Have I slept through a new set of rules...

Guys, need to have a moan...

Since when has the rules allowed...

1. Crooked feeds into scrums (one debated many times)
2. Crooked throws into lineouts.. Seems to me more crooked throws than straight ones these days.
3. Forward passes

... and lets not get onto high tackles, tip tackles, obstructions...

Watching Ireland play yesterday, the number of times the ref missed the forward movement of the ball (ie the 3 points above) I thought I must have slept late and woke up during the Super Bowl...

Ref's really need to enforce these or they may as well get rid of the set pieces....

By the way, I know some Irish fans seem to thing Garcès favoured the Welsh, but I say look again.. I actually think he didn't favour either side, but was completely incompetent as was his linemen..

Right... got that off my chest... Anyone want to comment....

The ref was fine. Let the game flow the best he could.

4. No law against holding on at the breakdown. The number of times we got through the ruck legally, got hands on the ball and they just hung onto it until the cavalry came... it was laughable, I counted three or four clear penalties we could have won in the run-up to them taking the lead.

The "choke tackle" is one area I have raised concerns with before.

By it's very definition it's a tackle that's going to be high to begin with in an attempt to hold the ball up and force a maul.

However player instinctively try to get the ball down and end up being held up by their necks and heads.

A little dangerous and IMO it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

I'd like to go back to tackles below the chest. Any higher and we start penalizing.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The "choke tackle" is one area I have raised concerns with before.

By it's very definition it's a tackle that's going to be high to begin with in an attempt to hold the ball up and force a maul.

If you mean high as in chest-high and legal then yes. If you mean it's a high tackle then no.

The choke tackle has been around since 2009 when Ireland used it for the Grand Slam and I've seen one case of someone getting hurt and that was Mark Bennett a few years ago

If the player with the ball tries to go to ground when the choke becomes a maul then its a penalty as they are essentially trying to take a maul down which is illegal

There was an incident last year where someone appeared to be unconcious in the middle of one. It's one fo those though where if a player is held up by the neck/head it should be a pen. Otherwise fine.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There was an incident last year where someone appeared to be unconcious in the middle of one. It's one fo those though where if a player is held up by the neck/head it should be a pen. Otherwise fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0

This the one?

Aside from the risk of injury posed by the choke tackle it annoys me that it doesn't get policed like any other maul. I've lost count of the number of times that the referee cries 'maul!' and I see players running around the side to block the opposition or drag it down illegally.

Aside from anything else, it is just such a negative tactic. The defending team know that if they've got the player held up they don't even have to continue contesting, they can just keep holding on until the other side run about of steam, even if they are going backwards at a rate of knots. I would like to see the team going forward get the scrum. If the attacking team continue to push forward with the ball in the air, they get the ball. If the defending team stop the surge and push the attacking team backwards, they should get it. If there is no clear movement, I believe the ball should remain with the attacking team.

Don't remember watching that so not sure it was.

And yes there should be more pens for deliberate collapses.

The fact that a ref has to call maul is baffling, either its a maul or its not its one area that's not open to interpretation. I think it was Garces a few weeks back kept refusing to call maul despite it having all the requirements of a maul and then you are left with a messy breakdown and players scrambling to get clear

One area that needs fixing is the breakdown, you can't expect a player to roll away when the opponents backrow is laying on top of them

He handed them the draw, plain and simple.

Who handed what to who?

Ireland fluffed a winning chance (throw in Stander's non-seen non-try that might have been had the Welsh huddle not done it's blinding-the-camera-angle job beautifully ) .... and all of a sudden it's written up as them being handed a draw by a ref that wouldn't give them one blessed turnover until late into the game when he was forced to admit one or two to keep his slate cleanish for his bosses.

Scrums are a joke, and the feeds do have a lot to answer for. A lot of hookers have no idea how to hook because they don't need to, which puts the attacking team at huge advantage, meaning that the result of a knock on seems to be a penalty more often than just possession.

Mauls yes are normally a mix of illegal blocking and binding violations by the attacking team and falling on the floor by the defending team.

Lineouts in comparison I think are more or less OK. As long as the defending team has a chance to compete.

Forward passes too, not reffed too badly I don't think. They allow for momentum and benefit of doubt to the attacking team.

When they started penalising squint put-ins at the start of a season - either last or the one before after saying they would - there were more than a few instances of the ball just sitting there in the tunnel as both hookers were afraid to hook. So both sides huffed and puffed until it eventually went down.

After that the feeds came back in!

Free kick to defending team if the attacking team makes no attempt to hook. Sorted.

On the lineout point: I believe lineouts do not have to be dead straight anymore, if they ever had to be? There is an 'allowance' either side of dead straight. Not sure how much. Remember it being discussed previously.

Scottrf wrote:Free kick to defending team if the attacking team makes no attempt to hook. Sorted.

Define at attempt?

Griff wrote:On the lineout point: I believe lineouts do not have to be dead straight anymore, if they ever had to be? There is an 'allowance' either side of dead straight. Not sure how much. Remember it being discussed previously.

"A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight."

Clearly a bit of leeway should be allowed or intention is hard to prove.

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Free kick to defending team if the attacking team makes no attempt to hook. Sorted.

Define at attempt?

Foot lift and forward movement.

As long as you're looking straight down the line, you can throw as crookedly to your own side as you like... and blame the wind co-factor pie-chart of chance for the degrees to right or left....
I think that's the general rule.... the refs watch the eyes and don't care a damn about the direction mostly

SecretFly wrote:As long as you're looking straight down the line, you can throw as crookedly to your own side as you like... and blame the wind co-factor pie-chart of chance for the degrees to right or left....
I think that's the general rule.... the refs watch the eyes and don't care a damn about the direction mostly

But hookers just take a step towards their side and throw it straight, almost never picked up.

I was being very sarcastic there Scott.... Some throws are so blatantly biased it's often laughable how the ref pretends he doesn't have a straight eye to pick them out

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Free kick to defending team if the attacking team makes no attempt to hook. Sorted.

Define at attempt?

Foot lift and forward movement.

All you need then is the opponents scrum to get a push on preventing one of those things and its an automatic penalty

I was most impressed to see the number instances where half backs were allowed to put the ball at scrumtime under their locks feet, the positives are countless.

I also say let the hookers throw the ball down their side of the lineout , especially if the other team arent going to compete for it in the air.

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Free kick to defending team if the attacking team makes no attempt to hook. Sorted.

Define at attempt?

Foot lift and forward movement.

All you need then is the opponents scrum to get a push on preventing one of those things and its an automatic penalty

Which is why you can't let teams drive until the ball is in.

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Free kick to defending team if the attacking team makes no attempt to hook. Sorted.

Define at attempt?

Foot lift and forward movement.

All you need then is the opponents scrum to get a push on preventing one of those things and its an automatic penalty

Which is why you can't let teams drive until the ball is in.

It kills the art of scrummaging then

The reason hookers aren't hooking is because they get up some power and stability by hooking

The advantage is though it returns the scrum to its intended purpose

Notch wrote:4. No law against holding on at the breakdown. The number of times we got through the ruck legally, got hands on the ball and they just hung onto it until the cavalry came... it was laughable, I counted three or four clear penalties we could have won in the run-up to them taking the lead.

Same can be said for Ireland mate, watch the game with BOTH eyes open.  
The referee was consistent for both teams, 2 yellows could of been issued for non cynical play and he chose not to both times.   A penalty was given for against Priestland when the ball bounced off his bicep, while the tip tackle was one, but Liam was twisting his body in mid air which didn't help the situation.  

If the ref blows every time for an offence the game would of been ruined.

Scrums are much better now than they were and much less dangerous, they are not AS time consuming as in previous seasons.

marty2086 wrote:It kills the art of scrummaging then

The reason hookers aren't hooking is because they get up some power and stability by hooking

The advantage is though it returns the scrum to its intended purpose

No it doesn't. The whole idea of the new scrum laws are that the engagement starts at a fixed position when the ball is fed, and there is no drive before. Of course the hooker has to momentarily give up the drive, but that team has feed. If feeds are not straight, then you can let it go but it's fed often behind the front row. The guidance is, I believe, that part of the ball must hit the centre of the tunnel, which makes it a fair competition.

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:It kills the art of scrummaging then

The reason hookers aren't hooking is because they get up some power and stability by hooking

The advantage is though it returns the scrum to its intended purpose

No it doesn't. The whole idea of the new scrum laws are that the engagement starts at a fixed position when the ball is fed, and there is no drive before. Of course the hooker has to momentarily give up the drive, but that team has feed. If feeds are not straight, then you can let it go but it's fed often behind the front row. The guidance is, I believe, that part of the ball must hit the centre of the tunnel, which makes it a fair competition.

If you can scrummage until after the balls been hooked back then the ball will be as good as out before you can drive

One minute you say if a hooker has to hook then they will automatically give away a penalty, now because (as designed) I suggest they shouldn't drive until the ball is fed there will be no competition?

Those are the laws.

I didn't say a hooker has to hook but I did misread what you said, I thought you were saying you should not be able to drive until the ball is hooked

A hooker should do as he is meant to do but how should he do it is the problem. For some that's leaving a leg out to hook it back, for others its getting a drive on and stepping over and hooking it back then that's were your definition of an attempt causes problems.

I think reduced and less fussy rules would help the scrum...
For one, do away with this correct binding bull.... let the players grab what they can..... and play their strength card accordingly.... and just let the ball come out on the side that best manages the mess..... I think the act of trying to tidy up the mess is the problem..... too many mini rules of engagement.

SecretFly wrote:I think reduced and less fussy rules would help the scrum...
For one, do away with this correct binding bull.... let the players grab what they can..... and play their strength card accordingly.... and just let the ball come out on the side that best manages the mess.....  I think the act of trying to tidy up the mess is the problem..... too many mini rules of engagement.

Allowing players to bind wherever they want doesn't help, if you bind short or on the arm your putting your weight on an unstable part of the body which is dangerous if your pulling a guy face first into the ground which will happen

Yesterday Garces asked Nathan White to have a longer bind but spent most of his time on the other side of the scrum and missed it was Evans who had the short bind so I don't know if that was bad communication or just sheer guesswork from the officials

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think reduced and less fussy rules would help the scrum...
For one, do away with this correct binding bull.... let the players grab what they can..... and play their strength card accordingly.... and just let the ball come out on the side that best manages the mess.....  I think the act of trying to tidy up the mess is the problem..... too many mini rules of engagement.

Allowing players to bind wherever they want doesn't help, if you bind short or on the arm your putting your weight on an unstable part of the body which is dangerous if your pulling a guy face first into the ground which will happen

Yesterday Garces asked Nathan White to have a longer bind but spent most of his time on the other side of the scrum and missed it was Evans who had the short bind so I don't know if that was bad communication or just sheer guesswork from the officials

It's a fair game then the other player can resist the attempt to bind in difficult or dangerous places.... I say in order to stop the messing, you have to give more of the conditions of contact over to players and allow it to be a true contest of wills (as it was originally planned to be) rather than players trying to break rules and abide by rules in equal and unequal measure. Someone tries to bind on your arm, you fight him off, it becomes part of the scrum.... but the 'fight' itself doesn't become subject to refs blowing whistles...
The scrum is still dangerous and there seem to be tons of rules regularly broken and dangerously broken.....

Looks like a draw was a fair result then that leaves no one happy good points from the OP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZlFVOp4faI

Shifty wrote:

Notch wrote:4. No law against holding on at the breakdown. The number of times we got through the ruck legally, got hands on the ball and they just hung onto it until the cavalry came... it was laughable, I counted three or four clear penalties we could have won in the run-up to them taking the lead.

Same can be said for Ireland mate, watch the game with BOTH eyes open.  
The referee was consistent for both teams, 2 yellows could of been issued for non cynical play and he chose not to both times.   A penalty was given for against Priestland when the ball bounced off his bicep, while the tip tackle was one, but Liam was twisting his body in mid air which didn't help the situation.  

If the ref blows every time for an offence the game would of been ruined.

Scrums are much better now than they were and much less dangerous, they are not AS time consuming as in previous seasons.

Liam Williams only has himself to blame. He jumps into contact like a gazelle.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Notch wrote:4. No law against holding on at the breakdown. The number of times we got through the ruck legally, got hands on the ball and they just hung onto it until the cavalry came... it was laughable, I counted three or four clear penalties we could have won in the run-up to them taking the lead.

Same can be said for Ireland mate, watch the game with BOTH eyes open.  
The referee was consistent for both teams, 2 yellows could of been issued for non cynical play and he chose not to both times.   A penalty was given for against Priestland when the ball bounced off his bicep, while the tip tackle was one, but Liam was twisting his body in mid air which didn't help the situation.  

If the ref blows every time for an offence the game would of been ruined.

Scrums are much better now than they were and much less dangerous, they are not AS time consuming as in previous seasons.

Liam Williams only has himself to blame. He jumps into contact like a gazelle.

Cant have that... I was furious at the commentator at the time blaming the "tip tackle" on Liam jumping into contact... CHECK THE REPLAY, Liam's feet are on the ground during the tip tackle.. NO JUMP at all... He tried to twist out of the tackle, but wouldn't you expect that.. You saying players now cant try and get out of the tackle..

He may jump into some tackles, but just look at other players.. They ALL do it, it must be the way they are coached these days, as everyone does it...

Not the same in this tackle, but I'm a strong believer that the "mark" should go back to the way it was.. Both feet firmly on the ground to be able to call the mark. That way, the players will have to think twice before jumping to take the ball...

There's a difference between accelerating into contact and jumping into the tackle like May.

No rule against jumping into a tackle.