Things that annoy you about rugby...
-
@magpie_in_aus said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Haven't read much above.
- When there is a knock on and the ref hasn't called it a knock on and the player is in front and picks it up. Should be a scrum such a shit penalty.
- Any guy going for an intercept. Its 99% of the time not a deliberate knock down its an intercept attempt that goes wrong. Hate seeing people carded for that.
- Drop kicks and shots at goal. I reckon if they miss and it goes dead should be a scrum on the 22 to the other team (or from where the kick was taken).
- Backs.
Especially No.4.
Re No.2. Agree entirely. Much of the time it is a legit intercept attempt. Can I also plead for the use of the term "deliberate knock-on" or "deliberate knock-forward"? "Down" is legal.
It has led to people, even on here, suggesting deliberate knocks backwards should be penalised.
-
@antipodean said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
I think you'd prefer opposed scrum and maul sessions more than rugby.
This does not compute ...
?same thing?
-
@booboo it hasn't lead to people (me) suggesting that...just questioning the application of it when one can be a completely genuine attempt of an intercept and you get a YC, but going back can be very deliberate and 'negative' I know that's the word people like to use
anywhoo, I have had my say on that topic before.
-
-
@pukunui said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Don't know if it has been covered but guys who play with their socks down piss me off.
If they weren't meant to be pulled up as part of the uniform they wouldn't be long.Love it haha I wear them down. Too bloody hot playing in Gods country aka sunny Hawkes Bay.
Still have never really understood the point of long socks.
Don't worry there was still hair on my legs. -
Red cards in really important games for incidents that look like fuckall to us older blokes
-
I'm not worried about socks but I can't believe that the refs and NZR don't police the players for not wearing a mouth guard. It is meant to be compulsory and should be for ACC reasons but a lot of ABs and NZ super rugby players don't wear them. It seems to be more PI players too.
-
@mariner4life "cheat if you have to, son. Cheat if you have to."
Also, nothing wrong with getting your revenge in first.
-
This post is deleted!
-
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
-
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
And doesn't the halfback have to stay within 2m of the scrum? (Cough Bryn Hall cough)
-
@booboo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
And doesn't the halfback have to stay within 2m of the scrum? (Cough Bryn Hall cough)
Depends. If he stays behind his hindmost foot at the scrum he can go as wide as he likes. If he follows the ball and goes in front of his hindmost foot he needs to stay close to the scrum. 2 metres sounds about right.
-
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
I actually presumed the attacking team was allowed to encroach upon the 5 metre rule as a right
-
@siam no the law is that all players not in the scrum (other than halfback) must be 5m behind
-
I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence
-
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence
Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.
-
@majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence
Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.
Different things. In the example of the try saving tackle the ball has been made dead by the actions of the players. When a ball is called 'held up' it is being made dead by the referee.
In theory you can continue wrestling in a heap over the tryline until exhausted or the ball is grounded. The reason the ref resets the game with a scrum is that otherwise everyone could pile on top from any direction and it becomes a massive mess.What @Damo is saying is that in normal playing time a held up ball is given back to the attacking team for another crack, yet at full-time they lose that advantage which means the refs decision to blow the whistle has a completely different result
-
-
