Rugby - Who? Me, Sir? Offside?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
You were fairly impressed with their performance at home against the Wallabies if I recall? There is now a ‘mosquito squadron’ in the backs?

Very dangerous in broken play. Greased lightning.

They will need their forwards to do the business against us big time before we see much of the girlies at Twickers I suspect.

Their forwards were much vaunted. We seemed to handle them. As you say, they will need to do the business for the mosquitos to get involved. I do look forward to seeing how they approach the games - whether they're still carrying on with the mindless roughhouse stuff and giving away silly penalties.

I suppose it is fair enough if the ref says “let me police the game” but it is human nature that if he then doesn’t do so the players will take it into there own hands.

That's why they do it. Apart from evening up a couple of old scores.

As long as the use of the foot is not excessively dangerous (i.e. aimed at the head) I feel the first infringement (being on the wrong side) should be punished first to be honest. When I started playing you knew if you lay on the wrong side you were going to get it – it concentrates one sense of geography marvelously.

It's chicken and egg stuff. The guy shouldn't be lying there, the opponent shouldn't boot him for lying there. Obviously the guy lying there is the cause of the problem. The simple solution is to penalise the offside, but, as with lurking (on their feet), refs seem loathe to decide there's intent. It's like the requirement for the tackler to roll away from the tackle. That's not well enough policed. The list is endless.

If you open the door like that Havak will happily walk through it.

I like to leave you the occasional crumb to keep your spirits up.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Perhaps he would still penalise for entering from an offside position...even so...

But you're offside if you come in from the side. Maybe the commentator had wandered in from a L***** match.

[finbar]

The new thread title. I'm still rather fond of the wonderfully technically obscure:

Rugby - Last feet!

That would certainly attract the stickybeaks. As long as they don't post!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


But you're offside if you come in from the side. Maybe the commentator had wandered in from a L***** match.

I mean offside as in really offside, like entering from the opponent's side of the ruck.

Ok never mind...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
The new thread title. I'm still rather fond of the wonderfully technically obscure:

Rugby - Last feet!

That would certainly attract the stickybeaks. As long as they don't post!

I like that one.

What about Rugby - Havak and finbar, a match made in heaven.

[LDiCesare]

I was watching the Canterbury v Otago game this past weekend, and I heard one of the commentators suggest that maybe the rule that says you cant enter a ruck from the side should be scrapped. What do you guys think about that?

The old law allowed you to enter if you came from behind the ball. That led to lots of confusion, and the ball can still be fought for. The current law makes it easier to maintain possession of the ball actually, as once it is won, you have a much smaller area to defend (the center of the ruck, not the sides). It makes play more fluid, and if you want to have forwards fights you can still use the maul, which is much better than a ruck for that anyway, so I say keep the law. I may end up being offside a bit more often than before, but that doesn't matter.

And I like "Last feet" too.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

The old law allowed you to enter if you came from behind the ball. That led to lots of confusion, and the ball can still be fought for. The current law makes it easier to maintain possession of the ball actually, as once it is won, you have a much smaller area to defend (the center of the ruck, not the sides). It makes play more fluid, and if you want to have forwards fights you can still use the maul, which is much better than a ruck for that anyway, so I say keep the law. I may end up being offside a bit more often than before, but that doesn't matter.

And I like "Last feet" too.

Great post. You make some good points.

So it looks like we are leaning towards the "Last Feet" thread title. What do the rest of you think?

[Havak]

Very dangerous in broken play. Greased lightning.

Hmm. That might cause us problems certainly.

whether they're still carrying on with the mindless roughhouse stuff and giving away silly penalties.

Neither would be sensible against England. The forwards won’t achieve anything with the rough stuff and Wilko will punish any penalty leaking. Hopefully they will play open attractive running rugger.

It's like the requirement for the tackler to roll away from the tackle. That's not well enough policed. The list is endless.

That’s true enough. Also though I think the ‘holding on’ directive this season is over strict – refs are blowing before players get any chance to lay it back some times.

I like to leave you the occasional crumb to keep your spirits up.

It’s appreciated.

I mean offside as in really offside, like entering from the opponent's side of the ruck

There speaks a true Kiwi.

Hmm not sure on that one.

Rugby – Havak and Finbar: behind the back foot?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
There speaks a true Kiwi.

Rugby – Havak and Finbar: behind the back foot?

I liked Tamerlin's "Commonwealth Wars" one better.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Hey Guys,
I was watching the Canterbury v Otago game this past weekend, and I heard one of the commentators suggest that maybe the rule that says you cant enter a ruck from the side should be scrapped. What do you guys think about that?

This time I agree with SH commentators, I think this rule should be scrapped, in my own opinion this new rule has not clarified any part of the game and is thus a failure.

Havak, scrapping this rule will have an advantage for the Tigers, Franck Tournaire will cost your team less points.

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

The old law allowed you to enter if you came from behind the ball. That led to lots of confusion, and the ball can still be fought for. The current law makes it easier to maintain possession of the ball actually, as once it is won, you have a much smaller area to defend (the center of the ruck, not the sides). It makes play more fluid, and if you want to have forwards fights you can still use the maul, which is much better than a ruck for that anyway, so I say keep the law.

Good points, well made.

I may end up being offside a bit more often than before, but that doesn't matter.

But I have it on good authority that you've never been offside in your life, LDiCesares.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak

Hmm. That might cause us problems certainly.

As I observed at the time, they're so dangerous in broken play because, apart from being terifyingly quick, they seem, literally, to make it up as they go along. It's like that old arcade game where you have a mallet and you have to bop things on the head as they pop out of holes randomly.

Neither would be sensible against England. The forwards won’t achieve anything with the rough stuff and Wilko will punish any penalty leaking.

That's precisely what happened to them here. They had racked up something like 5 penalties in the first 7 minutes.

That’s true enough. Also though I think the ‘holding on’ directive this season is over strict – refs are blowing before players get any chance to lay it back some times.

That arose in the SH this season, too. The problem, again, is that it boils down to the ref's judgement. There's no time factor - you have X seconds to present the ball - so the decisions become arbitrary. The bottom line is that the breakdown - by its very nature - has always been the most contentious part of the game and probably always will be. The bothersome thing here is that there are certain refs whom you know are more likely to err in things like "holding on". They're also the ones who produce the most arcane, borderline technical rulings elsewhere on the paddock. 'Tis a pity one can't legislate for common sense in refs.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I liked Tamerlin's "Commonwealth Wars" one better.

As much as I'm flattered by the notion of an eponymous thread title - as I'm sure Havak Potter is too - my preference would be to stick with the wonderfully unique, obscure rugby laws and expressions. And the more obscure the better. We know what they mean and no one else does.

So I officially propose:

Rugby - Last feet!

Or:

Rugby - Roll away!

Or:

Rugby - Numbers in the lineout!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
This time I agree with SH commentators, I think this rule should be scrapped, in my own opinion this new rule has not clarified any part of the game and is thus a failure.

I scent un complot français.

[Bearcat]

Rugby: The Ball's Out!