Things that annoy you about rugby...
-
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.
-
@chester-draws said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@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.
Quite right. Forgot that one. However, I'd argue that once the ball is sitting stationary behind the ruck it is no longer 'coming out' and ought to be fair game.
-
-
@pakman said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
In fact there was an example of that in Oz Scotland match. Scottie grabbed it and ref said something like, 'That was OK, ball was out'.
the frustrating thing is that sometimes you cop a YC for cynical, when it is a bit of timing. Usually for slow ball, too.
Yes, I'm still pissed about Isaac Ross getting done in SA a few years ago. Not sure why it sticks, but I thought it was pretty harsh. Must have been 2009... and google confirms my biases/privilege/memory:
http://www.rugbydump.com/2009/08/1028/the-isaac-ross-yellow-card-against-the-springboks
that still looks harsh to me
-
@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.
Did and Irishman come up with this ‘not held’ interpretation?
If you hold onto the bugger you’ll get penalised, but if you don’t hold him he’s allowed to play on...
You’re fooked either way!
#headscratcher -
@nzzp said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
@pakman said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
In fact there was an example of that in Oz Scotland match. Scottie grabbed it and ref said something like, 'That was OK, ball was out'.
the frustrating thing is that sometimes you cop a YC for cynical, when it is a bit of timing. Usually for slow ball, too.
Yes, I'm still pissed about Isaac Ross getting done in SA a few years ago. Not sure why it sticks, but I thought it was pretty harsh. Must have been 2009... and google confirms my biases/privilege/memory:
http://www.rugbydump.com/2009/08/1028/the-isaac-ross-yellow-card-against-the-springboks
that still looks harsh to me
Agree. So'oialo was calling to Ross that ball was out. I don't think it was even penalty, but certainly not YC. Strong Bok pack that day.
-
-
How far refs (and TMOs) will go to not call something a knock-on in a try scoring movement. It's like you need to knock it 20m forwards with 3 hands wearing oversized comedy gloves for then to actually make a call.
Also. I hate the "went straight down" rule (if it is a rule?).
-
Great clip. Not to many people keen to lie around the back of those rucks. Man I miss rugby in the old days. At school in the sheds after a game we wore the stripes from rucking like a badge of fucking honor! If you didn't get tagged you probably didn't play.
-
@rapido said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
How far refs (and TMOs) will go to not call something a knock-on in a try scoring movement. It's like you need to knock it 20m forwards with 3 hands wearing oversized comedy gloves for then to actually make a call.
Also. I hate the "went straight down" rule (if it is a rule?).
Not a rule, just an explanation to the arm flappers.
I always think knock ons should be clear and obvious unlike the league interpretation where any loss of control is deemed a knock on.
In Union the ball must travel toward the opposition try line for it to be a KO. Leaving the ball behind you is not a KO
-
Just watching Cheetahs v Munster. I know most halfbacks do it, but I don't recall any doing it quite to the degree Murray does.. Why is he allowed to roll the ball half a metre out of the breakdown and still have it protected? Ref's calling "use it" as though the ball is available from the breakdown, when in reality it's a long way out and should be free for all.
-
@bones said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:
Just watching Cheetahs v Munster. I know most halfbacks do it, but I don't recall any doing it quite to the degree Murray does.. Why is he allowed to roll the ball half a metre out of the breakdown and still have it protected? Ref's calling "use it" as though the ball is available from the breakdown, when in reality it's a long way out and should be free for all.
I think we discussed this when the Lions were here.
