PDA

View Full Version : Changes to the six nations



McCloud
25th-March-2011, 07:37
Time to ring the changes in six nations
By Hugh Farrelly



Friday March 25 2011


Remaining mired in the past is never healthy; something which became apparent on a recent visit to an over-35s nightclub in Dublin.


Carrying the refreshingly unambiguous title of Cougars, this O'Connell Bridge club follows in the proud tradition of establishments such as the old Sach's Hotel on Morehampton Road and Cork's legendary 'mature' hot spots Sidetrax and Counihan's (known affectionately as The Shelf Arms).


Cougars provides bottles of that 1990s nectar Ritz, patrons who can recall the Pope's visit to Ireland, and DJs who eschew the ecstasy-spawned horror that is 'dance' music in favour of the once-revered slow set and rockin' tunes by KLF and Shaggy.


Pure escapism, a chance to recall a time when you used to sit down without groaning, pronounce your plosives without spitting and dim the lights for romantic rather than economic reasons.


However, in terms of progression toward life fulfilment, these sashays into Nostalgiaville are ultimately self-defeating. Baggage jams the cloakroom (with a special section for broken dreams) and no matter how loud the music, it cannot drown out the sound of clocks ticking in the heads of desperate punters.


Tradition features heavily when the Six Nations is annually extolled as the premier tournament in world rugby and, in those terms, this northern hemisphere joust still holds a Cougar-esque allure.


But, when you stand back from the nostalgia and assess the merits of the Six Nations analytically, the inescapable conclusion is that it is does little to progress the claims of its competing countries in their continual battle to measure up to the southern hemisphere big three.


This was a pretty average championship and will not have the New Zealanders, Australians or South Africans dreading the inter-hemisphere contests at the World Cup. So, what can be done to quieten the southern catcalls and unfavourable comparisons with the Super 15 and Tri Nations?


The most obvious change is the introduction of the bonus-point system that exists successfully in virtually every other rugby tournament. Too many Six Nations matches peter out tamely when, if teams were chasing a losing or four-try bonus point, the onus would be on more attacking rugby rather than merely seeing the game out.


With the Six Nations still pulling in massive viewing figures, there exists an 'if it ain't broke' attitude on this issue, which cloaks the bigger picture.


Another welcome change would be using the same make of ball in every match. Without having the time, or energy, to go into the commercial aspects to this problem, surely it makes sense to negate the adjustment problems that occurred in this championship, evoking memories of the infamous "pig" problems on Ireland's tour to New Zealand in 2002.


A third change, and one not limited to the Six Nations, would be the introduction of a review system to cope with questionable decisions.


Valid


As it stands, the video ref can only look at the act of scoring to determine whether a try is valid. Thus, when Jonathan Kaplan was told the right ball was used for the quick line-out throw that led to Mike Phillips' try against Ireland, he had nowhere to go as the Welshman had clearly grounded the ball.


In Ireland's win over England, Brian O'Driscoll's first-half try was called back for a forward pass but, even though Tommy Bowe's delivery looked perfectly valid, there was no way of establishing that fact.


The solution is to bring in the review system used in cricket. Each team could have the right to challenge one decision per match which, given the high stakes and narrow margins in modern rugby, is no more than they deserve.


Finally, international rugby needs to fall into line with the club game and introduce an extra prop to the replacements bench.


The IRB told the Irish Independent a few weeks ago that there are no plans to increase match

mtcmolloy
25th-March-2011, 07:46
good article.. best example is how france just went through the motions for their second half against us, and we came up with nothing to stop them. the bonus point idea is a must for this situation.


having said that< i enjoyed the 6N tremendously this year, my fave games being ita-fra, eng-sco, ire-eng.

Hugged Rugger
25th-March-2011, 08:02
Bonus points could mean teams winning grand slams but not winning the tournament. Unikely I know but possible

Also I don't know if bonus points in a tournament that isn't played on a.home and away basis works well either

blackadder
25th-March-2011, 08:09
Also I don't know if bonus points in a tournament that isn't played on a.home and away basis works well either


This.


Although having said that the Championship is already weighted in favour of teams with 3 home games, England being the case in point this season, the main reason why there was so much hype surrounding them was that while they did well to win in Wales they had a run of three homes games on the trot which inevitably led to an unrealistic view of how good they were.

Balla Boy
25th-March-2011, 08:18
I'm not sure that BP's would add all that much. In a tournament where top 2 teams have often won and lost the same amountof games points difference is already a telling factor in a lot of years.


If it's meant to encourage tries as an end in itself then it might, I suppose. But my guess is that the issue in terms of conservatism is that in a short tournament where the margins of winning and losing overall are often so narrow, teams naturally revert to what we'd all recognise as cup rugby.


I'm not sure that there's much to be done about that. The world cup will be exactly the same, and almost always is.


The only solution that springs to mind is wholly impractical - to play home and away so that one loss isn't the end of the world.

antipopper
25th-March-2011, 08:58
They dont wanna bring in Bonus Points because there is the slim chance then of a team winning the grand slam but someone else winning the championship.
EG. Grand Slam Team wins all 5 with no BP - 20 pts
Championship team wins 4 with BPs and a losing BP - 21 pts

As for challenges it works fine in NFL, Cricket and Tennis but they are stop start sports , its trickier in Rugby.

How will they know whether to challenge or not?
Can a coach challenge it or is it down to the players judgement on the field?
Will they have the chance to see a replay on the screen etc. and challlenge the decision then. In that case you could have sennanigans where a home team doesnt bother showing a replay if it favours an away team.

If a try arose from a line break from a foward pass 2-3 mins previously , can you challenge that making the previous 2-3mins redundant.


Edit: I forgot to say aswell, if a team gets their challenge right they should be allowed one more. To stop endless challenges if their 2nd one is right they dont get any more. Another thing could be 1 challenge per half ,something like that.

Ruck
25th-March-2011, 09:14
There are only two changes that I would make to the 6 nations.
23 man squads would be the main one.
And as a whole, I'd like to see the NH Calendar reviewed, with more structure put to it.

Ruck
25th-March-2011, 09:17
The introduction of Bonus Points has been proved unworkable many times by the way. You'd have to introduce home and away fixtures to make it workable, and there just isn't room in the calendar for that.

evanderch
25th-March-2011, 10:48
I'd like to see a change introduced whereby, if two teams are tied at the top of the table, the head to head decides who wins the championship rather than points difference.


There are not enough games to use BP's when home and away is not used.


Challenges can be difficult. We have all seen forward passes being missed but how do you adjudicate for backwards out of hand but forward on momentum? That would turn into a right mess expecially on the 22 where a line is marked. Marginal calls like these would have to be referred back to the referees on field decision which would render the decision process useless. Also, penalties could be challenged - where to draw the line?

GoodFeather
25th-March-2011, 11:02
I'd like to see a change introduced whereby, if two teams are tied at the top of the table, the head to head decides who wins the championship rather than points difference.If this had been the case this year, england would've won the championship outright after round 4, as wales were the only team who could equal them on points, but having already lost to england they wouldn't be able to overtake them in the championship table even if they did manage to beat france.

Dowlinz
25th-March-2011, 11:12
The gap between the top and bottom teams in the 6N is very slim compared to the chasm in the Heineken Cup and World Cup. It's necessary in the HC to give incentive for the big teams to have something to do against the weaker or already eliminated teams.

I'd personally "like" it because it'd give an added degree of complexity to games and increase the number of permutations possible. But I don't think its necessary

25th-March-2011, 11:50
The other thing with BPs is they're used for tournaments where they either have a long season with H/A format or they decide qualifying. BPs rarely get used, for the reasons above, where the tournament is a short group format that is an end in itself. The need to differentiate between teams arises less. Bearing in mind the only place with anything on it is first, it's not like most tournaments with BPs where half or more of the places carry a value to them.

I don't like the challenge system but I do like the ref being able to ask the video assistant did he use the right ball or was his foot in touch by the 22 etc. League (I believe) still uses this for was the chaser/scorer behind the kicker. We're talking about a point in the game where play stops anyway and when play stops in rugby it stops, it's not like a quick interlude so it's not as big a deal as people think.

Plus, most importantly, video refs only get used in high level games, it's not like your average game has them so it's only going to apply to a small percentage of the total games around the world each year anyway.

And I'd give a vote for 23 man squads as well. Part of the safety aspect is how experienced props are at a level. People tend to forget the danger of a guy with feck all international experience having to play a full match. With 2 prop subs that opens up more options for bedding players in as well - which can't hurt safety.

McCloud
25th-March-2011, 11:54
As others have said bonus points won't work unless the format changes to home and away. No space in the calander for that.


23 man squad and more important officials who know what they are doing.

antipopper
25th-March-2011, 11:57
Challenges can be difficult. We have all seen
forward passes being missed but how do you adjudicate for backwards out
of hand but forward on momentum?





And most bloody pundits dont even make viewers aware that that is the rule i dont even think they know themselves.

evanderch
25th-March-2011, 12:05
I'd like to see a change introduced whereby, if two teams are tied at the top of the table, the head to head decides who wins the championship rather than points difference.


If this had been the case this year, england would've won the championship outright after round 4, as wales were the only team who could equal them on points, but having already lost to england they wouldn't be able to overtake them in the championship table even if they did manage to beat france.




And if Phillips try against us had been ruled out and we won the Welsh game, the final gamebetween England and Ireland would have been a real winner takes all as opposed to Ireland needing to win by a mrgin of 30-40 points to overcome what England did to Italy.


As it turned out this year, the tournament was pretty much over by round 4 as the events needed for Wales to overtake England meant that even after we beat England, Wales still needed to beat France in France by almost 30 points.

RobbieG
25th-March-2011, 12:55
As people say BP system only works in home & away format: 23 man squad: & Cheerleaders smileys/wink.gif

Dumptruck
25th-March-2011, 13:52
I'd like to see a change whereby all of our starting 15 have to be U-22.

Clubman
25th-March-2011, 19:23
Wonder is that the same nightclub my daughter refers to as Jurassic Park?smileys/lol.gif

Waterfordlad
28th-March-2011, 07:27
I'd like to see a change whereby all of our starting 15 have to be U-22.





Ageist!!

Kingfisher234
28th-March-2011, 08:16
Poor article .... spent half the time giving free advertising to a MI(W)LF venue and then only came up with one sensible (and even then probably impractical suggestion). The bonus point system cant be introduced to this competition for exactly the reason mentioned above .... it would make an absolute mockery of over a hundred years of competition if a team which won 4 matches was awarded the championship despite the fact that another team took the Grand Slam.

One has to wonder would Farrelly have even penned this article had the Phillips try not occurred. Such controversy hardly ever happens (except when in the actual process of downing the ball) and to introduce a rule whereby teams have the right to question a ref's decision would create a two tier set of rules between international and all other levels (I assume no ones suggesting such a rule be introduced at club level where the rewards and losses are arguably greater). Its just typical knee jerking.

I think the extra prop would be great but the expense already imposed due to Italys joining the Magners would add tens of thousands to clubs costs per annum with no appreciable benefit. If it was financially viable Im sure they would have introduced it.

Piquet
28th-March-2011, 08:22
but how do you adjudicate for
backwards out of hand but forward on momentum?*

Easy, it's a forward pass.

Hugonaut
28th-March-2011, 08:26
Poor article .... spent half the time giving free advertising to a MI(W)LF and then only came up with one sensible (and even then probably impractical suggestion). The bonus point system cant eb introduced to this competition for exactly the reason suggested above .... it would make an absolute mockery of over a hundred years of competition if a team which won 4 matches was awarded the championship despite the fact that another team took the Grand Slam.

One has to wonder would Farrelly have even penned this article had the Phillips try not occurred. Such controversy hardly ever happens (except when in the actual process of downing the ball) and to introduce a rule whereby teams have the right to question a ref's decision would create a two tier set of rules between international and all other levels (I assume no ones suggesting such a rule be introduced at club level where the rewards and losses are arguably greater). Its just typical knee jerking.

I think the extra prop would be great but the expense already imposed due to Italys joining the Magners would add tens of thousands to clubs costs per annum with no appreciable benefit. If it was financially viable Im sure they would have introduced it.



One ball for the tournament makes an absolute ton of sense. It seems really odd that you have to play with a different ball every game [essentially] in the same tournament.

The nonsense about introducing a bonus point system has been well dealt with above. I'd also point out that Rome and Paris at the end of March have a fairly sizeable difference in weather conditions than Lansdowne and Murrayfield in early February ... it's a hell of a lot easier to score a bucketload of tries with a dry ball on a hard pitch on a sunny day than it is to score with a bar of soap on a pissing wet Sunday afternoon when it's 3 degrees and dark at half past four in the afternoon.

The 23-man squad thing is weird. Wait, you can afford to fly 22 players and a massive support staff over, but you can't afford a 23rd player? Are you taking the pss? Whatever about the massive recession, the countries that play in the 6 Nations are all first world economies ... I think they can manage an extra tracksuit, an extra hotel-room and an extra flight.

Kingfisher234
28th-March-2011, 08:36
The 23-man squad thing is weird. Wait, you can afford to fly 22 players and a massive support staff over, but you can't afford a 23rd player? Are you taking the p�ss? Whatever about the massive recession, the countries that play in the 6 Nations are all first world economies ... I think they can manage an extra tracksuit, an extra hotel-room and an extra flight.

Yes Im sure they could manage all of that but clearly it doesnt just end there ... if you have an extra full time squad member to provide for you have an extra contract, the clubs with whom theyre playing have to then provide for that player being gone for a large part of the season and put the necessary cover in place.

If it were just a case of an extra five hundred quid per match, Ive no doubt they would have run with it. Anyway, the figures dont warrant it ...how many matches at top level end up with non-contesting scrums ...if it was an epidemic Id understand the call for it ... but we're way off that

As for the ball? Ive never heard the players going on about it ... the Unions need to maximise profits and I would hazard a guess that the palying conditions have a lot more impact on the game than infintesimal differences in the balls

AdolphusGrigson
28th-March-2011, 08:43
A bonus point systemis probably a good idea - but perhaps it should only come into play if teams are equal on points - that helps get round the problem of the big points difference gained fromjust one game.

Hugonaut
28th-March-2011, 09:29
Yes Im sure they could manage all of that but clearly it doesnt just end there ... if you have an extra full time squad member to provide for you have an extra contract, the clubs with whom theyre playing have to then provide for that player being gone for a large part of the season and put the necessary cover in place.

If it were just a case of an extra five hundred quid per match, Ive no doubt they would have run with it. Anyway, the figures dont warrant it ...how many matches at top level end up with non-contesting scrums ...if it was an epidemic Id understand the call for it ... but we're way off that

As for the ball? Ive never heard the players going on about it ... the Unions need to maximise profits and I would hazard a guess that the palying conditions have a lot more impact on the game than infintesimal differences in the balls



Fair points Kingfisher, fair points.

busbi
28th-March-2011, 09:31
but how do you
adjudicate for
backwards out of hand but forward on momentum?*

Easy, it's a forward pass.

Thank god you have nothing to do with drafting the laws of the
game.

cornerboy
28th-March-2011, 09:52
Would like to see a reduction in the number of subs that can be used. Still have 22 or 23 in match day squad but only be allowed to use 4. I hate the giving out of easy caps and the disruption caused to the game when wholesale changes are made.

28th-March-2011, 10:26
The 23-man squad thing is weird. Wait, you can afford to fly 22 players and a massive support staff over, but you can't afford a 23rd player? Are you taking the p�ss? Whatever about the massive recession, the countries that play in the 6 Nations are all first world economies ... I think they can manage an extra tracksuit, an extra hotel-room and an extra flight.

Yes Im sure they could manage all of that but clearly it doesnt just end there ... if you have an extra full time squad member to provide for you have an extra contract, the clubs with whom theyre playing have to then provide for that player being gone for a large part of the season and put the necessary cover in place.

If it were just a case of an extra five hundred quid per match, Ive no doubt they would have run with it. Anyway, the figures dont warrant it ...how many matches at top level end up with non-contesting scrums ...if it was an epidemic Id understand the call for it ... but we're way off that

As for the ball? Ive never heard the players going on about it ... the Unions need to maximise profits and I would hazard a guess that the palying conditions have a lot more impact on the game than infintesimal differences in the balls




I'm surprised you haven't heard the players going on about the ball, because when Italy first came into the tournament, it was all a lot of players were talking about, having to use a different ball for one off games. Even most of their players weren't used to it. Similar situation with Ireland and NZ both complaining about the special addidas ball used in 2002 tests. Merhtens (IIRC) described it like kicking a sack. They need to make sure that the different balls are closer in design than just having the same pressure levels.

I understand what you're saying on 23rd man but in simplifying you're possibly making it seem harder than it is. Many countries take more than 22 players to the matches anyway. Firstly none of the sides have 22 man training squads during the 6N, they all run bigger squads. Secondly they all carry spares to games when there's doubts over fitness etc. It's not actually as big a change as people think. As for contracts, those that have contracts will have season long ones, those that don't will be paying for the time of that player being in squad sessions, kept over in case required etc anyway. These days not all players are released to clubs even when not in the 22.

Tobyglen
28th-March-2011, 10:53
Bring in the BP, it might improve the quality of the rugby
because it's been s**te for a few years now.

NotreDameRFC
28th-March-2011, 11:05
Bring in the BP, it might improve the quality of the rugby
because it's been s**te for a few years now.


Tend to agree with you TG. I watched a re run of the Wales Ireland Gslam match from 09 recently and match ( in terms of quality was dire especially 1st half).... but then again it was exciting at the time!

Piquet
28th-March-2011, 11:57
but how do you
adjudicate for
backwards out of hand but forward on
momentum?*

Easy, it's a forward pass.

Thank god you have nothing to do with drafting the laws of
the
game.



There is no mention of "momentum" in law 12 of the Game
of Rugby Union
Have a read of it yourself at:
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/3/12/during-the-
match/knock-on-or-throw-forward/


EDIT: It is, however, mentioned in an explanatory note in
Page
22 of this document:
http://www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/clientdocs/rugby_laws_boo
k_2004_.pdf which is entitled " "The International Laws of
the Game and Notes on the Laws". published by the Rugby
League International Federation.

This latter document also states that " If the ball is passed
correctly but bounces forward or is blown forward by the
wind, there is no infringement and play should
continue"

Of course, Rugby League is a different game to Rugby
Union.

FURTHER EDIT:

The Laws of Rugby Union define "Forward" as being
"towards the opposing teams dead ball line."the Laws of
Rugby League as found in the document cited above
states: " The direction of a pass is relative to the player
making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground"

As I said above, a different game.

Raging Bullock
28th-March-2011, 19:06
A little off topic but anyone know where i might get a copy of
the recent Ireland V England match on DVD?thanks.

The Bandwagon
28th-March-2011, 21:15
but how do you
adjudicate for
backwards out of hand but forward on momentum?*

Easy, it's a forward pass.

If that were the case though, many passes would be ruled
forward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s

Piquet
29th-March-2011, 05:22
but how do you
adjudicate for
backwards out of hand but forward on
momentum?*

Easy, it's a forward pass.

If that were the case though, many passes would be ruled
forward.


Of course they would and rightly so.

It's up to the player passing the ball to ensure that he
takes account of his own momentum when passing the ball
to ensure that it travels behind him.

Allowing for the player's momentum when passing the ball
is like saying that, when a player runs on to a ball, tries to
catch it and it goes forward, it was his momentum that
caused it to go forward and it's not a knock on.

gunners37
29th-March-2011, 05:45
Bonus points could mean teams winning grand slams but not winning the tournament. Unikely I know but possible

Also I don't know if bonus points in a tournament that isn't played on a.home and away basis works well either





Agreed. But I think a simple solution is having a bonus point system up to a maximum of 3 bonus points. Bonus points would not cause a grand slam winning team to lose the championships but would decide on placings between teams in a better manner than the current points difference method.

busbi
29th-March-2011, 07:48
but how do you
adjudicate for
backwards out of hand but forward on
momentum?*

Easy, it's a forward pass.

If that were the case though, many passes would be ruled
forward.


Of course they would and rightly so.

It's up to the player passing the ball to ensure that he
takes account of his own momentum when passing the ball
to ensure that it travels behind him.

Allowing for the player's momentum when passing the ball
is like saying that, when a player runs on to a ball, tries to
catch it and it goes forward, it was his momentum that
caused it to go forward and it's not a knock on.



Your notion would put a stop to any passing when a player
is running forward and thus put a complete stop to any
proper running rugby. How about you go out in the back
garden with a buddy of yours and see how practical it is for
it to be up to yourself to take account for forward
momentum.

You're not a civil servant by any chance?

Piquet
29th-March-2011, 08:14
Yes, it's difficult to do but it's all about practice.

You just have to make sure that when the ball arrives at
your team mate, he is not closer to the opponents' goal line
than you were when you threw it.

You won't manage this the first time you try it but it's a skill
that can be improved with practice.

No I'm not a Civil Servant. Your apparent need to
personalise the argument merely displays a weakness in
your point.

busbi
29th-March-2011, 09:13
Your bureaucratic standpoint clearly can't absorb basic common
sense. Thankfully things are the way they are on this issue and
nobody will be foolish enough to destroy the game to change it.

Piquet
29th-March-2011, 09:36
Your bureaucratic standpoint clearly can't
absorb basic common sense. Thankfully things are the way
they are on this issue and nobody will be foolish enough to
destroy the game to change it.

On the contrary, the Law forbidding the ball from being
passed forward is one of the Laws that distinguish the
game of Rugby Union Football from other football games.

Busbi, the number of blatant forward passes that go
uncalled has gone beyond a joke in recent times. Similarly
the amount of crooked put-ins to a scrum. There are other
examples, that don't come immediately to mind, of Laws
being "relaxed" in their interpretation so as to "speed up
the game" " make the game more attractive" or other such
reason.

They are changing the very nature of the game. It is no co-
incidence that the video referenced above originated in
Australia. they seem to be trying every trick they know to
counteract the attraction of Rugby League.

What they are, in fact doing is making the two games more
like each other.

The Bandwagon
29th-March-2011, 10:15
Your bureaucratic
standpoint clearly can't
absorb basic common sense. Thankfully things are the way
they are on this issue and nobody will be foolish enough to
destroy the game to change it.

On the contrary, the Law forbidding the ball from being
passed forward is one of the Laws that distinguish the
game of Rugby Union Football from other football games.

Busbi, the number of blatant forward passes that go
uncalled has gone beyond a joke in recent times. Similarly
the amount of crooked put-ins to a scrum. There are other
examples, that don't come immediately to mind, of Laws
being "relaxed" in their interpretation so as to "speed up
the game" " make the game more attractive" or other such
reason.

They are changing the very nature of the game. It is no co-
incidence that the video referenced above originated in
Australia. they seem to be trying every trick they know to
counteract the attraction of Rugby League.

What they are, in fact doing is making the two games more
like each other.


I agree that the number of blatant forward passes is
increasing but what you're proposing is a form of rugby
that has never been played. Momentum has always been
ignored. Without it, tries like this would never have
happened:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?
<br / target="_blank">v=AwCbG4I0QyA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=AwCbG4I0QyA</a>

Piquet
29th-March-2011, 10:34
I take it you're referring to the Dagg try: Firstly, the ball went
into the second row of the scrum. Secondly the player making
the scoring pass was moving across the field. Most of his
momentum was towards the Touchline and he still managed to
throw the ball forward.

29th-March-2011, 17:20
Bonus
points could mean teams winning grand slams but not
winning the tournament. Unikely I know but possible Also I
don't know if bonus points in a tournament that isn't played
on a.home and away basis works well either


*


Agreed. But I think a simple solution is having a bonus
point system up to a maximum of 3 bonus points. Bonus
points would not cause a grand slam winning team to lose
the championships but would decide on placings between
teams in a better manner than the current points difference
method.

simpler still you give an extra BP for each game if you win
all your games, that way you recognise the achievement.

Clubman
29th-March-2011, 17:32
but how do you

adjudicate for

backwards out of hand but forward on

momentum?



Easy, it's a forward pass.



If that were the case though, many passes would be ruled

forward.





Of course they would and rightly so.



It's up to the player passing the ball to ensure that he

takes account of his own momentum when passing the ball

to ensure that it travels behind him.



Allowing for the player's momentum when passing the ball

is like saying that, when a player runs on to a ball, tries to

catch it and it goes forward, it was his momentum that

caused it to go forward and it's not a knock on.







Your notion would put a stop to any passing when a player

is running forward and thus put a complete stop to any

proper running rugby. How about you go out in the back

garden with a buddy of yours and see how practical it is for

it to be up to yourself to take account for forward

momentum.



You're not a civil servant by any chance?

I find myself on the same side as Piquet here again.

Look at it this way. If a hurler is running across the goal, he has to compensate for his own momentum when striking. Should the umpire allow a point if it goes wide because of momentum? Same thing with forward pass. It's either forward or lateral or better, no ifs, buts or ands.

Actually, watching a Magners match recently, not sure who was playing but a pretty good ref in charge. A guy was tackled, put the ball back clearly, but, on its end. So, the ball bounced forward and the ref gave a "lost forward" call, correctly.

ustix
29th-March-2011, 17:53
but how do you

adjudicate for

backwards out of hand but forward on

momentum?



Easy, it's a forward pass.



If that were the case though, many passes would be ruled

forward.





Of course they would and rightly so.



It's up to the player passing the ball to ensure that he

takes account of his own momentum when passing the ball

to ensure that it travels behind him.



Allowing for the player's momentum when passing the ball

is like saying that, when a player runs on to a ball, tries to

catch it and it goes forward, it was his momentum that

caused it to go forward and it's not a knock on.







Your notion would put a stop to any passing when a player

is running forward and thus put a complete stop to any

proper running rugby. How about you go out in the back

garden with a buddy of yours and see how practical it is for

it to be up to yourself to take account for forward

momentum.



You're not a civil servant by any chance?

I find myself on the same side as Piquet here again.

Look at it this way. If a hurler is running across the goal, he has to compensate for his own momentum when striking. Should the umpire allow a point if it goes wide because of momentum? Same thing with forward pass. It's either forward or lateral or better, no ifs, buts or ands.

Actually, watching a Magners match recently, not sure who was playing but a pretty good ref in charge. A guy was tackled, put the ball back clearly, but, on its end. So, the ball bounced forward and the ref gave a "lost forward" call, correctly.

Correct. Correctly applied rules is the ideal.

Piquet
30th-March-2011, 05:07
I find myself on the same side as Piquet here again.




Jaysus, Clubman, go easy. If it ever gets back home that the two of us are agreeing with each other, neither of us will be able to show our faces in public again.http://www.munsterfans.com/forum/smileys/biggrin.gif

limkman1
1st-April-2011, 15:30
2012 fixtures on
http://www.irishrugby.ie/rugby/six_nations_results_and_fixtu res.php?includeref=4232&amp;season=2011-2012