Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?
-
@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.
-
@Crucial what fucks me off about the ruck is that defenders get pinged for not rolling when cleaners have flopped off their feet trapping them.
Doubly infuriating because defenders on their feet aren’t allowed to reach into this muck (a “ruck” where their are no cleaners on their feet) AND get pinged if they clean out the halfback whose within a yard of the muck.
