Things that annoy you about rugby...



  • I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence



  • @damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence

    Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.



  • @majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence

    Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.

    Different things. In the example of the try saving tackle the ball has been made dead by the actions of the players. When a ball is called 'held up' it is being made dead by the referee.
    In theory you can continue wrestling in a heap over the tryline until exhausted or the ball is grounded. The reason the ref resets the game with a scrum is that otherwise everyone could pile on top from any direction and it becomes a massive mess.

    What @Damo is saying is that in normal playing time a held up ball is given back to the attacking team for another crack, yet at full-time they lose that advantage which means the refs decision to blow the whistle has a completely different result



  • Another instance of a similar idea happened a few weeks ago when after the siren the ref stopped play due to a serious injury. Technically the ref should have blown for half/full time, but he said that would be unfair and he played the scrum anyway.



  • @crucial I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the held up law, I think if a player is held up over the line then the ball is dead at that point.



  • @nepia said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @crucial I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the held up law, I think if a player is held up over the line then the ball is dead at that point.

    Up to the ref when he makes that call though. He can let things go on as long as he wants (unlike when the ball is in touch).
    Point is that the outcome is different after the hooter.



  • @nepia said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @crucial I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the held up law, I think if a player is held up over the line then the ball is dead at that point.

    Well it depends on your perspective. You can't have a tackle, ruck or maul over the goal line and anyone is entitled to play the ball from any angle, including players on the ground. Unless the ball is grounded pretty quickly it becomes a free for all which the referee ends by saying the ball is unplayable. The ref could just allow play to continue if he was so inclined, but that would soon get silly.

    The point is that the ball hasn't been made dead, the ref has deemed it dead. I think it is unfair on the attacking team in that instance to lose the ball.



  • @crucial I don't agree with your interpretation, according to the law the ref has to blow the whistle when the ball carrier cannot ground or play the ball - I think that's clear 99% and not up to the refs interpretation. I realise we're almost getting into semantics but personally I don't have an issue with it.

    "When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground or play the ball, the ball is dead. Play restarts with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the player was held up. The attacking team throws in."



  • @damo As in my reply to Crucial, I don't have a problem with it, the attackers made a play, the defenders stopped tham and caused the ball to dead, the hooter went, it's half time.

    I can see where you're coming from but yeah, it doesn't annoy me.



  • @nepia That's fair enough. You can't expect everyone to agree on everything every time.



  • @damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @nepia That's fair enough. You can't expect everyone to agree on everything every time.

    The Star Wars thread would be a page long if we all did.



  • @crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence

    Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.

    Different things. In the example of the try saving tackle the ball has been made dead by the actions of the players. When a ball is called 'held up' it is being made dead by the referee.
    In theory you can continue wrestling in a heap over the tryline until exhausted or the ball is grounded. The reason the ref resets the game with a scrum is that otherwise everyone could pile on top from any direction and it becomes a massive mess.

    What @Damo is saying is that in normal playing time a held up ball is given back to the attacking team for another crack, yet at full-time they lose that advantage which means the refs decision to blow the whistle has a completely different result

    I follow what Damo is saying, I just don't agree.

    Holding up the ball is either a legitimate defence, or poor execution by the attacking team to get the ball on the ground.

    I don't see either of those situations as a stalemate.



  • @nepia said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @nepia That's fair enough. You can't expect everyone to agree on everything every time.

    The Star Wars thread would be a page long if we all did.

    Don't get me started.



  • @majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @damo said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    I think a half should not end with a held up over the line. They should play the scrum rather than have half time or full time. The ball being held over the goal line is essentially a stalemate causing a break in play because the ball is unplayable. It seems unfair that a half would end on that occurrence

    Na - can't agree with that all. It's not so much a stalemate as a brilliant piece of defence. I see it no different as a try saving tackle which puts somebody out in the corner.

    Different things. In the example of the try saving tackle the ball has been made dead by the actions of the players. When a ball is called 'held up' it is being made dead by the referee.
    In theory you can continue wrestling in a heap over the tryline until exhausted or the ball is grounded. The reason the ref resets the game with a scrum is that otherwise everyone could pile on top from any direction and it becomes a massive mess.

    What @Damo is saying is that in normal playing time a held up ball is given back to the attacking team for another crack, yet at full-time they lose that advantage which means the refs decision to blow the whistle has a completely different result

    I follow what Damo is saying, I just don't agree.

    Holding up the ball is either a legitimate defence, or poor execution by the attacking team to get the ball on the ground.

    I don't see either of those situations as a stalemate.

    Doesn't need to be a stalemate, but it's a clear end of that phase of play.



  • @antipodean said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    Doesn't need to be a stalemate, but it's a clear end of that phase of play.

    Yep, that's the exact discussion.



  • @majorrage said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @antipodean said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    Doesn't need to be a stalemate, but it's a clear end of that phase of play.

    Yep, that's the exact discussion.

    Ahh, yeah. Hence why I'm saying my position is that with time up, it's not stalemate, it's a clear end of that phase of play. End of play, end of time = game over.



  • @majorrage although sometimes they arent held up, its just the camera cant see through bodies to see the ball grounded...so gets ruled held up.



  • I get annoyed when people refer to rugby as 'code' and when the ball is called the 'pill'.



  • Reviving this thread, because of tackled players rolling like they’re in a washing machine to stop arriving players getting a shot at the ball.

    If the tackler has to release the tackled player instantly, it is garbage that they are allowed to then use that to their advantage.

    In fact, I want a return to the tackler being allowed to turn their man in the tackle - that was a bloody good way to make rucks competitive. And we desperately need rucks competitive.



  • Nothing.



  • The Blues....

    But a less obvious one would be how long teams are allowed to have maul set up before they have to use it if they aren't going forward. They are allowed to stop twice and refs generally allow them ages before they call each of those 2 "stops". It should either be 1 stop and use it or the refs need to be a lot harsher/quicker on what they determine is a maul 'stopped'. Mauls are way too advantageous for the attacking team.



  • @KiwiMurph mauls are geared for the attacking teams.

    How often do you see a guy come through a maul only for the ref to tell him he is off side.



    • Backs slapping all their forwards on the back after winning a scrum penalty.

    • Some of the niggly stuff, like players patting opposition players on the head just to annoy or patronize them.

    b3fe3fcb-afa4-4dcf-a23d-e8d0d867c4fb-image.png

    .

    • A tackler holding the tackler down after the ball is spread away from the tackle area.


  • I always think that the level of sevens is about right when it's comes to dick moves like'accidentally' kicking the ball away after a penalty. Ten metres and yellows handed out would change that fast in fifteens



  • The overlap of the cricket season...



  • @taniwharugby yeah, and when was the last time you saw the attacking side penalized for collapsing? Though every team does it if they are trying to free the ball.



  • @Smuts the ref often even mentioned the attaching side took it down. Should be a penalty!



  • The attacking team are getting away with cleanouts from the side. It seems a lot worse this year



  • Grant Nisbett. Learn some names George. Oops no, thats Gary. No, actually it is Grant.



  • Dickhead coaches and managers who keep telling us, pre-match, how they're going to smash the opposition and physically annihilate them.

    Do your talking on the pitch.



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    Dickhead coaches and managers who keep telling us, pre-match, how they're going to smash the opposition and physically annihilate them.

    Do your talking on the pitch.

    I'll add half time interviews, pointless sound bites



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    Dickhead coaches and managers who keep telling us, pre-match, how they're going to smash the opposition and physically annihilate them.

    Do your talking on the pitch.

    Eddie Jones would have been quicker to type



  • @Machpants @Victor-Meldrew I think coaches wouldn't mind ditching those pre-match and half time interviews, or those stupid interviews during the game. I'm not sure what they did do to deserve being called dickhead coaches. They're answering questions asked by the interviewer. What else are they supposed to say?



  • @KiwiMurph said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    The Blues....

    But a less obvious one would be how long teams are allowed to have maul set up before they have to use it if they aren't going forward. They are allowed to stop twice and refs generally allow them ages before they call each of those 2 "stops". It should either be 1 stop and use it or the refs need to be a lot harsher/quicker on what they determine is a maul 'stopped'. Mauls are way too advantageous for the attacking team.

    Agree with this. I would add that a maul going backwards should be deemed to have stopped.



  • @Crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    Dickhead coaches and managers who keep telling us, pre-match, how they're going to smash the opposition and physically annihilate them.

    Do your talking on the pitch.

    Eddie Jones would have been quicker to type

    Not just Jones, Crucial, though he's the loudest current exponent.

    This this sort of fluffybunny-ness has been getting worse for a decade or more



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @Crucial said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    Dickhead coaches and managers who keep telling us, pre-match, how they're going to smash the opposition and physically annihilate them.

    Do your talking on the pitch.

    Eddie Jones would have been quicker to type

    Not just Jones, Crucial, though he's the loudest current exponent.

    This this sort of fluffybunny-ness has been getting worse for a decade or more

    Examples? I can only go by games that I follow closely enough to listen to pre match comments by coaches or those that are high profile.
    Is this something prevalent in the English game? I don’t see it here.



  • For me it is the pointless interviews, mid game (coach or player leaving at half time). But yeah reporters need to step up and get decent questions. I don;t mind a bit of pre match mind games, they often don;t work!



  • @Machpants said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    reporters need to step up and get decent questions

    The vast majority are leading questions. The coach/player could legitimately just answer every question with "Yes"



  • Personally, the growing antagonism between opposing fans and partisan press. There have always been muppets, but now it seems like there's a narrative (driven by media) that somehow the opposition are cheating, the refs favour them and nothing that your team does is wrong.

    This is exemplified by the 'we have a deal' penalty discussion at the end of Lions 3; so many people arguing 'it's never a penalty', 'Read was offside', etc. Just frustrating



  • @nzzp said in Things that annoy you about rugby...:

    Personally, the growing antagonism between opposing fans and partisan press. There have always been muppets, but now it seems like there's a narrative (driven by media) that somehow the opposition are cheating, the refs favour them and nothing that your team does is wrong.

    This is exemplified by the 'we have a deal' penalty discussion at the end of Lions 3; so many people arguing 'it's never a penalty', 'Read was offside', etc. Just frustrating

    Or more recently 'NZ players never get penalised' carry on fed by the Jaapie media.


Log in to reply