is Rugby a 15 a-side or 23 a-side game ?

[FLIP]

Coaches using post game interviews as a platform to pressure refs does nothing for the quality of refereeing.

But it does result in positive outcomes for the coaches, as we have just seen. The answer isn't to make refereeing a completely closed shop, where the only change happens behind closed doors and the fans and media know nothing about it. The answer is to make it completely transparent. Once transparent, we either see if change is required, or if the coach is pushing for change due to their own failures.

[ronk]

If I wanted an objective evaluation of the ref the last people I'd ask would be the losing coaches and players in the immediate aftermath of the game when emotions are raw.

The postgame interview is a chance to have the last word and completely take over the headlines and the tone of how the game was reported. It gets in the way of rugby at best.

If you want fair public evaluation the partisan coaches shouldn't be involved in any way.

[FLIP]

If I wanted an objective evaluation of the ref the last people I'd ask would be the losing coaches and players in the immediate aftermath of the game when emotions are raw.

The postgame interview is a chance to have the last word and completely take over the headlines and the tone of how the game was reported. It gets in the way of rugby at best.

If you want fair public evaluation the partisan coaches shouldn't be involved in any way.

If you get rid of it in public, the same happens behind closed doors and we know nothing about it. You fully open it up, and we know everything about it.

[Dave Cahill]

If I wanted an objective evaluation of the ref the last people I'd ask would be the losing coaches and players in the immediate aftermath of the game when emotions are raw.

The postgame interview is a chance to have the last word and completely take over the headlines and the tone of how the game was reported. It gets in the way of rugby at best.

If you want fair public evaluation the partisan coaches shouldn't be involved in any way.

Another issue is that most coaches, players and fans haven't a f%~king clue what the laws actually are. Only this week I saw a highly respected (including by myself) former referee and coach get a point of law wrong regarding a key moment in a match he was discussing,

Then there's the legality - Employee performance reviews are strictly private.

[Ruckedtobits]

Part of the problem is the Laws of Rugby. Yes, there is a written code of Laws. But what exists in the Professional Game is a further (large) list of "Law Interpretations" issued by World Rugby or the local Refereeing Committee of the host Union, indicating how particular aspects of Law are to be interpreted.

First Player at Breakdown
For example, there are two different interpretations of what is permissible to the first player arriving at a breakdown for Premiership and Top 14 competitions. World Rugby has an amalgam of these interpretations for International games.

Another Example
What is "the hind foot" of the ruck?
a) Is it a line parallel with the goal line, immediately behind the back of the foot of a player IN the ruck.?
b) is it a line parallel with the goal line, immediately behind the back of the foot of a player who has her forearm on a player in the ruck? or,
c) Is it a line parallel with the goal line, immediately behind the back of the foot of a player in the ruck, who has fallen to her knees?

Currently, this selection of alternatives is offered to top referees about 5 times per game and in a recent survey of Pro Coaches, the opinions were split 30%/30%/30% between the various options with the other 10% indicating they didn't know.

The Laws are too complex in their current form and it is the strength of personality of the best referees which allows the game to have continuity rather than chaos.

[ronk]

.

Another Example
What is "the hind foot" of the ruck?
a) Is it a line parallel with the goal line, immediately behind the back of the foot of a player IN the ruck.?
b) is it a line parallel with the goal line, immediately behind the back of the foot of a player who has her forearm on a player in the ruck? or,
c) Is it a line parallel with the goal line, immediately behind the back of the foot of a player in the ruck, who has fallen to her knees?

Yes

[JB1973]

https://www.the42.ie/lions-legens-rugby ... 7-Aug2021/

So instead of starters and finishers we would have 15 men start the game on each side and they could only be replaced if they were injured. The theory obviously being that there would be no 50 minute fatties to be replaced by 30 minute battering rams and athletes would be need to be conditioned more for endurance and less for power. I suppose the theory is that players will sacrifice size for endurance and therefore the impact of collisions is reduced.

gives rise to some questions:

• who would decide if a player were injured?

• if it is an independent medic pitch side - fair enough, but what sort of protections are in place for them? (to protect from the Alex Ferguson type antics that World Rugby seems to be afraid to tackle)

• if it is to be a medic attached to one of the sides playing does any seriously believe that teams with form for gaming the system would be honest in their assessments? (Quins, Munster and France immediately spring to mind)

And rename Snickers back to Marathon while we're at it.

I'd advise people who think this might be a good idea to go back and watch a game of rugby from the 70's. Not a famous game, or highlights, just a run of the mill game from the 5 nations.

Are you back? Shite, wasn't it.

The line out's were some laugh though

In all seriousness there were some top players in the 70's in fairness, given the choice of watching Edwards and John or gareth davies and biggar I know who I'd prefer to see play