The Current State of Rugby
-
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
-
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
If the rule about two phases still exists, then a competent TMO shouldn't be raising it with the ref to begin with.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
That's not what the protocol says.
-
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
That's not what the protocol says.
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nevorian yes he could, but imagine the uproar then too..."I agree, there was a knock on, but you arent actually meant to go back that far, so try stands"
Which is why they need to tighten the rules about what and when they can look at things, then there isnt the awkward situation when the TMO provides something to the ref to ignore.
Right now, seems a free for all with TMO pretty much having free reign to call what they want, when they want, choosing when to call things or not.
It's also just guidance, not law. So the ref team can ignore guidance
That's not what the protocol says.
went to find it. Some extracts.
first sentence!
The referee remains the lead decision-maker of the refereeing teamand then
Where match officials believe a Clear and Obvious infringement may have occurred in the immediate two phases of play leading to a try being scoredthe next section is clear that foul play has no two phase limit. So it's very very clear, and shouldn't have been breached.
I have seen arguments that there were tackles rather than 'phases' - but I am not sure that stacks up. https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf
-
@Machpants said in The Current State of Rugby:
Is protocol law, though?
A system of rules and accepted behaviour? Yes, otherwise why bother mentioning 'the immediate two phases of play'?
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
All due respect to the man, but he is preaching to the converted. He needs to be talking to the administrators, journalists, pundits and fans in the NH who think there's nothing wrong with the game and that it is incumbent on players and coaches "to do better".
-
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
-
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
All due respect to the man, but he is preaching to the converted. He needs to be talking to the administrators, journalists, pundits and fans in the NH who think there's nothing wrong with the game and that it is incumbent on players and coaches "to do better".
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
This might have already been posted, but here goes. Shag telling it like it is
He's not wrong but his timing sucks. Say this just after you've won because of a favourable ruling people may listen. But say it now it'll be seen as sour grapes.
All due respect to the man, but he is preaching to the converted. He needs to be talking to the administrators, journalists, pundits and fans in the NH who think there's nothing wrong with the game and that it is incumbent on players and coaches "to do better".
There’s certainly an element within the pundits that trot out that mantra, though I think in private it might be different. A bit of “toeing the party line” to keep your job. Rugby fans in general up here though have much the same doubts and concerns about the state of the game today.
-
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
Yep. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I was at a dinner and Q&A with Rob Baxter a couple of years ago and there was a question about de-powering scrums to stop constant re-sets and he highlighted the knock on effects of such a strategy.
-
The officiating from every angle is what is doing my head in and I think the single biggest thing WR can do to improve things is to stop changing the bloody rules and guidelines every few months. We had loads of issues about jumping in the air a few years back and that soon settled down as the rules were clear and constant.
Sticking to a single set of rules and/or guidelines for at least a season or two would help bed down consistency and make life a heck of a lot easier for Refs, players and spectators alike - and reduce the need for the TMO.
-
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
Yep. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I was at a dinner and Q&A with Rob Baxter a couple of years ago and there was a question about de-powering scrums to stop constant re-sets and he highlighted the knock on effects of such a strategy.
@Catogrande said in The Current State of Rugby:
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
Yep. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I was at a dinner and Q&A with Rob Baxter a couple of years ago and there was a question about de-powering scrums to stop constant re-sets and he highlighted the knock on effects of such a strategy.
This type of second-order thinking is exactly why you don't, and will never, work in rugby administration.
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
Good article by Nigel. How can WR get this so wrong? Their rejection of the 20-minute rule was idiotic (Nigel I think agreed with this WR decision though)
I also like the idea of reviewing and making the final decision later to let the game continue. But just accept that the caliber of the decisions will be all over the place so 20-minute rule to be fair. And not ruin a game. that leads to pissed off fans and a few idiots threatening refs.
*“What's more, it's not doing anything to eliminate the controversy. At the moment there are red cards being given for highly contentious incidents, and it's in danger of spoiling the appeal of the game for supporters.
“I also think that when you have these sorts of red cards dished out for debatable decisions, it does open referees up to the sort of abuse we've seen recently.*
-
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
Any tackle above the sternum will become illegal. Can’t see how they can hold it off for much longer. The subjectivity of what constitutes a red or not is just too great. If you tackle above the sternum, you get sent off. Players have the choice to go low or have an early bath.
That's the way I can see this being resolved from both a playing perspective, and a liability perspective. Tacklers must go low. This will (presumably) reduce the incidences of head contact, but will also (presumably) allow for more offloads.
The other side of this coin, though, has to be that the ball carrier has to run high - otherwise, you'll just get attackers ducking into tackles and just as much (if not more) head contact. However, I don't know how you encourage players who've been told there whole lives to keep their body heights low to suddenly start running high knowing that it will probably mean that they get smashed more often than usual.
Club rugby here now, a "late dip" by the ball carrier is illegal and gets penalised.
Edit: of course that's in combination with having to tackle below the nipple line (in theory, but this just translates to below the shoulder in practice)
-
I just thinking on weekend, I must be getting old (I am) or the game needs something. I tend to be a rugby nerd, I watch everything on tv , will go to up to 2-3 live games on Saturady during school/club season followed by super games on tv.etc, even when in Aus never missed hardly a game on tv, including super, tests, NPC etc and then would watch NH club stuff.
But I decided this week, a break from it won't hurt, just something is happening to the game that is starting to pall for me. I think the whole WC I noticed for first time I missed more games than I ever have, and admit the NPC was holding much more interest and entertainment to me. Not sure if it the TMO involvements are starting to tire me out etc, or even perhaps the fact I do enjoy going on rugby forums and find the negativity on some of these kind of get to you, I do enjoy discussing rugby so why I do it. I will say this is by far the best of any forums etc with less of the negative etc shit in general, I know there a few but not many.
As I said maybe just me, but I genuinely not unhappy season finish.
Lol who needs me anyway, I just one old fella anyway huh?:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: -
@Dan54 It's bloody sad really. Plenty of us tragics being turned off the game. My Dad is 87 and been passionate about rugby all his life, even he has had enough. We usually enjoy arguing about various aspects of the game but we both agree that we aren't in love with it anymore. Hopefully it will be recognised by law makers / officials and then someone will let us know when it is worth watching again. The first step would be to keep equal numbers of players on the field somehow, and punish individuals for genuine foul play, not the droves of fans who (used to) watch.
I'm going to try not to mention it on here anymore because the negativity is tiresome for others, but when I see a comment like yours it is worth noting that you are not alone. Who knows maybe someone who could actually do something might notice a comment here and there and actually get something changed.
-
This has been doing the rounds. I’ve no idea about the accuracy of the data.
https://twitter.com/thegamecaller/status/1720166170895045092
@sparky
Rugby union has dropped off a cliff there.If you look at the sports there they are pretty easy to understand. Rugby has just gotten more complicated.
That probably tells us something
-
I just thinking on weekend, I must be getting old (I am) or the game needs something. I tend to be a rugby nerd, I watch everything on tv , will go to up to 2-3 live games on Saturady during school/club season followed by super games on tv.etc, even when in Aus never missed hardly a game on tv, including super, tests, NPC etc and then would watch NH club stuff.
But I decided this week, a break from it won't hurt, just something is happening to the game that is starting to pall for me. I think the whole WC I noticed for first time I missed more games than I ever have, and admit the NPC was holding much more interest and entertainment to me. Not sure if it the TMO involvements are starting to tire me out etc, or even perhaps the fact I do enjoy going on rugby forums and find the negativity on some of these kind of get to you, I do enjoy discussing rugby so why I do it. I will say this is by far the best of any forums etc with less of the negative etc shit in general, I know there a few but not many.
As I said maybe just me, but I genuinely not unhappy season finish.
Lol who needs me anyway, I just one old fella anyway huh?:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:Hey mate, I think when we have a World Cup year then there is a huge amount of time and investment goes into it from guys like yourself. It’s natural to think more and discuss it more and to watch more games.
It’s probably pretty natural to want to have a break after all that!
I did after 2019 and didn’t really watch much Rigby for a year or so after that!
I’m sure after a good summer you will be back into it
-
Hey mate, I think when we have a World Cup year then there is a huge amount of time and investment goes into it from guys like yourself. It’s natural to think more and discuss it more and to watch more games.
It’s probably pretty natural to want to have a break after all that!
I did after 2019 and didn’t really watch much Rigby for a year or so after that!
I’m sure after a good summer you will be back into it
@DaGrubster Oh I will still watch etc, but I have never been so disillusioned for some reason Grubs. I am usually even after WCs, just looking for more , but as I said thie is first time I have genuinely not bothered with a lot of the games in the WC, and genuinely thought I watched better rugby in the NPC.
All I mean is I have never wanted a break from rugby in my life, now I do.
The worry is with the proposed new test comp starting in a couple of years we may get more of same .
I can genuinely say I wander down to golf club and more people have been same, finding lower level (NPC) rugby more ineteresting and enjoyable. It's not good for our game.
