Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Not exactly a law but what grinds my gears is players so often winning a penalty for the tackled player not releasing the ball, when the "stealer" is making absolutely no attempt to play the ball and is just grabbing the guy on the ground, holding the ball into the guy on the ground or wrestling for it with an arriving player after the tackled player has released.
Amen to that. Seems to be a trait of Australian teams in particular (followed by high fiving and bum whacking).
Should not be put up with by refs. If the player isn't making a genuine effort to win the ball it should be ruled unplayable with ball going to the team moving forward. . -
@Catogrande said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@antipodean Yes, all very interesting but we were talking about charge downs.
Well in that case, it's pretty simple; who put the ball into the in goal? That's the reason for the difference.
-
@antipodean said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Catogrande said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@antipodean Yes, all very interesting but we were talking about charge downs.
Well in that case, it's pretty simple; who put the ball into the in goal? That's the reason for the difference.
Yes. That is what I was suggesting.
-
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Not sure I agree on the chargedown theory. Isn't the reward that you've charged down a kick in goal and therefore get better possession closer to the line? Whereas if you charge it down outside, you still most likely get the ball back, just a bit further away. Seems fair to me.
If they are kicking the ball then you are likely to get the ball back anyway without the charge down. If you are close enough to charge the ball down dead in goal then the kick is most likely being made close to their own line. A 5 metre attacking scrum vs a 22 dropout than can be sent long is a pretty big difference.
-
@KiwiMurph and seems fair reward to me.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Bones care to expand?
If you put the ball into the opposition ingoal and then make it dead, you get the ball back from a 22m dropout. Why is that wrong?
-
@Bones you havent made it dead, your pressure on thier poor kick made it go dead...should be rewarded better than them kicking it, short or ling from the 22
-
Two goes at a maul for me. I hate how a maul can stop dead/move sideways/move backwards and the attacking team gets another go. If it stops dead/goes completely sideways/and goes backwards and stops then that maul should be over.
I don't know why we have any law allowing a stop in play and re-start when the maul already has a law allowing players in front of the ball.
FYI - I don't mind the maul with one stoppage, how it used to be.
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@KiwiMurph said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Bones care to expand?
If you put the ball into the opposition ingoal and then make it dead, you get the ball back from a 22m dropout. Why is that wrong?
That's the current law, but this thread is about what we'd like to see happen. Personally I would like to see the act of charging down a kick rewarded with a 5m scrum. A 22m is an unjustified outcome for a defending team that couldn't even kick the ball away from their line cleanly.
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Bones you havent made it dead, your pressure on thier poor kick made it go dead...
Ummm...no. 22 is only the result if you put it in their in goal and it goes dead off you. If they put it in their in goal and it goes dead, it's a 5m scrum to the opposition (unless you tap it out I assume).
-
@Bones hang on, not sure what you are arguing here (seems you like to argue for fun alot these days)
so if you are on your 5m, try to kick, I charge down, it goes dead, now they restart from the 22 right?
-
Allowing the defending team to put boot to ball as they contest a ruck / counter ruck.
This has forced the ball carrier to 'place' the ball for longer thereby negating a fair contest for the ball in the tackle area.
Chicken and egg, either way a downward spiral
-
Yes to be clear on my point on the charge down, i'm talking about if ball goes dead directly from the charge down,
not due to some secondary act after the charge down -
-
@Bones playing that out, if you charged the ball down and it goes out a metre in front of the corner post, the kicking team gets the throw in. If that same charge down goes the other side of the corner post out in goal, its a 22 drop out. If I'm the team doing the charge down I would much prefer the former.
-
The maul is my main gumble but i have talked about that plenty of times so won't go on about it again.
Grounding the ball against the base of the post to score is one i think is stupid.
Drop goal attempts that miss and go dead being a 22 restart instead of a scrum back where the kick was attempted from i think should change.
Diving on an emerging ball or something similar was something that Richie got for a couple of times late in his career. Stupid law. If the ball is out then you should be able to dive on it.
Im sure there are more. Plenty of ones where i think interpretation should be changed to make it more consistent.
