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.
-
-
@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
-
One other change that I'd like to see is that when time is up (ie hooter has gone) and a team is held up over the line, the game should restart with a 5m attacking scrum rather than time being called. When the ball goes over the line the tackler doesn't have to release and everyone piles on so it's a bit of a free for all.
I think the game/half should not end with a team who has taken the ball over the goal line and failed to force it.
-
@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 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
Hmmm, what's that term all the internet warriors on here like to trot out? Something about Dunning-Kruger ....
-
I don't know if it breaks a rule but it ought to; what really grinds my gears are reserves running into the in-goal to celebrate a try scored by their team mate.
... you're not part of the game. If you're warming-up then retreat behind the dead ball line and don't come into contact with those who are legitimately playing the game.
Sooner of later there is going to be a post-try scuffle (there seems to be a few of these recently) which involves a reserve and the ref will resort to carding a guy who's not officially part of the game.
-
@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 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
Hmmm, what's that term all the internet warriors on here like to trot out? Something about Dunning-Kruger ....
Dunning ... is that something to do with self defeating drop kicks ...
-
Another one, now that I think of it:
The law for when a lineout is deemed formed (and hence a QT is no longer available). Currently the law is that once there is 2 players from each team on the line of touch then the lineout is formed. This is silly because it means that the team with the throw can delay putting players into the lineout indefinitely and thus preserve the right to take a quick throw for a long time; often longer than I think the lawmakers would have intended. Technically there is a Free Kick offence for delaying to form a lineout but I've never seen it used in 20 years of watching rugby.
A simple fix would be to say that the lineout is formed once 2 players from the non-throwing team are in position. Maybe make it 3 players just to keep the quick throws coming.
-
@Damo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Another one, now that I think of it:
The law for when a lineout is deemed formed (and hence a QT is no longer available). Currently the law is that once there is 2 players from each team on the line of touch then the lineout is formed. This is silly because it means that the team with the throw can delay putting players into the lineout indefinitely and thus preserve the right to take a quick throw for a long time; often longer than I think the lawmakers would have intended. Technically there is a Free Kick offence for delaying to form a lineout but I've never seen it used in 20 years of watching rugby.
A simple fix would be to say that the lineout is formed once 2 players from the non-throwing team are in position. Maybe make it 3 players just to keep the quick throws coming.
Doesn't stop you throwing when the opposition isn't ready. Just has to be straight.
-
@Damo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Another one, now that I think of it:
The law for when a lineout is deemed formed (and hence a QT is no longer available). Currently the law is that once there is 2 players from each team on the line of touch then the lineout is formed. This is silly because it means that the team with the throw can delay putting players into the lineout indefinitely and thus preserve the right to take a quick throw for a long time; often longer than I think the lawmakers would have intended. Technically there is a Free Kick offence for delaying to form a lineout but I've never seen it used in 20 years of watching rugby.
A simple fix would be to say that the lineout is formed once 2 players from the non-throwing team are in position. Maybe make it 3 players just to keep the quick throws coming.
In practice though the ref will call lineout as formed if one team is waiting and formed.
-
@Crucial said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
@Damo said in Rugby rules (or lack there of) that grind your gears?:
Another one, now that I think of it:
The law for when a lineout is deemed formed (and hence a QT is no longer available). Currently the law is that once there is 2 players from each team on the line of touch then the lineout is formed. This is silly because it means that the team with the throw can delay putting players into the lineout indefinitely and thus preserve the right to take a quick throw for a long time; often longer than I think the lawmakers would have intended. Technically there is a Free Kick offence for delaying to form a lineout but I've never seen it used in 20 years of watching rugby.
A simple fix would be to say that the lineout is formed once 2 players from the non-throwing team are in position. Maybe make it 3 players just to keep the quick throws coming.
In practice though the ref will call lineout as formed if one team is waiting and formed.
Sometimes, but not always.
In any case the ref that does this is acting outside of law. If that is the practice then they should codify it. Otherwise we are just relying on ref's good judgement to ignore the laws when they deem it appropriate
