[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Tue, 12 February 08 11:52 GMT
|
Some really false logic here. Grand Prix racing follows an incredibly precise set of laws that are quite different from those we use on the road.
No one pretends that GP regulations and the Highway Code are the same. So that's just tosh.
Either you accept there are two codes and write them down or you play one set of laws.
And no International players don't have top play pub rugby - another piece of false logic.
Personally I think the Prem/International game has got it wrong. To win a ruck you need two players to lie over the ball. Ref then tells oppo to leave it alone. This means everyone else on the pitch can form two nice straight lines like in Rugby league. This is a dull game.
get them back on their feet - make them compete for the ball. ref the laws as they are written.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 12 February 08 11:13 GMT
|
Dr Seoul, we CAN play with one set of laws - but which one?
Can't be the GP, cos lower players can't handle that intensity. So GP must play the laws applicable to the Extra B's beer match. This will kill it as an entertainment product, restricting funding at the top level, and the benefits that flow down.
I wrote a much more erudite piece, but the embarassingly prissy filters on this most irritating site found something objectionable in it, and refused to post it - even after I had removed reference to the current leaders of the Soccer Premier league table!
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 12 February 08 00:36 GMT
|
Driving a Ferrari round a GP circuit is different from driving a 2CV round sainsbury's carpark, even though the basic priciples of driving are the same.
In rugby we can have oneset of laws, but we should expect the referees to apply them differently wherever teh referee's judgement is needed.
Anybody who tries to referee a Level 13 game the same way as an international will just ruin the afternoon for all 27 or so players. And the man and his dog.
The laws these days are only formally changed every 4 years, to fit the RWC cycle, so referees seem to be getting a little head with informal changes.
Are you claiming that is a bad thing? Sometimes it is - the IRB reined in the S12 basketball excesses. We have to be pragmatic.
|
|
|
dr seoul
|
Tue, 12 February 08 00:06 GMT
|
ob,we are back again into the long running discussion,where we complain that there is confusion because there appears to be two sets of laws,whilst you comment on materiality and context.
I'm still unconvinced that we cannot play with one set of laws.
Earlier you posted,
.....(2) some laws are relaxed at all levels, for example hands in a ruck. It is generally accepted that if the ball is clearly won, the scrumhalf can dig the ball out, and players are even allowed to hand it back to him. The ball is not classed as out until the scrum half has sufficient control to be able to use it. The extent of these limitations on the relaxation is naturally rather subtle.
I dont see why the Laws cannot be changed to reflect the allowance described above,thereby unifying common practice and the Laws.
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 11 February 08 17:32 GMT
|
My observation is that if you dive over the ball when it is on the opposition's side, you will be penalised for killing the ball. If your side has clearly (?) won the ball, you won't.
Down in the weeds, such distinctions are too subtle. Ping them if they deliberately go off their feet.
|
|
|
zackly
|
Mon, 11 February 08 16:59 GMT
|
Two rounds into this season's Six Nations contest and it's clear that "sealing" is here to stay - and that TV-watching players (and their coaches) will most probably imitate.
I have a particular problem with refereeing Sealing and Body Heaps "down-in-the-weeds" of Community Rugby to a standard similar to that shown on TV - so that the boys enjoy the game TV encourages them to play.
I hope you all can illuminate, pragmatically.
Why, on some occasions, are the Showbiz Boys allowed to dive onto the Heap of bodies already off their feet - yet on other occasions are penalised for "killing the ball" ?
This message edited on Mon, 11 February 08 by zackly
|
|
|
ctrainor
|
Fri, 23 November 07 19:54 GMT
|
Just reading this after a few weeks off Well Said Simon and Bill Payer.
The action is illegal and dangerous carry on pinging
|
-------------------------
Ciaran Trainor |
|
|
zackly
|
Mon, 19 November 07 13:45 GMT
|
"Duplicity" ? I don't get it - or should that be "duplication" ?
It's easier to go the shorter route - Coaching - Articles - Tackling and get direct access to the Kingsley Jones article - rather than the longer (and less obvious) Coaching - Articles - Technical Journal - New Articles route, so missing the RFU caveat on that last Editor's page. The fact is that the caveat can be bypassed easily - as demonstrated.
But that's all admin trivia really. Not worth arguing over.
The important element is Bridging. So . . . . . . what do YOU think about LoG15.5(b) & Bridging in relation to control of the post-tackle activity ????
|
|
|
MichaelPole
|
Sun, 18 November 07 18:54 GMT
|
<PS MidsMan Why do your posts appear twice ? !! >
Duplicity on this website, which is probably the reason i can see the following disclaimer and you can't.
Its on the 'Articles' page - if you go straight to Technical Journal - you won't see it.
"Articles
The new articles will appear in the New Articles section and then moved to the Archive section the following week.The Technical Journal will be online and updated every Tuesday.
***Opinions expressed in this material are those of the authors alone and are not necessarily the views of the RFU.***
Any reference to him or her does not imply a preference gender.
All correspondence relating to any content should be e-mailed to the Editor.."
(my asterisks: ***)
This message edited on Sun, 18 November 07 by MichaelPole
|
|
|
zackly
|
Sun, 18 November 07 14:00 GMT
|
The Kingsley Jones article recommending Bridging as part of Tackling technique, accessed via Coaching section of this RFU website does NOT carry any caveats. It is printed on pages headed by RFU Rose logo. If that doesn't constitute an RFU "endors*ment" - then I don't know what does !
If the RFU really does NOT endorse Bridging at the Tackle, then I suggest they : 1. Withdraw offending article 2. Publish clear guidance asap regarding LoG 15.5(b) "The tackled player . . . . . must also get up or move away from it (the ball) at once"
PS MidsMan Why do your posts appear twice ? !!
This message edited on Sun, 18 November 07 by zackly
|
|
|
Midsman
|
Fri, 16 November 07 16:00 GMT
|
Thanks for the reference to the Kingsley Jones 2003 article in the Technical journal which carries a caveat on every issue that the views are not those of the RFU.
Whilst referees and others may allow it the RFU Coaching Dept confirmed to me it is not part of the RFU Coaching Awards or information events. So my original statement is correct that this is not endorsed by the RFU.
|
-------------------------
Mids C |
|
|
mids c
|
Fri, 16 November 07 16:00 GMT
|
Thanks for the reference to the Kingsley Jones 2003 article in the Technical journal which carries a caveat on every issue that the views are not those of the RFU.
Whilst referees and others may allow it the RFU Coaching Dept confirmed to me it is not part of the RFU Coaching Awards or information events. So my original statement is correct that this is not endorsed by the RFU.
|
-------------------------
Mids C |
|
|
zackly
|
Fri, 16 November 07 12:19 GMT
|
Mids C. Try this RFU website address -
http://www.community-rugby.com/communityrugby/index.cfm/Fuseaction/Home.Story/StoryTypeId/102/SectionId/827/StoryId/10745.cfm.
Or . . . . have a look at Attachment. It's got RFU Roses all over it ! Go to bottom of Page 2.
That's probably at least one source of BRIDGING becoming popular (tho ILLEGAL) technique in Community Rugby. Other source is of course from imitation of The Professionals in Showbiz Rugby on TV - aided & abetted by IRB & RFU Referees.
xAttachment: RFU_Tackle_Coaching_-_kingsleyjones712.pdf |
|
|
Midsman
|
Thu, 15 November 07 13:08 GMT
|
Guys,
Bridging is not part of the curriculum on any of the RFU Coaching Award courses. So despite the claim/excuse by a player it is not coached by the RFU Coaching Dept as it is contrary to Law.
|
-------------------------
Mids C |
|
|
mids c
|
Thu, 15 November 07 13:08 GMT
|
Guys,
Bridging is not part of the curriculum on any of the RFU Coaching Award courses. So despite the claim/excuse by a player it is not coached by the RFU Coaching Dept as it is contrary to Law.
|
-------------------------
Mids C |
|
|
zackly
|
Wed, 14 November 07 19:03 GMT
|
Sorry ! But BRIDGING IS ILLEGAL - by contravening IRB Law 15.5(b) since the Bridging player holds the tackled player on the ground near the ball so that he cannot ". . . . also get up or move away from (the ball) at once".
However, it is coached, as demonstrated below, by the RFU.
This message edited on Wed, 14 November 07 by zackly
|
|
|
zackly
|
Sun, 11 November 07 18:14 GMT
|
ALL. We've strayed here into a discussion of what is allowed on TV outside the LoG. In fact, BRIDGING is a technique recommended to be coached by the RFU (as previous posts on this Thread have already indicated).
Get with it, Refs !! BRIDGING is to be encouraged - despite LoG 15.5(b). Therefore the Tackled Player need not - indeed cannot - move away from the ball !!!!
Here is the particular coaching drill procedure posted at Community Rugby>Coaching>Articles>Tackling
<<<<<<<<<<<< Hit, down, clear and BRIDGE.
• Working in groups of four with the same pads set-up as in the first diagram.
• Player 1 hits the pad and, as in the previous drill, drives forwards and goes to ground on a call from Player 2 who then clears the pad out.
• Player 3 then BRIDGES player 1 on floor, ensuring he carries all his weight on his feet to comply with the Law.
o Ensure Player 3 gets a wide base but not beyond the player on the ground.
If player steps beyond the player on the ground, the action is offering a leg
upon which defenders can make a hold to initiate a drive.
o Squat down with bent knees, thus making a low, strong position with a
wide base.
o Keep the head up.
o Both hands grip Player 1. The important thing is to get a good tight grip and this can be on shorts and shirt or both hands on the shirt.
o Ensure that the BRIDGED ball is inside the back foot of the player forming the BRIDGE, so that when a defender(s) makes contact, the ball is still in a ruck and is not free to be taken.
• Player 4 then picks up the ball from between player 3’s (BRIDGING player’s) legs and takes it into the next bag and the sequence is repeated.
• Again encourage communication throughout whilst the ball is placed precisely at the contact.
• Ensure BRIDGING players adopt a strong, low body positions with a wide base. Heads are held up and a strong contact is made on the player on floor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This message edited on Sun, 11 November 07 by zackly
|
|
|
Dan Cottrell
|
Wed, 07 November 07 16:15 GMT
|
Is it not time an "official" missive was passed down from above, in the way that "squeeze ball" was?
By the way, I think the ELVs will reduce the scrum, only enhance it. ANother story
|
|
|
bill payer
|
Mon, 05 November 07 22:18 GMT
|
Some teams definitely do coach this at youth level. I did an U16 game yesterday and after explaining at half time why they were getting pinged so often, I was told by their coach that "they're only doing what they've been coached to do". Pinged enough and expliained several times they eventually stopped and in the latter stages even showed how effectively they can defend a ruck while still on your feet.
After the game the coach told me that the ones I pinged most often were the ones who went to a Premiership team academy and that's how they were taught play there.
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 05 November 07 18:48 GMT
|
stewie - "nothing happens accidently at that level! not even a dropped pass?"
I actually wrote "almost nothing" precisely to try and pre-empt your comment.
The differences in top level rugby are exaggerated for various reasons.
(1) concepts such as advantage and materiality are not understood properly. These apply differently to fit, competent players as opposed to fat, incompetent players.
(2) some laws are relaxed at all levels, for example hands in a ruck. It is generally accepted that if the ball is clearly won, the scrumhalf can dig the ball out, and players are even allowed to hand it back to him. The ball is not classed as out until the scrum half has sufficient control to be able to use it. The extent of these limitations on the relaxation is naturally rather subtle.
(3) context is vital. Most people know that merely being offside is not in itself an offence - something else is required. This again is a judgement call by the referee, and his judgement will be affected by the standard of the players.
(4) referees will often have a quiet word (if miked up, usually using sign language) if a player has been spotted infringing but was not penalised for some reason.
The referee's job is to manage the game within the framework of the laws so that neither side gets an unfair advantage. That is definitely not the same as blowing the whistle at every opportunity. At any level.
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Mon, 05 November 07 14:14 GMT
|
stewie,
I believe all on these forums agree. What goes on at the elite levels goes beyond "interpretation" and "allowances for skill" and is, in effect, a very different game.
IMHO there are two real dangers with this - first what we see on the park every Saturday and worse on Sunday (I pinged a U10 yesterday for sealing and I know for a fact that he's not been coached to do it as he's one of my squad!) and secondly I believe we are seeing Law Changes coming in that are being driven in to fix the problems at elite levels but approach it from the wrong direction.
For example, if the new ELVs do make it to Law, the use of the scrum (in fact the use of much of the forward game) will be diminished. It's my understanding that one reason given for this is because "there are never any strikes against the head anyway".
And at elite levels, that's entirely correct - when the SH feeds directly to his locks or worse, then what chance of a turnover is there and what _honestly_ is the point of a scrum in those circumstances? Why _not_ just have a FK and save all the mucking about with scrums going down when the result is certain anyway?
IMHO we really could lose the forward game completely over the next few years because of the elite antics.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
stewie
|
Mon, 05 November 07 13:31 GMT
|
I understand where pgt is coming from, but perhaps better expressed as refereeing the match using the laws. The point is, if at the higher level laws are being deliberately flouted (nothing happens accidently at that level! not even a dropped pass?) and ignored by the referee it does make a nonsense of the laws.
At the higher levels of cricket, are some lbw calls ignored? Is a missed shot in snooker ignored, because it's entertainment? Is offside in soccer ignored because the shot at goal was appreciated by the crowd?
These examples are IMHO the equivalent of sealing off the ball in our game - illegal and if penalised correctly, could result in a better game all round.
If sealing the ball from the opposition is the way the game is to be played, make it legal.
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 05 November 07 11:44 GMT
|
p.g.t. - "I may be alone here, but to me laws are laws and refereeing to those laws should not change with the level of the match."
You don't referee the laws. You referee the match. That means you have to take the context into account, which is where the level of the match is highly significant.
There is nothing unusual about this. It happens in other sports too.
|
|
|
p.g.t
|
Mon, 05 November 07 10:56 GMT
|
ob
this may not be what you believe but if it is the official line it is even more worrying.
If at a top level nothing happens by accident then surely there is more of a reason to penalise with no question; at lower levels if it happens by accident then manage it.
I may be alone here, but to me laws are laws and refereeing to those laws should not change with the level of the match.
I have my views on which "version" of the game I prefer but the solution is solely with the IRB to decide once and for all on the definitive LotG and insist that it is applied consistently.
|
-------------------------
Tipsy |
|
|
MichaelPole
|
Sun, 04 November 07 22:51 GMT
|
If TV is causing the problem, perhaps it also holds the solution.
If, say Brian Moore & Stuart Barnes, could be persuaded to explain this difference to veiwers, during every England international or H-Cup; players, coaches & spectators/parents might believe us.
EG "That's called bridging, its actually illegal, as you're not fully on your feet. Proffessionals are allowed to do it, but if your try it Saturday afternoon at your local club: you'll get pinged!"
Anybody know anyone in TV sport?
[edit:] seriously
This message edited on Sun, 04 November 07 by MichaelPole
|
|
|
[
FIRST
|
PREVIOUS
|
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
