Australia v England: Match II @ Suncorp 7.55pm AEST, 09/07

[qwerty51]

The thing is, and we can debate what the law should be but every player knows exactly what referees are going to do now when you attempt an intercept and knock it on so maybe they should stop going for it unless they're certain to grab it.

 

[Dan54]

The TMO pulling up the Tupou cleanout and Genge on White are the issues. Those were nothing incidents. Is anyone complaining if those were missed?

And in SA/Wales game the TMO interfered and told ref that AWJ had illegally batted ball out of ruck, after he was sinbinned and we saw replay he didn't go near touching ball!!

 

[Dan54]

The thing is, and we can debate what the law should be but every player knows exactly what referees are going to do now when you attempt an intercept and knock it on so maybe they should stop going for it unless they're certain to grab it.

Yep understand that mate, but we asking players to not do things they probably should depending on where in the field they are. They not robots who before they jump for intercept etc have to time to look where they are? I think it is another part of turning game into being played by automatons?
I was having haircut this morning and woman doing the cutting was asking me about week etc, I said I was going to test in Wellington, and she said going to really good stuff huh? I actuall said well I almost disappointed I missing semi final of club team I follow (2nd div) as I really enjoy the rugby etc, and reading this thread and thinking about it, one of reasons the game is so bloody good to watch at park is good rugby (and even 2nd div here in the Naki is bloody good) but none of the frustrations of TMO, and think it's making me even more irate how they ruining the experience of live rugby tersts!

 

[qwerty51]

I think there’s definitely an instinctual action to touch the ball if you’re in reach of it but they need to try to get it out of their minds and focus on defending the player.

 

[LeCheese]

Yep understand that mate, but we asking players to not do things they probably should depending on where in the field they are. They not robots who before they jump for intercept etc have to time to look where they are? I think it is another part of turning game into being played by automatons?

Yeah, it's purely reactionary - with the reaction times involved it physically can't be anything but. Possibly more emphasis on training an 'upwards' action is needed so that is the reaction, but the context of an intercept is probably too variable

To adapt an Ayrton Senna quote: if you no longer go for a possible intercept, you're no longer a rugby player

 

[Tex]

Watch Marcus Smith's card. He was literally in the action of moving his hand out of the way when he flicked the ball. The instinct is strong!

 

[Joe Blow]

The thing is, and we can debate what the law should be but every player knows exactly what referees are going to do now when you attempt an intercept and knock it on so maybe they should stop going for it unless they're certain to grab it.

And do what? Watch the try being scored? Perese had a legitimate chance of securing that ball and if not scoring at the other end, then coming very close. He was knocking the ball up in view of catching it, not knocking the ball down to cynically stop the play.
It needs to be looked at. I reckon it was just a knock on. Ditto with Smith.

 

[qwerty51]

And do what? Watch the try being scored? Perese had a legitimate chance of securing that ball and if not scoring at the other end, then coming very close. He was knocking the ball up in view of catching it, not knocking the ball down to cynically stop the play.
It needs to be looked at. I reckon it was just a knock on. Ditto with Smith.

What do you mean watch the try being scored? How about staying on your man and tackle him when he gets the ball?

 

[Joe Blow]

There was no chance of that. He was there in the middle and could only have tackled the inside man from memory

 

[Joe Blow]

Yes, I see he could have just gone wide and covered his man

 

[Wilson]

Yeah, as stupid as the knock down rule is, it was also a poor option from Perese. He could absolutely have covered the man but went for the all or nothing play instead. It was always the risk in picking him as outside back cover.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Doesn't it seem to be more often than not that the player going for the intercept is one who otherwise has some problems defending?

 

[PhilClinton]

Yeah, as stupid as the knock down rule is, it was also a poor option from Perese. He could absolutely have covered the man but went for the all or nothing play instead. It was always the risk in picking him as outside back cover.

There was also a clear penalty advantage right in front of the posts, so any intercept try wouldn't have counted. It was a low percentage play and he paid for it. I still have an issue with the adjudicating of the rule, but Perese didn't help his case.

 

[RugbyReg]

why are we discouraging players from going for the intercept? It's one of the great match moments? Tries against the run of play or, on the flipside, an easily created overlap if the intercept doesn't come off. Agree if someone slaps it down internationally, penalise them, but lets not discourage people from going for the intercept.

 

[Wilson]

why are we discouraging players from going for the intercept? It's one of the great match moments? Tries against the run of play or, on the flipside, an easily created overlap if the intercept doesn't come off. Agree if someone slaps it down internationally, penalise them, but lets not discourage people from going for the intercept.

I'd love to see the rule gone, but I do understand some of the opposition to removing it and the worry teams would start to do it intentionally.

I'd love to see them trial it as a half arm, at least in the first instance, like an early engagement in the scrum. That way it's not the ridiculous jump to a yellow/penalty try straight off the bat, but players are on notice and there's no threat of it becoming a strategy to just bat the ball down constantly.

 

[PhilClinton]

I'd love to see the rule gone, but I do understand some of the opposition to removing it and the worry teams would start to do it intentionally.

I'd love to see them trial it as a half arm, at least in the first instance, like an early engagement in the scrum. That way it's not the ridiculous jump to a yellow/penalty try straight off the bat, but players are on notice and there's no threat of it becoming a strategy to just bat the ball down constantly.

I would love them to trial the whole no penalty thing, or at least remove the threat of a card - the NRL don't have any penalty for it. It's a bit different in their game though because possession is obviously limited to the tackle count, so it's a bit more risk v reward if you decide to slap a ball down on the 5th tackle and give up another set on your own line.

 

[RugbyReg]

I'd love to see the rule gone, but I do understand some of the opposition to removing it and the worry teams would start to do it intentionally.

I'd love to see them trial it as a half arm, at least in the first instance, like an early engagement in the scrum. That way it's not the ridiculous jump to a yellow/penalty try straight off the bat, but players are on notice and there's no threat of it becoming a strategy to just bat the ball down constantly.

has it been brought to prominence on the back of 7s? It was more an issue there wasn't it but now they seem to apply the same interpretation with 15s

 

[Wilson]

has it been brought to prominence on the back of 7s? It was more an issue there wasn't it but now they seem to apply the same interpretation with 15s

I think the way rush defences have evolved over the last decade means there's much more opportunity for players to get up in the face of the attacking line and effect the knockdown/intercept. Players might be faster too, but I don't have stats to back that up.

As far as the resistance to change goes I think it's the same conservatism that sees the 20 minute red card rule opposed - there's this assumption that coaches will exploit any little thing you give them to the nth degree despite their being no real evidence of this. As a result there's so much resistance to change from the main power brokers and the decks are often stacked against change even when the rules are trialed. I'm still a bit surprised 50/22 and drop out made it through, I'm doubt they would've been made permanent if not for covid.

 

[gel]

why are we discouraging players from going for the intercept? It's one of the great match moments? Tries against the run of play or, on the flipside, an easily created overlap if the intercept doesn't come off. Agree if someone slaps it down internationally, penalise them, but lets not discourage people from going for the intercept.

Almost every other facet of the game promotes contest for the ball. It's crazy that the intercept interpretation is so clearly at odds.

Imagine an automatic yellow card in a line out if the defending team spoil the throw but knock it on?

 

[brokendown]

I think players should go for the intercept with their head,that is not a knock on ,is it?