- Status
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
Lindommer said:
Agreed
The ARC really showed just how significant and important the sanctions ELV was.
I can remember all the talk before the first game was about how you couldn't carry the ball back into your own 22, but after watching the game for about 2 minutes I was saying to my mate "that free kick thing is the best thing to ever happen to rugby, it changes the game for the better."
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
And deliberate too; so it doesn't rate with a not-deliberate Rex Mossop special I heard on the radio whilst driving and nearly went off the road pissing myself laughing:Lindommer said:
".... does a low grubber kick along the ground." Good old Rex - only Nugget May came close to him.
But back to the topic:
mark_s said:
This got a smile on the dial; not that I disagreed with the sentiment. Most of we Aussies have been appalled at the sanitising of the game even going back to when we should have been welcoming refs pinging our nasty opponents. We haven't changed our view now that we are a bit more macho – in most games, that is.
“Bring back rucking”, has been a catch cry for the better part of the decade, and sometimes we strut around the room after typing the words out and give a Tarzan yell. But I don't think the IRB will have a bar of changing a law to say:”The shoeing of opponents slowing down the ball is allowable.“ They'd figure that it won't go down well with mums – or even some sherry drinking dads.
But I can see a vanilla ruling on some law that says something like: “Players are permitted to step over opponents on the ground provided they take great care not to place their feet on players with a forward or downward motion.”
Then we could rely on the competition between referees to see who is the most macho in interpreting the ruling and who could speed up the game the most by encouraging opponents to bugger off or not be there in the first place.
Macho stuff is what referees do and it's what their fathers and grandfathers did. The old referees retired with a gold watch congratulating themselves at what a good job they did in speeding up the game and whilst some of their conventions were good (allowing attacking scrummies to put their hands into rucks to fish the ball out etc); some of them were bad (letting scrummies put the ball in crooked to the scrum to let the game move on etc). Some ruined the game (letting players go off their feet routinely decade after decade).
But I digress - putting in a vanilla ruling (not even bothering to introduce an ELV, let alone change a law) could work. The ostensible reason for it: warning about one thing, could morph into tacit permission to do another thing that was missing from the warning – the shoeing of opponents with a backward motion of the foot.
Thomond78 said:
But you miss the major point, Thomo: they weren't the full ELVs. The full ELVs were trialled in the 2007 ARC, and they DID work!
Pray tell, which competition in the NH trialled the full ELVs?
Enough crying over spilt milk; I won't enter this debate again. The fact Rob Andrew laments the current state of unattractive NH rugby is pitiable.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Lindommer said:
Hear hear! Except the Maul, which should have been reverted to the old days (use it or lose it - none of this 5-second bullshit) and which I'll take credit for.
Lindommer said:
One of the Scottish comps I think? :nta:
I think we can agree that the professional referees are the beginnings of the real problem here. But ultimately it pales in comparison to the utter pricelessness (my word) of the the NH thumbing its nose at the full ELV set and now bitching and whining about the game going to shit. Shit or get off the pot, fuckers.
S
Spook
Guest
NTA said:
Yep, you said it. I've been ironed out by the irony.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
Gagger, we still can fill our stadia.
But, contrary to SH myth, we know and like proper rugby, and the shit being dished up at the moment - with, let's remember, an SH team probably the worst offenders of all on the international stage, as even Spiro agrees - isn't proper rugby.
It's not an ELVs issue.
THE problem is a NEW change to the laws, introduced even after the ELVs (and remember, I wanted one of the ELVs that was dropped to be kept, the no-numbers one). The hands-in-the-ruck "ruling" introduced by Paddy O'Brien.
And since that one came in, the game's gone to shit, world-wide. Simply, in as near as a controlled environment as possible, we've seen that it's a shit law, for everyone. But because O'Brien's an arrogant idiot, we're stuck with it until after the 2011 RWC.
We're angry because last year, with the stealthy re-introduction of some rucking, and the crack-down on guys going off their feet, the breakdown was working. Now, with this idiot change, it's completely broken, so everyone has to kick.
It's a general issue; the head of the refs is a demonstrable idiot. Every problem in the game can, at least in part, be traced back to that.
But, contrary to SH myth, we know and like proper rugby, and the shit being dished up at the moment - with, let's remember, an SH team probably the worst offenders of all on the international stage, as even Spiro agrees - isn't proper rugby.
It's not an ELVs issue.
THE problem is a NEW change to the laws, introduced even after the ELVs (and remember, I wanted one of the ELVs that was dropped to be kept, the no-numbers one). The hands-in-the-ruck "ruling" introduced by Paddy O'Brien.
And since that one came in, the game's gone to shit, world-wide. Simply, in as near as a controlled environment as possible, we've seen that it's a shit law, for everyone. But because O'Brien's an arrogant idiot, we're stuck with it until after the 2011 RWC.
We're angry because last year, with the stealthy re-introduction of some rucking, and the crack-down on guys going off their feet, the breakdown was working. Now, with this idiot change, it's completely broken, so everyone has to kick.
It's a general issue; the head of the refs is a demonstrable idiot. Every problem in the game can, at least in part, be traced back to that.
H
Harfish
Guest
Newb said:
The last season I refereed rugby we had a big crackdown on this at all levels and it worked well. I made a point to tell the halfbacks before every game what was expected of them, which is that some part of the ball had to hit the imaginary line down the centre of the scrum. Got rid of all those stupid spinning feeds, all those feeds directly under the hooker's feet and the league style feeds.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
Harfish, there you're touching on something which comes back to Lee's point and mine; you can trust refs at the lower levels to do it right. At the higher levels, they end up ignoring stuff and bottling out of cards in a way that screws up everyone.
And, again, we know who's in charge of this. O'Brian, and his mini-me, Lyndon Bray.
In fact, to continue the rant, when was the last time anyone can remember a half-way competent Kiwi ref who wasn't likely to a) forget to turn off his watch when time was off or b) get into a possibly-drunken stoush with a player...? :nta:
And, again, we know who's in charge of this. O'Brian, and his mini-me, Lyndon Bray.
In fact, to continue the rant, when was the last time anyone can remember a half-way competent Kiwi ref who wasn't likely to a) forget to turn off his watch when time was off or b) get into a possibly-drunken stoush with a player...? :nta:
R
Rugby Incursion
Guest
As an armchair critic like the rest, it’s easy for us to sit back and criticise selections, refereeing, coaching and the like. However, none of those tasks are easy and in hindsight, changes perhaps need to be made in some areas.
It would appear the IRB have done little to appease the rugby public by only accepting a small portion of the ELVs, arguably to favour the boring northern hemisphere style of rugby. We have seen in a number of tests now the outcome whereby teams will play for field position, cause their opponents to infringe and kick a goal. Until the test in Perth, the Springboks had adopted such a strategy very successfully. This has won numerous games but done nothing for the long suffering public’s attitude towards such tactics. Rugby must be a game that inspires and excites. Who could forget the epic All Black vs. Wallaby test in Sydney where Jona Lomu broke the Wallaby supporter's hearts, but everyone left with the feeling that they had possibly witnessed the greatest rugby match ever, in front of a world record crowd!
We need to get back to matches such as these. Why is it that a roar goes up from the crowd when a team elects to kick for touch rather than for points? It is simply because they want to witness a contest and see running rugby...a team who backs itself to score 7 rather than 3 points. Often fortune will favour the brave.
To make this more a reality, I have a simple proposal. A try should remain 5 points but a conversion from a try becomes 3 points. The points for a penalty are reduced to 2 along with the field goal. I believe this will have a significant effect on a team’s decision making and will place the priority on running rugby with ball in hand. Now the puritans will tell me that the infringement area will increase significantly. This is where the use of the ‘sin bin’ will once again reduce these indiscretions and the flow will return. A team scoring more tries than its opponent should win a rugby match.
I would be interested to hear your views on such a proposal.
It would appear the IRB have done little to appease the rugby public by only accepting a small portion of the ELVs, arguably to favour the boring northern hemisphere style of rugby. We have seen in a number of tests now the outcome whereby teams will play for field position, cause their opponents to infringe and kick a goal. Until the test in Perth, the Springboks had adopted such a strategy very successfully. This has won numerous games but done nothing for the long suffering public’s attitude towards such tactics. Rugby must be a game that inspires and excites. Who could forget the epic All Black vs. Wallaby test in Sydney where Jona Lomu broke the Wallaby supporter's hearts, but everyone left with the feeling that they had possibly witnessed the greatest rugby match ever, in front of a world record crowd!
We need to get back to matches such as these. Why is it that a roar goes up from the crowd when a team elects to kick for touch rather than for points? It is simply because they want to witness a contest and see running rugby...a team who backs itself to score 7 rather than 3 points. Often fortune will favour the brave.
To make this more a reality, I have a simple proposal. A try should remain 5 points but a conversion from a try becomes 3 points. The points for a penalty are reduced to 2 along with the field goal. I believe this will have a significant effect on a team’s decision making and will place the priority on running rugby with ball in hand. Now the puritans will tell me that the infringement area will increase significantly. This is where the use of the ‘sin bin’ will once again reduce these indiscretions and the flow will return. A team scoring more tries than its opponent should win a rugby match.
I would be interested to hear your views on such a proposal.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Welcome aboard RI,
Thomond78 addressed the changing points issue from the other end. He said that if a penalty was worth only 2 points then teams would infringe more near their goal line to save 5 points - or 7 if a try was converted. If a conversion was worth 3 points then it would be giving up 2 points instead of maybe 8.
It's the other side of coin - the unforseen consequence of a very good idea.
Card the players if they do that? Give me a break.
As for the negative play of the Springboks: we saw how it worked against the Lions and in 3N but it failed, for example, in Dublin because they made mistakes and couldn't kick their goals either side of half time. Then when Ireland started playing well in the 2nd half they lost their nerve because they had no Plan B.
For the Boks it was like being a stranger in a strange land where there were no rugby Gods to ensure victory if they followed their golden rule of kicking for territory and feeding on mistakes when the ball was in the right real estate. By all means trying a set piece move but if that didn't work taking a penalty or droppie and getting out of there.
Do we need to change the laws to stop them doing what they did - after all they are chock full of good players and deserve a lot of victories.
We need to look at why they play like they do. They do it because they have realised that defences are to good for attack and that defenders get too many advantages at the breakdown (as has been discussed above). We could mention that such laager rugby is part of their rugby heritage, but probably shouldn't.
We can change the breakdown laws so the tackler has to come around to his team's side of the tackle before he can do anything else and we can reverse the recent ruling that enables the tackler to keep his hands on the pill if they were there when the ruck was formed. Most of all we could get referees to make sure the tackler lets go of the tackled player in the first place. What a concept.
Then we may see teams being not shit scared to take the ball into contact. When the tackler is not being treated like a holy person they may find the pill is coming out quicker; perhaps so quick that defences are not set. Thus they may not hoist the ball in the air but spin it out. Another interesting concept.
A lot of things can be tried. I'm not a big fan of changing the points scoring system because this kicker is a dead-eyed dick or somebody else can drop a goal from 60 metres out - they are rugby skills. You could even try reducing the number of players to 14 or increasing the width of fields to a compulsory 75 metres instead of the present maximum of 70 metres.
As others have mentioned: you could try allowing a free kick if a ball is marked in your own half, which would have the added bonus of cutting out ridiculous chips that don't bounce.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. There are lots of ideas to overcome the strangulation of the game by tacklers slowing the game down and defenders being too good for attack. But nothing was better in all my years of watching rugby than the ELV that had Free Kick sanctions instead of penalties for all infringements except offside and foul play - wherein the repeated or serious offence of the ELV was invoked under the Foul Play law and frequent yellow cards issued until players got the message.
As I said above: this worked in Oz domestic rugby and it was a case of rugby law theory working in practice, but it didn't work in the Super14 because the cards weren't used.
Hands up those who thought defences were too strong for attack in the 2007 ARC.
Thomond78 addressed the changing points issue from the other end. He said that if a penalty was worth only 2 points then teams would infringe more near their goal line to save 5 points - or 7 if a try was converted. If a conversion was worth 3 points then it would be giving up 2 points instead of maybe 8.
It's the other side of coin - the unforseen consequence of a very good idea.
Card the players if they do that? Give me a break.
As for the negative play of the Springboks: we saw how it worked against the Lions and in 3N but it failed, for example, in Dublin because they made mistakes and couldn't kick their goals either side of half time. Then when Ireland started playing well in the 2nd half they lost their nerve because they had no Plan B.
For the Boks it was like being a stranger in a strange land where there were no rugby Gods to ensure victory if they followed their golden rule of kicking for territory and feeding on mistakes when the ball was in the right real estate. By all means trying a set piece move but if that didn't work taking a penalty or droppie and getting out of there.
Do we need to change the laws to stop them doing what they did - after all they are chock full of good players and deserve a lot of victories.
We need to look at why they play like they do. They do it because they have realised that defences are to good for attack and that defenders get too many advantages at the breakdown (as has been discussed above). We could mention that such laager rugby is part of their rugby heritage, but probably shouldn't.
We can change the breakdown laws so the tackler has to come around to his team's side of the tackle before he can do anything else and we can reverse the recent ruling that enables the tackler to keep his hands on the pill if they were there when the ruck was formed. Most of all we could get referees to make sure the tackler lets go of the tackled player in the first place. What a concept.
Then we may see teams being not shit scared to take the ball into contact. When the tackler is not being treated like a holy person they may find the pill is coming out quicker; perhaps so quick that defences are not set. Thus they may not hoist the ball in the air but spin it out. Another interesting concept.
A lot of things can be tried. I'm not a big fan of changing the points scoring system because this kicker is a dead-eyed dick or somebody else can drop a goal from 60 metres out - they are rugby skills. You could even try reducing the number of players to 14 or increasing the width of fields to a compulsory 75 metres instead of the present maximum of 70 metres.
As others have mentioned: you could try allowing a free kick if a ball is marked in your own half, which would have the added bonus of cutting out ridiculous chips that don't bounce.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. There are lots of ideas to overcome the strangulation of the game by tacklers slowing the game down and defenders being too good for attack. But nothing was better in all my years of watching rugby than the ELV that had Free Kick sanctions instead of penalties for all infringements except offside and foul play - wherein the repeated or serious offence of the ELV was invoked under the Foul Play law and frequent yellow cards issued until players got the message.
As I said above: this worked in Oz domestic rugby and it was a case of rugby law theory working in practice, but it didn't work in the Super14 because the cards weren't used.
Hands up those who thought defences were too strong for attack in the 2007 ARC.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
PS
We will always get arguments that there is nothing wrong with the laws because there are some top games under them. We may point out how boring the RWC Cup Final was but others would counter by mentioning the QF between the Boks and Fiji or the game for 3rd and 4th.
But these top games rely on the attitude of the players on the day. We saw this in the tests just concluded. Oz wanted to be expansive and Wales was not averse either. Good game. The Kiwis won a good game against France also because both teams were positive. But then talk about the Kiwis playing the Poms - different story. The Kiwis had to play down to the Pom level. One positive team cannot produce a good game, or very rarely.
No law changes will force teams to play attractive rugby even given variations to the definition of "attractive". We need a legal framework wherein the percentages of success are slanted away from negative rugby and towards the positive.
It's only then that hard headed coaches will see advantages in playing attacking rugby and requiring their players to do so. - and I'm not just talking about the backs. Until then they will play the percentages as they see them and any nice theories we may have will be as irrelevant to them as a pimple on the bum is to a cancer victim.
We will always get arguments that there is nothing wrong with the laws because there are some top games under them. We may point out how boring the RWC Cup Final was but others would counter by mentioning the QF between the Boks and Fiji or the game for 3rd and 4th.
But these top games rely on the attitude of the players on the day. We saw this in the tests just concluded. Oz wanted to be expansive and Wales was not averse either. Good game. The Kiwis won a good game against France also because both teams were positive. But then talk about the Kiwis playing the Poms - different story. The Kiwis had to play down to the Pom level. One positive team cannot produce a good game, or very rarely.
No law changes will force teams to play attractive rugby even given variations to the definition of "attractive". We need a legal framework wherein the percentages of success are slanted away from negative rugby and towards the positive.
It's only then that hard headed coaches will see advantages in playing attacking rugby and requiring their players to do so. - and I'm not just talking about the backs. Until then they will play the percentages as they see them and any nice theories we may have will be as irrelevant to them as a pimple on the bum is to a cancer victim.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Lee, I've been thinking about your post on how the new ruling for hands-on has been a problem. To be honest, I don't agree that its been an entirely bad thing, just that its intent has been misunderstood to a degree.
The thing that shits me more than anything about rugby is the refereeing has a very loose interpretation of "immediately" - if you're tackler, you must IMMEDIATELY release the tackled player. In turn, they must IMMEDIATELY release the ball. The irony is if you immediately release them they've got the right to get back to their feet... In any case, the problem with either the current or prior interpretation is when refs fail to police this properly.
How often in the months prior to this ruling change do we see the opposition get their hands on the ball and the man on the ground try to keep it off them, when as the tackled player they have bugger all rights to it. The man on his feet is going for the ball, and has it by law, but then a second later the cavalry arrive and he gets blown off it. But if it really was IMMEDIATELY, then he should have had the ball by rights.
What this ruling is attempting to do is bring the contest back by acknowledging that the man on his feet had his hands on the ball and therefore has more rights than the players creating the ruck moments later, which I wholeheartedly agree with. If someone possesses the freakish talents of a Smith, McCaw, or Pocock, they should be rewarded, not smashed to smithereens because they're the fastest scavenger out there.
Like all changes, this will just take some time to get used to, and you either travel as a pack and blow the bastards off it, or you kick. The side with the better teamwork in its forward pack should be able to secure ball just like the days of Brumbieleague, and the defending side get every opportunity to get the ball for themselves.
Ultimately, we should just institute ALL the ELVs minus the Maul pulldown and get on with the rugby.
The thing that shits me more than anything about rugby is the refereeing has a very loose interpretation of "immediately" - if you're tackler, you must IMMEDIATELY release the tackled player. In turn, they must IMMEDIATELY release the ball. The irony is if you immediately release them they've got the right to get back to their feet... In any case, the problem with either the current or prior interpretation is when refs fail to police this properly.
How often in the months prior to this ruling change do we see the opposition get their hands on the ball and the man on the ground try to keep it off them, when as the tackled player they have bugger all rights to it. The man on his feet is going for the ball, and has it by law, but then a second later the cavalry arrive and he gets blown off it. But if it really was IMMEDIATELY, then he should have had the ball by rights.
What this ruling is attempting to do is bring the contest back by acknowledging that the man on his feet had his hands on the ball and therefore has more rights than the players creating the ruck moments later, which I wholeheartedly agree with. If someone possesses the freakish talents of a Smith, McCaw, or Pocock, they should be rewarded, not smashed to smithereens because they're the fastest scavenger out there.
Like all changes, this will just take some time to get used to, and you either travel as a pack and blow the bastards off it, or you kick. The side with the better teamwork in its forward pack should be able to secure ball just like the days of Brumbieleague, and the defending side get every opportunity to get the ball for themselves.
Ultimately, we should just institute ALL the ELVs minus the Maul pulldown and get on with the rugby.
- Status