Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Agree 100% with this post. Tackled player who has been turned - it is up to support to drive over to secure the ball. Probably the one thing I hate most is to see a defending player, who has tackled well and turned an attacker, thwarted by the tackled player rolling back over. If you are on the deck you are out of it.DickyP wrote:I just wish they'd enforce the existing Laws (whatever flavour they may be - stupid or sensible) so that we know where we stand. Only then can we sensibly start changing them. The list of ignored laws includes:
Feeding the ball straight in to the scrum.
Scrums not pushing before the ball is put in.
Player throwing in at the line-out (typically the hooker) to have his feet outside the field of play.
Blatant obstruction by decoy runners - if you are ahead of the ball and distracting the opposition you are offside - it matters not a jot whether you actually impede someone.
Offside at kick-off.
Binding before shoving when entering rucks and mauls. Get rid of players flying into rucks with their shoulders.
Enforce side entry on attacking teams as well as defending ones.
... and I could go on.
One system that isn't a law I'd get rid of is bonus points: I still fail to see why a big win against a poor side is worth more than a tight one against a good one, or why we reward teams for be less of a failure than then they might have been - the whole concept of bonus points doesn't stand up logically. The object of the game, despite some peoples protestations, is NOT to score tries but the score points. Also big scores are not the same thing as excitement: if they were everybody would watch Basketball (possibly the most tedious spectator sport ever invested) and not the various Football codes.
I have been advocating this for years. It's so :censored: obvious.Not a law change ..................or is it? Get back to a passive scrum engagement and get the chopsy little sod in the number 9 shirt to put the ball in straight.
The ref would have the chance to sort the bind before the shoving commenced, cutting needless penaty restarts. We'd cut the risk of injury the collision brings and we'd get back to a proper shoving contest.
Totally, utterly and absolutely disagree with this one - they are the root cause of all the current laws problems in that they play what they'd like to be the laws instead of the actual laws. If they'd made SH players comply with the laws the game would still flow and we'd stop getting half-baked changes which invariably are only fully implemented by NH refs and which invariably have exactly the opposite effect to that intended.chappie wrote:I would love to see us use refs from the southern hemisphere, this I think they are a bit more I touch with the modern game plus they do like to. Let the game flow a lot more.
You dont have to be running fast to be scragged, you just need to be at arms reach of the deffender and I'm pretty sure Tiny, Sheridan and Ayerza, although not 100m sprinters would argue about the speed element.mol2 wrote:Do props run fast enough to get scragged?physiodan wrote:I disagree. When a Maul is moving it is an artform which should not be removed from the game. What next? The scrum half can take the ball from the opposition scrum. If any player can tackle a player from any postion in a Maul it will make it dangerous as a maul which is made stable by teams pushing against each other, not by pulling it down.mol2 wrote: End the concept of a maul being different to open play as far as the offside rule is concerned.
If a player is holding the ball he can be tackled by a player entering from any position. Once the ball has been passed from the front player in the maul it must be passed within 5 seconds or any player in front is offside.
Is this not the law anyway, just poorly refereed?mol2 wrote: I'd change another - just to stop the number of penalties at the tackle situation.
If a player is brought to the ground he must release the ball (regardless of if held or not) and can only play it once he gets to his feet. (Too often players are taken down, released by the tackler only to find that the tackled player gets up and carries on and the ref allows it)
This change would effectively take make it much easier for the ref.
If the tackler is holding the player around his arms and the ball, how can the tackled player release the ball? The reason the tackler must release the tackled player is so that they can release the ball.mol2 wrote: Likewise the tackler should not be penalised for holding on - until the tackled player has released the ball.
What we see time after time are players legitimately tackled, often turned in the tackle yet, the moment they are released roll over holding the ball and pushing it back to their own side of the ruck. releasing the ball is a passive "act" - short of the tackler hugging the tackled player and the ball getting trapped it can always be released.
This is somthing that is agree with to a degree but I feel rather that loose shirts which can impede then when running as they can be scragged by the shirt, i feel that a reinforced piece of material should be added under the armpit where props have to bind. failure to bind on this means a penalty.mol2 wrote:While we are at it - props top wear loose fitting cotton shirts to enable binding.
what have the poor people of Swindon ever done to you, that you wish this great ill upon them?Isambard wrote:One rule to change Straight put ins.
One organisational rule to change. Move the IRB/ERC and any other prawn blazer organisations to Swindon.
