RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Players would need to think more in advance about how they carry into contact, or even how to avoid that, and then there'd be a contest. We might well need some further tweaks, but there should in the first instance be a contest else the rest seems moot, and squeezable looks very much to be about removing a contest

It doesn’t happen that much now, as it was banned once, and then only because players find themselves in awkward positions, which can happen no matter how much care you take going into contact. I don’t see it as a major issue frankly.
Further tweaks, end up not having a tweak like effect, experience tells us.

One of the big ironies is that in correctly trying to enable a contest at the breakdown, sides are now committing more attackers to the breakdown to secure ball, that they then kick away (oft because they’ve run out of resources, whilst 15 defenders or so are free )

I don't disagree players find themselves in awkward positions, but in that instance let go of the ball and roll away or get pinged rather than tucking the ball under your body and waiting for support. And it happens multiple times a game

We differ on the frequency and impact; it’s certainly gone from a default way of protecting the ball to being more accidental, not least because it’s slow and dangerous. Anyway, yet again we’ve meandered from the substantive points.

Oakboy wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

Was having a chat with some old front row colleagues (and opponents) yesterday and one of the hookers suggested that the ref uses the spray that soccer refs have to make the mark for the scrum. 1 to stop crabbing or early push 2 so the ball goes in close to straight!
Perhaps also using it to stop players like Sexton, Biggar and Farrell taking an extra 5 yards when kicking so they have to actually take the kick through the mark!
And finally to mark the lineout to stop some of the cheating there!

SCW gets a lot of stick but he was prepared to learn from other sports. This would be a simple copy from football. More difficult would be no clashes of international/top club fixtures but I'd vote for both.

I'm intrigued, but where are you proposing drawing the line at the scrum. It can't be at the players' feet because those move backwards on the engage. Drawing it down the middle is intriguing, but different to football as it'd be comparing a line on the floor to heads and shoulders that are 3ft up in the air, which makes it difficult to tell if they've gone over the line.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:So potential changes are:

Mauls become rucks if the carrier gets to ground
No players to join rucks after the ball is won and no caterpillar
3 second use it once ball is won

The pie in the sky notion of players having to bind at the ruck

And perhaps banning the squeeze ball presentation back between legs which stops a contest for the ball

On the squeeze ball thing, I think you’d end up with a quite a lot of dead rucks, though one of the great ‘mysteries’ of the game is how trapped ball works its way to the back of the ruck without anyone being allowed to touch it with their hands.

To be honest, before ‘tweaking’ yet again because of what may be a temporary coaching fad, need to really think through impacts, as always (as we see now) get unintended consequences.

Players would need to think more in advance about how they carry into contact, or even how to avoid that, and then there'd be a contest. We might well need some further tweaks, but there should in the first instance be a contest else the rest seems moot, and squeezable looks very much to be about removing a contest

Hmm ... speaking as a forward, I think outlawing the ‘squeeze ball thing’ would make ball presentation virtually impossible. By my estimate, you’d cut the amount of successful carries made by forward packs by about 50%. That might be good for reducing the amount of tedious pick and go rugby, but I don’t know if it would improve much outside of that scenario. Ultimately, you want your pack to generate you quick, front foot ball. Slow ball inevitably leads to kicking which defeats the object of what is trying to be achieved.

https://www.planetrugby.com/expert-witn ... h1gLf_7QFA

Quite interesting re Jones if unsurprising. Dors will love it!!

Oakboy is Nick Easter and I claim my £5.

Puja

Banquo wrote:https://www.planetrugby.com/expert-witn ... h1gLf_7QFA

Quite interesting re Jones if unsurprising. Dors will love it!!

I think Jones is Jones and I'll say no more. Do you think having to face an unknown French quantity will make him give the players the freedom to change tactics on the hoof? Or, will it make him simplify and regimentalise even more?

Puja wrote:Oakboy is Nick Easter and I claim my £5.

Puja

I always thought Easter was a great bloke!!! (lying through my teeth.)

Digby wrote:I can't believe they don't do this already.

Though in an age of GPS I also think my idea of taser boosts needs to be considered, allowing any player going offside, closing the gap or what have you to get zapped and spend 5 minutes twitching on the floor whilst the game continues

Oakboy wrote:SCW gets a lot of stick but he was prepared to learn from other sports. This would be a simple copy from football. More difficult would be no clashes of international/top club fixtures but I'd vote for both.

If we're borrowing from other sports - how about "3 strikes and you're out"?
Every 3rd penalty offence by a team, and the offender gets a yellow card (2 yellow = red for violent conduct only)

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: On the squeeze ball thing, I think you’d end up with a quite a lot of dead rucks, though one of the great ‘mysteries’ of the game is how trapped ball works its way to the back of the ruck without anyone being allowed to touch it with their hands.

To be honest, before ‘tweaking’ yet again because of what may be a temporary coaching fad, need to really think through impacts, as always (as we see now) get unintended consequences.

Players would need to think more in advance about how they carry into contact, or even how to avoid that, and then there'd be a contest. We might well need some further tweaks, but there should in the first instance be a contest else the rest seems moot, and squeezable looks very much to be about removing a contest

Hmm ... speaking as a forward, I think outlawing the ‘squeeze ball thing’ would make ball presentation virtually impossible. By my estimate, you’d cut the amount of successful carries made by forward packs by about 50%. That might be good for reducing the amount of tedious pick and go rugby, but I don’t know if it would improve much outside of that scenario. Ultimately, you want your pack to generate you quick, front foot ball. Slow ball inevitably leads to kicking which defeats the object of what is trying to be achieved.

It's already not a thing in junior rugby, but more importantly they clarified the use even at senior level to say the ball if played that way must be presented immediately. So we could go for something in the middle and just actually apply the laws as they stand. It's mostly done to buy time for the attack, it's a negative endeavour, and negative endeavours shouldn't be encouraged.

Which Tyler wrote:
If we're borrowing from other sports - how about "3 strikes and you're out"?
Every 3rd penalty offence by a team, and the offender gets a yellow card (2 yellow = red for violent conduct only)

I quite like that in a way, but there are so many daft penalties given. “Jackallers” clinging on to both man and ball given as not releasing, and the attacking side’s men going to clear a ruck and basically just sitting on the tackler to win a penalty for not rolling away.

It would be interesting to see if penalty offences at scrum dried up, or if it’s actually completely hopeless to think scrums can exist without cheating in some form.

Also I thought the squeeze ball was already illegal.

Digby wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:

Players would need to think more in advance about how they carry into contact, or even how to avoid that, and then there'd be a contest. We might well need some further tweaks, but there should in the first instance be a contest else the rest seems moot, and squeezable looks very much to be about removing a contest

Hmm ... speaking as a forward, I think outlawing the ‘squeeze ball thing’ would make ball presentation virtually impossible. By my estimate, you’d cut the amount of successful carries made by forward packs by about 50%. That might be good for reducing the amount of tedious pick and go rugby, but I don’t know if it would improve much outside of that scenario. Ultimately, you want your pack to generate you quick, front foot ball. Slow ball inevitably leads to kicking which defeats the object of what is trying to be achieved.

It's already not a thing in junior rugby, but more importantly they clarified the use even at senior level to say the ball if played that way must be presented immediately. So we could go for something in the middle and just actually apply the laws as they stand. It's mostly done to buy time for the attack, it's a negative endeavour, and negative endeavours shouldn't be encouraged.

I agree that ‘negative endeavours shouldn’t be encouraged’, but policing the tackle area goes both ways. In a pick and go scenario there are multiple areas that are difficult to manage.

Let’s say the squeeze is outlawed (even if it is done immediately), the ‘release’ of the tackler and the arrival of a jackal is almost instantaneous in a good defence. It would make attacking with a pick and go very risky. I can only see that leading to attacking players sealing off more or smashing in to rucks even more recklessly than they do now.

The intent is laudable, I’m just saying it’s a highly impractical thing to enforce fairly.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
If we're borrowing from other sports - how about "3 strikes and you're out"?
Every 3rd penalty offence by a team, and the offender gets a yellow card (2 yellow = red for violent conduct only)

I quite like that in a way, but there are so many daft penalties given. “Jackallers” clinging on to both man and ball given as not releasing, and the attacking side’s men going to clear a ruck and basically just sitting on the tackler to win a penalty for not rolling away.

It would be interesting to see if penalty offences at scrum dried up, or if it’s actually completely hopeless to think scrums can exist without cheating in some form.

Also I thought the squeeze ball was already illegal.

You're not alone on that one.

Isn't there an ELV being trialled somewhere about an auto-yellow after X offences? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Hmm ... speaking as a forward, I think outlawing the ‘squeeze ball thing’ would make ball presentation virtually impossible. By my estimate, you’d cut the amount of successful carries made by forward packs by about 50%. That might be good for reducing the amount of tedious pick and go rugby, but I don’t know if it would improve much outside of that scenario. Ultimately, you want your pack to generate you quick, front foot ball. Slow ball inevitably leads to kicking which defeats the object of what is trying to be achieved.

It's already not a thing in junior rugby, but more importantly they clarified the use even at senior level to say the ball if played that way must be presented immediately. So we could go for something in the middle and just actually apply the laws as they stand. It's mostly done to buy time for the attack, it's a negative endeavour, and negative endeavours shouldn't be encouraged.

I agree that ‘negative endeavours shouldn’t be encouraged’, but policing the tackle area goes both ways. In a pick and go scenario there are multiple areas that are difficult to manage.

Let’s say the squeeze is outlawed (even if it is done immediately), the ‘release’ of the tackler and the arrival of a jackal is almost instantaneous in a good defence. It would make attacking with a pick and go very risky. I can only see that leading to attacking players sealing off more or smashing in to rucks even more recklessly than they do now.

The intent is laudable, I’m just saying it’s a highly impractical thing to enforce fairly.

The whole thing is impractical to enforce. Though left to me players would have to be on their feet and legally bound too.

And we often hear how things are impractical when really people just don't want to change behaviour

If we're borrowing from other sports - how about "3 strikes and you're out"?
Every 3rd penalty offence by a team, and the offender gets a yellow card (2 yellow = red for violent conduct only)[/quote]

Be an interesting way to massively increase the number of uncontested scrums.

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
If we're borrowing from other sports - how about "3 strikes and you're out"?
Every 3rd penalty offence by a team, and the offender gets a yellow card (2 yellow = red for violent conduct only)

I quite like that in a way, but there are so many daft penalties given. “Jackallers” clinging on to both man and ball given as not releasing, and the attacking side’s men going to clear a ruck and basically just sitting on the tackler to win a penalty for not rolling away.

It would be interesting to see if penalty offences at scrum dried up, or if it’s actually completely hopeless to think scrums can exist without cheating in some form.

Also I thought the squeeze ball was already illegal.

You're not alone on that one.

Isn't there an ELV being trialled somewhere about an auto-yellow after X offences? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Puja

Will it specifically say 2X for the All Blacks, or will they be happy for it to carry on being on unwritten thing?

16th man wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I quite like that in a way, but there are so many daft penalties given. “Jackallers” clinging on to both man and ball given as not releasing, and the attacking side’s men going to clear a ruck and basically just sitting on the tackler to win a penalty for not rolling away.

It would be interesting to see if penalty offences at scrum dried up, or if it’s actually completely hopeless to think scrums can exist without cheating in some form.

Also I thought the squeeze ball was already illegal.

You're not alone on that one.

Isn't there an ELV being trialled somewhere about an auto-yellow after X offences? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Puja

Will it specifically say 2X for the All Blacks, or will they be happy for it to carry on being on unwritten thing?

Do you have other records in your collection, or are they all variations on the same small violin solo?

16th man wrote: Be an interesting way to massively increase the number of uncontested scrums.

Easily sorted - if the card results in uncontested scrums, someone else is nominated (by the opposition captain) to go off in their place.

Of course for this to "work", we'd need to reduce the number of penalty offences caused by things that aren't your fault (like not being as good as the opposition front row; failing to dematerialise whilst Biggar knees you in the head; or failing to release the ball despite your hands/arms being nowhere near it)

Squeeze ball is allowed from U19 upwards, but supposedly only if the ball is presented immediately.

The problem with all mooted laws solutions to the issues the game is having is that to a certain extent they will only work if both sides in a game absolutely stop trying to bend them. Which is tricky to see when you have positions such as prop and flanker where being good at the dark arts is practically the entire culture and skill set of the role.

We're essentially talking about a game where rucks, scrums, and the defensive offside line are all exercises in the prisoners dilemma. It would be great if both teams said "for the interests of a flowing entertaining game, we're going to impeccably obey all the laws" but if only one actually does, their reward for their probity will probably be a 40 point beating, with a paradoxically high penalty count against as they get stuffed in the scrum and pulled all over the place at the breakdown.

16th man wrote:The problem with all mooted laws solutions to the issues the game is having is that to a certain extent they will only work if both sides in a game absolutely stop trying to bend them. Which is tricky to see when you have positions such as prop and flanker where being good at the dark arts is practically the entire culture and skill set of the role.

We're essentially talking about a game where rucks, scrums, and the defensive offside line are all exercises in the prisoners dilemma. It would be great if both teams said "for the interests of a flowing entertaining game, we're going to impeccably obey all the laws" but if only one actually does, their reward for their probity will probably be a 40 point beating, with a paradoxically high penalty count against as they get stuffed in the scrum and pulled all over the place at the breakdown.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction or something. That's why knee jerking in relationship to an unintended consequence is unwise.....but yet happens time after time.

Except the suggestions for harsher implementation of existing laws, or harsher punishment of repeat offences

Which Tyler wrote:Except the suggestions for harsher implementation of existing laws, or harsher punishment of repeat offences

well yes, but that is the continued refrain- don't effin tweak until the existing laws are properly implemented, though even that isn't quite what you said

B and M really sum up my feelings on the "current state of rugby".

Starts at 1 hr and 3 mins in. They make some very good points.

Which Tyler wrote:Except the suggestions for harsher implementation of existing laws, or harsher punishment of repeat offences

Repeat offences of what though? The opposition tight head is bound on your arm, pulling you down and hingeing and the ref keeps pinging you for collapsing, you get yellow carded as well as penalties conceded?

twitchy wrote:B and M really sum up my feelings on the "current state of rugby".

Starts at 1 hr and 3 mins in. They make some very good points.

yep, nailed it, esp on Dawson/what Eddie has been saying. Very funny as well.