The Current State of Rugby
-
Surely this is satirical...
-
@Mattasaurus not sure there is too much wrong with those big calls she made, I thought it was more the smaller ones where she was a bit untidy through the match
-
@Mattasaurus said in The Current State of Rugby:
Surely this is satirical...
Don’t think there’s anything wrong in that article.
-
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bones it was pretty bad in that Cheslin landed pretty much on his head, failed his HIA i think, what Du pont didnt do, was jump, if he had leapt I think they were both in the space at the same time, both clearly able to contest, but du pont didnt jump, and went under Cheslin
I just can't buy guys running around a rugby field without a care of who's around or what's going on, especially at that level. It's not an excuse. To use another shitty analogy it's like jumping in the pool without looking. I mean, it's possible, but idiotic and you deserve anything coming your way if you fuck shit up.
I don't subscribe to the implied theory Du Pont didn't care, he was focusing on the ball. I also disagreed with the refereeing team that he wasn't in a position to take the ball. If Cheslin hadn't jumped into that space, the accident would never have happened. But it seems that as long as you leave the ground, you no longer bear any responsibility. It's farcical.
Sadly, it's been like that for ages now and try arguing against it with any NH fans - they're fine with it.
Think it happened to Finn Russell early on in his career against Wales. Dan Biggar flew into a catch and Russell stayed in the deck. Russell was sent from the field .
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Mattasaurus said in The Current State of Rugby:
Surely this is satirical...
Don’t think there’s anything wrong in that article.
IMHO she got a fair few smaller calls wrong (and watching the game again she missed heaps at the breakdown), but she did well with the calls the article talks about
-
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bones it was pretty bad in that Cheslin landed pretty much on his head, failed his HIA i think, what Du pont didnt do, was jump, if he had leapt I think they were both in the space at the same time, both clearly able to contest, but du pont didnt jump, and went under Cheslin
I just can't buy guys running around a rugby field without a care of who's around or what's going on, especially at that level. It's not an excuse. To use another shitty analogy it's like jumping in the pool without looking. I mean, it's possible, but idiotic and you deserve anything coming your way if you fuck shit up.
I don't subscribe to the implied theory Du Pont didn't care, he was focusing on the ball. I also disagreed with the refereeing team that he wasn't in a position to take the ball. If Cheslin hadn't jumped into that space, the accident would never have happened. But it seems that as long as you leave the ground, you no longer bear any responsibility. It's farcical.
Sadly, it's been like that for ages now and try arguing against it with any NH fans - they're fine with it.
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bones it was pretty bad in that Cheslin landed pretty much on his head, failed his HIA i think, what Du pont didnt do, was jump, if he had leapt I think they were both in the space at the same time, both clearly able to contest, but du pont didnt jump, and went under Cheslin
I just can't buy guys running around a rugby field without a care of who's around or what's going on, especially at that level. It's not an excuse. To use another shitty analogy it's like jumping in the pool without looking. I mean, it's possible, but idiotic and you deserve anything coming your way if you fuck shit up.
I don't subscribe to the implied theory Du Pont didn't care, he was focusing on the ball. I also disagreed with the refereeing team that he wasn't in a position to take the ball. If Cheslin hadn't jumped into that space, the accident would never have happened. But it seems that as long as you leave the ground, you no longer bear any responsibility. It's farcical.
Sadly, it's been like that for ages now and try arguing against it with any NH fans - they're fine with it.
Think it happened to Finn Russell early on in his career against Wales. Dan Biggar flew into a catch and Russell stayed in the deck. Russell was sent from the field .
I thought that refs had adjusted since those days and put onus on 'entering the area safely'
In this case that applies to both. DuPont didn't look to see where chasers were and what they were doing and Cheslin jumped into a zone without looking to see the risks.
If DuPont was standing still with feet planted then it would have been all on Ches. -
Offside back lines are a blight on the game and it would have to be one of the lowest hanging fruit to fix..
But just seems to be ignored..
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
If DuPont was standing still with feet planted then it would have been all on Ches.
I'd love to think that was true. But really, it'd be an absolute lottery.
This whole area of the game is not clear, and it keeps getting muddied with weird interpretations. Same as the going into tackles upright - the difference between 'unsighted/didn't react' and 'came from distance with speed' doesn't seem to be taken into account.
Rugby is absolutely farked with this at the moment. It's really frustrating as a fan, I'm struggling to love the game the way it's played and reffed at the moment.
-
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
If DuPont was standing still with feet planted then it would have been all on Ches.
I'd love to think that was true. But really, it'd be an absolute lottery.
This whole area of the game is not clear, and it keeps getting muddied with weird interpretations. Same as the going into tackles upright - the difference between 'unsighted/didn't react' and 'came from distance with speed' doesn't seem to be taken into account.
Rugby is absolutely farked with this at the moment. It's really frustrating as a fan, I'm struggling to love the game the way it's played and reffed at the moment.
Trouble is that it is a game not designed for professionalism i its fundamentals, laws and rulings have tried to adjust but it has got harder and harder as the speed, size, athleticism and coaching have changed..
Why do you think League simplified everything in the rules? -
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
If DuPont was standing still with feet planted then it would have been all on Ches.
I'd love to think that was true. But really, it'd be an absolute lottery.
You now see it quite often. DMac took a high ball today and was 'tackled' in the air. Ruled play on as the other players were all standing where he jumped. He jumped into them was the call.
Consistency is a glaring issue though and this morning we saw two near identical 'deliberate knock ons' with very different results under different refs. The only difference was that one was closer to the tryline.
-
At the risk of commenting on something I 'barely' saw. The youtube highlights didn't show a replay, just the 'live' action. That DuPont red.
That was not an 'orthodox' kick chase red. A short & quite low kick with Kolbe cutting in at a 45 degree angle to jump and catch, with Dupont being turned around and probably being very surprised at someone being in that space coming at that angle. No one had time 'to line anything up'.
So, a prescribed decision based on protocols, I'd suggest. Rather than reffing what they werre actually seeing.
But who knows, refs these days 'never miss an opportunity to send some one off, to quote/paraphrase a @Derpus comment that has stuck in my mind ...... so maybe without the protocol he'd have done it anyway
-
Just to come back to Mauls for a moment.
Thinking through the England Women's dominance in this area, and the obvious lack of ability to contest the ball, what are then the obvious solutions?
Given that in every other facet of the game teams are expected to play the ball as soon as it is available, is that an answer? I don't think it would bring about contestability but it would stop these stupid 'anaconda' mauls and ones where the rear player just grabs the shorts in front and walks behind a driving pack.
One stoppage only? Currently the best ability to defend is at the beginning. No second drive means ball must come out even if you start moving forward again.
No splitting away or 'rolling'. At scrum time walking around is penalised. Why are you allowed to do it in mauls?Like any change the tactics will adjust and the ball will stay in the middle of the players to be 'unavailable'. This is when 'non dangerous' bringing the maul down should be allowed. Leg lifting still illegal, taking out the legs still illegal but wrestling the maul down should be allowed.
Any other ideas?
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
Just to come back to Mauls for a moment.
Thinking through the England Women's dominance in this area, and the obvious lack of ability to contest the ball, what are then the obvious solutions?
Given that in every other facet of the game teams are expected to play the ball as soon as it is available, is that an answer? I don't think it would bring about contestability but it would stop these stupid 'anaconda' mauls and ones where the rear player just grabs the shorts in front and walks behind a driving pack.
One stoppage only? Currently the best ability to defend is at the beginning. No second drive means ball must come out even if you start moving forward again.
No splitting away or 'rolling'. At scrum time walking around is penalised. Why are you allowed to do it in mauls?Like any change the tactics will adjust and the ball will stay in the middle of the players to be 'unavailable'. This is when 'non dangerous' bringing the maul down should be allowed. Leg lifting still illegal, taking out the legs still illegal but wrestling the maul down should be allowed.
Any other ideas?
I think that we seem to have ended up in a situation where the ‘stakes are so high’ in a maul situation. Although, incorrectly IMO.
Since the use-it-or-lose-it rule change in 1992.
The referees, gradually en-masse, (therefore by direction from the more recent lunatics who have taken over at the top), have the pre-conceived conclusion that the defending team are always trying to illegally sack every maul or swim around to seal off, to gain scrum possession. Only one side is refereed.
I like a maul, but it blows my mind (and makes it very boring and frustrating) that you aren’t allowed to defend it.
Solutions? :
- simplest IMO would be you are allowed to push sideways as long as you enter from an onside position. With the added advantage for a laws perspective that you will get more legal collapsed mauls as physics of one team pushing straight and another pushing at a different angle will result in imbalance and collapse
- second, not every collapsed maul is from a nefarious act, sometimes 16 men pushing in different directions just end up on the floor. Sometimes a person ends up on the wrong side but detaches and retreats. Let it go.
- A nuclear option would be to remove use-it-or-lose-it. But this result in more scrums (which have their own refereeing issues), But I doubt necessary if 2 above are adopted.
What is the jeopardy at a maul situation?
- on attacking side; you have got a team trying to milk a penalty (effortlessly), to move 50m up field , to set up the exact same situation but this time probably from a line out 5m out. If you stuff up, big deal, you lose possession
- the defending side; you have a team simply trying to win possession via collapsing/sealing, or simply halt momentum. If you stuff up, it's almost guaranteed points to the opposition if within 60m of your line. Either way it is 40 to 50m territory penalty plus possession given away at that lineout.
The balance is way out of whack. The jeopardy for the defenders needs to be rebalanced, the imperviousness to laws for the attackers needs to be rebalanced.
In the WRWC final on Saturday I only managed to watch 1 minute of it. In that minute England had a maul and milked a penalty (for god knows what, a defender having the temerity to getting spat out the back but then immediately retreating, by the looks of it), then kicked the resulting penalty to 5m out. I then left and did something else, I presume England scored a try from that line out. If they didn’t, then they should hang their heads in shame because it is a gimme.
-
@Rapido i go even more simple...allow them to be sacked, make the attacking team get better at staying on the feet if they want to maul upfield, defending team can then gamble on if they want to end up with a couple of their players on the ground and out of the game
-
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
Thinking through the England Women's dominance in this area, and the obvious lack of ability to contest the ball, what are then the obvious solutions?
what highlighted the headache for me is they were awesome at it -- but really struggled to defend it. Shows the issues.
Risk/reward is not right. Single use seems so much better - and better clarity on what people can do defensively. Penalties rock up randomly, and it's usually only the defending team.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well
Absolutely this. There are two sets of rules at a maul depending on whether you are the attacking team, or the defending team. Make the attacking players have to join behind the ball carrier, not on the side or in front of the ball-carrier. Too many truck and trailers are ignored as well.
-
I think the mens game can take a leaf out of the womens game in the way the ref and TMO interacted, these were done professionally and most importantly, quickly, wasnt several minutes delay while looking for a reason to overturn a try or why they should card someone, often seemed the TMO had been looking at it waiting for the ref to ask about it.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
Stuff
