Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
The 22 restart after a missed drop goal that goes dead is one that O would change. A scrum from where the attempt is taken should be an option. Getting the ball back for not executing isn't in the spirit of many other facets of the game.
I used to be all for that but have moderated my stance on it with the proclivity of scoring tries, i.e. not so many droppies now are there? And DC's WRC final monster!
-
@Siam said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Yeah a try for the base of the posts was ok (ish) when we had hessian sacks filled with old socks stapled to the posts for padding but not with these 1 metre pansy pads they have nowadays.
always wanted to see a runaway intercept dotted at the base as a fuck you to the lawmakers - leave the ball there, (not having crossed the line) for the goalkicker and jog back to halfway
How young are you blokes? This has been done loads...heard of a guy called Tana Umaga?
-
-
@Bones said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Siam said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Yeah a try for the base of the posts was ok (ish) when we had hessian sacks filled with old socks stapled to the posts for padding but not with these 1 metre pansy pads they have nowadays.
always wanted to see a runaway intercept dotted at the base as a fuck you to the lawmakers - leave the ball there, (not having crossed the line) for the goalkicker and jog back to halfway
How young are you blokes? This has been done loads...heard of a guy called Tana Umaga?
Then give Steve Walsh a high five. So good.
Back in the days when pumping Auckland at Eden Park was a big deal.
-
@JayCee said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
"how the fuck was he supposed to roll away" - you will no doubt hear me say this from time to time - so i guess that mine, where the rule needs to be a bit more pragmatic.
That one should possibly have the option to the ref of a free-kick for the times when a players is truly trapped by opposition players and unable to move. It wouldn't get used much but would be good to have a second option.
In those situations a penalty can be really harsh and concede points for no fault. -
The ball isn't thrown straight into the lineout, but the non-throwing side win the ball anyhow. They spin it out wide where the centre spills the ball. The refs calls it back for a scrum "no advantage". They won a lineout they weren't expecting to, that is advantage enough for me.
-
The ball gets kicked into the in-goal and close to the deadball line. I don't like that you can put a foot over the deadball line and pick the ball up (while still moving) and earn a scrum back where the ball was kicked.
That's excessively punishing the kicker for what is actually a bloody good kick (if it's stopping a foot short of the deadball line).
-
@Chris-B. said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
The ball gets kicked into the in-goal and close to the deadball line. I don't like that you can put a foot over the deadball line and pick the ball up (while still moving) and earn a scrum back where the ball was kicked.
That's excessively punishing the kicker for what is actually a bloody good kick (if it's stopping a foot short of the deadball line).
That has changed this season hasn't it?
-
@booboo Re-read my post again, I didn't say anything about removing the maul, just the removal of the arbitrary start after it has been stopped. I don't think you need the re-start for your reasoning. If the mauls going well it's going to barrel down field sucking in those defenders anyway without this stop start bullshit. The worst ones are when the attacking teams go backwards, stop, restart and power back up the field. That's just wrong.
-
-
@Chris-B. said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@pukunui I don't know. Someone will.
Good if it has.
It has at least for normal in touch. Not sure about in goal though. I like the change because it encourages player to attempt to keep the ball in play.
-
@Chris-B. said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
The ball gets kicked into the in-goal and close to the deadball line. I don't like that you can put a foot over the deadball line and pick the ball up (while still moving) and earn a scrum back where the ball was kicked.
That's excessively punishing the kicker for what is actually a bloody good kick (if it's stopping a foot short of the deadball line).
Didn't they change that?
-
@Nepia said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@booboo Re-read my post again, I didn't say anything about removing the maul, just the removal of the arbitrary start after it has been stopped. I don't think you need the re-start for your reasoning. If the mauls going well it's going to barrel down field sucking in those defenders anyway without this stop start bullshit. The worst ones are when the attacking teams go backwards, stop, restart and power back up the field. That's just wrong.
No I read it. I just disagree. I think one chance to restart is the correct balance.
A go backwards reset then go forwards scenario should be the one chance. I don't think that's always ruled that way though.
-
@booboo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Chris-B. said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
The ball gets kicked into the in-goal and close to the deadball line. I don't like that you can put a foot over the deadball line and pick the ball up (while still moving) and earn a scrum back where the ball was kicked.
That's excessively punishing the kicker for what is actually a bloody good kick (if it's stopping a foot short of the deadball line).
Didn't they change that?
I can see I'm slow replying ... someone already has ...
-
@booboo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Nepia said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@booboo Re-read my post again, I didn't say anything about removing the maul, just the removal of the arbitrary start after it has been stopped. I don't think you need the re-start for your reasoning. If the mauls going well it's going to barrel down field sucking in those defenders anyway without this stop start bullshit. The worst ones are when the attacking teams go backwards, stop, restart and power back up the field. That's just wrong.
No I read it. I just disagree. I think one chance to restart is the correct balance.
A go backwards reset then go forwards scenario should be the one chance. I don't think that's always ruled that way though.
I disagree with your disagreeance. Why should a team be allowed to restart once the ball has stopped moving? I find it silly.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
The ball isn't thrown straight into the lineout, but the non-throwing side win the ball anyhow. They spin it out wide where the centre spills the ball. The refs calls it back for a scrum "no advantage". They won a lineout they weren't expecting to, that is advantage enough for me.
Refs that let the halfback effectively roll the ball under the hookers feet but call a line out not straight when it's heading a gnats pube in the direction of the team throwing in.
-
-
@jegga said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Refs that let the halfback effectively roll the ball under the hookers feet but call a line out not straight when it's heading a gnats pube in the direction of the team throwing in.
This would require a bigger change than just a straight feed though. Current scrums can't physically hook a straight feed.
I'd be ok with a total re-assessment of scrums, though.
As I find the choice of; concede penalty or risk paralysis to be disgusting.
Sort out scrums, and the perverse incentives - which now require 3 specialists and 3 specialists subs for safety reasons.
Bring it back that a reserve hooker can safely prop when required - with the worse consequence being a tighthead. Not penalty or paralysis.
It's just a restart. We've turned a contested posesion restart into a technical penalty generating / avoiding phase. With consequences far outweighing the offence (by the offender) . Nothing makes my blood boil more that a watching a 'good' modern scrum where both teams are giving it there all until one finally breaks and gets penalised. With the 'winner' making no attempt to get the ball out. So cynical. Worse than cynical, it's borderline malicious.
Think of the ripple down flow of this change:
- to amateur teams that can't scrape enough front rowers together to form a team.
- to entrepreneurs in Texas pondering a Major League Rugby franchise, wondering whether a 23 man sport with 6 specialist front towers is just too damning expensive
-
@Nepia said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@booboo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Nepia said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@booboo Re-read my post again, I didn't say anything about removing the maul, just the removal of the arbitrary start after it has been stopped. I don't think you need the re-start for your reasoning. If the mauls going well it's going to barrel down field sucking in those defenders anyway without this stop start bullshit. The worst ones are when the attacking teams go backwards, stop, restart and power back up the field. That's just wrong.
No I read it. I just disagree. I think one chance to restart is the correct balance.
A go backwards reset then go forwards scenario should be the one chance. I don't think that's always ruled that way though.
I disagree with your disagreeance. Why should a team be allowed to restart once the ball has stopped moving? I find it silly.
That's fine. We'll agree to disagree safe in the knowledge you are wrong
