Rugby is being ruined

[Kiwiwomble]

I think it might be the only point I disagreed with new portocols. Basically if a tackler is clearly making tackle and has got to blow waist height of the shortest player on the pitch they shouldn't be carded.

making a judgement against another player (the shortest on the field) that might be on the other side of the pitch is probably a bit hard to enforce but i think i get the point and in principle agree, i think we can only really expect a player to get down to their own waist but we're really arguing semantics at that point

What i said earlier about carding a player with the ball leading with their head might be a bit extreme, it will happen but rarely, hopefully we'll get to the point where a tackler can be judged to have made a real effort to get down, wrap arms etc and that any contact is purely an accident

 

[Rinkadink]

If a player cannot get down low enough then that's tough luck for them really, it gives teams a reason to pick smaller players and gives them an advantage just as bigger ones have advantages in other situations. Why should the game only favour giants? That's not historically true and everyone likes to call rugby the game for all. "He's taller so should be no sanction for decapitating that little guy" is a poor argument that I've even seen on here over the past couple of weeks.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If a player cannot get down low enough then that's tough luck for them really, it gives teams a reason to pick smaller players and gives them an advantage just as bigger ones have advantages in other situations. Why should the game only favour giants? That's not historically true and everyone likes to call rugby the game for all. "He's taller so should be no sanction for decapitating that little guy" is a poor argument that I've even seen on here over the past couple of weeks.

I just think we need to give thought to how we're managing things out of players control, we seem to be going to a very black and white kind of deal, open play = good, stoppage = penalty/card, someone always need to be blamed...

scrums are the ultimate example of this attitude at the moment, scrum A demolishes Scrum B, pushes them off the ball and it breaks up....scrum B didn't actually do anything wrong or illegal, they got popped because they weren't strong enough...and are then penalised for not being strong enough...we are literally penalising people for not being strong enough, some one tell me what scrum B can do to stop being demolished and penalised...suddenly get stronger? surely scrum A getting the ball, maybe a free kick is enough

I just have this image of fumi tanaka running at brodie retallick...i just dont think i want a sport where brodie has to quickly think "will getting on my knees be low enough...maybe not...i cant risk it...i hope someone is sweeping behind me"

i'll leave this here, little guys (tanaka) are no light weights...except literally

 

[Lancashire Nick]

As the ***le suggests the game is being ruined by all the soft ruling on head shots surely the onus will have to be put on the person being tackled if he is going to go low into contact there is no way a player can adjust that late when he has already made his line for the tackle, a pure example is the Tongan yellow against the Irish player that Tonga player was as almost as low as you can get then the Irish lad dropped ( nuts ) down and got a huge advantage a penalty and a yellow card, then my next issue is the TMO actually calling play back unless the player has been knocked out clean then he needs to leave the calls to the ref and the touch judges we are going to turn new spectators away with all the cards and interference from above. And if you want to know how to make the game faster and better let me know

So, for the past few years, you've been watching a game where there is no longer a battle for possession amongst the Forwards; no room for Backs to show their skills; and the team with possession just runs endless one man hit-ups into contact, leading to a never ending stream of mini-rucks; but it's the ref penalising hits to the head that's ruining the game ............ Okay.

 

[Rinkadink]

So, for the past few years, you've been watching a game where there is no longer a battle for possession amongst the Forwards; no room for Backs to show their skills; and the team with possession just runs endless one man hit-ups into contact, leading to a never ending stream of mini-rucks; but it's the ref penalising hits to the head that's ruining the game ............ Okay.

I mean, I don't know what game you've been watching but okay.





Could always become a Bears fan as they definitely play very differently to what you've claimed is happening.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I think there is definitely scope for:

- overturning penalties for simulation.

- introducing 1x or 2x challenges per team, per half so that TMOs cannot pour over every tackle and review multiple phases in the lead up to tries unless a challenge is submitted by a captain. It would mean less time reviewing action and greatly reduce the grounds for complaint from teams. If you are whining about something then formally challenge it or shut the hell up.

- being restrained on what replays are shown in the stadium to avoid showing things that have not been officially challenged.

- TMOs cannot give opinions when the referee can clearly see the replay on a big screen to take power away from partisan TV directors.

All of the above are present in different sports, so it isn't rocket science.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think there is definitely scope for:

- overturning penalties for simulation.

- introducing 1x or 2x challenges per team, per half so that TMOs cannot pour over every tackle and review multiple phases in the lead up to tries unless a challenge is submitted by a captain. It would mean less time reviewing action and greatly reduce the grounds for complaint from teams. If you are whining about something then formally challenge it or shut the hell up.

- being restrained on what replays are shown in the stadium to avoid showing things that have not been officially challenged.

- TMOs cannot give opinions when the referee can clearly see the replay on a big screen to take power away from partisan TV directors.

All of the above are present in different sports, so it isn't rocket science.

This was already trialed in South Africa, during the Varsity Cup, where a team had the use of a White Card to refer something the officials might have missed. But it was very time consuming as at times it was about 14-20 phases back, and the footage took a long time to go through. Some times it took up to 5 minutes to get through everything to find the incident, and then to still adjudicate it made it even longer. That's also something we don't want

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

This was already trialed in South Africa, during the Varsity Cup, where a team had the use of a White Card to refer something the officials might have missed. But it was very time consuming as at times it was about 14-20 phases back, and the footage took a long time to go through. Some times it took up to 5 minutes to get through everything to find the incident, and then to still adjudicate it made it even longer. That's also something we don't want

Well in tennis, you can only review instantly. The same could apply on rugby. Say, you must challenge within 3 phases (or 10 seconds) of something happening or the challenge is void. You'd have to calculate what sort of time a message could take to reasonably be relayed from anywhere on the park to the captain. Or simplify it by making it the coaches call rather than something players have to worry about. Disappointing to hear the trial didn't go more smoothly, but at least someone is thinking about these sort of things.

 

[duncanb]

Bruce love your posts and hugely sensible in general this I'm afraid this is barking up the wrong tree.
WR will decide remit of TMOs and personally I think they will reduce it a tad.
They have no need to look at a spurious incident just clear and obvious missed by game officials.
As fans we accept our players mistakes we should be big enough to accept the officials mistakes every person on the field is human not a robotic professional.
Plus it makes for great debate after the match.
Does anyone really want 100% correct decisions??

 

[Every Time Ref]

Well in tennis, you can only review instantly. The same could apply on rugby. Say, you must challenge within 3 phases (or 10 seconds) of something happening or the challenge is void. You'd have to calculate what sort of time a message could take to reasonably be relayed from anywhere on the park to the captain. Or simplify it by making it the coaches call rather than something players have to worry about. Disappointing to hear the trial didn't go more smoothly, but at least someone is thinking about these sort of things.

There's too much going on, too much of it unseen, and not enough natural breaks in play fir this system to work in rugby I think.

 

[TRF_heineken]

There's too much going on, too much of it unseen, and not enough natural breaks in play fir this system to work in rugby I think.

exactly! It's nonsensical to compare what they do in tennis to that of rugby. And what Bruce is suggesting, is to have more stops. Which is what everybody don't want. In rugby the incidents aren't always as clear cut either. So why stop play just to check something. That would break momentum of the team in posession of the ball trying to score a try.

And teams defending might use this to break that momentum in the off chance to have a reset even when they know they don't have an incident to look at.

 

[ncurd]

Most of the time with a competent TMO rugby has got it right, ref check stuff they were unsure about the TMO checks if he thinks he saw something. Foul play is generally checked to make sure a game changing decision isn't botched.

Incidents like yesterday with the maul is when it's overreaching in my opinion. No way does that normally get picked up and I'm unsure it was the correct decision.

If your over turning trys it should be clear and obvious for the TMO to come in.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I'm advocating less checks! At present every try is scrutinised by the TMO. With a challenge system you either dont review it at all unless challenged, or you limit the amount of phases you go back. Similarly at the start of the tournament play was routinely being stopped by the ref/TMO to check tackles. With a challenge system play is only stopped if there is a challenge OR if someone requires immediate medical attention. If you challenge incorrectly then you lose your challenges for the half and consequently there are a lot less breaks in play.

 

[mdaclarke]

One thing that is interesting is that the commentators were saying that Wales were tacking too high and tackling around the waist is actually more effective. Was surprised by that.

 

[Zapphod]

One thing that is interesting is that the commentators were saying that Wales were tacking too high and tackling around the waist is actually more effective. Was surprised by that.

Tackling is higher now simply to stop the off load and the nature of the modern fast game is all about off loading in the tackle.

In my opinion intent should be the deciding factor in determining a dangerous tackle, I think a line should be drawn from the centre of the ribcage (nipples) down above that is always dangerous a (with mitigations such as falling into the tackle) below that is pretty much fine.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

In my opinion intent should be the deciding factor in determining a dangerous tackle,.

How pray tell without the use of a mind reader / lie detector are you going establish intent? Facial expression? How much previous form they have? What? Intent cannot be accurately judged by a third party and why it cannot be used in the Laws.

 

[Ben Gerber]

Where has Joe Cokanasinga been for the World Cup? Sorry... only an international fan not club so don't follow as much as most of you.

 

[ncurd]

Where has Joe Cokanasinga been for the World Cup? Sorry... only an international fan not club so don't follow as much as most of you.

not being selected because he's behind the pecking order of May, Watson, Daly and Nowell.

 

[Zapphod]

How pray tell without the use of a mind reader / lie detector are you going establish intent? Facial expression? How much previous form they have? What? Intent cannot be accurately judged by a third party and why it cannot be used in the Laws.

I disagree, a tackle or action that has little regard for the safety of the ball carrier is pretty easy to identify and while I do understand the rather disingenuous response I would point out that the laws governing dangerous tackles have worked fairly well for the last 20 years.

One of issues faced here is that the game has changed significantly since the mid-1980s and the response has been to continually apply band-aid over band-aid without ever really fixing the problem for the modern game.

There's too much going on, too much of it unseen, and not enough natural breaks in play fir this system to work in rugby I think.

I agree, systems like that proposed run the risk of turning the game into American football and I am not sure anyone wants to turn an 80 minute game into a three hour marathon of legal interpretation.

 

[die_mole]

you know what's ruining rugby? **** box kicks
bring back the goal from mark and let players mark anywhere on the field