in the NRL
So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.
Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.
Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.
Like this guy in the NRL
So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.
Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.
Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.
Like this guy in the NRL
So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.
Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.
Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.
I so totally disagree with this line of reasoning. Giving in to a small minority's behavior by banning something for everyone is the stupid process that dumbs down society and removes the need for individual responsibility
-
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.
Like this guy in the NRL
So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.
Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.
Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.
I so totally disagree with this line of reasoning. Giving in to a small minority's behavior by banning something for everyone is the stupid process that dumbs down society and removes the need for individual responsibility
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
-
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue. -
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.@crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.Like I said a blanket ban is easier and cheaper to enforce. No comittees needed, no hearings. Its just is their writing on it. Yes you get fine. done.
-
@crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.Like I said a blanket ban is easier and cheaper to enforce. No comittees needed, no hearings. Its just is their writing on it. Yes you get fine. done.
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.Like I said a blanket ban is easier and cheaper to enforce. No comittees needed, no hearings. Its just is their writing on it. Yes you get fine. done.
Easier, cheaper and dumber.
-
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.Like I said a blanket ban is easier and cheaper to enforce. No comittees needed, no hearings. Its just is their writing on it. Yes you get fine. done.
Easier, cheaper and dumber.
-
World Rugby's decision to ban players from writing messages on their wrists has been slammed by New Zealand Rugby Players Association boss Rob Nichol. He told Stuff the ban, introduced by World Rugby to align with the Olympics, was "completely inappropriate" and he was already working on getting it reversed. Nichol, who said the directive was buried in a participation agreement, is fuming over the lack of consultation, despite World Rugby stating their rugby committee approved the ban after consultation last month. "I think the whole process that's been around it has been poor," he said. "It hasn't gone out for consultation and that's a big problem. It makes the game and themselves look a bit stupid." Under the International Olympic Committee terms of participation, no slogans, symbols or messages are permitted. World Rugby's statement said a common-sense approach had been accepted by all participating teams and a spokesman told Stuff the ban covered the world sevens circuit and the Rugby World Cup. "There has been a significant increase in strapping 'art' or 'messages' on the series in recent seasons, which is impossible to police for inappropriate or political statements by the match officials in the short period of time before entering the field in a sevens environment across multiple matches and in multiple languages," the statement said. Players have been told they will be fined $1000 if they continue the practice, which Nichol rubbished. "Even the concept of a fine. World Rugby doesn't have the power to fine our players, so it's comical . . . it's a joke. The whole thing has just been really poorly done." Nichol has made his views known to the International Rugby Players Association and New Zealand Rugby, and asked both to relay his association's concerns to World Rugby. The ban disrespected players, hadn't been thought through and was nothing short of flawed, Nichol said. "By just unilaterally making this decision and then imposing it on the athletes, that's just completely contrary to the values and the character of the game, and this is from the people that are supposed to govern the game." While Stuff was told the ban also covered the Rugby World Cup, Nichol hadn't been told how ranging the ban was, further solidifying his view of it being a "poorly implemented policy".Rather than straight up banning the practice, Nichol would rather see World Rugby educating players around what they can and can't write. "There's already regulations in place saying you can't write inappropriate things on your body," Nichol said. "So maybe the starting point is let's just put a bit of focus on education and make it really clear that if you're going to write on your wrist, you can't use it to do inappropriate things." All Blacks prop Kane Hames was given a warning by New Zealand Rugby last year, after writing a message of support for native Americans while he was playing for the New Zealand Māori. That was one of a number of isolated incidents New Zealand Rugby had dealt with in the past 20 years, and each time Nichol said the particular individual never repeated the mistake. "From a rugby perspective, how prevalent is it? I'd say 99.9 per cent of athletes that do it, there is nothing wrong with what they write," Nichol said.
