Things that annoy you about rugby...
-
@kiwimurph you realise you are on the fern right, reading what you are replying to isnt a pre-requisite
-
@chester-draws said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Knocking the ball down isn't negative, unless your definition of negative is "stops an attack". It's been part of the game forever. The ball is still in play, after all.
Does a player in a tricky position who kicks the ball into touch to avoid a turnover get called "negative"? In that instance there's a deliberate ending of the play. Players even kick the ball backwards to do it.
Is dotting the ball down in your own goal, rather than running it out also "negative"? Again stopping play merely for your own advantage.
Is kicking the ball out at full time "negative"? Stopping play just because you can to prevent the other side from winning is not really positive rugby.
It's not that I think you're wrong, it's I don't even understand how legally playing the ball while keeping it in play can ever be negative.
Can I like this twice?
-
Does 'negative play' include running back toward your line and kicking the ball 'back' to make it dead at the end of a game?
It is accepted practice now but years ago you wouldn't catch anyone doing it without getting booed for killing the game in a negative manner. -
@crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Does 'negative play' include running back toward your line and kicking the ball 'back' to make it dead at the end of a game?
It is accepted practice now but years ago you wouldn't catch anyone doing it without getting booed for killing the game in a negative manner.I suppose. What really started that though was hooters. Schoolkids still don't do it, because they're never certain time is up. Before that you still kicked it out, you just did it up-field, just in case.
Repeated rucks with no intention of gaining ground to eat up time before the end of time is much more negative to me.
(And I would still expect any NZ team to do all of the above. Your opponents can rant all they want about "negative" play, but a win's a win.)
-
Had to search out this thread after the weekend's games (in both hemispheres)
My latest bugbear is tackled players placing the ball behind them, realising the support is a little slow so regathering the ball, sometimes even after fully releasing contact, sometimes jst a pull back.
It happened a lot in the Stormers/Chiefs game and in the Leinster/Racing game.
Only time I saw it whistled was by Barnes in one that even he couldn't ignore as it was so blatent and exposed. -
@crucial i saw some terrible "not held, go again" on the weekend as well. You're not held because you are tackled, and the tackled players have released. Refs hate defenders.
-
@chester-draws said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Repeated rucks with no intention of gaining ground to eat up time before the end of time is much more negative to me.
I wouldn't have such a problem with it if every team didn't clearly prevent a competition for the ball by sealing off.
-
@antipodean This is related to my bugbear - "rucks" where no offensive player is left on their feet but defenders can't step over and win the ball because you can't play the halfback.
The rule should be that if no one from the other side is on their feet, ruck is over and no whinging if your halfback gets driven off the ball.
-
Unfortunately the attacking team seems to get much more leeway from the refs. You only have to look at the maul, where defenders are penalised for entering from the side, or "swimming" as some refs call it, but players from the team in possession can join a maul from anywhere.
-
it doesn't seem they are playing the change in rule at the breakdown very strictly either, meaning the tackling player cant get to his feet and attack the ball without having to get up and get himself back through the gate.
-
@smuts the not taking the halfback rule is absurd, and i don't understand the need for it at all. As you say, sometimes the halfback is the only guy on his feet, the counter-ruck is good, of course they hit the halfback, penalty!
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
-
@mariner4life the amusing thing is, it is usually restricted to just the guy wearing 9, as you clean out or pull into the ruck a guy playing halfback but not wearing 9 and you are more often than not, ok...so seems a very odd rule, one suspects made up by a halfback to protect himself from the forwards :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:
-
@taniwharugby said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life the amusing thing is, it is usually restricted to just the guy wearing 9, as you clean out or pull into the ruck a guy playing halfback but not wearing 9 and you are more often than not, ok...so seems a very odd rule, one suspects made up by a halfback to protect himself from the forwards :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:
The Pichot rule?
-
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@crucial i saw some terrible "not held, go again" on the weekend as well. You're not held because you are tackled, and the tackled players have released. Refs hate defenders.
The only time I've seen it called is when a try was scored by getting back up (Rieko). That part of the game is becoming a bit of a joke, and it's so easy to police as well.
-
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
Tackling without the ball?
-
@no-quarter said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@crucial i saw some terrible "not held, go again" on the weekend as well. You're not held because you are tackled, and the tackled players have released. Refs hate defenders.
The only time I've seen it called is when a try was scored by getting back up (Rieko). That part of the game is becoming a bit of a joke, and it's so easy to police as well.
The one where he wasn't actually held, then as he was getting up, the guy on the floor reached out again and put his hand on Rieko?
-
@chris-b said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Can someone explain why it is there? What insidious piece of play were they trying to rub out?
Tackling without the ball?
which i can sort of understand, except that's on paper, and rarely is that actually the case in reality.
-
@mariner4life The whole concept of clean-outs is pretty foreign to when I played the game in the dim distant past.
Unless you're the halfback it seems you can be cleaned out if you're anywhere in the vicinity of the ruck, though presumably in theory you should be part of it.
Joe Moody's "vicinity" was just a bit broad at the weekend.
-
@chris-b said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mariner4life The whole concept of clean-outs is pretty foreign to when I played the game in the dim distant past.
Unless you're the halfback it seems you can be cleaned out if you're anywhere in the vicinity of the ruck, though presumably in theory you should be part of it.
Joe Moody's "vicinity" was just a bit broad at the weekend.
Back in the day I'm pretty sure you could bind onto any player within a metre (yard?
) of the ruck. It wasn't called a clean out in those days but effectively was. Cleaned your sprigs on the way through too.
