Trends

[Ruckedtobits]

Rugby, as far as I am aware, is the only sport that is defined, almost, by the fact that the ball must be passed backwards.
The abuse of this definition is ruining the game.
The trend to redefining the forward pass has gone well beyond what is acceptable.
Before long it'll be "well if there was no intention to make a forward" then that's fine.
All in the name of entertainment.
Well it isn't entertaining.

+1

[LeRouxIsPHat]

What happened to the Law about Catching the ball from a kick and being immediately tackled (i.e not having the opportunity to play the ball). t happened RK on Saturday and he looked bemused when Ref gave scrum to Lyon.

Not sure if you're referring to the same incident or not but I knew I'd forgotten something, refs seem to have stopped ensuring that players are given the chance to get up off the ground after diving on a ball.

It happens so much now that I was wondering if I'd missed a law change. It happened to Rob on Saturday and both himself and Johnny seemed flabbergasted that the ref didn't penalise it. It was a seatbelt tackle as well so even if there has been a law change it should have been a penalty to us.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Rugby, as far as I am aware, is the only sport that is defined, almost, by the fact that the ball must be passed backwards.
The abuse of this definition is ruining the game.
The trend to redefining the forward pass has gone well beyond what is acceptable.
Before long it'll be "well if there was no intention to make a forward" then that's fine.
All in the name of entertainment.
Well it isn't entertaining.

+1

There were three or four forward passes in the video that Bristol put up to announce the signing of Radradra. It annoyed me that they had obviously been let go but also becuase you don't need to show dodgy clips to illustrate how good the guy is, plenty of amazing plays of his that were legit.

[The Doc]

What happened to the Law about Catching the ball from a kick and being immediately tackled (i.e not having the opportunity to play the ball). t happened RK on Saturday and he looked bemused when Ref gave scrum to Lyon.

Not sure if you're referring to the same incident or not but I knew I'd forgotten something, refs seem to have stopped ensuring that players are given the chance to get up off the ground after diving on a ball.

It happens so much now that I was wondering if I'd missed a law change. It happened to Rob on Saturday and both himself and Johnny seemed flabbergasted that the ref didn't penalise it. It was a seatbelt tackle as well so even if there has been a law change it should have been a penalty to us.

I thought (but could be wrong) that there was never any requirement to let a player get up. You can't fall on him or go off your feet. Also need to be obvious that it isn't a tackle (or if it is - that you release him). But if you kick through and a player gathers it off his feet, you are entitled to try to take the ball from him or prevent him from passing it as long as you remain on your feet

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Just to be clear I wasn't saying that they have to get up, just that they are given the chance to. In other words the defender has to wait a second for the player with the ball to decide if they're going to get up or just stay on the deck. That's what I always thought the law was.

I'm in agreement with you about being able to go for it once you're on your feet but thought you had to wait a second first.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Some googling tells me that I (and TV commentators) invented the idea that you need to be allowed to get back up if you so wish.

I see what you mean now Doc. I was equating flopping on the player on the ground with not giving them the chance to get up, but like you said it's just going off your feet.

[leinsterforever]

Rugby, as far as I am aware, is the only sport that is defined, almost, by the fact that the ball must be passed backwards.
The abuse of this definition is ruining the game.
The trend to redefining the forward pass has gone well beyond what is acceptable.
Before long it'll be "well if there was no intention to make a forward" then that's fine.
All in the name of entertainment.
Well it isn't entertaining.

Are you saying do away with the momentum rule?

If it's judged relative to the ground rather than relative to the passer then you could have a situation where you couldn't pass the ball to someone yards behind you if you're both running up the field fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

[Oldschool]

Rugby, as far as I am aware, is the only sport that is defined, almost, by the fact that the ball must be passed backwards.
The abuse of this definition is ruining the game.
The trend to redefining the forward pass has gone well beyond what is acceptable.
Before long it'll be "well if there was no intention to make a forward" then that's fine.
All in the name of entertainment.
Well it isn't entertaining.

Are you saying do away with the momentum rule?

If it's judged relative to the ground rather than relative to the passer then you could have a situation where you couldn't pass the ball to someone yards behind you if you're both running up the field fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

I'd simply prefer to go back about 5 years or (maybe it's longer) to the time before the shyte about what direction your hands were rotating when the pass was released.
Twenty years ago there was nothing wrong with the passing laws and generally speaking their interpretation.
I don't think momentum is an issue tbh.
So relative to ground. Wind might be a factor for a long pass because the ball might drift forward.
But just to repeat, rather than reinventing the wheel I'd be quite happy to go with the old laws.

[Ruckedtobits]

Rugby, as far as I am aware, is the only sport that is defined, almost, by the fact that the ball must be passed backwards.
The abuse of this definition is ruining the game.
The trend to redefining the forward pass has gone well beyond what is acceptable.
Before long it'll be "well if there was no intention to make a forward" then that's fine.
All in the name of entertainment.
Well it isn't entertaining.

Are you saying do away with the momentum rule?

If it's judged relative to the ground rather than relative to the passer then you could have a situation where you couldn't pass the ball to someone yards behind you if you're both running up the field fast enough to make the pass forward relative to the ground.

Ruckedtobits inserted
The problem most often, which the Law ignores, is that players are not running parallel to the touchlines. In such cases, the hands may move backwards but the ball is in fact being propelled forwards - relative to the Goalline. That's certainly what happened in Treviso v Northamptvn in the final move of the game, prior to N'hampton being awarded the final penalty, which Biggar kicked to give them a win.
Insert ends


I'd simply prefer to go back about 5 years or (maybe it's longer) to the time before the shyte about what direction your hands were rotating when the pass was released.
Twenty years ago there was nothing wrong with the passing laws and generally speaking their interpretation.
I don't think momentum is an issue tbh.
So relative to ground. Wind might be a factor for a long pass because the ball might drift forward.
But just to repeat, rather than reinventing the wheel I'd be quite happy to go with the old laws.

[Ruckedtobits]

Another example last night in Munster v Edinburgh of "but his hands went backwards" forward pass after 9.55 mins by Edinburgh centre on the half-way line. The ball went fully 2 mtrs forward across the half-way line, because the player was moving diagonally across the pitch.

Referees and ARs are going to have to go back to class on these passes which are clearly forward.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Another example last night in Munster v Edinburgh of "but his hands went backwards" forward pass after 9.55 mins by Edinburgh centre on the half-way line. The ball went fully 2 mtrs forward across the half-way line, because the player was moving diagonally across the pitch.

Referees and ARs are going to have to go back to class on these passes which are clearly forward.

That was crazy.

[ronk]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-stra ... de-flanker

Some discussion of the trend away from blindsides. Really strangw that they can discuss the balance of the English backrow and leave out Billy.

Very little mention of the 3rd lineout option part.

And a blindside just captained his team to the RWC trophy.

[ronk]

And that option is on the cards for us with Connors (@ Deegan jumping at .

[hugonaut]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-stra ... de-flanker

Some discussion of the trend away from blindsides. Really strangw that they can discuss the balance of the English backrow and leave out Billy.

Very little mention of the 3rd lineout option part.

And a blindside just captained his team to the RWC trophy.

Kolisi is the openside, P.S. du Toit is the blindside. SA have always reversed numbers [contrary to the rest of the world] for their flankers. With that said, P.S. du Toit was World Rugbys Player of the Year, so it's a bit much to say that blindside is a dying position. The best player in the world on the best team in the world is a blindside etc.

[ronk]

Forgot about that.

I'd have seen the blindside a bit differently. The position is being encroached from 2 sides with locks playing there and opensides moving across.

This is happening because there is a glut of mobile locks and powerful opensides.

There aren't many out and out 6s anymore. Even specialists like Ruddock and Josh Murphy are moving around. A few years ago you did have the Ferris, Elsom, Kaino.

The most similar player to Ferris is Henderson. I think he would have played 6 pretty much exclusively if he had come through 10 years earlier.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

In my first post on this thread I said that the NZ teams all have second row/blindside hybrids but not sure how well it's working out because when you get to the top level it seems like you can't get away with falling between two stools. Maybe they'll keep developing in Super Rugby and kick on but I wouldn't bet on it.

I think teams are just going with the two best players at 6 and 7 now really. There's a real lack of quality blindsides and if you've got two quick and powerful opensides with a ball carrier inbetween them then you may as well pick them. So England and NZ do that, but SA go with PSDT and Kolisi. I don't see Kolisi as an openside, he's more of a 6.5 at the most.

I think it'l be interesting to see how teams react to these non traditional choices now. NZ couldn't handle Underhill and Curry so had to bring Cane on at HT, but then England couldn't get the better of SA the following week when they were up against SA's two "6s". There were lots of factors involved in that and horses for courses will play a part as well. TBH I have no idea what back row we should pick for Twickenham to cope with them.

[Morf]

Kolisi is the openside, P.S. du Toit is the blindside. SA have always reversed numbers [contrary to the rest of the world] for their flankers. With that said, P.S. du Toit was World Rugbys Player of the Year, so it's a bit much to say that blindside is a dying position. The best player in the world on the best team in the world is a blindside etc.

*Rest of the world bar France of course.

If the issues around jackal and gate are adjusted then flanker preferences will wildly change again I imagine.

[johng]

Hmmmm. Pieter-Steph du Toit. 2 metres tall 120kg.

Siya Kolisi 1.88M 105kg

If Kolisi is a 6.5 what does that make Pst?

[Morf]

Hmmmm. Pieter-Steph du Toit. 2 metres tall 120kg.

Siya Kolisi 1.88M 105kg

If Kolisi is a 6.5 what does that make Pst?

5.5 because he was in the row when their lock options were limited.

[hugonaut]

In my first post on this thread I said that the NZ teams all have second row/blindside hybrids but not sure how well it's working out because when you get to the top level it seems like you can't get away with falling between two stools. Maybe they'll keep developing in Super Rugby and kick on but I wouldn't bet on it.

I think teams are just going with the two best players at 6 and 7 now really. There's a real lack of quality blindsides and if you've got two quick and powerful opensides with a ball carrier inbetween them then you may as well pick them. So England and NZ do that, but SA go with PSDT and Kolisi. I don't see Kolisi as an openside, he's more of a 6.5 at the most.

I think it'l be interesting to see how teams react to these non traditional choices now. NZ couldn't handle Underhill and Curry so had to bring Cane on at HT, but then England couldn't get the better of SA the following week when they were up against SA's two "6s". There were lots of factors involved in that and horses for courses will play a part as well. TBH I have no idea what back row we should pick for Twickenham to cope with them.

Peceli Yato, Pablo Matera and Michael Leitch are all very good blindsides who would make every team in the Six Nations bar England [Curry is playing amazing rugby, out and out blindside or not]. Arthur Iturria should be a cert on the blindside for France – I'm not sure what the issue is with him.

Tadhg Beirne has the ability – in my opinion – to be the outstanding blindside in the Six Nations. It's a huge pity that he is not available for selection for this tournament. While he has lots of similarities with Itoje and Nakarawa in terms of his all round game – running, jumping, tackling, handling, jackalling – I don't think he has their out and out strength. I think he's better suited to the backrow than the second row.