• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Law trials and changes

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
542 Posts 59 Posters 39.2k Views
Law trials and changes
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #66

    @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Stargazer All I see is less competition for the ball.

    And the idea there can be a ruck and hence an offside line because someone stood over a tackle! Not even golden oldies run rucks like that.

    The strangest bit is the offside line then disappearing if the arriving player then steps back again. Rolland says that the opposition players that were previously offside are now onside again. That is plain odd. Once an offside line is formed it should stay in place.
    The other thing I noticed was that the kicking the ball in the ruck rule is for player safety- fair enough. We have seen kicks to the head in these situation and there is no onus on the kicker to take care like they would in a tackle situation. It was inconsistent. However, the one man ruck thing demands that an arriving attacker steps over the tackled player encouraging him to plant his foot right where the tackler may still be getting away. Recipe for stomped on heads don't you think?

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    wrote on last edited by
    #67

    Like all rule changes in rugby they create as many new problems as they try to fix. The more I look at it the more I wonder if that tackle/ruck thing was made up by a committee of theorists that have never played a game in their lives (WR Refs?)
    If the arriving player doesn't (or can't) step over the tackled player then the situation is no different to the current one that England bitched about when Italy played to the laws. In fact according to Rolland they now have an incentive to hang around offside in case they get put onside again.
    What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #68

    @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?

    That's called league.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #69

    @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?

    That's called league.

    Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #70

    @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?

    That's called league.

    Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.

    Woosh.

    My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #71

    @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?

    That's called league.

    Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.

    Woosh.

    My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.

    OK. Misunderstood what you were saying.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • UncoU Offline
    UncoU Offline
    Unco
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #72

    @Bones said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @Unco not that I'm a fan of the hacking at the ball at the ruck anyway, but isn't disrupting play for the other team a large part of competing for possession?

    Sure but there should at least be some illusion of proper competition there. To me it isn't much different than a deliberate knock on.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    wrote on last edited by
    #73

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/96781773/all-blacks-disadvantaged-by-law-trials-referee-wayne-barnes-believes

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    wrote on last edited by
    #74

    he's just setting us up for another howler 😉

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    wrote on last edited by Stargazer
    #75

    Not sure where else to post this, but I liked this response from Owens:


    1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    wrote on last edited by Stargazer
    #76

    Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.


    M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mooshld
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #77

    @stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.


    I imagine they are just trying to close off an avenue for gorilla marketing. But seems a bit extreme. From the players point of view, does it really make a difference? Do you look at it often during the game? Amateur players seem to get on fine without it so is this really that big of a deal?

    StargazerS CrucialC 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to mooshld on last edited by
    #78

    @mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to mooshld on last edited by
    #79

    @mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    I imagine they are just trying to close off an avenue for gorilla marketing.

    Like this?

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mooshld
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #80

    @stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.

    I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.

    Like this guy in the NRL

    Matt Bungard  /  Dec 21, 2016  /  NRL

    Cronulla Sharks star Andrew Fifita fined $20,000 for involvement with Kieran Loveridge

    Cronulla Sharks star Andrew Fifita fined $20,000 for involvement with Kieran Loveridge

    Grand Final hero Andrew Fifita has today been fined $20,000 by the NRL for his continued on-field support of convicted killer Kieran Loveridge.

    So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.

    Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.

    Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to mooshld on last edited by
    #81

    @mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.

    I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.

    Like this guy in the NRL

    Matt Bungard  /  Dec 21, 2016  /  NRL

    Cronulla Sharks star Andrew Fifita fined $20,000 for involvement with Kieran Loveridge

    Cronulla Sharks star Andrew Fifita fined $20,000 for involvement with Kieran Loveridge

    Grand Final hero Andrew Fifita has today been fined $20,000 by the NRL for his continued on-field support of convicted killer Kieran Loveridge.

    So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.

    Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.

    Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.

    I so totally disagree with this line of reasoning. Giving in to a small minority's behavior by banning something for everyone is the stupid process that dumbs down society and removes the need for individual responsibility

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mooshld
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #82

    @crucial

    I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.

    Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to mooshld on last edited by
    #83

    @mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @crucial

    I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.

    Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.

    So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
    Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mooshld
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #84

    @crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @crucial

    I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.

    Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.

    So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
    Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.

    Like I said a blanket ban is easier and cheaper to enforce. No comittees needed, no hearings. Its just is their writing on it. Yes you get fine. done.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to mooshld on last edited by
    #85

    @mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:

    @crucial

    I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.

    Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.

    So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
    Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.

    Like I said a blanket ban is easier and cheaper to enforce. No comittees needed, no hearings. Its just is their writing on it. Yes you get fine. done.

    Easier, cheaper and dumber.

    KruseK 1 Reply Last reply
    0

Law trials and changes
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.