Things that annoy you about rugby...
-
-
@pukunui said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Don't know if it has been covered but guys who play with their socks down piss me off.
If they weren't meant to be pulled up as part of the uniform they wouldn't be long.Love it haha I wear them down. Too bloody hot playing in Gods country aka sunny Hawkes Bay.
Still have never really understood the point of long socks.
Don't worry there was still hair on my legs. -
Red cards in really important games for incidents that look like fuckall to us older blokes
-
I'm not worried about socks but I can't believe that the refs and NZR don't police the players for not wearing a mouth guard. It is meant to be compulsory and should be for ACC reasons but a lot of ABs and NZ super rugby players don't wear them. It seems to be more PI players too.
-
@mariner4life "cheat if you have to, son. Cheat if you have to."
Also, nothing wrong with getting your revenge in first.
-
This post is deleted!
-
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
-
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
And doesn't the halfback have to stay within 2m of the scrum? (Cough Bryn Hall cough)
-
@booboo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
And doesn't the halfback have to stay within 2m of the scrum? (Cough Bryn Hall cough)
Depends. If he stays behind his hindmost foot at the scrum he can go as wide as he likes. If he follows the ball and goes in front of his hindmost foot he needs to stay close to the scrum. 2 metres sounds about right.
-
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
One thing that annoys me is the attacking backline at a scrum not staying back 5m until the ball is out of the scrum. Both teams need to stay back 5 metres until the ball is out. So often the backs from the team in possession get a head start which enables them to receive the ball right on the advantage line, whereas the defending team are policed on staying back the 5 metres.
I think it is hard to police and a priority issue from the refs/ARs but it is something they should be watching.
I actually presumed the attacking team was allowed to encroach upon the 5 metre rule as a right
-
I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence
-
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence
Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.
-
@majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence
Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.
Different things. In the example of the try saving tackle the ball has been made dead by the actions of the players. When a ball is called 'held up' it is being made dead by the referee.
In theory you can continue wrestling in a heap over the tryline until exhausted or the ball is grounded. The reason the ref resets the game with a scrum is that otherwise everyone could pile on top from any direction and it becomes a massive mess.What @Damo is saying is that in normal playing time a held up ball is given back to the attacking team for another crack, yet at full-time they lose that advantage which means the refs decision to blow the whistle has a completely different result
-
-
-
@nepia said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@crucial I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the held up law, I think if a player is held up over the line then the ball is dead at that point.
Up to the ref when he makes that call though. He can let things go on as long as he wants (unlike when the ball is in touch).
Point is that the outcome is different after the hooter. -
@nepia said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@crucial I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the held up law, I think if a player is held up over the line then the ball is dead at that point.
Well it depends on your perspective. You can't have a tackle, ruck or maul over the goal line and anyone is entitled to play the ball from any angle, including players on the ground. Unless the ball is grounded pretty quickly it becomes a free for all which the referee ends by saying the ball is unplayable. The ref could just allow play to continue if he was so inclined, but that would soon get silly.
The point is that the ball hasn't been made dead, the ref has deemed it dead. I think it is unfair on the attacking team in that instance to lose the ball.
-
@crucial I don't agree with your interpretation, according to the law the ref has to blow the whistle when the ball carrier cannot ground or play the ball - I think that's clear 99% and not up to the refs interpretation. I realise we're almost getting into semantics but personally I don't have an issue with it.
"When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground or play the ball, the ball is dead. Play restarts with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the player was held up. The attacking team throws in."
