The Current State of Rugby
-
I think the mens game can take a leaf out of the womens game in the way the ref and TMO interacted, these were done professionally and most importantly, quickly, wasnt several minutes delay while looking for a reason to overturn a try or why they should card someone, often seemed the TMO had been looking at it waiting for the ref to ask about it.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
I think that people have tried and struggled in the past to find examples that provide weight to the argument that a collapsing maul is a safety issue. Also, when done in open field play (holding up a ball carrier in the tackle) the refs have no issue with it coming to ground. In fact it is still a maul but completely different rules seem to be applied.
-
@Crucial ha yep, I expect it is because the defending team created the maul by holding the attacker up, but as they created it, they are allowed to collapse it in this instance, but the difference to a lineout maul, is now both teams are allowed to collapse it, not just the attacking team
-
It's fucked. I watched it on Amazon prime replay where when you fast forward it, you don't see what's going on. I started off 30 seconds for each stop in play ...
By the end of it, I was skipping 2 minutes at time. I rarely missed any action & often had to keep fast forwarding further.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
I think the mens game can take a leaf out of the womens game in the way the ref and TMO interacted, these were done professionally and most importantly, quickly, wasnt several minutes delay while looking for a reason to overturn a try or why they should card someone, often seemed the TMO had been looking at it waiting for the ref to ask about it.
Definitely flowed better for the women, although I think the TMO/ ref interaction wasn't the main reason for that. But it seemed to work well
-
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
-
@nostrildamus but isn;t that just harder to officate? ref running around trying to count players in motion
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus but isn;t that just harder to officate? ref running around trying to count players in motion
yes but also easier to see from outside what is happening!
-
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
-
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
I like it! But why not just limit the number of attacking players? Let's say to 4 players, then the defense has the option to try to stop it with 4 themselves, or if they need to, they can commit more than that but risk leaving holes in wider channels?
-
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
do people serious think adding MORE complexity to the game will help? imagine off the lineout players either piling in and immediately getting pinged...yay, more penalties...or all holding off like when you awkwardly try and pass someone in the street and keep walking into them..."no, you go..."no, please, after you"
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
but you only answered part of my suggestion (I think).
And there is the injury concern with extra weight.
And a limit on numbers may give attackers pause to consider who should lead it.
And it may reduce penalties or illegalities.
And the game could flow better.
And it would reduce the scaling factor if a team has consistently bigger / stronger players. -
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
Well, I am working off the principle that if gameplay in rugby is good we should be able to see as much of it as possible. Oversimplified or principled? Up for debate.
-
@voodoo said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
I like it! But why not just limit the number of attacking players? Let's say to 4 players, then the defense has the option to try to stop it with 4 themselves, or if they need to, they can commit more than that but risk leaving holes in wider channels?
I don't know if that would work but it does have an interesting aspect-attackers would probably be much more adverse to wasting time and letting defenders mass/regroup..
-
I don't see how b. can be policed effectively and a. is interesting, why can we clean out in rucks but not drag out in mauls?
(a) A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul.
(b) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the maul while it is still in the maul -
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
but you only answered part of my suggestion (I think).
And there is the injury concern with extra weight.
And a limit on numbers may give attackers pause to consider who should lead it.
And it may reduce penalties or illegalities.
And the game could flow better.
And it would reduce the scaling factor if a team has consistently bigger / stronger players.pause to consider who should lead? would that be good, people pointing at each other or themselves and counting?
and do we really think adding another rule...will limit penalties?...its just more things for the ref to penalise
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
I don't see how b. can be policed effectively and a. is interesting, why can we clean out in rucks but not drag out in mauls?
(a) A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul.
(b) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the maul while it is still in the mauli agree with this though
-
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
I've read this post about 10 times now and still can't understand it. I, for one, am impressed that you guys seem to have managed to have an entire page's worth of conversation around this post.
