The Current State of Rugby
-
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
If Umaga dropped his intercept he would get 10 minutes in the bin too.
I always laugh when I hear the ref say " you were not in a realistic position to make the intercept" . If he can touch it. then he is in a realistic position to intercept it. Look how far it travelled from Umagas finger tips before he regathers. Let the game flow for fuck sake.Agree 100%. Punish a deliberate knock-on absolutely, but there are way too many cards for what is in effect simply a failed intercept.
It’s pretty fucking simple
Palm up, go for your life
Palm down, get fucked
Let’s go for the intercept by knocking the ball down
Said no none, EVERFair enough. But I've seen cards for palms & fingertips underneath the ball.
@Victor-Meldrew think thats the point, those shouldnt!
As above, if you get a finger tip to it, directed upwards, you have a chance, albeit small to intercept, therefore not a YC, IMO.
-
@Victor-Meldrew think thats the point, those shouldnt!
As above, if you get a finger tip to it, directed upwards, you have a chance, albeit small to intercept, therefore not a YC, IMO.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew think thats the point, those shouldnt!
Yet they often do. It's interesting that a heck of a lot of the current gripes about the game come down to inconsistent officiating.
That probably can't be eliminated completely, but a real effort to improve it would be a step forward.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew think thats the point, those shouldnt!
Yet they often do. It's interesting that a heck of a lot of the current gripes about the game come down to inconsistent officiating.
That probably can't be eliminated completely, but a real effort to improve it would be a step forward.
@Victor-Meldrew yep, simplifying some of the rules would help, too much ambiguity.
I mean the intercept one for example, it needs to go one way or the other....if you attempt an intercept and fail, then its the same sanction regardless of circumstances (whether this is a knock on, pen or YC) remove the ref having to make a call on what he thinks the intent was...although you could probably use the hand direction as a factor as this is pretty clear, but then this involves the TMO, and we really want less of them as they still get stuff wrong
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
This is the Rugby I used to enjoy. Jeopardy on both sides. Either team could have scored in this passage. Forwards were strong, backs were fast. When the ball went wide it was on.
Notice how not one player or commentator complained when Marty Holah arrowed Dawson into the turf like a sack of garbage.
Good times.
Holah would be red carded today no question.
I think the most amazing thing of all is Mike Tindalls flowing tresses on display.
@MN5 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
This is the Rugby I used to enjoy. Jeopardy on both sides. Either team could have scored in this passage. Forwards were strong, backs were fast. When the ball went wide it was on.
Notice how not one player or commentator complained when Marty Holah arrowed Dawson into the turf like a sack of garbage.
Good times.
Holah would be red carded today no question.
I think the most amazing thing of all is Mike Tindalls flowing tresses on display.
there was also at least a couple of seatbelt tackles and a couple of line balls...the socials (and this board) would be alive with screen grabs showing how shit the ref was...and thats if he had missed them and not stopped play after about 10 seconds
-
@Victor-Meldrew yep, simplifying some of the rules would help, too much ambiguity.
I mean the intercept one for example, it needs to go one way or the other....if you attempt an intercept and fail, then its the same sanction regardless of circumstances (whether this is a knock on, pen or YC) remove the ref having to make a call on what he thinks the intent was...although you could probably use the hand direction as a factor as this is pretty clear, but then this involves the TMO, and we really want less of them as they still get stuff wrong
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew yep, simplifying some of the rules would help, too much ambiguity.
I mean the intercept one for example, it needs to go one way or the other....if you attempt an intercept and fail, then its the same sanction regardless of circumstances (whether this is a knock on, pen or YC) remove the ref having to make a call on what he thinks the intent was...although you could probably use the hand direction as a factor as this is pretty clear, but then this involves the TMO, and we really want less of them as they still get stuff wrong
The law is extremely simple. Can hardly be simplified more. Ways of deciding if the law has been transgressed are the inconsistent or debatable part.
Rugby has laws not rules. That's where all the good and bad sits. Good becuse you don't have to stop the game every time a rule is broken, bad because interpretation can be different.
With the attempted intercept they have actually tried to make it consistent by saying 'realistic chance'. That in itself is subjective though. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
Generally agree with much on this thread and agree there's a fair bit wrong which needs to be fixed, but here's a positive thought:
There were 65,000 mainly Japanese supporters to watch the Japan-AB game yesterday providing an atmosphere which was uniquely polite while still being passionate. The All Blacks didn't play well, but that was a pretty damn good game to watch with plenty of skills and tense rugby on display and a great advert for the game.
I think that's more because it was the AB's in town to be fair. And the Japanese folk have a few quid, and are still in the post RWC coital glow.
At the end of the day it's essentially still a team with a couple of poaches who are admittedly doing better than we all imagined.
Gerhard Van der Heever on the bench. For crying out loud. How sterile. How fake. What has the game become. Do the ends just justify the means for everyone now?
:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
Generally agree with much on this thread and agree there's a fair bit wrong which needs to be fixed, but here's a positive thought:
There were 65,000 mainly Japanese supporters to watch the Japan-AB game yesterday providing an atmosphere which was uniquely polite while still being passionate. The All Blacks didn't play well, but that was a pretty damn good game to watch with plenty of skills and tense rugby on display and a great advert for the game.
I think that's more because it was the AB's in town to be fair. And the Japanese folk have a few quid, and are still in the post RWC coital glow.
At the end of the day it's essentially still a team with a couple of poaches who are admittedly doing better than we all imagined.
Gerhard Van der Heever on the bench. For crying out loud. How sterile. How fake. What has the game become. Do the ends just justify the means for everyone now?
:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:
Thank god for the Scots and homegrown talent from the Tuipulotu and Van der Merwe clans. Other teams should be ashamed of all their poaching
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew yep, simplifying some of the rules would help, too much ambiguity.
I mean the intercept one for example, it needs to go one way or the other....if you attempt an intercept and fail, then its the same sanction regardless of circumstances (whether this is a knock on, pen or YC) remove the ref having to make a call on what he thinks the intent was...although you could probably use the hand direction as a factor as this is pretty clear, but then this involves the TMO, and we really want less of them as they still get stuff wrong
The law is extremely simple. Can hardly be simplified more. Ways of deciding if the law has been transgressed are the inconsistent or debatable part.
Rugby has laws not rules. That's where all the good and bad sits. Good becuse you don't have to stop the game every time a rule is broken, bad because interpretation can be different.
With the attempted intercept they have actually tried to make it consistent by saying 'realistic chance'. That in itself is subjective though. -
It's a scrum
We need that guy
I'm on the lineout spot. But if you move me it will injure me further
No chance a ref can police
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
It's a scrum
We need that guy
I'm on the lineout spot. But if you move me it will injure me further
No chance a ref can police
I think the solution is to remove the ability to game the referee. Prop or lock is suddenly injured during a break in play so can't compete at the set piece? Either replace him or free kick awarded to the opposition. You've magically chosen this spot to complain about a niggle? Free kick to the opposition.
-
@Crucial well it clearly isnt that simple when you get different refs ruling it differently...therefore my reasoning for taking them needing to interpret what they saw from the equation.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial well it clearly isnt that simple when you get different refs ruling it differently...therefore my reasoning for taking them needing to interpret what they saw from the equation.
We are probably arguing semantics but to me the law is very simple. It just isn't applied in a simple manner.
"A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession." -
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial well it clearly isnt that simple when you get different refs ruling it differently...therefore my reasoning for taking them needing to interpret what they saw from the equation.
We are probably arguing semantics but to me the law is very simple. It just isn't applied in a simple manner.
"A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession."@Crucial my issue with that is the use of "intentional" and "reasonable"...both are subjective
personally i think laws should be black and white, regather?...all good...dont?...i would just have a scrum as the knock on rule but i know others think it should be punished with a penalty
-
The simple issue is no one will ever be happy with the rule however you amend and apply it. Thought he could get the intercept and hence think a penalty is ridiculous for a failed catch, versus clearly deliberate act preventing a certain try only results in a free kick...
-
I know we can get frustrated with laws that are not seemingly black and white and the way they are interpreted, but personally I actually find it one of the things I have always loved about game, ball knocked on, play advantage, same as penalty etc. I don't get too upset if different refs have a bit different ways of looking at it, as long as they consistent during the game as they ref it.
I understand where some find it frustrating, but I prefer a fluid game, and not too quick to blow whistle at every little thing. -
It's a scrum
We need that guy
I'm on the lineout spot. But if you move me it will injure me further
No chance a ref can police
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
It's a scrum
We need that guy
I'm on the lineout spot. But if you move me it will injure me further
No chance a ref can police
If he's not available scrum is a free kick to opposition, second time it happens penalty
-
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@ARHS said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Gerhard Van der Heever on the bench. For crying out loud. How sterile. How fake. What has the game become. Do the ends just justify the means for everyone now?
Yeah he has only lived in Japan for six years. What gives there?
Couldn't give a fiddlers how long he lived there. I live in Spain. Im not fucking Spanish.
But you’re an amateur Spaniard
Id be their starting 10 judging by the standard.
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@ARHS said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Gerhard Van der Heever on the bench. For crying out loud. How sterile. How fake. What has the game become. Do the ends just justify the means for everyone now?
Yeah he has only lived in Japan for six years. What gives there?
Couldn't give a fiddlers how long he lived there. I live in Spain. Im not fucking Spanish.
But you’re an amateur Spaniard
Id be their starting 10 judging by the standard.
“It’s always been my dream to play for Spain”
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@ARHS said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Gerhard Van der Heever on the bench. For crying out loud. How sterile. How fake. What has the game become. Do the ends just justify the means for everyone now?
Yeah he has only lived in Japan for six years. What gives there?
Couldn't give a fiddlers how long he lived there. I live in Spain. Im not fucking Spanish.
But you’re an amateur Spaniard
Id be their starting 10 judging by the standard.
“It’s always been my dream to play for Spain”
@ACT-Crusader said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@ARHS said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Gerhard Van der Heever on the bench. For crying out loud. How sterile. How fake. What has the game become. Do the ends just justify the means for everyone now?
Yeah he has only lived in Japan for six years. What gives there?
Couldn't give a fiddlers how long he lived there. I live in Spain. Im not fucking Spanish.
But you’re an amateur Spaniard
Id be their starting 10 judging by the standard.
“It’s always been my dream to play for Spain”
"Soy tan español como las tapas y el rioja"
Slightly OT, but couldn't help thinking of Brad Shields and @Steve....
-
Could simplify the intercept thing even more and make any deflection of a pass by opposition totally fine, regardless of intent. Want to avoid deliberate knock downs etc? Throw better passes the opposition can't reach. Same as basketball/netball.
-
Could simplify the intercept thing even more and make any deflection of a pass by opposition totally fine, regardless of intent. Want to avoid deliberate knock downs etc? Throw better passes the opposition can't reach. Same as basketball/netball.
@TeWaio I watch a lot of NRL. An overlap gets blown by the defender slapping the ball? Everyone shrugs and moves on. It's a dumb ass interpretation brought about because scoring in rugby is hard enough apparently. And rugby players are shithouse at basics like draw and pass.
-
The simple issue is no one will ever be happy with the rule however you amend and apply it. Thought he could get the intercept and hence think a penalty is ridiculous for a failed catch, versus clearly deliberate act preventing a certain try only results in a free kick...
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
The simple issue is no one will ever be happy with the rule however you amend and apply it
Yep. It can't be fixed 100% but I think it can be improved and be made more consistent because at the moment it's a bit of a lottery.
We have a protocol/flowchart for dangerous play, so perhaps something similar might help? Hand on top of ball is deliberate = card, Hand on bottom or end of ball and no upward movement = penalty, Hand on bottom of ball and ball goes up = knock-on.
-
@MN5 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
This is the Rugby I used to enjoy. Jeopardy on both sides. Either team could have scored in this passage. Forwards were strong, backs were fast. When the ball went wide it was on.
Notice how not one player or commentator complained when Marty Holah arrowed Dawson into the turf like a sack of garbage.
Good times.
Holah would be red carded today no question.
I think the most amazing thing of all is Mike Tindalls flowing tresses on display.
Post O'Driscoll and Alastair Campbell we shat the bed with foul play. I was upended like that many times in my playing days and never once complained. I was fond of dishing out the odd dump/spear tackle myself too.
-
@TeWaio I watch a lot of NRL. An overlap gets blown by the defender slapping the ball? Everyone shrugs and moves on. It's a dumb ass interpretation brought about because scoring in rugby is hard enough apparently. And rugby players are shithouse at basics like draw and pass.
@mariner4life 6 again is massive in league though.
