The rule that bothers me

[marvin]

When a penalty / drop goal is unsuccessful, why is play restarted with a 22 metre drop out? If a team makes a mistake at other times, they are penalised possession - yet if they make a mistake by missing a shot on goal, they immediately get possession back?

Doesn't make sense to me, but I'd be interested to hear someone explain the rationale.

 

[Scrumhalf]

Well it's pretty simple if you think about it...

Play is restarted by Drop-Out (22m) only if the ball travels dead above the In-goal area, missing the goal.

A player may catch the ball and continue play if the ball misses the goal but does not travel dead.

 

[jerry springer]

Originally posted by marvin
When a penalty / drop goal is unsuccessful, why is play restarted with a 22 metre drop out? If a team makes a mistake at other times, they are penalised possession - yet if they make a mistake by missing a shot on goal, they immediately get possession back?

Doesn't make sense to me, but I'd be interested to hear someone explain the rationale.

good point,i dont like it either,if you miss tough biccies the opposition get the ball.i hate the advantage rule in union,is nearly like if you dont score some points you will get the ball back.Advantage doesn't mean you have to score.

 

[dr nick]

instead of lowering the value of the drop goal, perhaps they could make the penalty for missing a but harsher. ie a scrum to the other team where the attempt was made, much like what happens if a general play kick goes dead.

 

[dr nick]

Re: Re: The rule that bothers me

Originally posted by jerry springer
good point,i dont like it either,if you miss tough biccies the opposition get the ball.i hate the advantage rule in union,is nearly like if you dont score some points you will get the ball back.Advantage doesn't mean you have to score.

advantage is a great rule. It allows for attacking rugby. it generally never lasts more than 15 seconds or so. you like the northern hemisphere ref's approach better where they just blow up play when an infringement is made?

 

[The Passenger]

i think the breakdown needs to be fixed up.

i don't know how, but it has to be.

one of the things i think players should be allowed is hands in the ruck, but if they do than they do at their own risk - i.e. their hands basically become free targets for loose feet so they can't just stand there and slow the ball completely down.

And they also must come from behind the ruck to do so.

If a player can reach over the top of a ruck and pick up a ball that isn't protected well enough. then why shouldn't he be able to do that?

it would also attract more forwards to the ruck to protect the ball making more space for the backs to work in.

 

[Nandoz]

The rule that really badly ****s me is that rule when a player accidentally runs into a team-mate, and it is seen as a sheilding movement by the player he ran into.

Give us a break, maybe a free kick, but a PENALTY!

 

[Mint Condition]

I like Nicko's idea about the scrum to the defending team where the missed attempt at goal was taken.

I don't think you can allow hands in the ruck Black Thunder because as you said rucking with the boot would becoming more prominent and unfortunately it doesn't sell a good image of the game to the parents of the children that might be thinking about signing them up to a rugby side. It's part of the professional game. Your going back closer to how the game was 10 years ago. They changed the rules to clean up the game, it had to be done really. I actually think the interpretations at the breakdown of this world cup are very good. There's a good balance between continuity and the contest. A couple of years ago rugby was becoming too much like Rugby League, as the contest was being diminished. Refs were too harsh to the defending team and very leniant to the attacking team. Teams like the Brumbies would just keep the ball for phase after phase and it became monotonous. Thankfully a couple of very slight rule changes have been made that stopped this.

One other rule I would really liked changed and I've been saying this for ages is that teams should not be able to pass the ball back into the 22 and then be able to kick it out on the full. Players aren't allowed to run back into the 22 to kick it out on the full, but they're allowed to pass it to a team member inside the 22 from outside the 22. I think if this seemingly minor rule was changed the game would improve quite a bit.

 

[Iverson]

Originally posted by Mint Condition
One other rule I would really liked changed and I've been saying this for ages is that teams should not be able to pass the ball back into the 22 and then be able to kick it out on the full. Players aren't allowed to run back into the 22 to kick it out on the full, but they're allowed to pass it to a team member inside the 22 from outside the 22. I think if this seemingly minor rule was changed the game would improve quite a bit.

Totally agreed. But I think teams would then just smarten up and the receiver would just pass it again to another player in the 22 to kick it back out.

Best option Mint is to reduce the 22m line to a 15m line. That way 7m will be cut on the kickers kick.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Iverson
Totally agreed. But I think teams would then just smarten up and the receiver would just pass it again to another player in the 22 to kick it back out.

Hey Iverson can you explain fully what you mean here?I'm a bit lost, I though that was what Mint Condition was saying that basically you can't kick into touch on the full from your 22 unless the opposition have directly kicked into it, which I have to say I agree with fully.


I'd also like to say crooked feeds to the scrum penalised heavily & front rows allowed to scrummage all over the world like they are up here.

I'm all for whatever might help teams to strip the ball from the tackled side & cause a turnover due to their good play.

Too many times I see an isolated player getting banged with a couple of opposition players on hand quickly but more often than not he manages to hold on till the cavalry arrive.Sometimes in their frustration to get the ball the tacklers then give away a penalty as well to double the pain.


As for the advantage rule, I'm not sure that the NH refs blow up quicker but I did notice a few times that some refs played the advantage rule abysmally, I think the guy in the Australia/Ireland game (not 100%sure it was this one) had this habit of playing advantage for ages & then when it was quite clear that the team would be better off with a one than where they were he just suddenly shouted play on.
I think Ireland failed to catch onto this & ended up wasting good positions whilst Georgie Gregan knew the score & just kicked the ball straight into touch or went for a drop goal so that they could get the penalty.
Thinking about it it may have been that NZ ref who fancies himself a bit, but how stupid can you get, you play advantage for a side who've got a kickable penalty a bit outside the opposition 22, they move the ball through a few phases but move no nearer the try line & then you call 'play on' & they not surprisingly they look at you with disbelief, if they haven't made any decent progress then it's your duty to call them back for the penalty.

 

[Iverson]

Originally posted by DIPPER
Hey Iverson can you explain fully what you mean here?I'm a bit lost, I though that was what Mint Condition was saying that basically you can't kick into touch on the full from your 22 unless the opposition have directly kicked into it, which I have to say I agree with fully.

Mint was saying just make it illegal for a player to pass the ball back inside the 22 for another to just kick it out again.

What I'm saying while that sounds good in theory it would just be then overcome by smart thinking.

England uses this tactic alot. After the lineout they maul it up to the 30m and Dawson fires it back to Jonny who is inside the 22 for a clearing kick. Now if we say you can't pass the ball back into the 22 for a kick it would just then be overcome by smart thinking.

After the lineout they maul it up to the 30m and Dawson fires it back to Jonny who is inside the 22 who then ficks it to Lewsey for a clearing kick - rule now broken.

Best option is to reduce the 22 to a 15m line. It will cut 7m from a clearing kick. Another rule a kind of like is to see all kicks out on the full can only gain a maximum to the halfway line.

 

[Mint Condition]

Iverson, I don't like changing the lines on the field, because there's so many park grounds and stuff that would have to be changed and it would just be an added cost. Just imagine the cost of changing the lines on every single rugby field in the world.

I see what you say about the double pass but I think that would be quite dangerous for the kicking side, because the defence will have quite a bit of time to get to the player kicking the ball. They'll know the first receiver has to pass the ball if they want to kick itand I think they'd get to the kicker before he got the ball.

 

[jerry springer]

Re: Re: Re: The rule that bothers me

Originally posted by nicko18
advantage is a great rule. It allows for attacking rugby. it generally never lasts more than 15 seconds or so. you like the northern hemisphere ref's approach better where they just blow up play when an infringement is made?

i have no problem with a advantage rule,but you dont have to score for it to be an advantage.if the ref yells advantage and you have a shot at goal and miss.tough sh.it.handover to the opposition

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Mint Condition
Iverson, I don't like changing the lines on the field, because there's so many park grounds and stuff that would have to be changed and it would just be an added cost. Just imagine the cost of changing the lines on every single rugby field in the world.

I see what you say about the

mate, they get re-painted every time the grass is cut.

 

[Mint Condition]

Originally posted by nicko18
mate, they get re-painted every time the grass is cut.

At a suburban park or a school? or a field owned by a local club? No they don't, they do it when the dent in the grass diminishes so much it's too hard to notice.

I dunno, I just think changing the dimensions of the field is too big a change and too unnecessary, not being able to pass it back is enough to change play to what is wanted I think.

Another reason is that the field would just look strange with an extra couple of lines on it. It wouldn't feel like a rugby field to me - but then again that's just me. The 15 metre line would be better than the rule now, but I just think it'd be easier to change it to the no passing back rule - same result pretty much.

One other thing that I think needs to be stamped out of the game, and I'm not sure how it can be done is to stamp out players faking injuries or exaggerating small ones to slow down play. Eddie Jones says increase interchanges from 7 to 12 (while keeping a 7 man bench) but I think that just slows down play further with extra replacements coming on and more starting players going off. Anyone got any ideas?

 

[dr nick]

besides, players who are "smart" and pass the ball twice just to get a kick out from the 22, you would assume are already under a fair amount of pressure. Passing twice gives the defensive team far more chance to get to the ball. so you'd think by the time the 2nd pass is executed they'd be at least 20m if not 15m away from their own goal line anyway.