TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98)
-
@Bovidae said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@pakman Yep, players are now conditioned to wait for the ref to tell them to get their hands off the ball in a ruck so know they can push the boundaries.
@taniwharugby I was going to make the same point.
not just now, it's been that way for ages. And in all honesty, for what is in the main a question of timing, i am pretty good with a ref allowing leeway there. For a huge number of those rucks, the player thinks he has rights to the ball, and there is no way he is going to know when he loses that right. So a warning from the ref is fine. Rugby, unlike say league, has a huge amount of penalisable offences that can start as legitimate plays, but change as time progresses. It can't be reffed in black and white all the time and still be the game in its current form.
-
@Smuts said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Or rather, policing the laws results in the game flowing better.
yes, and no. A heap of free kicks given for the small infractions won't open the flow, or speed up the game. Teams who get free kicks fuck around for a bit, then probably call for a scrum, and the extra minutes of fucking around that entails. The awarding of a penalty or free kick in professional rugby is an invitation to stop the game, and prepare another set piece.
It's got to the point where i am willing to overlook certain things. Not straight in teh scrum is one. The opposition aren't going to strike anyway, they are going to try and push the hooker off the ball when he strikes, so as long as you aren't taking the piss, let it go. Same with not straight in an uncontested lineout. Unless it's pretty blatantly outside the shoulder of the jumper, let it go.
-
Agreed. They could do things to keep it rugby though, like making sure that people can’t go clattering in to rucks, diving off their feet to take out stationery players. That’s how a team might lose one of the key people for the World Cup, amongst other things.
Plus, don’t get me started on the offside policing, or complete lack thereof.
-
@gt12 said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Agreed. They could do things to keep it rugby though, like making sure that people can’t go clattering in to rucks, diving off their feet to take out stationery players. That’s how a team might lose one of the key people for the World Cup, amongst other things.
Plus, don’t get me started on the offside policing, or complete lack thereof.
those two things are a different kettle of fish. Offside is offside. There is no grey area. If a ref set out his stall in the first 5-10 minutes, the game would flow a lot better (get those useless fucks on the sideline to help, like they are supposed to).
I'm okay with "clattering in to rucks" as long as the feet are held, and the entry is gate-ish. Guys over the ball are impossible to move without momentum. It's the guys diving in to the them that get me, and there are so many in every sequence of play these days. Hold your feet!
-
I’m ok with people entering rucks on their feet too. However, watch how many time people just dive over them. That’s not only a penalty, it’s also bloody dangerous. If they focused a bit more on that, we’d actually see teams needing to commit people to rucks. I wonder what that might mean for space on the edges?
-
@gt12 said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I’m ok with people entering rucks on their feet too. However, watch how many time people just dive over them. That’s not only a penalty, it’s also bloody dangerous. If they focused a bit more on that, we’d actually see teams needing to commit people to rucks. I wonder what that might mean for space on the edges?
i disagree with that, the worst offenders are the attackers, and they are diving at nothing (or the one guy sent to attack the ball). Coaches won't allow space on the edges no matter what interpretations are in place. Be really hard on those cleanouts? Then defending teams will feel that there is more to be gained by sending one guy hard at the ball, your odds go up. Coaches are smarter than administrators, and have zero fucks to give about the way a game looks.
-
That’s a really good point, it is often the attacking teams doing the worst of it.
I still think they should do something about it, but your point is solid.
-
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
(get those useless fucks on the sideline to help, like they are supposed to).
Yep it should be the AR(ses) doing that, they draw the line and have the best view. They are still touch touches at the moment (except Garces who is an arse that makes deals, Dickheadson was an interfering know it all that was usually wrong as well).
The players can also see it and act accordingly too.
-
@Snowy said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
(get those useless fucks on the sideline to help, like they are supposed to).
Yep it should be the AR(ses) doing that, they draw the line and have the best view. They are still touch touches at the moment.
The players can also see it and act accordingly.you couple being a step offside, with the speed and regularity of the modern defensive line, and it's very little wonder that, especially at the top level, the game often resembles trench warfare.
All modern professional football codes are having to deal with the quality of defense currently beating the quality of attack, rugby just has the least space to operate in.
-
@mariner4life Got an answer? Other, than actually policing the line by the AR's as you suggested?
-
@Snowy said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@mariner4life Got an answer? Other, than actually policing the line by the AR's as you suggested?
nah, not really. Not sure there is an answer really. That extra step might help, but only partially.
Professional coaches will still coach low-risk rugby with a high emphasis on defense. And attempted changes by administrators will be twisted and exploited by smart coaches to still come out with the opposite of the intended outcome. That's professional football, winning is all that matters.
-
I know that players from the team not in possession that try for turnovers in tackle situations when the ball is on the ground must support their own bodyweight but in almost 100% of these type of situations you see supporting players from the team in possession bridging over their player with their hands on the ground supporting their bodyweiht as they form a protective barrier in their attempt to keep opposition away from a chance to contest the ball. Is that allowable in the laws?
-
@Higgins said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I know that players from the team not in possession that try for turnovers in tackle situations when the ball is on the ground must support their own bodyweight but in almost 100% of these type of situations you see supporting players from the team in possession bridging over their player with their hands on the ground supporting their bodyweiht as they form a protective barrier in their attempt to keep opposition away from a chance to contest the ball. Is that allowable in the laws?
No, they're not supporting their own bodyweight on their feet.
If you want to blame anyone for the state of the modern ruck, it would be McCaw. His dominance lead to law changes which have heavily favoured the attacking team leaving defenders to fan out and tackle.
-
-
BAN THE BOX KICK!!
-
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
BAN THE BOX KICK!!
That's what she said.
-
@Bones said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
BAN THE BOX KICK!!
That's what she said.
nah she's a kinky bitch
-
wait, did i just get us flagged again?
