rugbyunion
Latest News:
New Page 1

Whatever your views on Saracens, whether a Sarries fan or not, leave them here.

To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE, it takes only a minute.
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic".


Thought for the Day:
NEWCASTLE HERE WE COME!!!!!!

Latest: SARACENS 32:16 MUNSTER
Next: WASPS v SARACENS
Sat 27th April, 16.30 Ricoh,
Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV: Wasps v Saracens Sat 27th April 16.15 BT Sport2

BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries

The Fish | Rugby Union News | Fez Boys | Saracens Fixtures | The SSA | Rugby on TV


New year's laws
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 11:54
So a new year is upon us I wonder which current laws would you like to see enforced more rigorously?

And secondly are there any slight changes you would make to the laws to improve the current game? Not talking about huge new rule changes but for example I'd like to see a rule that says only player participating in a lineout can be part of a resulting maul (plus scrum-half).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2019 12:07 by Sarriebone.

 
Re: New year's laws
Garp285 (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 12:05
Time for kicks reduced to 30 secs! Not sure it would improve game too much but does my head in watching a succession of kickers dance and posture on the spot for what seems like hours!

 
Re: New year's laws
BaltiBoy (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 12:12
Not so much a law change but I would like to see Refs get tougher with back chat. In the old days any back chat would be dealt with immediately with a yellow card, penalty or being marched back 10 metres.

Refs now give the individual or team a warning first before carrying out any actions.

This is what separated rugby refs from football refs in that backchat of any kind simply wasn't tolerated and the ref was respected at all times.

I feel that refs are are too lenient now and often shown a lack of respect. Refs must stop giving warnings for backchat, and just penalise the player immediately imho.



Cheers & Beers
BB

 
Re: New year's laws
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 12:53
Quote:
BaltiBoy
Not so much a law change but I would like to see Refs get tougher with back chat. In the old days any back chat would be dealt with immediately with a yellow card, penalty or being marched back 10 metres.
Refs now give the individual or team a warning first before carrying out any actions.

This is what separated rugby refs from football refs in that backchat of any kind simply wasn't tolerated and the ref was respected at all times.

I feel that refs are are too lenient now and often shown a lack of respect. Refs must stop giving warnings for backchat, and just penalise the player immediately imho.

I couldn't agree more, however, the remedy is with the refs. In each changing room, before the match, the ref should end his address with:

"I do not approve of the recent trend of players talking disrespectfully to the officials. Any first offence will be penalised, without any onfield warning. Subsequent offences are liable to stricter sanction. Furthermore, I expect scrum halves to confine themselves to addressing their teammates; if I suspect that a remark is addressed to the opponents, let alone any of the officials, that will attract sanction also, again without onfield warning."



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

 
Re: New year's laws
SarrieSaint (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 12:58
+1 Baltiboy.

Would be nice to see the scrum returned to being a means of restart rather than a vehicle for extracting penalties! Sarries somewhat frail scrum may have some bearing on my thoughts on that point!

 
Re: New year's laws
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 13:05
I would like 'game values offence' specifically written into law, with examples of many of the annoying instances of gamesmanship, such as not putting the ball down immediately having been penalised, dummying from the base of a ruck, taking a conversion before the TMO has been consulted - the kicker should have to ask the ref if he may take the kick (Faz might have a problem with that one!), calling for a card, etc.



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

 
Re: New year's laws
myleftboot (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 13:35
The scrum half @#$%& about at the end of the ridiculous ruck train. Hands on ball, game on.

 
Re: New year's laws
JO'G (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 13:40
Quote:
TonyTaff
I would like 'game values offence' specifically written into law, with examples of many of the annoying instances of gamesmanship, such as not putting the ball down immediately having been penalised, dummying from the base of a ruck, taking a conversion before the TMO has been consulted - the kicker should have to ask the ref if he may take the kick (Faz might have a problem with that one!), calling for a card, etc.

I was once referred by Geoffrey Archer, author and chairman of the conservative party. As well as making his bodyguard run the line with gun flapping about as he ran he penalised the oppo scrum half for persistent dummying. The official line was s penalty for being boring.

 
Re: New year's laws
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 14:13
Quote:
JO'G
Quote:
TonyTaff
I would like 'game values offence' specifically written into law, with examples of many of the annoying instances of gamesmanship, such as not putting the ball down immediately having been penalised, dummying from the base of a ruck, taking a conversion before the TMO has been consulted - the kicker should have to ask the ref if he may take the kick (Faz might have a problem with that one!), calling for a card, etc.

I was once referred by Geoffrey Archer, author and chairman of the conservative party. As well as making his bodyguard run the line with gun flapping about as he ran he penalised the oppo scrum half for persistent dummying. The official line was s penalty for being boring.

Since then, dummying from the scrum has been outlawed, but not from the ruck. In other news, the King has died and we have a new Queen! winking smiley



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

 
Re: New year's laws
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 16:42
Extending the ruck back towards your own line to protect the scrum half is one thing I'd like changed as well

 
Re: New year's laws
mrangry (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 17:18
For the rest of the game a player in front of the player with the ball is offside. But for a mail they are not. Not only that but the ball can be transferred back making another player offside. Be consistent, outlaw the rolling maul. It's not pretty, is encouraging offside and almost impossible to defend against. Not only that but the ABs and Exe will lose one of their main weapons

 
Re: New year's laws
Rupes (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 21:56
On the current state of affairs, if the referees kept marching people back 10 yards for backchat or general complaining then we as a team would be starting most phases from Row B of the relevant stand behind the posts...

 
Re: New year's laws
darktagnan (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 22:20
I'd like to see and end to taking out players before they join a ruck, as well as enforcing the laws about sealing off. If a player has not even put his hand on the ruck formation he simply cannot be touched never mind poleaxed simultaneously by two backrow forwards who are going off their feet to do it and are not themselves part of the ruck (if they are in front of the ball they are offside anyway)!
I'd also like to see all hands off the ball in a ruck situation within say 2 sec including the tackled player & the tackler. If they are off their feet they have no right to play the ball.
One more - punish defenders running (or walking!) blocking lines in front of a player catching a kick.
I have no problem with the comments above re respecting the officials either.

 
Re: New year's laws
Graeme D (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 09:10
Quote:
Rupes
On the current state of affairs, if the referees kept marching people back 10 yards for backchat or general complaining then we as a team would be starting most phases from Row B of the relevant stand behind the posts...

Row B ! More like car park B .

 
Re: New year's laws
Chops3 (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 11:22
I would like to see crossing reduced to a free kick offence as it is normally a technical mistake/error rather than a deliberate act of foul play. It annoys me when an attacking team is running the ball and makes such a mistake and then gets hit for 3 points when resultant penalty is knocked over from the halfway line.

Also for free kicks, give the team that is awarded the free kick an additional option of a) a line out - attacking team throw, in line with the free kick offence, or b) the option to kick direct to touch for territory gain but with throw in conceded to the defending team. This may reduce the number of times that the attacking team choose the scrum option from a free kick (therefore reducing the number of scrums in the game).

The maul also needs sorting out to give the defending team a better chance of legally stopping it, however I have no idea what the answer to that problem is!!

 
Re: New year's laws
TOKS (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 13:53
With Friday evening regrettably still very fresh in my mind, how about keeping the existing laws but applying them equally to both teams?

 
Re: New year's laws
boomer! (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 16:20
Players holding on to the ball in touch. Just release the ball.

Players rushing to take a quick throw-in when a quick throw-in is not available to them.

Not straight line out throws being penalised.

Players drawing imaginary square shapes in the air in front of the ref asking for a TMO review

Players waving imaginary yellow/red cards at the ref.

Players (scrum halfs) intentionally throwing a pass at retreating opposition player to draw penalty.

 
Re: New year's laws
myleftboot (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 16:56
Quote:
TOKS
With Friday evening regrettably still very fresh in my mind, how about keeping the existing laws but applying them equally to both teams?
I thought Carley, scrum aside, was pretty fair in his incompetence. His overeagerness to tell Billy off cost Sale a perfectly good try!!

 
Re: New year's laws
GazzaFez (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 16:56
Quote:
TOKS
With Friday evening regrettably still very fresh in my mind, how about keeping the existing laws but applying them equally to both teams?

This, above all else. A thousand times over.

My particular pet hate for pointless laws is the 'double movement' rule when scoring a try. I have never seen the point of it in the first place and all it does is lead to endless arguments over did he, didn't he? Like many laws it is open to too much subjective interpretation. In my view you either ground the ball or you don't. A few wiggles here or there makes no difference. The manner in which this happens seems neither here nor there. I just cannot see how this law enhances the game in any way.

The other one is of course the forward pass. But I simply can't be bothered with that one; it's enough to sap the life out of you.

 
Re: New year's laws
Roger G (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 17:11
I would like to see clear outs policed properly, firstly by penalising players not coming through the gate, which happens all the time these days, and secondly stopping players launching themselves at the ruck with no intention of staying on their feet. Both of these would, I believe, result in talented back row players winning more turnovers, along with lowering the risk of head injury to attackers and defenders alike.

 
Re: New year's laws
Rupes (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 18:16
I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "law" or not, but I'd reduce the number of non-medical substitutes to five.

I hear the point about uncontested scrums, but I'd suggest that only 1 front row is allowed to be an official substitute. In case of medical emergency only, 2 additional front rowers would be permitted to be used - so 2 + 5 still equals 7, but 2 of those for medical cover only, authorised by an independent medical professional. You could not just put a new front row on after 60 minutes that way, 1 is fine but 2 of the starters would need to do the whole 80.

Can of worms, I get it, but would be interested to see how teams changed their game plans.

 
Re: New year's laws
BaltiBoy (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 20:14
Quote:
Rupes
I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "law" or not, but I'd reduce the number of non-medical substitutes to five.
I hear the point about uncontested scrums, but I'd suggest that only 1 front row is allowed to be an official substitute. In case of medical emergency only, 2 additional front rowers would be permitted to be used - so 2 + 5 still equals 7, but 2 of those for medical cover only, authorised by an independent medical professional. You could not just put a new front row on after 60 minutes that way, 1 is fine but 2 of the starters would need to do the whole 80.

Can of worms, I get it, but would be interested to see how teams changed their game plans.

I agree that the number of substitutions is getting silly.

I would go down a slightly different route and reduce the number of subs to a maximum of 4 per game. Of those 4 subs, 3 must be made in the front row to get around the whole uncontested scrum issue.

Then only 1 more sub could be made from the remaining 4 players on the bench. That way substitutions at pre-determined intervals will be stopped as the DOR will need to keep his subs back to replace those genuinely injured as and when.

Also if all the subs are used and a player comes off injured then it's tough, the team plays on with 14 men.

And finally with less substitutes on the pitch the likelihood of a tired player getting hit by a fresh player will be reduced which in turn would (hopefully) reduce the number of heavy impact injuries.

Just a thought.



Cheers & Beers
BB

 
Re: New year's laws
1876-Fez (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 21:19
Rupes and Baltiboy..
With reference to the subs ... Brian Moore's Full contact Pod Cast on 1st Jan is well worth a listen, Nigel Owens has stong views on this as he thinks the number of changes in the 2nd half is spoiling games... and his ideas on changing them. Well worth a listen.

Towards end of Pod if you don't want to listen to much of Brian!!



SUPPORT Help for Heroes:
Help for Heroes

 
Re: New year's laws
BaltiBoy (IP Logged)
07 January, 2019 21:51
Quote:
1876-Fez
Rupes and Baltiboy..
With reference to the subs ... Brian Moore's Full contact Pod Cast on 1st Jan is well worth a listen, Nigel Owens has stong views on this as he thinks the number of changes in the 2nd half is spoiling games... and his ideas on changing them. Well worth a listen.

Towards end of Pod if you don't want to listen to much of Brian!!

Cheers for the info 1876-Fez, greatly appreciated. I look forward to listening to it.

Edit: Had a listen now and like his idea of reducing the number of subs in general and limiting the times when tactical substitutions can be made, thus reducing the stop / start nature of the second half.



Cheers & Beers
BB



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2019 07:10 by BaltiBoy.

 
Re: New year's laws
JO'G (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 12:31
Quote:
Sarriebone
Extending the ruck back towards your own line to protect the scrum half is one thing I'd like changed as well

more important that the forward line of the ruck (setting the line for the defenders) should not change once set. Making a line of players who have lined up with the refs' / touch judge's approval technically offside because the frontmost player steps forward is nonsense

what would be more interesting would be that the scrum-half would not be able to move the ball backwards either with his feet or hands; it would have to be done by the forward by use of his foot only. It the scrum-half did it, he has to play it in 3 seconds. (queue the defending side to count out 1 second, 2 seconds, out - then pounce) Plenty of opportunity for a timed drive, just as the forward was moving the ball backwards for it to squirt out into play. I'd also like the ref to look carefully at the ball coming back and penalise a side if it comes out and then goes back in. In my opinion around 30% of scrum-half box kicks are done from a ball which is already out of the ruck.

 
Re: New year's laws
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 12:43
Quote:
JO'G
Quote:
Sarriebone
Extending the ruck back towards your own line to protect the scrum half is one thing I'd like changed as well

more important that the forward line of the ruck (setting the line for the defenders) should not change once set. Making a line of players who have lined up with the refs' / touch judge's approval technically offside because the frontmost player steps forward is nonsense

I guess "artificially" extending the ruck in any direction would cover it, so no pushing forwards to put the defence offside and no extending it back to prevent competition for the ball

 
Re: New year's laws
Roger G (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 13:23
Quote:
JO'G
In my opinion around 30% of scrum-half box kicks are done from a ball which is already out of the ruck.

On that point, nearly all scrum halves (including ours) take a step away from the ruck before box kicking. This combined with kick chasers setting off over-promptly nearly always puts them (the chasers) offside, and this is rarely, if ever, picked up.

 
Re: New year's laws
samlee99 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 14:16
Quote:
myleftboot
Quote:
TOKS
With Friday evening regrettably still very fresh in my mind, how about keeping the existing laws but applying them equally to both teams?
I thought Carley, scrum aside, was pretty fair in his incompetence. His overeagerness to tell Billy off cost Sale a perfectly good try!!

Absolutely right. Ridiculous to blame the referee for the defeat.

 
Re: New year's laws
maynas (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 17:11
I would very much like to see an end to the boring resetting of scrums, especially by defenders wasting yellow card time or running the clock down to HT or the end of the game. Turn the clock off till the ball emerges in play and the ref says “clock on”.

 
Re: New year's laws
TV (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 17:53
Quote:
Roger G
I would like to see clear outs policed properly, firstly by penalising players not coming through the gate, which happens all the time these days, and secondly stopping players launching themselves at the ruck with no intention of staying on their feet. Both of these would, I believe, result in talented back row players winning more turnovers, along with lowering the risk of head injury to attackers and defenders alike.

Agree 100% and will protect players like Brad from getting kneed in the head when under a ruck and suffering from concussion

 
Re: New year's laws
1876-Fez (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 17:59
Quote:
TV
Quote:
Roger G
I would like to see clear outs policed properly, firstly by penalising players not coming through the gate, which happens all the time these days, and secondly stopping players launching themselves at the ruck with no intention of staying on their feet. Both of these would, I believe, result in talented back row players winning more turnovers, along with lowering the risk of head injury to attackers and defenders alike.

Agree 100% and will protect players like Brad from getting kneed in the head when under a ruck and suffering from concussion

You could add to this, the defender using: knees, elbows, feet etc on the try scorer ...
a legitimate attempt is ok but so many gratuitous 'digs'.



SUPPORT Help for Heroes:
Help for Heroes

 
Re: New year's laws
John Tee (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 19:35
Some good thoughts here. I, too, think the game needs to do something about subs. It can't be right that a player is routinely not expected to last 80 mins.
If they can't last 80, then they may need to be fitter or lighter in order to do so. If they are lighter that takes weight down in packs and weight and size become less critical.
Lightweight packs should men faster more mobile and this speeds up the game.
Less weight means less big hits in theory or less differential.
Less activity where the crowd can't see the ball for minutes on end would be good.
The ball would have to passed out before going back in...so that means more back play.
Just like the refs calls for the scrum half to play the ball, then he should call an end to the maul sooner, Imv.

 
Re: New year's laws
Rupes (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 20:01
Here's another one; clarify when the referee should call Time Off and Time On.

For example, if a team is ahead by 1 point once the oppo has just converted a try after 79 minutes, the slow walk to the kick off is generally used to eat up seconds. Stop that. Why not have it so that Time Off is called as soon as the conversion goes over, regardless of where you are in the game? Try scored and converted, whether 2 mins 30s or 78 mins 45s on the clock, TIME OFF. TIME ON only when the ball is kicked live again.

Likewise, for a 22m drop out, how much time is actually wasted waiting for someone to take it? Back a bit, throw it around a bit to see if anyone can(not actually) take the short kick off, back to the 10, who may or not boot it depending on whether or not everyone is allegedly behind him. Change it. Touch down for a drop out 22, stop the watch, TIME OFF. TIME ON only when the ball is kicked live again.

I'm sure there are more examples than that, but I reckon a good few minutes in each game are wasted by teams messing about as above.

 
Re: New year's laws
1876-Fez (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 20:59
Re the subs.. RL are reducing the number of interchanges from 10 to 8.. as said above players will have to last longer IE be fitter...

Also fitting into previous comments:
Scrums formed within 35 secs
Clock automatically stopped for certain reasons.
Time over penalty taking..

There are more changes being made (see link)
some of these would help in RU also..

[www.rugby-league.com]



SUPPORT Help for Heroes:
Help for Heroes

 
Re: New year's laws
BaltiBoy (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 21:04
Regarding current laws can someone explain why it is perfectly legal to pull down a maul following a choke tackle but it is illegal to pull down any other form of maul.

I've never understood this, as I was led to believe sacking a maul is always a penalty offense.



Cheers & Beers
BB

 
Re: New year's laws
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
08 January, 2019 23:22
Quote:
BaltiBoy
Regarding current laws can someone explain why it is perfectly legal to pull down a maul following a choke tackle but it is illegal to pull down any other form of maul.
I've never understood this, as I was led to believe sacking a maul is always a penalty offense.

This has always puzzled me as well, there's no distinction in the laws between a maul from a lineout and a maul in open play yet commentators regularly say that the defending team will bring the maul to the ground as soon as the ref calls it a maul.

 
Re: New year's laws
JO'G (IP Logged)
09 January, 2019 11:30
on the items above

1) Stop the clock when a try is scored; let the attacking team take as long as it likes on the conversion knowing the game will only restart when the kick-off happens

2) If a scrum needs to be reset for any reason, stop the clock at that point. Reset the clock only when the ball is played by the scrum-half or a penalty is awarded.

3) On a similar point, note the clock time when a penalty is awarded and a 3 point kick is possible. Restart when the penalty is actually struck, having reduced the time by 60 seconds. If the 3 point kick is not taken, keep the clock running as now

 
Re: New year's laws
JO'G (IP Logged)
09 January, 2019 11:45
on a totally unrelated topic, make some changes on rucks , the jackel

1) do not allow any player involved in the tackle to take part in the ruck. they must leave the ruck, retire beyond the rear feet and re-enter through the gate. They cannot under any circumstances jackel. Ideally any latched attacker should also regain their feet and retreat from the ruck, but i'm' not so worried about this, as generally they will only slow down their own ball and that's their own problem

2) the next player arriving at the ruck is the one who dictates whether a jackel is possible.

a) if this is an attacker; no defender can touch the ball with anything other than their feet to hook the ball back - having stepped over the ball in a counter-ruck. If they go off their feet - immediate penalty. this should ensure that the ball comes back quickly

b) if this is a defender, they can (assuming they have entered through the gate) attempt to pick up the ball. They can only be dislodged by legal means; that is driven off the ball by an attacker coning through the gate. This doesn't mean the attacker needs to drive straight, in fact they should probably drive at an angle. This should protect a legitimate turnover; neck rolls, players flopping on top of the defender ... should be penalised

generally, get players out of rucks on the floor to allow a proper contest - I would also allow the option for a second defender, where his defending team mate has stepped over the ball and the ball is on the ground behind the foot of his team mate to pick it up, which is currently frowned on but I believe legally ok

 
Re: New year's laws
Garp285 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2019 15:53
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
BaltiBoy
Regarding current laws can someone explain why it is perfectly legal to pull down a maul following a choke tackle but it is illegal to pull down any other form of maul.
I've never understood this, as I was led to believe sacking a maul is always a penalty offense.

This has always puzzled me as well, there's no distinction in the laws between a maul from a lineout and a maul in open play yet commentators regularly say that the defending team will bring the maul to the ground as soon as the ref calls it a maul.
My take on this has always been that while there is no difference in the laws, an open play/choke tackle maul is a lot messier than a set piece maul. As they are generally a lot less stable, it is, therefore, more difficult to determine who actually brought the maul down even though it is obvious in 99% of cases it will be the defending team! benefit of doubt given to defending team regardless.

 
Re: New year's laws
Surbiton Sarries (IP Logged)
12 January, 2019 08:53
On the back-chat issue.

In last nights Glaws v Munster match, Romaine Poite told the first Glaws player to approach him (Celebriani, as it happens) that he was only talking to the captain. Same with Munster. Result was that there was no back chat and no wendyball histrionics from the players, So it can be done.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?