Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?
-
@maxwell said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
I reckon they should utilise the free-kick as a restart mechanism for way more scenarios (e.g. accidental offsides, knock-ons, forward passes, throw not straight, kick-off not 10m) BUT prohibit kicking to touch or choosing a scrum option.
That way a team's only options are to tap and play quickly, setup a tap move like "the wall" or kick possession away (but not into touch obvs).
I think it would increase the ball in play time, decrease the common set-piece to set-piece snooze-fest (e.g. throw not straight -> lets have a scrum) and drive some new innovation.
I would allow a kick out on the full from a free kick (being out where the ball crossed the touch line - just to be clear @Bones ), to avoid setting a scrum, as I think teams woukd go for easy territory, even it is is the opposition's throw.
-
@Kiwiwomble I'd like to see a compromise, less penalties for being pushed backwards, but referees being lot tougher on loosies breaking early or the backline not retreating with a reversing scrum.
A prop that just collapses has to be punished though, it is too easy to kill the contest by bailing out and it is too dangerous for the frontrows
-
@MiketheSnow the idea of expanding a free-kick's scope and reducing it's restart options isn't to de-power scrums/lineouts, it's to discourage back-to-back-to-back set-piece restarts for minor transgressions.
Set piece tap moves also require skilled practitioners
-
@MiketheSnow i would prefer that to most of the scrum penalties if im honest, and then address fitter players with less subs....but
you still have to win the scrum so you're still going to want the best pack you can otherwise you're just handing over the ball
-
-
@NTA I'd add that if you choose not to contest, then if they throw it straight down thier side to thier man, why is it called?
I hope these workshops they are having for the rwc refs, becomes more common to get a more consistent approach to reffing
-
@NTA said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
I still hate numbers at lineout - as a very amateur ref I've got enough shit to worry about.
I saw your Twitter post ... I'll reply here.
Allows for teams with shorter lineouts to manipulate space and actually win some ball.
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
then if they throw it straight down thier side to thier man, why is it called
I don't mind that, for me that's akin to something like throwing a forward pass or kicking iit out on the full outside the 22. Just because there might not be a defender in place, doesn't mean you should get away with it, right?
Otherwise why not award 2 points for a missed conversion if nobody charges? 😉
-
@Bones cos they missed....
As to your other point, they didnt choose not to try and tackle (although some player look as if they do) and kicking out on full, this is usually an error and I dont really get the comparison anyway.
I think if you removed that, teams would always throw someone up anyway so the not straight has to be called, plus, it is not like all the not straights are called anyway and often there is buggar all in it anyway.
-
@taniwharugby see those words "missed", "error". That's exactly what a not straight lineout is.
Surely it's easier to throw it straight if there's no opposition jumpers anyway? So should probably change it from a free kick to a penalty for being so unco.
-
@Bones not if you throw it to your man, but it would be a risk not knowing if opposition are going to contest.
At any rate, rule aint gonna change, was just one thing that I dont like (although game has other issues)
-
@taniwharugby I really don't get it. The lineout has to be thrown straight. Like I said, saying that doesn't need to happen, to me is the same as saying ignore forward passes.
-
@Bones wheres the contest in a forward pass that one side opts out of?
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Bones wheres the contest in a forward pass that one side opts out of?
Well they clearly weren't trying to intercept it, so I guess they chose to defend it in a different manner 😉
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@NTA I'd add that if you choose not to contest, then if they throw it straight down thier side to thier man, why is it called?
I hope these workshops they are having for the rwc refs, becomes more common to get a more consistent approach to reffing
One of the whole points of rugby is that everything is a contest and that’s why most laws exist - to make the contest fair. Therefore, if you choose not to contest, then the rules should not be applied.
-
@junior i kind of agree....but, for the sake of argument lets work though the rest of the situation
one of the most common reasons a team wont compete at lineout time is defending a 5m lineout...and the reason for that is an attacking maul is so hard to stop legally...to the point that some would argue a maul is no longer a fair contest
-
@junior said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@taniwharugby said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@NTA I'd add that if you choose not to contest, then if they throw it straight down thier side to thier man, why is it called?
I hope these workshops they are having for the rwc refs, becomes more common to get a more consistent approach to reffing
One of the whole points of rugby is that everything is a contest and that’s why most laws exist - to make the contest fair. Therefore, if you choose not to contest, then the rules should not be applied.
They're not choosing not to contest. They're just choosing to defend differently. What you're saying is the same as saying award a conversion if it misses, if the opposition don't charge. It's not a mistake if the opposition don't contest , right?
Who's to say the jumper wouldn't have dropped it if it was thrown straight?
-
After just watching the BF highlights, the head clash red card definitely grinds my gears.
It's not foul play, sometimes it's not even bad technique, yet it is the same sanction as stamping on someone's head. It was happening for years without issue yet now it's a sanction that can determine a match.
I know there's some it's all the players fault absolutists on here but it's a fast moving game, accidents can happen, at the least why make it a red when there's no intent?
Kind of wish I hadn't watched the highlights now as I'm now in a grump.
-
@Nepia said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
it is the same sanction as stamping on someone's head
Big difference in suspension though.
I get what you mean though. It should be yellow; or there should be an orange card with a sanction in-between yellow and red; or WR should accept the 20 minute red card like we do in the SH.
