The Official Irish Rugby Thread

All things Rugby
Nolanator
Posts: 39401
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Nolanator »

irishrugbyua wrote:Zebo complaining in the indo again.
Lack of takeaway during lockdown got to him?
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 20016
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by DOB »

PornDog wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
CM11 wrote:Is it ruled the same way as the 22 in terms of bringing it back into your half?
Not explained at all. Same with the distance required for a goal line drop out.

To your previous point I am not being disingenuous at all. It is a unnecessary change brought about by people who have forgotten how to play the game. They need to leave the game alone.
I've no problem with the not tinkering aspect and I'm quite happy to argue against it from that perspective but as a rule it's genuinely a decent one.
It has the potential to be a decent rule change, I wouldn't pop the champagne yet. But well worth the experiment I think.

As for what happens if you stuff it up - it hardly needs explaining does it?
- If you are outside the 50 or the ball goes out of play outside the 22 then its just an opposition lineout - same as now.
- If you kick it straight out then its oppo lineout from where you kicked it from - same as now
The question above is clearly about passing back into the half li is the current 22 law. If the ball is passed back into the 22, you can’t kick direct to touch. So if the ball is passed back to a player standing inside his own half, and he finds touch in the opposite 22, do they still get the throw?

I think we’d all hate to see a team with ball in hand, more than 10m inside the opponent’s half, then passing back to halfway for a kick. And being rewarded for that with getting the throw.
User avatar
PornDog
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by PornDog »

DOB wrote:
PornDog wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
CM11 wrote:Is it ruled the same way as the 22 in terms of bringing it back into your half?
Not explained at all. Same with the distance required for a goal line drop out.

To your previous point I am not being disingenuous at all. It is a unnecessary change brought about by people who have forgotten how to play the game. They need to leave the game alone.
I've no problem with the not tinkering aspect and I'm quite happy to argue against it from that perspective but as a rule it's genuinely a decent one.
It has the potential to be a decent rule change, I wouldn't pop the champagne yet. But well worth the experiment I think.

As for what happens if you stuff it up - it hardly needs explaining does it?
- If you are outside the 50 or the ball goes out of play outside the 22 then its just an opposition lineout - same as now.
- If you kick it straight out then its oppo lineout from where you kicked it from - same as now
The question above is clearly about passing back into the half li is the current 22 law. If the ball is passed back into the 22, you can’t kick direct to touch. So if the ball is passed back to a player standing inside his own half, and he finds touch in the opposite 22, do they still get the throw?

I think we’d all hate to see a team with ball in hand, more than 10m inside the opponent’s half, then passing back to halfway for a kick. And being rewarded for that with getting the throw.
Okay, fair enough. I still don't see it being any different to it is now though. It's not the same scenario as a 22 because you can't kick direct to touch either way.

As for the "taking the piss" scenario you describe - I don't think its very likely that anybody is going to be trying that (there's very little motivation), plus making a successful kick would be much more difficult because there are so many defenders that much further back to cover the kick (its not just the backfield defenders, but frontline defenders would be able to cover it because they have more time to react to whats happening and would be closer to where the ball would be kicked to). I think its an extreme situation that isn't likely to come up at all.
User avatar
JoeMangled
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:18 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by JoeMangled »

You know who'd love this new kicking business...Radge.

Haven't got my head around the goal line drop out yet. Seems like such a fundamental law change to be almost unrecognisable. Push over tries to be a thing of the past? Fúck that noise.
User avatar
PornDog
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by PornDog »

JoeMangled wrote:You know who'd love this new kicking business...Radge.

Haven't got my head around the goal line drop out yet. Seems like such a fundamental law change to be almost unrecognisable. Push over tries to be a thing of the past? Fúck that noise.
Yeah the goal line drop out looks to be pretty f**king daft all right.

Wasted time at scrum setup is a legitimate issue, but looking for reasons to reduce the number of scrums is a bullshit way of addressing it.
User avatar
hermie
Posts: 10491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by hermie »

So are we going to do the usual where the southern hemisphere teams trial all the crazy law changes and we'll just wait on potentially one or two of the more sensible ones being adopted globally?
irishrugbyua
Posts: 15862
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by irishrugbyua »

Talk of a reduction in subs too.

Lots of rules changes been thrown at the game.
Mullet 2

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Mullet 2 »

Reducing subs makes sense.

If allied to a drastic reduction in the video ref it could make a massive difference and we wouldn't need all these bullshit rugby league rules.
Ulsters Red Hand
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Ulsters Red Hand »

Cant complain that defence coaches have ruined rugby and then criticise WR for trying to allow better attacking rugby :nod:
User avatar
hermie
Posts: 10491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by hermie »

irishrugbyua wrote:Talk of a reduction in subs too.

Lots of rules changes been thrown at the game.
What sort of reduction?
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 62773
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by CM11 »

Reduce the number of subs on bench or number of tactical replacements you can make? The reason to go from 7 to 8 was to avoid uncontested scrums. Not sure how you go back on that and it gets messy trying to prove a player isn't injured. Hell, they're always injured in some way!
User avatar
Floppykid
Posts: 32212
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: SOB>Todd

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Floppykid »

Every single try in league gets referred to the tmo. Incredibly tedious.
Ulsters Red Hand
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Ulsters Red Hand »

CM11 wrote:Reduce the number of subs on bench or number of tactical replacements you can make? The reason to go from 7 to 8 was to avoid uncontested scrums. Not sure how you go back on that and it gets messy trying to prove a player isn't injured. Hell, they're always injured in some way!
Assuming it’s the number of tactical replacement without reducing the numbers on the bench. 3/4 tactical replacements outside of injury sounds about right.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 62773
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by CM11 »

Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
CM11 wrote:Reduce the number of subs on bench or number of tactical replacements you can make? The reason to go from 7 to 8 was to avoid uncontested scrums. Not sure how you go back on that and it gets messy trying to prove a player isn't injured. Hell, they're always injured in some way!
Assuming it’s the number of tactical replacement without reducing the numbers on the bench. 3/4 tactical replacements outside of injury sounds about right.
I'd have no major problem with no tactical replacements at all but it's how you manage it. Very easy to claim HIA or some other innocuous injury and players play on all the time with minor injuries that can be used as a genuine injury to get off.
irishrugbyua
Posts: 15862
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by irishrugbyua »

if they just enforced offside...
User avatar
hermie
Posts: 10491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by hermie »

CM11 wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
CM11 wrote:Reduce the number of subs on bench or number of tactical replacements you can make? The reason to go from 7 to 8 was to avoid uncontested scrums. Not sure how you go back on that and it gets messy trying to prove a player isn't injured. Hell, they're always injured in some way!
Assuming it’s the number of tactical replacement without reducing the numbers on the bench. 3/4 tactical replacements outside of injury sounds about right.
I'd have no major problem with no tactical replacements at all but it's how you manage it. Very easy to claim HIA or some other innocuous injury and players play on all the time with minor injuries that can be used as a genuine injury to get off.
Yep good in theory but then cramp will be an injury. HIA's will be more prevalent after all the tactical subs have been used up. Teams will try to pass tactical subs off as injuries.

Then the flipside of it will be players who want to play on, won't admit they're injured and ended up worsening a relatively minor injury.
User avatar
hermie
Posts: 10491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by hermie »

irishrugbyua wrote:if they just enforced offside...
Ha, I was about to say the same. I think it's been a little bit better these past few weeks.
User avatar
danthefan
Posts: 23423
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by danthefan »

irishrugbyua wrote:Zebo complaining in the indo again.
What's wrong with him now?
User avatar
Luckycharmer
Posts: 9063
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Luckycharmer »

redderneck wrote:I have a suggested change to the laws of the game which I reckon is a winner:

Amnesty on taking a Big Bertha to any cnut who proposes a law change.
Showing your age there Redder, it is all about the Maverick and Sim drivers now :P
User avatar
Luckycharmer
Posts: 9063
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Luckycharmer »

Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
CM11 wrote:Is it ruled the same way as the 22 in terms of bringing it back into your half?
Not explained at all. Same with the distance required for a goal line drop out.

To your previous point I am not being disingenuous at all. It is a unnecessary change brought about by people who have forgotten how to play the game. They need to leave the game alone.

The game is moving back to having smaller players anyway. Particularly in the backs where bosh might not last much longer. The Boks had smaller halves, wings and full backs. The French have done it too. Wales backs are not as big as they were around 2010. The Wallabies will have smaller backs when the enforced wholesale changes are brought in.

Ireland have done well in the Six Nations through skill and guile rather than running through teams.
We lose to England because they overpowered us and the boks Centres are big boys as are their pack. A good Big Un is still better than a good Small Un in most cases.
What they need to do is reduce the amount of subs so players have to play longer then they will have to slim down.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 39595
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Duff Paddy »

What is this Leinster supporters membership for €120 - seems a bit steep if all you get is priority access to purchase tickets
irishrugbyua
Posts: 15862
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by irishrugbyua »

Duff Paddy wrote:What is this Leinster supporters membership for €120 - seems a bit steep if all you get is priority access to purchase tickets
Province needs financial support due to loss of income due to covid.
User avatar
hermie
Posts: 10491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by hermie »

Luckycharmer wrote:
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
CM11 wrote:Is it ruled the same way as the 22 in terms of bringing it back into your half?
Not explained at all. Same with the distance required for a goal line drop out.

To your previous point I am not being disingenuous at all. It is a unnecessary change brought about by people who have forgotten how to play the game. They need to leave the game alone.

The game is moving back to having smaller players anyway. Particularly in the backs where bosh might not last much longer. The Boks had smaller halves, wings and full backs. The French have done it too. Wales backs are not as big as they were around 2010. The Wallabies will have smaller backs when the enforced wholesale changes are brought in.

Ireland have done well in the Six Nations through skill and guile rather than running through teams.
We lose to England because they overpowered us and the boks Centres are big boys as are their pack. A good Big Un is still better than a good Small Un in most cases.
What they need to do is reduce the amount of subs so players have to play longer then they will have to slim down.
The game is kind of already moving away from that now though, no? Skelton slimmed down bigtime at Sarries. Atonio is a regular starter for La Rochelle. These guys were the classic, good for a half an hour type player.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 39595
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Duff Paddy »

irishrugbyua wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:What is this Leinster supporters membership for €120 - seems a bit steep if all you get is priority access to purchase tickets
Province needs financial support due to loss of income due to covid.
Well yeah them and the rest of us, but what does the €120 get you?
irishrugbyua
Posts: 15862
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by irishrugbyua »

Duff Paddy wrote:
irishrugbyua wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:What is this Leinster supporters membership for €120 - seems a bit steep if all you get is priority access to purchase tickets
Province needs financial support due to loss of income due to covid.
Well yeah them and the rest of us, but what does the €120 get you?
as you already said: priority access to purchase tickets
Nolanator
Posts: 39401
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Nolanator »

Reducing the number of subs is a shit idea, and policing it would be a farce.
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 10386
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Leinsterman »

Duff Paddy wrote:
irishrugbyua wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:What is this Leinster supporters membership for €120 - seems a bit steep if all you get is priority access to purchase tickets
Province needs financial support due to loss of income due to covid.
Well yeah them and the rest of us, but what does the €120 get you?
A jaunty scarf
User avatar
redderneck
Posts: 15796
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: We'll Never Forget You Geordan D'Arcy

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by redderneck »

Luckycharmer wrote:
redderneck wrote:I have a suggested change to the laws of the game which I reckon is a winner:

Amnesty on taking a Big Bertha to any cnut who proposes a law change.
Showing your age there Redder, it is all about the Maverick and Sim drivers now :P
Meh. Golf is a game for spinsters and country solicitors.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43116
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by camroc1 »

irishrugbyua wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
irishrugbyua wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:What is this Leinster supporters membership for €120 - seems a bit steep if all you get is priority access to purchase tickets
Province needs financial support due to loss of income due to covid.
Well yeah them and the rest of us, but what does the €120 get you?
as you already said: priority access to purchase tickets
And a guarantee of keeping your STs for 20/21, should you wish to.
Ulsters Red Hand
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Ulsters Red Hand »

CM11 wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
CM11 wrote:Reduce the number of subs on bench or number of tactical replacements you can make? The reason to go from 7 to 8 was to avoid uncontested scrums. Not sure how you go back on that and it gets messy trying to prove a player isn't injured. Hell, they're always injured in some way!
Assuming it’s the number of tactical replacement without reducing the numbers on the bench. 3/4 tactical replacements outside of injury sounds about right.
I'd have no major problem with no tactical replacements at all but it's how you manage it. Very easy to claim HIA or some other innocuous injury and players play on all the time with minor injuries that can be used as a genuine injury to get off.
Yeah, was just short of posting that it would only add to more bloodgate type scandals
Yer Man
Posts: 21376
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Yer Man »

Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
CM11 wrote:Reduce the number of subs on bench or number of tactical replacements you can make? The reason to go from 7 to 8 was to avoid uncontested scrums. Not sure how you go back on that and it gets messy trying to prove a player isn't injured. Hell, they're always injured in some way!
Assuming it’s the number of tactical replacement without reducing the numbers on the bench. 3/4 tactical replacements outside of injury sounds about right.
I'd have no major problem with no tactical replacements at all but it's how you manage it. Very easy to claim HIA or some other innocuous injury and players play on all the time with minor injuries that can be used as a genuine injury to get off.
Yeah, was just short of posting that it would only add to more bloodgate type scandals
3-4 tactical replacements.

Then any further"injury" replacements come at the cost of an additional player (i.e. down to 14).
Makes it self-policing.
User avatar
PornDog
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by PornDog »

Yeah but that's an incentive to keep concussed player ON the field. You don't want that either!
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43116
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by camroc1 »

PornDog wrote:Yeah but that's an incentive to keep concussed player ON the field. You don't want that either!
Yep.

I could see lawyers suddenly taking a very keen interest into what happens on the rugby pitch.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43116
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by camroc1 »

PornDog wrote:Yeah but that's an incentive to keep concussed player ON the field. You don't want that either!
Yep.

I could see lawyers suddenly taking a very keen interest into what happens on the rugby pitch.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 15511
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by anonymous_joe »

camroc1 wrote:
PornDog wrote:Yeah but that's an incentive to keep concussed player ON the field. You don't want that either!
Yep.

I could see lawyers suddenly taking a very keen interest into what happens on the rugby pitch.
Already happened with the likes of Cillian Willis, etc.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43116
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by camroc1 »

anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
PornDog wrote:Yeah but that's an incentive to keep concussed player ON the field. You don't want that either!
Yep.

I could see lawyers suddenly taking a very keen interest into what happens on the rugby pitch.
Already happened with the likes of Cillian Willis, etc.
Which is what brought about the current concussion and RTP protocols. Once pressure is introduced, however inadvertently, to keep a player on, the floodgates will open.
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 20016
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by DOB »

Yer Man wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote: I'd have no major problem with no tactical replacements at all but it's how you manage it. Very easy to claim HIA or some other innocuous injury and players play on all the time with minor injuries that can be used as a genuine injury to get off.
Yeah, was just short of posting that it would only add to more bloodgate type scandals
3-4 tactical replacements.

Then any further"injury" replacements come at the cost of an additional player (i.e. down to 14).
Makes it self-policing.
Any player taken off due to injury must sit out next week (or 2) for health reasons?

Probably something that ought to be in place for head injuries anyway, but it might shift the dial in terms of soft tissue damage, joint injuries etc.

And obviously this would end up getting thrown out the window in major finals, or test-series deciders; who cares about next week if there is no next week.
Mullet 2

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Mullet 2 »

Ulsters Red Hand wrote:Cant complain that defence coaches have ruined rugby and then criticise WR for trying to allow better attacking rugby :nod:
You can yeah
irishrugbyua
Posts: 15862
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by irishrugbyua »

Tadgh McElroy moving to Lansdowne from Clontarf.
Harrison Brewer returning to AIL rugby from Japan with Terenure.
Last edited by irishrugbyua on Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ulsters Red Hand
Posts: 11556
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm

Re: The Official Irish Rugby Thread

Post by Ulsters Red Hand »

It’s ok to admit you’re wrong sometimes yano
Post Reply