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.
-
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.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Bones care to expand?
If you put the ball into the opposition ingoal and then make it dead, you get the ball back from a 22m dropout. Why is that wrong?
-
@Bones you havent made it dead, your pressure on thier poor kick made it go dead...should be rewarded better than them kicking it, short or ling from the 22
-
Two goes at a maul for me. I hate how a maul can stop dead/move sideways/move backwards and the attacking team gets another go. If it stops dead/goes completely sideways/and goes backwards and stops then that maul should be over.
I don't know why we have any law allowing a stop in play and re-start when the maul already has a law allowing players in front of the ball.
FYI - I don't mind the maul with one stoppage, how it used to be.
