Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Law Book cut in half

      
  1. #11

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    21,631
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Received)
    1065

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    Possible derail:

    I don't have an issue with that Italian tactic. The "problems" surrounding it were it was the only tactic Italy had, and England were initially too stupid to think of a solution... and Poite struggled at times himself to work it out. As part of a (possible) overall defensive plan I think its very valid option.

    didds
    Agreed.

    Did it achieve anything significant? No.
    Did England capitalise on the player(s) out of position? Yes.
    Is it likely to be used again? No.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  2. #12

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,234
    Thanks (Received)
    38
    Likes (Received)
    604

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    Agreed.

    Did it achieve anything significant? No.
    Did England capitalise on the player(s) out of position? Yes.
    Is it likely to be used again? No.
    I don't know that the tactic will never be used again (aside form these law changes making it impossible :-).


    * it was significant ... for about 30 minutes
    * England eventually capitalised - but it took them half an hour to do so
    * As an occasional "throw it into the mix" tactic I think it has value - to keep attacking sides thinking. The Chiefs (? IIRC) used it in very specific circumstances (restarts and kick offs) and it was fairly effective.

    As discussed in the original thread here, Italy were too naive themselves. That doesn't make the tactic ineffective overall.

    didds
    Last edited by didds; 17-07-17 at 10:07.

  3. #13
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    NRB
    Grade
    IRB level 1
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    400
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    78

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    I read about this on Friday/Saturday, here

    http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/rmu...redefine-ruck/
    The original link is a confusing article, conflating two separate stories - the streamlining of the law book, and global trials of new laws. The thread title refers only to the first, Pundit Arena article only to the second.

    Regardless of the benefits or otherwise of a "cleaner" tackle/ruck situation, I think everyone would welcome a sensible and elegant pruning of the law book as it stands.

  4. #14

    Referees in Australia


    Soc/Assoc
    ACT
    Grade
    Tier 2
    Join Date
    10 Jul 17
    Posts
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    Is it likely to be used again? No.
    Not sure how you can say that with any confidence given it had been used prior to that match. The only thing we can say with any confidence is such an eventuality won't happen again if the law as reported gets amended.

  5. #15

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    21,631
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Received)
    1065

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    I don't know that the tactic will never be used again (aside form these law changes making it impossible :-).


    * it was significant ... for about 30 minutes
    * England eventually capitalised - but it took them half an hour to do so
    * As an occasional "throw it into the mix" tactic I think it has value - to keep attacking sides thinking. The Chiefs (? IIRC) used it in very specific circumstances (restarts and kick offs) and it was fairly effective.

    As discussed in the original thread here, Italy were too naive themselves. That doesn't make the tactic ineffective overall.

    didds
    Crusaders? Was it used in more than one match? The counter is now known, so a one-off occasional disruption is all it might achieve.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  6. #16

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,234
    Thanks (Received)
    38
    Likes (Received)
    604

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    a one-off occasional disruption is all it might achieve.
    which was of course my initial point above.

    didds

  7. #17

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    12,650
    Thanks (Received)
    88
    Likes (Received)
    1175

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by _antipodean_ View Post
    I'm not sure I like this. League got rid of the distinction between tackles and rucks.
    Well, not quite. In league a tackle takes place when..

    (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
    comes into contact with the ground.

    (b) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further
    progress and cannot part with the ball.

    (c) when, being held by an opponent, the player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play the ball.

    (d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent already grounded places a hand on him.

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    I'm not personally entirely convinced - the offside at a tackle was dropped because as I predicted (amongst others!) it wold make a line break almost impossible to defend. This is just none stage removed - a line break with eventual tackle (full back) creates an offside line merely by a supporter arriving and taking up position over the ball. It wold mean it needs probably three players to effect ir rather than the previous two to be fair. But its still the same scenario
    The abandoned ELV was offside at the tackle. The current ruck requires two players from opposing teams to form a ruck, this is halfway between... I don't think there is anywhere else to go with it if this won't work.

    I don't have a great deal of sympathy with the "unable to defend a clean break" scenario. The way to deal with that is don't concede clean breaks!
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  8. #18

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    12,650
    Thanks (Received)
    88
    Likes (Received)
    1175

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    Crusaders? Was it used in more than one match? The counter is now known, so a one-off occasional disruption is all it might achieve.
    Chiefs use the tactic frequently across the whole season, once or twice in a game, and as didds correctly noted, mostly at restart kicks when the play is largely unstructured.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  9. #19
    Rugby Club Member Treadmore's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Dorchester
    Grade
    Coach Colts/ELRA 1&2
    Join Date
    11 Nov 08
    Posts
    232
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    20

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    The abandoned ELV was offside at the tackle. The current ruck requires two players from opposing teams to form a ruck, this is halfway between... I don't think there is anywhere else to go with it if this won't work.

    I don't have a great deal of sympathy with the "unable to defend a clean break" scenario. The way to deal with that is don't concede clean breaks!
    But the current ruck law involves competing for the ball and thus slowing down play (most likely), giving more time to react to the creation of the offside lines. The new proposal will allow the creation of (almost) instant offside lines at a tackle and seems closer to the tackle ELV than current ruck practice.

    I'm not sure what problem the proposal is trying to fix.

  10. #20

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    12,740
    Thanks (Received)
    72
    Likes (Received)
    1017

    Default Re: Law Book cut in half

    I suspect it's a knee jerk reaction to the England Italy game ?

    I agree, though, I can't see why its needed

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •