Farmboy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:00 am
My problem is the ref telling defenders to leave the ball at a ruck. Just penalise them, you probably will get an increase in penalties to start with but hope the players would learn. This should let the ball be available quicker.
Refs should be there to ref the game not coach the players what is legal.
Always my view. Is it down to the 'Police' to coach the villains?
Prevention is better than cure.
I share the frustration on this, but I think the alternative is worse and I wouldn't be interested in watching a match with 80 penalties.
Some of the laws are so subjective anyway, you need constant guidance from the ref. Who really ever knows whether the ball is out of a ruck or not?
Farmboy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:00 am
My problem is the ref telling defenders to leave the ball at a ruck. Just penalise them, you probably will get an increase in penalties to start with but hope the players would learn. This should let the ball be available quicker.
Refs should be there to ref the game not coach the players what is legal.
Always my view. Is it down to the 'Police' to coach the villains?
Prevention is better than cure.
I share the frustration on this, but I think the alternative is worse and I wouldn't be interested in watching a match with 80 penalties.
Some of the laws are so subjective anyway, you need constant guidance from the ref. Who really ever knows whether the ball is out of a ruck or not?
But it's not prevention because they are slowing the ball down.
Certainly don’t want more pens. It’s the repeated warnings that get me, Use It, and a few seconds later use it now. One is sufficient and should result in a scrum. Same with the dummy if they do take the ball off them don’t warn them on the way to the lineout.
I do lik the suggestion of stopping extra players joining the caterpillar too often we see the ball at the back and then the 9 calling a couple of extra players in
It only takes a ref to be brave enough in a televised game and it will soon stop
What about some kind of 'soft penatly' where you can't kick directly for goal, but you can tap and go or kick to touch and keep the throw in? Keep scrums for restarts after kncok ons/forward passes. A soft penalty wouldn't slow the game down but would penalise the offending team.
I think a "Mark" may have originally been invented as a Safety feature, imagine a small Full back, or winger, with eyes in the air being hit by a massive forward unguarded, yes it still happens but a "Mark" reduces the the number of hit times in a match. Leave well alone, the game should be about safety and protection of players.
Please no more kinds of penalty or different points allocation.
There is the option at a free kick for someone to tap and go, more often than they choose not to put prefer to set down a scrum instead.
I know this is something Healey is very anti and I tend to agree you get a free kick get on with it don’t waste yet another minute
LE18 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:35 pm
I think a "Mark" may have originally been invented as a Safety feature, imagine a small Full back, or winger, with eyes in the air being hit by a massive forward unguarded, yes it still happens but a "Mark" reduces the the number of hit times in a match. Leave well alone, the game should be about safety and protection of players.
If it's a safety feature why is it not available anywhere on the pitch?
The protection comes from the tackling in the air rules these days.
Always my view. Is it down to the 'Police' to coach the villains?
Prevention is better than cure.
I share the frustration on this, but I think the alternative is worse and I wouldn't be interested in watching a match with 80 penalties.
Some of the laws are so subjective anyway, you need constant guidance from the ref. Who really ever knows whether the ball is out of a ruck or not?
But it's not prevention because they are slowing the ball down.
In some situations, yes, and if that is the case then I would expect a penalty.
However, most referee warnings to players are about actions they are about to make, or where they're trying to do something but it hasn't yet affected anything.
Referees' warnings to players are one of the things that makes our game stand out. I think it reinforces the fact that Sir is in charge, it prevents more stoppages than there would otherwise be and the comments add clarity for players and spectators.
My main issue here is with the repeated warnings.
Used to be and assume still is that the ref would talk to the front rows and 9s before the game to lay out what he is looking for. You hear during most games we talked about this beforehand why aren’t you doing what was agreed. I really don’t see the need for further warnings once they are on the pitch.
Regarding the rucks I do feel that sometimes the ref calls use it too early. Once the ball is at the back of the ruck and the 9 can pick it up that’s when the 5 secs should start. If the 9 decides he wants an extra player that’s his look out and the 5 seconds shouldn’t be restarted.
All IMO
LE18 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:35 pm
I think a "Mark" may have originally been invented as a Safety feature, imagine a small Full back, or winger, with eyes in the air being hit by a massive forward unguarded, yes it still happens but a "Mark" reduces the the number of hit times in a match. Leave well alone, the game should be about safety and protection of players.
If it's a safety feature why is it not available anywhere on the pitch?
The protection comes from the tackling in the air rules these days.
So what is your theory/explanation for this rule then Ourla?
Originally it could be a fair catch anywhere on the pitch.
LE18 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 6:34 pm
So what is your theory/explanation for this rule then Ourla?
I think catching was regarded as a skill that would get the reward of kicking unchallenged (sort of).
The modern day argument is it discourages kicking deep but then it stops the game and just teams get organised and another kick back. So I don't personally see that it helps any anymore.
