Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?
-
@antipodean said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@barbarian said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
I think every law should eliminate acts that negatively effect the game, and I just can't see how throwing/passing/batting the ball out does at all.
Throwing the ball away prevents a contest.
So does kicking the ball away
-
@Hooroo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@antipodean said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@barbarian said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
I think every law should eliminate acts that negatively effect the game, and I just can't see how throwing/passing/batting the ball out does at all.
Throwing the ball away prevents a contest.
So does kicking the ball away
Kicking the ball is done for territory.
-
-
@Hooroo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Thowing the ball is to give it to another player. It's just an action.
Not when you're deliberately throwing it out.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Hooroo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Thowing the ball is to give it to another player. It's just an action.
Not when you're deliberately throwing it out.
I would question why you can kick ball intentionally dead (behind) then. That's not for territory.
There is no value in kicking a ball out behing and throwing it out in terms of contest or territory
-
Exactly Hooroo. There is a way to legally prevent a contest, and that's by kicking the ball.
Though I do see Antipodean's point. It's negative play. But short of introducing a 'deliberate' rule like AFL, there is still an inconsistency between throwing and kicking in the laws. Which doesn't make much sense to me.
-
I've no doubt the disparity has come about as a result of the historical development of the game; kicking -> carrying -> passing.
What I don't like is the subjective nature of "deliberate". The same reason it infuriates me to see people getting away with "failed intercepts". I've cheated enough over decades to know genuine intercepts are normally taken.
-
@Crucial said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Chester-Draws said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
For me scrums should be an attempt to win the ball. I cannot stand it when teams have successfully healed the ball then sit on it waiting for a collapse and they win a penalty.
It rewards the most negative play. Boring to watch for most people, especially if they try if three or four times.
I don't mind pushing the other side back, so pushover tries are OK, just when it sits stationary just milking the penalty. They should be told to use it.
Also, if a lineout is taken down and the defenders drive the lineout back, then the attackers should have used their first "stationary" if they want to drive it. How does it go from one direction to the other without being stationary in between?
Have you not watched much rugby recently? The only way you get to delay getting the ball out now is by holding it at the second row. If you aren't moving forward and the ball is at the 8s feet you get told to use it.
The improvement would be that if you held it in the middle of the scrum or didn't/couldn't hook it then the ball turns over (like a maul)Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "much". By most people's standards, yes, lots. By the the Fern's standards, about normal (I sometimes watch Super games not involving NZ teams, I'm that sad).
Teams frequently hold the ball in the scrum longer than they need to, hoping for a penalty. Late in the recent Crusaders-Highlanders match IIRC, though I have deleted it so I can't check, the Crusaders did it. And got the penalty too, which is why teams do it.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Crucial said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Chester-Draws said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
For me scrums should be an attempt to win the ball. I cannot stand it when teams have successfully healed the ball then sit on it waiting for a collapse and they win a penalty.
It rewards the most negative play. Boring to watch for most people, especially if they try if three or four times.
I don't mind pushing the other side back, so pushover tries are OK, just when it sits stationary just milking the penalty. They should be told to use it.
Also, if a lineout is taken down and the defenders drive the lineout back, then the attackers should have used their first "stationary" if they want to drive it. How does it go from one direction to the other without being stationary in between?
Have you not watched much rugby recently? The only way you get to delay getting the ball out now is by holding it at the second row. If you aren't moving forward and the ball is at the 8s feet you get told to use it.
The improvement would be that if you held it in the middle of the scrum or didn't/couldn't hook it then the ball turns over (like a maul)Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "much". By most people's standards, yes, lots. By the the Fern's standards, about normal (I sometimes watch Super games not involving NZ teams, I'm that sad).
Teams frequently hold the ball in the scrum longer than they need to, hoping for a penalty. Late in the recent Crusaders-Highlanders match IIRC, though I have deleted it so I can't check, the Crusaders did it. And got the penalty too, which is why teams do it.
Current interpretation is to mirror the ruck call which is a 'use it' once available.
Yes, some teams will try and push right to the edge of that. -
-
Also not a fan of passing off the ground as an option of 'immediate release'. Just too messy, and imo probably the most dangerous offload around.
Probably also a hangover from the era I grew up in when passing off the ground was sn elementary no no. Visually it looks shit.
-
-
@Bones I'm referring more to the offending player doing something that prevents a try being scored, e.g. a high tackle as the attacking player is diving for the line or a deliberate knock-down from a defender with a man unmarked outside them.
-
@Bovidae yeah but that's what I mean - a penalty try isn't punishment. It's because a try probably would've been scored. The yc is punishment for infringing.
Just like when a try is scored you'll occasionally see the ref then yc a player who infringed earlier in the movement.
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Just like when a try is scored you'll occasionally see the ref then yc a player who infringed earlier in the movement.
Would be happier if it was more consistently applied. Like most laws, it's a lottery.
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Bovidae yeah but that's what I mean - a penalty try isn't punishment. It's because a try probably would've been scored. The yc is punishment for infringing.
Just like when a try is scored you'll occasionally see the ref then yc a player who infringed earlier in the movement.
Agreed. Not carding the offending player means they get a free "cheat". If the penalty try is given they will just say oh well the try would have been scored anyway.
I also don't really get why throwing it into touch is illegal. Exactly the same as kicking it out backwards or for very little gain. You aren't going for territory there. You are looking to stop play or end the game.
Both plays would usually result in the opposition gaining the throw but if anything kicking it out probably prevents the quick throw more than a pass or bat into touch.
Don't really like the way the deliberate knock on is judged these days. I think the penalty and YC especially should be reserved for where there is a clear bat down of a pass to kill the play. Too many reflex grabs are being penalised.
-
I don't know about you guys, but I find it a lot easier to throw the ball to touch than to kick it. Takes much less time and not a heck of a lot of an opportunity to charge it down, plus if it is charged, I get a scrum or penalty.
And my kicking is atrocious.
-
why are players not penalised for offside when they are the front guard at the ruck, reach backwards to grab the ball, as there is no defender in front of them, and they break the defensive line like that? The player has to be offside, as his front foot surely was not behind the hindmost foot at the ruck. Right?
Why are players so often allowed to - when tackled - place the ball, and then immediately grab it again as to buy time for their arriving support? They have to get back on their feet (really on their feet, supporting their bodyweight etc.), as rugby is a game played on one's feet, isn't it?
scrumhalves who order their players to form a human shield at the ruck - surely these players are deliberately offside when the scrumhalf takes his box kick?
