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 ormond lad View Post
    1.!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.
    http://www.newstalk.com/The-Best-of-...ont-make-sense

    http://www.betterrugbycoaching.com/r...c1338-4-1.aspx
    ____________________________________________
    Munster were great when they were Munster.

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

    Comment


      Not sure tackling below the waist is implementable these days given the level of lay off skills in some teams. Would it be possible to get the ball off the all blacks at all?
      "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

      "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


      "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

      Comment


        I don't see it being implementable or needed.
        Having the youngest age groups tackle below waist is fine as its to teach technique but it simply isn't workable once you go up the grades. A tackle hitting the belly/midriff is perfectly fine as well as plenty of higher tackles. Keeping tackle as it is you can increase the numbers of offloads and encourage teams to offload by simply increasing the skills work being done in training.
        Would you be proposing a penalty infringement for all tackles above the waist but not dangerously high as referees will never stop whistling for infringements if this was brought in.

        Comment


          Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
          .
          Would you be proposing a penalty infringement for all tackles above the waist but not dangerously high as referees will never stop whistling for infringements if this was brought in.
          No just a free kick advantage would suffice (with a peno/warning/yellow c escalation for repeated infringements) it would work great imho, straight away reducing head impacts, whiplash effects, increasing of load opps, thereby increasing continuity, favoring attacks, leading to more scores, leaner players and less impact injuries.... I mean what's not to like!?
          ____________________________________________
          Munster were great when they were Munster.

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

          Comment


            Originally posted by Daithi View Post
            No just a free kick advantage would suffice (with a peno/warning/yellow c escalation for repeated infringements) it would work great imho, straight away reducing head impacts, whiplash effects, increasing of load opps, thereby increasing continuity, favoring attacks, leading to more scores, leaner players and less impact injuries.... I mean what's not to like!?
            I don't see it leading to more scores or less impact injuries. I think tackles above the waist and "choke tackles" are simply part of the game. There is potential danger to everything. Scrums can be potentially dangerous do you want them banned? What about using feet at a ruck? etc etc
            I don't see it as being needed to increase continuity. Simply improve coaching and work on changing coaching philosophy to get more coaches to not be afraid of their players off loading etc can increase continuity.

            Comment


              Interesting one from this afternoon's Ulster-Scarlets match. In the 77th minute, Scarlets kicked for the corner. The ball bounced a few times, hit the corner flag and went into touch, and the referee awarded an Ulster lineout.

              But the corner flag was leaning almost horizonatally back over the tryline due to the wind, so really the ball should have ended up in touch-in-goal. I think it was the correct decision, but with Ulster chasing the match, they would have much preferred a 22 drop-out.

              I don't think the corner flag rule anticipated this situation?
              "I don't believe in fairytales," O'Connell once told me, "even though it feels like I've been lucky enough to live through a few. However it ends, I'll feel lucky."
              Donald McRae, Guardian Rugby, October 2015

              Comment


                Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
                There is potential danger to everything. Scrums can be potentially dangerous do you want them banned? What about using feet at a ruck? etc etc
                I don't see it as being needed to increase continuity. Simply improve coaching and work on changing coaching philosophy to get more coaches to not be afraid of their players off loading etc can increase continuity.
                Yes but tackling is disproportionately dangerous in the l modern game, so surely it's just common sense to reform the laws pertaining to those aspects of play that pose the biggest dangers e.g. tackling and the contact area
                ____________________________________________
                Munster were great when they were Munster.

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

                Comment


                  Originally posted by blackwarrior View Post
                  Interesting one from this afternoon's Ulster-Scarlets match. In the 77th minute, Scarlets kicked for the corner. The ball bounced a few times, hit the corner flag and went into touch, and the referee awarded an Ulster lineout.

                  But the corner flag was leaning almost horizonatally back over the tryline due to the wind, so really the ball should have ended up in touch-in-goal. I think it was the correct decision, but with Ulster chasing the match, they would have much preferred a 22 drop-out.

                  I don't think the corner flag rule anticipated this situation?
                  It may not have but what can you do?

                  Comment


                    Whats the ruling on "Guest Players"

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by canine View Post
                      Whats the ruling on "Guest Players"
                      In relation to what? Age grade/competition etc. Can vary significantly

                      Comment


                        Youths ,Pan Munster

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by canine View Post
                          Youths, Pan Munster
                          Contact the Munster Youths secretary for clarification

                          http://www.munsterrugby.ie/files/dow...thComm1516.pdf

                          Comment


                            Cardiff V Leinster 2 weeks ago. 78th minute. Penno to Cardiff about 7 metres out.

                            Standing beside the ref and on the mark, the Cardiff skipper threw the ball straight into touch, whereupon the ref gave them the lineout, on the 5 metre line. I assume that this was legit, but it still surprised me.

                            Is it a new law?
                            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 Old Dog View Post
                              Cardiff V Leinster 2 weeks ago. 78th minute. Penno to Cardiff about 7 metres out.

                              Standing beside the ref and on the mark, the Cardiff skipper threw the ball straight into touch, whereupon the ref gave them the lineout, on the 5 metre line. I assume that this was legit, but it still surprised me.

                              Is it a new law?
                              The thing i'm thrown by here is that the mark for the pen was 7m out and they were awarded the LO 5m out. Aside from that the throwing the ball in to touch would be irrelevant as it was out of play. A team can opt to take a LO in line with the mark (the same as they could opt to take a scrum on the mark). Throwing the ball into touch could have been just the player throwing it away for the Hooker to get a clean & dry one to throw into the LO. I bet that clears nothing up for you.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by PEATB0G View Post

                                The thing i'm thrown by here is that the mark for the pen was 7m out and they were awarded the LO 5m out.
                                From memory, he threw it both sideways and slightly forwards, so it would have crossed the touchline on about the 5 metre mark.
                                New infraction avoidance policy: a post may be described as imbecilic, but its author should never be described as an imbecile.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X