The Current State of Rugby
-
I got caught out last night from the law book changes ans simplification. Ireland's first try had me wondering why it was allowed as the ball clearly hit the hoardings. The old law clause for quick throws used to say they weren't allowed if the ball touched anyone or anything over the touchline. That has been simplified to anyone other than the player that took the ball into touch and the one throwing it in.
Can't wait to see the outcry when a kick bounces off something into the arms of a player well away from the point of touch wo trows it in quickly for a try
-
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
-
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years.
Ardie agrees.
-
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
Only 8 penalties for the whole match (4 each) and no endless use of the video ref even for the biff.
The viewing experience was greatly enhanced with those two things alone.
-
I was thinking that this hyper extreme focus on safety is occurring at the top level where they have 100 cameras and 4 match officials, but the vast majority of games are taking place in parks where reserves from the respective teams are running the touch and the only camera is in a phone being held by a kid in a pram (modern day parenting but that's another story). The incidents causing all these cards at the top level probably happen repeatedly at every other level, but are obviously not picked up because it's logistically and technically impossible. So is the welfare or these players not being considered? Obviously there's a vast gulf in skill and speed, but these types of "card events" will still repeatedly occur and probably much more often. It's a pretty massive disconnect IMHO.
Ultimately, and as I've said a million times, rugby is a brutal and dangerous sport. Obviously you don't want it to be a murderous free for all, but there are limits to how much you can sanitise a game like this. Sometimes you wonder if those instituting the rules every played the game or that they believe everything occurs in slo motion.
-
I was thinking that this hyper extreme focus on safety is occurring at the top level where they have 100 cameras and 4 match officials, but the vast majority of games are taking place in parks where reserves from the respective teams are running the touch and the only camera is in a phone being held by a kid in a pram (modern day parenting but that's another story). The incidents causing all these cards at the top level probably happen repeatedly at every other level, but are obviously not picked up because it's logistically and technically impossible. So is the welfare or these players not being considered? Obviously there's a vast gulf in skill and speed, but these types of "card events" will still repeatedly occur and probably much more often. It's a pretty massive disconnect IMHO.
Ultimately, and as I've said a million times, rugby is a brutal and dangerous sport. Obviously you don't want it to be a murderous free for all, but there are limits to how much you can sanitise a game like this. Sometimes you wonder if those instituting the rules every played the game or that they believe everything occurs in slo motion.
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
-
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm a big fan of bringing back substitutions for injuries only
Define injury
You don't have to define it, you just have to limit the number of subs allowed. full size bench, but only 3 subs allowed for the game, nominally for injury. Then you can't rort the system that much.
@reprobate said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm a big fan of bringing back substitutions for injuries only
Define injury
You don't have to define it, you just have to limit the number of subs allowed. full size bench, but only 3 subs allowed for the game, nominally for injury. Then you can't rort the system that much.
I have to say having been a reserve in rep rugby as a teenager where you only came on for injury were some of the worst moments of my rugby playing days. I was stoked to have made the rep team, trained etc. But I was not good enough to make the starting side. We travelled playing other rep sides and I got maybe 5-10 minutes total in all the games. The other 4+ hours or so was standing in the cold on the sideline with all my gear on doing nothing.
Being a reserve is tough and I can't help but feel for players under this system getting very little game time at all.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
I don't have a problem with those protocols. That's rugby unfortunately.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return - not even run an assessment (tho our club is desperately short of neurologists).
Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
-
I'll also add I caught a bit of a Newcastle Knights game the other week and Ponga took a blow to the head and went off for further assessment.
I respect that NRL is a bloody tough slog for players. And I look at guys like Ponga - 24, in his prime, playing against some big lads, with some heavy hitting - and wonder what he'll look like at 44. Or 54.
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
On a related point, which I've made before: World Rugby has a two-speed system where 1) refs are forced to crack down on head contact on the field, but then 2) various Judiciaries don't do their job after the game in handing down sanctions that might contribute to behavioural change. They give discounts for being a top bloke, or "remorse", or a clean record.
Quite frankly, none of that shit should matter when it comes to sentencing high contact, intent or no.
A certain Irish lawyer who used to frequent these parts says that is largely due to ex-players now being on panels. Perhaps that is a good point but I tend to think the Judiciary has been doing this since forever.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return - not even run an assessment (tho our club is desperately short of neurologists).
Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return. Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
when i say "signed off", i mean completed a series of checks to work out if its a "go see your GP on monday" or "call an ambulance", as i say, blue card meant he needed to be properly cleared by a doc, its a 7 day minimum in Vic but depending on how quick he gets the all clear it could be more
-
I'll also add I caught a bit of a Newcastle Knights game the other week and Ponga took a blow to the head and went off for further assessment.
I respect that NRL is a bloody tough slog for players. And I look at guys like Ponga - 24, in his prime, playing against some big lads, with some heavy hitting - and wonder what he'll look like at 44. Or 54.
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
On a related point, which I've made before: World Rugby has a two-speed system where 1) refs are forced to crack down on head contact on the field, but then 2) various Judiciaries don't do their job after the game in handing down sanctions that might contribute to behavioural change. They give discounts for being a top bloke, or "remorse", or a clean record.
Quite frankly, none of that shit should matter when it comes to sentencing high contact, intent or no.
A certain Irish lawyer who used to frequent these parts says that is largely due to ex-players now being on panels. Perhaps that is a good point but I tend to think the Judiciary has been doing this since forever.
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
One is a regional sport that only really has to deal with one set of politicians and one legal system. League can always be more permissive.
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
One is a regional sport that only really has to deal with one set of politicians and one legal system. League can always be more permissive.
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
One is a regional sport that only really has to deal with one set of politicians and one legal system. League can always be more permissive.
Good point, however as a smaller sport globally, the NRL doesn't have an endless pot of cash to fight the lawsuits that may emerge.
Maybe it is proportional, I don't know. Maybe there are a few clauses in each contract to take care of it.
-
A few other factors:
The influence of league. Particularly in Australia, but also NZ. This is most notable in the discussion around head contact, but also elsewhere. (Obviously league is big in England too, but generally there is a firewall between the two codes. In Australia many people follow both flavours of Rugby; in England, it's either one or the other).
This might be a contentious one, but I also think ignorance of the laws is part of the problem too. I'm thinking of Australia here, since most of the rugby media I see is Australian, but I get the impression that SA is similar. Kiwis on the other hand seem to know their stuff and be a bit more measured. (Obviously I'm generalising massively here, and I might lose Aussie friends, but hey ho...). Lots of Aussies are part time fans, rugby is maybe their 3rd or 4th or 6th favourite sport, so they're understandably not as familiar with the rules. The real problem is that the level of rugby commentary and journalism here is hopeless. Every time some decision goes against the Wallabies, the commentators pretend to be dumbfounded and outraged and shocked at the absurdity of it. Then at half time, the presenters are equally astonished and talk about how ridiculous it is. Then the next day, the newspapers run stories about the dumbest rule in rugby, and how the administrators and refs are killing the game. And the average fan who doesn't really know the laws comes away thinking rugby is a mess. I thought this might get better after we ditched Fox, but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
I genuinely like the Stan coverage of rugby, much better than the turd that was Fox/Kayo (and a much better quality app/stream too), but I don't watch much of the build ups etc. But I don't mind listening to a bit Mehrts and Cheika at half time.
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
-
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
I genuinely like the Stan coverage of rugby, much better than the turd that was Fox/Kayo (and a much better quality app/stream too), but I don't watch much of the build ups etc. But I don't mind listening to a bit Mehrts and Cheika at half time.
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
God it is badly officiated. They'll spend 10 replays looking for a bit of foul play in the same maul that clearly shows a player is detatched or it was obstruction.
I'll be refereeing XVs for the first time in ages and, besides numbers at lineout (which I hate and think should be tossed from the book), my biggest bugbear is mauls.
-
I was thinking that this hyper extreme focus on safety is occurring at the top level where they have 100 cameras and 4 match officials, but the vast majority of games are taking place in parks where reserves from the respective teams are running the touch and the only camera is in a phone being held by a kid in a pram (modern day parenting but that's another story). The incidents causing all these cards at the top level probably happen repeatedly at every other level, but are obviously not picked up because it's logistically and technically impossible. So is the welfare or these players not being considered? Obviously there's a vast gulf in skill and speed, but these types of "card events" will still repeatedly occur and probably much more often. It's a pretty massive disconnect IMHO.
Ultimately, and as I've said a million times, rugby is a brutal and dangerous sport. Obviously you don't want it to be a murderous free for all, but there are limits to how much you can sanitise a game like this. Sometimes you wonder if those instituting the rules every played the game or that they believe everything occurs in slo motion.
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Current State of Rugby:
Ultimately, and as I've said a million times, rugby is a brutal and dangerous sport. Obviously you don't want it to be a murderous free for all, but there are limits to how much you can sanitise a game like this. Sometimes you wonder if those instituting the rules every played the game or that they believe everything occurs in slo motion.
This might be an issue . Maybe rugby has become too sanitised. Rugby players are often shown as nice or good guys. And look out if any player isn't off the field (Reece). But now also on it.
Hating the dirty thugs in the opposing team might be good for crowd size. And overall interest.
-
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
God it is badly officiated. They'll spend 10 replays looking for a bit of foul play in the same maul that clearly shows a player is detatched or it was obstruction.
I'll be refereeing XVs for the first time in ages and, besides numbers at lineout (which I hate and think should be tossed from the book), my biggest bugbear is mauls.
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
God it is badly officiated. They'll spend 10 replays looking for a bit of foul play in the same maul that clearly shows a player is detatched or it was obstruction.
It's the two chances B/S that really gets to me, and how long a team can just be stationary before winding up and it doesn't count as one of the two chances. Add to that a team can get steamrolled backwards, stop, restart again and go forwards.
Mauls and penalising intercept attempts seem to fly in the face of what rugby generally is which is a contest for the ball.
