Rugby - The game they play in heaven

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I am unsure that refs will help boks a lot.
What kind of fouls do you do during training?

Good point, LDiCesare. A lot of very good points in your post.

For some reason, getting refs along to training happens here in Rugby League. From what I can gather, if a RL team has had a problem with a particular ref in a game, that ref will go along to the team's training to sort out the problem. I mean, there seem to be so few rules in RL anyway! You can't pass the ball forward, five tackles and kick. What's to get wrong?

As for the Boks, their problem is either lack of discipline, or they're playing under orders to commit fouls. Maybe even both. I lost count of the number of times their players were warned by the ref against the Wallabies. He clearly explained the fouls each time - as if fouls need to be explained to an experienced player like the Bok skipper - and they kept on committing them.

[aaglo]

Wilth this spam never endth?

[finbar]

Originally posted by NeoStar
EDIT - Look, is this real money?

ravagon basically explained it. We chose Civ Gold as our fantasy currency because we couldn't decide between the myriad national currencies represented via the posters in this thread.

So we can allocate you 100 Civ Gold - that's what everyone started with - and you can start betting on the forthcoming Boks-ABs game. We usually start betting within a couple of days of the match, and I post the details of who has backed whom, how much everyone stands to win, and so on.

We normally bet on margins rather than straight out win/lose. (Although last Saturday night's match was straight out because of the closeness of the teams) A couple of days before the match, we will determine, by consensus, which team should start favourite.

In all likelihood, in the next match, it will be the ABs. If that's the case, we will determine, by consensus, a (scoreboard) points "start" for the Boks. If, for example, it's decided that the ABs are favourites by 9 1/2 (scoreboard) points, then the equation would be as follows:

1. Back the ABs - they have to win by 10 points or more for you to win your bet. If they win by 9 points or less, you lose your bet.

2. Back the Boks - they have to lose by less than 9 points; or draw the match; or win the match; for you to win your bet. If they lose by 10 points or more, you lose your bet.

Pretty simple, huh?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I deeply respect celtic culture in other ways. And I really like Guinness.

I'm not sure if that's a tautology or redundancy.

Well until very recently that gentleman resided in Hull did he not – a bastion of League territory. As such he is corrupted by association and we need not regard anything he might say as having any import whatsoever

I really think we need a RL Filter on this thread. Something that weeds out anyone - like said ex-Hullite - with even the remotest connection with RL. For example, if someone living in *barf* Wigan wanted to post - even if they were a committed rugby lad or lass - they should be required to move before they can post. Caligastia? Can you look into it? Thanks muchly.

Or is one of you prepared to argue SH refs apply more of the laws on average??

You mean the chaps we call "whistle-happy"?

– over to you Tamerlin.

For crying out loud, now we've got a Euro World Wrestling Federation tag-team!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Very interesting post LDiCesare, but training with a referee (Joël Dumé) seems to have helped the French team during the Six Nations Tournament as they have commited few fouls, it seems he gave our players some precious advices.

Or were the French players simply more disciplined? I'm not sure how experienced players can not know the rules.

The previous sentences are for the newcomers as they have not read the first thread (simply titled : Rugby) and the post exchange between the NH and SH.

Tamerlin - I'm working on the development of an Equatorial Rugby Union Federation! Someone who can occupy the middle ground and be our go-betweens!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I know Finbar thinks things not immediately affecting play should be ignored, and in some aspects he may have a point - but little things like flankers lurking miles offside well away from the ball do affect play - seconds later that flanker may reach a breakdown he should not have been anywhere near?

I wouldn't have thought a flanker "lurking miles offside well away from the ball" anything like a grey area. That's offside.

Next?

Discuss.

*Havak relives his O-Level exams!*

[finbar]

Originally posted by NeoStar
To be fair to them, the rugby rule book is pretty complex.

Only, IMHO, relating to certain aspects of the breakdown. That's what they seem to keep tweaking. For example, the time the tackled player is given to release the ball seems to fluctuate from reasonable opportunity to no opportunity, and "bridging" - or that descrition anyway - seems to confuse players.

BTW This is a while back, but how did you kiwis take the fiasco invloving NZ losing the rights to co host the WC? Was it unexpected? I was actually fairly disappointed, compared to some of the places they're holding the games here, give me a rugby mad NZ crowd anyday.

We batted that around quite a bit. The Kiwi posters seem to have pulled their heads in since the results of the NZ inquiry into the matter were released. I have, though, conceded before this that it was very sad all around.

[LDiCesare]

My feelings about refs at training are really bad. We shouldn't need them there because the first thing to do in a season in any club is to explain the rules. My first training with a real rugby trainer was ahead of a black board. He was just the coach, not a referee.

If you don't teach the rules to ALL players, at club-level, how do you expect a newly capped player will suddenly forget his bad reflexes accumulated over years? Teaching the players how to behave in clubs and at championship level should be where to send the refs. Let them give a course in front of a black board. They sure need to explain things to players, but not during training. Training is for tactical/physical/technical stuff, not learning the rules. Maybe you can teach some front-row subtleties during training, and need an actual scrum to show how this and that position is legal, but you just do it once and for all.

At pro level, explanations of new rules in every club ONCE should be enough. Afterwards, discipline is more a matter of knowing you will not be selected again if you give away too many penalties. France used to have players like that (Carminatti springs to mind) who cost between 6 and 9 points penalty-wise every match they played. If players with little discipline know they will be out if they make fouls, they start paying attention.

As for discussing with a ref with whom you've had problems, I think it is a good idea. But usually it is only a good idea with a beer in hand (a Guiness for instance) and not being too serious about it. You usually realize either you didn't know a rule, or the referee was 60 meters away and didn't see things well so he made a mistake, or you didn't see or realize something. It is very common to get offline because you honestly didn't see there were more than two players of your team near the "regroupement" (sorry - forgot the English word for now), or don't have the same understanding of what releasing a ball "in the movement" means as the ref. (I actually would penalize most pro players there considering many keep the ball a full second before trying to push it away from their body once they are tackled - I don't like the fact modern rugby wins so little balls on good tackles).

[Havak]

Extremely pedantic point here guys but could you all please stop referring to the rules of rugby? Rugby has no ‘rules’, only ‘laws’ of the game.

Sorry – this is a pet hate of mine!

As I was saying to Havak, that's a real problem for the other teams

I would be interested to hear you name the offenders here – I can’t finger any top five teams for this myself. Seriously. England don't panic. They might play sodding uselessly at times but they don't panic

Don't bother if you want this new thread to last for a while. There's a 500 post limit

Excellent point. We had better stop discussing the Wallaby flaws then.

We are quite laid back here - that's a good thing.

Are you seriously saying Aussie fans not understanding the sport is a good thing?

I can see what you're getting at but hey, it works the other way too. Isn't the International body trying to fix the situation?

Okay okay look I’m not being entirely serious – just stimulating debate. The thing that bothers me more than interpretation is some of the silly law change suggestion that arise in the SH. Just last year the McQueen/O’Neil double act was ranting about rolling mauls being out of place in modern rugby – it was pure coincidence the Wallabunnies were awful at defending them at the time (getting better now). It’s this short-termism by the ARU that bugs me – they must think long term benefit of the game not short term Wallaby silver all the time.

The IRB are engaged in a constant struggle on the issue. The pleasing thing is in the last two to three years they have been much stricter in turning down SH requests on law changes – even going so far as stating recently that they intend to retain ‘competition’ for the ball in the game (every so often the demon of uncontested set pieces raise its ugly league head – I can assure you that suggestion never comes from the NH).

Rugby can be such a fast game it gets very hard to police offside runners

No argument there – an officials job is quite thankless most of the time. Miles is of course an exaggeration – ‘markedly’ is a better word. It needs policing better IMO however – and the ref is not the only official who can spot this.

As Finbar picked (and probably dismissed) it was actually a little dig at a specific flanker on my part.

and they kept on committing them.

I expect the return game to be almost identical but with less blow-ups. I really believe they will get away with more at home. I also expect this to be the acid test of Aussie ‘calm’ – I can’t honestly say I noticed too much of that in the first game.

Heh Finbar it’s a straight start for the game on Saturday right - now that the Aussies have beaten both it has to be surely?

I have, though, conceded before this that it was very sad all around.

Fortunately it is between two single country bids (no shared venues like 91 or 99) in 2007 – France or England. Two excellent places to hold it.

Havak, having breezed through his O’Levels yet again – steps right up to a cheesy masters degree in courting favour with his amis français

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by NeoStar
That what Havak said, how can you hate those guys?

Quite easily. I cant stand Gregan or Burke.

Originally posted by NeoStar
I heard the Boks are using refs at training - I'm glad they've finally got some sense into them. They are at home and the All Blacks are shaken up...you never know

How are the All Blacks shaken up? Losing to one of the best teams in the world by 2 points is hardly a disaster.

Originally posted by Havak
Yeah right. That’s what I said after the Aussies won RWC 91!

Oh God, dont remind me...

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Isn't it contradictory with your Urantia Book Caligastia (not sure of the title) ?

Huh?? In what way is it contradictory?

Originally posted by Finbar
I really think we need a RL Filter on this thread. Something that weeds out anyone - like said ex-Hullite - with even the remotest connection with RL. For example, if someone living in *barf* Wigan wanted to post - even if they were a committed rugby lad or lass - they should be required to move before they can post. Caligastia? Can you look into it? Thanks muchly.

Perhaps I can work out some kind of deal with Ming...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Or were the French players simply more disciplined?

Certainly so, but Bernard Laporte himself has acknowledged the benefit of working with Joël Dumé (in my own opinion the only good referee in France).

I'm working on the development of an Equatorial Rugby Union Federation! Someone who can occupy the middle ground and be our go-betweens!

When do we start ?

About a RL filter, I agree but Toulouse is also a town hosting a fine RL team (the Spacers) which has won two French championship titles in the last years. To my defence, the Spacers are playing in front of a few hundreds spectators only.

I hope that supporting the "Stade Toulousain" which earned something like six French Championship titles in the last decade protects me from this filter. Do it ?

I can see what you're getting at but hey, it works the other way too. Isn't the International body trying to fix the situation?

As far as I know, its work has not produced wonderful results, to the exception of forbidding an attacking player to touch a defending one when he doesn't hold the ball. A very important decision for the sake of Rugby.
To their credit, I must admit they are still protecting us from some of the heresies coming from the SH.

[Bearcat]

I wouldn't have thought a flanker "lurking miles offside well away from the ball" anything like a grey area. That's offside.

Nonsense, that's just us flankers getting the job done right and well. Not that I've ever been offside or anything

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
At pro level, explanations of new rules in every club ONCE should be enough.

I agree. New rules particularly.

As for discussing with a ref with whom you've had problems, I think it is a good idea. But usually it is only a good idea with a beer in hand (a Guiness for instance) and not being too serious about it.

Agreed again. But it raises an interesting question. How "familiar" should players be with refs and vice versa? I've noticed that some refs tend to call the players by their christian name on the field. I've even heard some players call the ref by his christian name on the field. At what point, I wonder, does this sort of familiarity impact on the policing of the game? Does it encourage players to push the rules even more than usual? I'm not talking about communication between ref and players - the ref giving quick explanations on the run - because that can only be good for the game. Anyone have any thoughts on "familiarity" on the field?

BTW, Cal, this thought has prompted an idea for the next thread title - Rugby - Who? Me, Sir?.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Extremely pedantic point here guys but could you all please stop referring to the rules of rugby? Rugby has no ‘rules’, only ‘laws’ of the game.

Sorry – this is a pet hate of mine!

Fair enough, too. I agree entirely, and I plead guilty to carelessness. It's yet another of rugby's beautiful little idiosyncracies.

I would be interested to hear you name the offenders here – I can’t finger any top five teams for this myself. Seriously. England don't panic. They might play sodding uselessly at times but they don't panic

Panic might not be the perfect choice of word, but frankly, I suspect every team in the world has, at some point, reacted in a way that could loosely be described as ... whatever. Players are human, after all.

Just last year the McQueen/O’Neil double act was ranting about rolling mauls being out of place in modern rugby – it was pure coincidence the Wallabunnies were awful at defending them at the time (getting better now). It’s this short-termism by the ARU that bugs me – they must think long term benefit of the game not short term Wallaby silver all the time.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. With the proviso, though, that a lot of that sort of stuff is (for want of a better term) mind games. And pretty pointless. No one - most of all the double act to which you refer - seriously believes the rolling maul would ever be removed from the game.

– even going so far as stating recently that they intend to retain ‘competition’ for the ball in the game (every so often the demon of uncontested set pieces raise its ugly league head – I can assure you that suggestion never comes from the NH).

This is something to which Tamerlin referred a month or so ago. The suggestion was that the SH wanted uncontested set-pieces. I say again, I've never heard of it. Can you source this for me, Havak?

As Finbar picked (and probably dismissed) it was actually a little dig at a specific flanker on my part.

I gave it all the attention it deserved. As in:

finbar: (aside, to himself) "Better that tired, knackered old hobby horse, I guess, than another tribute to Jonno".

I also expect this to be the acid test of Aussie ‘calm’ – I can’t honestly say I noticed too much of that in the first game.

Too true, unfortunately. It will be a very interesting test this time around. The Boks are guaranteed to be niggling - and more - from the kick-off. It's the only way they know, after all.

Heh Finbar it’s a straight start for the game on Saturday right - now that the Aussies have beaten both it has to be surely?

I'm honestly not sure what the margin should be. The ABs' margin over the Boks was a lot more than the Wallabies', which is probably the major factor to take into consideration. But the Boks are always stronger at home. OTOH, they're playing at sea level. (I'm really not sure, anyway, how much of a factor playing at altitude really is) Look, I reckon, after due consideration, I'd give the Boks 7 points start.

Fortunately it is between two single country bids (no shared venues like 91 or 99) in 2007 – France or England. Two excellent places to hold it.

Havak, having breezed through his O’Levels yet again – steps right up to a cheesy masters degree in courting favour with his amis français

Dr Havak, PhD in EU Suck.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by finbar

How "familiar" should players be with refs and vice versa? I've noticed that some refs tend to call the players by their christian name on the field. I've even heard some players call the ref by his christian name on the field. At what point, I wonder, does this sort of familiarity impact on the policing of the game? Does it encourage players to push the rules even more than usual? I'm not talking about communication between ref and players - the ref giving quick explanations on the run - because that can only be good for the game. Anyone have any thoughts on "familiarity" on the field?

In most cases lately I've observed the refs communicating pretty much solely through the captains wrt warnings etc, interacting with players only to actually enforce some infringement.
I don't know about encouraging players to push the envelope any either. I'd think they might even be more restrained playing under the officiating of someone they knew fairly well. I don't have anything to back that up mind you, its just an impression.
It might certainly be an advantage knowing the refs limits and preferred playing style though, particularly if the other team doesn't, but theres not much of a solution to that. Its a bit too much to have anonymous refs wearing SAS-style camo gear and balaclavas to hide their identities from the players ....