Things that annoy you about rugby...
-
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Something I noticed in both the NZ and the French games this weekend. Why is it that sometimes a try wipes out foul play. But other times it doesn't
Naholos finish was awesome but that attempt at a tackle was a shoulder charge plain and simple and deserved at least a penalty restart at half way.
Same thing France Japan, Basteraud hits a guy and ends up flipping him Japan score and they don't bother to go back to take a second look at that.
Crazy.
^^ This. Compared to the RWC QF vs SA where we scored off a penalty advantage and Habana still got carded.
The officiating in general is just a shambles these days. Maybe I'm becoming a grumpy old man having turn ed 30 this year, but I swear it never used to be this bad. Puts you off watching.
-
@tewaio said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Something I noticed in both the NZ and the French games this weekend. Why is it that sometimes a try wipes out foul play. But other times it doesn't
Naholos finish was awesome but that attempt at a tackle was a shoulder charge plain and simple and deserved at least a penalty restart at half way.
Same thing France Japan, Basteraud hits a guy and ends up flipping him Japan score and they don't bother to go back to take a second look at that.
Crazy.
^^ This. Compared to the RWC QF vs SA where we scored off a penalty advantage and Habana still got carded.
The officiating in general is just a shambles these days. Maybe I'm becoming a grumpy old man having turn ed 30 this year, but I swear it never used to be this bad. Puts you off watching.
The use of the TMO for endless slo-mo replays puts so much pressure on the reffing team that they get complete tunnel vision. Staring at the grounding/touchline and not seeing the obvious shoulder charge in the same picture.
-
Another mild annoyance I have is the refusal for commentators to let stereotypes die.
The French no longer play with flair and haven't for nearly 20 years
The Argies have a competitive scrum but its nothing special.
The Aussies can scrum now the days of England pummeling them every scrum are over. -
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Another mild annoyance I have is the refusal for commentators to let stereotypes die.
The French no longer play with flair and haven't for nearly 20 years
The Argies have a competitive scrum but its nothing special.
The Aussies can scrum now the days of England pummeling them every scrum are over....and the Phil Kearns cliche book of front row quips
-
Players being allowed to roll when on the ground, preventing the player on his feet from playing the ball. Should be a penalty like it always used to be. but now you can roll, crawl and whatever you please and its play on. Here I thought rugby is a game played on your feet
-
@rebound said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Players being allowed to roll when on the ground, preventing the player on his feet from playing the ball. Should be a penalty like it always used to be. but now you can roll, crawl and whatever you please and its play on. Here I thought rugby is a game played on your feet
Hate this so much along with this "not held" rubbish. If you're tackled and not held you should still have to release the ball before you get to your feet to continue. It would make it so much easier to ref. Its a no brainer.
-
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@rebound said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Players being allowed to roll when on the ground, preventing the player on his feet from playing the ball. Should be a penalty like it always used to be. but now you can roll, crawl and whatever you please and its play on. Here I thought rugby is a game played on your feet
Hate this so much along with this "not held" rubbish. If you're tackled and not held you should still have to release the ball before you get to your feet to continue. It would make it so much easier to ref. Its a no brainer.
Or simply ref to the law. If a tackle has been made and your knee hits the ground it shouldn't mean you can get up and have another go. Most of these 'not held' calls are bullshit and you can see a clear moment when tackler is in contact with ball carrier and ball carrier is in contact with the ground off his feet.
-
@snowy said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@antipodean said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
he's all over the place like a mad woman's shit
I met a mad woman this morning - fortunately had nothing to do with her shit - but I did think of Wayne.
I meet one every day ... very first thing I do.
-
@crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@rebound said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Players being allowed to roll when on the ground, preventing the player on his feet from playing the ball. Should be a penalty like it always used to be. but now you can roll, crawl and whatever you please and its play on. Here I thought rugby is a game played on your feet
Hate this so much along with this "not held" rubbish. If you're tackled and not held you should still have to release the ball before you get to your feet to continue. It would make it so much easier to ref. Its a no brainer.
Or simply ref to the law. If a tackle has been made and your knee hits the ground it shouldn't mean you can get up and have another go. Most of these 'not held' calls are bullshit and you can see a clear moment when tackler is in contact with ball carrier and ball carrier is in contact with the ground off his feet.
This by 1000
-
Pleading guilty to being an asshat somehow mitigates the stupid action you did in the first place and reduces your punishment.
See Sekope Kepu. Serial fuckwittery that has somehow just escaped judiciary and a plea of 'yes I did it' provides a 50% discount on the sentence.
Un fucking believable -
@crucial How can his previous disclipinary record be 'clean' when he just earlier this year got a ban for commiting three yellow card incidents in a short span?
I can't remember what the offences were, but they had to be foul play, becouse Beauden got off the hook for his three yellows coming from repeated infringements or offsides.
-
@kiwipie said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@taniwharugby said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Whatever happened to the halfbacks hands are on the ball, therefore it's out?
I know it's previously been mentioned, but the epic rolls / taps / movements / replacements of the ball this weekend in all games by the scrum halves was bloody shocking.
Quite ridiculous.
This, again
I third that statement. Can see why they now allow the 9 to get hands on and not be rushed but those cheeky 9s are just taking the piss. I reckon once you roll that ball it should be fair game.
Honest question: if the ball is behind the last attackers' foot of a ruck just sitting there I can see nothing in the laws -- or the various 'clarifications' -- which indicates that it is still in the ruck. The ref's interpret the halfback as not being in possession (rolling or no rolling) until the ball is off the ground. So no sacking of halfback. But what is to stop a defending oppo player simply falling on the ball (once the ball is out it seem to me that the offside line ceases to exist)?
-
@crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@mooshld said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@rebound said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Players being allowed to roll when on the ground, preventing the player on his feet from playing the ball. Should be a penalty like it always used to be. but now you can roll, crawl and whatever you please and its play on. Here I thought rugby is a game played on your feet
Hate this so much along with this "not held" rubbish. If you're tackled and not held you should still have to release the ball before you get to your feet to continue. It would make it so much easier to ref. Its a no brainer.
Or simply ref to the law. If a tackle has been made and your knee hits the ground it shouldn't mean you can get up and have another go. Most of these 'not held' calls are bullshit and you can see a clear moment when tackler is in contact with ball carrier and ball carrier is in contact with the ground off his feet.
Odd to say, but Barnes a couple of times reffed this correctly because tackled player (once Faletau) let go and picked up.
-
With the ruck and halfback, the way they se m to rule things is that even wh n the ball has gone past the last feet if the halfback is standing over it then it is considered to still be in the ruck.
There are good reasons for this, mainly so that you don't get defenders making a mess by trying to time a crack at the ball as it emerges. If the ball squirts out the side or no halfback is standing over it then it is usually judged as out.
The problem is now that the smart arse little yappers that play in the 9 jersey take the piss, playing with the ball before lifting it and annoying everyone except themselves and the ref. -
Curmudgeonly of me I know and also off at a tangent, but my biggest gripe about rugby is there's too friggin much of it.
Necessary evil I know but first club rugby became largely meaningless, then the NPC, then Super (insert inflated number) and now we play way too many tests.
TBH by the time the EOYT comes around I'm largely over it - not that I miss a game - but its definitely a case of familiarity breeding contempt.
Aussie - yawn Boks - really, again?
France ho-hum.Thankfully the Celtic nations have stepped up to inject some interest
Oh yeah - and bring back the oranges at half time
-
@crucial Well, I have noticed the refs giving halfbacks leeway to reach into rucks to clear the ball. Not strictly legal unless they are bound. In such cases the question arises as to when the ball actually leaves said ruck. Answer is that refs consider once off ground has moved from ruck ball to in halfback's possession. So there is some logic in the extracting ball scenario.
However, when ball physically clear of ruck nothing in laws to support interpretation that somehow still in ruck until half picks it up?
Maybe the commonsense answer in pro game is for ref to call something like 'ball out'. After that the half better clear pretty fast or risk being clattered legally.
-
@dogmeat said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Curmudgeonly of me I know and also off at a tangent, but my biggest gripe about rugby is there's too friggin much of it.
Necessary evil I know but first club rugby became largely meaningless, then the NPC, then Super (insert inflated number) and now we play way too many tests.
TBH by the time the EOYT comes around I'm largely over it - not that I miss a game - but its definitely a case of familiarity breeding contempt.
Aussie - yawn Boks - really, again?
France ho-hum.Thankfully the Celtic nations have stepped up to inject some interest
Oh yeah - and bring back the oranges at half time
We try our best to keep you happy.
The oranges yiz will have to buy yourselves - we only grow spuds, leeks and haggis.
-
@pakman said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@kiwipie said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@taniwharugby said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Whatever happened to the halfbacks hands are on the ball, therefore it's out?
I know it's previously been mentioned, but the epic rolls / taps / movements / replacements of the ball this weekend in all games by the scrum halves was bloody shocking.
Quite ridiculous.
This, again
I third that statement. Can see why they now allow the 9 to get hands on and not be rushed but those cheeky 9s are just taking the piss. I reckon once you roll that ball it should be fair game.
Honest question: if the ball is behind the last attackers' foot of a ruck just sitting there I can see nothing in the laws -- or the various 'clarifications' -- which indicates that it is still in the ruck. The ref's interpret the halfback as not being in possession (rolling or no rolling) until the ball is off the ground. So no sacking of halfback. But what is to stop a defending oppo player simply falling on the ball (once the ball is out it seem to me that the offside line ceases to exist)?
You may need to re-read the ruck laws. 16.4(e)
You may not fall on a ball coming out of the ruck.
Pretty sure this is to stop guys launching themselves at the halfback's feet as he reaches to pick it up.
