Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:52 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6865
Location: Madrid
Mahoney wrote:
They’re suggesting that if the attacking team aren’t clearly making rapid progress towards the try line, the ref awards the penalty. At the moment he will let the attacking team play on through multiple phases in much the same part of the pitch until they lose the ball, then give the penalty.

So it’s not calling advantage over, just giving the penalty faster if not a lot is happening.

To me the advantage law is about two things; firstly, not denying everyone the enjoyment of seeing some really good bit of play by awarding the penalty when there’s a fantastic opportunity open to the attacking team, and secondly encouraging the attacking team to play on rather than collapse in a heap when some foul play occurs. It’s not so much about giving the attacking team an opportunity to play on through multiple phases in the hope that a line break happens several phases down the line whilst keeping the penalty in reserve if it doesn’t.


I understand what they're saying, I just straight up don't agree with it and think what they suggest is impossible to write into the laws without putting some sort of time or phase limit on it. It is a free play, for as long as you want if in the red zone. All they are suggesting is that there should be some sort of lenience towards an offending team and I don't agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5117
Location: Eryri
Toro wrote:
Mahoney wrote:
They’re suggesting that if the attacking team aren’t clearly making rapid progress towards the try line, the ref awards the penalty. At the moment he will let the attacking team play on through multiple phases in much the same part of the pitch until they lose the ball, then give the penalty.

So it’s not calling advantage over, just giving the penalty faster if not a lot is happening.

To me the advantage law is about two things; firstly, not denying everyone the enjoyment of seeing some really good bit of play by awarding the penalty when there’s a fantastic opportunity open to the attacking team, and secondly encouraging the attacking team to play on rather than collapse in a heap when some foul play occurs. It’s not so much about giving the attacking team an opportunity to play on through multiple phases in the hope that a line break happens several phases down the line whilst keeping the penalty in reserve if it doesn’t.


I understand what they're saying, I just straight up don't agree with it and think what they suggest is impossible to write into the laws without putting some sort of time or phase limit on it. It is a free play, for as long as you want if in the red zone. All they are suggesting is that there should be some sort of lenience towards an offending team and I don't agree.


Given the sheer number of offences for which a penalty can be awarded in rugby, many of which are down to wildly varying interpretation by referees, I think your last sentence is unreasonable. Few penalties are actually given for dirty play.

I would actually reword the law to say ‘advantage should be played where the referee feels the team in possession has an imminent opportunity to score a try.’ This would allow the attacking team to pile forward, would allow cheeky chips over the defence, but would prevent long and turgid passages of play where no real progress is made and only one team has any chance of scoring. One of the best things about rugby is that it can turn on its head so quickly. A charge down, an intercepted pass or a cheeky steal at the ruck and suddenly defence turns into attack. This literally can’t happen with an enormously long penalty advantage. What you seem to be saying is that the side with the advantage should be able to retain the it until they score, or the opposition manage to get the ball back, at which point they will be able to kick for goal. I fundamentally disagree with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6865
Location: Madrid
Doc Rob wrote:
Toro wrote:
Mahoney wrote:
They’re suggesting that if the attacking team aren’t clearly making rapid progress towards the try line, the ref awards the penalty. At the moment he will let the attacking team play on through multiple phases in much the same part of the pitch until they lose the ball, then give the penalty.

So it’s not calling advantage over, just giving the penalty faster if not a lot is happening.

To me the advantage law is about two things; firstly, not denying everyone the enjoyment of seeing some really good bit of play by awarding the penalty when there’s a fantastic opportunity open to the attacking team, and secondly encouraging the attacking team to play on rather than collapse in a heap when some foul play occurs. It’s not so much about giving the attacking team an opportunity to play on through multiple phases in the hope that a line break happens several phases down the line whilst keeping the penalty in reserve if it doesn’t.


I understand what they're saying, I just straight up don't agree with it and think what they suggest is impossible to write into the laws without putting some sort of time or phase limit on it. It is a free play, for as long as you want if in the red zone. All they are suggesting is that there should be some sort of lenience towards an offending team and I don't agree.


Given the sheer number of offences for which a penalty can be awarded in rugby, many of which are down to wildly varying interpretation by referees, I think your last sentence is unreasonable. Few penalties are actually given for dirty play.

I would actually reword the law to say ‘advantage should be played where the referee feels the team in possession has an imminent opportunity to score a try.’ This would allow the attacking team to pile forward, would allow cheeky chips over the defence, but would prevent long and turgid passages of play where no real progress is made and only one team has any chance of scoring. One of the best things about rugby is that it can turn on its head so quickly. A charge down, an intercepted pass or a cheeky steal at the ruck and suddenly defence turns into attack. This literally can’t happen with an enormously long penalty advantage. What you seem to be saying is that the side with the advantage should be able to retain the it until they score, or the opposition manage to get the ball back, at which point they will be able to kick for goal. I fundamentally disagree with this.


I get where you’re coming from but I think any change you are suggesting is just favouring an infringing team, I’ve made no reference to dirty play. The last bit you mention is not what I seem to be saying, it’s exactly how the law is written and interpreted, which I agree with. Your suggested change seems to only refer to the red zone, but how can you say that at any ruck in the red zone a try clearly isn’t imminent? Phase play is exactly what often creates a disorganised defence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:08 pm
Posts: 415
Quite a lot of things then.

Offsides is the big one for me.

Rugby doesn't really work without a strictly policed offside line. Players are now allowed to run out of the defensive line so fast they're basically tackling opposing players as they're catching the ball. This happens throughout the game and referees do nothing about it, it's like they've forgotten being offside is even an infringement.

It appears so easy to fix, but World Rugby don't seem bothered about it all. I'm wondering if maybe they like it because they think it reduces collisions and general physicality in the game, I know they've become pretty hysterical about that kind of thing recently. Just has the unfortunate side-effect of completely ruining the game as any kind of watchable spectacle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 2986
It was good to see a French player penalised yesterday for tackling beyond the ruck. It happens all too often with no action taken.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19248
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
I'm with Toro - cards. x( x( x( x( x( x( x(

The punishment should fit the crime and the only time these things (which hand a disproportionate advantage to one team) should be used is for violent conduct.

EDIT - although I see this is for the 6Ns only so I now move into the "fudge up your games if you want to" camp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6865
Location: Madrid
Jackal79 wrote:
Quite a lot of things then.

Offsides is the big one for me.

Rugby doesn't really work without a strictly policed offside line. Players are now allowed to run out of the defensive line so fast they're basically tackling opposing players as they're catching the ball. This happens throughout the game and referees do nothing about it, it's like they've forgotten being offside is even an infringement.

It appears so easy to fix, but World Rugby don't seem bothered about it all. I'm wondering if maybe they like it because they think it reduces collisions and general physicality in the game, I know they've become pretty hysterical about that kind of thing recently. Just has the unfortunate side-effect of completely ruining the game as any kind of watchable spectacle.


It is ruining the game a bit yep, players are very quick off the mark these days and are already on the move as the ball gets cleared given most teams are looking for quick ball and the defence can anticipate it.

Teams are very good at getting numbers out of the rucks quickly so the hindmost feet has actually become the back or head of the ball carrier, almost the ball in some cases. The benefit of the doubt seems to be usually given to the defensive team when they 'appear' to be up very quick, this is one case where I would like to see the focus changed, then teams wouldn't push the limit so much.

Personally I think they should make the hindmost feet 2m from the ball no matter what, or a clear metre maybe 2 is a lot. But a clear distance from where the ball is cleared from would just open things up that much more.

Still slightly amusing reading the bitching about the offside line from both Welsh and English posters. Now it's ruining the game but the same practice was widely lauded when the Lions did it in June. :P :x


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CrazyIslander, dam0, JPNZ, koroke hangareka, Normac, Shrekles, wamberal, ZappaMan and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group