Relics of amateur era that deserve to stay

Otago needed around 60 years to win the coveted Ranfurly Shield today. Great to see this prize still grab the highlights in the professional era. Auckland's dominance took the shine off this prize as they were so breathtakingly dominant in NZ rugby for so long. Now that the AB players rarely play in the ITM it has made it easier for this trophy to move around as no one side can dominate if they have the best players because often they're unavailable.

What thing from the amateur past are you happy to see alive and kicking in the professional era?

I was going to say The Lions, but then I read the latest thread on the International Board and concluded that particular relic needs to be thrown into the fire of Mount Doom.

That'll stop Gollum (sorry, Munkian) dragging it up again.

Proper rucking. It deserves to stay but is pretty much extinct.

What is really required is a steady scrum and for the ref to apply the Laws as the game should be played.

But there again, I'm just a rabid optimist.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:What is really required is a steady scrum and for the ref to apply the Laws as the game should be played.

But there again, I'm just a rabid optimist.

Not sure how many recent gams you have seen but, allowing for all involved adapting to the new rules, the scrum does seem better and i am pretty sure that we could get back to the scrum being a brilliant part of the game rather than a tiresome bore of collapsing and refereeing inconsistency.

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:What is really required is a steady scrum and for the ref to apply the Laws as the game should be played.

But there again, I'm just a rabid optimist.

Not sure how many recent game you have seen but, allowing for all involved adapting to the new rules, the scrum does seem better and i am pretty sure that we could get back to the scrum being a brilliant part of the game rather than a tiresome bore of collapsing and refereeing inconsistency.

I've seen two games so far, maes. 1. Montpelier v Toulon where apparently the ref (especially in the first half) had learned only the new engage commands and nothing else. 2. The 1st Aus v ABs match last week where the ref didn't enforce the stable scrum and wanted the ball fed precisely when he said - which is not the object of the changes.

Also passes should return to actually backwards. The dodgy IRB videos and momentum and 'shape of the hands' are mostly cobblers. If a ball goes forward, it goes forward - end of. Things started to go truly wrong when the flat pass was sanctioned.

Agree with you regarding the flat pass...

How about Deano?

I hope the scrum will settle down and return to being a proper contest for the ball (rather than for penalties).

I disagree about the "flat pass". If the ball actually had to travel backwards then it would be an end to passing when moving at speed. The IRB video where a jogging player throws the ball directly backwards over their head and it still goes forward relative to the ground demonstrates the physics clearly enough: it's very difficult for a player moving at any kind of speed to ensure the ball goes backwards. Strict enforcement of the ball having to actually go backwards would lead to coaches finding strategies that minimise passing at speed for fear of giving the ball away. The IRB directive for referees to look at the direction of the hands is a sensible and unambiguous solution. It's not perfect, but short of slowing the game to a crawl or changing the laws of physics, I can't think of a better one.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Also passes should return to actually backwards. The dodgy IRB videos and momentum and 'shape of the hands' are mostly cobblers. If a ball goes forward, it goes forward - end of. Things started to go truly wrong when the flat pass was sanctioned.

Problem is, the ref running alongside the players thinks that the pass has gone backwards with "momentum" passes. Only a fixed stationary point, like a seated fan, will see the actual flight of the ball.




Not dissimilar to my granpappy dropping bombs from his Lancaster - the poor sucker on the ground could see it does not drop straight down.

LondonTiger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Also passes should return to actually backwards. The dodgy IRB videos and momentum and 'shape of the hands' are mostly cobblers. If a ball goes forward, it goes forward - end of. Things started to go truly wrong when the flat pass was sanctioned.

Problem is, the ref running alongside the players thinks that the pass has gone backwards with "momentum" passes. Only a fixed stationary point, like a seated fan, will see the actual flight of the ball.




Not dissimilar to my granpappy dropping bombs from his Lancaster - the poor sucker on the ground could see it does not drop straight down.

The flaw in this argument is you need to calculate a vector speed to resolve the relative pass direction. I agree that the ref running alongside the passer would perceive a flat pass if if he (the ref) was travelling at the same velocity. However, what I say is that the pass should be backwards relative to the passer. Not flat, backwards. Therefore a. the forward pass is more easily judged and b. the ref does not have to interpret the 'shape of the hands' subjectively.

Remember, the Laws define the forward pass as being towards the opposition touch line and not by smoke and mirrors interpretations of momentum (real science) and aesthetics.

I get what you're saying, Portnoy, and I'd support something that tweaked things to say the aim has to be backwards. The problem with "backwards relative to the passer" is that if the passer's momentum changes abruptly - for instance because they are tackled - then the ball can move ahead of them even if the direction of the pass was backwards. It's also difficult for the ref to judge unless they are perfectly positioned and have similar momentum.

I don't think you can eliminate the element of subjectivity. The "direction of the hands" rule means that the ref only has to consider one factor and make a fairly straightforward judgement, rather than having to think about the physics in real time.

The Barbarians.

Still does it for me although I think the teams playing them need to enter into the spirit of the fixture and play attacking rugby and not worry about their defence.

Poor4, If a player running at 15mph (22ft/s) passes 'flat' at the same velocity, the ball will go forward at 1.41ft/s (I think - I'd have to re-learn knowledge of >40yrs to be sure).

We all know that in practice, if a ref spots the ball going forward when a player's momentum is dissipated in a tackle, the ball clearly goes forward and the passer is pinged.

Most likely however if the player is not tackled, the illusion is maintained and the passer is not pinged.

p.s. And the ref/tmo already has enough to do without interpreting the shape of hands rather than a simple "did s/he pass the ball back?".

Scrumpy that's one I've fallen out of love with but I agree with your attack principle. Through the forwards as well as the backs.

The Lions divide opinion as we've all seen but at least it's a makeshift team with some time to prepare. The problem with the Barbarians is that they're lumped together from all corners with about a week to come together. They don't feel they can learn any team tactics in that time so they invariably end up bonding through drinking.

It's time we gave Barbarian caps to up and coming players or those who have fallen out of favour who want to stand out and send a message of intent to their selectors. Usually you have to deal with clubs or who are reluctant to loan out their players. But they'd be much more receptive to loaning out players who are not getting much game time or who are out of the mix.

That way, if you have these types of players rather than past big names of the game, you're not going to struggle for motivation from your squad. You're not going to see finesse or experience but you will get eagerness and enthusiasm which all too recently the Barbarian teams have lacked.

Kia I agree, the baa baas need players that are hungry for it.

Too often they're used as ceremonial matches for former test stars who have fallen off the radar. I'd much prefer to see potential future stars given a shot to prove themselves and for the team to feed off that hunger. It will be scrappy at times but you won't ever fault their intent or endeavor. That's what's been missing from too many baa baa games for me in recent times.