Blues vs Stormers



  • @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.



  • I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    Yeah - fair enough.
    It just seems like something that would be so easily sorted out.
    If only to stop the fucking Stephen-Jones-esque outcry after the Fall-Barrett red card, etc.



  • @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    Yeah - fair enough.
    It just seems like something that would be so easily sorted out.
    If only to stop the fucking Stephen-Jones-esque outcry after the Fall-Barrett red card, etc.

    the amount of fucks i give about another anti-AB whine in the paper is a very, very small number.

    Also, nothing in rugby is easy to sort out, due to the nature the sport; the nature of unintended consequences, and smart coaches and players that will push every rule out there to find an advantage.

    Fuck being a law maker.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    I agree with all of this, except the last sentence.

    I don't think it's a big problem at all and I actually quite like the kicking.



  • The simple solution is to permit players to be tackled in the air. They'll be less likely to leap to the heavens then.



  • @Kruse yep, the one person is the one the ref deems to be the one with the rights, usually the one who jumped higher, or the one who caught the ball, not the guy who mis-timed his jump by 1/10th of a second, or just as he went to jump, realised he was not gonna get it, and now realised he was too late to pull out of the contact area and smashes into the guy in the air.

    Agree though, isnt a huge problem, but when a collision occurs, it makes people question the processes



  • @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.

    If I were involved in the rule setting I'd get a couple of AFL experts in and ask how within their rules they ensure people don't break their necks. Those jokers climb up each other's backs, but I'm not aware (perhaps because of sheer ignorance) that lots of neck/back injuries result.



  • @mariner4life said in Blues vs Stormers:

    I'm not sure it's as big as an issue as we are making it out to be. As i said, how many instances are we seeing of these? Does it appear to be a bigger issue because it's a dramatic looking thing on the field, and when it goes wrong someone gets carded and/or suspended?

    Players have got, in the main, waaaay better at knowing if they can compete or not, or if they are in the right spot. The Blues winger royally fucked up, was late, and made a 2nd action that hurt his case.

    But consider the 6 nations. There would have been approximately 47,000 high kicks put up. How many penalties? How many cards? In the main players are getting good at knowing what to do, which is exactly what World Rugby wanted.

    I want rid of box kicks for more than this reason.

    I think you're being harsh on Tele'a. I think he thought the jump was 50:50 and backed out. Leyds recklessly went ahead and won the ball, but was lucky not to get hurt.

    Thinking about it, until reckless jumping players get carded they will continue to put themselves (and others) at risk.

    Point about incidence of injuries well made, though.



  • @pakman said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.

    If I were involved in the rule setting I'd get a couple of AFL experts in and ask how within their rules they ensure people don't break their necks. Those jokers climb up each other's backs, but I'm not aware (perhaps because of sheer ignorance) that lots of neck/back injuries result.

    This a good question, would prefer a skills based solution



  • @Kirwan said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @pakman said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Stormers:

    @Kruse yeah kinda (although isnt that just catch it full stop, not be on the ground?) but given there arent off-sides and > It simply isnt an easy fix because this game is all about the contest, but as soon as the ball goes in the air, one person seems to have all rights and the other doesnt, meaning there isnt really a contest.

    Yeah - the "AFL" call was a facile comment,
    But anyway - at the moment - which "one person" has all the rights? Some people seem to think it's the person who jumped first, some who think it was who jumped the highest, some who think it's who was in place first. And generally - it turns out to be (in the ref's eyes) who got least injured in some sort of potentially career-ending collision.
    It's fucked.
    And yeah, your particular suggestion - I'm not sure I agree with it being the best one, but it's certainly an option. Possibly one that achieves the effect both I was thinking of, and Mariner's.

    If I were involved in the rule setting I'd get a couple of AFL experts in and ask how within their rules they ensure people don't break their necks. Those jokers climb up each other's backs, but I'm not aware (perhaps because of sheer ignorance) that lots of neck/back injuries result.

    This a good question, would prefer a skills based solution

    Mainly because they're jumping in the same direction, leaping upwards as opposed to forwards. The increase in forward velocity in rugby contests in the air make someone invariably unstable and easier to rotate when they hit another player who becomes a fulcrum. The faster both players in rugby are travelling at each other, the greater the moment (turning force) when they collide.


Log in to reply