The Current State of Rugby
-
I think it will get more dangerous with cause and effect. Players will be coached to run head down at tacklers who will cop a penalty or a knee in the head if they don't target the ankles.
The cleanouts would seem the most dangerous area to me with players pinned in an exposed position.
@ARHS said in The Current State of Rugby:
I think it will get more dangerous with cause and effect. Players will be coached to run head down at tacklers who will cop a penalty or a knee in the head if they don't target the ankles.
The cleanouts would seem the most dangerous area to me with players pinned in an exposed position.
Cant see it working either, unless we are only talking about ‘open’ ‘running’ rugby, and we all know that was the problem of why Steve Thompson can remember his name.
-
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
-
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
@Daffy-Jaffy said in The Current State of Rugby:
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
Making a legitimate attempt to tackle, which is different from BBBR
Made an absolute hash of it based on the attacker's step
High risk, first contact head, coming from a distance
RED CARD
Disciplinary board
Full sentence regardless of whether the player adopts rescue dogs, helps out at a children's hospital, or does a lot of work for charityThat's the only way to show that there are immediate consequences and longer term consequences
Then the culture will change
-
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
@Daffy-Jaffy said in The Current State of Rugby:
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
I’m lost for words at this stage.
-
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
@Daffy-Jaffy said in The Current State of Rugby:
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
Looked ugly at first, but then you realise he was only a halfback and he also threw his hands in the air immediately, so all was good again
-
@Daffy-Jaffy said in The Current State of Rugby:
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
I’m lost for words at this stage.
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Daffy-Jaffy said in The Current State of Rugby:
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
I’m lost for words at this stage.
It's the time it took to decide that cracks me up. These laws are meant to be there to deter tacklers from making forceful head contact but the process has become all about finding reasons not to issue a red. We are seeing the same thing at the Womens RWC.
WR need to decide what they are actually trying to achieve. -
Here's another example of the refs tying themselves in knots so as to make clear powerful and avoidable head contact a YC.
The logic here is that 'because you ran over the pedestrian with a car and not a truck, the level of danger is lower'
Surely the evidence in front of them that shows the 'victims' head flying back indicates a dangerous impact. Concussion is as much the brain moving inside the skull as it is an external hardness of impact.
-
@Daffy-Jaffy said in The Current State of Rugby:
Brodie gets red for an inaccurate cleanout but this is only yellow?
Making a legitimate attempt to tackle, which is different from BBBR
Made an absolute hash of it based on the attacker's step
High risk, first contact head, coming from a distance
RED CARD
Disciplinary board
Full sentence regardless of whether the player adopts rescue dogs, helps out at a children's hospital, or does a lot of work for charityThat's the only way to show that there are immediate consequences and longer term consequences
Then the culture will change
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
Making a legitimate attempt to tackle, which is different from BBBR
Not that different, BBBR was making a legitimate attempt to clean out - in both cases they got it wrong.
I'm more concerned that didn't get a red in comparison to other tackles. If his head had hit the player it would have been an instant red going on this year's history, but it was essentially a swinging arm and shoulder to the head. Hell, even JWH got a red and a ban in the league for a similar shot. The League!!!
-
I’m going to keep flogging my dead horse but neither the Scotland example or BBBR event included a legal bind. Showing an attempt to bind is not a bind.
I would also argue that neither event would have happened if the players knew the binding parts of the law were being enforced as it is barely possible to fly into a ruck at speed from a distance and bind. -
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
Making a legitimate attempt to tackle, which is different from BBBR
Not that different, BBBR was making a legitimate attempt to clean out - in both cases they got it wrong.
I'm more concerned that didn't get a red in comparison to other tackles. If his head had hit the player it would have been an instant red going on this year's history, but it was essentially a swinging arm and shoulder to the head. Hell, even JWH got a red and a ban in the league for a similar shot. The League!!!
-
@Nepia im not sure how legit BBBR's clear out was though, trailing arm makes it look very shoulder chargy
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia im not sure how legit BBBR's clear out was though, trailing arm makes it look very shoulder chargy
But that's partly my point, look at that tackle incident and how much a guy going for a legit tackle looks like he's going with both his shoulder and a swinging arm for good measure. (Not disagreeing with a card of some sort for both).
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia im not sure how legit BBBR's clear out was though, trailing arm makes it look very shoulder chargy
But that's partly my point, look at that tackle incident and how much a guy going for a legit tackle looks like he's going with both his shoulder and a swinging arm for good measure. (Not disagreeing with a card of some sort for both).
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia im not sure how legit BBBR's clear out was though, trailing arm makes it look very shoulder chargy
But that's partly my point, look at that tackle incident and how much a guy going for a legit tackle looks like he's going with both his shoulder and a swinging arm for good measure. (Not disagreeing with a card of some sort for both).
Same as Koroibete's tackle style really. Hit's hard with the shoulder with the arm coming around after impact. Is ruled legal as he is 'using the arm'.
The whole thing about the use of the arm in a tackle in rugby was explained to me in the past (at coaching clinics) as a way to remove the 'point' of the shoulder. The point disappears when your arm comes up. -
Here's my current gripe of the game as I was harping on about in the ABXV game.
Listen to Nigel Owens at 4:10
and there's also a video that I can't find at the moment that highlights this happening in the second MAB/ Ireland game to TJP
The fact that firstly an international ref didnt understand it and YCd someone, then after review by WR everyone was told it was technically legal means that years of the halfback having protection at the base for the moment the ball leaves the ground to the moment they have it 'in possession' have disappeared.
Technically correct but the result when everyone does it is a shit show as we just saw in this morning's game. Once the ref ruled and explained that you can tackle or whack the 9s arm as soon as the ball leaves the ground the rucks became a mess until teams adjusted and slowed down the scrum by putting an extra layer in place.Now surely a 'loophole' like this shouldn't be encouraged by WR if it is detrimental to the game and creates negative and slow play?
-
Here's my current gripe of the game as I was harping on about in the ABXV game.
Listen to Nigel Owens at 4:10
and there's also a video that I can't find at the moment that highlights this happening in the second MAB/ Ireland game to TJP
The fact that firstly an international ref didnt understand it and YCd someone, then after review by WR everyone was told it was technically legal means that years of the halfback having protection at the base for the moment the ball leaves the ground to the moment they have it 'in possession' have disappeared.
Technically correct but the result when everyone does it is a shit show as we just saw in this morning's game. Once the ref ruled and explained that you can tackle or whack the 9s arm as soon as the ball leaves the ground the rucks became a mess until teams adjusted and slowed down the scrum by putting an extra layer in place.Now surely a 'loophole' like this shouldn't be encouraged by WR if it is detrimental to the game and creates negative and slow play?
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
Here's my current gripe of the game as I was harping on about in the ABXV game.
Listen to Nigel Owens at 4:10
and there's also a video that I can't find at the moment that highlights this happening in the second MAB/ Ireland game to TJP
The fact that firstly an international ref didnt understand it and YCd someone, then after review by WR everyone was told it was technically legal means that years of the halfback having protection at the base for the moment the ball leaves the ground to the moment they have it 'in possession' have disappeared.
Technically correct but the result when everyone does it is a shit show as we just saw in this morning's game. Once the ref ruled and explained that you can tackle or whack the 9s arm as soon as the ball leaves the ground the rucks became a mess until teams adjusted and slowed down the scrum by putting an extra layer in place.Now surely a 'loophole' like this shouldn't be encouraged by WR if it is detrimental to the game and creates negative and slow play?
I'll 100% disagree with you on this one.
Anything that incentives forwards to commit to a ruck is A OK in my book.
I thought it was great.
Rucks are inherently messy and are supposed to be messy.
-
@Frank said in The Current State of Rugby:
@His-Bobness said in The Current State of Rugby:
Meanwhile, in women’s rugby we see a glimpse of what used to be….
They don't have the power to hurt each other.
It"s relative isn't it? Compared to males they may be down on power, but I bet they can still hurt each other.
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Frank said in The Current State of Rugby:
@His-Bobness said in The Current State of Rugby:
Meanwhile, in women’s rugby we see a glimpse of what used to be….
They don't have the power to hurt each other.
It"s relative isn't it? Compared to males they may be down on power, but I bet they can still hurt each other.
They're also that little bit smaller (I imagine) so less momentum.
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Scotland v Fiji kicks off.
60 seconds later we have our first yellow card.... Marvellous.
As long as Berry is consistent throughout the match I have no problem with it
-
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Frank said in The Current State of Rugby:
@His-Bobness said in The Current State of Rugby:
Meanwhile, in women’s rugby we see a glimpse of what used to be….
They don't have the power to hurt each other.
It"s relative isn't it? Compared to males they may be down on power, but I bet they can still hurt each other.
They're also that little bit smaller (I imagine) so less momentum.
@nostrildamus well it is clear they have a separate framework for women's head contacts and even lifting tackles...basically anything to avoid a card especially red, while the men's appears anything to find one.
-
Be nice if World Rugby could get the refs to have some constancy in their interpretations of the breakdown.
@sparky said in The Current State of Rugby:
Be nice if World Rugby could get the refs to have some constancy in their interpretations of the breakdown.
Its all over the place. Barnes was blowing for penalties today at the breakdown and when I looked at him he had his arm extended towards the opposite team to who I had interpreted had infringed.
