Sports Rugby World Cup 2023

[hornbybrown]

The best thing about all the results at the weekend is that those pricks up north thought they would win all four games. They went 1-3 and were lucky to get the 1.
Their level of confidence was ridiculous

 

[hornbybrown]

I am sure you are allowed to do that as long as it goes backwards..

Yep if it goes backwards it’s play on. I think unless it’s in a try scoring situation it should only be a penalty.

 

[Boats n Hoes]

I am sure you are allowed to do that as long as it goes backwards..

Yes thats what i just said.

My point being for the umpteenth time its ridiculous that u can do the same thing with exactly the same intention but u knock it in a different direction and that justifies spending 10 minutes off the field in the naughty bin.?.....Rugby pedaticness ats is worst imo.

 

[tyrael]

Serious question, is the knock on rule different in Union?

And a lot are never behind the kicker at kick offs and re-starts.

Yes, knock on is different. As long as it goes back of the person who touched it is fine.

Anyone who is behind the kicker and chases through can put other people on side. In league only the kicker can.

 

[Bruce]

Yes thats what i just said.

My point being for the umpteenth time its ridiculous that u can do the same thing with exactly the same intention but u knock it in a different direction and that justifies spending 10 minutes off the field in the naughty bin.?.....Rugby pedaticness ats is worst imo.

My point is there was an article blaming the NZ referee, so he was correct and the article was wrong.

 

[Boats n Hoes]

My point is there was an article blaming the NZ referee, so he was correct and the article was wrong.

Yeah if the ball went backwards then he ruled correctly to the letter of the law......no matter how stupid it is......i say get rid of the law altogether, or at the very least just make it a penalty......sending someone from the field for that?.....crazy

 

[tyrael]

Yeah if the ball went backwards then he ruled correctly to the letter of the law......no matter how stupid it is......i say get rid of the law altogether, or at the very least just make it a penalty......sending someone from the field for that?.....crazy

Should only apply to first pass where the ruck is

 

[Matiunz]

Gee .... social media around the world blowing up about Fiji being ripped off from dodgy reffing.. unconscious bias against tier 2 teams has been mentioned alot .... considering they scored 3 tries to 2 but got penalised off the park.... didn't want southern hemisphere semis

I watched the game and it was some dumb decisions at crucial times that gifted England points that cost them not the ref. Some basic errors like blatantly entering the ruck from the side can’t use the racism/bias card

 

[Boats n Hoes]

Should only apply to first pass where the ruck is

Yeah it just seems crazy to me in this code they allow clean outs (which is basically just wiping players out off the ball) but heaven forbid u knock a ball down and its yellow card off the field......its that sort of stuff that turned me off the code.

 

[Matiunz]

It isn't a knock on then ...or do I have something wrong?

Yep it’s fine, it’s akin to an intercept in that you are defending the opposition and doing it within the rules. Although it is reffed a bit pedantically at times stopping/knocking down the pass when you have no realistic chance of regathering - particularly to prevent a try scoring opportunity is where the problem lies

 

[Matiunz]

Yeah it just seems crazy to me in this code they allow clean outs (which is basically just wiping players out off the ball) but heaven forbid u knock a ball down and its yellow card off the field......its that sort of stuff that turned me off the code.

You can only clear out players to an extent, they have to be attached to the ruck which is contested so you are securing/protecting possession. If you are good enough in your technique either side of the ball you can secure possession at almost any breakdown

 

[Playdaball]

Is David Kidwell still involved with the Pumas?

 

[Boats n Hoes]

You can only clear out players to an extent, they have to be attached to the ruck which is contested so you are securing/protecting possession. If you are good enough in your technique either side of the ball you can secure possession at almost any breakdown

Yeah well thats a 50/50 one in itself isnt it.......the amount of times i see fetchers about to go for the ball not quite at the ruck then get wiped out.....its a pretty close run thing.

I guess my main problem with Union and their rulings is that in any given instance (particulary at a ruck) theres 100 different rulings a ref could apply, which just adds to the stop start nature of the code which (in this country at least) imo seems to be turning people off in droves.

A massive simplification and rehaul is well overdue

 

[Matiunz]

Yeah well thats a 50/50 one in itself isnt it.......the amount of times i see fetchers about to go for the ball not quite at the ruck then get wiped out.....its a pretty close run thing.

I guess my main problem with Union and their rulings is that in any given instance (particulary at a ruck) theres 100 different rulings a ref could apply, which just adds to the stop start nature of the code which (in this country at least) imo seems to be turning people off in droves.

A massive simplification and rehaul is well overdue

100% agree, I still play and the first few minutes of a game is sounding out what a ref will and won’t let you get away with as each has vastly different interpretations.
Simplification/refinements is hard as well as it tends to end up with some of the over pedantic reffing which is now the main culprit in turning away viewers.
To be completely honest majority of players don’t 109% know the rules and you’ll often get pinged in one ruck for something you we’re allowed to do in the previous one

 

[Bay39er]

Is David Kidwell still involved with the Pumas?

Yes as a coach, defence I think

 

[drunk_monk]

The point wasnt about it being a knock on or not. More that the intention was never to try and catch the ball but was to knock the ball down to prevent it going to hand,,,,,,,the ridiculous part of the rule being pending on which direction u knock the ball down determimes wether u spend 10 minutes off the field or not.....ludicrous rule imo.

I definitely get what you're saying, the point though is committing an intentional penalty to stop a try is shit. So intentional knock on to stop a try is a cynical penalty and makes sense to me.

But in the ABs example it definitely didn't look like an intentional knock on, it looked like he was trying to catch it.

 

[Boats n Hoes]

I definitely get what you're saying, the point though is committing an intentional penalty to stop a try is shit. So intentional knock on to stop a try is a cynical penalty and makes sense to me.

So does intentionally knocking the ball down to stop a try but the ball going backwards towards your line, yet not being a penalty and 10 in the bin make sense to you....even tho the intention is cynical and exactly the same, just the directionof the ball being different?

Inconsistencies like that just do my head in.....sorry for being anal about it, it's just been a bugbear with rugby for ages with me.

I can live with it being a penalty (although I'm fine it wasn't also) but I still think a send off is way too harsh and that 10 minutes short a player turns into a far too game changing period for something that isn't foul play.

 

[Matiunz]

So does intentionally knocking the ball down to stop a try but the ball going backwards towards your line, yet not being a penalty and 10 in the bin make sense to you....even tho the intention is cynical and exactly the same, just the directionof the ball being different?

Inconsistencies like that just do my head in.....sorry for being anal about it, it's just been a bugbear with rugby for ages with me.

I can live with it being a penalty (although I'm fine it wasn't also) but I still think a send off is way too harsh and that 10 minutes short a player turns into a far too game changing period for something that isn't foul play.

intercepting the ball can stop a try, making a tackle can stop a try, difference is they are within the rules.
In the case of playing at the ball, knocking it backwards is the same rules as in general play, if the ball goes backwards- play on. Tapping the ball forward is the same as a knock on/forward pass, unintentional = Scrum, intentional = penalty. Most intentional aka ‘professional’ penalties in a potential try scoring opportunity will warn you a card more often than not.

 

[Bay39er]

intercepting the ball can stop a try, making a tackle can stop a try, difference is they are within the rules.
In the case of playing at the ball, knocking it backwards is the same rules as in general play, if the ball goes backwards- play on. Tapping the ball forward is the same as a knock on/forward pass, unintentional = Scrum, intentional = penalty. Most intentional aka ‘professional’ penalties in a potential try scoring opportunity will warn you a card more often than not.

The thing is at professional level players can do things intentionally and make them look unintentional e.g. in NRL a tackler getting himself wrapped around the ball carrier to slow down the play the ball and you hear the ref say something like "your holding him in" and so avoid a 6again or penalty OR stripping a ball in a 2 man tackle and getting a call that he was only making the tackle.

In rugby they have determined that they have to "punish" these unintentional intentionals

 

[jonesy101]

Yes as a coach, defence I think

The key is the Argie