Law trials and changes
-
@Stargazer All I see is less competition for the ball.
And the idea there can be a ruck and hence an offside line because someone stood over a tackle! Not even golden oldies run rucks like that.
-
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Stargazer All I see is less competition for the ball.
And the idea there can be a ruck and hence an offside line because someone stood over a tackle! Not even golden oldies run rucks like that.
The strangest bit is the offside line then disappearing if the arriving player then steps back again. Rolland says that the opposition players that were previously offside are now onside again. That is plain odd. Once an offside line is formed it should stay in place.
The other thing I noticed was that the kicking the ball in the ruck rule is for player safety- fair enough. We have seen kicks to the head in these situation and there is no onus on the kicker to take care like they would in a tackle situation. It was inconsistent. However, the one man ruck thing demands that an arriving attacker steps over the tackled player encouraging him to plant his foot right where the tackler may still be getting away. Recipe for stomped on heads don't you think? -
Like all rule changes in rugby they create as many new problems as they try to fix. The more I look at it the more I wonder if that tackle/ruck thing was made up by a committee of theorists that have never played a game in their lives (WR Refs?)
If the arriving player doesn't (or can't) step over the tackled player then the situation is no different to the current one that England bitched about when Italy played to the laws. In fact according to Rolland they now have an incentive to hang around offside in case they get put onside again.
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again? -
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
-
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
Woosh.
My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
What is the reasoning for not just making the tackle the offside again?
That's called league.
Except in league you cannot contest the ball, that's the big difference. This new rule is like half-league. Removing opportunities to contest and adding in a spurious offside line creation.
Woosh.
My point is they're removing the contest for possession from the game.
OK. Misunderstood what you were saying.
-
@Bones said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@Unco not that I'm a fan of the hacking at the ball at the ruck anyway, but isn't disrupting play for the other team a large part of competing for possession?
Sure but there should at least be some illusion of proper competition there. To me it isn't much different than a deliberate knock on.
-
he's just setting us up for another howler
-
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
Not a new law trial or change, but new policy. Haven't seen the document yet, but this was posted on Twitter. Absolutely ridiculous that WR is interfering with what players write on their tape. As long as players don't write stuff on their tape that they also aren't allowed to say (criticising refs, offensive texts etc), it's none of WR's business. F*cking fascists.
I imagine they are just trying to close off an avenue for gorilla marketing. But seems a bit extreme. From the players point of view, does it really make a difference? Do you look at it often during the game? Amateur players seem to get on fine without it so is this really that big of a deal?
-
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
-
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.
Like this guy in the NRL
Cronulla Sharks star Andrew Fifita fined $20,000 for involvement with Kieran Loveridge
Grand Final hero Andrew Fifita has today been fined $20,000 by the NRL for his continued on-field support of convicted killer Kieran Loveridge.
So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.
Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.
Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.
-
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
@mooshld Reading the comments from players on social media, it is a big deal for some of them. I don't think it's a matter of "getting on fine without it", but whether this is something WR should interfere with and IMO it's not. As I said, if they would write things on it that they aren't allowed to say (and that could be forms of marketing), then fine, but a blanket prohibition is absurd.
I think some of them are seeing the effect it is having on them personally and not seeing the other side. I also see a lot of outrage. But not a lot of common sense solutions. Yes it hurts no one writing your kids name on arm tape. But there is always the one dickhead who ruins it for everyone.
Like this guy in the NRL
Grand Final hero Andrew Fifita has today been fined $20,000 by the NRL for his continued on-field support of convicted killer Kieran Loveridge.
So World Rugby are trying to head this sort of thing off before it becomes an issue. They don't want to be the morality police and decide what is or isn't appropriate to write on your strapping. So have gone for a blanket ban. Its the easiest thing for them to enforce.
Its not a perfect solution but they are not being party poopers just for the hell of it. It opens up a whole can of shit for them if they are broadcasting uncensored stuff from players.
Surely some geek can come up with a pen tape combo that the players can read and be content with and the tv cameras can't pick it up. That would be the perfect solution.
I so totally disagree with this line of reasoning. Giving in to a small minority's behavior by banning something for everyone is the stupid process that dumbs down society and removes the need for individual responsibility
-
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
-
@mooshld said in Law trials and changes set for 2017 and beyond:
I don't disagree with you. There are limits to that line of reasoning though.
Its the society we live in however and World Rugby don't want to be dealing with dumb shit like the NRL are. If you want to make a political statement as a player let them do it on twitter rather then on their strapping tape I say.
So why not make that the rule? That's what the NZRU do. Set out clear guidelines of acceptability and expect adherence. Same applies at RWCs regarding ambush marketing etc.
Telling people they can't write their kids names on a bandage is a dumb solution to a rare issue.
