NH International Rugby
-
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
BBC are talking about points differential. That is what it's been in the past.
Think they changed it a few years back to points diff.
It's never been based on head to head result.
Up until 1993, if teams were level on games won they would share the title. Maybe it was considered unseemly to win by a big margin? 1973 had the crazy situation of a five-way tie - all teams won their two home matches and lost both away games.
1994 was the first year they used points difference and also the first time it decided the outcome. Wales won their first 3 and were going for the Slam, to end a 16 year drought (which seemed like a long time at the time). England had won two but lost to Ireland. So when then played in the final match, England needed to win by 16(?) to become champions.
In the end they won by I think 7. So we had the weird situation of Wales losing the game and missing out on the grand slam, but also becoming 5 Nations Champions.
Bonus points were introduced in 2017, but we haven't had a title decided by them yet. (Could happen this year if France win without a bonus point on Friday)
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
BBC are talking about points differential. That is what it's been in the past.
Think they changed it a few years back to points diff.
It's never been based on head to head result.
Up until 1993, if teams were level on games won they would share the title. Maybe it was considered unseemly to win by a big margin? 1973 had the crazy situation of a five-way tie - all teams won their two home matches and lost both away games.
1994 was the first year they used points difference and also the first time it decided the outcome. Wales won their first 3 and were going for the Slam, to end a 16 year drought (which seemed like a long time at the time). England had won two but lost to Ireland. So when then played in the final match, England needed to win by 16(?) to become champions.
In the end they won by I think 7. So we had the weird situation of Wales losing the game and missing out on the grand slam, but also becoming 5 Nations Champions.
Bonus points were introduced in 2017, but we haven't had a title decided by them yet. (Could happen this year if France win without a bonus point on Friday)
And France will snatch the title from Wayne Pivac's side if they beat Scotland with a winning margin of 21 points or more in a bonus-point win.
Victory by 21 points or more, without the bonus point for scoring four tries, would not be enough for France to lift the trophy.
Should France secure a bonus-point win with a 20-point winning margin, they would be separated from Wales on tries scored across the campaign.
Wales have scored 20 tries to France's 15.
If France score five tries and beat Scotland by 20 points, the title would be shared for the first time since 1988.
A bonus-point victory for Scotland would ensure them second place in the table behind Wales.
-
surely Wales have this in the bag. The Scots aren't shit enough to give up the kind of kicking that France needs to give them to win it.
The Eddie Jones cycle is in full effect, he's an incredible coach, but something about his methods always results in this, where the team and the results fall away, and markedly.
Italy are the best illustration that access to elite competitions does not equate to improved performance. They are getting worse every year. They have fallen a mile behind 5th.
-
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Hogg/Williams/Davies/Rees-Zammit/Henshaw/Sexton/Murray/Faletau/Stander/Connors/WynJones/Beirne/Furlong/Owens/Sutherland.
A bit concerning when Planet Rugby has same backs and six out of eight forwards: https://www.planetrugby.com/a-potential-british-irish-lions-xv-to-face-south-africa/ !
-
@nzzp said in NH International Rugby:
@machpants said in NH International Rugby:
@junior as always, you're a pro player, don't be there. Taking it to ridiculous extremes, if the only way you can stop a try being scored is to kick the person in the head, do you do it? If you can't take within the laws, don't tackle. I liked it cos it takes interpretation out. Can't roll away? Tough shit, make your tackle completion so you end on the correct side. Can't get low enough to tackle without head contact? Pull out of the tackle
taking it to your extreme, remember you can't tackle a player in the air. So, what about between strides - if you get your timing wrong, you hit someone wihtout feet on the ground ... and that's on you right?
The tackle laws are a bit of a lottery. It's annoying seeing players making a fair bit of an effort, and still copping reds. Aki today, Ofa last year. It's damn annoying. If the objective is safety, there needs to be some onus on the carrying player to either stay high, or not lead with the head
my first impression of that red was "oh bullshit!!!"
but
Aki doesn't actually get that low, both guys are upright, because Aki wants to make a solid ball-and-all hit. Tackled player contributes, but not hugely. If you are trying to change behaviors, then this is the right track. Guys aren't learning the lesson, why are they not copping heat for it? Aim for below the ball.
I'm coming around to the idea that the "what else is he supposed to do there?" crowd are actually wrong. You are too slow to the cleanout so your "only option" is full pelt in to him? so what, you should have been earlier, turnover is good. You aimed for the chest and he dipped in to you? so what, should have aimed at the waist (if there is an offload, even better). We might even get the benefit of a more open game less dominated by enormous units pounding the fuck out of each other.
And if that means i have to put up the red cards, so be it.
-
@mariner4life good comment. I think that if that's the outcome you are looking for, you have to change the laws about what is acceptable and what is not. Right now those tackles are rewarded, and if they go slightly wrong it's a red. So there is an element of risk/reward for people to trade off in training and the game.
For me, one key issue is that we're pinging the outcome (head contact), and not really trying hard to make that a super unusual situation that is avoidable.
So, how about this. We trade off in both directions. Take the front on tackle largely out of the game (maybe with the exception of the tryline), and limit tackles to under the nipple line. BUT - give something back - once the tackled player is down (knee or body), the offload is out of the game. Gone. You can place it, but you can't pop it up. Means that you can still have a decent game without massively advantaging the attacking players, and there needs to be some seriously good reason to try those ball and all tackles
-
@nzzp said in NH International Rugby:
@mariner4life good comment. I think that if that's the outcome you are looking for, you have to change the laws about what is acceptable and what is not. Right now those tackles are rewarded, and if they go slightly wrong it's a red. So there is an element of risk/reward for people to trade off in training and the game.
For me, one key issue is that we're pinging the outcome (head contact), and not really trying hard to make that a super unusual situation that is avoidable.
So, how about this. We trade off in both directions. Take the front on tackle largely out of the game (maybe with the exception of the tryline), and limit tackles to under the nipple line. BUT - give something back - once the tackled player is down (knee or body), the offload is out of the game. Gone. You can place it, but you can't pop it up. Means that you can still have a decent game without massively advantaging the attacking players, and there needs to be some seriously good reason to try those ball and all tackles
Definitely. Popping it up off the ground drives me crazy. For starters it just plain bullshit that goes against the very essence of rugby, for seconds it encourages the tackling techniques they want to eradicate.
I posted this last year btw, that's why I think it is a good idea.
I still find the sport unwatchable at the moment. I'm giving me a couple years of a sky-less break. Until these dumbarse lawmakers sort it out and the dumbarse players and coaches adapt.
-
@nzzp i think that is an unecessary adjustment to thinking. The defense already has so many advantages, why give them another
the front on tackle is king because we have allowed rugby, most especially at the very top level, to be dominated by the gain line. Lose the gain line, lose the game. And what's more, there is only one way to get over the gain line now too. Raw power. Generating momentum with width has never been harder.
If we get the added benefit of less concussions, AND more ways to attack, then i am all for it to be honest.
-
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
-
I don't really have a problem with the Aki red, he hits hit well about the ball and make direct head contact. I think you are bang on about defenders needing to just be lower. There are many instances in a game where a player might be able to make an illegal tackle (e.g. clothesline the guy who stepped you) but just don't do it anymore because it will be an automatic yellow (possible red). I think you are right that to get that change, we need to get really hard on it.
One tricky thing is when players lead with their head. On that one, I'm not sure at all - you see this whenever someone is trying to drive over the line - pretty much every tackle makes head contact - what do we do in that situation?
-
@mariner4life said in NH International Rugby:
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
It's not that common, but it's a bit of joke how long it often takes. Having said that, right now I'm with you - apart from mauls I want as many advantages for the attacking player as there can be.
-
@gt12 if AFL umpires can work out the difference, i reckon a rugby ref can
i got done for a high shot against a guy bent at the waist 15 years ago (it absolutely was, and i absolutely meant it), so this is not something new the ref has to work out
Rugby is a game of constantly moving parts, we can't make any change if we try and take out every single possible variable.
I would also make the point that the repeat pick and go on the line is a thing right now even with the new guidelines, and i haven't seen too many called red, so there must be a mechanism in place.
-
@mariner4life said in NH International Rugby:
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
Any time I see a try with a pop off the ground, I inwardly groan and wonder why the game hates defenders. I've even seen a 10 metre sideways 'pop' directly to a wide player who runs in the try (in my fuzzy memory I am seeing an Otago FIjian winger in this memory). It's a 'pass' Trapper Loveridge would have been proud of. A guy has done a perfectly text book tackle and his reward is for the ball carrier to hold onto it like he's still actually in play and chose who he passes/pops to. It's horseshit.
The first man to a breakdown should decide how the play is to unfold, not the numpty who was useless enough to get tackled with the ball and is out of the game until he retains his feet.
I know there was a time in the late 70s when this was legal. E.g. the Hika Reid try at Cardiff 1980. It was one of the best televised test tries in history up to that point and would get replayed quite a bit when I was a kid, But as this was totally illegal about a year later and from when I learnt the game, this always jarred as a weird try.
-
@gt12 said in NH International Rugby:
One tricky thing is when players lead with their head. On that one, I'm not sure at all - you see this whenever someone is trying to drive over the line - pretty much every tackle makes head contact - what do we do in that situation?
And that was my problem with Vunipola in this instance. Duty of care goes both ways. If the player with the ball leads with their upper body almost parallel to the ground then that is a mitigating factor. You can bet players will train to run into contact that way.
-
@rapido if a player on teh ground has that much time with a pop pass, then the defending team has failed anyway, especially with 15 guys on the field who are good over the ball.
the only time i hate it is when someone has already cleaned past the ball, and the tackled player then pops it. That's taking the piss and should be called back.
I laughed out loud when you said the game hates defenders, when test rugby is basically world war 1 trench warfare.
-
@mariner4life said in NH International Rugby:
@rapido if a player on teh ground has that much time with a pop pass, then the defending team has failed anyway, especially with 15 guys on the field who are good over the ball.
the only time i hate it is when someone has already cleaned past the ball, and the tackled player then pops it. That's taking the piss and should be called back.
I laughed out loud when you said the game hates defenders, when test rugby is basically world war 1 trench warfare.
Against the defenders:
Barely lets you defend rolling mauls, barely lets you defend close to your line, until 5 minutes a go didn't let you defend the pad protruding on your goal post, doesn't reward tacklers unless you wrap the ball, punishes the tackler if they slightly get the ball-wrap wrong. Allows sneaky fuck halfbacks to take quick taps not inline with the penalty spot. Allows shepherds.For the defenders.
Rush defence is too quick for the human eye. -
@gt12 said in NH International Rugby:
One tricky thing is when players lead with their head. On that one, I'm not sure at all - you see this whenever someone is trying to drive over the line - pretty much every tackle makes head contact - what do we do in that situation
Have more tries
-
Plenty of talk in the English press today about the "Break Clause" in Eddie Jones's contract being invoked by the RFU.
It's the briefings to the Press which may portend doom for Jones, and maybe they're looking to axe him now to give time to both find a new coach and give new coach as much time as possible before RWC2023
Eddie Jones faces RFU talks on future with break clause in England deal
The RFU’s chief executive, Bill Sweeney, is to meet head coach Eddie Jones after England’s poor Six Nations campaign
Eddie Jones is facing crunch talks with the Rugby Football Union chief executive, Bill Sweeney, as part of a review into England’s poor Six Nations campaign with the head coach’s contract understood to contain a break clause. Jones is the world’s highest-paid rugby union coach and agreed an extension through to the 2023 World Cup last April. It is believed, however, that it would not necessarily be prohibitively expensive for the RFU to part ways with Jones due to a clause in his contract, similar to that which existed in his previous deal. In that instance the clause was performance related, dependent on how England fared at the 2019 World Cup. -
@mariner4life said in NH International Rugby:
The Eddie Jones cycle is in full effect, he's an incredible coach, but something about his methods always results in this, where the team and the results fall away, and markedly.
Although, this is the second time around for him and England.
-
