Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?
-
What rules most grinds your gears? What would you change.
My pet peeve is the quick tap from a scrum (or ruck, maul) where the ref hasn't yet made the mark (as he physically can't as there are a pile of bodies in the way, half of which will be offside the moment play resumes).
This is a scrum penalty for a collapsed scrum:
Look where the scrum is, look where Barnes is going to allow the quick tap to be taken from. Look how many people are offside. It's going to result in either a cheap try, or a penalty, quite possibly a yellow. This is an extreme example as Barnes is too weak to make Picamoles even take it roughly behind the yet to be made mark.
I just love watching cheap-ass quick tap tries, because a collapsed scrum really deserves to be punished by a quick tap taken while half the team is on his face in an offside position.
The 'more correct' modern method of quickly taking it from behind the scrum (E.g. in line with where the ref's mark will be once the ground is cleared of collapsed props) is still bullshit. In my playing days; you had an opportunity to get the majority of your team back onside, as they anticipated a quick tap as the ref moved to make the mark, Nowadays; it results in a minor infringement bequeathing a compulsory professional foul (or at best the ref ignoring the resulting professional foul).
This has grated at me ever since we first started Mextedising the rules.
I reckon this is your legacy Junior Tonu'u and Mextedised refs of the early Super 12.
-
It's Barnes... but still there is a point there.
No pass backs into the 22. This ELV facilitated a change of a mindset in the world game which was much needed at the time. More attacking rugby in the defensive half or kicking to the opposition for possibility of counter attack. Less set pieces.
Now, I'm bored with most play that stalls between the 22 and 10 - and it would be an interesting layer to have that option to surrender ground and pass back into the 22 and allow that kick into touch. Perhaps it's the tall timber we have in this country vs 2008 but an increase in lineouts is actually something I would be into.
Much like if the powerplay was removed from ODI cricket I don't think the game would return to where it used to be. The game has been opened up too much and I think it would add a nice variation on play in that section of the pitch.
-
Cool thread idea.
For me it is the charge down in play vs charge down in-goal. If you charge the ball down in the field of play and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 22 drop out. If you charge the ball down from the in-goal area and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 5 metre scrum. It doesn't happen all that often but it seems the outcomes are wildly different and doesn't reward a good defensive play (charge down in field of play, ball going dead).
Similarly with knock-ons. If there is a knock-on 1 metre out from the try line the result is a 5 metre scrum. If there is a knock-on inside the in-goal (from the attacking team) the result is a 22 metre drop out. At least with that one I suppose you are rewarding in-goal defence.
-
Offside Dummy Runners.
Dummy runners is another bugbear of mine.
It wasn't initially a big deal to me, but now that we have TMOs ..., I don't want some guy watching a 2 dimensional image on the telly,at usually a 45 degree camera angle, deciding if a cheating obstructing dummy runner impacted a try scoring movement. Imagine Sean Veldsman deciding a RWC final try.
Simple solution is rule on the obstruction like the laws actually say: The dummy runner should stop once the ball goes past/behind him and not touch a defender. (Ok, I haven't actually looked up the law)
Rather like my opening post. This isn't a rule change, it's just something refs started to ignore. Coz tries, coz entertainment, because new league defence coaches at the time were a step ahead of attack coaching. I don't think we're in this position anymore.
Legacy on this one; Eddie Jones and Brumbieball.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Cool thread idea.
For me it is the charge down in play vs charge down in-goal. If you charge the ball down in the field of play and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 22 drop out. If you charge the ball down from the in-goal area and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 5 metre scrum. It doesn't happen all that often but it seems the outcomes are wildly different and doesn't reward a good defensive play (charge down in field of play, ball going dead).
Similarly with knock-ons. If there is a knock-on 1 metre out from the try line the result is a 5 metre scrum. If there is a knock-on inside the in-goal (from the attacking team) the result is a 22 metre drop out. At least with that one I suppose you are rewarding in-goal defence.
Bolded bit is not true. Both are 5m scrums and NOT 22m drop outs. See laws 12.1 (c) and (d) and also 22.13.
This is something that has been hotly debated - why should the defending team get the benefit of a 22m if the ball is kicked into ingoal and made dead, but if the ball is knocked on into ingoal and made dead it is a 5m scrum. Personally I am fine with the law as it stands, but that's not universal.
I definitely agree with your first point though. a chargedown resulting in the ball going dead should be a 5m scrum regardless of where the chargedown occurred.
-
I don't like the law that allows a tackler to come from any angle to play the ball at a tackle.
I don't mind the law in principle, it's just that it's so difficult to referee even the top referees get it wrong as often as they get it right.
The ref has to make a split second decision on:
(1) is the person a tackler?
(2) has he entered the tackle before a ruck has formed?
(3) is he trying to play the ball (OK) or is he just standing up to get in the way of the halfback (not OK)I swear even the top referees cock this up on a regular basis - both to allow tacklers to play the ball when they should be PK'ed and to PK tacklers who were entitled to play the ball. Honestly I think the best policy is to just scrap the law altogether and say everyone has to come from their side regardless.
-
Not sure I agree on the chargedown theory. Isn't the reward that you've charged down a kick in goal and therefore get better possession closer to the line? Whereas if you charge it down outside, you still most likely get the ball back, just a bit further away. Seems fair to me.
Not exactly a law but what grinds my gears is players so often winning a penalty for the tackled player not releasing the ball, when the "stealer" is making absolutely no attempt to play the ball and is just grabbing the guy on the ground, holding the ball into the guy on the ground or wrestling for it with an arriving player after the tackled player has released.
-
@Rapido said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Dummy runners is another bugbear of mine.
Agreed. There's a lot of dummy runners who continue moving into the defensive line as the defence drifts, actively hindering the defenders from being able to place themselves in a good position. These attackers are all violating law 11.1
The other, and everyone complains about it, is not enforcing a proper feed at scrums. I don't like teams the scrums for penalties, but a strong scrum should be rewarded for its dominance. Not having a scrumhalf feeding into the backrow as his forwards go skating backwards.
I'd also change scrum penalties to freekicks unless it's dangerous play.
-
@Damo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@KiwiMurph said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Cool thread idea.
For me it is the charge down in play vs charge down in-goal. If you charge the ball down in the field of play and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 22 drop out. If you charge the ball down from the in-goal area and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 5 metre scrum. It doesn't happen all that often but it seems the outcomes are wildly different and doesn't reward a good defensive play (charge down in field of play, ball going dead).
Similarly with knock-ons. If there is a knock-on 1 metre out from the try line the result is a 5 metre scrum. If there is a knock-on inside the in-goal (from the attacking team) the result is a 22 metre drop out. At least with that one I suppose you are rewarding in-goal defence.
Bolded bit is not true. Both are 5m scrums and NOT 22m drop outs. See laws 12.1 (c) and (d) and also 22.13.
This is something that has been hotly debated - why should the defending team get the benefit of a 22m if the ball is kicked into ingoal and made dead, but if the ball is knocked on into ingoal and made dead it is a 5m scrum. Personally I am fine with the law as it stands, but that's not universal.
I definitely agree with your first point though. a chargedown resulting in the ball going dead should be a 5m scrum regardless of where the chargedown occurred.
Does it to depend on which side takes the ball into the in goal area? i.e. Defending side takes it in = 5M scrum. Attacking side kicks it in goal and follows up = 22m drop out?
-
@Catogrande said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Damo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@KiwiMurph said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Cool thread idea.
For me it is the charge down in play vs charge down in-goal. If you charge the ball down in the field of play and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 22 drop out. If you charge the ball down from the in-goal area and the ball goes dead in-goal/out in-goal it is a 5 metre scrum. It doesn't happen all that often but it seems the outcomes are wildly different and doesn't reward a good defensive play (charge down in field of play, ball going dead).
Similarly with knock-ons. If there is a knock-on 1 metre out from the try line the result is a 5 metre scrum. If there is a knock-on inside the in-goal (from the attacking team) the result is a 22 metre drop out. At least with that one I suppose you are rewarding in-goal defence.
Bolded bit is not true. Both are 5m scrums and NOT 22m drop outs. See laws 12.1 (c) and (d) and also 22.13.
This is something that has been hotly debated - why should the defending team get the benefit of a 22m if the ball is kicked into ingoal and made dead, but if the ball is knocked on into ingoal and made dead it is a 5m scrum. Personally I am fine with the law as it stands, but that's not universal.
I definitely agree with your first point though. a chargedown resulting in the ball going dead should be a 5m scrum regardless of where the chargedown occurred.
Does it to depend on which side takes the ball into the in goal area? i.e. Defending side takes it in = 5M scrum. Attacking side kicks it in goal and follows up = 22m drop out?
Either team can knock on in goal with the result of a 5m scrum to whichever team didn't knock on. If the attacking team knocks on in the field of play and the ball goes into the in goal, then if it is made dead the result is a 22 restart.
I do like the idea that if an attacking team knocks on and the ball ends up in the in goal, the restart should be at the 22 instead of a 5m scrum.
-
@antipodean Yes, all very interesting but we were talking about charge downs.
-
Slightly off tangent, I was reading Norm Hewitts book and and the end he talks about the future of the game. It was written at the time brumbieleague was very effective and he suggested that rugby should bring in a rule that the team should be 10 m back from the halfback at rucktime. Yeah nah. Not quite as odd as Martin Devlin wanting to bring in the 40/20 rule.
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Not exactly a law but what grinds my gears is players so often winning a penalty for the tackled player not releasing the ball, when the "stealer" is making absolutely no attempt to play the ball and is just grabbing the guy on the ground, holding the ball into the guy on the ground or wrestling for it with an arriving player after the tackled player has released.
Amen to that. Seems to be a trait of Australian teams in particular (followed by high fiving and bum whacking).
Should not be put up with by refs. If the player isn't making a genuine effort to win the ball it should be ruled unplayable with ball going to the team moving forward. . -
@Catogrande said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@antipodean Yes, all very interesting but we were talking about charge downs.
Well in that case, it's pretty simple; who put the ball into the in goal? That's the reason for the difference.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Catogrande said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@antipodean Yes, all very interesting but we were talking about charge downs.
Well in that case, it's pretty simple; who put the ball into the in goal? That's the reason for the difference.
Yes. That is what I was suggesting.
-
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Not sure I agree on the chargedown theory. Isn't the reward that you've charged down a kick in goal and therefore get better possession closer to the line? Whereas if you charge it down outside, you still most likely get the ball back, just a bit further away. Seems fair to me.
If they are kicking the ball then you are likely to get the ball back anyway without the charge down. If you are close enough to charge the ball down dead in goal then the kick is most likely being made close to their own line. A 5 metre attacking scrum vs a 22 dropout than can be sent long is a pretty big difference.
-
@KiwiMurph and seems fair reward to me.
