TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98)
-
@Siam said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Rancid-Schnitzel agreed
Can't wait till a last minute match winning try from a lineout happens and it's revealed the hooker had his toes on the line while throwing in. We must be due for that tempest soon@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
look at where a hotly contested 2-ball is caught in a lineout. It's certainly not 5m from the touch line
What irks me is that the above 2 examples are laws of the game.
But somehow, they have become to be considered unimportant. Like feeding a scrum straight.One could argue - not really a biggie - let the game flow and who cares about the small technicalities.
But sure as nuts, Siam's prediction will come true. Maybe even in the RWC.
Teams will transgress these rules all match long, but at some point a TMO is going to review a try and say "oh, err hang on. The guy throwing in the ball wasn't behind the line" And he will be completely justified, and obligated in making that call. If he doesn't, he is equally going to be pilloried.You just have to hope that call doesn't go against your team I guess. But it will come.
-
@Billy-Webb Totally agree with this. If they don't want to police it, then relax the laws of the game. But leaving this half-in half-out status quo is the recipe for disaster in a tight game.
Like an overthrows boundary where it comes off the batsman's bat...
-
@TeWaio said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Billy-Webb Totally agree with this. If they don't want to police it, then relax the laws of the game. But leaving this half-in half-out status quo is the recipe for disaster in a tight game.
Like an overthrows boundary where it comes off the batsman's bat...
Too soon
-
@canefan said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@TeWaio said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Billy-Webb Totally agree with this. If they don't want to police it, then relax the laws of the game. But leaving this half-in half-out status quo is the recipe for disaster in a tight game.
Like an overthrows boundary where it comes off the batsman's bat...
Too soon
I still wake up at 4am, bathed in sweat, screaming "STOKES DIDN'T EVEN WANT THE FOUR RUNS"
-
@TeWaio 100% What I don't get is that feeding the scrum straight and ensuring the ball travels 5 meters in the lineout are simple to police AND vital in ensuring a fair contest for possession (which is what I want in every facet of the game.)
Forget letting the game flow. Ensure a fair contest for possession. Its good for purists and casuals. It gives you highlights like Harrison stealing the vital throw in to end that Lions contest.
Or rather, policing the laws results in the game flowing better.
-
@Machpants said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I thought the passing stats were interesting, at the least
As I already noted, RM looked very good once Nugget arrived.
-
@Smuts said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@TeWaio 100% What I don't get is that feeding the scrum straight and ensuring the ball travels 5 meters in the lineout are simple to police AND vital in ensuring a fair contest for possession (which is what I want in every facet of the game.)
Forget letting the game flow. Ensure a fair contest for possession. Its good for purists and casuals. It gives you highlights like Harrison stealing the vital throw in to end that Lions contest.
Or rather, policing the laws results in the game flowing better.
Is straight now defined as NOT straight into second row???
What REALLY, REALLY rats me off is the following:
"Hands off [Maro], ruck formed.
Me, sir?
Yes.
OK.
Thank you."
By which time (1 - 2 seconds) defence has realigned.
Please, PLEASE, just, "Penalty, hands in ruck".
For the grace of God.
-
@Smuts said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@TeWaio 100% What I don't get is that feeding the scrum straight and ensuring the ball travels 5 meters in the lineout are simple to police AND vital in ensuring a fair contest for possession (which is what I want in every facet of the game.)
Just using one example, there was a throw from SA to the front (to Etzebeth I think) where the ball was lucky to go 3 m as he landed closer to the touchline than the 5 m line. Surely it's not hard for the AR to see this as they are standing only a few metres away?
-
-
@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?
