Super Rugby General Chat
- Thread starter waiopehu oldboy
- Start date
Tazzmania
Bob Loudon (25)
Based on a survey size of 845 respondents, not sure how much can be read into it.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
More like there were more clubs than just Orange Emus and a few southern one team clubs forming part of the voting process.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Seems to be a fair sample size of rugby union fans in Australia...
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
Regardless of that....so you're happy to expand the ACT catchment north to proper NSW rugby heartland, but not south to the whole of Victoria? (this is all hypothetical mind you)
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Do I think the Brumbies/ACT & Southern NSW Rugby Union should be looking after Victorian rugby's interests?
No, I do not.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
Well just look after your own as they are currently then, and we're both happy.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I wouldn't expect them to have any input into any future merger between WA, SA and Vic... or NSW and Tasmania...
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
We are talking about 2 completely different things here. You are talking about a full merger of state/territory unions. I'm referring to an alliance with regards to player pathways/development as the catchment to service one professional team (in the hypothetical event that the Rebels cease to exist). Consequent to that would be an expansion of the supporter base.
But, I'm all good with the Brumbies playing out of a quarter full GIO Stadium and being ecstatic about a top 4 finish in Super Rugby for the next 20 years if that floats your boat.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
VDLRugby19
Frank Row (1)
Had a great interview with Hamish Riach (Crusaders Chief Executive 2001-2018) reflects on his tenure, including 6 Super Rugby Titles and the devastation of the Christchurch Earthquake.
open.spotify.com
Striving for Success - Hamish Riach - Disaster and a Dynasty
You Can’t Stop The Rolling Maul Podcast · Episode
open.spotify.com
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Looks like there is going to be a minor law variation with regards to offside and chasing kicks:
www.stuff.co.nz
This sounds like a pretty good (if minor) change to me. It was only something that was starting to be exploited the last couple of years and shutting this down before it gets ridiculous is for the best. Should help open the game up more and keep things moving, might mean a few more opportunities for a well placed 50/22 to beat the defence with either the kicker or a nack 3 chaser required to advance and put the rest of the team onside. I do wish they had the specific text of the variation in the article though, it's a little unclear to me exactly what the terms of that offside line is now and what the demands for retreating players will be.
Article also mentions referees will be "encouraged to take ownership of games this season, limiting the role of the TMO." How exactly this shakes out remains to be seen, but it's probably something worth continuing with after last year. I get the feeling it's going to take a few years to find the right balance though.
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
This sounds like a pretty good (if minor) change to me. It was only something that was starting to be exploited the last couple of years and shutting this down before it gets ridiculous is for the best. Should help open the game up more and keep things moving, might mean a few more opportunities for a well placed 50/22 to beat the defence with either the kicker or a nack 3 chaser required to advance and put the rest of the team onside. I do wish they had the specific text of the variation in the article though, it's a little unclear to me exactly what the terms of that offside line is now and what the demands for retreating players will be.
Article also mentions referees will be "encouraged to take ownership of games this season, limiting the role of the TMO." How exactly this shakes out remains to be seen, but it's probably something worth continuing with after last year. I get the feeling it's going to take a few years to find the right balance though.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Already getting ridiculous in the six nations. Good change
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
I like that. We have almost forced them into doubt at this stage even when they have seen something or believe something.Looks like there is going to be a minor law variation with regards to offside and chasing kicks:
Stuff
This sounds like a pretty good (if minor) change to me. It was only something that was starting to be exploited the last couple of years and shutting this down before it gets ridiculous is for the best. Should help open the game up more and keep things moving, might mean a few more opportunities for a well placed 50/22 to beat the defence with either the kicker or a nack 3 chaser required to advance and put the rest of the team onside. I do wish they had the specific text of the variation in the article though, it's a little unclear to me exactly what the terms of that offside line is now and what the demands for retreating players will be.
Article also mentions referees will be "encouraged to take ownership of games this season, limiting the role of the TMO." How exactly this shakes out remains to be seen, but it's probably something worth continuing with after last year. I get the feeling it's going to take a few years to find the right balance though.
If you see it, call it. If you have no idea then use the extra assistance. But, assistance is what it should be seen as and not an equal.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
This is section 10.7 in the laws that the change applies to:
So it looks like the variation is simply removing clauses I and II. I wasn't aware of IV, but it seems to suggest that any contact with the ball that doesn't immediately result in taking possession will put all players onside. Most drop ball in that situation is a knock on so it doesn't effect much there, but I assume that means dropping it backwards or trapping the ball with your foot, as players sometimes do for kicks they don't quite make it to, will put everyone onside (and always has).
So it looks like the variation is simply removing clauses I and II. I wasn't aware of IV, but it seems to suggest that any contact with the ball that doesn't immediately result in taking possession will put all players onside. Most drop ball in that situation is a knock on so it doesn't effect much there, but I assume that means dropping it backwards or trapping the ball with your foot, as players sometimes do for kicks they don't quite make it to, will put everyone onside (and always has).
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
iv is for charge downs.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Charge downs are part of it, and probably the reason it hasn't been removed as part of this, but the wording as it stand also covers the situations I've described. It didn't matter too much with clauses I and II to put players onside, but with those two clauses removed it creates a bit of a weird fringe situation where the offside rule is handled differently depending on whether the receiving team takes a "clean" catch or not.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I don't think your fringe cases are covered (dropping it would be attempting to bring the ball under control, so not covered by iv, and trapping with your foot is a kick, so covered by iii
From the laws definition
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.
BUt as so often with rugby, they appear to have drafted the laws to require as much interpretation as possible