The state of rugby today

[Gagger]

Would be Twickers no doubt

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Call me biased Lee but Matt Goddard should have refereed the first Lions test. How Lawrence is continuing to get major test matches really does bewilder me. As stated, his father being a high referee manager certainly helps.

For a normal club match in the Guiness Premiership, they got 76000 people in at Twickers, that is impressive.

Just a question will the 2015 RWC Final be held in Wembley or Twickers?

I'll call you biased for sure. Goddard isn't as bad a many people make out, but he's nowhere near as good as you make him out to be either. Goddard proved at S14 level that he couldnt' handle the big boys, so why on earth would he get a lions test? What's next, George Ayoub wasn't given enough chances to prove he wasn't up to it?

I don't like LAwrence much either, but to suggest his father is why he got the gig is beyond ludicrous. He had a decent history of test matches controlled, had the backing of the IRB (not just PAddy, the IRB) and therefore was justly rewarded.

 

[Aussie D]

Everyone seems to agree that Paddy must go but does it really have to be an ex-referee who is the manager. Surely as a business it should be someone with a good knowledge of the game (an ex-coach maybe) who has good management skills. You could have one or two technical coaches to develop the finer points of refereeing.

 

[liquor box]

On the one hand: people are familiar with decades of automatic lineouts folowing kicks going directly into touch out if the ball had been passed back over the 22. They don't mind the measured jogging, or walking, of the lineout guys over to the spot, then the ritual calls and line dancing for position, all of which some other people think is a waste of time. And when those other people see a not straight throw or some other lineout infraction that stops play, they deplore the increase in time wasting.


This is not a theoretical debating point: it was a common remark of the general sporting public in this neck of the woods in the days when ELVs were mentioned only in Harry Potter books and the like. Those other people may not be thrilled with the ping-pong caused by the 22 ELV (by itself, as opposed to general ping pong), but don't think it's any worse than the different kind of time wasting by the lineouts and the various infractions incurred from them.


There seemed to be enough lineouts with the FK sanction ELVs. Teams with a good lineout, or who wanted a breather, would kick the ball to touch from their 22 with a FK and have a go on the other team's throw; so wasn't the death of the lineout stuff.

I for one would love a change where if a team does not contest then they cant recieve an advantage from a throw that is not straight. If you dont contest then the throw should not have to be straight. THere is something seriously wrong with the game when you are rewarded fro not actually competing, isn't the idea of rugby to compete for the whole game?

 

[Lee Grant]

Aussie D,

That's a good idea that has had a few legs in recent years. Your point about competing for the ball as one of the mainstays of rugby was well put. Let's encourage it.

It is particularly galling to see your team getting pinged for a marginal not straight throw if the other mob were never going to get the ball anyway.

It requires the ref to make another decision: did they compete? You could see a scenario whereby one guy at the back jumps up at every lineout as a fake attempt just in case the other team throws the ball in skew. There could be a way around it I suppose: that it should be a genuine attempt in the opinion of the ref.

Also, a deliberately not straight throw should not be allowed. One could imagine a move which gambles on defenders not competing and the ball thrown in 45 degrees to the line of touch to a back off a long run.

Some of the ELVs we have tried weren't that clever. Maybe after the RWC this one could ge a run.

Then once the not straight throw to the lineout is fixed and competition for the ball encouraged, they should introduce a law which says the ball should be thrown in straight along the middle line of the scrum. The idea behind this radical suggestion is that it would encourage the opposing hooker to compete for the ball.

In the olden times when I was playing they had a law to that effect and opposing hookers actually did that. No, don't shake your head, I'm not kidding.

What's that you say? That law is still in the law book?

Crikey, but ....




Going back to the IRB ref boss. Peter Marshall already has experience in being a ref boss - for the ARU. He is also CEO of the Rats,; so he is not without management nous.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

I still think the referee who I most like to see on the ledger is Steve Walsh. I know he's roundly hated by the Northern Hemisphere (and to be honest, probably with good reason), but I like the way he controls games, the authority he puts on, and the fact he's prepared to make big calls.

He's obviously had his own personal demons to sort out, and kudos to the ARU for employing him there. I really hope he gets back to the top.

 

[Lindommer]

So do I. He did a superb job in Sydney club rugby in 2009, and even turned up for the odd schooboy game.

I can understand the NZRU running out of patience with Steve but whomever enticed him over to this side of the Tasman to allow him to make a clean start (and I imagine with strict guidelines) should be heartily congratulated. One would hope an Australian referee who similary transgressed would be made welcome in New Zealand in the same circumstances.

 

[Sully]

but whomever enticed him over to this side of the Tasman

Now that's funny! "Enticing" an out of work Kiwis to Sydney! Who's the master negotiator? :lmao:

 

[chief]

I think Steve Walsh was actually the big contender for the RWC Final in 07. But he screwed up a few games in the tournament. That's why Rolland actually got the gig. I was watching a couple of games he refereed in the Club competition, and boy he was god damn good. Saw him at a Schools tournament in Sydney, and he was starting to really look the goods.

Lyndon Bray was the one who was keeping him off the Super 14 Merit Referees Panel. Lyndon obviously didn't want Walsh back. I also got the feeling that him and Walsh never really liked each other when they refereed together. Must have played a part in dismissing Walsh as well.

 

[liquor box]

Aussie D,

That's a good idea that has had a few legs in recent years. Your point about competing for the ball as one of the mainstays of rugby was well put. Let's encourage it.

It is particularly galling to see your team getting pinged for a marginal not straight throw if the other mob were never going to get the ball anyway.

It requires the ref to make another decision: did they compete? You could see a scenario whereby one guy at the back jumps up at every lineout as a fake attempt just in case the other team throws the ball in skew. There could be a way around it I suppose: that it should be a genuine attempt in the opinion of the ref.

Also, a deliberately not straight throw should not be allowed. One could imagine a move which gambles on defenders not competing and the ball thrown in 45 degrees to the line of touch to a back off a long run.

Some of the ELVs we have tried weren't that clever. Maybe after the RWC this one could ge a run.

Then once the not straight throw to the lineout is fixed and competition for the ball encouraged, they should introduce a law which says the ball should be thrown in straight along the middle line of the scrum. The idea behind this radical suggestion is that it would encourage the opposing hooker to compete for the ball.

In the olden times when I was playing they had a law to that effect and opposing hookers actually did that. No, don't shake your head, I'm not kidding.

What's that you say? That law is still in the law book?

Crikey, but ....




Going back to the IRB ref boss. Peter Marshall already has experience in being a ref boss - for the ARU. He is also CEO of the Rats,; so he is not without management nous.

If you dont compete then you deserve to have the ball thrown at a 45 degree angle, i.

Another rule change I would have would be a position change for the referee, at scrum time one of the touchies comes on the field as a second ref

How many times do we see a scrum collapse on the opposite side of the scrum to the referee. As soon as he changes sides the problem is solved. From this I conclude that there is some sort of "cheating" happening on the other side of the scrum. If a referee stood on both sides of the scrum we might not have as many issues.

 

[Lee Grant]

Having a second ref on the ground is a big call. The gin and tonic lads would bridle at the expense, not to mention that doubling the number of referees globally is not feasible. Still, you can't knock a different idea. Maybe the TJ nearest the scrum could do it from about 5 metres away (so he doesn't interfere with the play) and retreat to his touchline ASAP still watching play over his shoulder. If he could make a difference at scrum time maybe that would be more important than the present accuracy of his touchie duties.

As for scrum collapses - it's hard to measure the frequency of reasons why scrums collapse, and they are certainly not all from deliberate illegalities. But to the extent that there is something deliberate it is most likely that the defending LHP is the culprit.

There's an 80/20 rule that applies in all kinds of human endeavours, including business. Problems tend not to happen randomly and it is more likely that 80% of problems are caused by 20% of the activity.

So, if a referee concentrates on that 20% area that causes the problems (near enough in rugby - one of the 4 props) he will solve more scrum problems than looking for every little scrum infraction from every player. The ref should be on the side opposite the feed a lot more. Not all the time - the problem area may shift, especially when props are replaced - but a lot.

As for the crooked feed problem: in the real old days of rugby - over a 100 years ago, the ref put the ball into the scrum down the middle. If the boundary umpires can throw the ball into play in Aussie Rules and another umpire bounce the ball why can't a ref throw the ball into the scrum? [Of course he couldn't stand on the other side to watch the defending LHP in that case. ] Maybe that TJ acting as 2nd scrum ref is not as silly as it sounds.

I still think that scrum collapses will be lessened if the hit is depowered. As I have said before many a time the power hit is not a traditional part of our game. Scrums stayed up more in the times when tight five players didn't have the time to develop their neck muscles, and also other muscles to deliver a big hit, in the gym. Players folded into each other and then the physical stuff happened. A dominant scrum was still dominant as strength and technique took over.

Have them hit from a shorter distance so long as they can get their feet in the right place with a straight back after the engage. Maybe even make the touch with their necks before the engage command - which would change to a push command.

 

[Brumby Jack]

For all those Steve Walsh fans out there, he could be refereeing the Brumbies v NSW trial on Feb 4 in Canberra.

I also heard that referees will be 'asked' to crack down on the tackler at in the ruck area. More specifically when a player makes the tackle and springs up to contest the ball, they will be required to make more of an effort to not use the tackled player to regain their feet and must ensure their hands at least make no contact before contesting the ball.

Interesting, but can't see it working too well. Especially when Kaplan and '7 Black' are on the field at the same time...

 

[Lee Grant]

"7 Black"? Good one BJ. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Woo-ho - so old Lee's hobby horse about outlawing the using of the tackled player for a tackler to lever himself up - and also not releasing whilst he does so, has some official sanction. Dusautoir and Co. will be devasted. "But I've always done that," they will whinge. "Thierry, old mate," we will reply, "that is the point."

Is old Lee a rocket surgeon? :lmao: No, just a decrepit observer of the bleeding obvious.

Next thing we know they will ask referees to watch the Dallaglio starfish, whereby he ran to his tackled player and bent over supporting most of his weight on his knuckles so he didn't fall over, his ring pointing skywards, with the ball and his tackled mate under the "bridge". A brave bastard though; I'll say that. He always looked at incoming opponents straight in the eye.

 

[Thomond78]

On the one hand: people are familiar with decades of automatic lineouts folowing kicks going directly into touch out if the ball had been passed back over the 22. They don't mind the measured jogging, or walking, of the lineout guys over to the spot, then the ritual calls and line dancing for position, all of which some other people think is a waste of time. And when those other people see a not straight throw or some other lineout infraction that stops play, they deplore the increase in time wasting.


This is not a theoretical debating point: it was a common remark of the general sporting public in this neck of the woods in the days when ELVs were mentioned only in Harry Potter books and the like. Those other people may not be thrilled with the ping-pong caused by the 22 ELV (by itself, as opposed to general ping pong), but don't think it's any worse than the different kind of time wasting by the lineouts and the various infractions incurred from them.


There seemed to be enough lineouts with the FK sanction ELVs. Teams with a good lineout, or who wanted a breather, would kick the ball to touch from their 22 with a FK and have a go on the other team's throw; so wasn't the death of the lineout stuff.

I for one would love a change where if a team does not contest then they cant recieve an advantage from a throw that is not straight. If you dont contest then the throw should not have to be straight. THere is something seriously wrong with the game when you are rewarded fro not actually competing, isn't the idea of rugby to compete for the whole game?

Hmmm...

Do you know, for all my instinct to crack down, this is one area where a "material effect" test wouldn't hurt. No contest = no material effect, so play on. However, if it's contested, it must be bar-straight and - and this is a big one, because it's not being reffed - down the middle. Makes teams think tactically about how to attack the oppo lineout, which is a good thing (and why, for much the same reason, they should have kept the "no numbers" ELV and dropped the receiver/hooker ones).

Incidentally, Lee, Brian Moore did a great article a while back on the effect of crooked feeds and the hit, making very similar points. I'll see if I can dig it up...

 

[Thomond78]

I still think the referee who I most like to see on the ledger is Steve Walsh. I know he's roundly hated by the Northern Hemisphere (and to be honest, probably with good reason), but I like the way he controls games, the authority he puts on, and the fact he's prepared to make big calls.

He's obviously had his own personal demons to sort out, and kudos to the ARU for employing him there. I really hope he gets back to the top.

Not hugely. The reason he pissed off so much was because we knew he good be a good ref, but he was acting the bollocks - and, with the incident with the England staff and Shane Horgan on the 2005 Lions, he most definitely was. However, his last trip up here, he was fine, and no-one had a problem with him. We'd prefer him to Bryce Lawrence, certainly.

 

[Lee Grant]

Makes teams think tactically about how to attack the oppo lineout, which is a good thing (and why, for much the same reason, they should have kept the "no numbers" ELV Amen to that.

Incidentally, Lee, Brian Moore did a great article a while back on the effect of crooked feeds and the hit, making very similar points. I'll see if I can dig it up... Please do T78. Thanks in advance.

 

[Gagger]

"7 Black"? Good one BJ. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Ditto

Kaplans name invokes me hearing "leave it now black", or in other words "they're quick ball momentum got spoiled a while back, but you've been fucking around with the ball on the ground for so long now it's starting to get embarrassing"

Unfortunately this verbal cop out has spread faster than swine flu, and is far more deadly.