Rugby Pet-Hates

Forum for the discussion of other Teams and Clubs as well as General Rugby chat.

Moderator: moderators

User avatar
Morf
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2869
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:20 am

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by Morf »

Dexter wrote: September 30th, 2022, 10:33 pm People + Twitter = Hell
I'm pretty sure twitter is awful enough without people.

It's like the ship from Event Horizon possessed by demons from another dimension.
User avatar
riocard911
Shane Jennings
Posts: 5919
Joined: July 27th, 2015, 10:42 pm

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by riocard911 »

No, not ALL people!!! 😉😉😉

https://youtu.be/4Iq7fIHnd70
SoupyNorman
Bookworm
Posts: 151
Joined: September 4th, 2018, 3:20 pm

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by SoupyNorman »

Hookers crabbing across to their team's side of the line-out.
User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15008
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 7:49 pm

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by LeRouxIsPHat »

Made Of Ale wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:55 pm Penalty advantages. Specific complaint is that not scoring a try nearly always equals 'no advantage'.

In my opinion:
  • If you make a decent territory gain (20m or so), advantage should be over.
  • If the ball gets over the try line, and you have a legitimate chance of scoring (e.g. from a cross kick), advantage should be over.
  • The advantage should be time limited (1 minute?), at which point it should be advantage over or come back for the penalty.
Also, the advantage takes no account of how likely a team is to score a try from any play. If you haven't scored a try all match, why should it be 'no advantage' if you don't score while on pen advantage in the 80th minute?

The current interpretations cause overlong advantages and repeated penalty cycles that are biased against the defending team. Leinster make the most of this, but I'm still fed up of it TBH.
The other day La Rochelle got a penalty around halfway and then made a break and got over the line but Leyds knocked it on when he got tackled as he grounded it...and the ref went back for the penalty!
User avatar
Dexter
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4234
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 11:36 am

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by Dexter »

LeRouxIsPHat wrote: October 27th, 2022, 3:38 pm
Made Of Ale wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:55 pm Penalty advantages. Specific complaint is that not scoring a try nearly always equals 'no advantage'.

In my opinion:
  • If you make a decent territory gain (20m or so), advantage should be over.
  • If the ball gets over the try line, and you have a legitimate chance of scoring (e.g. from a cross kick), advantage should be over.
  • The advantage should be time limited (1 minute?), at which point it should be advantage over or come back for the penalty.
Also, the advantage takes no account of how likely a team is to score a try from any play. If you haven't scored a try all match, why should it be 'no advantage' if you don't score while on pen advantage in the 80th minute?

The current interpretations cause overlong advantages and repeated penalty cycles that are biased against the defending team. Leinster make the most of this, but I'm still fed up of it TBH.
The other day La Rochelle got a penalty around halfway and then made a break and got over the line but Leyds knocked it on when he got tackled as he grounded it...and the ref went back for the penalty!
OMG... :roll: :evil: :x
Dont Panic!
User avatar
enby
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2083
Joined: May 20th, 2011, 3:57 pm

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by enby »

It is very strange that the laws of the game still do not provide that the in-goal area be of standard dimensions. The in-goal area in today's match in Rome looks almost twice the size of the one in Marseilles last night. England's first try had its source in an misdirected 50/22 that stopped rolling well in to in-goal. So instead of Italy having a scrum in the English half, they ended up having to drop out from their own line. There is no doubt that Forde's kick would've gone over the dead ball line had the pitch had the same dimensions as the one last night. I know that the kicker should factor in the size of in-goal, and perhaps Forde did so, but it seems very odd that dimensions of the scoring zone are effectively random.
User avatar
fourthirtythree
Leo Cullen
Posts: 10685
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Location: Eight miles high

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by fourthirtythree »

You think that’s mad? How about the permitted variation in pitch size in association football. It’s bonkers.
User avatar
enby
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2083
Joined: May 20th, 2011, 3:57 pm

Re: Rugby Pet-Hates

Post by enby »

Just checked the laws. In-goal, which, as we know, is the try scoring area, can be between 6m and 22m!! That is a ridiculous variation
Post Reply