The Current State of Rugby
-
-
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bones c.mon mate, can you tell me your opinion on knock downs in the game??
Perfectly legal.
Actually seriously, wouldn't really argue anyway, even if I was just taking piss a bit.
-
Weâre you reffing Harlequins v Gloucester earlier?
-
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
Weâre you reffing Harlequins v Gloucester earlier?
By geez that was an entertaing game wasn't it Mike? And know what you talking about, there did seem one or 2 decisions could of gone either way with knock downs.
-
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
Weâre you reffing Harlequins v Gloucester earlier?
By geez that was an entertaing game wasn't it Mike? And know what you talking about, there did seem one or 2 decisions could of gone either way with knock downs.
Hometown calls aplenty
Gloucester werenât supposed to win that one, although they coulda/shoulda
Hastings had a mare, and the Marcus Smith wankfest is stomach churning
Flatmanâs unconditional support of the ref became tiresome
Gloucester gifted it
The Ref wrapped it -
Now here's something interesting I never realised, who knew you could score a try while having your feet in touch?
So long as you not holding ball, ie you in touch you could lean over and put downward pressure on ball.
To those that knew, I know you cleverer than me (that's not hard lol). and those that didn't know, that's ok, just starting the new year by helping you out with the laws!
Anyway, time I loaded clubs etc and went to golf instead of boring you lot!
-
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws of touch are absurd and make an AR's job very hard on occasion.
I liked the stand in touch (one foot), catch it and it's out on the full rule.
This jump from outside to in is silly. Can see the intent (opportunity to keep the ball alive). But it looks odd.
-
Talking of laws and refs etc for the @DaGrubster , here's somone you will recognise in this article.
Gone from kicking your arse at college, (and my useless son), and coaching with me as well as other stuff, to New Zealand Rugby game development manager â referees. Lol -
I reckon they should, in the name of safety, outlaw attacking players jumping to contest kicks, and continue carding them if they touch the defensive player in the air. As a bonus it might stop the bore-fest of repetitive contestable bombs, and make the game worth watching again. England South Africa in the WC was fucking dire, and if I want to watch a shit game that is only exciting because it's close I can watch soccer.
-
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
Talking of laws and refs etc for the @DaGrubster , here's somone you will recognise in this article.
Gone from kicking your arse at college, (and my useless son), and coaching with me as well as other stuff, to New Zealand Rugby game development manager â referees. LolGood article. Credit where it's due Stuff and Aaron Goiles.
Did the test. Got 4 wrong I think (just in my head and flicking up and down back to the questions when "marking"). Can't remember which ones, but in saying that I also made a best guess on a couple, so it's not a true reflection of actual knowledge.
-
But then there are also nuances e.g.
Q6. Players of the same team are repeatedly penalised for leaving their feet at the tackle. The referee issues a warning. At the next play, a maul forms and a player from this team collapses the maul. Is the referee correct to caution and temporarily suspend this player for repeated infringements?
A: Yes
B: NoIt depends on the nature of the warning.
If the warning is "you have too many players going off their feet at ruck time. Next one is in the bin"
is different fromt "you have too many penalties in this part of the field. Next one is in the bin"
is different from "you are conceding too many penalties in a row. Next one is in the bin" -
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
But then there are also nuances e.g.
Q6. Players of the same team are repeatedly penalised for leaving their feet at the tackle. The referee issues a warning. At the next play, a maul forms and a player from this team collapses the maul. Is the referee correct to caution and temporarily suspend this player for repeated infringements?
A: Yes
B: NoIt depends on the nature of the warning.
If the warning is "you have too many players going off their feet at ruck time. Next one is in the bin"
is different fromt "you have too many penalties in this part of the field. Next one is in the bin"
is different from "you are conceding too many penalties in a row. Next one is in the bin"That's one I got "wrong". I'll take that one back
-
Interesting article, we need more!
Explained: Why the smartest rugby teams kick so much
Kicking from the hand continues to divide opinion but data proves it's highly effective.
-
Rugby in schools is a form of child abuse, say sports experts
Parents fail to understand the enormous risk of brain injury to their children, they warn
Seems like the best place to post this. Interesting article (too long to post in full) making the argument U18's shouldn't play rugby or other high-impact sports as they are too young to give consent to the possibility of brain damage. Thought-provoking. link here
Two centuries after the birth of rugby on school playing fields, academics say the game has become a form of child abuse and should be banned among under-18s.
William Webb Ellis is credited with first running with the football at Rugby School in 1823, eventually giving rise to a global sport. But researchers say children should no longer participate in rugby, or boxing, and that parents do not understand the long-term risk of brain injuries. Sports organisations, they claim, are effectively âgroomingâ adults to ignore the consequences. Schools that have rugby on the curriculum have not sought informed consent from children who could suffer injuries that affect them in later life, according to the paper.
They claim that neither children nor adults on their behalf are legally able to give informed consent for participation and that impact-sport organisations effectively groom children into sustaining and accepting brain trauma. They argue that adults who organise âbrain-traumatisingâ versions of these sports are complicit in a form of child abuse that they call âbrain abuseâ.
-
The authors are two sociologists of sport and two sport psychologists
None of whom appear to be legal experts, but don't let that little issue prevent them from speaking outside their narrow field of expertise.
âSchools and clubs must not allow children to be exposed to harm when they engage in sport. Society should recognise this brain abuse as a distinct form of child abuse.â
The genuine issue of brain injury gets pushed to the side line when imbeciles make moronic statements like the above. What sport doesn't expose someone to the possibility of "harm"? At least in Oz the Australian Institute of Sport has provided advice that kids should not be able to play for at least 21 days after suffering a suspected concussion.
Ultimately I think we'll find in this current bubble wrap environment that kids won't be able to play a sport that involves tackling - they'll be playing touch football at best. Likelihood of harm seems to have disappeared from the debate.
-
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
None of whom appear to be legal experts, but don't let that little issue prevent them from speaking outside their narrow field of expertise.
Interesting that one was a Judo and Kickboxing champion.
For me the report actually raised a valid and interesting point about consent and potential of brain injury but completely lost the plot by going OTT and claiming it was child abuse with no legal expertise or input. Assume you noticed the dog-whistle âfeeders for profit-making professional organisations" comment?
Stuff
