|
|
 |
[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 05 September 07 01:19 GMT
|
chopper15 - you are taking it too personally. I am not interested in "putting you down", but only in pointing out what I see as flaws in your scheme. Are you trying to put us down by calling us "a particularly hard bunch out there, well and truly indoctrinated!"?
At the moment, a penalty is only worth 3 points if it is in the kicker's range. Your proposal is a halfway house: it does not make all penalties equally liable to give away three points. It just makes some of them easier, but at a cost
If you don't want distance to be a significant factor, then you might as well give an automatic 3 points for every penalty. As it happens I don't think that would make sense either.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Tue, 04 September 07 22:38 GMT
|
I didn't suggest kicking from a penalty line/spot or awarding an immediate 3pts. As you said, or words to that effect, it would change the character of the game, altho' the latter would be much fairer, which, incidently is what I'm trying to point out . . . . not particularly well I'm afraid!...you're a particularly hard bunch out there, well and truly indoctrinated!
In my earlier messages I quoted you, which I thought was a good idea to further my 'own posts' idea,
ie.After a successful kick at goal, play restarts with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty. That would be a real incentive to avoid giving away penalties, because they would no longer relieve the pressure.
You then try to put me down by ignoring your own ideas. As I said it's all about trying to pursue a code of fairness.
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 03 September 07 21:17 GMT
|
chopper15 - I already answered your question. If you want to be fair, why not just award 3 points for every penalty decision? Or take all penalty kicks from the centre of the 22? (Rhetorical questions.) In other words your proposed "solution" to a non-problem is not fair either.
Field position is an integral part of the game. It affects, scrums, lineouts, and even penalties.
Kicking at your own posts falls down if you miss. That then becomes a bonus for the original offenders.
You would also radically alter the game, for no reason other than your misplaced concept of fairness.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Mon, 03 September 07 20:30 GMT
|
OB. My point was 'Why should the penalty for a foul differ because of which end of the field it took place?
One end a possible 3 pointer, the other restricted to a kick for territorial advantage.
Given a choice I know which I'd choose, hence my suggestion of using your own posts to give equal choice - kick for touch, scrum etc. and in addition the opportunity to kick a 3 pointer.
My sense of fairness still misplaced ?
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 03 September 07 10:42 GMT
|
so what happens when a side kicks at its own posts, mises - play o - but the ball goes dead over the dead ball line.
You are now suggesting then that the penalty offending team have won a 5m scrum?
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 02 September 07 21:26 GMT
|
chopper15 - I think your sense of fairness is badly misplaced.
Why should a team lose out through not having a Jonny Wilkinson kicker? Is that fair? So we should award 3 points for every penalty, right? A team could win without getting out of its own half all game.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Sun, 02 September 07 18:55 GMT
|
OB, OK it's missed so they play on!
I was really focusing on bringing more fairness into the game and not let field position dictate the punishment meted out which it cruelly does now. And there would be no additional time wasting to achieve this aim.
|
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 02 September 07 18:17 GMT
|
wryta - when you say you refereed at club level, that implies you were not being officially appointed by the local society, and therefore were not formally assessed. Is that a fair assumption? (FYI I am a current grass roots assessor.)
I think you are badly underestimating the extra pressure on referees from your red zone concept. At present they simply give a mark for the penalty at an approximate position because the precise point does not matter. However a red zone means it is vital to decide if a penalty was just inside or just outside it - a degree of precision that is beyond many laws. Soccer suffers from it, and so would rugby.
chopper15 - my proposal is for a scrum restart only if the kick is successful. If it is unsuccessful, play continues, as it does now. That makes your idea of kicking at your own goal impracticable.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Sun, 02 September 07 17:16 GMT
|
Naturally I think my quite different approach would be more effective in making penalties hurt: After a successful kick at goal, play restarts with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty. That would be a real incentive to avoid giving away penalties, because they would no longer relieve the pressure.
I know I've come into this intriguing discussion a bit late (static 1 July) but I did think that OB's scrum suggestion above, was a good one to serve as a deterrent.
In the pursuit of fairness aswell as deterrence, why has the IRB always accepted that the same sort of foul in one part of the pitch is treated more favourably ( i.e.punishment greater! ) than in another? Obviously I'm referring to penalty kicks awarded within kicking range and those outside.
No, I'm not advocating awarding an immediate three points - though it would be fairer, or a 20m penalty line if foul committed in own half which would mean a time-wasting troop to the other end, no, what I'm suggesting is simply be allowed to take the kick at your own goal posts to secure three points rather than a diluted kick for touch - which you could ,of course, take if you prefer, and still get OB's scrum if not successful!?
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 02 July 07 09:02 GMT
|
scrum v tap penalties... I understand what you are sayi8ng here, but I personally am not convinced sa FK (in effect) is actually a particularly useful too, especially outside of one own 22m area for a freeby pressure relief.
Fks - unless able top be taken extremely quickly - have the result of creating a blanket defence, reasonabley or even very well set against which to attack. Scrummages at least tie down 8 of the opposition to a limited area - and I wouldn;t be surprised that FKs in such circumstancves ended up as scrums as s result.
This isn;t to say the idea is wrong at all, just that the end result may not actually be a FK in reality.
cheers
didds
|
|
|
wryta
|
Mon, 02 July 07 06:28 GMT
|
Ob-
Wrong - I have refereed (albeit many years ago and at club level). Please don't assume you know things about someone's background - it's a very condescending thing to do.
I don't distrust ref's. I want them to do the job they are doing, but punish harder and faster. Remember, most of my viewing is NZ and SH, and many referees may well be more "forgiving" than their NH counterparts.
Now, I know that it's natural for you to think your idea is better - you really don't need to point that out. Bear in mind it was my disagreement with that approach that prompted me to enter this discussion. I think a redzone penalty would put more "scare" into a potential fouler, whereas a scrum following kick disadvantages a team with a poor kicker or weaker scrum. Even though these are often reasons for a team to wind up losing anyway, they'll end up doubly hit if they miss a penalty kick and then get tightheaded. I can't speak for English clubs or international teams (who invariably have a great kicker on board), but down this way, if Team A catches on that Team B doesn't have a kicker of worth, they are more than happy to give away penalties near the line - especially if the weather is crap!
If three point penalties and coloured cards were working, we'd be seeing less infringements by now. I think that isn't happening because many players just see penalties as an inevitability, a natural part of the game.
Rather than a redzone or a scrum - why not give the team tap possession on the site of the penalty following the kick? (which relies
|
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 01 July 07 12:35 GMT
|
wryta - I don't trust anecdotal memories, which was the point of the two counter-examples I quoted. In any case we are not playing the rugby of 30 years ago.
For brevity's sake I will only tackle the most egregious claim in your latest essay:
"The redzone (why can't I let this die?) - no extra pressure on the ref. None. Nil. Calls it as he sees it (or with the linesman's help) same as always. Just the penalty is worth a possible 7 instead of 3. He doesn't even have to think "could a try have been scored?". It's a penalty offense, the whistle blows. Maybe TMO to rule if someone's foot is on the line or not. But no different to a touchline call."
I can only imagine you have never been involved in refereeing. One of the aspects that is looked at carefully by assessors is the handling of Critical Incidents - basically those situations that affect scoring. You are introducing a new one, yet fail to realise its significance. You would dramatically increase the importance of a referee's decision, not on whether or not an offence took place, but precisely where.
Naturally I think my quite different approach would be more effective in making penalties hurt: After a successful kick at goal, play restarts with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty. That would be a real incentive to avoid giving away penalties, because they would no longer relieve the pressure.
You want to make referees even more important (yet you don't trust them). I want the players to take greater responsibility and reduce the importance of the referees.
|
|
|
wryta
|
Sun, 01 July 07 05:47 GMT
|
Ob-
Speaking of claims to be distrusted, I'm always wary of bringing up one particular match as an example of all matches from any particular era. My uncle ref'd 1st grade rugby here in Auckland from 67 until 79. I'm very aware of how often that whistle was blown, compared to 1st grade rugby today. And the game you chose was one where six penalties proved the unmaking of a team who scored 4 tries? Exactly my point, regarding how it was more risky to give away penalties back then.
Hey, I'm one of the fourteen people on the planet who thought awarding five points instead of four for a try was a dumb idea (I revel in having the minority opinion), simply because it devalued the punishment cost of giving away a penalty. If the Lions foul enough to squander four tries - well, they won't do that again in a hurry, will they? Remember - if they were playing on today's scores, they would have won, and the fouls would have been considered acceptable.
Last night, the All Blacks got beaten by five points (20-15). Two tries all, and kicks were the difference. However, the All Blacks gave away around 17 penalties, and close to half were definitely kickable. But the Wallabies needed tries to catch up and pass the All Blacks score. A penalty is simply not as penalizing as it once was, so giving one away isn't as bad as it used to be. Another point - during a stunning period of end-to-end-back-to-the-other-end play, a commentator remarked that the ref had allowed it to run (with a few advantages given) for ("incredibly!") just under four minutes. Felt like half an hour - I think I pulled a hamstring just watching them. Yet I remember Auckland holding off Hawke's Bay for nine whole minutes of injury time without a single whistle until fulltime. Of course, that was 35 years ago, and seeing a ball held in the forwards for the entire spell was a little less exciting. It's not just my impression - less penalties were given, less infringements blown up. Of course, there were less ways to infringe back then (you were even allowed to ruck).
I agree with you about the individual "redmisters" who can't be controlled by authority. Unless of course, they get redcarded early. But I don't think teams can often blame one or two for making them look bad. If you get the chance, check out the tri-nations so far this year - not pretty. And refs waiting too long to take real authority. Last night, both teams were penalized and warned equally and continually for collapsing the scrum. It took a good thirty minutes of play for the ref to (realize? admit?) it was only the weaker pack (Australia) doing the collapsing. Gregan never bothered to put the ball in for the first 15 scrums, since he knew the plan! The result - an ugly, clumsy forward duel of a game, with a bunch of stupid fouls on both sides. No yellow card until well into the second half.
As school governor, what did you think of teachers who claimed their entire class was uncontrollable? And the class they took the next year? Again, good teachers deal to redmisters and keep their class in line. Yes, you're right - players are responsible for their own actions. But I think ref's should (as a whole) be punishing faster, harder and (as a result) less often.
The redzone (why can't I let this die?) - no extra pressure on the ref. None. Nil. Calls it as he sees it (or with the linesman's help) same as always. Just the penalty is worth a possible 7 instead of 3. He doesn't even have to think "could a try have been scored?". It's a penalty offense, the whistle blows. Maybe TMO to rule if someone's foot is on the line or not. But no different to a touchline call.
Hey, overall, I'm just trying to engender discussion on whether harsher punishment with fewer whistles is better than lots of whistles with less cost to the offenders.
This message edited on Sun, 01 July 07 by wryta
|
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 30 June 07 18:18 GMT
|
"Ref's blow whistles at a frantic rate compared to 30 years ago."
Scotland v Wales 1963. Atrocious conditions, 111 lineouts, and there may even have been enough time for a few scrums.
I distrust this sort of claim because
(a) it is probably an impression rather than a statistic;
(b) we are not playing the game of 30 years ago, so who cares?
"Go back a generation, and test teams with legendary kickers fought out matches that ended with scorelines such as 10-6."
1959 British Lions 17 (4 tries) - Don Clark (New Zealand) 18 (6 penalties).
Are you trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube?
"Redzone - marked for five metres out from the tryline. Any deliberate infringement, penalty try."
I think that is a really bad idea. The difference between 7 points and 3 depends on where the referee judges an offence to have taken place.
It is unnecessary, and it imposes an enormous extra burden on the referee/TMO (you could not possibly introduce this idea without allowing the TMO to become involved). Do you really want officials to determine matches in that way?
Soccer has NOT managed it - there are furious rows. It is very clear that if an attacker gets past the last defender, he will always try to make his illegal tackle outside the penalty area if he can. In fact he is expected to.
"So I guess you've understood my point then. And my analogies are spot on. Poor referees don't MAKE players cheat - I'm not saying that. They ALLOW players to cheat, just like poor teachers ALLOW a class to misbehave. We're talking sins of omission, not commission, and responsibility for management and flow of the game has to lie with the ref - one team can't control what the other team does with regard to fouls. The ref can."
My experience as a school governor gave me plenty of evidence that even the best teachers cannot control children with behavioural problems in a normal classroom. Similarly I have known players in local rugby who seemed to play in a permanent red mist - despite numerous disciplinary actions.
Referees can only react to what players choose to do. If players don't cheat, he will not penalise them. If they cynically choose to cheat when they think he cannot see, whose fault is that? Players are responsible for their own actions. The referee cannot do that for them.
Your assumption appears to be that most referees are not good enough - yet you want to saddle them with extra responsibility for making very precise decisions in your redzone idea. Does not compute.
|
|
|
wryta
|
Sat, 30 June 07 00:33 GMT
|
didds -
Have to agree with you about new rules usually making more problems, and that properly enforcing the ones we've got would lift the game. But I still think there's a bit of "frog in the pot of slowly heating water" happening here. Ref's blow whistles at a frantic rate compared to 30 years ago. We have a whole basketful of "new" punishments (yellow cards, judiciary, etc.). And yet we now seem to accept rugby is a game where stoppages are inevitable (on average) every 90 seconds, and there are fourteen penalties awarded per match. Go back a generation, and test teams with legendary kickers fought out matches that ended with scorelines such as 10-6. There simply weren't that many penalties handed out, and I don't think it was solely because referees were softer on the players. Maybe it's because a penalty used to be worth almost as much as a try, so giving one away was more likely to give away the match. Today, I wonder if ref's, players and punters alike have become far more accepting of an ever-increasing rate of infringements. By the way, I think the term "professional foul" is indicative of this pervasive attitude of acceptance - it makes it sound like the perpetrator is a skilled exponent of the game who knows just when to go all out. "Blatant", "cynical" or "low" would be more apt.
Back to the redzone (I just can't let this one die a natural death, can I?)... your math is askew. You are exponentially more likely to score a try from five metres out than you are from ten metres out. Therefore, the advantage gained by committing a foul in this region will always be greater. Currently, players offend near the tryline to prevent a possible try in that SAME PHASE of play. It's last ditch, do or die, cough up 3 instead of 5 or 7. The redzone means they would cough up 7 instead of 5 in that SAME PHASE of play. Outside the redzone, they are not likely to cough up a penalty just to prevent another possible penalty in THE NEXT PHASE OF PLAY. Unless they were planning to intentionally offend in the redzone, they're not going to intentionally offend just outside it. It's like saying footballers always try to bring down players outside the box, just in case they'll need to bring them down inside the box later on. Like footballers, I think that (overall) players would become more cautious (than they are now) inside the redzone, not more reckless (than they are now) outside it.
This message edited on Sat, 30 June 07 by wryta
|
|
|
wryta
|
Fri, 29 June 07 23:09 GMT
|
Ob -
"if players cheat because they can get away with it, that is an indictment of BOTH THE REFEREE and the players"
So I guess you've understood my point then. And my analogies are spot on. Poor referees don't MAKE players cheat - I'm not saying that. They ALLOW players to cheat, just like poor teachers ALLOW a class to misbehave. We're talking sins of omission, not commission, and responsibility for management and flow of the game has to lie with the ref - one team can't control what the other team does with regard to fouls. The ref can.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Fri, 29 June 07 22:22 GMT
|
wryta - i may have said its not broke, but I never said the rules are Ok as they are etc.
You will notice that I followed my remark up with better use of the sanctions that are available, and area that i see we may have greater agreement over.
My comment about it not being broken is that all too often knee jerk reactions in an attempt to fix one perceived problem merely create another.
didds
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Fri, 29 June 07 22:20 GMT
|
"But offending within five metres of the tryline is more likely to prevent a try,"
And if the red zone creates a PT area, trhe by exactly the same reasoning offending within 5m of the red zone is more likely to prevent a PT.
QED, it would make more sense to offend OUTSIDE the red zone - thus extending the area of "playing the odds" from 5m from the tryline to (say) 10 metres from the tryline.
I can;t state it any simpler than that!
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 29 June 07 16:50 GMT
|
wryta - the match is between two teams of 15 players; NOT between 30 players and the referee.
The players are expected to know the laws and try to play by them.
Yes, they will play to the edge of eg offside laws, but it is definitely NOT the referee's fault if they transgress. Your analogies are inappropriate.
If players choose to cheat because they can get away with it, that is an indictment of both the referee and the players.
|
|
|
wryta
|
Fri, 29 June 07 01:11 GMT
|
ob-
Yep, but in the real world, there are players who will always push things as far as they can get away with.
Is the referee to blame? Let's see - is a schoolteacher at fault for a badly behaved class? Is a government to blame for a failing economy? Of course they are.
Rugby players are out there to win the ball and outscore their opposition, not keep an eye out for infringements of the rules - that's the ref's job. The best ref's get the nod for big tests - the worst don't (well, not often). I don't think many teams come out on the field with the cynical gameplan of being uncontrolled and intentionally fouling and spoiling the game. In most cases, no matter how "ugly" a game may become, once those cards start getting pulled out players suddenly remember how to play nice. I still plug for harsher, earlier, "one warning only" punishments.
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 29 June 07 00:49 GMT
|
wryta - you are suggesting that a bad-tempered match is the referee's fault? He will sometimes misjudge things, but some matches simply do not respond to control.
It is players who commit the penalty offences, not the referee. It is essential that they have some level of self-discipline.
|
|
|
wryta
|
Fri, 29 June 07 00:40 GMT
|
ob -
I see what you're saying... but isn't the hallmark of a "bad-tempered" match one where players react to continually unpunished offenses? How many games have we seen where a ref is content to warn, penalize, warn, penalize, same offenses, same offenders - and then after 50 minutes it all boils over and fists and cards start flying everywhere.
This message edited on Fri, 29 June 07 by wryta
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 29 June 07 00:32 GMT
|
wryta - you are assuming that all penalty offences are equally bad. They aren't. That is why the referee must retain a considerable degree of discretion.
Offences also need to be considered in the context of the game as a whole - if it is bad-tempered a referee will be harsher.
This message edited on Fri, 29 June 07 by ob
|
|
|
wryta
|
Fri, 29 June 07 00:05 GMT
|
Ob -
Okay, I knew this was going to end up a can of worms, but then I guess that's the whole point of a forum like this (worm dissection).
I guess my question is "why aren't players warned on the first offense, then binned on the second?" - as opposed to the second or third warnings or the classic "I've warned you too many times, if it keeps happening someone's going to get binned".
They can be 1) admonished, 2) yellow-carded, 3)red-carded. For intentional or dangerous fouls, shouldn't it be a clear path - one warning for first offense, yellow card for second offense, then red card for third. Quite often I've seen players red-carded soon after coming back from a binning. But ref's don't seem as willing to move as decisively from stage 1) to stage 2), and IMO that allows certain players to offend half a dozen times (intentional killing of the ball and lying all over the tackled player are classics) with relative impunity. They don't stop until they're binned - shouldn't they be shown they have no choice but to stop offending after the first and only warning?
Didds -
Still on the redzone... you say it will just move offending out further. I contend offending is ALREADY happening out further - it happens all over the field, for goodness' sake. But offending within five metres of the tryline is more likely to prevent a try, so it costs the offended team more dearly. A redzone wouldn't "move offending further out" - it would cut down overall offending. After all, it's not like players have some unexplained propensity to accidentally foul on the tryline. They do it to prevent tries. Five metres out, they wouldn't be preventing tries, so they'd be less likely to risk the penalty. You say it somehow adds to the ref's workload. Why? He's still got thirty players, 100 metres of field, and a whistle to blow when he sees something dodgy. As I see it, he keeps reffing the way he always has - but instead of running to a spot and awarding a penalty kick 3 metres out, he runs under the posts and awards a PT. If someone was 8mm outside the redzone when they fouled and it gets blown - so what? "Hey ref - that's not fair. I only flagrantly broke the rules of the game because I thought I was going to get punished less severely." Which brings me back to my overall gripe - right now, players are given the option of defending fairly and risking five or seven points, or committing a foul and risking three. How can you say the rules work fine as they are - is it just that we've become conditioned to an "excusable" level of cheating?
This message edited on Fri, 29 June 07 by wryta
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 28 June 07 09:39 GMT
|
wryta - youir original suggestion was
"Redzone - marked for five metres out from the tryline. Any deliberate infringement, penalty try." That's what I was addressing, and as such suggested that in affect then the current "anything goes" area would just extend outside the 5m red zone.
If instead we are to look at scrum offences only in this context, I fear it opens another can of worms... the attacking side then collasing it in the hope that it will buy a PT through a refs mistake.
IMO scrummage mularkey is better overcome through better/improved/extended (delete as appropriate) refreree education in this area. Much of what to look for is quite simple - Brian Moore does a good job of explaining it on TV for example. I do appreciate of course refs have a LOT to look for but at the higher levels with assistant refs/TJs this should become less of an issue. Down amongst the dead men this help isn;t available ... but I am unconvinced this alleged problem is as bad down the ladders...
As for football and line calls, its true they don;t use TMOs. That;s not to say controversy doesn;t reign though at times does it? Surely the point is to simplify matters for everybody - and creating even more descison making for a ref is unlikely to help in this matter.
IMO.
Natch.
didds
|
|
|
[
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
|
