Chiefs v Hurricanes
-
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .The same way you can ground a ball for a try if you're outside the field of play.
The simple way to remember it is it's in touch or touch-in-goal when:
- the ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
- a player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
Given the above, if the ball is still in the field of play (i.e. hasn't crossed the plane of touch), you are deemed to have taken it out. If it's not in the field of play (has crossed), then you didn't.
You can catch, knock or kick the ball as long as you're in the playing area regardless of whether it crosses the plane of touch. Hence why you can jump from outside, catch or knock the ball and land within the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch. You can jump from in the playing area, knock the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
To be in touch you have to be on the ground. If you catch the ball in touch, the ball is now in touch.
The only strange one is that you can be in touch, kick or knock the ball provided it has not reached the plane of touch. But that's because you didn't catch it.
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .The same way you can ground a ball for a try if you're outside the field of play.
The simple way to remember it is it's in touch or touch-in-goal when:
- the ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
- a player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
Given the above, if the ball is still in the field of play (i.e. hasn't crossed the plane of touch), you are deemed to have taken it out. If it's not in the field of play (has crossed), then you didn't.
You can catch, knock or kick the ball as long as you're in the playing area regardless of whether it crosses the plane of touch. Hence why you can jump from outside, catch or knock the ball and land within the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch. You can jump from in the playing area, knock the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
To be in touch you have to be on the ground. If you catch the ball in touch, the ball is now in touch.
The only strange one is that you can be in touch, kick or knock the ball provided it has not reached the plane of touch. But that's because you didn't catch it.
@antipodean any idea on the logic for the change?
only thing I can think of is to encourage teams kicking for touch to make sure it stays in touch, thus not carving off as much distance, which is a lame change for minimal gain for the game.
-
@antipodean any idea on the logic for the change?
only thing I can think of is to encourage teams kicking for touch to make sure it stays in touch, thus not carving off as much distance, which is a lame change for minimal gain for the game.
@taniwharugby No idea. Guess someone made a compelling case that it made more sense this way.
-
@Duluth why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
-
@Duluth why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
@mariner4life Because "clicks".
-
@Duluth why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
-
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
@Duluth said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
Wasn'ta shot at you, and by we I didn't mean the Fern, I meant everybody.
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
-
@Duluth said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
Wasn'ta shot at you, and by we I didn't mean the Fern, I meant everybody.
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
I agree on the whining about refs. A bit of positive feedback about refs is good to see IMO. A decent amount of the whining is because the fans are incorrect
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .The same way you can ground a ball for a try if you're outside the field of play.
The simple way to remember it is it's in touch or touch-in-goal when:
- the ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
- a player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
Given the above, if the ball is still in the field of play (i.e. hasn't crossed the plane of touch), you are deemed to have taken it out. If it's not in the field of play (has crossed), then you didn't.
You can catch, knock or kick the ball as long as you're in the playing area regardless of whether it crosses the plane of touch. Hence why you can jump from outside, catch or knock the ball and land within the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch. You can jump from in the playing area, knock the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
To be in touch you have to be on the ground. If you catch the ball in touch, the ball is now in touch.
The only strange one is that you can be in touch, kick or knock the ball provided it has not reached the plane of touch. But that's because you didn't catch it.
@antipodean The rationalisation of the law doesn't change my feelings about the stupidity of it.
I'd think it was just as silly if DMac had done into the Canes ... granted I probably would have only mentioned it once and not spammed all forums, social media and direct messages about it.
-
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
I agree on the whining about refs. A bit of positive feedback about refs is good to see IMO. A decent amount of the whining is because the fans are incorrect
@Duluth said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
I agree on the whining about refs. A bit of positive feedback about refs is good to see IMO. A decent amount of the whining is because the fans are incorrect
Mostly started by commentators, and then reinforced by losing coaches.
But there is often a bit of chat pregame about the ref too.
-
@Bones said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
How much slicker is Weber's passing this year? Great to see.
Weber still throws plenty of loopy passes, probably more noticeable watching live.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Bovidae I was critical of him last year so thought I'd mention it when it looked much better last night. I take it back. Thanks.
@Bones I'm referring more to passes to Cruden and DMac in-goal in exit plays. Sometimes Weber puts them under pressure with his passing. I agree, he has been much better around the field.
As a comparison, I don't think TTT's passing has been flash either despite his reputation as being Smith-like. And he takes too long clearing the ball.
Yeah, Cruden has no distance in his punting but DMac and Stevenson can compensate for that.
-
@Bones I'm referring more to passes to Cruden and DMac in-goal in exit plays. Sometimes Weber puts them under pressure with his passing. I agree, he has been much better around the field.
As a comparison, I don't think TTT's passing has been flash either despite his reputation as being Smith-like. And he takes too long clearing the ball.
Yeah, Cruden has no distance in his punting but DMac and Stevenson can compensate for that.
-
@Bovidae wait...did you not see his ridiculously massive clearances last night? So weird to see after years and years of 15-20 metre gains.
@Bones said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae wait...did you not see his ridiculously massive clearances last night? So weird to see after years and years of 15-20 metre gains.
There were some, like the kick JB kept in, but I'm more surprised when Cruden does kick so long.
