Discussion:
Ways to improve rugby
(too old to reply)
JD
2006-03-10 01:21:20 UTC
Permalink
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
clueless morons. Evidence of this is cut and pasted below:

Allow hands in the ruck - 16%

Allow vigorous rucking - 29%

Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%

Eliminate scrums - 2%

Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%


Total Votes: 3841

I'll deal with the three main points;

Allowing hands in the ruck will do absolutely nothing to improve the
speed of the game and will drastically impact on the spectacle of
running rugby as players will be hanging on to the ball in the bottom
of a ruck for dear life, giving defence all the time in the world to
realign.

Reducing the penalties and increasing conversions will have the obvious
contrarian effect of more penalties, simply as you are only giving up
two points rather than facing the possibility of eight.

The simplest method for increasing the spectacle and reducing the
complexity is to allow rucking. Reasonably adjudicated by a referee,
this will promote faster recycling of the ball. Most of the current
laws can stay for safety (not rucking the head of an opponent, only
rucking a player preventing release of the ball). Simply put, if you're
on the wrong side of the ruck and don't make an expeditious exit,
players should be able to drive over and remove you. A ref only has to
ensure that the rucking is done safely and that the offending player
can actually remove himself. I realise this is actually the law as it
stands, but the IRB needs to communicate to refs that this is how they
should be interpreting the breakdown, rather than the pathetic current
state of affairs which lead to the suspension of So'oialo and Tito.
William A. T. Clark
2006-03-10 01:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Total Votes: 3841
I'll deal with the three main points;
Allowing hands in the ruck will do absolutely nothing to improve the
speed of the game and will drastically impact on the spectacle of
running rugby as players will be hanging on to the ball in the bottom
of a ruck for dear life, giving defence all the time in the world to
realign.
Agreed, all we will see is sixteen fatties with their hands around the
ball, and no chance of it ever coming out.
Post by JD
Reducing the penalties and increasing conversions will have the obvious
contrarian effect of more penalties, simply as you are only giving up
two points rather than facing the possibility of eight.
Added incentive to the fatties not to play the ball in threatening
situations.
Post by JD
The simplest method for increasing the spectacle and reducing the
complexity is to allow rucking. Reasonably adjudicated by a referee,
this will promote faster recycling of the ball. Most of the current
laws can stay for safety (not rucking the head of an opponent, only
rucking a player preventing release of the ball). Simply put, if you're
on the wrong side of the ruck and don't make an expeditious exit,
players should be able to drive over and remove you. A ref only has to
ensure that the rucking is done safely and that the offending player
can actually remove himself. I realise this is actually the law as it
stands, but the IRB needs to communicate to refs that this is how they
should be interpreting the breakdown, rather than the pathetic current
state of affairs which lead to the suspension of So'oialo and Tito.
Agree 100%. Bring back rucking, keep the hands off the ball once the
tackle is made, and penalize those fringers that stand around blocking
the channels around the scrum, while innocently feigning to be
helplessly caught there.

Right.

William Clark
Will_S
2006-03-10 06:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
No.....
Post by JD
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
No... bad for the growth of the game
Post by JD
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
No...a good rolling maul is Rugby
Post by JD
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Well the scrums have to change. My first change would be no penalties from
scrums just free kicks. Refs should be encouraged to sinbin front rollers
who collapse the scrums or other activities that destabilise the scrum.
Would also bring that players who recieve 3 yellows over the season would be
banned for 2 matches,
Post by JD
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Definitely but along with this the refs should be encouraged to give penalty
tries and use the sin bin for players who offend within their quarter


<snipped all your comments as I dont agree with any of them >
rick boyd
2006-03-10 06:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
No...a good rolling maul is Rugby
Most rolling mauls are contrary to the spirit of rugby. The ball
carrier is protected at the back of the maul and continuous contest of
possession is essential to rugby. Most rolling mauls are nothing but
group offsides. Allow them to be collapsed and no one will use them.
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Well the scrums have to change. My first change would be no penalties from
scrums just free kicks. Refs should be encouraged to sinbin front rollers
who collapse the scrums or other activities that destabilise the scrum.
Would also bring that players who recieve 3 yellows over the season would be
banned for 2 matches,
The scrum is an essential part of rugby. It encourages the diversity of
body types that are special to rugby and rewards strong, heavy forward
play, which must always have a place in rugby. Stopping scrum collapses
is a tricky area. I think even experienced front rowers can never be
really sure from observation exaclty what forces are contributing to a
scrum collapse, and since the fat waddling bastards never become
referees, adjudicators have even less idea what is going on in there.
Short of a mobile scrumminging platform being wheeled on for each scrum
to ensure the force vectors are only back and forth rather than up and
down, how do we encourage players to avoid collapses? Allow the front
row to have hands on the ground or forbid them to bind onto the
opposition? There may never be an answer to this one. But scrums must
stay.
Post by Will_S
Definitely but along with this the refs should be encouraged to give penalty
tries and use the sin bin for players who offend within their quarter
Sin bin, yes. Penalty tries, NO! They are a wicked iniquity of Satan
and should never, ever be used as a punishment, but only to reward
positive play that fails to realise five points due to illegal play by
the opposition, when they are in such a position that illegal play is
their only option.

-- rick boyd
Will_S
2006-03-10 07:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
No...a good rolling maul is Rugby
Most rolling mauls are contrary to the spirit of rugby. The ball
carrier is protected at the back of the maul and continuous contest of
possession is essential to rugby. Most rolling mauls are nothing but
group offsides. Allow them to be collapsed and no one will use them.
I would still make collapsing an offence but punishable by a free kick and
not a penalty
Post by rick boyd
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Well the scrums have to change. My first change would be no penalties from
scrums just free kicks. Refs should be encouraged to sinbin front rollers
who collapse the scrums or other activities that destabilise the scrum.
Would also bring that players who recieve 3 yellows over the season would be
banned for 2 matches,
The scrum is an essential part of rugby. It encourages the diversity of
body types that are special to rugby and rewards strong, heavy forward
play, which must always have a place in rugby. Stopping scrum collapses
is a tricky area. I think even experienced front rowers can never be
really sure from observation exaclty what forces are contributing to a
scrum collapse, and since the fat waddling bastards never become
referees, adjudicators have even less idea what is going on in there.
Short of a mobile scrumminging platform being wheeled on for each scrum
to ensure the force vectors are only back and forth rather than up and
down, how do we encourage players to avoid collapses? Allow the front
row to have hands on the ground or forbid them to bind onto the
opposition? There may never be an answer to this one. But scrums must
stay.
I think you will find legal proceeding will end up killing scrums in the
next decade or so which will be sad. BUT I am sick of watching the scrum
penalty lottery in matches.
simon s-b
2006-03-10 09:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
No...a good rolling maul is Rugby
Most rolling mauls are contrary to the spirit of rugby. The ball
carrier is protected at the back of the maul and continuous contest of
possession is essential to rugby. Most rolling mauls are nothing but
group offsides. Allow them to be collapsed and no one will use them.
I love a good rolling maul and judging from crowd reactions at games I
am not alone. Allowing them to be collapsed is a shit idea. There is an
art to collapsing them on the sly and getting away with it, and an art
to defending them. If people defend against it as well as everyone has
against England this year, we will see fewer and fewer of them anyway.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Eliminate scrums - 2%
FFS - eliminate scrums? You may as well just put 15 backs on the
fecking field. Scrums are necessary to put 18 people in one place and
make some space for the pretties. The people suggesting these ideas
should fuck off and follow the sevens circuit or league, and leave the
beautiful game alone.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Will_S
Well the scrums have to change. My first change would be no penalties from
scrums just free kicks. Refs should be encouraged to sinbin front rollers
who collapse the scrums or other activities that destabilise the scrum.
Would also bring that players who recieve 3 yellows over the season would be
banned for 2 matches,
The scrum is an essential part of rugby. It encourages the diversity of
body types that are special to rugby and rewards strong, heavy forward
play, which must always have a place in rugby. Stopping scrum collapses
is a tricky area. I think even experienced front rowers can never be
really sure from observation exaclty what forces are contributing to a
scrum collapse, and since the fat waddling bastards never become
referees, adjudicators have even less idea what is going on in there.
Short of a mobile scrumminging platform being wheeled on for each scrum
to ensure the force vectors are only back and forth rather than up and
down, how do we encourage players to avoid collapses? Allow the front
row to have hands on the ground or forbid them to bind onto the
opposition? There may never be an answer to this one. But scrums must
stay.
Post by Will_S
Definitely but along with this the refs should be encouraged to give penalty
tries and use the sin bin for players who offend within their quarter
Sin bin, yes. Penalty tries, NO! They are a wicked iniquity of Satan
and should never, ever be used as a punishment, but only to reward
positive play that fails to realise five points due to illegal play by
the opposition, when they are in such a position that illegal play is
their only option.
-- rick boyd
Uncle Dave
2006-03-10 09:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
No...a good rolling maul is Rugby
Most rolling mauls are contrary to the spirit of rugby. The ball
carrier is protected at the back of the maul and continuous contest of
possession is essential to rugby. Most rolling mauls are nothing but
group offsides. Allow them to be collapsed and no one will use them.
Do you know, for once, I almost agree with you. Well, the bit about
them not allowing contest of possession, but surely that's only the
case when the defending side doesn't have the will or skill to contest?
I saw a couple of rolling mauls turned over last weekend in one or
other of games on TV. I also agree about the mass offside bit, but
then as in the SH throwing the ball forward is de rigeur and rarely
punished then we can probably let that go.

Isn't it largely a matter of taste as to what style of rugby you like
to watch? Up here at the non-arse-end of the world we rather like to
see a bunch of meaty chaps huddled together shoving their way up the
field to the chagrin of their opponents whereas you Antipodeans like to
see them running around aimlessly bumping into each other.

Would you not admit that the real reason you'd like to see the rolling
maul negated is because it doesn't fit with *your idea* of the spirit
of rugby? It fits very well with my idea of the spirit of rugby and
offers the forwards a chance to display their skills.

Cheers

UD
rick boyd
2006-03-10 14:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Dave
Would you not admit that the real reason you'd like to see the rolling
maul negated is because it doesn't fit with *your idea* of the spirit
of rugby? It fits very well with my idea of the spirit of rugby and
offers the forwards a chance to display their skills.
The reason I object to them is because I see the essential element of
rugby being the positive use of the ball. The only way to stop a rolling
maul is to pile in enough bodies with enough force and remain upright
until the maul comes to a halt. The result is two negative forces
cancelling each other out. Even then the advantage remains with the side
in posession as they alone know which way they will drive off next,
protecting the ball by legal offside all the while.

-- rick boyd
simon s-b
2006-03-10 15:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Uncle Dave
Would you not admit that the real reason you'd like to see the rolling
maul negated is because it doesn't fit with *your idea* of the spirit
of rugby? It fits very well with my idea of the spirit of rugby and
offers the forwards a chance to display their skills.
The reason he objects to them is that he was a winger in a former life
Post by rick boyd
The reason I object to them is because I see the essential element of
rugby being the positive use of the ball. The only way to stop a rolling
maul is to pile in enough bodies with enough force and remain upright
until the maul comes to a halt. The result is two negative forces
cancelling each other out. Even then the advantage remains with the side
in posession as they alone know which way they will drive off next,
protecting the ball by legal offside all the while.
-- rick boyd
You'd not get any positive use of the ball with all those people spread
out everywhere. The whole point of the rolling maul, apart from making
ground, is that the oppo has to pile in bodies, which makes space,
which leads to positive use of the ball.
Osbourne Ruddock
2006-03-10 09:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
No... bad for the growth of the game
Fuck that, allow all the bastard dogs of hades in there. No refs, just some
cunt with the ball to come out the other end of it. Would, perversely,
clean up the game no end.
--
Cheers, Os
Sean Byrne
2006-03-10 10:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will_S
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
No.....
Post by JD
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
No... bad for the growth of the game
Post by JD
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
No...a good rolling maul is Rugby
Post by JD
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Well the scrums have to change.
An unsurprising comment from an Australian. Have you any rationale
behind it apart from the paucity of good props in your national side?


My first change would be no penalties from
Post by Will_S
scrums just free kicks. Refs should be encouraged to sinbin front rollers
who collapse the scrums or other activities that destabilise the scrum.
Would also bring that players who recieve 3 yellows over the season would be
banned for 2 matches,
Post by JD
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Definitely but along with this
You want to see *more* kicks at goal?

Later,
Sean



the refs should be encouraged to give penalty
Post by Will_S
tries and use the sin bin for players who offend within their quarter
<snipped all your comments as I dont agree with any of them >
rick boyd
2006-03-10 06:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
clueless morons.
Unfortunately the clueless morons in question are the IRB's rules
experimentation committee, who are always looking at ways to improve
the game. And some of these are well worth the effort.

Every rule in the book has to balance its assets against its
liabilities and this particularly true of rule changes. The positive
effects of rule chnages must be balanced against the ways that they can
be exploited by negative, cheatings poms, er, sorry, players.
Post by JD
Allowing hands in the ruck will do absolutely nothing to improve the
speed of the game and will drastically impact on the spectacle of
running rugby as players will be hanging on to the ball in the bottom
of a ruck for dear life, giving defence all the time in the world to
realign.
I'm sure the intent behind this law change is not merely to allow hands
in the ruck. There will undoubtedly be some clause about getting it out
of the ruck quickly, with the team going forward gaining possession if
its trapped. According to the rule book, rucks almost never happen
these days, as they're supposed to be when the ball is on the ground,
and two groups of players bind together over it and hack it out with
their feet. Invariably in modern play bodies go to ground over the ball
and the side in possession is allowed to move it back with their hands,
but the other side is penalised if they try to scoop the ball back to
their side with their hands.

The rule change will mean that the side in possession will place the
ball very quickly and move it out very quickly so the other side does
not have time to contest possession. If the ball does not come out
quickly, the rule change means that strong forward play will be
emphasised and more forwards committed to the ruck in an attempt to
drive forward and retain possession.

I think this rule change is positive.
Post by JD
Reducing the penalties and increasing conversions will have the obvious
contrarian effect of more penalties, simply as you are only giving up
two points rather than facing the possibility of eight.
I was not aware that this was one of the committee's options. The
committee is currently looking at removing all penalties except for
foul play and replacing them with free kicks. Decreasing the points for
penalties and increasing the points for conversions will have a similar
effect.

As noted, this may lead to an initial increase in professional fouls --
but only an initial one. The first couple may cop a free kick and after
that the ref will be reaching for his cards. Not a great deal will
change except that the game will not halt for significant periods as
goal kickers line up their shots, and the non-offending team will not
be rewarded with match-winning points for something that was basically
nothing to do with their own endeavours.

The aim here, I believe, is to speed up the game and ensure that games
are decided by positive use of the ball, not won by whichever team
cheated least.
Post by JD
The simplest method for increasing the spectacle and reducing the
complexity is to allow rucking. Reasonably adjudicated by a referee,
this will promote faster recycling of the ball. Most of the current
laws can stay for safety (not rucking the head of an opponent, only
rucking a player preventing release of the ball). Simply put, if you're
on the wrong side of the ruck and don't make an expeditious exit,
players should be able to drive over and remove you. A ref only has to
ensure that the rucking is done safely and that the offending player
can actually remove himself. I realise this is actually the law as it
stands, but the IRB needs to communicate to refs that this is how they
should be interpreting the breakdown, rather than the pathetic current
state of affairs which lead to the suspension of So'oialo and Tito.
In the current climate I doubt we will see a return to boots-on-bodies
rucking. Better to encourage the team in possession to move it on
quickly.

I would be keen to see rules outlawing tackles on unbound players near
the ruck, coupled with perhaps a rule requiring players to either be
involved in the ruck or stay 5 metres away from it. I would like to see
the offside rule behind the last foot rigorously enforced and maybe
even extended to 5 metres behind the last foot. Get rid of the
unnecessary coming-through-the-gate rule and allow players to come in
anywhere behind the ball. Players should be able to play the ball in
the ruck as long as they are on their feet. Not releasing should be an
automatic turnover.

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-10 10:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
I would be keen to see rules outlawing tackles on unbound players near
the ruck, coupled with perhaps a rule requiring players to either be
involved in the ruck or stay 5 metres away from it. I would like to see
the offside rule behind the last foot rigorously enforced and maybe
even extended to 5 metres behind the last foot.
As discussed on here with Charles on his arrival, I think that keeping
players back further than the last foot will encourage teams to
repetitively cart the ball up league style. Why risk throwing it wide
when there's 5 easy metres on offer?
Post by rick boyd
Get rid of the
unnecessary coming-through-the-gate rule and allow players to come in
anywhere behind the ball. Players should be able to play the ball in
the ruck as long as they are on their feet. Not releasing should be an
automatic turnover.
Automatic turnover?

Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2006-03-10 14:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
As discussed on here with Charles on his arrival, I think that keeping
players back further than the last foot will encourage teams to
repetitively cart the ball up league style. Why risk throwing it wide
when there's 5 easy metres on offer?
It really only returns the situation to where it used to be before
everyone started standing offside. Running it up 5 metres is OK now and
then but the real points come from scoring tries out wide and with more
room to move there is the added incentive from spinning it wide more often.
Post by Sean Byrne
Automatic turnover?
Rather than a penalty as it is now.

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-10 15:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
As discussed on here with Charles on his arrival, I think that keeping
players back further than the last foot will encourage teams to
repetitively cart the ball up league style. Why risk throwing it wide
when there's 5 easy metres on offer?
It really only returns the situation to where it used to be before
everyone started standing offside.
So get the refs to police the offside line correctly. Actually, even
better, get the touch judges to do it. It would give them something to
keep them occupied so they didn't feel the need to run onto the field
every five minutes to remind us they're there.


Running it up 5 metres is OK now and
Post by rick boyd
then but the real points come from scoring tries out wide
As far as I am aware, tries out wide aren't worth any more than tries
scored straight through the middle. In fact, they're probably worth
less in real terms given the relative difficulty of the conversion attempts.

Keeping the defence five metres back could result in teams performing 19
one off the ruck hit-ups and then spinning it wide only when near the
opposition goal line.

and with more
Post by rick boyd
room to move there is the added incentive from spinning it wide more often.
Post by Sean Byrne
Automatic turnover?
Rather than a penalty as it is now.
Was wondering how you proposed to restart play if not by a penalty.
Lessening the penalty would increase the probability of a player offending.

Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2006-03-10 15:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
So get the refs to police the offside line correctly. Actually, even
better, get the touch judges to do it. It would give them something to
keep them occupied so they didn't feel the need to run onto the field
every five minutes to remind us they're there.
The refs have shown themselves singulalrly inneffective in this area.
Post by Sean Byrne
As far as I am aware, tries out wide aren't worth any more than tries
scored straight through the middle. In fact, they're probably worth
less in real terms given the relative difficulty of the conversion attempts.
Veering towards the sarcastic there, Sean.

Thumping the ball up the middle is already an option. I can't see the 5m
rule making that much of a difference, especially since it really only
returns the advantage line to the middle of the ruck where it should be
anyway. But thumping up the middle through heavy traffic is not the best
way of scoring tries. Spinning it wide is much more effective, and
that's where we want to encourage play to go.
Post by Sean Byrne
Keeping the defence five metres back could result in teams performing 19
one off the ruck hit-ups and then spinning it wide only when near the
opposition goal line.
I disagree.
Post by Sean Byrne
Was wondering how you proposed to restart play if not by a penalty.
Lessening the penalty would increase the probability of a player offending.
Yes, we've dealt with that. Repeated offences get the yellow card. The
asset of a game not continuously interrupted with place kicks is well
worth the liability of a few extra initial offences.

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-10 16:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
So get the refs to police the offside line correctly. Actually, even
better, get the touch judges to do it. It would give them something
to keep them occupied so they didn't feel the need to run onto the
field every five minutes to remind us they're there.
The refs have shown themselves singulalrly inneffective in this area.
Hence my suggestions to get the touch judges to police it.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
As far as I am aware, tries out wide aren't worth any more than tries
scored straight through the middle. In fact, they're probably worth
less in real terms given the relative difficulty of the conversion attempts.
Veering towards the sarcastic there, Sean.
Thumping the ball up the middle is already an option.
As is spinning the ball wide.

I can't see the 5m
Post by rick boyd
rule making that much of a difference,
Strangely enough I can see it making almost exactly 5 metres difference.
Given that rugby is a game of territory as much as possession, this is
a big difference.


especially since it really only
Post by rick boyd
returns the advantage line to the middle of the ruck where it should be
anyway. But thumping up the middle through heavy traffic is not the best
way of scoring tries. Spinning it wide is much more effective,
Says you. How did it go for the All Blacks against England in
Wellington? How about against Australia at the WC?

You think England, SA, Italy, Argentina would suddenly start scoring out
wide rather than utilise the extra 5 metres advantage with their big packs?

A well executed series of pick and go moves by a forward pack is
extremely effective at opening up holes in the middle of the park as the
rules stand. Making the defence stand 5 metres back and then retire
another 5 metres each time would make it an even more dangerous
attacking play.

Pretty safe too - the fewer passes involved the less chance of a knock-on.
Post by rick boyd
and
that's where we want to encourage play to go.
Post by Sean Byrne
Keeping the defence five metres back could result in teams performing
19 one off the ruck hit-ups and then spinning it wide only when near
the opposition goal line.
I disagree.
You disagree that that is even a possibility? It was an extreme example
but given 5 easy metres in your own half, most teams would take it.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
Was wondering how you proposed to restart play if not by a penalty.
Lessening the penalty would increase the probability of a player offending.
Yes, we've dealt with that. Repeated offences get the yellow card. The
asset of a game not continuously interrupted with place kicks is well
worth the liability of a few extra initial offences.
I'm not a huge fan of multiple yellow cards, I think we'll end up with
an ice-hockey style power play situation.

Games lose their shape the more players are removed, I'd rather they
stayed on the field and were penalised effectively.

Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2006-03-11 00:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Hence my suggestions to get the touch judges to police it.
Who are also refs.
Post by Sean Byrne
As is spinning the ball wide.
Yes, it is. Thumping the ball up the middle is currently an
unnecessarily attractive proposition because midfield defences are
standing so far offside. And thumping the ball up the middle can only
take you so far. It is not the best way to score tries. The idea is to
make spinning the ball wide more attractive, which in my opinion will be
more of an asset than whatever slight liability is accrued by the
increased space for thumping the ball up the middle, where there is
already heavy traffic and there will still be heavy traffic.
Post by Sean Byrne
Strangely enough I can see it making almost exactly 5 metres difference.
Given that rugby is a game of territory as much as possession, this is
a big difference.
Having the defences 5 metres back will only return the gain line to the
centre of the ruck where it should be. At present the attack is standing
back to give themselves space and the defence is up offside. By the time
defence meets attack the ball has not even reached the ruck from whence
it came.
Post by Sean Byrne
Says you.
Your powers of observation are impressive.
Post by Sean Byrne
How did it go for the All Blacks against England in
Wellington? How about against Australia at the WC?
You think England, SA, Italy, Argentina would suddenly start scoring out
wide rather than utilise the extra 5 metres advantage with their big packs?
1. There is no real 5m advanage. It just returns the gain line to where
it should be.

2. Teams who play a tight game will continue to play a tight game. It
will give them a little more latitude on attack, but less on defence,
and since that's where they spend most of their time, the overall
benefit to rugby is positive.
Post by Sean Byrne
A well executed series of pick and go moves by a forward pack is
extremely effective at opening up holes in the middle of the park as the
rules stand. Making the defence stand 5 metres back and then retire
another 5 metres each time would make it an even more dangerous
attacking play.
Pretty safe too - the fewer passes involved the less chance of a knock-on.
But not the best scoring gambit. Teams who want to win by scoring tries
will have more room to spin it wide and will be encouraged to do so.
Post by Sean Byrne
You disagree that that is even a possibility? It was an extreme example
but given 5 easy metres in your own half, most teams would take it.
I disagree that the overall effect will be negative. I think it will be
positive.
Post by Sean Byrne
I'm not a huge fan of multiple yellow cards, I think we'll end up with
an ice-hockey style power play situation.
No one is really a huge fan of yellow cards. But many people are even
less a huge fan of continuous penalties.
Post by Sean Byrne
Games lose their shape the more players are removed, I'd rather they
stayed on the field and were penalised effectively.
There's a job waiting for you in the ranks of English refereeing, Sean.
You too can be the centre of attention. I'll even add a silly smiley
thing if it helps :-)

-- rick boyd
Sean Byrne
2006-03-13 10:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
Hence my suggestions to get the touch judges to police it.
Who are also refs.
Do you actually have a valid reason as to why using the touch judges
wouldn't work?

Currently the refs do a poor job of it, but then again they're often
distracted by the mulitude of other offences they're trying to monitor
and they've got their back to the defensive backline.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
As is spinning the ball wide.
Yes, it is. Thumping the ball up the middle is currently an
unnecessarily attractive proposition because midfield defences are
standing so far offside. And thumping the ball up the middle can only
take you so far. It is not the best way to score tries.
Your theory centres around this flawed premise. You've been talking to
Mitchell haven't you?

Leaving aside considerations about 'best', teams throughout rugby have
utilised a number of methods to score. The fact that a team with a
heavy pack can overcome a team with a great backline is one of the
attractive aspects of rugby, and the variations in approach to the game
from different teams is something to be encouraged rather than push
everyone down the route of playing Super14 style rugby.
Post by rick boyd
The idea is to
make spinning the ball wide more attractive, which in my opinion will be
more of an asset than whatever slight liability is accrued by the
increased space for thumping the ball up the middle, where there is
already heavy traffic and there will still be heavy traffic.
Post by Sean Byrne
Strangely enough I can see it making almost exactly 5 metres
difference. Given that rugby is a game of territory as much as
possession, this is a big difference.
Having the defences 5 metres back will only return the gain line to the
centre of the ruck where it should be. At present the attack is standing
back to give themselves space and the defence is up offside. By the time
defence meets attack the ball has not even reached the ruck from whence
it came.
Post by Sean Byrne
Says you.
Your powers of observation are impressive.
Your inability to provide a solid rationale as to why spinning the ball
wide is a better way to score tries than through the forward pack is
less so.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
How did it go for the All Blacks against England in Wellington? How
about against Australia at the WC?
You think England, SA, Italy, Argentina would suddenly start scoring
out wide rather than utilise the extra 5 metres advantage with their
big packs?
1. There is no real 5m advanage. It just returns the gain line to where
it should be.
Which is 5m from where it is NOW. Claiming that moving the offside line
5m doesn't result in a 5m advantage over what currently exists suggests
that you need a new calculator.
Post by rick boyd
2. Teams who play a tight game will continue to play a tight game. It
will give them a little more latitude on attack, but less on defence,
and since that's where they spend most of their time,
They will spend less time on defence if trucking the ball up becomes
easier as they will spend more time in possession doing exactly that.


the overall
Post by rick boyd
benefit to rugby is positive.
Post by Sean Byrne
A well executed series of pick and go moves by a forward pack is
extremely effective at opening up holes in the middle of the park as
the rules stand. Making the defence stand 5 metres back and then
retire another 5 metres each time would make it an even more dangerous
attacking play.
Pretty safe too - the fewer passes involved the less chance of a knock-on.
But not the best scoring gambit.
Why not? Why do league teams insist on running headfirst into each
other for 4 tackles, only chancing their arm on the fifth if keeping
players apart encourages spinning the ball wide?


Teams who want to win by scoring tries
Post by rick boyd
will have more room to spin it wide and will be encouraged to do so.
Teams who want to win by scoring tries will have more room to go
straight up the middle, and encouragement to do so.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
You disagree that that is even a possibility? It was an extreme
example but given 5 easy metres in your own half, most teams would
take it.
I disagree that the overall effect will be negative. I think it will be
positive.
Post by Sean Byrne
I'm not a huge fan of multiple yellow cards, I think we'll end up with
an ice-hockey style power play situation.
No one is really a huge fan of yellow cards. But many people are even
less a huge fan of continuous penalties.
Post by Sean Byrne
Games lose their shape the more players are removed, I'd rather they
stayed on the field and were penalised effectively.
There's a job waiting for you in the ranks of English refereeing, Sean.
You too can be the centre of attention. I'll even add a silly smiley
thing if it helps :-)
Go on... add a silly acronym as well. Or say something about how good
your weekend was or how horrible Monday is.

Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
JRH
2006-03-13 10:30:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:20:23 +0000, Sean Byrne
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
Hence my suggestions to get the touch judges to police it.
Who are also refs.
Do you actually have a valid reason as to why using the touch judges
wouldn't work?
Currently the refs do a poor job of it, but then again they're often
distracted by the mulitude of other offences they're trying to monitor
and they've got their back to the defensive backline.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
As is spinning the ball wide.
Yes, it is. Thumping the ball up the middle is currently an
unnecessarily attractive proposition because midfield defences are
standing so far offside. And thumping the ball up the middle can only
take you so far. It is not the best way to score tries.
Your theory centres around this flawed premise. You've been talking to
Mitchell haven't you?
Leaving aside considerations about 'best', teams throughout rugby have
utilised a number of methods to score. The fact that a team with a
heavy pack can overcome a team with a great backline is one of the
attractive aspects of rugby, and the variations in approach to the game
from different teams is something to be encouraged rather than push
everyone down the route of playing Super14 style rugby.
Post by rick boyd
The idea is to
make spinning the ball wide more attractive, which in my opinion will be
more of an asset than whatever slight liability is accrued by the
increased space for thumping the ball up the middle, where there is
already heavy traffic and there will still be heavy traffic.
Post by Sean Byrne
Strangely enough I can see it making almost exactly 5 metres
difference. Given that rugby is a game of territory as much as
possession, this is a big difference.
Having the defences 5 metres back will only return the gain line to the
centre of the ruck where it should be. At present the attack is standing
back to give themselves space and the defence is up offside. By the time
defence meets attack the ball has not even reached the ruck from whence
it came.
Post by Sean Byrne
Says you.
Your powers of observation are impressive.
Your inability to provide a solid rationale as to why spinning the ball
wide is a better way to score tries than through the forward pack is
less so.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
How did it go for the All Blacks against England in Wellington? How
about against Australia at the WC?
You think England, SA, Italy, Argentina would suddenly start scoring
out wide rather than utilise the extra 5 metres advantage with their
big packs?
1. There is no real 5m advanage. It just returns the gain line to where
it should be.
Which is 5m from where it is NOW. Claiming that moving the offside line
5m doesn't result in a 5m advantage over what currently exists suggests
that you need a new calculator.
Post by rick boyd
2. Teams who play a tight game will continue to play a tight game. It
will give them a little more latitude on attack, but less on defence,
and since that's where they spend most of their time,
They will spend less time on defence if trucking the ball up becomes
easier as they will spend more time in possession doing exactly that.
the overall
Post by rick boyd
benefit to rugby is positive.
Post by Sean Byrne
A well executed series of pick and go moves by a forward pack is
extremely effective at opening up holes in the middle of the park as
the rules stand. Making the defence stand 5 metres back and then
retire another 5 metres each time would make it an even more dangerous
attacking play.
Pretty safe too - the fewer passes involved the less chance of a knock-on.
But not the best scoring gambit.
Why not? Why do league teams insist on running headfirst into each
other for 4 tackles, only chancing their arm on the fifth if keeping
players apart encourages spinning the ball wide?
Teams who want to win by scoring tries
Post by rick boyd
will have more room to spin it wide and will be encouraged to do so.
Teams who want to win by scoring tries will have more room to go
straight up the middle, and encouragement to do so.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Sean Byrne
You disagree that that is even a possibility? It was an extreme
example but given 5 easy metres in your own half, most teams would
take it.
I disagree that the overall effect will be negative. I think it will be
positive.
Post by Sean Byrne
I'm not a huge fan of multiple yellow cards, I think we'll end up with
an ice-hockey style power play situation.
No one is really a huge fan of yellow cards. But many people are even
less a huge fan of continuous penalties.
Post by Sean Byrne
Games lose their shape the more players are removed, I'd rather they
stayed on the field and were penalised effectively.
There's a job waiting for you in the ranks of English refereeing, Sean.
You too can be the centre of attention. I'll even add a silly smiley
thing if it helps :-)
Go on... add a silly acronym as well. Or say something about how good
your weekend was or how horrible Monday is.
What a sad world it would be if we were all the same Sean; for a start
you 'sensible' people that "troll" a lot, would have no-one out of
whom you could attempt to take the piss - because they aren't like you
(thank Christ)!! ;o)

Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(

UYFA
Craig L
2006-03-13 10:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JRH
What a sad world it would be if we were all the same Sean; for a start
you 'sensible' people that "troll" a lot, would have no-one out of
whom you could attempt to take the piss - because they aren't like you
(thank Christ)!! ;o)
Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(
UYFA
So endeth the discussion about differing rugby viewpoints and enter the
'troll'...
rick boyd
2006-03-13 13:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Do you actually have a valid reason as to why using the touch judges
wouldn't work?
Currently the refs do a poor job of it, but then again they're often
distracted by the mulitude of other offences they're trying to monitor
and they've got their back to the defensive backline.
I don't think the refs currently do a poor job of it at all. The current
trend is obviously a quite deliberately planned and executed
interpretation by the IRB reffing panel, most probably contrived by the
home nations who desperately want to make their teams competetive by
limiting expansive play and emphasising negative play. No, this is not a
joke. I'm serious.

The refs do a very good job of policing it, but it's a crap
interpretation. So having the touch judges help will not improve things
at all, since they'll also be ensuring that defences can stand halfway
down the ruck.
Post by Sean Byrne
Your theory centres around this flawed premise. You've been talking to
Mitchell haven't you?
I am a believer.

But seriously, the laws of physics alone dictate that four fast,
skillful men on four men with thirty yards to move are going to score a
lot more tries than eight big, lumbering men on eight men with fifteen
yards to move.
Post by Sean Byrne
Leaving aside considerations about 'best', teams throughout rugby have
utilised a number of methods to score. The fact that a team with a
heavy pack can overcome a team with a great backline is one of the
attractive aspects of rugby, and the variations in approach to the game
from different teams is something to be encouraged rather than push
everyone down the route of playing Super14 style rugby.
I agree one hundred per cent. But what the current bending of the
offside rule achieves is a much more level playing field, and the
opposite of the variations you support. The teams with good attacking
back lines no longer have the latitude they once did to score tries. For
the teams with forward predominance and defensive backlines, this is
heaven. They can reduce the match to a low scoring slug fest.

When there is room to move, teams with attacking back lines prefer to
spin it fast and wide and score tries. This doesn't mean they can't ram
it up the middle if circumstances such as weather dictate. But for the
ten man teams, there is no choice. They have to play it tight, starve
the other team of possession, defend like demons and pressure the
opposition into kickable penalties. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

So with more room to move there is actually more variation than with
less room.
Post by Sean Byrne
Your inability to provide a solid rationale as to why spinning the ball
wide is a better way to score tries than through the forward pack is
less so.
Do the stats lie? Why are wings fast and elusive? Why are forwards big
and strong? Was one meant to score tries and one meant to gain possession?
Post by Sean Byrne
Which is 5m from where it is NOW. Claiming that moving the offside line
5m doesn't result in a 5m advantage over what currently exists suggests
that you need a new calculator.
Consider this. I'd do it in ASCII text but I can't be fagged.

Here is the ruck. The defence stands halfway down it. Virtually on top
of the ball. Where does the attack stand? Up to ten metres back, so they
have room to move. The ball's out, they both advance. Where do they
meet? About 5 metres behind the position the ball started out from. The
attack has to break the line just to get to the gain line.

Move the defence 5 metres back and there's a fighting chance contact
might be made about where the ball started out and the attack won't be
worse off before they even receive the ball.

Anyway, I think we've covered this subject. Let's consider something
more intersting, like Kylie Minogue's arse.

-- rick boyd
FU2
I don't like Mondays, I don't like Monday-ay-ays
Bully
2006-03-10 15:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Sean Byrne wrote:
[...]
Post by Sean Byrne
Keeping the defence five metres back could result in teams performing
19 one off the ruck hit-ups and then spinning it wide only when near
the opposition goal line.
Isn't that what happens now???


[...]
Post by Sean Byrne
Later,
Sean
Post by rick boyd
-- rick boyd
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
Supps: http://www.myprotein.co.uk - 5% off with my discount code MP4858

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Sean Byrne
2006-03-10 17:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bully
[...]
Post by Sean Byrne
Keeping the defence five metres back could result in teams performing
19 one off the ruck hit-ups and then spinning it wide only when near
the opposition goal line.
Isn't that what happens now???
I see you've been watching the Guiness Premiership...

Later,
Sean
Bully
2006-03-10 17:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by Bully
[...]
Post by Sean Byrne
Keeping the defence five metres back could result in teams
performing 19 one off the ruck hit-ups and then spinning it wide
only when near the opposition goal line.
Isn't that what happens now???
I see you've been watching the Guiness Premiership...
Later,
Sean
Midlands One actually :) !!!
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
Supps: http://www.myprotein.co.uk - 5% off with my discount code MP4858

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
GHFAN
2006-03-10 11:54:35 UTC
Permalink
This has been an excellent subject. Thanks to JD for bringing it up.
It's what the rsru group is all about. Makes an old fart like me feel
that I'm part of a group who have the game at heart and contribute good
sensible debate. Thank you.
Brad Anton
2006-03-11 05:56:49 UTC
Permalink
"GHFAN" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
This has been an excellent subject. Thanks to JD for bringing it up.
It's what the rsru group is all about. Makes an old fart like me feel
that I'm part of a group who have the game at heart and contribute good
sensible debate. Thank you.


No offence GH, but weren't you the one who initiated the JRH vs Matua thread?
Brad
GHFAN
2006-03-11 10:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Brad, you're right. Silly me thought that if I started such a thread
they'd use that thread *ONLY* to hurl abuse at one another. No luck
though....
Uncle Bully
2006-03-10 07:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Total Votes: 3841
I'll deal with the three main points;
Allowing hands in the ruck will do absolutely nothing to improve the
speed of the game and will drastically impact on the spectacle of
running rugby as players will be hanging on to the ball in the bottom
of a ruck for dear life, giving defence all the time in the world to
realign.
Reducing the penalties and increasing conversions will have the obvious
contrarian effect of more penalties, simply as you are only giving up
two points rather than facing the possibility of eight.
3 point conversions are stupid, but it should take three penalties to equal
a converted try. So drop conversions to 1 and penalties to 2, as well as
drop goals to 2. Drop goals should be used primarily to decide tight
matches, not used as you main offence tactic).
Reducing penalties may potentially increase infringing, but combined with
stricter send off rules, this would increase the chance of players being
sent off and then more opportunites of tries being attempted. Perhaps have
more liberal send off rules? Say a 5 minute sinbin for anything deemed to
have been deliberate?

Conversions are stupid, why should a conversion be harder depending on how
far from the sideline you score a try? All conversions should be taken from
the sideline, that'd make them more interesting.
Post by JD
The simplest method for increasing the spectacle and reducing the
complexity is to allow rucking. Reasonably adjudicated by a referee,
this will promote faster recycling of the ball. Most of the current
laws can stay for safety (not rucking the head of an opponent, only
rucking a player preventing release of the ball). Simply put, if you're
on the wrong side of the ruck and don't make an expeditious exit,
players should be able to drive over and remove you. A ref only has to
ensure that the rucking is done safely and that the offending player
can actually remove himself. I realise this is actually the law as it
stands, but the IRB needs to communicate to refs that this is how they
should be interpreting the breakdown, rather than the pathetic current
state of affairs which lead to the suspension of So'oialo and Tito.
didgerman
2006-03-10 08:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Total Votes: 3841
I'll deal with the three main points;
Allowing hands in the ruck will do absolutely nothing to improve the
speed of the game and will drastically impact on the spectacle of
running rugby as players will be hanging on to the ball in the bottom
of a ruck for dear life, giving defence all the time in the world to
realign.
Reducing the penalties and increasing conversions will have the obvious
contrarian effect of more penalties, simply as you are only giving up
two points rather than facing the possibility of eight.
3 point conversions are stupid, but it should take three penalties to equal
a converted try. So drop conversions to 1 and penalties to 2, as well as
drop goals to 2. Drop goals should be used primarily to decide tight
matches, not used as you main offence tactic).
Who uses drop goals as their main offensive tactic...?
Post by Uncle Bully
Reducing penalties may potentially increase infringing, but combined with
stricter send off rules, this would increase the chance of players being
sent off and then more opportunites of tries being attempted. Perhaps have
more liberal send off rules? Say a 5 minute sinbin for anything deemed to
have been deliberate?
Conversions are stupid, why should a conversion be harder depending on how
far from the sideline you score a try? All conversions should be taken from
the sideline, that'd make them more interesting.
Isn't it usually easier to dash in at the corner than it is under the
posts? Extra points for effort....
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by JD
The simplest method for increasing the spectacle and reducing the
complexity is to allow rucking. Reasonably adjudicated by a referee,
this will promote faster recycling of the ball. Most of the current
laws can stay for safety (not rucking the head of an opponent, only
rucking a player preventing release of the ball). Simply put, if you're
on the wrong side of the ruck and don't make an expeditious exit,
players should be able to drive over and remove you. A ref only has to
ensure that the rucking is done safely and that the offending player
can actually remove himself. I realise this is actually the law as it
stands, but the IRB needs to communicate to refs that this is how they
should be interpreting the breakdown, rather than the pathetic current
state of affairs which lead to the suspension of So'oialo and Tito.
Uncle Bully
2006-03-10 08:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by didgerman
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Total Votes: 3841
I'll deal with the three main points;
Allowing hands in the ruck will do absolutely nothing to improve the
speed of the game and will drastically impact on the spectacle of
running rugby as players will be hanging on to the ball in the bottom
of a ruck for dear life, giving defence all the time in the world to
realign.
Reducing the penalties and increasing conversions will have the obvious
contrarian effect of more penalties, simply as you are only giving up
two points rather than facing the possibility of eight.
3 point conversions are stupid, but it should take three penalties to
equal a converted try. So drop conversions to 1 and penalties to 2, as
well as drop goals to 2. Drop goals should be used primarily to decide
tight matches, not used as you main offence tactic).
Who uses drop goals as their main offensive tactic...?
SA did once. That was one time too many.
Post by didgerman
Post by Uncle Bully
Reducing penalties may potentially increase infringing, but combined with
stricter send off rules, this would increase the chance of players being
sent off and then more opportunites of tries being attempted. Perhaps
have more liberal send off rules? Say a 5 minute sinbin for anything
deemed to have been deliberate?
Conversions are stupid, why should a conversion be harder depending on
how far from the sideline you score a try? All conversions should be
taken from the sideline, that'd make them more interesting.
Isn't it usually easier to dash in at the corner than it is under the
posts? Extra points for effort....
But it's harder to score any try than go for a penalty. All tries should be
considered equal, in fact tries in the corner tend to more entertaining so
the extra point shouldn't be any harder than nay other try.
Perhaps all penalties shots at goal could be done from the sideline too in
order make running play more attractive
Post by didgerman
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by JD
The simplest method for increasing the spectacle and reducing the
complexity is to allow rucking. Reasonably adjudicated by a referee,
this will promote faster recycling of the ball. Most of the current
laws can stay for safety (not rucking the head of an opponent, only
rucking a player preventing release of the ball). Simply put, if you're
on the wrong side of the ruck and don't make an expeditious exit,
players should be able to drive over and remove you. A ref only has to
ensure that the rucking is done safely and that the offending player
can actually remove himself. I realise this is actually the law as it
stands, but the IRB needs to communicate to refs that this is how they
should be interpreting the breakdown, rather than the pathetic current
state of affairs which lead to the suspension of So'oialo and Tito.
Tim Fitzmaurice
2006-03-13 08:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by didgerman
Post by Uncle Bully
tight matches, not used as you main offence tactic).
Who uses drop goals as their main offensive tactic...?
SA did once. That was one time too many.
You mean de Beer and the 5 drop goals. Seems perfectly reasonable against
an oposition who did a) nothing but dig in b) did not place an players
in an attempt to block the kicks and c) were managing to avoid giving away
the traditional penalty.

Basically when SA got into the 22 area the game became incredibly balanced
with no-one going anywhere - precisely the place for the drop goal - when
things are teetering on the edge. They were allowed into that poistion too
many times, but held them the line each time. They then made the pressure
tell. Had it happened once, what the hey, but 5 times suggests strong SA
pressure being blunted and so the sway of the game to them.

TIm
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Craig L
2006-03-13 10:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by didgerman
Post by Uncle Bully
tight matches, not used as you main offence tactic).
Who uses drop goals as their main offensive tactic...?
SA did once. That was one time too many.
You mean de Beer and the 5 drop goals. Seems perfectly reasonable against
an oposition who did a) nothing but dig in b) did not place an players
in an attempt to block the kicks and c) were managing to avoid giving away
the traditional penalty.
Basically when SA got into the 22 area the game became incredibly balanced
with no-one going anywhere - precisely the place for the drop goal - when
things are teetering on the edge. They were allowed into that poistion too
many times, but held them the line each time. They then made the pressure
tell. Had it happened once, what the hey, but 5 times suggests strong SA
pressure being blunted and so the sway of the game to them.
TIm
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point. Negate it from
the attack and only to be used when a complete deadlock is occurring.
Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort. Other scores should stay the
same.
Tim Fitzmaurice
2006-03-13 11:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig L
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point.
No, because battering your opponent into a situation where they do nothing
but defend the line to the exclusion of all else should be worth more than
that, IMO.

After many other cockups in that area are worth 3. Just holding off of a
select few cockups for 3 and some for 1 doesnt show a balanced play.

A drop goal still requires a decent work up to get it in place...often
signalling intention - so its reasonable for it to be a valid tactic.
Again when games become close the more marginal scores start to become
more prevalent - always has been always will be as players on the pitch do
a cost benefit ratio on 3pts vs giving up field position and possession.
Post by Craig L
Negate it from
the attack and only to be used when a complete deadlock is occurring.
Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Craig L
2006-03-13 12:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point.
No, because battering your opponent into a situation where they do nothing
but defend the line to the exclusion of all else should be worth more than
that, IMO.
Then you should be doing something more inventive or something else to
obtain the points.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
After many other cockups in that area are worth 3. Just holding off of a
select few cockups for 3 and some for 1 doesnt show a balanced play.
Deliberate infringement resulting in a penalty definitely deserves to
be given the full 3 point punishment. If you can hold the oppostion
without infringing and giving away penalties then surely you are the
better team for it? To defend your line against an attack that can't
muster anything worthwhile to break your defence for a major portion of
the game only to lose by drop goals is IMO the worst way to lose a
game.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
A drop goal still requires a decent work up to get it in place...often
signalling intention - so its reasonable for it to be a valid tactic.
Again when games become close the more marginal scores start to become
more prevalent - always has been always will be as players on the pitch do
a cost benefit ratio on 3pts vs giving up field position and possession.
Post by Craig L
Negate it from
the attack and only to be used when a complete deadlock is occurring.
Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.
Would love to see some stats on the level of dropped/attempted drop
goals by NH and SH teams as a comparison. IMO the levels for the NH
teams would be much higher.
Tim Fitzmaurice
2006-03-13 12:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point.
No, because battering your opponent into a situation where they do nothing
but defend the line to the exclusion of all else should be worth more than
that, IMO.
Then you should be doing something more inventive or something else to
obtain the points.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
After many other cockups in that area are worth 3. Just holding off of a
select few cockups for 3 and some for 1 doesnt show a balanced play.
Deliberate infringement resulting in a penalty definitely deserves to
be given the full 3 point punishment.
Simply slipping which can yield a penalty if you fall on the ball and lead
to those three points. Yet an orchestrated attack under a 1 point drop
goal rule cannot do that.
Post by Craig L
If you can hold the oppostion
without infringing and giving away penalties then surely you are the
better team for it?
Not necessarily, why are they camped on your goal line.
Post by Craig L
To defend your line against an attack that can't
muster anything worthwhile to break your defence
Defence on the goal line is heavily weighted to the defenders especially
within 5 to 10 yards of the line. You don't have to be as good to defend.
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
A drop goal still requires a decent work up to get it in place...often
signalling intention - so its reasonable for it to be a valid tactic.
Again when games become close the more marginal scores start to become
more prevalent - always has been always will be as players on the pitch do
a cost benefit ratio on 3pts vs giving up field position and possession.
Post by Craig L
Negate it from
the attack and only to be used when a complete deadlock is occurring.
Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.
Would love to see some stats on the level of dropped/attempted drop
goals by NH and SH teams as a comparison. IMO the levels for the NH
teams would be much higher.
Whoosh as the goalposts get moved from NH have a higher attempt ratio from
its the NH 'first resort'. Then the quick line that indicates that you are
guessing. How would you balance the stats for weather, location on the
pitch etc etc which all have a huge bearing on the attempts.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Craig L
2006-03-13 18:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point.
No, because battering your opponent into a situation where they do nothing
but defend the line to the exclusion of all else should be worth more than
that, IMO.
Then you should be doing something more inventive or something else to
obtain the points.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
After many other cockups in that area are worth 3. Just holding off of a
select few cockups for 3 and some for 1 doesnt show a balanced play.
Deliberate infringement resulting in a penalty definitely deserves to
be given the full 3 point punishment.
Simply slipping which can yield a penalty if you fall on the ball and lead
to those three points. Yet an orchestrated attack under a 1 point drop
goal rule cannot do that.
Couldn't this be a result of continued pressure from the attacking
side? Wouldn't the application of that pressure yielding a penalty be
the result an attacking side would be looking for? Certainly when I
played, sending the ball down field to gain territory did two things.
Allowed the goal line to be that much closer and put pressure on the
defending side not to make mistakes which could be capitalised on.

Surely the idea of rugby is to score more tries than the opposition.
Hence the impetus of having a converted try worth more than 2 other
scores. Isnt that one of the main reasons they changed the points
system to 7 points to start off with? Otherwise your drop kicking,
penalty taking 10 man team could compete with a team that had enough
flair to score tries?
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
If you can hold the oppostion
without infringing and giving away penalties then surely you are the
better team for it?
Not necessarily, why are they camped on your goal line.
Post by Craig L
To defend your line against an attack that can't
muster anything worthwhile to break your defence
Defence on the goal line is heavily weighted to the defenders especially
within 5 to 10 yards of the line. You don't have to be as good to defend.
Utter rubbish. Of course the goal line should be harder to break
through. It is the whole point of the game. Something you are aiming to
cross. A *goal*?
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
A drop goal still requires a decent work up to get it in place...often
signalling intention - so its reasonable for it to be a valid tactic.
Again when games become close the more marginal scores start to become
more prevalent - always has been always will be as players on the pitch do
a cost benefit ratio on 3pts vs giving up field position and possession.
Post by Craig L
Negate it from
the attack and only to be used when a complete deadlock is occurring.
Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.
Would love to see some stats on the level of dropped/attempted drop
goals by NH and SH teams as a comparison. IMO the levels for the NH
teams would be much higher.
Whoosh as the goalposts get moved from NH have a higher attempt ratio from
its the NH 'first resort'. Then the quick line that indicates that you are
guessing. How would you balance the stats for weather, location on the
pitch etc etc which all have a huge bearing on the attempts.
Are you saying that the weather in the SH is completely different from
the NH? More games in Scotland in the snow perhaps but I think you'll
find the conditions are very comparable which would nulify this attack.
As far as I know the teams down south have the same number of players
and the fields are the same size so there goes that theory too.

Actually had a look at statistics from both the GP(ZP) and Super 14(12)
fly halfs (guessing they would be the main combatants in supplying the
drop goals) and the number of GP(ZP) drop goals as a percentage was
much higher. Would guess this means they have probably also attempted
more of them? Extrapolating that theory I summised that it was more in
the game plan of the NH teams to undertake the drop goal as a more
established form of attack than trying to score tries. (as an aside,
fits nicely into the standard 10 man rugby stigma which has followed NH
teams for years) Havent checked on the ratio of International stats but
would guess its not too disimilar.

And the '99 quarter final that England lost with de Beer and his 5
goals should not have had as much bearing on the game either. Whoops,
reality check. Wouldnt have made a difference. Boks scored 2 tries as
well as penalties. Boks would still have won the game. Made it goddam
boring though, that is for sure.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Tim Fitzmaurice
2006-03-16 16:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point.
No, because battering your opponent into a situation where they do nothing
but defend the line to the exclusion of all else should be worth more than
that, IMO.
Then you should be doing something more inventive or something else to
obtain the points.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
After many other cockups in that area are worth 3. Just holding off of a
select few cockups for 3 and some for 1 doesnt show a balanced play.
Deliberate infringement resulting in a penalty definitely deserves to
be given the full 3 point punishment.
Simply slipping which can yield a penalty if you fall on the ball and lead
to those three points. Yet an orchestrated attack under a 1 point drop
goal rule cannot do that.
Couldn't this be a result of continued pressure from the attacking
side?
Could be, Im not disputing that, but doesnt have to be is the issue. A
simple mistake can hand 3 points to the opposition in that part of the
field, yet you are opposing a 3point drop goal that needs orchestration
and suggesting that is only worth one. That to me seems unbalanced in the
extreme
Post by Craig L
Wouldn't the application of that pressure yielding a penalty be
the result an attacking side would be looking for?
Yes a perfectly acceptable strategy, my point is that in the context of a
one point drop goal the benefits of a considered attacking action are
vastly outweighed by getting lucky.
Post by Craig L
Surely the idea of rugby is to score more tries than the opposition.
The idea is to score more full stop. Tries are worth more so considered
more useful, that isnt in dispute. Changing or not changing the drop gial
isnt going to change the fact a try is worth 5 or 7.

Far more critical to rugby is the idea of fair contest at all points. And
simply going defensive and not trying to win is not fair contest, its
gamesmanship and stepping away form the core of rugby. When it happens
kicks tend to become prevalent - it happened with de Beer - he was kicking
not because South Africa werent winning and he wanted easy points, he was
kicking because England had dropped to a purely defensive play style and
was using mechanism in place to allow him to take points when the game was
getting stymied by a huge adjustment in play style.
Post by Craig L
Hence the impetus of having a converted try worth more than 2 other
scores. Isnt that one of the main reasons they changed the points
system to 7 points to start off with?
No the aim was to promote try scoring by increasing the try to 5, similar
but not quite the same emphasis. IMO it was always a mistake to increase
the total value of a try to 7 points, as it devalued the penalty and since
then this has been held out and forced the intrroduction of the yellow
card and sin binning system as its worth more to take the penalty. I would
have been happier to see a 1pt conversion and a 5pt try myself.
Post by Craig L
Otherwise your drop kicking, penalty taking 10 man team could compete
with a team that had enough flair to score tries?
A team that can score a try each time they threaten the goal line rather
than kicking on the drive will still win irrepsective of a 3 or 1 point
drop goal. This 'tries are good' argument is a red herring over the
balance of dropgoal and penalties at 3 to 1 points. You just spent some
time above saying how penalties are quite acceptable as a scoring method
so Im fascinated to find you slagging them off here...
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Defence on the goal line is heavily weighted to the defenders especially
within 5 to 10 yards of the line. You don't have to be as good to defend.
Utter rubbish. Of course the goal line should be harder to break
through. It is the whole point of the game. Something you are aiming to
cross. A *goal*?
So basically you agree with me the goal line IS easier to defend??? How
does that square with your stement that the above utter rubbish. The
point is simple, if pressed to you goal line the defenders have the advantage,
I didnt say there is anything wrong with that, merely that its a fact -
and if you disagree I suggest you see teamates reaction if you lob the
ball over the top at a 5m lineout - that makes the point rather
dramatically.

The dropgoal is simply a possible way of getting some reward for pressure,
in the same way that a penalty does a fact you seem quite happy about.
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Whoosh as the goalposts get moved from NH have a higher attempt ratio from
its the NH 'first resort'. Then the quick line that indicates that you are
guessing. How would you balance the stats for weather, location on the
pitch etc etc which all have a huge bearing on the attempts.
Are you saying that the weather in the SH is completely different from
the NH?
No, the point above is simple - the number of kicks made is NOT going to
be a simple function of preference of team X, its based on a bunch of
fairly complex cost/benefit assessments as well. You have to put that in.

And you have to do that on a case by case check not just assume that X is
all even...thats sloppy stats.
Post by Craig L
Actually had a look at statistics from both the GP(ZP) and Super 14(12)
fly halfs (guessing they would be the main combatants in supplying the
drop goals) and the number of GP(ZP) drop goals as a percentage was
much higher.
Higher!=drop goals are primary attack form. You claimed the latter. You
have not produced controlled figures for your stats ie analysis of the
hows and whys of dropkicking.
Post by Craig L
Would guess this means they have probably also attempted
more of them? Extrapolating that theory I summised that it was more in
the game plan of the NH teams to undertake the drop goal as a more
Again we are back to you are changing your goalposts in the argument.
Using a tactic more than someone else is not the same as your contention
that tactic X is the primary form of attack. I note you chose to ignore
that point above...it is rather significant.
Post by Craig L
And the '99 quarter final that England lost with de Beer and his 5
goals should not have had as much bearing on the game either.
Why not, England chose a particular set of tactics, de Beer punished them
for it, heavily. And so he should have.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Craig L
2006-03-13 19:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point.
No, because battering your opponent into a situation where they do nothing
but defend the line to the exclusion of all else should be worth more than
that, IMO.
Then you should be doing something more inventive or something else to
obtain the points.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
After many other cockups in that area are worth 3. Just holding off of a
select few cockups for 3 and some for 1 doesnt show a balanced play.
Deliberate infringement resulting in a penalty definitely deserves to
be given the full 3 point punishment.
Simply slipping which can yield a penalty if you fall on the ball and lead
to those three points. Yet an orchestrated attack under a 1 point drop
goal rule cannot do that.
Post by Craig L
If you can hold the oppostion
without infringing and giving away penalties then surely you are the
better team for it?
Not necessarily, why are they camped on your goal line.
Post by Craig L
To defend your line against an attack that can't
muster anything worthwhile to break your defence
Defence on the goal line is heavily weighted to the defenders especially
within 5 to 10 yards of the line. You don't have to be as good to defend.
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
A drop goal still requires a decent work up to get it in place...often
signalling intention - so its reasonable for it to be a valid tactic.
Again when games become close the more marginal scores start to become
more prevalent - always has been always will be as players on the pitch do
a cost benefit ratio on 3pts vs giving up field position and possession.
Post by Craig L
Negate it from
the attack and only to be used when a complete deadlock is occurring.
Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.
Would love to see some stats on the level of dropped/attempted drop
goals by NH and SH teams as a comparison. IMO the levels for the NH
teams would be much higher.
Whoosh as the goalposts get moved from NH have a higher attempt ratio from
its the NH 'first resort'. Then the quick line that indicates that you are
guessing. How would you balance the stats for weather, location on the
pitch etc etc which all have a huge bearing on the attempts.
Oh fuck it, turned in a boffin and went through all the results of the
Entire last RWC. Took into account the game play of the 6N teams vs the
best of the rest from the SH. (Aus, NZ, Arg, SA, Samoa) and the results
were damn interesting.

NH teams dropped 15 goals in the tournament (Eng 8, Fra 4, Ire 1, Sco
1, Wal 1) vs 5 dropped goals for the SH teams (Arg 2, Aus 1, NZ 1, SA
1). Pretty comprehensive weight to my argument. Should change the guy's
nickname from 'glass jaw' to 'drop goal' wilko.

And considering all of argentina's best players play in europe (as
stated many times by various users on this ng) that almost makes it
17-3.

Tell me again how it isn't used primarily as a form of attack please?...
Tim Fitzmaurice
2006-03-16 16:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig L
Oh fuck it, turned in a boffin and went through all the results of the
Entire last RWC. Took into account the game play of the 6N teams vs the
best of the rest from the SH. (Aus, NZ, Arg, SA, Samoa) and the results
were damn interesting.
I was in the middle of replying here, but Tom;s reply basically says it
all.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Craig L
2006-03-13 19:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
Post by Craig L
So drop the 'deadlock breaking' drop goal to 1 point.
No, because battering your opponent into a situation where they do nothing
but defend the line to the exclusion of all else should be worth more than
that, IMO.
Then you should be doing something more inventive or something else to
obtain the points.
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
After many other cockups in that area are worth 3. Just holding off of a
select few cockups for 3 and some for 1 doesnt show a balanced play.
Deliberate infringement resulting in a penalty definitely deserves to
be given the full 3 point punishment.
Simply slipping which can yield a penalty if you fall on the ball and lead
to those three points. Yet an orchestrated attack under a 1 point drop
goal rule cannot do that.
Post by Craig L
If you can hold the oppostion
without infringing and giving away penalties then surely you are the
better team for it?
Not necessarily, why are they camped on your goal line.
Post by Craig L
To defend your line against an attack that can't
muster anything worthwhile to break your defence
Defence on the goal line is heavily weighted to the defenders especially
within 5 to 10 yards of the line. You don't have to be as good to defend.
Post by Craig L
Post by Tim Fitzmaurice
A drop goal still requires a decent work up to get it in place...often
signalling intention - so its reasonable for it to be a valid tactic.
Again when games become close the more marginal scores start to become
more prevalent - always has been always will be as players on the pitch do
a cost benefit ratio on 3pts vs giving up field position and possession.
Post by Craig L
Negate it from
the attack and only to be used when a complete deadlock is occurring.
Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.
Would love to see some stats on the level of dropped/attempted drop
goals by NH and SH teams as a comparison. IMO the levels for the NH
teams would be much higher.
Whoosh as the goalposts get moved from NH have a higher attempt ratio from
its the NH 'first resort'. Then the quick line that indicates that you are
guessing. How would you balance the stats for weather, location on the
pitch etc etc which all have a huge bearing on the attempts.
Oh fuck it, turned in a boffin and went through all the results of the
Entire last RWC. Took into account the game play of the 6N teams vs the
best of the rest from the SH. (Aus, NZ, Arg, SA, Samoa) and the results
were damn interesting.

NH teams dropped 15 goals in the tournament (Eng 8, Fra 4, Ire 1, Sco
1, Wal 1) vs 5 dropped goals for the SH teams (Arg 2, Aus 1, NZ 1, SA
1). Pretty comprehensive weight to my argument. Should change the guy's
nickname from 'glass jaw' to 'drop goal' wilko.

And considering all of argentina's best players play in europe (as
stated many times by various users on this ng) that almost makes it
17-3.

Tell me again how it isn't used primarily as a form of attack please?...
Tom Joyce
2006-03-16 15:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Also sprach "Craig L" <***@yahoo.co.uk>:
} Tim Fitzmaurice wrote:
} > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Craig L wrote:
} > > Tim Fitzmaurice wrote:
} > >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Craig L wrote:
} > >>> Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.

(It being the DG)

} > >> Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
} > >> Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.
} > >
} > > Would love to see some stats on the level of dropped/attempted drop
} > > goals by NH and SH teams as a comparison. IMO the levels for the NH
} > > teams would be much higher.
} >
} > Whoosh as the goalposts get moved from NH have a higher attempt ratio from
} > its the NH 'first resort'. Then the quick line that indicates that you are
} > guessing. How would you balance the stats for weather, location on the
} > pitch etc etc which all have a huge bearing on the attempts.
}
} Oh fuck it, turned in a boffin and went through all the results of the
} Entire last RWC. Took into account the game play of the 6N teams vs the
} best of the rest from the SH. (Aus, NZ, Arg, SA, Samoa) and the results
} were damn interesting.
}
} NH teams dropped 15 goals in the tournament (Eng 8, Fra 4, Ire 1, Sco
} 1, Wal 1) vs 5 dropped goals for the SH teams (Arg 2, Aus 1, NZ 1, SA
} 1). Pretty comprehensive weight to my argument. Should change the guy's
} nickname from 'glass jaw' to 'drop goal' wilko.

Oh, lies, damned lies and statistics...

I really can't be arsed to correct for all these factors but your
headline figure of 15 vs 5 fails to take into account the number of
teams whose goals you're counting(6 NH vs 5 SH), the number of matches
played due to reaching knock out stages or the ability to score DGs
thanks to the accuracy of kicker. There's also a glaring outlier and
a fairly similar distribution of the other sides. All you've proved
is that in one tournament one side, who happened to have a player who
was very good at kicking goals, kicked a lot of goals; if that is damn
interesting I'm a Dutchman. Boffin stuff it ain't...

} And considering all of argentina's best players play in europe (as
} stated many times by various users on this ng) that almost makes it
} 17-3.

Yes, if you want to compare 4 team's goals to 6 team's goals with an
extra 2 thrown in to add to the bias.

} Tell me again how it isn't used primarily as a form of attack please?...

Of course the dropped goal is used primarally a form of attack; it's
not a form of sodding defence is it? It is purely an offensive
weapon. However, your orignal claim is that "most NH teams use it as
a first resort".
--
yours aye,
Tom
Craig L
2006-03-16 17:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Joyce
} > >>> Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
(It being the DG)
} > >> Oh, right I see where this is going - into the realms of lack of fact.
} > >> Please come up with something else as reasoning this one doesn't fly.
} > >
} > > Would love to see some stats on the level of dropped/attempted drop
} > > goals by NH and SH teams as a comparison. IMO the levels for the NH
} > > teams would be much higher.
} >
} > Whoosh as the goalposts get moved from NH have a higher attempt ratio from
} > its the NH 'first resort'. Then the quick line that indicates that you are
} > guessing. How would you balance the stats for weather, location on the
} > pitch etc etc which all have a huge bearing on the attempts.
}
} Oh fuck it, turned in a boffin and went through all the results of the
} Entire last RWC. Took into account the game play of the 6N teams vs the
} best of the rest from the SH. (Aus, NZ, Arg, SA, Samoa) and the results
} were damn interesting.
}
} NH teams dropped 15 goals in the tournament (Eng 8, Fra 4, Ire 1, Sco
} 1, Wal 1) vs 5 dropped goals for the SH teams (Arg 2, Aus 1, NZ 1, SA
} 1). Pretty comprehensive weight to my argument. Should change the guy's
} nickname from 'glass jaw' to 'drop goal' wilko.
Oh, lies, damned lies and statistics...
I really can't be arsed to correct for all these factors but your
headline figure of 15 vs 5 fails to take into account the number of
teams whose goals you're counting(6 NH vs 5 SH), the number of matches
played due to reaching knock out stages or the ability to score DGs
thanks to the accuracy of kicker. There's also a glaring outlier and
a fairly similar distribution of the other sides. All you've proved
is that in one tournament one side, who happened to have a player who
was very good at kicking goals, kicked a lot of goals; if that is damn
interesting I'm a Dutchman. Boffin stuff it ain't...
} And considering all of argentina's best players play in europe (as
} stated many times by various users on this ng) that almost makes it
} 17-3.
Yes, if you want to compare 4 team's goals to 6 team's goals with an
extra 2 thrown in to add to the bias.
} Tell me again how it isn't used primarily as a form of attack please?...
Of course the dropped goal is used primarally a form of attack; it's
not a form of sodding defence is it? It is purely an offensive
weapon. However, your orignal claim is that "most NH teams use it as
a first resort".
--
yours aye,
Tom
Ahh, the problem with producing any form of statistics. The variables
are too great. I could go through a point by point basis and argue all
yours and Tim's statements to the contrary but im actually going to
admit defeat on this one. Its easier that way. The produced results
from the last RWC in no way reflect any point I was trying to make that
NH teams use DG's more than SH teams. 12-2 if you take the amount of
DG's the teams who reached the last four (and played the exact amount
of games). So I'll not bash on about them. In fact, SH teams attempt
lots of DG's but because we are such poor kickers of the ball, we never
land any. How completely foolish of me not to have though of that
argument?

Obviously there is no reasoning for dropping the value of the drop goal
down to 1. Games where De Beer scores 5 goals are perfectly acceptable.
Of course it was that *England* had gone into completely defensive
tactics and had nothing to do with the fact that De Beer was hitting
the ball so sweetly that he decided just to get easy points and play
Eng out of the game. I remember in that game he had at least one DG
from on the half way line (or very close to) and scored. No way there
was any point trying to put the ball in behind England or trying
anything else. They would never have got through from that far out. No
way in hell. Especially after they had already scored 2 tries in the
game.

Wilkinson's tactics in the Semi of the 2003 WC where he dropped goals
in the 9th, 38th and 54th minutes of the games would probably fall into
a similar category. France were behind at that stage but were
vehemently defending their losing total so England had to try
*something* to break the deadlock.

Definitely no case to answer for the value being dropped. It wouldnt
make a rats arse to the way the game is played at all. Look at that. I
did bash on about them after all. Fancy that...
Tim Fitzmaurice
2006-03-17 08:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig L
Post by Tom Joyce
} > >>> Most NH sides use it as a 'first' resort.
Ahh, the problem with producing any form of statistics. The variables
are too great.
Not our point, our point is that you havent actually taken a fraction of
the time to bother to examine the issues, including one bloody great outlier
that blows your argument to pieces....its just easier to grab a half-arsed
set of numbers that appear to say what you want and wave them.
Post by Craig L
Its easier that way. The produced results
from the last RWC in no way reflect any point I was trying to make that
NH teams use DG's more than SH teams.
That was not your claim, your claim was they used them as first resort.
Its a few lines up above in black and white and google. You cant change
the basis of the argument and try to claim you have proved your first
case.

You have thus far presented diddly to back up the line of the use of a DG
as a first resort score, rather than say failure to break a line quickly
and then taking a quick score - or having a good goalkicker and so taking
the points - which had you wanted to you could have presented a strong
argument for in the case of England based on your figures, but that wasn't
your case and in itself blows the whole 'NH first resort' out of the water
becuase its one single team not the rest at the most basic level.
Post by Craig L
Obviously there is no reasoning for dropping the value of the drop goal
down to 1.
You've not presented any that hold up in any form of context with issues
such as penalties which you have happily supported. Your arguments have
basically been poorly formed, have routinely ignored any issues that are
inconvenient looking only for single fact positive correlations that
happen to fit your position rather than even trying to examine the whole
issue.
Post by Craig L
Definitely no case to answer for the value being dropped. It wouldnt
make a rats arse to the way the game is played at all.
And now with the putting words into our mouths - Ive not said lowering
the value of the DG wouldnt make any difference to the game. I think it
would but I think it will negatively impact on the game primarily by
unbalancing the value of the penalty over attacking drive making things
very inconsistent and once again putting more emphasis on defence defence
defence of which I think there has been too much over the past 10-15 years.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568

Roadkill
2006-03-10 10:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by didgerman
Post by Uncle Bully
3 point conversions are stupid, but it should take three penalties to
equal a converted try. So drop conversions to 1 and penalties to 2, as
well as drop goals to 2. Drop goals should be used primarily to decide
tight matches, not used as you main offence tactic).
Who uses drop goals as their main offensive tactic...?
England in the last World Cup.
rick boyd
2006-03-10 14:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
Conversions are stupid, why should a conversion be harder depending on how
far from the sideline you score a try? All conversions should be taken from
the sideline, that'd make them more interesting.
But there are incentives there encouraging skilled play. Place kicking
is an ancient and genuine rugby skill and must be retained. The current
positioning encourages teams to not only score tries, but score them
close to the posts. Granted, there is no real return in this for the
spectators, but for the players it is somehting extra to aim for.

I like it the way it is.

-- rick boyd
Brad Anton
2006-03-11 06:05:22 UTC
Permalink
"Uncle Bully" <***@optushome.com.au.Remove> wrote in message news:44112824$0$1015$***@news.optusnet.com.au...


why should a conversion be harder depending on how
Post by Uncle Bully
far from the sideline you score a try?
- Or easier, depending on how close to the posts you score a try. It gives the oppo an extra
modicum of time to defend against a team who are attempting to put the ball under the posts - I've
( and I'm sure you have too ) seen a number of situations where the attacker, in the attempt to make
an additional 2 points more certain , has dropped the ball , been tackled and lost the ball etc. It
makes for a richer game.
Brad
Uncle Bully
2006-03-11 09:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
why should a conversion be harder depending on how
Post by Uncle Bully
far from the sideline you score a try?
- Or easier, depending on how close to the posts you score a try. It gives
the oppo an extra
modicum of time to defend against a team who are attempting to put the
ball under the posts - I've
( and I'm sure you have too ) seen a number of situations where the
attacker, in the attempt to make
an additional 2 points more certain , has dropped the ball , been tackled
and lost the ball etc. It
makes for a richer game.
Can't say I agree. Most of the 'drop the ball on the verge of scoring a try'
moments have nothing to do with attempting to get closer to the posts. It
usually someone thinking of the glory of simply scoring a try and losing
forgetting that they haven't scored it yet.

Perhaps to maintain the score nearer the posts gimmick, they could have the
middle 15 metres of the try area worth an extra point. Then you'd really see
some fights tot get the ball in centre field.
Roadkill
2006-03-10 10:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Total Votes: 3841
Just make the ball smaller.
Philip Castleman
2006-03-10 15:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Any inkling as to what the gurus at the stellenbosch meting have planned for
after RWC 2007? Hands in the ruck being allowed seems to have come up.
How to improve the game....
1) Make it compulsory for all players to tape their boots before taking the
field. then there are no excuses for players holding up the game tying shoe
laces (esp before set pieces)
2) Play goes on when players are "injured" Watched the Tahs v Cats debacle
tonite. Less than 2 mins into the game there are 2 waterboys on each side
running on refreshments while a prop is on the ground having some magic
water. This practice must cease. If a front rower is unable to play on he
must leave the field and be immediately subbed out for 5 mins. Other
players, keep going unless the injury requires replacement.
3) Rolling mauls.. a great part of the game.. but as interpreted now, there
is no legal defence against a ball carrier at the back. This is legalised
obstruction. Pulling a maul down is dangerous and should still be illegal.
But as soon as the ball is at the back the player should have to detach so
other players have a chance to tackle him. Also, if defenders commit enough
players to stop the progress of the maul the ball should be played
immediately. This is the only legal defence and forces teams to commit
players, creating space out wide. A lot of the time, the maul stops or may
even backpedal, but then goes forwards again as at the moment refs are
supposed to alow a few seconds of immobility, but as usual it depends on the
refs and inconsistency rules.

4) Enforce the locks feet rule for the backline. As defences improve, the
creeping up in defence , the "bookends " at the side of the maul, and the
banana defence are destroying the flow of the game. RL woke up to this years
ago and brought in the 5 then 10m rule to help open up play. I still feel
the best compromise is to have a "halfbacks feet law" where all defenders
must remain behind the half back behind a ruck or maul. It gives an extra
1-2 m of separation and gives refs (and hopefully miked up touch judges) a
better allignment for adjudging offside.

5)Rucks and mauls - go back to only reqire entry from behind the advantage
line. As it is now, going in from the side is too inconsistently reffed (see
Paddy O'Briens famous quote). it is like lifting in Lineouts being
legalised. Initially shock-horror, but now accepted. If both sides can do it
ther is no real disadvantage. But going off the feet at rucks should be more
severly penalised than it is now. After 3 penalties for this , a team foul
as in basketball should apply with the captain nominating a player for the
sin bin would soon stop the rot. I agree that proper rucking should be
allowed, obviously not deliberate stomping or head kicking.

Cheers Phil
Marco
2006-03-10 14:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Oh for f**k's sake. This would SLOW the game DOWN!
Post by JD
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
No way! AND they are spectacular as well!
Post by JD
Eliminate scrums - 2%
...and go playing League?
Post by JD
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Not bad. Or, drop kicks instead of place kicks.
Tim Fitzmaurice
2006-03-13 08:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco
Post by JD
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Not bad. Or, drop kicks instead of place kicks.
The score change - no way - we saw enough of a problem with the penalty
being devalued last time, making a penalty worth less than 1/3 of a try
would be a flamin disaster. Add to that the conversion going to 3 and so
the penalty became 1/4 of a try and we are gaggin for trouble. THis
would be a bloody hindering nightmare.

Forcing drop kicks for the kicks might not be such a bad idea, isnt this
the case in 7s already for conversions? THey have done it with restarts
and kickoff. Its certainly quicker, but less accurate. I'd go with it for
conversions. FOr penalties Im less inclined since anything that makes it
more difficult to convert a penalty to points is IMO a bad thing. It is
one of the strengths of rugby that rulebreaking even a significant
distance from your own try line can be made painful.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Ben L
2006-03-10 15:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
- Allow players to get their hands stamped on (couldn't find the
option on the survey)
Uncle Bully
2006-03-11 03:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben L
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
- Allow players to get their hands stamped on (couldn't find the
option on the survey)
Since when was this disallowed? I though standng on hands was fair game?
(I've been on both ends of it quite a few times)
Ben L
2006-03-11 17:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Ben L
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
- Allow players to get their hands stamped on (couldn't find the
option on the survey)
Since when was this disallowed? I though standng on hands was fair game?
(I've been on both ends of it quite a few times)
My point was more that were hands in the ruck and more vigorous
rucking, one would expect to see more stamping on hands (and more
potentially career ending hand injuries). As you point out, standing on
hands does occur, but one of the things that makes it less common is
that hands in the ruck isn't allowed.
Uncle Bully
2006-03-11 23:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben L
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Ben L
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
- Allow players to get their hands stamped on (couldn't find the
option on the survey)
Since when was this disallowed? I though standng on hands was fair game?
(I've been on both ends of it quite a few times)
My point was more that were hands in the ruck and more vigorous
rucking, one would expect to see more stamping on hands (and more
potentially career ending hand injuries). As you point out, standing on
hands does occur, but one of the things that makes it less common is
that hands in the ruck isn't allowed.
I always like the idea of legal punchups a la Ice Hockey. When two players
stuff toughing each up with the handbags, they get put on the 50 metre line
and go toe to toe until one man goes down.
It works out well, because having a full on punch up means even if you win,
you're too buggered to play on effectively, so you negatively impact your
own team. It's natural form of justice.
Richard Bridgman
2006-03-12 14:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
I always like the idea of legal punchups a la Ice Hockey. When two players
stuff toughing each up with the handbags, they get put on the 50 metre line
and go toe to toe until one man goes down.
It works out well, because having a full on punch up means even if you win,
you're too buggered to play on effectively, so you negatively impact your
own team. It's natural form of justice.
I like it too, but in Ice Hockey the other criterion for stopping the
fight is if one of the helmets comes off (stop it Matua). I think in
Rugby if we allowed toe to toe slugging there would some nasty
injuries.

Hey, someone might even die!

Richard Bridgman
Uncle Bully
2006-03-14 05:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Bridgman
Post by Uncle Bully
I always like the idea of legal punchups a la Ice Hockey. When two players
stuff toughing each up with the handbags, they get put on the 50 metre line
and go toe to toe until one man goes down.
It works out well, because having a full on punch up means even if you win,
you're too buggered to play on effectively, so you negatively impact your
own team. It's natural form of justice.
I like it too, but in Ice Hockey the other criterion for stopping the
fight is if one of the helmets comes off (stop it Matua). I think in
Rugby if we allowed toe to toe slugging there would some nasty
injuries.
They don't fight with helmets on as this fine example shows:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8969161951379036622&q=tasker+senn
Bully
2006-03-14 08:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Bully
Post by Richard Bridgman
Post by Uncle Bully
I always like the idea of legal punchups a la Ice Hockey. When two players
stuff toughing each up with the handbags, they get put on the 50 metre line
and go toe to toe until one man goes down.
It works out well, because having a full on punch up means even if you win,
you're too buggered to play on effectively, so you negatively
impact your own team. It's natural form of justice.
I like it too, but in Ice Hockey the other criterion for stopping the
fight is if one of the helmets comes off (stop it Matua). I think in
Rugby if we allowed toe to toe slugging there would some nasty
injuries.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8969161951379036622&q=tasker+senn
So that *IS* legal?!?!?
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
Supps: http://www.myprotein.co.uk - 5% off with my discount code MP4858

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Richard Bridgman
2006-03-10 20:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JD
On the rugbyheaven website, a poll is currently being conducted whereby
people can nominate one of five ideas to improve rugby. Unfortunately,
it simply shows that almost three quarters of the respondents are
Allow hands in the ruck - 16%
Allow vigorous rucking - 29%
Eliminate rolling mauls - 7%
Eliminate scrums - 2%
Reduce penalties to two and increase conversions to three points - 46%
Total Votes: 3841
Personally I would simply like to see the existing laws enforced
properly and consistently. I'm sick of seeing players arriving at the
breakdown like human cannonballs, diving into the ruck only for the
ref' to give a penalty for "holding on", or the opposite - the tackled
player hanging on for dear life while incoming players are pinged for
not staying on their feet. Another pet hate is watching set scrums
collapse time after time until the ref; in desparation, plows the
whistle and awards the free kick or penalty presumably by using the
eenie-meenie-miney-moh method. Offside could do with clearing up too
(although then we'd never win owt!).

Richard Bridgman
Post by JD
I'll deal with the three main points;
Allowing hands in the ruck will do absolutely nothing to improve the
speed of the game and will drastically impact on the spectacle of
running rugby as players will be hanging on to the ball in the bottom
of a ruck for dear life, giving defence all the time in the world to
realign.
Reducing the penalties and increasing conversions will have the obvious
contrarian effect of more penalties, simply as you are only giving up
two points rather than facing the possibility of eight.
The simplest method for increasing the spectacle and reducing the
complexity is to allow rucking. Reasonably adjudicated by a referee,
this will promote faster recycling of the ball. Most of the current
laws can stay for safety (not rucking the head of an opponent, only
rucking a player preventing release of the ball). Simply put, if you're
on the wrong side of the ruck and don't make an expeditious exit,
players should be able to drive over and remove you. A ref only has to
ensure that the rucking is done safely and that the offending player
can actually remove himself. I realise this is actually the law as it
stands, but the IRB needs to communicate to refs that this is how they
should be interpreting the breakdown, rather than the pathetic current
state of affairs which lead to the suspension of So'oialo and Tito.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...