law changes ?

[rumncoke]

The application of changes in refereeing the ruck --

I fail to see how increasing the number of penalties in a game increases the continuity of the game -- Kick for touch -- walk up to take the line out -- discuss line out throw -- line up and throw ( provided the referee doesn't have to intervene in way the teams have lined up or the scrum half 's positioning )

Sorry guys the formula is wrong -- free kicks only ( no scrum option ) for technical infringements outside the 22 -- penalties inside . Dangerous play, a penalty as normal anywhere in the ground NB collapsing a scrum is dangerous play.

[justinr73]

I suppose the counter argument is that a free kick is not much of a deterrent.

[rumncoke]

A ruck is a only means of contesting possession—- a free kick provides it .possession in the modern game especially in a ruck outside the 22 seldom results in a try and equally frequently only a gain of several metres .

Penalties provide the referee the opportunity to decide the result .

There is also the equally important consideration that on many occasions both sides are fouling and the penalty being given against the expected infringement and not the first.

My other great complaint is binding on the ball carrier before a tackle .which at best may be considered blocking at worst dangerous play since a tackler is being asked to tackle to combined weight of two players.

It has now reached the point that on Saturday two leinster players bound before receiving the ball .

[justinr73]

Fine but that doesn’t deal with the deterrent point.

The change in emphasis regarding the reffing of the breakdown is in respect to player safety.

Don’t join the ruck incorrectly or go off your feet and there’s no issue.

Ulster’s discipline was about the only thing they got right on Sunday, although that was probably because the ball had either been dropped or lost in contact before we even got to contesting a breakdown.

[rumncoke]

deterrent point--- accept that both sides foul at the breakdown -- who is being deterred -- 9 times out of 10 its a fifty fifty call.

loss of possession-- should be sufficient deterrent -- I don't like matches were the result depends upon a referee and his interpretation of the law of the ruck. Please take into account that the "free kick" is a penalty for an offence inside the 22.

The intention of the instruction to referees is to increase the continuation of play and the point i am making is play is being reduced to a series of time wasting penalties with the added risk of more matches being decided by penalties than trys

A serious disadvantage for a team like Ulster playing frequently with Munster and Leinster referees. ( basically they know the players and the nature of their game and are looking for the infringement -- they referee by anticipation of the foul)

[Bobbievee]

On a separate point, why are referees ignoring the tacklers hanging onto a leg or ankle after the release call? Very frustrating for the tackled player and inviting retaliation in the form of a flick.

[rumncoke]

Having watched yesterdays game and the methodical manner in which it was won something must change

Leinster are predictable frustrate keep possession wait for the penalties go for the corner and lift and ruck lift and ruck it is a successful game because it is based on the knowledge that provided you can obtain a penalty advantage you can play inside the opposition half virtually indefinitely till you score.

And a penalty advantage is easily obtained -- bluff a lift -- wait for the forward motion of the defenders then lift -- off side -- penalty advantage -- thereafter the defending side has no" get out of Jail card"

Fail to touch down back for the penalty
Lose possession back for the penalty
knock-on back for the penalty

All you need is penalty advantage

Change -- if a referee calls penalty advantage , then he can only award a penalty if the attacking team claim the advantage.
ie a member of the attacking team while holding the ball shouts "advantage" before the referee shouts advantage over.

Ie If you play on and fail to score without taking the advantage you lose it

On at least three or four occasions Leinster failed to score or lose possession only for the referee to restart with a five yard penalty for a marginal offside -- and as i have pointed out -- the foul ? is frequently induced by a dummy or false lift ---

In my day if the ball was playable the ball became the offside line and you were on side if ball was in front of you

one of the most annoying things from a spectator point of view is watch three or four phases of play a team then knock on or kick away possession only for the referee to take play back to a long forgotten penalty infringement or equally to declare that the advantage of the penalty is over --

Consider the fact if the team were able to play on -- exactly how worthy is the offence to be considered a penalty -- ( penalties for dangerous play excepted )

[big mervyn]

There should be an automatic additional punishment for a defending team committing another penalty during a penalty advantage. It's often a free hit if they're not on a final YC warning can restrict the attacking team to 3 pts when 5/7 were available

[rumncoke]

What for the defending side are already in a no win situation the opposition over the line held up — have another go. Lose possession have another and in the mean time continue to take out defenders coming in from the side or blocking the tackle with a pre bind .

The ref has allowed play to continue after calling the penalty only to apply the penalty if the attacking side fail

The ref can either call advantage or penalty the attacking side has the option play on or penalty
At the moment the ref is playing god with a bias towards the attacking team .

Firstly he is more inclined to penalise defenders because he is watching for a falling maul or offside or off your feet failing to look for in at the side - blocking failure to release

Secondly if advantage fails the attacking side is given a second bite of the cherry with the blessing of the referee — having declined the penalty by playing on .

[rumncoke]

I see Williams is sick of 5 metre maul trys and I also am sick of 5 metre rugby with repetitions of play on penalties where referees find it easier to penalise the defending team

Collapsed mauls ,off side, coming in from the side
Failing to release - rollaway deliberate knock on
- and yellow cards and penalty trys

Predictable boring rugby where the try scorer is seldom known until the third or fourth review by the TMO

Simple solution — penalties kicked into the 22 result in the throw in being lost and given to the defending side .

This law change could lessen the grip
Exercised by Leinster on the league , who frequently rely on penalties into the 22 to put pressure on the opposition knowing referees more often watch and thus penalise the defending team .

The game has become boring predictable with emphasis on heavy players running at the opposition with no pretence of a hand off but using forearms shoulders and hips as weapons which increases the possibility of head injury to both the ball carrier and tackler

[solidarity]

"Simple solution — penalties kicked into the 22 result in the throw in being lost and given to the defending side ."

Too extreme I think. Any other ideas, anyone?

[10 or 15 only]

Whilst we appear to be on the subject of the Laws of the game, when is a Lineout over and a maul formed if the pack which to go that way? I see so much what I call Double banking. The ball has not actually been thrown in and the attacking side have one or two players behind the catcher ready to plough forward. This shirley is wrong. And if it is it should be refereed correctly.

[jean valjean]

"Simple solution — penalties kicked into the 22 result in the throw in being lost and given to the defending side ."

Too extreme I think. Any other ideas, anyone?

Line out can't be any closer than the 22m no matter where it crosses the sideline from a penalty kick. If a defending team clear their lines then the line out is taken from wherever it crosses.