Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?
-
@Bones hang on, not sure what you are arguing here (seems you like to argue for fun alot these days)
so if you are on your 5m, try to kick, I charge down, it goes dead, now they restart from the 22 right?
-
Allowing the defending team to put boot to ball as they contest a ruck / counter ruck.
This has forced the ball carrier to 'place' the ball for longer thereby negating a fair contest for the ball in the tackle area.
Chicken and egg, either way a downward spiral
-
Yes to be clear on my point on the charge down, i'm talking about if ball goes dead directly from the charge down,
not due to some secondary act after the charge down -
-
@Bones playing that out, if you charged the ball down and it goes out a metre in front of the corner post, the kicking team gets the throw in. If that same charge down goes the other side of the corner post out in goal, its a 22 drop out. If I'm the team doing the charge down I would much prefer the former.
-
The maul is my main gumble but i have talked about that plenty of times so won't go on about it again.
Grounding the ball against the base of the post to score is one i think is stupid.
Drop goal attempts that miss and go dead being a 22 restart instead of a scrum back where the kick was attempted from i think should change.
Diving on an emerging ball or something similar was something that Richie got for a couple of times late in his career. Stupid law. If the ball is out then you should be able to dive on it.
Im sure there are more. Plenty of ones where i think interpretation should be changed to make it more consistent.
-
When tackled or ankle tapped you SHOULD have to place the ball on the ground then get up and pick it up - ala Ben Smith and Izzy Dagg of late.
You know that situation where they place the ball, scramble to feet and pick up again.
Not just get up still holding the ball as the tackler slides out of grasp or contact with the players leg.
Otherwise we have this farce where ol mate rabbits along or simply gets up as though he tripped himself with no intervention from defence.
It is particularly non-sensical when we enforce "tackler must relaease". Tackler does so and often the attacker just gets up and keeps going.
I hate that shit.
You get taken to the ground then you must have to release (even for a split second)
-
@Siam said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
When tackled or ankle tapped you SHOULD have to place the ball on the ground then get up and pick it up - ala Ben Smith and Izzy Dagg of late.
You know that situation where they place the ball, scramble to feet and pick up again.
Not just get up still holding the ball as the tackler slides out of grasp or contact with the players leg.
Otherwise we have this farce where ol mate rabbits along or simply gets up as though he tripped himself with no intervention from defence.
It is particularly non-sensical when we enforce "tackler must relaease". Tackler does so and often the attacker just gets up and keeps going.
I hate that shit.
You get taken to the ground then you must have to release (even for a split second)
Agree if tackler needs clear release to go for a turnover. Then attacker should have clear release before regaining their feet if not held.
-
@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.
That last para: is that correct? Thought thst was changed (quite) some years ago.
-
@pukunui said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Grounding the ball against the base of the post to score is one i think is stupid.
Oh God. Can't believe I didn't start the thread with this one.
Talk about soft tries.
If the post (with its ever expanding padding) get in the way then diddums, no try. Aim for the other 69 and a half metres of post-free tryline next time.
-
@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.
Aahh ... already covered
-
It's a given that ruck clean outs is going to get a rule or interpretation change soon, with the focus on concussions. Remove the human missiles.
My suggestion would be players entering a ruck must come to a stop (as a ruck, unlike a maul is a stationary beast) before entering the ruck. Eg come to a stop, 2 feet stationary then join ruck binding with arms. Rugby goes back to being a pushing sport rather than a collision sport.
Means we will get more scrums probably? Or maybe not, maybe more actual turnovers? But they won't let actual rucking with your feet (and sprigs) come back.
If we get more scrums. Then we'd need to address the gear-grindingly perverse incentives of the penalty generating scrum.....
-
@Damo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
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.
Disagree. They used to have this law but Brumbieball ... it made it just too easy for teams to retain possession to they eased it back tiwardscthe okder law.
-
-
@antipodean said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@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.
Like specifically for the second para.
Don't disagree on first para.
But less of a fan of third as they'll just reset the scrum (and if really strong keep going for the same result until the ref penalises them).
-
@jegga said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
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.
40/20? Nah
In league I believe the idea of that is to try and force the wingers to hang back thus creating space to actually try and run the ball late in the tackle count.
-
@RVader said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Mauls is technically legal obstruction
Mauls are awesome.
Back (spit)
-
@Nepia said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
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.
I'll say it again. Removing the maul remives the abilitybto concentrate defenders and create space wider. Mauls are great.
They brought back the ability to restart a maul albeit only once as this aspect of play was lost and defenders were just able to fan across the field stifling play.
-
@pukunui said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
The maul is my main gumble but i have talked about that plenty of times so won't go on about it again.
Grounding the ball against the base of the post to score is one i think is stupid.
Drop goal attempts that miss and go dead being a 22 restart instead of a scrum back where the kick was attempted from i think should change.
Diving on an emerging ball or something similar was something that Richie got for a couple of times late in his career. Stupid law. If the ball is out then you should be able to dive on it.
Im sure there are more. Plenty of ones where i think interpretation should be changed to make it more consistent.
Disagree with paras 1 2 and 3.
Agree with para 4. However i think there is or at least was a law that prevented you going off your feet within a metre of a tackled ball , and this may apply to a ruck as well. Which prevents pile ups. Remember those from the and 70s and 80s?
-
@Rapido said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Not a rule change.
But need to address the head patting plague that has infested the game.
You pat someone's head and mock them, decision reversed, unsportsmanlike behaviour- free kick.
A "no dickheads rule".
This! And backs rushing in to "congratulate" their forwards for winning a scrum penalty.
