The Current State of Rugby
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum, or for wearing down another team that's perhaps gambled on a strong scrum but at the expense of the fitness to maintain it.
There aren't that many scrums in games anyway. If you really want to improve the game enforce the offside line at the ruck, or extend it to a clear one metre behind the last player in the ruck. Significantly more rucks in a game, and offside play effects more than a couple of scrum penalties.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum
but isn't the possession the reward, scrum is a contest for the ball with one team having a VERY minor advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, we've already turned that into a big advantage by not making anyone put it in straight...but, its in and a dominant scrum has it...and can play...isn't that exactly what the reward is... teams turning a knock on into 3 point is madness
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
Not talking about offsides or cynical offences though. Talking about something like losing a forward from a technical penalty up field and the kick/maul/penalty/repeated penalty situation that comes from that.
Repeated penalties that escalate the situation but the root cause is one transgression, often well up field.
I can't see how creating a more even maul situation results in cynical fouls though (or have I misunderstood?).
Wayne Smith's suggestion to break the escalation sequence is at the lineout and not reward a penalty kicked for position. My suggestion is to tweak the maul interpretation so that the defending side isn't at such a disadvantage and risk of getting penalised again. Obviously still penalise 'cheating' fouls but reduce the likelihood of them happening accidentally.
At the moment if the attcking side roll the maul the risk of a defender being judged as coming in the side is high. You can't delibeartely roll a scrum, so why a maul?I don't have a problem with mauls. Not joining from the side is not a difficult concept, even for props.
I'd concede having two warnings dropped to one would be an improvement, but I wouldn't change anything else.
It really is a case of "get good". Work on defending a maul, don't conceed penalties in the first place. Many are avoidable, and it's a team pattern to be cycnical. Bad luck, here's the cost.
Tweaking the laws to reduce the cost for penalties is how you completely ruin the game.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
Not talking about offsides or cynical offences though. Talking about something like losing a forward from a technical penalty up field and the kick/maul/penalty/repeated penalty situation that comes from that.
Repeated penalties that escalate the situation but the root cause is one transgression, often well up field.
I can't see how creating a more even maul situation results in cynical fouls though (or have I misunderstood?).
Wayne Smith's suggestion to break the escalation sequence is at the lineout and not reward a penalty kicked for position. My suggestion is to tweak the maul interpretation so that the defending side isn't at such a disadvantage and risk of getting penalised again. Obviously still penalise 'cheating' fouls but reduce the likelihood of them happening accidentally.
At the moment if the attcking side roll the maul the risk of a defender being judged as coming in the side is high. You can't delibeartely roll a scrum, so why a maul?I don't have a problem with mauls. Not joining from the side is not a difficult concept, even for props.
I'd concede having two warnings dropped to one would be an improvement, but I wouldn't change anything else.
It really is a case of "get good". Work on defending a maul, don't conceed penalties in the first place. Many are avoidable, and it's a team pattern to be cycnical. Bad luck, here's the cost.
Tweaking the laws to reduce the cost for penalties is how you completely ruin the game.
So you don't think that the attacking team currently has an advantage in mauls? That would certainly colour your thinking.
I's say that most on here would agree that they do.
Yes, good teams can still defend them legally but the balance is wrong. You don't have to be as good as the attacking side as the defenders do. Refs, because of the situation in play watch the defenders for transgressions far more than the attackers as well. Attacking players seem able to join from the side with impunity. A ball carrier at the back is judged as bound with only a finger grab but a defender than does the same is judged as being unbound or swimming.
All of these things have been pointed out over and over on these boards yet it remains an area of the game that WR aren't interested in tidying. Smith is saying that s to the detriment of the watchability and I tend to agree. -
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
Not talking about offsides or cynical offences though. Talking about something like losing a forward from a technical penalty up field and the kick/maul/penalty/repeated penalty situation that comes from that.
Repeated penalties that escalate the situation but the root cause is one transgression, often well up field.
I can't see how creating a more even maul situation results in cynical fouls though (or have I misunderstood?).
Wayne Smith's suggestion to break the escalation sequence is at the lineout and not reward a penalty kicked for position. My suggestion is to tweak the maul interpretation so that the defending side isn't at such a disadvantage and risk of getting penalised again. Obviously still penalise 'cheating' fouls but reduce the likelihood of them happening accidentally.
At the moment if the attcking side roll the maul the risk of a defender being judged as coming in the side is high. You can't delibeartely roll a scrum, so why a maul?I don't have a problem with mauls. Not joining from the side is not a difficult concept, even for props.
I'd concede having two warnings dropped to one would be an improvement, but I wouldn't change anything else.
It really is a case of "get good". Work on defending a maul, don't conceed penalties in the first place. Many are avoidable, and it's a team pattern to be cycnical. Bad luck, here's the cost.
Tweaking the laws to reduce the cost for penalties is how you completely ruin the game.
So you don't think that the attacking team currently has an advantage in mauls? That would certainly colour your thinking.
I's say that most on here would agree that they do.
Yes, good teams can still defend them legally but the balance is wrong. You don't have to be as good as the attacking side as the defenders do. Refs, because of the situation in play watch the defenders for transgressions far more than the attackers as well. Attacking players seem able to join from the side with impunity. A ball carrier at the back is judged as bound with only a finger grab but a defender than does the same is judged as being unbound or swimming.
All of these things have been pointed out over and over on these boards yet it remains an area of the game that WR aren't interested in tidying. Smith is saying that s to the detriment of the watchability and I tend to agree. -
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum
but isn't the possession the reward, scrum is a contest for the ball with one team having a VERY minor advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, we've already turned that into a big advantage by not making anyone put it in straight...but, its in and a dominant scrum has it...and can play...isn't that exactly what the reward is... teams turning a knock on into 3 point is madness
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum
but isn't the possession the reward, scrum is a contest for the ball with one team having a VERY minor advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, we've already turned that into a big advantage by not making anyone put it in straight...but, its in and a dominant scrum has it...and can play...isn't that exactly what the reward is... teams turning a knock on into 3 point is madness
A strong scrum should be rewarded, if you don't have the ball it's a great way to defend your line if you can contest that possession back to your team. Crusaders are particularly good at this.
-
@Crucial Adding "Wayne Smith thinks" doesn't make your posts more credible, just FYI.
I think some existing laws can be emphasised to tidy things up (bind with a full arm as you point out), but don't see a need for major changes.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial Adding "Wayne Smith thinks" doesn't make your posts more credible, just FYI.
I think some existing laws can be emphasised to tidy things up (bind with a full arm as you point out), but don't see a need for major changes.
Just keeping the discussion on track (comments were a follow on from his, nothing more). No need for the snide remarks.
So without the "tidy ups" do you think the attacking team has an advantage at mauls? No use talking about the current state of the game if you are making judgement based on a state that doesn't exist.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial Adding "Wayne Smith thinks" doesn't make your posts more credible, just FYI.
I think some existing laws can be emphasised to tidy things up (bind with a full arm as you point out), but don't see a need for major changes.
Just keeping the discussion on track (comments were a follow on from his, nothing more). No need for the snide remarks.
So without the "tidy ups" do you think the attacking team has an advantage at mauls? No use talking about the current state of the game if you are making judgement based on a state that doesn't exist.
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial Adding "Wayne Smith thinks" doesn't make your posts more credible, just FYI.
I think some existing laws can be emphasised to tidy things up (bind with a full arm as you point out), but don't see a need for major changes.
Just keeping the discussion on track (comments were a follow on from his, nothing more). No need for the snide remarks.
So without the "tidy ups" do you think the attacking team has an advantage at mauls? No use talking about the current state of the game if you are making judgement based on a state that doesn't exist.
Snide remarks like starting posts with "Whoosh" you mean?
I've explained where I think the bigger focus should be. Mauls and Scrums aren't a huge problem, ruck penalities and offsides have a far larger impact.
-
My poit is I knew people in 90s who didn't watch as much rugby as they did in 70s, 80s etc (thinking of brothers and their mates). These fellas went to tests, provincial games etc all the time, and got to point where it wasn't as important to them, and they did think once it became pro there was so much on tv, it lost some of the appeal. ie too much and they got a bit tired of it. There are an has always been a lot of rugby players that finish playing and stop watching it as much etc as they move on. Add that to internet forums where it's trendy to point out all the negative things and if you enjoy game etc are seen as just an old stick in the mud like me, it all seems bad I know, but we in a competitive sports market , especially for tv watchers so it makes it easy to write game off.
Well I still enjoy it, things could be better as they could of been ny whole life of watching and being involved in game, and realise that some will find other things to do and so be it, now they have the internet to tell everyone , where once they just drifted off! -
My poit is I knew people in 90s who didn't watch as much rugby as they did in 70s, 80s etc (thinking of brothers and their mates). These fellas went to tests, provincial games etc all the time, and got to point where it wasn't as important to them, and they did think once it became pro there was so much on tv, it lost some of the appeal. ie too much and they got a bit tired of it. There are an has always been a lot of rugby players that finish playing and stop watching it as much etc as they move on. Add that to internet forums where it's trendy to point out all the negative things and if you enjoy game etc are seen as just an old stick in the mud like me, it all seems bad I know, but we in a competitive sports market , especially for tv watchers so it makes it easy to write game off.
Well I still enjoy it, things could be better as they could of been ny whole life of watching and being involved in game, and realise that some will find other things to do and so be it, now they have the internet to tell everyone , where once they just drifted off! -
@Dan54 Yep it's a fair point, and one that affects all entertainment not just sport. There has never been more options for content, and hand in hand, never more ways to complain about stuff.
-
@Kirwan I would guess an awful lot of us will recall the 'end of rugby ' in the 80s after the Bok tour to NZ and rebel tour to SA also. And yet here we are.
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan I would guess an awful lot of us will recall the 'end of rugby ' in the 80s after the Bok tour to NZ and rebel tour to SA also. And yet here we are.
Yep. Was a huge uptick in youth soccer for a few years, then it drifted back.
And this not to say we shouldn't be improving the entertainment package, but I'd prefer they did that with competition structure than always tinkering with the laws.
Having a top 8 in such a small comp is stupid, for example.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum
but isn't the possession the reward, scrum is a contest for the ball with one team having a VERY minor advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, we've already turned that into a big advantage by not making anyone put it in straight...but, its in and a dominant scrum has it...and can play...isn't that exactly what the reward is... teams turning a knock on into 3 point is madness
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum
but isn't the possession the reward, scrum is a contest for the ball with one team having a VERY minor advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, we've already turned that into a big advantage by not making anyone put it in straight...but, its in and a dominant scrum has it...and can play...isn't that exactly what the reward is... teams turning a knock on into 3 point is madness
The major advantage with the feed on the loosehead side is that your hooker (or loosehead prop) packs closer to the feed than the opposition's, so with a competent strike he'll hook the ball without his opponent getting a chance.
-
I think the consensus is to
Make it a 15 v 15 contest for as long as possible
Award adventure
Penalise negative play
To that end
Thoughts please
—————
Do the match officials suspect intentional foul play?
Intentional?
e.g. biting; butting; gouging; kicking; spitting; etcYes
Penalty against the offending team
Stop the match
Immediate reviewYes
RC
Team reduced to 14 players for the duration of the matchDo the match officials suspect unintentional foul play?
Unintentional?
e.g. Dangerous tackle, head contact, tackle beyond 90 degreesYes
Penalty against the offending team
YC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersReview of the incident by TMO during the 10 minute YC period
On review is the card upgraded to RC?
Yes
Offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Substitute remains on the field
Both teams at 15 playersYC offence
Offending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves the field
Both teams at 15 playersIf a player is YC for a second time the offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Do the match officials suspect professional foul?
e.g. Pulling jersey of player not in possession of the ball; tackling without the ball; knock on preventing a scoring opportunity; collapsing scrum; infringement at lineout etc
Yes
Did it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
Yes
Penalty against offending teamYC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersOffending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves field
Both teams at 15 playersDid it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
No
Award try
Offending player not censuredOn completion of conversion the match restarts with penalty against the offending team on the halfway line
A potential 10 point play or an opportunity to kick to touch to gain field position and possession
Continued infringements preventing try scoring opportunities will see the substitute bench being used
If all substitutes are on the field of play then continued infringements will see the offending team play with 14, 13, 12 etc players
-
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan I would guess an awful lot of us will recall the 'end of rugby ' in the 80s after the Bok tour to NZ and rebel tour to SA also. And yet here we are.
Yep. Was a huge uptick in youth soccer for a few years, then it drifted back.
And this not to say we shouldn't be improving the entertainment package, but I'd prefer they did that with competition structure than always tinkering with the laws.
Having a top 8 in such a small comp is stupid, for example.
-
@Kirwan I'd argue most of the recent law changes have been pretty good and have gone on to be adopted by the international rugby community.
The competition on the other hand is irredeemably fucked.
@Derpus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan I'd argue most of the recent law changes have been pretty good and have gone on to be adopted by the international rugby community.
The competition on the other hand is irredeemably fucked.
Nothing as simple as a sporting competition is irredeemably fucked.
-
I think the consensus is to
Make it a 15 v 15 contest for as long as possible
Award adventure
Penalise negative play
To that end
Thoughts please
—————
Do the match officials suspect intentional foul play?
Intentional?
e.g. biting; butting; gouging; kicking; spitting; etcYes
Penalty against the offending team
Stop the match
Immediate reviewYes
RC
Team reduced to 14 players for the duration of the matchDo the match officials suspect unintentional foul play?
Unintentional?
e.g. Dangerous tackle, head contact, tackle beyond 90 degreesYes
Penalty against the offending team
YC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersReview of the incident by TMO during the 10 minute YC period
On review is the card upgraded to RC?
Yes
Offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Substitute remains on the field
Both teams at 15 playersYC offence
Offending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves the field
Both teams at 15 playersIf a player is YC for a second time the offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Do the match officials suspect professional foul?
e.g. Pulling jersey of player not in possession of the ball; tackling without the ball; knock on preventing a scoring opportunity; collapsing scrum; infringement at lineout etc
Yes
Did it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
Yes
Penalty against offending teamYC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersOffending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves field
Both teams at 15 playersDid it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
No
Award try
Offending player not censuredOn completion of conversion the match restarts with penalty against the offending team on the halfway line
A potential 10 point play or an opportunity to kick to touch to gain field position and possession
Continued infringements preventing try scoring opportunities will see the substitute bench being used
If all substitutes are on the field of play then continued infringements will see the offending team play with 14, 13, 12 etc players
@MiketheSnow pretty much gets us to the way the game used to be played.
Needs to have consistency with suspensions as well.
-
I think the consensus is to
Make it a 15 v 15 contest for as long as possible
Award adventure
Penalise negative play
To that end
Thoughts please
—————
Do the match officials suspect intentional foul play?
Intentional?
e.g. biting; butting; gouging; kicking; spitting; etcYes
Penalty against the offending team
Stop the match
Immediate reviewYes
RC
Team reduced to 14 players for the duration of the matchDo the match officials suspect unintentional foul play?
Unintentional?
e.g. Dangerous tackle, head contact, tackle beyond 90 degreesYes
Penalty against the offending team
YC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersReview of the incident by TMO during the 10 minute YC period
On review is the card upgraded to RC?
Yes
Offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Substitute remains on the field
Both teams at 15 playersYC offence
Offending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves the field
Both teams at 15 playersIf a player is YC for a second time the offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Do the match officials suspect professional foul?
e.g. Pulling jersey of player not in possession of the ball; tackling without the ball; knock on preventing a scoring opportunity; collapsing scrum; infringement at lineout etc
Yes
Did it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
Yes
Penalty against offending teamYC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersOffending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves field
Both teams at 15 playersDid it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
No
Award try
Offending player not censuredOn completion of conversion the match restarts with penalty against the offending team on the halfway line
A potential 10 point play or an opportunity to kick to touch to gain field position and possession
Continued infringements preventing try scoring opportunities will see the substitute bench being used
If all substitutes are on the field of play then continued infringements will see the offending team play with 14, 13, 12 etc players
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
I think the consensus is to
Make it a 15 v 15 contest for as long as possible
Award adventure
Penalise negative play
To that end
Thoughts please
—————
Do the match officials suspect intentional foul play?
Intentional?
e.g. biting; butting; gouging; kicking; spitting; etcYes
Penalty against the offending team
Stop the match
Immediate reviewYes
RC
Team reduced to 14 players for the duration of the matchDo the match officials suspect unintentional foul play?
Unintentional?
e.g. Dangerous tackle, head contact, tackle beyond 90 degreesYes
Penalty against the offending team
YC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersReview of the incident by TMO during the 10 minute YC period
On review is the card upgraded to RC?
Yes
Offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Substitute remains on the field
Both teams at 15 playersYC offence
Offending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves the field
Both teams at 15 playersIf a player is YC for a second time the offending player is off for the remainder of the match
Do the match officials suspect professional foul?
e.g. Pulling jersey of player not in possession of the ball; tackling without the ball; knock on preventing a scoring opportunity; collapsing scrum; infringement at lineout etc
Yes
Did it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
Yes
Penalty against offending teamYC
Substitute allowed to enter the field of play
Both teams at 15 playersOffending player is allowed to rejoin the match after 10 minutes is up
Substitute leaves field
Both teams at 15 playersDid it prevent a try scoring opportunity?
No
Award try
Offending player not censuredOn completion of conversion the match restarts with penalty against the offending team on the halfway line
A potential 10 point play or an opportunity to kick to touch to gain field position and possession
Continued infringements preventing try scoring opportunities will see the substitute bench being used
If all substitutes are on the field of play then continued infringements will see the offending team play with 14, 13, 12 etc players
re the "negative" play, if we're talking about high/late tackles and the like yes, definately....if we're talking scrum penalties or players getting deliberately pinned on the wrong side of a ruck...not for me
we seem to be moving more and more towards only the best teams and players being able to win, yes that should be the norm but only because theyre the best...they dont need the help of the rules, obviously lesser teams also getting penalised out of a game is part of what kill interest, we want the fans of those teams to always think they have a chance to pull off an upset
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum, or for wearing down another team that's perhaps gambled on a strong scrum but at the expense of the fitness to maintain it.
There aren't that many scrums in games anyway. If you really want to improve the game enforce the offside line at the ruck, or extend it to a clear one metre behind the last player in the ruck. Significantly more rucks in a game, and offside play effects more than a couple of scrum penalties.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum, or for wearing down another team that's perhaps gambled on a strong scrum but at the expense of the fitness to maintain it.
There aren't that many scrums in games anyway. If you really want to improve the game enforce the offside line at the ruck, or extend it to a clear one metre behind the last player in the ruck. Significantly more rucks in a game, and offside play effects more than a couple of scrum penalties.
Scrums are much less of an issue that mauls. That said, one thing that irks me about scrums is teams being penalised and having players carded simply because they've lost a scrum. For sure, penalise genuine infringements such as boring in, wheeling around, collapsing etc. but don't start penalising teams simply because they're losing a pushing contest. The advantage to the stronger scrum there should not be to gain a penalty (or an extra man), but rather to get more time and space for your backs because the other team is going backwards.
The scrum, to me, is just one example of how the incentives of penalties and cards have become a little skewed in the modern game. Rather than being a punishment for illegal or foul play, penalties and cards are now too much of a "reward" for the attacking team, so tactics and strategies are built around obtaining those rewards.
-
On a more general note, as I stated at the beginning of the searon after the early rounds, I'm really enjoying the rugby I'm seeing. Some really good games, Drua finding their feet in particular is a positive.
Speeding up the game is the key IMO, they need to really stick with that and we'll slowly tranistion out of large mass monsters lumbering around for 45mins then getting subbed.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
On a more general note, as I stated at the beginning of the searon after the early rounds, I'm really enjoying the rugby I'm seeing. Some really good games, Drua finding their feet in particular is a positive.
Speeding up the game is the key IMO, they need to really stick with that and we'll slowly tranistion out of large mass monsters lumbering around for 45mins then getting subbed.
Have to agree. Rugby has been decent with a few dud games on the whole.
Came to the conclusion that my life priorities have changed which is why I watch much less. I have zero affinity for local rugby here & my interest in Super Rugby is currently third behind Premier League & F1 from a TV perspective. With family life, golf & spending time with friends & family, there just simply isn't the time I once had & the highlights package is sufficient.
I know I'm not alone here and it's why Super Rugby as a package really needs to sell to the 20's. I mean, how many people who post here are in their 20's?
-
question, does the half back get too much protection?
kind of occured to me watching the highlanders game over the weekend, rucks with as few as 4 people, 2 on the ground and a couple standing over it, defending team could easily reach the halfback who is just standing there looking at options but are obviously told they cant grab him
if we removed that rule, would it force more players into the ruck to protect him and possibly creating more space?
