The Current State of Rugby
-
On the topic of consistency. I was googling about this weekend's ref and came across this
'Bottled that': Wayne Barnes leniency over high tackle sparks drama in Premiership final
Referee Wayne Barnes, officiating his third Premiership final, was reluctant to go with a red and explained that there
So apparently Barnes is the only ref that going that works on a theory of the ball carrier being the dominant person in a tackle even if they take a hit directly to the face.
I kind of get the concept (same as Porter v BBBR) but why is it that no other ref rules this way, the citing commissioners send it to judiciary then judiciary side with Barnes?
Both this case and the Porter ones look to be clear instances of what the guidelines are trying to remove from the game or discourage as technique from tacklers. Quite strange.As an aside I did laugh to see that despite all of his experience Barnes is still the ref most likely to get in the way of play. His positioning has always been terrible and he has often managed to do so in big matches
-
In Bledisloe 1, the ball was in play for 12 minutes in the 1st half.
12 minutes out of 40. And this test was supposedly between 2 sides who like to have have a fast match with free flowing rugby.
In the Argie - SA game a few hours later, there was over 30 penalties. So, essentially he blew 1 penalty a minute for the time the ball was in play.
International rugby is slowly creaking to a halt and you know it will only get worse at the World Cup.
-
@DaGrubster said in The Current State of Rugby:
In Bledisloe 1, the ball was in play for 12 minutes in the 1st half.
12 minutes out of 40. And this test was supposedly between 2 sides who like to have have a fast match with free flowing rugby.
In the Argie - SA game a few hours later, there was over 30 penalties. So, essentially he blew 1 penalty a minute for the time the ball was in play.
International rugby is slowly creaking to a halt and you know it will only get worse at the World Cup.
Ball in play time is a bit misleading but it is still a comparable stat.
Rugby by design has times when the ball is not in play eg lineouts and scrums. Also the more teams score, ironically the more the ball is 'out of play' by some measures. eg a goalkicker lining up a kickThe increases in out of play time measures I would prefer to compare is how long it is taking to set and complete scrums and lineouts (that would indicate fundamental issues with game management). How long players are taking from penalties/free kicks from hand. Those stats from last week seem to point to 20 secs max being the aim.
There are certainly some tweaks that can happen without major complication. One being clamping down on players throwing/kicking the ball away after the whistle as in 7s.The biggest problem, as always, is that the NH (especially UK) teams have no problem wanting a confrontational and slow game. Their sporting culture is based on football where the fan experience is more about tension and moments than it is about entertainment and fast play. The current state works for them money wise (debatable at club level) and they resist change.
That was the actual feedback given to the ELVs and replacing minor penalties with free kicks. -
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
The faking injuries, prolonged drinks breaks, tying and re-tying of shoe laces, and endless TMO scutiny by some refs, detract from the product big time
TMO is by far the biggest culprit.
If the ref and AR make an on field call they shouldn't have to go to TMO to check every time. Just be clear on the TMO quickly reviewing footage every time without stopping and only chipping in for clear and obvious.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
The faking injuries, prolonged drinks breaks, tying and re-tying of shoe laces, and endless TMO scutiny by some refs, detract from the product big time
TMO is by far the biggest culprit.
If the ref and AR make an on field call they shouldn't have to go to TMO to check every time. Just be clear on the TMO quickly reviewing footage every time without stopping and only chipping in for clear and obvious.
I don't like the TMO interjecting without being asked by the ref. If the ref and assistant refs don't see it, it better be serious to warrant stopping the game for
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
The faking injuries, prolonged drinks breaks, tying and re-tying of shoe laces, and endless TMO scutiny by some refs, detract from the product big time
TMO is by far the biggest culprit.
If the ref and AR make an on field call they shouldn't have to go to TMO to check every time. Just be clear on the TMO quickly reviewing footage every time without stopping and only chipping in for clear and obvious.
I don't like the TMO interjecting without being asked by the ref. If the ref and assistant refs don't see it, it better be serious to warrant stopping the game for
That's what it was meant to be wasn't it? If TMO sees a clear and obvious knock on or forward pass in the lead up he chips in otherwise keeps out of it.
That sadly became the TMO chipping in to say 'wait, there might be something, have a look' -
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
The faking injuries, prolonged drinks breaks, tying and re-tying of shoe laces, and endless TMO scutiny by some refs, detract from the product big time
TMO is by far the biggest culprit.
If the ref and AR make an on field call they shouldn't have to go to TMO to check every time. Just be clear on the TMO quickly reviewing footage every time without stopping and only chipping in for clear and obvious.
I don't like the TMO interjecting without being asked by the ref. If the ref and assistant refs don't see it, it better be serious to warrant stopping the game for
That's what it was meant to be wasn't it? If TMO sees a clear and obvious knock on or forward pass in the lead up he chips in otherwise keeps out of it.
That sadly became the TMO chipping in to say 'wait, there might be something, have a look'Best intentions, unintended and undesirable consequences
-
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
The faking injuries, prolonged drinks breaks, tying and re-tying of shoe laces, and endless TMO scutiny by some refs, detract from the product big time
TMO is by far the biggest culprit.
If the ref and AR make an on field call they shouldn't have to go to TMO to check every time. Just be clear on the TMO quickly reviewing footage every time without stopping and only chipping in for clear and obvious.
I don't like the TMO interjecting without being asked by the ref. If the ref and assistant refs don't see it, it better be serious to warrant stopping the game for
That's what it was meant to be wasn't it? If TMO sees a clear and obvious knock on or forward pass in the lead up he chips in otherwise keeps out of it.
That sadly became the TMO chipping in to say 'wait, there might be something, have a look'Best intentions, unintended and undesirable consequences
On that topic, two recent changes that haven't had the intended effects are the Goal line dropout and 50/22.
Even Nigel Owens, who I think was on the panel that brought them in, has said that the goal line drop out hasn't worked. The idea was to encourage teams to get the ball away from bodies when close to the line yet players will still take the chance of burrowing over and hope the camera works in their favour. As a result the attacking team is 'punished' for having a go and defending teams encouraged to dive onto the ground from all angles to block the shot.
With the 50/22 the idea wasn't to reward the ball control skill (or luck) of a kicker that finds themselves with time and space it was to encourage defensive teams to pull their outside backs out of the frontline defence and cover the sidelines, thus creating more possibility of a linebreak and running rugby.
Does it work? Nope. Teams see far more value in bolstering the d line than covering the risk and now we have simply added a new element to te game that was never asked for. -
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The biggest problem, as always, is that the NH (especially UK) teams have no problem wanting a confrontational and slow game.
Was interesting to tweet about the modificiations that QRU will run in their Challenger Series i.e. cracking down on time taken to clear rucks, set scrums, take kicks etc.
In response to this I posted to the effect of "NH will hate this" and immediately several Poms and Irish jumped in stating that some of them are already Law but not enforced properly.
-
@NTA That last one about advantage could backfire a bit. At the moment teams do have to keep playing as there is a risk that advantage is called over just before they try to claim it .
Why not allow a response to the advantage call? Ref calls advantage, team can call for it within two phases or it is over. Teams can know quickly if the act that caused the advantage has compromised them.
More use of the free kick would be the biggest time saver. -
I don't see the point of this arbitrary three phase - what if it took you three phases to build the opportunity that a blind ref can't see and now blows the pea out of the whistle?
If it's up to the refs discretion, no more needs to be said.
-
@antipodean I think they're trying to create clear parameters around time limits in order to keep the game moving. Throw in the fact that a referee's perception of advantage is about as consistent as anything else in the game.
I can see what they mean in one context - maybe one of those offside penalties 10m out results in the attacking side going multiple phases over a minute to try and score, but they knock on so you come back. You've burned a minute of game time.
OTOH what if there are a lot of offloads as the opposition look to score and we get to 3 phases well over a minute later?
I assume they've got some basis for 3 phases from data they're looking at on a timing basis.
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@antipodean I think they're trying to create clear parameters around time limits in order to keep the game moving. Throw in the fact that a referee's perception of advantage is about as consistent as anything else in the game.
I can see what they mean in one context - maybe one of those offside penalties 10m out results in the attacking side going multiple phases over a minute to try and score, but they knock on so you come back. You've burned a minute of game time.
OTOH what if there are a lot of offloads as the opposition look to score and we get to 3 phases well over a minute later?
Who gives a fuck how many pick and goes there are if the ball is in play? Isn't that the overriding issue?
I assume they've got some basis for 3 phases from data they're looking at on a timing basis.
I'd be surprised if any decisions they amde were data driven. They just don't seem bright enough.
-
with mauls I'd like them to only allow one stoppage, once a maul is called, it must start moving forwards, if not, a stoppage includes staitionary, going backwards or sideways, and maybe police the attacking side for pulling them down and joining incorrectly as well.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
with mauls I'd like them to only allow one stoppage, once a maul is called, it must start moving forwards, if not, a stoppage includes staitionary, going backwards or sideways, and maybe police the attacking side for pulling them down and joining incorrectly as well.
you mean, the way it used to be reffed?
-
Last weekend, wet day. I watched a couple of hours of rugby on YouTube. Some of it from the era of my youth when I like the sport E.g. some 1989 tour games, and Otago v British Lions in 1993. I also watched some from before my time (1964 NZ v France test - what absolute chaos, but can’t deny that for about 75% of the 80 minutes there is competition for possession occurring, so engaging). Some stuff from 1979 that was before my time.
Then, YouTube feed suggested highlights of Canterbury v Auckland match played the night before.
Now, NZRU’s NPC YouTube feeds are excellent, about 10 to 12 minutes long.
It’s just a shame that actual modern rugby is terrible.
I think I only lasted about 2 minutes, 2 tries (all under penalty advantage, of course) and 2 yellows. Then. Went back to watching something else.Now, I think I’ve said before on this thread that I’m probably not a good sample for “state of the modern game” as I am too invested in the version of when I actually liked the sport. And there’s just tooooo much to change to get it back to a decent state.
But … my God. The advantage law has turned from Rugby’s best feature (compared to soccer for example) to it’s biggest curse. I, for one, do not want to watch teams going side to side for 1 to 2 minutes from barely contested ruck to barely contested ruck just to come back 10 or 20m to the penalty.
Re: the NZRU Youtube videos referenced above. I wouldn’t be surprised if 7 or 8 minutes of the 10 minutes clip is action played under advantage.
I, for one, find any action played under advantage to just be a bit boring. I get Netball vibes.
Now, as an aside … why am I, a man in my 40s in the earnings peak of my life watching free sport on YouTube and not paying for a rugby/sport subscription service?
