The Current State of Rugby
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@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.I talk to club rugby guys all the time here.
They all agree there are colossal problems and fear for the game.
-
You have to wonder if League were the smart ones when setting up a pro game because they could see the parts of Union that would cause problems. The obvious one being that defences could be way more organised so less players were needed.
Union is still trying to fit a game designed as an amateur sport into a pro environment and continually having to chase its tail or change things.
Probably why Union is still a very enjoyable watch at lower levels and a great game to play at those levels as well.
Faster, bigger, stronger and programmed defences hasn't worked well for the game. -
i thought Barnes reffed really well on the weekend. I like the way he manages a game, i like his communication, i like how he is all for letting the players sort out the game.
The massive problem here is, the huge disparity between the interpretations this week, and last week. Same two teams, same incidences, different ref, different outcomes.
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mikedogz That clown Sumo Stevenson was on the Irish "second captains" podcast in the build up the first test. It's the most popular sports pod in Ireland.
They asked him about covid in the NZ camp and he came out with some of the biggest horseshit id ever heard.
He said he couldn't believe that the NZ team had gone and held an open training session in an area of NZ with the lowest vaccination rate. Blamed the players catching it on that. The podcast was on the same week 100k punters in Glastonbury were licking each others faces and climbing all over each other.
He is a woke virtue signalling melt who goes with the prevailing consensus even if it's completely wrong.
Clown
I think he’s a ferner too, or at least was. Perhaps you can direct your line of questioning directly to him ?
-
@mariner4life If you listen to him during the Porter incident as he is walking towards the Irish players with yellow brandished, he is obviously copping a WTF? from an NZ player out of shot and he says too him "hands down please" as if to tell him to stop acting incredulous. thought it was salt into the wound myself.
I was expecting a claret card all day based on what I seen the week before. The score was close at the time too. Foster is a complete idiot, but the test swung on that moment. We had them on the rack.
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
i thought Barnes reffed really well on the weekend. I like the way he manages a game, i like his communication, i like how he is all for letting the players sort out the game.
The massive problem here is, the huge disparity between the interpretations this week, and last week. Same two teams, same incidences, different ref, different outcomes.
Absolutely.
In a series like this, I wonder whether having the same ref for all three games would at least give the teams a chance to plan how they'll react to he other team without wondering about how interpretations will change from week to week.
-
@gt12 said in The Current State of Rugby:
In a series like this, I wonder whether having the same ref for all three games would at least give the teams a chance to plan how they'll react to he other team without wondering about how interpretations will change from week to week.
a sport at the absolute highest level shouldn't have to make those sort of calls.
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life If you listen to him during the Porter incident as he is walking towards the Irish players with yellow brandished, he is obviously copping a WTF? from an NZ player out of shot and he says too him "hands down please" as if to tell him to stop acting incredulous. thought it was salt into the wound myself.
I was expecting a claret card all day based on what I seen the week before. The score was close at the time too. Foster is a complete idiot, but the test swung on that moment. We had them on the rack.
If our winning a test match relies on the other team getting a red card as opposed to a yellow, it's an example of our problem.
To that extent, if they'd received a red card and we'd won, we could be in a worse situation.
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 said in The Current State of Rugby:
In a series like this, I wonder whether having the same ref for all three games would at least give the teams a chance to plan how they'll react to he other team without wondering about how interpretations will change from week to week.
a sport at the absolute highest level shouldn't have to make those sort of calls.
Absolutely, but we are talking about World Rugby, so I'm looking for some of the low-hanging fruit that the gin-swillers can change and feel better about themselves.
-
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
I'm not worried about the YC for the same reason. It was worse that Angus' but still a rugby collision where a guy couldn't get into the right position and bad shit happened. There is zero chance he was trying to hurt BR, so I don't think he needed to go at all.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 I loathe cards anyway and think they should be reserved for filth.
On this, would we reduce these bad collisions if we allowed far fewer players in front of the ball? You look at Angus's and perhaps it came from players (and the ball) being unsighted? If you allow players to essentially hide other players ability to make reads, you can't blame them if they are in a position where there is suddenly a guy on top of them.
-
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Derpus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo No one is saying the rulings were wrong. They were correct.
People just correctly think a yellow card for a failed intercept is dumb.
And I am saying that it isn't dumb.
The law says a penalty, not a YC doesn't it?
Card only comes in due to being cynical.Penalty for a failed attempt where there wasn't a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
Yellow card for an egregious example of above. Noting if in the opinion of the referee a try would've probably been scored if not for the offence, then a yellow card is mandatory.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gt12 already a rule about that...not sure how they'd change it further without compromising the game further
It would only require an interpreatation change.
"An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play."
As soon as the ball is passed behind a forward runner those runners are offside. Interference with play could mean contact with players trying to move toward the ball carrier (irrespective of ability to tackle) i.e. blocking running lines or visibility of the ball carrier and their actions.
-
@Derpus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Damo and you'd be wrong.
Convincing rebuttal of a qualified opinion.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
intentionally
comes back to interpretation again....ref/TMo deciding they know what the player intended.
Interesting. Bloody english as a first language.
See, I read that as 'intentionally obstruct' OR 'interfere with play whereas yours is 'Intentionally obstruct or interfere' with play.
I think you are most likely reading it the same way as refs though so yeah, remove the word intentionally or see it the same way as the knock on rule. If you do it then it is deemed intentional.
How different would the game look without forward runners and with defenfise lines 5 metres back from last feet?
