All Blacks vs Ireland
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.This puts the thumb on the scales in favour of the attacking team. A retreating player can be in exactly the same position to compete for the ball as an attacking player, but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
retreating players would almost never sprint back if there is someone further back coming forward, always defer to the full back coming forward, the overwhelming majority of retreating players are just trying to get get on side rather than compete for the ball
I thought the ref and commentators explained during the game
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.I think it's complete nonsense. The idea that a player on the receiving team, actually has to actively move so that a tackler can get to his teammate to make a tackle/contest the ball, putting his team under pressure (more tackles made, can't get as many support players to the tackled player etc), just seems utterly bizarre.
Run a straight line as a defender, and the tackler can judge where he wants to run and time it accordingly. If the attacker doesn't get there to compete or make a tackle because the defenders are retreating, then so be it.
-
If i am a coach, i am having minimum three genuine chasers to every box kick now. Receiving team players physically won't be able to avoid every player, move away from one, you impede another. Only option is stand still. And you create yourself a huge advantage even if the receiver makes a clean catch.
-
If i am a coach, i am having minimum three genuine chasers to every box kick now. Receiving team players physically won't be able to avoid every player, move away from one, you impede another. Only option is stand still. And you create yourself a huge advantage even if the receiver makes a clean catch.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
If i am a coach, i am having minimum three genuine chasers to every box kick now. Receiving team players physically won't be able to avoid every player, move away from one, you impede another. Only option is stand still. And you create yourself a huge advantage even if the receiver makes a clean catch.
2 players actively compete for the ball (one in the air, the other as a tackler), while the 3rd looks to initiate some contact and takes a swan dive
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
Ireland looked lost. One of their main ways of « cheating » was gone. I think it’s a great rule change. As long as refs aren’t over zealous.
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
I think it actually helped out kick contests, and the Irish struggled. By the end they were standing under our kicks not knowing if they should run a line or not
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
Did you watch the Aussie game? Looked very much to me like Salakaia-Lotu who had been retreating towards the ball, then changed his line to clear the area, or 'open up the space' as the refs have been saying - and the attacking chaser consequently clattered into him. For me, you don't have eyes in the back of your head, and therefore any change in direction is dangerous.
Naturally he was penalised for trying to follow the new 'law'. -
-
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Algerian VPN works
with?
ExpressVPN
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Algerian VPN works
with?
ExpressVPN
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Algerian VPN works
with?
ExpressVPN
No, I meant what are you trying to achieve?
-
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Algerian VPN works
with?
ExpressVPN
No, I meant what are you trying to achieve?
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Algerian VPN works
with?
ExpressVPN
No, I meant what are you trying to achieve?
Oh watching the NZ v Ire Squidge vid
