The Current State of Rugby
-
@pakman said in The Current State of Rugby:
Shag's take:
I only got a few minutes in and gave up after hearing mostly what I would consider Foster's take...
Comments are fun though. Mark Macken really bringing my thoughts on Irish fandom to the fore...
-
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@pakman said in The Current State of Rugby:
Shag's take:
I only got a few minutes in and gave up after hearing mostly what I would consider Foster's take...
Comments are fun though. Mark Macken really bringing my thoughts on Irish fandom to the fore...
It's good later on how World Rugby has lost the plot.
-
@pakman said in The Current State of Rugby:
Shag's take:
Funny how they forgot we have lost 3 of the last 4 when saying we always bounce back after a loss. Hansen clearly won't show his real opinion just saying we need to trust Fozzie.
However his thoughts on cards etc are good. -
Some random thoughts before I really depress myself and read this thread (only a couple of pages in).
First on deliberate knock ons, but I think constant TMO interventions and questionable application of the head impact protocols are bigger issues for me. Can I throw in the issue of too many subs as well?
Anyway, my first knowledge of a deliberate knock on being a penalisable offence was an All Black tour game in England or Scotland '78 or '79.
Lineout hard on D. In those days it literally was on the try line, not 5m out as today.
Throw in just gets slapped as hard forward as it's possible to do so just to get the ball away from the tryline.
Penalty awarded.
10 or 11yo me initially couldn't believe the ref was penalising my mighty All Blacks for "just a knock on". But then it dawned on me, that you're not allowed to knock the ball on and deliberately transgressing the laws should be penalised (not sure my internal dialogue used that exact language).
First time I recall a PT for deliberate knock on was early/mid 80s, Argentina v Aus, I think at Ballymore.
Argie, pretty sure it was flanker Tomas Peterson, was last line of defence, stuck his hand out and knocked down last pass, propelling the ball forward.
Pretty sure there was no sin bin (way pre cards in Rugby), but was a really controversial moment as it was 40 odd metres out, and there was much conjecture around whether he was just trying to block the pass.
I recall there was a growing incidence of such incidents, and it came to be viewed as a cynical professional foul, especially in an overlap situation with the line open. Professional fouls became subject to a YC once they were introduced in the 90s.
Where I have an issue is that we're now too keen to YC players. I'd rather we err on the side of conservatism, and look for reasons NOT to send a player off. Give the player the benefit of any possible doubt, thinking he had some sort of chance of catching it, and was intending doing so, or even was trying to knock the ball backwards.
As an aside, anyone who has read my rants on the terminology used by the commentators probably knows my hate for the use of "deliberate knock down". "Down" is not illegal.
Edit: I'll go full GOM on other stuff later.
-
@booboo and yet, if you do knock an intercept pass down, you ARE doing it deliberately solely to stop the play as you have zero chance to regather one you knock down, while if you propelled it upwards, which invariably given your momentum will see it go forward, you are in fact doing so with the intention to regather...just because you misjudged how far you could stretch or mis timed your flick, YC!
That's my take anyway, and I guess that is part of the problem, others see the same scenario differently.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@booboo and yet, if you do knock an intercept pass down, you ARE doing it deliberately solely to stop the play as you have zero chance to regather one you knock down, while if you propelled it upwards, which invariably given your momentum will see it go forward, you are in fact doing so with the intention to regather...just because you misjudged how far you could stretch or mis timed your flick, YC!
That's my take anyway, and I guess that is part of the problem, others see the same scenario differently.
You and I have had this argument before. You're still not as right as I am.
We're in partial agreement. If you're knocking it upwards in attempt to catch it you should be given the benefit as it's not a deliberate knock on. It was a not quite executed attempt to catch. You didn't mean to knock it on.
More emphasis should be put on that.
Knocking it down, straight down, is not illegal. As soon as it is propelled forward it's a knock on.
Blocking a pass is not illegal. Deliberately preventing the opposition from playing isn't illegal either (we often call this tackling...).
But there are more important things to whinge about.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@booboo and yet, if you do knock an intercept pass down, you ARE doing it deliberately solely to stop the play as you have zero chance to regather one you knock down, while if you propelled it upwards, which invariably given your momentum will see it go forward, you are in fact doing so with the intention to regather...just because you misjudged how far you could stretch or mis timed your flick, YC!
That's my take anyway, and I guess that is part of the problem, others see the same scenario differently.
Agree. Nigel Owens explanation is very clear but is is an explanation of how they rule it not what the law says. The two differ so there will always be problems until that is fixed.
The old 'you have to play by the laws except where we have decided something else' mess.If this is how they want things then write it in the law book. e.g. a player must not knock the ball forward intentionally to disrupt play or while attempting an intercept. Penalty
The YC only comes out when considered a cynical offence or a PT.
Simples.
Separates the 'intentional knock on' from the intercept which is the sticking point.
My problem with this though is that it completely dumbs down the game and makes intercepts a high risk option handing an advantage to the team in possession. The game is meant to be about contesting possession legally and intercepting the pass is legal.
-
@chimoaus said in The Current State of Rugby:
Surely the customers should dictate how a professional organisation structures its product. If you don't have people watching then your revenue is going to drop.
The 6N sells out stadiums every year.
Club rugby in Europe enjoys rude health.
I don't think they see a problem. -
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Some random thoughts before I really depress myself and read this thread (only a couple of pages in).
First on deliberate knock ons, but I think constant TMO interventions and questionable application of the head impact protocols are bigger issues for me. Can I throw in the issue of too many subs as well?
I agree that a few other things are worse / have more impact during a match than blanket ruling that failed intercept equals professional foul. As you allude to, red cards for all head contacts plus TMOs. But at least for those, I can see the logic of a problem they were originally trying to fix. Player safety and blatantly incorrect decisions. Even if they have made a mess of the solution.
But with the failed intercepts interpretations it is IMO where the punishment to crime is the most out of whack. And the need for it was never there in the first place.
I agree a deliberate knock on can occur, and it should be punishable with a penalty. I have no problem with a referee deciding this based own their own judgement. ( There will be weeks of online gnashing of teeth and ref-blaming regardless, that is what rugby fandom has descended to.)
It is 90% to 99% of the time a punishment out of whack by an exponent of 4.
I think it is usually just knock-on = should be a scrum.
But, it will currently be ruled as deliberate - then a penalty. Power of 2.
It will be a yellow. Power of 3.
It will be a penalty try, Power of 4.Quadruple punishment for a failed intercept.
What is the difference to that 'crime' than a close ruck contest. Only releasing the tackled player for a split second and risking a penalty. Or contesting ruck with hand a second too long and risking a penalty. These can also be cynical, but often aren't, are usually just normal rugby contests for possession, and the referee makes a judgement. Why is this no longer applied to intercepts? Like it was for the first 120 odd years of international rugby? Who decreed the blanket quadruple punishment for a problem that didn't need solving?
-
@Derpus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@NTA I don't really buy this man. Rugby isn't like Football where a powerhouse can miss out on the WC entirely and no one bats an eye (Italy four x winners, missed it twice in a row). And losing two major stakeholders (even relatively smaller ones) is a big deal for a smallish sport when those two come from a pool of, what, eight major stakeholders?
A rugby world cup without the All Blacks... what a waste of time that would be.
Didn't you start this train of thought based on "silly of WR to ignore a drop off in interest in the SH ". You seem to have escalated it to the All Blacks boycotting a world cup? because?
-
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Some random thoughts before I really depress myself and read this thread (only a couple of pages in).
First on deliberate knock ons, but I think constant TMO interventions and questionable application of the head impact protocols are bigger issues for me. Can I throw in the issue of too many subs as well?
I agree that a few other things are worse / have more impact during a match than blanket ruling that failed intercept equals professional foul. As you allude to, red cards for all head contacts plus TMOs. But at least for those, I can see the logic of a problem they were originally trying to fix. Player safety and blatantly incorrect decisions. Even if they have made a mess of the solution.
But with the failed intercepts interpretations it is IMO where the punishment to crime is the most out of whack. And the need for it was never there in the first place.
I agree a deliberate knock on can occur, and it should be punishable with a penalty. I have no problem with a referee deciding this based own their own judgement. ( There will be weeks of online gnashing of teeth and ref-blaming regardless, that is what rugby fandom has descended to.)
It is 90% to 99% of the time a punishment out of whack by an exponent of 4.
I think it is usually just knock-on = should be a scrum.
But, it will currently be ruled as deliberate - then a penalty. Power of 2.
It will be a yellow. Power of 3.
It will be a penalty try, Power of 4.Quadruple punishment for a failed intercept.
What is the difference to that 'crime' than a close ruck contest. Only releasing the tackled player for a split second and risking a penalty. Or contesting ruck with hand a second too long and risking a penalty. These can also be cynical, but often aren't, are usually just normal rugby contests for possession, and the referee makes a judgement. Why is this no longer applied to intercepts? Like it was for the first 120 odd years of international rugby? Who decreed the blanket quadruple punishment for a problem that didn't need solving?
Should also point out, there is possibility of red card for failed intercept, if the player was unlucky enough to have knock a kick receiver earlier in game, or have been the arbitrarily 3rd consecutive team penalty and been yellowed earlier.
-
What I find interesting is how attitudes between the SH and NH towards all this are very very different , not taking aim at anyone
But if i read through Irish comments on you tube or whereever , they complain all the time about what the refs let go ,its probably their biggest complaint , like they want it to be stricter and ruled even harsher , this is regular
-
Deliberate knock ons.
I could well be in a minority of one but I am comfortablewith that.
I don't agree with the consensus on here that deliberate knock ons are being refereed incorrectly.
In faxt i would go further and say that a player cannot deliberately bat the ball forward and then collect it. That should be a PK as well.
It is not legal to throw, or bat a ball forward over the head of an opposition player and then run around and catch it. Same applies for attempted intercepts in my view.
Even if you don't want to accept my position, I believe i can aegue that both YCs in the Aussie game were correct. Sticking out a hand with the expectation that you might be able to scoop it up later is not something that should be allowed in the game and it isn't.
These players cannnot say they are trying to catch the ball and claim ignorance that a very likely outcome is that the ball will go forward. That is wilfull blindness in my book and wilfully being blind is tantamount to intent.
Both prevented good scoring opportunities and were professional fouls and were correctly carded.
Perhaps 10 minutes is too long for professional fouls/repeated infringements - maybe we need to adopt a policy of 10 minutes or until next points (excluding 3 points from the PK awarded if applicable).
Angus red card:
The red card for Angus was wrong. He was coming across and unexpectedly a player changed direction and ran into him from a funny angle. I believed it was not even foul play. I was genuinely surprised to see the judiciary back the red card.
I don't like genuine accidents being carded like that.
I also much prefer the 20 minute RC rule.
-
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo I don't mind your approach at all. It's clear. My gripe is simply that the current rulings don't match the law (which hinges on intent)
Presumably a fumbled catch would be OK though? Where does the line get drawn? Two hands?Two hands is a reasonable position.
I cannot recall too many people reliably catching a ball traveling at speed one handed.
There was an earlier on the aussie game where an English player got to hands to an intercept and that was just a scrum. Then someone on here, complained about the inconsistency. There was no inconsistency in my view.
Every law/rule requires interpretation on difficult cases. Thank goodness for that or I wouldn't have a job.
-
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
because it has decided the onfield ref ultimately makes the determination, we have the farce of the 3 onfield refs standing around looking at the big screen, angle by angle, and different speeds
Plus the speaking in code ("Can I show you another angle", "Have you considered the actions of the ball carrier" etc)
Personally I would prefer the TMO to make the call themselves. Their career can live and die on their judgment. Over time good TMO's will rise to the top.
The decisions by committee don't lead to more accurate outcomes and it takes time.
Also I think part of this is arse covering. If all the officials are participate in the decision then none of the refs are ultimately responsible
I agree that the TMO should make the call.
If the ref is to make the call, the conversations should be private. They should be free to speak candidly with each other, not worry about undermining the authority of the referee.
In other words if the refs thinks RC and the TMO thinks just a PK the TMO should be free to privately say, "nah mate you got this all mixed up and here's why" rather than speaking in code about "let me show you another angle and other ambiguous statements".
Frankly the TMO has the best view and it should be on him or her to make the call.
