Image
Image
Image

Topics Calendar

May 2018

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Who is online

In total there are 32 users online :: 10 registered, 1 hidden and 21 guests

Most users ever online was 454 on Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:04 pm

Registered users: AhrefsBot, anderoo, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], kingofthehill, Majestic-12 [Bot], Russ, SemrushBot, YandexBot


Legend :: Administrators, Moderators

Statistics

Total posts 640132
Total topics 18942
Total members 2904
Our newest member Jtmcc

Rule/Law Adjustments

Stuff from around the world.

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

  • Advertisement

Topic Rating:
  • Not rated
  

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby Snipe Watson » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:21 pm

Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

They were supposed to be clamping down on crooked feeds a couple of seasons ago, but it went by the bye when the next raft of directives came in.
#NotMyCountry
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 22562
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby BR » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:30 pm

Snipe Watson wrote:
Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

They were supposed to be clamping down on crooked feeds a couple of seasons ago, but it went by the bye when the next raft of directives came in.

I think they're still straighter than they used to be.

Interesting, though, watching the match yesterday, with both hookers actually hooking the ball.
No more sweet talk from the hypocrites
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 16482
Images: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby BR » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:42 pm

Snipe Watson wrote:
BR wrote:
Dave wrote:
BR wrote:
scrum5 wrote:Would like to see a penalty awarded and a YC for a player knocking on and then diving on the ball killing any advantage to the opposing team.

So when a team has been awarded advantage are you just supposed to stand back and let them run in a try?

I think he means a deliberate infringement knowing they have conceded a penalty anyway. Could be a yellow card.

I thought he meant where they knew they'd conceded the scrum. Similar to offside at a knock-on.

I think BR has the correct reading of it. In theory a penalty sounds like a reasonable call, but a yellow card would be a bit much. In reality would it be workable? I'm not sure.


It would be a nonsense.

The offside from a knock-on law is contrived enough, but at least it requires the offending player to be in front of the ball before it is knocked-on.

With this, you would be penalising a player in a legitimate position for doing what is normally part of the game, because he had previously dropped the ball.
A knock-on isn't a knock-on until the referee says it is, so how can you blame a player in an onside position for continuing to play to the whistle?
No more sweet talk from the hypocrites
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 16482
Images: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby BR » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:49 pm

Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

If they policed all the laws as they were written, we'd hardly see any rugby as we currently know it.

That said, I would love to see the emphasis on ignoring infringements by the team in possession redressed.

The one that's really getting on my tïts in recent times is the liberal interpretation of 'not held'.
No more sweet talk from the hypocrites
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 16482
Images: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby ruckover » Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:23 pm

I was at a schools match yesterday and at one point a player knocked the ball on at his own 5m line. It was not deliberate as he was genuinely going for the intercept but he couldn't hold the ball. He then immediately stopped and put his hands up because he thought he was just giving up a scrum, instead of picking the ball up which was at his feet. The opposition scrum half proceeded to pick the ball up instead, fling it out wide and the team scored.

But had he picked it up, he would have prevented a certain try as the other team had an overlap of about three guys. So in this new system we're proposing, what's the punishment there? Is there one?
You haven't seen me at my best yet. Let's be honest, you probably never will.
User avatar
ruckover
Lord Chancellor
 
Posts: 7609
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:02 pm
Location: My house

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby Snipe Watson » Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:18 pm

BR wrote:
Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

If they policed all the laws as they were written, we'd hardly see any rugby as we currently know it.

That said, I would love to see the emphasis on ignoring infringements by the team in possession redressed.

The one that's really getting on my tïts in recent times is the liberal interpretation of 'not held'.

That's what happens with every new laws they quickly become a matter of interpretation rather than fact.
If WR keep adding to the law book, it becomes more and more contrived and less and less workable. Look at "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" as a case in point. 750 pages or thereabouts.
#NotMyCountry
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 22562
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby rumncoke » Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:51 pm

Russ definitely not Rum

Rum does not believe in double penalties for infringements

Violence yes but a knock on is an incomplete interception at times .

Personally I think the foot out of play catch and play should be done away with or the touch down with the foot behind the dead ball line for the scrum back
.

If an out half can weight his kick to keep it in play he deserves credit for the skill .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
 
Posts: 5626
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby Deraless » Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:11 pm

Wasn't there something one time about protecting the head and neck area; high tackles, clearing out rucks etc. Didn't Ulster even get someone binned for a fairly innocuous clear out recently? Maybe it'll all start again next week.
User avatar
Deraless
Chancellor to the King
 
Posts: 3829
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby BR » Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:11 pm

rumncoke wrote: ...or the touch down with the foot behind the dead ball line for the scrum back
.


You mean picking up with foot behind dead ball line?

Touching down would be a 22.
No more sweet talk from the hypocrites
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 16482
Images: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby rumncoke » Sun Nov 20, 2016 8:05 pm

If the foot is behind the dead ball line when he touches down its a scrum back not a 22 drop
Out
Which in my opinion would be fairer .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
 
Posts: 5626
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Rule/Law Adjustments

Postby BR » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:42 am

rumncoke wrote:If the foot is behind the dead ball line when he touches down its a scrum back not a 22 drop
Out
Which in my opinion would be fairer .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

?
No more sweet talk from the hypocrites
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 16482
Images: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Previous


  • Advertisement

Return to International rugby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], YandexBot and 1 guest

Recent Forum Topics

!-- Piwik -->