Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Laws Question. Ask here! 2016 Laws changes Post #113

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by EarlyRetirement View Post
    Wilkinson is a very frustrating ref. He just doesn't have the rugby intelligence. Good refs these days only call 'in from the side' or 'off the feet' at ruck time if it has prevented the other team from making a turnover. Wilkinson just blows his whistle. Makes for a terrible spectacle. The Sothern Hemishere refs and Owens only call it where it interfered with the opposition. The result of enforcing it is a stop start game and a terrible spectacle. His refereeing a scrum time was guess work.
    I don't think its just Owens and SH refs. He does ref by the law book a bit more than just the flow/feel of the game but that isn't really an issue. That is makes a terrible spectacle is opinion and he does follow the laws so what he does isn't really that much of an issue.
    We have a generation of refs like Wilkinson in Ireland especially. You would think Lacey having played the game at a decent level would have the rugby intelligence but he is probably the biggest culprit on the world stage. I'm really hoping Frank Murphy can make a success of it and becomes a top referee as it might open up a pathway for former pros to become refs. Young Whitehouse is the only young ref I have seen who has it and it's no surprise with the upbringing he undoubtedly had.
    It isn't rugby intelligence I would say a "feel for the game". While great to see former pro's becoming refs it is very hard for most as majority will not or ever have the persona to referee.
    It's a brutally tough job, I thought about it and while I fell I'd be strong on my understanding of the game, I wouldn't have the composure or natural authority to ref. I fear there is a bit of a crisis on the horizon in the northern hemisphere reffing wise and I don't know how they fix it. Former pro's or academy/sub academy drop offs are the people I'd be targetting. Players on both sides yesterday were fed up with the ref and both with justification in my opinion.
    Refereeing is tough. If your laws knowledge is strong then you would be surprised at how easy the rest can come. I would be far from having high confidence etc but hasn't stopped me doing quite well in my refereeing so far.
    While getting some former pros/academy drop offs would be great and should be looked at. I would target much more those who drop out of playing at 19-23/24 who may still enjoy the game a lot and would like to stay involved in the sport.

    Comment


      I havn't thought this through hugely but how outrageous would it be to ban jumping to catch or receive kicks. Anecdotely it seems a huge amount of the serious injuries (head or otherwise) are coming from players in the air from kicks. It is lethal and a matter of time before a neck is broken. Would prevent a situation today where Hogg went straight over Collins who was waiting for the ball and knocked the Northampton player out.

      It might deter from the kick chase game which while effective at times is not easy on the eye. Downsides aren't immediately coming to me and I think it may be workable. I havn't bounced the idea off anyone though. It would mean that good positioning is key.

      Comment


        Originally posted by EarlyRetirement View Post
        I havn't thought this through hugely but how outrageous would it be to ban jumping to catch or receive kicks. Anecdotely it seems a huge amount of the serious injuries (head or otherwise) are coming from players in the air from kicks. It is lethal and a matter of time before a neck is broken. Would prevent a situation today where Hogg went straight over Collins who was waiting for the ball and knocked the Northampton player out.

        It might deter from the kick chase game which while effective at times is not easy on the eye. Downsides aren't immediately coming to me and I think it may be workable. I havn't bounced the idea off anyone though. It would mean that good positioning is key.
        I don't see any real point in this. There is a risk in challenging for the ball in the air of injury but there is potential for serious injury in many areas of the game. Doing that would aid defenders much more and is that a good thing?

        Comment


          Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
          I don't see any real point in this. There is a risk in challenging for the ball in the air of injury but there is potential for serious injury in many areas of the game. Doing that would aid defenders much more and is that a good thing?
          My major problem with this area though is that it's so dangerous and the risk of injury so high, they don't practice it in training. There is no other area of the game where that is the case. While it's an impressive skill to be able to leap into the air and take the ball at full flight, it is ultimately a test of courage. Trimble for example is kamakaze in the air. No fear for his own body.

          By aiding defenders, do you feel it would benefit the team who kicked the ball or the team the ball is kicked to? I'm undecided how it would play out. My only reasoning currently is that the team receiving the kick will most like catch it as they are in position earliest. However, they are being lined up to be smashed in the tackle. What's your reasoning OL? As I said I havn't thought this one through yet.

          Comment


            Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
            I don't see any real point in this. There is a risk in challenging for the ball in the air of injury but there is potential for serious injury in many areas of the game. Doing that would aid defenders much more and is that a good thing?
            Using his knee as an offensive weapon certainly assisted the defender (Hogg) massively this evening. I hope that the unfortunate Collins makes a full recovery.
            New infraction avoidance policy: a post may be described as imbecilic, but its author should never be described as an imbecile.

            Comment


              Originally posted by EarlyRetirement View Post
              My major problem with this area though is that it's so dangerous and the risk of injury so high, they don't practice it in training. There is no other area of the game where that is the case. While it's an impressive skill to be able to leap into the air and take the ball at full flight, it is ultimately a test of courage. Trimble for example is kamakaze in the air. No fear for his own body.

              By aiding defenders, do you feel it would benefit the team who kicked the ball or the team the ball is kicked to? I'm undecided how it would play out. My only reasoning currently is that the team receiving the kick will most like catch it as they are in position earliest. However, they are being lined up to be smashed in the tackle. What's your reasoning OL? As I said I havn't thought this one through yet.
              Players do practice this in training. By keeping people on the ground means a player can wait for ball to land and then just launch themselves into who waited for ball to land. Is that better than what exists now?
              Banning jumping to catch or receive kicks is ridiculous. Scrums are potentially very dangerous. Should we also ban them as the risk of injury is so high?

              Comment


                I'm on the phone so can't link properly, maybe someone can click the link below and copy on here

                Has rugby union become too complicated a game for its own good? https://t.co/48wWlACG8g
                "Everything good about Ireland can be found in County Cork"....Lonely Planet Guide 2012

                Comment


                  Hi 2 questions
                  1. If a 22 drop out manages to get to the Opposition ingoal, can the opposition dot down for a scrum back on the 22?
                  - context I believe this to be the case from a "full restart" from Half way wondered did it follow through for 22's.

                  2. team takes possession of ball outside their 22, couple of phases later, they have lost ground and are in their own 22, if they clear direct then the Line out should be level from whre it was kicked - PLEASE CONFIRM or correct me. I am asking as JP Doyle seemed to get this one badly wrong at one point in the F V I

                  Thanks

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Intercept View Post
                    Hi 2 questions
                    1. If a 22 drop out manages to get to the Opposition ingoal, can the opposition dot down for a scrum back on the 22?
                    - context I believe this to be the case from a "full restart" from Half way wondered did it follow through for 22's.

                    2. team takes possession of ball outside their 22, couple of phases later, they have lost ground and are in their own 22, if they clear direct then the Line out should be level from whre it was kicked - PLEASE CONFIRM or correct me. I am asking as JP Doyle seemed to get this one badly wrong at one point in the F V I

                    Thanks
                    1 Yes its a scrum back if the ball reaches the in goal area and opposition make the ball dead
                    2. If there has been a few phases, as in rucks etc and they kick the lineout is where the ball went out not where it was kicked.
                    If the kick had been before any tackle/number of phases had taken place the lineout would be where the ball was kicked

                    Comment


                      Interesting.... I would have thought it was a 22 drop out ! If it had gone through the in goal or out of bounds in goal then of course its a scrum back. But the fact it was touched down it would be a 22 drop out to defending team ??

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by CorcĂ­och View Post
                        I like them all to one degree or another..... It's obvious that they are trying to promote a certain type of game, or at least increase the emphasis on a certain type of game.

                        However while it's a worthy idea it does nothing to challenge the primary obstacle to such a playing style in the modern game......SPACE.

                        Lack of space is the primary obstacle, especially at Test level, to dynamic running Rugby geared towards try scoring..... Open play, off the cuff exciting play.

                        As opposed to up the jumper 9/ 10 man rugby playing for Penalty after Penalty or just winning by scoring penos
                        I agree, that a lack of space is stifling modern day rugby. At the recent Wales match, a mate pointed out that players have all got much bigger, faster, fitter and more organised in defence but the pitches are the same size as over 100 years ago.

                        So this suggests the obvious soluton is

                        1. Reduce the number of players by at least 2 (I.e. Get rid of both flankers)
                        2. Possibly lose one centre also (maybe do 1 first, and consider 2 on review)
                        3. Reduce the number of subs e.g 5or 6 say
                        4. Tackles below the waist only, as Frankie Sheehan suggests (this would reduce concussion injuries, promote offloads&attack, reduce effectiveness of some modern negative defence tactics e.g. chest high, smother & choke tackles etc)

                        I think these 4 measures would radically improve modern rugby union. They would instantly create space, hugely reduce the number of collisions and rucks, reduce injuries a lot and lead to significantly more scores, and to more attacking rugby.

                        World rugby should do it imho.

                        P.s. Yes some die hards will say 13 a side would appear to be copying rugby league. So What!? People will get over it.
                        P.p.s. Countries and sides that like negative rugby would likely resist these improvements e.g. SA, England & Argentina, ( Georgia & Romania). The first 2 or 3?are the only ones who matter really and they would have to be won over on the improvement in the marketability of the sport and the likely increase in national & global reach of the game.
                        Last edited by Daithi; 16th-February-2016, 15:46.
                        ____________________________________________
                        Munster were great when they were Munster.

                        alas they are just north munster now.......
                        ____________________________________________

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Daithi View Post
                          I agree, that a lack of space is stifling modern day rugby. At the recent Wales match, a mate pointed out that players have all got much bigger, faster, fitter and more organised in defence but the pitches are the same size as over 100 years ago.

                          So this suggests the obvious soluton is

                          1. Reduce the number of players by at least 2 (I.e. Get rid of both flankers)
                          2. Possibly lose one centre also (maybe do 1 first, and consider 2 on review)
                          3. Reduce the number of subs e.g 5or 6 say
                          4. Tackles below the waist only, as Frankie Sheehan suggests (this would reduce concussion injuries, promote offloads&attack, reduce effectiveness of some modern negative defence tactics e.g. chest high, smother & choke tackles etc)

                          I think these 4 measures would radically improve modern rugby union. They would instantly create space, hugely reduce the number of collisions and rucks, reduce injuries a lot and lead to significantly more scores, and to more attacking rugby.

                          World rugby should do it imho.

                          P.s. Yes some die hards will say 13 a side would appear to be copying rugby league. So What!? People will get over it.
                          P.p.s. Countries and sides that like negative rugby would likely resist these improvements e.g. SA, England & Argentina, (Georgia & Romania). The first 2 or 3?are the only ones who matter really and they would have to be won over on the improvement in the marketability of the sport and the likely increase in national & global reach of the game.
                          Reducing the flankers fundamentally changes how the game is played. Do we need to do that? What does reducing the number of subs actually do? Especially with need for specialised front row options.
                          Reducing significant numbers of players wont happen as the sport changes significantly and while of course players health, their safety is vital you wont see changes like that
                          I disagree with moving to tackles below the waist only. You can still keep tackles higher and not have as much of a risk of serious injury.

                          Comment


                            Gareth Davies try last weekend...........a mile offside yes??

                            Comment


                              Yes, a mile offside missed by the ref & TMO.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Drick View Post
                                Yes, a mile offside missed by the ref & TMO.
                                And commentators/press reports! Glad I'm not the only one who thought it!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X