What does everybody think about the law crackdown?

[Lee Grant]

We have to give it a fair trial PB. I was a bit surprised by the try total to be honest. I didn't really think about it too much - just had the idea that there was more rugby played with better ball.

I'm not surprised that the number of penalties was high because:

1. It was the first week of the crackdown
2. The referees didn't give enough yellow cards for persistent infringements

Item 2 is in the law book and the referees didn't observe it - or not enough. This back to basics crackdown won't work without the cards just as the Free Kick ELV didn't work without cards - or not enough of them.

Referees bosses rabbit on about this and that and we get a fuzzy feeling. I don't remember any of the ref bosses ever saying that not enough yellow cards were issued for persitent infringements by a team or player. I'm disappointed because somebody, Lyndon Bray I think, said cards would be used anywhere on the park and at any time.

No, they weren't.

If this area doesn't improve the crackdown will fail.

 

[Groucho]

So a third of the tries are gone, more than double the penalties and all in the name of "running rugby"?

Every new directive has that effect at first, as players infringe due to unfamiliarity with it and generally 'trying it on' to find out where the new boundaries are - we shouldn't be worried by it. Northern Hemisphere types will mock us, then lose their matches in June as usual.

 

[cyclopath]

Thanks for bringing this back up, PB. I tried a few days ago but it went unnoticed! :'( Maybe it was my dodgy counting.

As a side note the first round saw 52 penalty goals (and a few droppies) versus 29 tries with only 2 bonus points for 4 tries. Hurricanes scored 9 penalty goals in their win!!
Interesting to see if this trend continues.

In any event, I was struck by the increased number of penalties when watching the matches (although I did not see all the play of each match) that play was more disjointed and there were more shots at goal, at odds with what Lee noticed.
I guess that's unsurprising - we all watch games a bit differently, judging by the posting recently!
To me it makes sense - the new applications / interpretations, call them what you will, are supposed to favour the attacking team, so I would expect more penalties in the attacking zone giving the option for 3 points more often.
Maybe that is overly simplistic, but that's how it seemed to me.

 

[Biffo]

If we are to compare this year with last year, we must take account of the Laws under which the S14 is played being different. IIRC, the referees last year could not award so many penalties because most offences at the breakdown were "short-arm". Moreover, you can't simply add and compare penalties and short-arms.

Is there a possibility that comparison of the results this year with those of last year suggests that the ELVs then in force had more than a little merit?

 

[cyclopath]

Interesting, Biffo. I had overlooked the different rules in play.
I would think some teams (especially to the north) might be quite happy with this development - could see some epic 30-27 penalty goal fests. :fishing
I'll wait for Thomo to rain blarney upon me...

 

[PaarlBok]

Man I wish they could just change this maul or ruck law like we had in the good old days. If you end up in the wrong side , you pay the hard way. Taking out the contest all together just dont feel right.

 

[PaarlBok]

I'll wait for Thomo to rain blarney upon me...

Dunno what happen to the Ierse Boer, look like the Hane blew him away. :nta:

 

[chief]

Refs are strict, they got some of the best referees for Round 1 to start off this change. How the lower ranked referees take it on in the next few weeks is another thing, it could have us all complaining about it. Referees such as Pearce, Smith, Willamson, Leogte are all obviously below referees like Walsh, Dickinson, Kaplan, Mark Lawrence hence why they receive no where near as many matches. Those higher ranked referees are god damn good referees with a lot of experience as well. It could be concerning to see how these referees decide to "referee" the breakdown in the weeks to come.

 

[louie]

well it only took till week 2 before a ref ruined a game.
you blocked a brumby defender which lead to try.
he's been so inconsistence in this game
bullshit.
go to the tahs

 

[JJJ]

The way the refs are handling the scrums is pissing me off. "Crouch. Touch, pause...............................................eng- PEEEEEP!!"

 

[PhucNgo]

Re: Waratahs 2010

Let's put things into perspective.

Naza, I enjoy and, dare I say, agree with a lot of your posts. However, perhaps it is you that needs a bit of perspective here. Whilst stats can tell one story, reality may give a different picture.

1. Hickey's top-of-the-class performance comes of a very low base in comparison to some of the other on that list.
2. I was at Brisbane could see the rabble that wasnt perhaps so clear on the TV coverage.
3. The Stormers game was truly appalling. Lack of game plan, discipline, running lines, speed, structure, some very strange substitutions. Too much unwarranted niggle, blaming everyone and everything else, pedestrian pace, crap service, mistakes. The old excuse of "being on the road" simply doesnt wash any more. These are professional sportsmen whose diets, training, travel, accommodation etc is micro-managed.
4. Hickey's first year in charge delivered nothing. Zilch. Nada. Wait, I'm telling a lie. He delivered NSW Rugby a huge drop in revenue by playing rugby that was boring, unimaginative and ugly to watch. That meant the crowds stayed away. I have been a life member and season ticket holder for the best part of 10 years and the level of frustration and dissatisfaction from those around me - all committed, seasoned and hardened followers - was the worst I have known, even in the darkest days of Link's tenure.
5. The one positive from lat year, our forward play, now seems to be going backwards at a rate directly inverse to the speed of a Burgess ruck clearance.

And Lindommer, I'm surprised at you. Of course we want to start the season well - and with good coaching and structure also finish it well. You say there are lots of combinations to be sorted. Bollocks! What the fuck do these guys do all week at training? As mentioned above, they are also professional sportsmen, most of whom have played at senior levels for a couple of years at least. Rugby is an art. It is a passion. Good players thrive on instinct and knowing where a play should be and where a ball should be delivered. There was one phase from the Stormers towards the end of the game where the half popped an inside ball back off the ruck and Habana hit the hole at a million miles an hour. Whilst he knocked on, he was able to create the opportunity from good structured play and instinct. He wasnt bitching about how he was a new player and hadnt learnt the combinations.

Those of you that think this is all suddenly going to click and fix itself, particular when the Tahs come and play their first game against Sharks, are kidding yourselves.

I hope that in a couple of months time you can all deride me for this post when the Tahs have taken out the S14 title by winning 11 straight games in entertaining, spirited fashion, 4-try bonus points galore and a defensive record that is second to none. I somehow doubt it and am more likely to believe that next season, a certain M Cheika will be the Tahs coach leaving C Hickey free to wander around TG Milner field where he belongs.

Riddler, you've obviously been reading my notes. I unreservedly agree with all the above, and anyone thinking otherwise is obviously enamored of the emperor's new clothes. The Tahs have been an absolute rabble this year, and you didn't need to be in Brisbane to see it. Absolutely no idea in attack and the new law interpretations have really shown them up as being spoilers without any creative structure. I'm desperately disappointed in Hickey so far. Even his game management stinks. Take the Stormers game for instance. He had one back that looked anywhere near capable of breaching the Stormers defence, so what does he do? Oh, that's right, take him off and leave old draught horse carter on, leaving Rory Sidey on the bench. Go figure. :nta:

A finish of 5th or 6th looks flattering at this stage. I'm just struggling to figure out who could possibly finish below them. And as for Waugh; don't get me started. He's washed up and would be doing us all a favour in moving on quickly and quietly. Mumm for captain asap.

Truly, if Hickey persists with one or both of Burgess and Holmes it will be a strong indication that he doesn't know what he's doing.

 

[Ash]

Re: Waratahs 2010

Meanwhile, Waugh has a whine about the new laws in an inaccurate article written by Rubert Guinness. To be fair, it seems Guinness is having more of the whine.

Some choice quotes:

CAPE TOWN: Waratahs captain Phil Waugh is concerned the new law interpretations by referees in the tackle have gone from one extreme to the other by excessively favouring the attacking team.

He fears that unless interpretations favour defence and attack on a 50-50 basis, contests in the game will be lost. The aim of the new interpretations is to free up the breakdown in favour of attacking rugby.

''The beauty of rugby union is the contest - and the contest within the contest - and the battles of the breakdown,'' Waugh, the NSW openside breakaway, said after the Waratahs' loss to the Stormers at Newlands on Saturday (early Sunday, Sydney time).

''We have to be careful that we don't get too caught up on the defensive side, only watching the defensive side [for illegal play]. At the moment, passive ball carries are getting rewarded, [and] dominant tackles aren't getting rewarded.

Waugh was clearly frustrated during the Waratahs' loss to the Stormers. He was penalised on several occasions by New Zealand referee Keith Brown, who awarded 24 penalties in the match.

On at least one occasion it appeared Waugh was unfairly pinged - late in the first half when NSW were 10-3 down, and the Stormers kicked the penalty to go 13-3 up.

He was penalised for not releasing in the tackle, but it was five-eighth Berrick Barnes who was the principal tackler. Waugh assisted in the tackle, but was on his feet for the ball. At half-time, he spent most of the walk back to the locker rooms talking with Brown.

''Passive ball carry isolated in front of our posts … We turn the ball over and it's three points to them. It's frustrating, I suppose, because it's one of the great contests of the game,'' he said, adding that he was not criticising Brown, but simply frustrated by the law's interpretation.

Now here's the irony: in the Reds v Tahs game a weak passive carry in the 79th minute right in front of the Reds posts a few metres out and Horwill (on his feet) reaches over as the guy is tackled, without giving him time to release, and is penalised. This is exactly what happened to Waugh. No whining then Phil, when Horwill getting the penalty the other way would've won the Reds the game. Simply put: it's a timing issue, and Waugh and Horwill were rightfully penalised under the new interpretation. A half a second later and the penalty would go the other way - they have not yet adjusted to the new ruling.

Quit the whining, Phil and Rupert. The new interpretations look better to me already with less kicking. They are not the reason the Tahs are struggling. I would hesitate to say that if the Tahs were winning that article would not be written.

 

[PhucNgo]

Re: Waratahs 2010

Meanwhile, Waugh has a whine about the new laws in an inaccurate article written by Rubert Guinness. To be fair, it seems Guinness is having more of the whine.

Some choice quotes:

CAPE TOWN: Waratahs captain Phil Waugh is concerned the new law interpretations by referees in the tackle have gone from one extreme to the other by excessively favouring the attacking team.

He fears that unless interpretations favour defence and attack on a 50-50 basis, contests in the game will be lost. The aim of the new interpretations is to free up the breakdown in favour of attacking rugby.

''The beauty of rugby union is the contest - and the contest within the contest - and the battles of the breakdown,'' Waugh, the NSW openside breakaway, said after the Waratahs' loss to the Stormers at Newlands on Saturday (early Sunday, Sydney time).

''We have to be careful that we don't get too caught up on the defensive side, only watching the defensive side [for illegal play]. At the moment, passive ball carries are getting rewarded, [and] dominant tackles aren't getting rewarded.

Waugh was clearly frustrated during the Waratahs' loss to the Stormers. He was penalised on several occasions by New Zealand referee Keith Brown, who awarded 24 penalties in the match.

On at least one occasion it appeared Waugh was unfairly pinged - late in the first half when NSW were 10-3 down, and the Stormers kicked the penalty to go 13-3 up.

He was penalised for not releasing in the tackle, but it was five-eighth Berrick Barnes who was the principal tackler. Waugh assisted in the tackle, but was on his feet for the ball. At half-time, he spent most of the walk back to the locker rooms talking with Brown.

''Passive ball carry isolated in front of our posts … We turn the ball over and it's three points to them. It's frustrating, I suppose, because it's one of the great contests of the game,'' he said, adding that he was not criticising Brown, but simply frustrated by the law's interpretation.

Now here's the irony: in the Reds v Tahs game a weak passive carry in the 79th minute right in front of the Reds posts a few metres out and Horwill (on his feet) reaches over as the guy is tackled, without giving him time to release, and is penalised. This is exactly what happened to Waugh. No whining then Phil, when Horwill getting the penalty the other way would've won the Reds the game. Simply put: it's a timing issue, and Waugh and Horwill were rightfully penalised under the new interpretation. A half a second later and the penalty would go the other way - they have not yet adjusted to the new ruling.

Quit the whining, Phil and Rupert. The new interpretations look better to me already with less kicking. They are not the reason the Tahs are struggling. I would hesitate to say that if the Tahs were winning that article would not be written.

Beg to differ Ash. My take is that it IS the new interpretations which are making the Tahs uncompetitive. They thrived (relatively) under the old slow ball rules which enabled less able teams (teams that don't have a clue in attack) to be competitive.

 

[PaarlBok]

well it only took till week 2 before a ref ruined a game.
you blocked a brumby defender which lead to try.
he's been so inconsistence in this game
bullshit.
go to the tahs

Jerre Boet the BumBoys specialise in blocking defenders.

I'd say losing and you blame the ref, not surprising. :nta:

 

[naza]

Re: Waratahs 2010

Now here's the irony: in the Reds v Tahs game a weak passive carry in the 79th minute right in front of the Reds posts a few metres out and Horwill (on his feet) reaches over as the guy is tackled, without giving him time to release, and is penalised. This is exactly what happened to Waugh.

I think the law is being interpreted wrong. Its supposed to be 'tackler, roll away' not 'defending team cannot contest'. Waugh was on his feet. He wasn't the tackler. He has a right to contest possession.

 

[liquor box]

are these rules for the tri nations?


I think a new tactic could be to have a tall player (2nd row?) and stand tall. Take the hit and fall backwards due to momentum and while falling twist the tackler to the wrong side of the ruck. Have your forwards stand on top of this tackler and recieve a penalty for the man not rolling away.

there seems to have been plenty of occasions where discression needs to be applied, if a player is making a genuine effort to roll away then dont bring out the whistle!



To change track to new ideas, what about mandatory yellow cards for ruck infringments within 5 metres of a try line, or even a mandatory penalty try?

 

[Scotty]

Re: Waratahs 2010

I think the law is being interpreted wrong. Its supposed to be 'tackler, roll away' not 'defending team cannot contest'. Waugh was on his feet. He wasn't the tackler. He has a right to contest possession.

exactamundo

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

I think week 1 was the best opening round of rugby I've seen in this competition since inception - and the referee's can take a lot of the credit for that.

Things seem to have slipped a bit in round 2, but looking at the 2 weeks together, its been a good positive start for the Super 14 this year. The scrums still seem to be a bit messy, but the quick action on the breakdown is turning the game into a much better spectacle.

 

[Ash]

Re: Waratahs 2010

I think the law is being interpreted wrong. Its supposed to be 'tackler, roll away' not 'defending team cannot contest'. Waugh was on his feet. He wasn't the tackler. He has a right to contest possession.

No, it's not being interpreted incorrectly. The rules have always been that you have to give the player with the ball a chance to play the ball. It's just that they're back to enforcing it that way. Any talk of "primary tackler" or a guy on his feet not being inovled in the tackle is complete rubbish.

Both Horwill and Waugh were touching the tackled guy as he's brought to ground (even though they are on their feet), and thus need to release first so the tackled guy can play the ball. Thus, Waugh and Horwill were one of the tacklers and were rightly pinged for not releasing and giving the tackled player time to play the ball.

The defending team is free to contest once the tackled player has his chance. I have seen a few times where the ref has incorrectly pinged the defending team where they have stepped in after the tackle and the tackled play has held on, but Waugh's was not one of those cases. And I can remember the Waugh one clearly enough, as I remembering him giving the ref a spray as he backed away yet it was clear that Waugh was in the wrong and had forgotten or not adapted to the change.

 

[fatprop]

Re: Waratahs 2010

The Stormers were doing it right, dominate and drive over the tackle area