RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2)
-
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
but plenty do just that when defending thier goal line, aim for thier feet but ultimately you are just diving to get under them.
-
@Kirwan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
I really hate players sliding with their knees after trys are scored. Filth.
Yep. Not rugby, but Billy Slater made a living off it for several years before people started to turn on him.
Less cynical than that, but we see fairly regularly defensive players running into a tackle situation and whether they try to hold on or get underneath a potential try scorer. What’s the go with that given a tackled player should be allowed to place the ball unless he is held up. But if said player is not held up then he shouldn’t be prevented right?
@ACT-Crusader just one of the many things to hate about Slater
-
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
-
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are. -
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are. -
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are.@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are.Just an adjustment for them. I reckon fair bit of muscle memory gets built up over years of kicking from different spots
But yeah, not a massive deal. I'm also fine with moving the pads back.
-
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are.Just an adjustment for them. I reckon fair bit of muscle memory gets built up over years of kicking from different spots
But yeah, not a massive deal. I'm also fine with moving the pads back.
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are.Just an adjustment for them. I reckon fair bit of muscle memory gets built up over years of kicking from different spots
But yeah, not a massive deal. I'm also fine with moving the pads back.
For conversions you simply walk back to where it looks comfortable given the conditions e.g. wind, rain, turf and whether there is a fast chaser for charge downs. It could be different between kicks let alone games. The muscle memory is only in the kicking action and is why many kickers only have one strength of hit and the ball goes way past the goalposts for close kicks.
-
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are.Just an adjustment for them. I reckon fair bit of muscle memory gets built up over years of kicking from different spots
But yeah, not a massive deal. I'm also fine with moving the pads back.
For conversions you simply walk back to where it looks comfortable given the conditions e.g. wind, rain, turf and whether there is a fast chaser for charge downs. It could be different between kicks let alone games. The muscle memory is only in the kicking action and is why many kickers only have one strength of hit and the ball goes way past the goalposts for close kicks.
@Crucial Again, not a huge deal, but I don't quite agree. Particularly for guys kicking at grounds they are used to playing on. It's the same as saying every basketball hoop is the same when we know that's not the case - players on home soil just know where they are, different court/field markings, the stroke is just often better. I think kickers have places on a known field they prefer to kick from, little visuals in the stands etc that line up, a knowledge of where the winds blow from, little spots that they've made 10 straight from at training etc. Not really about how hard you hit the ball once you strike it.
-
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
Nah, the engineering costs would likely be huge (for clubs and multipurpose stadiums).
Because of the deep ingoal area in rugby (compered to NFL) the ballasting required to cantilever the uprights forward from the deadball line to the goal line.
Just make me people score tries properly. By having to press the ball down behind the tryline. Scrum 5 if their unfortunate enough to hit the posts.
-
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
Nah, the engineering costs would likely be huge (for clubs and multipurpose stadiums).
Because of the deep ingoal area in rugby (compered to NFL) the ballasting required to cantilever the uprights forward from the deadball line to the goal line.
Just make me people score tries properly. By having to press the ball down behind the tryline. Scrum 5 if their unfortunate enough to hit the posts.
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)Just make me people score tries properly. By having to press the ball down behind the tryline. Scrum 5 if their unfortunate enough to hit the posts.
This. If you don't have enough try line to cross without having to resort to scoring a jammy try against the post you don't deserve to score
-
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
Nah, the engineering costs would likely be huge (for clubs and multipurpose stadiums).
Because of the deep ingoal area in rugby (compered to NFL) the ballasting required to cantilever the uprights forward from the deadball line to the goal line.
Just make me people score tries properly. By having to press the ball down behind the tryline. Scrum 5 if their unfortunate enough to hit the posts.
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
Nah, the engineering costs would likely be huge (for clubs and multipurpose stadiums).
Because of the deep ingoal area in rugby (compered to NFL) the ballasting required to cantilever the uprights forward from the deadball line to the goal line.
Just make me people score tries properly. By having to press the ball down behind the tryline. Scrum 5 if their unfortunate enough to hit the posts.
A simpler less costly exercise is to have the club intern mark our the try line a few inches forward and amend the dimension of the field length a few inches each end.
-
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
Nah, the engineering costs would likely be huge (for clubs and multipurpose stadiums).
Because of the deep ingoal area in rugby (compered to NFL) the ballasting required to cantilever the uprights forward from the deadball line to the goal line.
Just make me people score tries properly. By having to press the ball down behind the tryline. Scrum 5 if their unfortunate enough to hit the posts.
A simpler less costly exercise is to have the club intern mark our the try line a few inches forward and amend the dimension of the field length a few inches each end.
@ACT-Crusader That works for me. A rugby field can be from 96 to 100m, so just draw the line across in front of the post pads at most grounds.
They should do something about it though and Nige has highlighted it. Pretty silly law as it is.
-
I know the narrow field in Chicago has been discussed, but I just learnt that we didn't actually lose.
A rugby field must be a minimum of 68m, Soldier field was 73 yards apparently (66.7512m) and not therefor legitimate according to world rugby.
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1&language=ENThat should be stricken from the records.
Did I just win a game for the Abs? I'm claiming it anyway. -
An honest question but you often hear people say the ABs are fitter, and sides slow the game down when playing us.
How in the professional era with fitness coaches and state of the art gyms, nutritionists etc can any side be that much fitter than another?
@chimoaus I think our famed fitness advantage also left when the likes of McCaw, Carter, Nonu etc did. The thing with the fitness is being able to build on it, year after year. Which the AB's best had done with a large core. We don't have that advantage we once did. If anything the Irish probably should have had some of the best fitness going around. England have had a pretty stable group for a long while now.
-
I know the narrow field in Chicago has been discussed, but I just learnt that we didn't actually lose.
A rugby field must be a minimum of 68m, Soldier field was 73 yards apparently (66.7512m) and not therefor legitimate according to world rugby.
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1&language=ENThat should be stricken from the records.
Did I just win a game for the Abs? I'm claiming it anyway.@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
I know the narrow field in Chicago has been discussed, but I just learnt that we didn't actually lose.
A rugby field must be a minimum of 68m, Soldier field was 73 yards apparently (66.7512m) and not therefor legitimate according to world rugby.
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1&language=ENThat should be stricken from the records.
Did I just win a game for the Abs? I'm claiming it anyway.We would’ve won if it actually happened...
-
@chimoaus I think our famed fitness advantage also left when the likes of McCaw, Carter, Nonu etc did. The thing with the fitness is being able to build on it, year after year. Which the AB's best had done with a large core. We don't have that advantage we once did. If anything the Irish probably should have had some of the best fitness going around. England have had a pretty stable group for a long while now.
@westcoastie said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@chimoaus I think our famed fitness advantage also left when the likes of McCaw, Carter, Nonu etc did. The thing with the fitness is being able to build on it, year after year. Which the AB's best had done with a large core. We don't have that advantage we once did. If anything the Irish probably should have had some of the best fitness going around. England have had a pretty stable group for a long while now.
Not sure it actually left when you look at the fact we have Whitelock, Retallick, Read consistently playing 80 minutes of rugby at a high intensity. Then with Barrett, ALB providing a high level for a full game.
-
@MajorRage said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Did enjoy this ....
Yip it was the turning point...Ireland right in the game at the point...
(I think it is a penalty TBH)
The correct answer of course is because NZ controls world rugby and that the haka had psyched out Owens.
