• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

50:22 and more to be globally trialled by WR

quite legitimately think the emphasis should be on a team to overcome the other team infringing rather than have people in the bin, especially when these "professional fouls" you talk about are often being half a meter (often less) in front of the line, or losing their balance and dropping to theyre hands whilst going for the ball
when i was coming through "professional foul" was reserved for taking someones head off or at worst a tackle (early/late) off the ball....people talk about giving cards for things are are often just straight up mistakes/accidents

can you imagine if football started giving cards for offside?...give the team that was wronged the ball and play on

"Committing a penalty shouldn't be the smart tactical play. Is this what we want to teach the children?" no its not...but currently we're teaching them to milk penalties and cards to skew a game and i dont think thats much better
football gives out cards automatically for professional fouls so I don't see your point (not to mention you can't commit an offside infraction as a tactical advantage so that's just a bad faith argument.) Intentionally foul someone= yellow card. Commit any foul as the last defender=red card.
 
football gives out cards automatically for professional fouls so I don't see your point (not to mention you can't commit an offside infraction as a tactical advantage so that's just a bad faith argument.) Intentionally foul someone= yellow card. Commit any foul as the last defender=red card.
of course you can, lob the ball upfield and if someone is off side they can get to is sooner/first, big advantage....but they dont give cards for it...even five times in a row, free kick and play on, you only get cards for for a foul like a dangerous tackle or maybe decent
 
of course you can, lob the ball upfield and if someone is off side they can get to is sooner/first, big advantage....but they dont give cards for it...even five times in a row, free kick and play on, you only get cards for for a foul like a dangerous tackle or maybe decent
that's getting away with being offside. A professional foul is when you commit a foul because the result of penalty being called is preferable to letting play go on. Cards are given for that all the time. In fact in the official rules they are listed before foul play for reasons to be sent off.

From the IFAB website.

Screen Shot 2022-06-16 at 7.03.08 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-06-16 at 7.01.57 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-06-16 at 7.01.57 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-06-16 at 7.01.57 PM.png
    184.3 KB · Views: 2
that's getting away with being offside. A professional foul is when you commit a foul because the result of penalty being called is preferable to letting play go on. Cards are given for that all the time. In fact in the official rules they are listed before foul play for reasons to be sent off.

From the IFAB website.

View attachment 14107
View attachment 14105
then there is a big difference in how its written and how it officiated in all the games ive watched, rugby must be the only sport in the world where there is a growing call for refs to have more impact/influence, all the other sports i watch people generally want things sorted out by the players
 
Another thing i would change, yesterday if i could:
Team A is in possession. There is a ruck. PLayer a (from team A) ilegally holds player b (from team B) preventing player a from disengaging and going back to wherever he wants to go.
Player b 'overreacts' and team A is awarded a penalty. The conversation with the ref is always the same. Ref tells captain from team B something along the lines: 'i know he was being held but you he cant take the laws into his own hands, you need to let me deal with that.'
The problem i see is
- They NEVER or hardly ever deal with that
- that creates a HUGE incentive for players to illegally hold others in the ruck and this is the root cause of the problem.


Player A creates a (n ilegal) situation, player B reacts and B gets penalized. Well, you can tell yourself you are addressing it by punishing B ex post but that is naive at best, idiotic at worst. B didnt arrive at the ruck thinking 'hey, lets create a situation', A did. Yet A gets rewarded for that which reinforces A's incentives to do it again.

Not saying B is correct.
 
I both agree and disagree.
Ref.s need to start pinging Player A for holding the tackled player in, but Player B also has to know that retaliation is always going to get you punished more severely (and rightly so).

The trouble is, I don't think there's a law against holding the tackled player in, so we'd need yet another law to ping that, or at least a new ref's directive saying that being held in excuses the tackled from trying to get away - which would be ripe for further abuse.

And yes, retaliation should always be penalised more harshly than the original transgression - otherwise you've created a charter for everything to escalated to a full-on 30-man brawl.
 
I think there is a law. Wasn't it against Newcastle where Ludlum was holding a player (American guy with the beard whose name I can't remember) in and then he got punched. I'm sure in the conversation the ref said it would have been a penalty for holding the player if not for the punch.

It definitely needs to be reffed more consistently.
 
I can't ever remember a ref giving a penalty for holding in etc but always the player who reacts gets punished.

For me refs are pathetically weak on what they look at and what they actually ref. So hit and miss but overall it's just still not good enough.
 
Ref.s need to start pinging Player A for holding the tackled player in, but Player B also has to know that retaliation is always going to get you punished more severely (and rightly so).

This sort of responses is, imo, a huge part of the problem. I am trying to adress A, i specifically mention B is not correct in his behaviour, and yet we continue to turn our heads away from A and focus on B. The problem, the instigator, the root cause, is A, not B. And we keep hearing about how the ref should have, would have, could have pinged, but that never happens.

Im my book, retaliation is a lesser offense than aggression yet the laws of the game tend to punish retaliation equally or worse than aggression. That, for me, is not only nonsensical but also ruins part of the game. It allows (for the possibility at least) of a weaker player for team A to instigate a fight with B's best player. Worst case, they are both off and team A wins. Then we hear post game about how the ref could have, should have, would have pinged this or that, ad nauseam.

You start punishing A severely and the instances of B doing something collapse overnight, guaranteed.

The trouble is, I don't think there's a law against holding the tackled player in
Law 14!

You could argue once the ruck is formed there is a bit of a grey area, but just to use a well known example of what i am taking about when Owen Farrell held CJ stander got into this situation both were not part of the ruck anymore. I picked that example becase a) i have no skin in that game, b) I want people who act like farrell in that instance to be severely punished, instant YC and c) i want people like Stander to get a slap on the wrist IF AND ONLY IF the do not close their fists.

You might be looking for another thing. My point, again, is that as it stands this encourages instigators, punishes people who get caught with illegal moves and tends to penalize more heavily to the people who react. I really, really think that is a terrible for the game.
 
definitely need to stop penalising players for not rolling away if theyre being held in there but the other team, yet another way we're teaching guys to milk penalties...its even more baffling when the ball would be easily playable if someone just tried rather than pointing at the guy on the ground
 
Last edited:
Why?
Rugby needs to stop looking at soccer and now 2d baseball for ideas. If it really wants to borrow from other sports I'd suggest it look to it's offspring sport ice hockey for game management tools.
 
This is the problem of governments, be they of nations, sports or anything else.

Most of the hard work has been done (murder is illegal, theft, rape etc likewise) but the powers that be have to justify their continued existence. It should really be a part-time job, dealing with minor matters arising (internet crimes, caterpillar rucks) but there's no money or prestige in that. The Devil makes work for idle hands and we get nonsense like non-crime hate incidents or Super Powerplay Sin Bins.

The solution is, of course, for the public (who are wise, on the whole) to insist that governing bodies stick to their primary functions (apprehend criminals, speed the effing game up) and stop trying to innovate.
 
That powerplay sin bin idea is one of the worst I've ever seen proposed, and that includes that guy who used to post random ruggestions on here, can't remember his username now.
 
new fan costantly talk about how rugby has too many arbitrary rules, hard to follow.....i know...lets come up with a new rule!
exactly

also wouldn't a team just their power play to cancel out the other team's power play? Like I'm fairly confident I can see it being used in the following scenarios:

Team gets YC. Use it to make it 14 on 14.
Other team gets YC. Use it to make it 15 on 13. Other team uses it to make it 14 on 13.

Neither team gets a YC for the first 70 minutes. Both teams use it at 70 minutes.

Oh wow the excitement.
 
"Smith is lining up for the kick here. This will put harlequins back within an unconverted try. Here comes Farrell up to Barnes, looks like he's asking for TMO review. Nope, smith will be heading for a power play brought to you by FTX."
 
Top