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

    #46
    If our game v Ospreys was using the trial points system, we wouldn't have needed CJ's last minute try to win.

    Ospreys scored 6 penalties which would have given them 12 points, before CJ's try we had a try, conversion and 3 penalties which would have had us on 14 points.

    I think the proposal to increase the points for a try is a good thing but I wouldn't be in favour of reducing the points for either a DG or penalty. The gap is too wide now and will lead to cynical play by the defence.

    Comment


      #47
      Keith Wood said yesterday that Richie McCaw should have been carded when he entered a ruck on NZ's line from which Argentina scored a try.

      He showed McCaw coming in from the side, right enough, but because the rock straddled the Goal Line, wasn't the Goal Line the Offside Line rather than the hindmost foot?

      McCaw was, therefore entitled to come in from the side as long as he entered from behind the Goal Line, which he appeared to do.

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
        Perhaps but Daithis other point about defending scrum half doesn't help things. Wouldn't create so much extra space that it would be worthwhile a change. .....
        Really, & how do you know that!?

        I think we agree that getting the defending scrum half to defend 5m back from scrum with other backs would create space, so why not try it on the experimental laws trial and see what the affects on games it would have!?!

        I think it would make a bigger difference than you indicate actually.just look at Connor Murray's break down the blind side of a ruck at weekend for instance. If you take away a defender at attackers heals where they pick up the ball from a scrum it week open up attacking options quite a bit imho.

        P.s.as for your point that it wouldn't be worth making the change?? The laws are evolving constantly, it would be just one of the next series of amendments.... hardly putting a rocket on mars, or getting the Irish public service to work more than 36 hours a week is it!? ;)
        ____________________________________________
        Munster were great when they were Munster.

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

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Daithi View Post
          Really, & how do you know that!?

          I think we agree that getting the defending scrum half to defend 5m back from scrum with other backs would create space, so why not try it on the experimental laws trial and see what the affects on games it would have!?!

          I think it would make a bigger difference than you indicate actually.just look at Connor Murray's break down the blind side of a ruck at weekend for instance. If you take away a defender at attackers heals where they pick up the ball from a scrum it week open up attacking options quite a bit imho.

          P.s.as for your point that it wouldn't be worth making the change?? The laws are evolving constantly, it would be just one of the next series of amendments.... hardly putting a rocket on mars, or getting the Irish public service to work more than 36 hours a week is it!? ;)
          I don't think its a positive move to have the defending scrum half 5m back. Its better them at the scrum where they Can snip around and tackle the 8/opposing scrum half where nobody else from their team can/backrows are bound to scrum still. Its not a change that is needed

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Daithi View Post
            Really, & how do you know that!?

            I think we agree that getting the defending scrum half to defend 5m back from scrum with other backs would create space, so why not try it on the experimental laws trial and see what the affects on games it would have!?!

            I think it would make a bigger difference than you indicate actually.just look at Connor Murray's break down the blind side of a ruck at weekend for instance. If you take away a defender at attackers heals where they pick up the ball from a scrum it week open up attacking options quite a bit imho.

            P.s.as for your point that it wouldn't be worth making the change?? The laws are evolving constantly, it would be just one of the next series of amendments.... hardly putting a rocket on mars, or getting the Irish public service to work more than 36 hours a week is it!? ;)
            Hardly.
            Gwan Joe!!

            Comment


              #51
              What are the laws on the amount of time a ref can play advantage for? For knock-ones/forward passes? What about penalty advantage? How much is at the ref's discretion?

              I've always had arguments about this.
              "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


                #52
                Originally posted by blackwarrior View Post
                What are the laws on the amount of time a ref can play advantage for? For knock-ones/forward passes? What about penalty advantage? How much is at the ref's discretion?

                I've always had arguments about this.
                Advantage can be either territorial or tactical so it will vary on what has happened. It is totally at referees discretion. Penalty advantage will be played longer than scrum advantage in general

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
                  Advantage can be either territorial or tactical so it will vary on what has happened. It is totally at referees discretion. Penalty advantage will be played longer than scrum advantage in general
                  I thought it was said 5 phases

                  Comment


                    #54
                    We couldn't make up our minds about why Paul O'Connell was offside in the match? The one where he interfered with the ball coming back after he went to tackle a player?
                    Marty in the Morning

                    Comment


                      #55
                      O Connell was onside at the actual ruck rushed out of the line and past the play. On his way back he got a hand to the ball in open play, no penalty and certainly not a yellow.
                      I can only assume the ref either felt he was ahead of hind most foot at ruck or thought he was trotting back from up the field and never saw him shooting up from the ruck. Either way a shocking decision by the ref
                      If a man stands in the middle of the forest with no woman around to hear him - is he still wrong?

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Munstersrebel View Post
                        I thought it was said 5 phases
                        Where does it state 5 phases?

                        Originally posted by LeakyBoots View Post
                        We couldn't make up our minds about why Paul O'Connell was offside in the match? The one where he interfered with the ball coming back after he went to tackle a player?
                        Referee was incorrect. POC had came back onside to the hindmost foot but I assume referee believed he had not went to the hindmost foot and advanced on the ball carrier from an offside position so gave the yellow.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
                          Where does it state 5 phases?

                          Referee was incorrect. POC had came back onside to the hindmost foot but I assume referee believed he had not went to the hindmost foot and advanced on the ball carrier from an offside position so gave the yellow.
                          I heard on tv that they said they can go back only 5

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by Groundhog View Post
                            O Connell was onside at the actual ruck rushed out of the line and past the play. On his way back he got a hand to the ball in open play, no penalty and certainly not a yellow.
                            I can only assume the ref either felt he was ahead of hind most foot at ruck or thought he was trotting back from up the field and never saw him shooting up from the ruck. Either way a shocking decision by the ref
                            Cheers Groundhog and Ormond Lad, we felt the same, that he was in open play - couldn't figure out how the ref came to that conclusion at all
                            Marty in the Morning

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Plenty of talk in this thread about potential changes the sport could look at but what would people like to see as law trials etc???
                              http://www.munsterfans.com/threads/3...ollision-Sport

                              Would people like to see number of subs a team could use on matchday reduced in the hope the size of players may be reduced as more would have to play the full 80 minutes?
                              Originally posted by Corcíoch View Post
                              I would like to see some changes though . . . .towards less huge guys, less collision towards more space, more flair, more mismatches, more breaks, more of the old tradition where there was a place for the little guy as well as the big guy . . . .and so on.

                              I just think that changes could target safety and bring the other benefits too.
                              How could this be done? How would you see less "huge guys"? By huge guys you mean??? What law changes would in your opinion see more flair in the game, more breaks etc etc

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by Corcíoch 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
                                A friend of mine is adamant that the game needs to go to 13 players or the pitch needs to be bigger. Given the logistics of making the pitch bigger, he says that dropping one back and one forward would make the game more open and give the space that modern Union lacks.

                                I asked him if he also wanted uncontested scrums, and change the number of the backs and forwards, but that seemed to go over his head ... Click image for larger version

Name:	smiley-face-whistle-2.gif
Views:	3
Size:	3.0 KB
ID:	2486143
                                Please support Milford Hospice. Click here to donate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X