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)
Tired players are more likely to make mistakes with their tackling and ball carrying techniques and ergo more likely to be injured or to injure.
If World Rugby wants to reduce risk of injuries, they should codify the existing law set from a lawyer's wet dream of interpretations of intent and purpose into a solid form of do and do nots, with intent and purpose only defining level of punishment for offence (from penalty to cards). Professional Referees should then fully understand this law set and apply it fully. If they are unable to fully do that (say for example lack of understanding of scrums) we add specialist referees in those areas so we can avoid foul play going unpunished by referees uninterested in the "dark arts", or as I prefer to call it, basic physics. It should be the responsibility of the match ref to use his full range of assistants, and the responsibility of those assistants to openly and actively assist the match ref.
The officials allow the game to be played, but they have the responsibility to ensure that it is played as safely as possible, and often they fail to achieve that due to their interpretations and shortcomings. Remove those and the game becomes a lot safer. Nothing new actually needs to be added to the laws, we just need to get rid of differing interpretations and lack of application of it.
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.
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.
There's a whole lot more different between the pre-professional era and this one than the rules around substitutions Dave
When subs came in there was a requirement for a Dr. It was flawed and just put Drs in a terrible position.
No, no, no a thousand times no. It will cause more problems than it solves, especially the speed of the game. Concussion on its own makes this dead on arrival.
If they want to speed the game, speed the game. If they want to limit subs then limit the number of tactical subs. Allow injury subs but the injured player has to sit out a game or two.
The problem with the game are the laws of the game. They need to take a look at every single law and see does it conform to and allow the core principle of the game, a fair contest for the ball. Any law that doesn't needs to be changed or jettisoned.
Also, the game is too complex for the current refereeing structure. A second on field official is required. The problem there is that World Rugby have been lax in terms of referee development and in terms of referee protection meaning that they don't have the numbers of suitably qualified and talented referees to do this.
TV replays are making it harder too. People generally want individual incidents reviewed but the time adds up and the pressure to make no mistakes is leading to a generation of refs who use it for everything.
Do we really need to review almost every try for a possible knock on, forward pass or offside kick chaser? How about just award more trys so teams actually take risks in attacking plays. Replay anything obvious. Maybe give the TMO 60s to check while the conversion is being setup with no fast conversions during the bulk of the game and stop the clock in the last 3 or 4 minutes to allow review. If there's a rare bigger check needed the take the time, but cut them right down.
ronk wrote: ↑August 14th, 2021, 8:52 pm
TV replays are making it harder too. People generally want individual incidents reviewed but the time adds up and the pressure to make no mistakes is leading to a generation of refs who use it for everything.
Do we really need to review almost every try for a possible knock on, forward pass or offside kick chaser? How about just award more trys so teams actually take risks in attacking plays. Replay anything obvious. Maybe give the TMO 60s to check while the conversion is being setup with no fast conversions during the bulk of the game and stop the clock in the last 3 or 4 minutes to allow review. If there's a rare bigger check needed the take the time, but cut them right down.
They use it for everything because the call they get wrong that they don't use it for is the one that gets them called every name under the sun by coaches, players, and everyone on every media platform out there. The only way to protect them is to limit the use of technology by changing the protocols that it can be used under (which I think is what you're suggesting) but then we'll have an avalanche of "why not use the technology if its already in place". Originally the use cases allowed for TMO intervention were very limited, but there has been a massive expansion in these cases over the years because of the previous avalanche.
Dave Cahill wrote: ↑August 14th, 2021, 8:38 pm
The problem with the game are the laws of the game. They need to take a look at every single law and see does it conform to and allow the core principle of the game, a fair contest for the ball. Any law that doesn't needs to be changed or jettisoned.
Also, the game is too complex for the current refereeing structure. A second on field official is required. The problem there is that World Rugby have been lax in terms of referee development and in terms of referee protection meaning that they don't have the numbers of suitably qualified and talented referees to do this.
A thousand times this.
“As you all know first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.”
Dave Cahill wrote: ↑August 14th, 2021, 8:38 pm
The problem with the game are the laws of the game. They need to take a look at every single law and see does it conform to and allow the core principle of the game, a fair contest for the ball. Any law that doesn't needs to be changed or jettisoned.
Also, the game is too complex for the current refereeing structure. A second on field official is required. The problem there is that World Rugby have been lax in terms of referee development and in terms of referee protection meaning that they don't have the numbers of suitably qualified and talented referees to do this.
World Rugby should pay him to go through the law book and rewrite it. It needs to be a one-man job to start with, in my opinion. He could bring in whoever he wanted as a sounding-board, but Hansen would have the final say. Obviously it is incredibly unlikely to happen.
EDIT: I agree with pretty much everything DC has said here as well. I'd add that if you asked rugby fans if they wanted more TMO ten years ago, many of of them would have said yes. If you asked the same fans ten years down the line [and in the off season] I'd say the majority of them would ask to go back to where we were ten years ago.
ronk wrote: ↑August 14th, 2021, 8:52 pm
TV replays are making it harder too. People generally want individual incidents reviewed but the time adds up and the pressure to make no mistakes is leading to a generation of refs who use it for everything.
Do we really need to review almost every try for a possible knock on, forward pass or offside kick chaser? How about just award more trys so teams actually take risks in attacking plays. Replay anything obvious. Maybe give the TMO 60s to check while the conversion is being setup with no fast conversions during the bulk of the game and stop the clock in the last 3 or 4 minutes to allow review. If there's a rare bigger check needed the take the time, but cut them right down.
They use it for everything because the call they get wrong that they don't use it for is the one that gets them called every name under the sun by coaches, players, and everyone on every media platform out there. The only way to protect them is to limit the use of technology by changing the protocols that it can be used under (which I think is what you're suggesting) but then we'll have an avalanche of "why not use the technology if its already in place". Originally the use cases allowed for TMO intervention were very limited, but there has been a massive expansion in these cases over the years because of the previous avalanche.
Pretty much. I'd also try and go further by pressing media to not discuss ref calls at all, as far as practical. Even down to not asking those questions at all in post game interviews.
Punish the broadcaster for showing it (by not having those interviews at all in subsequent games) rather than the coaches.
And start giving 10 yards for trivial amounts of dissent.
You see, to me, what Hansen is saying is part of the problem - defense is as much a part of the game as attack, defending well requires as much skill as attacking well. And since that article was written, a new simplified law book was devised - now can anyone say that the game has improved in the last 4 years?
In many ways though, defenses have already been spayed - particularly at the breakdown. Currently the breakdown is only slightly more competitive than the tackle in Rugby League - once the second man is in the fun stops. Frankly, once you're on your feet and onside you should be able to try to win the ball whether you're a tackler, a jackaler or a drywall spackler! That would have the added bonus of creating more space on the field for attack or counter attack as more players would be needed at the breakdown to protect possession or turn it over.
ronk wrote: ↑August 14th, 2021, 8:52 pm
TV replays are making it harder too. People generally want individual incidents reviewed but the time adds up and the pressure to make no mistakes is leading to a generation of refs who use it for everything.
Do we really need to review almost every try for a possible knock on, forward pass or offside kick chaser? How about just award more trys so teams actually take risks in attacking plays. Replay anything obvious. Maybe give the TMO 60s to check while the conversion is being setup with no fast conversions during the bulk of the game and stop the clock in the last 3 or 4 minutes to allow review. If there's a rare bigger check needed the take the time, but cut them right down.
They use it for everything because the call they get wrong that they don't use it for is the one that gets them called every name under the sun by coaches, players, and everyone on every media platform out there. The only way to protect them is to limit the use of technology by changing the protocols that it can be used under (which I think is what you're suggesting) but then we'll have an avalanche of "why not use the technology if its already in place". Originally the use cases allowed for TMO intervention were very limited, but there has been a massive expansion in these cases over the years because of the previous avalanche.
Pretty much. I'd also try and go further by pressing media to not discuss ref calls at all, as far as practical. Even down to not asking those questions at all in post game interviews.
Punish the broadcaster for showing it (by not having those interviews at all in subsequent games) rather than the coaches.
And start giving 10 yards for trivial amounts of dissent.
Totally hiding referee feedback from the public is never going to increase public trust in officials. All feedback, internal and external should be available to all.
The public barely look at proper referee feedback. Micromanaging every decision won't increase trust either and brings a slew of other problems.
Coaches already aren't allowed criticise refs, but they can be invited to in officially sanctioned mandatory interviews and then expected to dance as close to the fire as they can without getting burned.
End the dance and talk about the rugby.
Putting an ex-ref into the commentary team for the Lions was interesting to watch and I was initially in favour of it. But I now fear that it could adversely affect the rugby itself. I'm not 100%sure because I don't fully understand the role of absent crowds in that dynamic. They don't see replays in the same detail as TV viewers and they have a different option for expressing their displeasure at delays.
This time it's different because of the extent to which some teams are able to deploy freak athletes with a rare mix of size, skills and mobility and the move to a 6-2 split that allows teams to replace the full front row and full backrow (when you have 3rd lock players).
It's shifted the balance in favour of bruisers in recent years.
ronk wrote: ↑August 14th, 2021, 11:40 pm
The public barely look at proper referee feedback.
There isn't any. Refereeing is a closed shop. Where on the IRFU or World Rugbys sites can you see such feedback?
How many people read the full disciplinary decisions that are published? Or have read the laws book, let alone the interpretations.
Enough people do, either through the media or the public, that there is some form of balance and trust in that system, and it's failures are called out.
Coaches using post game interviews as a platform to pressure refs does nothing for the quality of refereeing.
Many coaches would far prefer to blame the ref than their own performance and preparation. If they can divert fan anger away from them and towards the ref then brilliant. I didn't think it was a big deal until it really hit home this series the effect that it's having on the game in ways that I didn't expect. If it was just a question of a game taking 10 minutes longer then I'd probably live with it. But it's a thumb on the scales in favour of brute force.
How can you wear down a power based team with long phase play and fast rugby when the ball is in play for 25 minutes?
I played as a tighthead whose major involvement in open play might be falling on a loose ball every game or two and who might make half a dozen carries a season. I never want to devalue to set piece. What we just saw needs to change though.
