Trends

[riocard911]

To add to RTB’s comment about NFL, whooping and hollering after winning penalties etc seems to be becoming more and more prevalent. I used to think it was just people being w&%kers until I saw a documentary a few years ago where Bill Belichick was encouraging his players to do it because it shows the opposition how intense and full of energy your team is. So I’m guessing coaches are encouraging it but personally I hate it with a passion!

The NFL also has very strict rules on what's allowed in a celebration and what's prohibited. They're tough on taunting.

Rugby refs have the tools to rein it in any time they are brave enough. But it's good TV.

Not to me it's not. Whenever I see Jamie George or some other member of the England or Sarries pack screaming derisively into the face of a member of the opposition front row prostrate on the ground after a collapsed scrum, where George's team have just won a peno, I feel like throwing up and switching off the boob tube.

[Dave Cahill]

New Zealand are whinging again about the 20 minute red card, as the current one discriminates against the violence and thuggery endemic in their rugby. I don't think we should, however, completely ignore this issue and think it's all a bad idea, with a few tweaks it could be okay.

To demonstrate how I'd change it, lets take two incidents from the game on Saturday. The red card and the yellow card against Fainga’anuku and imagine both were red cards.

So, my change is that a player who is red carded is off, but can be replaced after 20 minutes or when the player injured by the carded players foul play is able to return, whichever is the latter. If the player injured is not able to resume, then the team penalised remain at 14 and the carded player may not return til the game week after the injured player returns, or his suspension elapses, whichever is the latter. In the case of summer/end of year tours, which involve an end of season, then World Rugby must adjudicate a nominal return to play date for the injured player

So on Saturday, Fainga’anuku is red carded. He can be replaced after 20 minutes as Hansen was able to continue. In the case of Ta’avao, he could not be replaced and, any potential suspension aside, could not return to play until Ringrose is available for selection.

[Ruckedtobits]

New Zealand are whinging again about the 20 minute red card, as the current one discriminates against the violence and thuggery endemic in their rugby. I don't think we should, however, completely ignore this issue and think it's all a bad idea, with a few tweaks it could be okay.

To demonstrate how I'd change it, lets take two incidents from the game on Saturday. The red card and the yellow card against Fainga’anuku and imagine both were red cards.

So, my change is that a player who is red carded is off, but can be replaced after 20 minutes or when the player injured by the carded players foul play is able to return, whichever is the latter. If the player injured is not able to resume, then the team penalised remain at 14 and the carded player may not return til the game week after the injured player returns, or his suspension elapses, whichever is the latter. In the case of summer/end of year tours, which involve an end of season, then World Rugby must adjudicate a nominal return to play date for the injured player

So on Saturday, Fainga’anuku is red carded. He can be replaced after 20 minutes as Hansen was able to continue. In the case of Ta’avao, he could not be replaced and, any potential suspension aside, could not return to play until Ringrose is available for selection.

That's far too logical for World Rugby to consider Dave. It fails to meet the normal World Rugby criteria foe Law changes I.e. unfathomable, oblique and not easily applied.

[ronk]

New Zealand are whinging again about the 20 minute red card, as the current one discriminates against the violence and thuggery endemic in their rugby. I don't think we should, however, completely ignore this issue and think it's all a bad idea, with a few tweaks it could be okay.

To demonstrate how I'd change it, lets take two incidents from the game on Saturday. The red card and the yellow card against Fainga’anuku and imagine both were red cards.

So, my change is that a player who is red carded is off, but can be replaced after 20 minutes or when the player injured by the carded players foul play is able to return, whichever is the latter. If the player injured is not able to resume, then the team penalised remain at 14 and the carded player may not return til the game week after the injured player returns, or his suspension elapses, whichever is the latter. In the case of summer/end of year tours, which involve an end of season, then World Rugby must adjudicate a nominal return to play date for the injured player

So on Saturday, Fainga’anuku is red carded. He can be replaced after 20 minutes as Hansen was able to continue. In the case of Ta’avao, he could not be replaced and, any potential suspension aside, could not return to play until Ringrose is available for selection.

Ideas like that are only limited by whether we can absolutely 100% trust teams to never ever game the system so players who would otherwise play on don't.

That and the whole point of deterrence would be set aside.

Counter suggestion. Players just learn safer technique and play fair if they want successful careers at the top level.

Red cards have worked before to tackles in the air. Players learnt to do better.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Personally I wouldn't want Ta’avao punished too severely because it was a complete accident, in fact I'd be happy enough for him to come back on after 20 minutes for something like that. Awful collision but he didn't mean it and I think it was just unfortunate.

Different ball game if it's deliberate or reckless though. Fainga’anuku didn't mean his one either but it was reckless and could easily have broken Hansen's nose/jaw so I'd be happy for that to result in a red card and a ban, a yellow card isn't enough regardless of the lack of intent. To think Barrett's one last week was deliberate, involved the neck area, and he's has previous, yet didn't get as much as a yellow card.

I'm not too much in favour of your idea Dave but the whole system needs a root and branch reform and has done for years, madness that there's even a debate to be had at this stage.

[riocard911]

WR's no. one priority should be to stop treating NZ's Test players' physically dangerous lawbreaking more leniently than those of other nations, cos this very phenomenon, which has been going on for decades, stands in total contradiction the the goal of improved player welfare. Let the Kiwis sink to Ozzie levels of whinge, if that's what they want. Speaking of the Diggers, I see Eddie effin' Jones insisted on taking up cudgels for his Antipodean cousins and contributing pathetic sideswipes at the supposedly unnecessary card extravaganza in Dunedin. (Grrrr!!! Head exploding with anger emoji!!!)

[Oldschool]

WR's no. one priority should be to stop treating NZ's Test players' physically dangerous lawbreaking more leniently than those of other nations, cos this very phenomenon, which has been going on for decades, stands in total contradiction the the goal of improved player welfare. Let the Kiwis sink to Ozzie levels of whinge, if that's what they want. Speaking of the Diggers, I see Eddie effin' Jones insisted on taking up cudgels for his Antipodean cousins and contributing pathetic sideswipes at the supposedly unnecessary card extravaganza in Dunedin. (Grrrr!!! Head exploding with anger emoji!!!)

Agree with this and your previous post. Player's short term and long term health has to be the number one priority.
As soon as you start watering down player safety, then that's the thin end of the wedge.
NZ and some other countries have to realize that they've lived on the edge for far too long.
Shape up or get beaten. If other countries can do it then why not NZ.
YC and ten minutes is fine by me and Off for a red card is also fine by me. Leave it alone and stop pandering to the likes of NZ.

[sunshiner1]

by Oldschool

Agree with this and your previous post. Player's short term and long term health has to be the number one priority.
As soon as you start watering down player safety, then that's the thin end of the wedge.
NZ and some other countries have to realize that they've lived on the edge for far too long.
Shape up or get beaten. If other countries can do it then why not NZ.
YC and ten minutes is fine by me and Off for a red card is also fine by me. Leave it alone and stop pandering to the likes of NZ.

+1

[jezzer]

You'd think that in 2022, men would define themselves by more than their ability to physically demonstrate strength and power.

I live in Spain, where the pervasiveness of Latin machismo is still very tangible. Guys whose decision making is influenced by a perceived need to project a certain concept of masculinity.

The concept of rugby in societies with more "evolved" views of being a man is maybe a bit anachronistic. So Iin order that it continues to survive at all, the people making the decisions have to just shut out the noise from the more retrograde sections.

NZ and NZ rugby is, in my view, one of those havens of the "man as warrior" view. The warrior aspect of rugby and Maori culture is so embedded that any dilution of the physical element of rugby is an affront.

And that's why World Rugby has to completely ignore their opinion. As harsh as that sounds, if the voices of machismo win out in the debates of the tackle, player safety, CTE and the rest, then rugby is dead.

Let them whinge. Let them pine for the good ol days of wine, roses and shoe pie. But they have to be ignored and those who are capable of checking their macho tendencies need to make the cool calm and rational changes to the game.

What's wrong with the high hits officiating isn't the rule that governs it. The problem isn't the need for 20 min red cards. It isn't that the loser whinges on a Monday about it not being fair. The problem isn't Eddie Jones.

The problem is the lack of a systematic way of determining the sanction. It should be like cricket's steps to determine out or not.

Instead it's a mishmash of tv views provided by a biased supplier, inconsistency on the degree of involvement of the extra officials, incoherent reasoning around the offence, poor communication of the decision process to the audience and players.

And even after all of that is fixed, there'll be an arbitrary element to how it's applied. That's human nature. But better that than cave in to the howls from the hard men in the gallery and have rugby killed off by dwindling participation, interest and deserved lawsuits.

[Ruckedtobits]

You'd think that in 2022, men would define themselves by more than their ability to physically demonstrate strength and power.

I live in Spain, where the pervasiveness of Latin machismo is still very tangible. Guys whose decision making is influenced by a perceived need to project a certain concept of masculinity.

The concept of rugby in societies with more "evolved" views of being a man is maybe a bit anachronistic. So Iin order that it continues to survive at all, the people making the decisions have to just shut out the noise from the more retrograde sections.

NZ and NZ rugby is, in my view, one of those havens of the "man as warrior" view. The warrior aspect of rugby and Maori culture is so embedded that any dilution of the physical element of rugby is an affront.

And that's why World Rugby has to completely ignore their opinion. As harsh as that sounds, if the voices of machismo win out in the debates of the tackle, player safety, CTE and the rest, then rugby is dead.

Let them whinge. Let them pine for the good ol days of wine, roses and shoe pie. But they have to be ignored and those who are capable of checking their macho tendencies need to make the cool calm and rational changes to the game.

What's wrong with the high hits officiating isn't the rule that governs it. The problem isn't the need for 20 min red cards. It isn't that the loser whinges on a Monday about it not being fair. The problem isn't Eddie Jones.

The problem is the lack of a systematic way of determining the sanction. It should be like cricket's steps to determine out or not.

Instead it's a mishmash of tv views provided by a biased supplier, inconsistency on the degree of involvement of the extra officials, incoherent reasoning around the offence, poor communication of the decision process to the audience and players.

And even after all of that is fixed, there'll be an arbitrary element to how it's applied. That's human nature. But better that than cave in to the howls from the hard men in the gallery and have rugby killed off by dwindling participation, interest and deserved lawsuits.

+1 totally.

Your 2nd last paragraph is so important to the Ref's involved and almost all of them have been silent on the topic. The majority of them believe that comment will result in demotion or lack of future appointments.

[Dexter]

You'd think that in 2022, men would define themselves by more than their ability to physically demonstrate strength and power.

I live in Spain, where the pervasiveness of Latin machismo is still very tangible. Guys whose decision making is influenced by a perceived need to project a certain concept of masculinity.

The concept of rugby in societies with more "evolved" views of being a man is maybe a bit anachronistic. So Iin order that it continues to survive at all, the people making the decisions have to just shut out the noise from the more retrograde sections.

NZ and NZ rugby is, in my view, one of those havens of the "man as warrior" view. The warrior aspect of rugby and Maori culture is so embedded that any dilution of the physical element of rugby is an affront.

And that's why World Rugby has to completely ignore their opinion. As harsh as that sounds, if the voices of machismo win out in the debates of the tackle, player safety, CTE and the rest, then rugby is dead.

Let them whinge. Let them pine for the good ol days of wine, roses and shoe pie. But they have to be ignored and those who are capable of checking their macho tendencies need to make the cool calm and rational changes to the game.

What's wrong with the high hits officiating isn't the rule that governs it. The problem isn't the need for 20 min red cards. It isn't that the loser whinges on a Monday about it not being fair. The problem isn't Eddie Jones.

The problem is the lack of a systematic way of determining the sanction. It should be like cricket's steps to determine out or not.

Instead it's a mishmash of tv views provided by a biased supplier, inconsistency on the degree of involvement of the extra officials, incoherent reasoning around the offence, poor communication of the decision process to the audience and players.

And even after all of that is fixed, there'll be an arbitrary element to how it's applied. That's human nature. But better that than cave in to the howls from the hard men in the gallery and have rugby killed off by dwindling participation, interest and deserved lawsuits.

Very good post. Well said.

[jezzer]

Here's a real clear trend I'm seeing over the summer games.

The shooter at 13 is becoming almost universal, hitting up and in to close off the attack out wide. With the 50/22 law keeping at least one winger back and the tendency to play out the back of the first pod, the real action is happening from 12 out and that's where the defensive shooter can close off an attack

But, what I'm seeing this summer are a bunch of preplanned and unstructured moves to exploit the dogleg the shooter creates. It's more commonly exploited on the inside where the "12" player arrows behind the shooter and offloads behind him to the outside backs.

Ireland both did it and had it done to them in the NZ series. Iirc, Keenan for the Earls try was an example.

Today we saw in multiphase for the Clarke try a beautiful outside-in variation where Ioane drifts out to fix the shooter and slips the pass to Jordie cutting an inside line behind the shooter.

In both cases its taking advantage of a very big and predictable hole in the defence.

The shooter is an important tool when 13 are defending 15 in the line, but it creates its own hole. Maybe the answer is not to shoot so consistently from 13 and to mix it up. Still prone to getting embarrassed tho.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I don’t disagree with your point overall Jezzer but the NZ try was nothing like that. It was an overthrow from
Argentina that NZ moved quickly out to Ioane and Barrett had reacted quickly to the turnover to hit the line. So it wasn’t multiphase or planned.

[jezzer]

I was careful to say that they were cropping up both unstructured and preplanned. Totally agree the NZ one wasn't precalled but they clearly exploit the shooter dogleg, as i recall it and saw again on replay.
Was it not like that?

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I was careful to say that they were cropping up both unstructured and preplanned. Totally agree the NZ one wasn't precalled but they clearly exploit the shooter dogleg, as i recall it and saw again on replay.
Was it not like that?

Not from what I’m seeing! I can’t see any shooter at all tbh, just a messy defensive line off turnover ball. You said it was multiphase, which it definitely wasn’t, and that the hole was predictable, and combining the two made me think you were saying that NZ had gone through the phases to manipulate the defence to draw out a shooter and pop the ball past him when they knew it was time for him to go for broke.

To me there was no grand plan at play here, just a quick reaction from Barrett and a good read to know that Ioane would go sideways and he could hit the line off that against a defence on the back foot.

As I said though I agree with your point overall. Lots of the defensive leaders in the best teams are at 13 and attacking teams are showing lots of animation in that channel with a bit more play making instead of just direct running.

[Ruckedtobits]

The problem of coverage could be solved if World Rugby was prepared to invest in it's own TV production team or at least insist that in every international competition the Broadcaster allows a WR Match Director determine what shots are made available to the TMO.

NFL had this problem initially with (I think) NBC so they just created their own team and hired the equipment in every location. It's doable and it's vital for next year's RWC because the French Director's are most biased with lots of experience from TOP 14

[Oldschoolsocks]

Listened to a good podcast about “replay” in the NBA, all games have multiple streams to a central location where referees turn reviews around in 20 seconds or so.

Against the Rules: It’s a good listen

https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/a ... 0433960321

[Ruckedtobits]

Listened to a good podcast about “replay” in the NBA, all games have multiple streams to a central location where referees turn reviews around in 20 seconds or so.

Against the Rules: It’s a good listen

https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/a ... 0433960321

+1

[ronk]

Slapping the scumhalves hands has rapidly become part of the game as teams have learnt how easy it is to loiter in rucks.

At the moment it's a little bit too effective in disrupting phase play. We'll see if teams adapt better or if the interpretations get adjusted better.

[Morf]

Slapping the scumhalves hands has rapidly become part of the game as teams have learnt how easy it is to loiter in rucks.

At the moment it's a little bit too effective in disrupting phase play. We'll see if teams adapt better or if the interpretations get adjusted better.

You have to be on-feet so you'll see them get more strict about being fully on your feet not leaning against another player in the ruck before diving at the 9's hand.

Just like they got strict on bind-changing in mauls.