The Current State of Rugby
-
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
I'm not worried about the YC for the same reason. It was worse that Angus' but still a rugby collision where a guy couldn't get into the right position and bad shit happened. There is zero chance he was trying to hurt BR, so I don't think he needed to go at all.
-
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
On this, would we reduce these bad collisions if we allowed far fewer players in front of the ball? You look at Angus's and perhaps it came from players (and the ball) being unsighted? If you allow players to essentially hide other players ability to make reads, you can't blame them if they are in a position where there is suddenly a guy on top of them.
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life If you listen to him during the Porter incident as he is walking towards the Irish players with yellow brandished, he is obviously copping a WTF? from an NZ player out of shot and he says too him "hands down please" as if to tell him to stop acting incredulous. thought it was salt into the wound myself.
I was expecting a claret card all day based on what I seen the week before. The score was close at the time too. Foster is a complete idiot, but the test swung on that moment. We had them on the rack.
If our winning a test match relies on the other team getting a red card as opposed to a yellow, it's an example of our problem.
To that extent, if they'd received a red card and we'd won, we could be in a worse situation.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
On this, would we reduce these bad collisions if we allowed far fewer players in front of the ball? You look at Angus's and perhaps it came from players (and the ball) being unsighted? If you allow players to essentially hide other players ability to make reads, you can't blame them if they are in a position where there is suddenly a guy on top of them.
-
@Damo said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Derpus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo No one is saying the rulings were wrong. They were correct.
People just correctly think a yellow card for a failed intercept is dumb.
And I am saying that it isn't dumb.
The law says a penalty, not a YC doesn't it?
Card only comes in due to being cynical.@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Derpus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo No one is saying the rulings were wrong. They were correct.
People just correctly think a yellow card for a failed intercept is dumb.
And I am saying that it isn't dumb.
The law says a penalty, not a YC doesn't it?
Card only comes in due to being cynical.Penalty for a failed attempt where there wasn't a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
Yellow card for an egregious example of above. Noting if in the opinion of the referee a try would've probably been scored if not for the offence, then a yellow card is mandatory.
-
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
-
@Derpus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo and you'd be wrong.
Convincing rebuttal of a qualified opinion.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
Interesting. Bloody english as a first language.
See, I read that as 'intentionally obstruct' OR 'interfere with play whereas yours is 'Intentionally obstruct or interfere' with play.
I think you are most likely reading it the same way as refs though so yeah, remove the word intentionally or see it the same way as the knock on rule. If you do it then it is deemed intentional.
How different would the game look without forward runners and with defenfise lines 5 metres back from last feet?
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mikedogz That clown Sumo Stevenson was on the Irish "second captains" podcast in the build up the first test. It's the most popular sports pod in Ireland.
They asked him about covid in the NZ camp and he came out with some of the biggest horseshit id ever heard.
He said he couldn't believe that the NZ team had gone and held an open training session in an area of NZ with the lowest vaccination rate. Blamed the players catching it on that. The podcast was on the same week 100k punters in Glastonbury were licking each others faces and climbing all over each other.
He is a woke virtue signalling melt who goes with the prevailing consensus even if it's completely wrong.
Clown
True. But he's right on some things too
@stodders said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mikedogz That clown Sumo Stevenson was on the Irish "second captains" podcast in the build up the first test. It's the most popular sports pod in Ireland.
They asked him about covid in the NZ camp and he came out with some of the biggest horseshit id ever heard.
He said he couldn't believe that the NZ team had gone and held an open training session in an area of NZ with the lowest vaccination rate. Blamed the players catching it on that. The podcast was on the same week 100k punters in Glastonbury were licking each others faces and climbing all over each other.
He is a woke virtue signalling melt who goes with the prevailing consensus even if it's completely wrong.
Clown
True. But he's right on some things too
@Steve He’s got a point. You can’t play elite aerobic sport with a respiratory infection. So surely you’d try and minimise the chance of any of the squad catching one in the lead up to a game with an immovable fixture date. Otherwise you’re taking a risk that you can’t field a fit team.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
Assigning intention never used to be a problem back in the dim, dark days when the referee was the sole judge of fact. As we’ve watered down refs’ sole responsibility and authority we’ve ironically increased the scrutiny on them and the expectations of infallibility.
I honestly think the days when refs made mistakes but we respected that anyway were better. We didn’t need TMOs, we just needed refs who would say “my call, no try” and players and fans mature enough to respect that.
I mean, Bob Deans was clearly robbed by that incompetent fluffybunny Dallas but do we go on about it?
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
Interesting. Bloody english as a first language.
See, I read that as 'intentionally obstruct' OR 'interfere with play whereas yours is 'Intentionally obstruct or interfere' with play.
I think you are most likely reading it the same way as refs though so yeah, remove the word intentionally or see it the same way as the knock on rule. If you do it then it is deemed intentional.
How different would the game look without forward runners and with defenfise lines 5 metres back from last feet?
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
Interesting. Bloody english as a first language.
See, I read that as 'intentionally obstruct' OR 'interfere with play whereas yours is 'Intentionally obstruct or interfere' with play.
I'd agree with you if there was a well placed comma. But true to WR incompetence, that too could be an oversight.
-
@mariner4life If you listen to him during the Porter incident as he is walking towards the Irish players with yellow brandished, he is obviously copping a WTF? from an NZ player out of shot and he says too him "hands down please" as if to tell him to stop acting incredulous. thought it was salt into the wound myself.
I was expecting a claret card all day based on what I seen the week before. The score was close at the time too. Foster is a complete idiot, but the test swung on that moment. We had them on the rack.
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life If you listen to him during the Porter incident as he is walking towards the Irish players with yellow brandished, he is obviously copping a WTF? from an NZ player out of shot and he says too him "hands down please" as if to tell him to stop acting incredulous. thought it was salt into the wound myself.
I was expecting a claret card all day based on what I seen the week before. The score was close at the time too. Foster is a complete idiot, but the test swung on that moment. We had them on the rack.
No it didn’t. The non-RC call didn’t turn this game. He was still YC’ed and we go a man up. Retallick going off had an impact but that’s like any injury/replacement.
The RC last weekend did turn the game in my view.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
Assigning intention never used to be a problem back in the dim, dark days when the referee was the sole judge of fact. As we’ve watered down refs’ sole responsibility and authority we’ve ironically increased the scrutiny on them and the expectations of infallibility.
I honestly think the days when refs made mistakes but we respected that anyway were better. We didn’t need TMOs, we just needed refs who would say “my call, no try” and players and fans mature enough to respect that.
I mean, Bob Deans was clearly robbed by that incompetent fluffybunny Dallas but do we go on about it?
@JC the “stakes” are so much higher today. You only have to look at the discussion the past few days around Silverlake etc. So the pressure to ‘get it right’ and the constant need to reassure the public that things are under control with game integrity and safety.
And yes Deans scored
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
Unfortunately love it or hate it blockers are part of the modern game and Ireland are far far better at it then we are and is one of the reasons they create so much confusion for our D line. Smart teams bend the rules and bad ones complain about them.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
Unfortunately love it or hate it blockers are part of the modern game and Ireland are far far better at it then we are and is one of the reasons they create so much confusion for our D line. Smart teams bend the rules and bad ones complain about them.
@chimoaus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
Unfortunately love it or hate it blockers are part of the modern game and Ireland are far far better at it then we are and is one of the reasons they create so much confusion for our D line. Smart teams bend the rules and bad ones complain about them.
True, but again, this thread isn't about the ABs. It is about the current state of the game and whether the laws and/or the application of them is producing a good game both to play and to watch.
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards -
@chimoaus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
Unfortunately love it or hate it blockers are part of the modern game and Ireland are far far better at it then we are and is one of the reasons they create so much confusion for our D line. Smart teams bend the rules and bad ones complain about them.
True, but again, this thread isn't about the ABs. It is about the current state of the game and whether the laws and/or the application of them is producing a good game both to play and to watch.
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards
i don't think so. i think ones with proper obstructions get pulled up.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards
i don't think so. i think ones with proper obstructions get pulled up.
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards
i don't think so. i think ones with proper obstructions get pulled up.
What constitutes a 'proper obstruction'? Last week we had an example of a player trying to get across to where the ball was and having to run around a line of blockers that reduced his visibility and reaction time. When he got into the clear his reaction time was so little that he was collided with and red carded. The law doesn't take this into account .
My biggest gripe is forward runners that continue to be in front of the ball after the ball has left the area but 'block' the ability for other players to move where they want.
Maybe there needs to be an obligation to retreat as soon as you are put offside? -
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards
i don't think so. i think ones with proper obstructions get pulled up.
What constitutes a 'proper obstruction'? Last week we had an example of a player trying to get across to where the ball was and having to run around a line of blockers that reduced his visibility and reaction time. When he got into the clear his reaction time was so little that he was collided with and red carded. The law doesn't take this into account .
My biggest gripe is forward runners that continue to be in front of the ball after the ball has left the area but 'block' the ability for other players to move where they want.
Maybe there needs to be an obligation to retreat as soon as you are put offside?@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards
i don't think so. i think ones with proper obstructions get pulled up.
What constitutes a 'proper obstruction'? Last week we had an example of a player trying to get across to where the ball was and having to run around a line of blockers that reduced his visibility and reaction time. When he got into the clear his reaction time was so little that he was collided with and red carded. The law doesn't take this into account .
My biggest gripe is forward runners that continue to be in front of the ball after the ball has left the area but 'block' the ability for other players to move where they want.
Maybe there needs to be an obligation to retreat as soon as you are put offside?That's the way it works with a kick, right. So, how come those guys can continue to move forward once they are past the ball?
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards
i don't think so. i think ones with proper obstructions get pulled up.
What constitutes a 'proper obstruction'? Last week we had an example of a player trying to get across to where the ball was and having to run around a line of blockers that reduced his visibility and reaction time. When he got into the clear his reaction time was so little that he was collided with and red carded. The law doesn't take this into account .
My biggest gripe is forward runners that continue to be in front of the ball after the ball has left the area but 'block' the ability for other players to move where they want.
Maybe there needs to be an obligation to retreat as soon as you are put offside?That's the way it works with a kick, right. So, how come those guys can continue to move forward once they are past the ball?
@gt12 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
My question is whether in a pro environment with time and resource to plan and train forward runner plays the game looks more like NFL at times and also adds an avenue for errors, penalties and cards
i don't think so. i think ones with proper obstructions get pulled up.
What constitutes a 'proper obstruction'? Last week we had an example of a player trying to get across to where the ball was and having to run around a line of blockers that reduced his visibility and reaction time. When he got into the clear his reaction time was so little that he was collided with and red carded. The law doesn't take this into account .
My biggest gripe is forward runners that continue to be in front of the ball after the ball has left the area but 'block' the ability for other players to move where they want.
Maybe there needs to be an obligation to retreat as soon as you are put offside?That's the way it works with a kick, right. So, how come those guys can continue to move forward once they are past the ball?
Because unless they directly block a tackle they are never pulled up.
