The Current State of Rugby
-
@Rapido i go even more simple...allow them to be sacked, make the attacking team get better at staying on the feet if they want to maul upfield, defending team can then gamble on if they want to end up with a couple of their players on the ground and out of the game
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
-
Just to come back to Mauls for a moment.
Thinking through the England Women's dominance in this area, and the obvious lack of ability to contest the ball, what are then the obvious solutions?
Given that in every other facet of the game teams are expected to play the ball as soon as it is available, is that an answer? I don't think it would bring about contestability but it would stop these stupid 'anaconda' mauls and ones where the rear player just grabs the shorts in front and walks behind a driving pack.
One stoppage only? Currently the best ability to defend is at the beginning. No second drive means ball must come out even if you start moving forward again.
No splitting away or 'rolling'. At scrum time walking around is penalised. Why are you allowed to do it in mauls?Like any change the tactics will adjust and the ball will stay in the middle of the players to be 'unavailable'. This is when 'non dangerous' bringing the maul down should be allowed. Leg lifting still illegal, taking out the legs still illegal but wrestling the maul down should be allowed.
Any other ideas?
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
Thinking through the England Women's dominance in this area, and the obvious lack of ability to contest the ball, what are then the obvious solutions?
what highlighted the headache for me is they were awesome at it -- but really struggled to defend it. Shows the issues.
Risk/reward is not right. Single use seems so much better - and better clarity on what people can do defensively. Penalties rock up randomly, and it's usually only the defending team.
-
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well
Absolutely this. There are two sets of rules at a maul depending on whether you are the attacking team, or the defending team. Make the attacking players have to join behind the ball carrier, not on the side or in front of the ball-carrier. Too many truck and trailers are ignored as well.
-
I think the mens game can take a leaf out of the womens game in the way the ref and TMO interacted, these were done professionally and most importantly, quickly, wasnt several minutes delay while looking for a reason to overturn a try or why they should card someone, often seemed the TMO had been looking at it waiting for the ref to ask about it.
-
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
I think that people have tried and struggled in the past to find examples that provide weight to the argument that a collapsing maul is a safety issue. Also, when done in open field play (holding up a ball carrier in the tackle) the refs have no issue with it coming to ground. In fact it is still a maul but completely different rules seem to be applied.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
I think that people have tried and struggled in the past to find examples that provide weight to the argument that a collapsing maul is a safety issue. Also, when done in open field play (holding up a ball carrier in the tackle) the refs have no issue with it coming to ground. In fact it is still a maul but completely different rules seem to be applied.
@Crucial or the case that an attacking team can do it
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble I think make only 1 stoppage allowed, then use it, and movement back or sideways should be classed as a stoppage.
Also, refs need to be stricter in enforcing where attacking players join as well, and if the defence isnt allowed to bring a maul down, why should the attacking team? Make a bind a full bind, not just holding a jersey with a few fingers.
The way the refs ref the maul they are far too heavily skewed to the attacking team.
would be happy with those, im just a bit jaded with refs being able to actually tell who has collapsed (see scrums) so would rather allow it so they dont have too rather than allow even less thigns
I think that people have tried and struggled in the past to find examples that provide weight to the argument that a collapsing maul is a safety issue. Also, when done in open field play (holding up a ball carrier in the tackle) the refs have no issue with it coming to ground. In fact it is still a maul but completely different rules seem to be applied.
@Crucial ha yep, I expect it is because the defending team created the maul by holding the attacker up, but as they created it, they are allowed to collapse it in this instance, but the difference to a lineout maul, is now both teams are allowed to collapse it, not just the attacking team
-
It's fucked. I watched it on Amazon prime replay where when you fast forward it, you don't see what's going on. I started off 30 seconds for each stop in play ...
By the end of it, I was skipping 2 minutes at time. I rarely missed any action & often had to keep fast forwarding further.
-
I think the mens game can take a leaf out of the womens game in the way the ref and TMO interacted, these were done professionally and most importantly, quickly, wasnt several minutes delay while looking for a reason to overturn a try or why they should card someone, often seemed the TMO had been looking at it waiting for the ref to ask about it.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
I think the mens game can take a leaf out of the womens game in the way the ref and TMO interacted, these were done professionally and most importantly, quickly, wasnt several minutes delay while looking for a reason to overturn a try or why they should card someone, often seemed the TMO had been looking at it waiting for the ref to ask about it.
Definitely flowed better for the women, although I think the TMO/ ref interaction wasn't the main reason for that. But it seemed to work well
-
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
-
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
@nostrildamus but isn;t that just harder to officate? ref running around trying to count players in motion
-
@nostrildamus but isn;t that just harder to officate? ref running around trying to count players in motion
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus but isn;t that just harder to officate? ref running around trying to count players in motion
yes but also easier to see from outside what is happening!
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus but isn;t that just harder to officate? ref running around trying to count players in motion
yes but also easier to see from outside what is happening!
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
-
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
-
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
I like it! But why not just limit the number of attacking players? Let's say to 4 players, then the defense has the option to try to stop it with 4 themselves, or if they need to, they can commit more than that but risk leaving holes in wider channels?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
do people serious think adding MORE complexity to the game will help? imagine off the lineout players either piling in and immediately getting pinged...yay, more penalties...or all holding off like when you awkwardly try and pass someone in the street and keep walking into them..."no, you go..."no, please, after you"
-
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
do people serious think adding MORE complexity to the game will help? imagine off the lineout players either piling in and immediately getting pinged...yay, more penalties...or all holding off like when you awkwardly try and pass someone in the street and keep walking into them..."no, you go..."no, please, after you"
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
but you only answered part of my suggestion (I think).
And there is the injury concern with extra weight.
And a limit on numbers may give attackers pause to consider who should lead it.
And it may reduce penalties or illegalities.
And the game could flow better.
And it would reduce the scaling factor if a team has consistently bigger / stronger players. -
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
do people serious think adding MORE complexity to the game will help? imagine off the lineout players either piling in and immediately getting pinged...yay, more penalties...or all holding off like when you awkwardly try and pass someone in the street and keep walking into them..."no, you go..."no, please, after you"
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus that would make the overall situation worse...the tv viewing audience seeing clearly (imagine the graphics on screen counting players off) something very difficult to judge on the ground....isn't that part of the problem? we all see loads of stuff the ref misses
being able to see gameplay? The horror, the horror!
if you're going to oversimplify the idea to that generic statement then yeah....its great....but that doesnt address the comment it would be even harder for refs to officiate and so might to even more frustration with how the game if officated
Well, I am working off the principle that if gameplay in rugby is good we should be able to see as much of it as possible. Oversimplified or principled? Up for debate.
-
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
I like it! But why not just limit the number of attacking players? Let's say to 4 players, then the defense has the option to try to stop it with 4 themselves, or if they need to, they can commit more than that but risk leaving holes in wider channels?
@voodoo said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
for mauls one could limit the overall number of number across of players binding?
I like it! But why not just limit the number of attacking players? Let's say to 4 players, then the defense has the option to try to stop it with 4 themselves, or if they need to, they can commit more than that but risk leaving holes in wider channels?
I don't know if that would work but it does have an interesting aspect-attackers would probably be much more adverse to wasting time and letting defenders mass/regroup..
