The issue of penalties and free kick counts (and loss of game time) has reared its ugly head once again with the latest scrum-engaging rules – which we thought they would help.
Last weekend in both the Six Nations (with Walsh and Joubert presiding), and some Super Rugby games, there were countless resets, free kicks for going early, penalties resulting from the set being more of a charge than before, or not square (intentionally or otherwise).
We could go on – referees seemed unable to get teams to rectify these issues. Much game time was lost and unnecessary momentum changes occurred.
The point that continues to worry me is the almost random nature of certain penalties arising.
These are the ones that the commentators go quiet over, or fudge their commentary. Now several are frequently given against the attacking team with no intent involved at all.
I put in this category the almost certain penalty arising from a rolling maul that has good forward momentum, for pulling down the maul when it is almost always a defender who can’t stay on his feet and no intent at all.
The argument too and fro on these points is vast and detailed – my concern is the consequence.
On balance of scoring reward, a hard-to-fathom scrum penalty at three points on the 22 does not compare with a five-point try.
I would argue that various ‘killing the ball’ penalties, playing on the ground, offside, etc deserve what they get now.
Many games are won, lost, or momentum is reversed with these scores.
With so many occurring, and the scrum technique in transition, it is time to seriously consider the non-kickable penalty.
That is no kick at goal and remove this randomness from the game, and I do not mean a free kick here.
It would still provide for a line kick retaining throw in to lineout and promote more five-point try potential.
Finally I do not include all scrum infringements here. Penalties for infringements deemed with intent would remain full penalties.
What do Roarers think? I know I am sick of seeing games taken out of reach by a late kick, the cause of which is fairly innocuous.
And while on this – what can justify the repeated scrum feeds at 45 degrees into second row right in front of referees?
It’s now got to the point where commentators talk about the extra shove from the non feed pack based on the extra man shoving – ie the hooker not hooking.
Interestingly, the Lions are not SANZAR – what will be the interpretation there? I will groan if it throws up more kick able penalties!
Ai Rui Sheng
Guest
Ai Rui Sheng
Guest
I would like to see the removal of ankle tapping from the game.I American Football and Oz Rules, this is regarded as tripping and dangerous. Five other aspects of the game I feel need attention: 1. A crooked lineout feed that results in a turnover should be play on 2. Knock on advantage should be over once the receiving side has successfully passed or kicked the ball. 3. BBC commentators must be sent to school to learn how to read and write, so that they may peruse and absorb the rule book. In general SH sides have an unfair advantage over teams from the Bleatingish Isles because they can read and understand the rules. Irish commentators are usually balanced but the Italian game brought out the worst. The Irish were pinged several times for playing the ball while both knees were on the ground. This totally bemused the commentator. 4. Either start scrums with both front rows already set or enforce hookers to strike at the ball. If the hooker does not strike the ruling should be,"Not hooked". At present hookers are mere inside props and push off both feet without any attempt to strike at and hook the ball. 5. The inadvertent crossing over during intricate backline moves does not deserve a penalty. A scrum would be sufficient unless there is violence involved. PS Why did BOD not get a red card?
Kiwitruck
Guest
Everyone, I think the point that Ted is making is vital for the future of our game. At every tackle, ruck, maul, lineout and scrum someone from either side infringes, that makes what over 100 times a penalty could be awarded to either team in a game with only say 20 penalties actually awarded. The question is WHY. Why award a penalty in some instances and not others. This is the most frustrating part of the game. I don't know the answer but I believe the first step could be a post game web forum where referees account for all there decisions, or lack of, to us fans. What do you fellow roarers think?
Well like I said to HT earlier, we won't agree on it. It is a personal pet peeve of mine .It isn't nitpicking, it is something I don't like and believe it is obstruction. It is the only part of rugby union that is not a fair contest. Simples
soapit`
Guest
then thats their own fault. i'd be surprised if no clubs had some kind of tertiary assistance programs
mitzter
Guest
I think you're nitpicking a bit and ignoring the plain similarities. With the exemption of the halfback coming around it is almost exactly the same but then again defenders can come through the maul and attack the ball carrier. The maul is a great breakdown - it sucks in defenders, its moving and dynamic and is one of the great features of rugby
There are significant differences to a maul and a scrum In the maul, a player is upright with ball in hand and is protected by his team, he can break away, hide and be covered by team mates, almost anyhtin is legal in protection of a ball carrier. In a scrum, everyone must remain bound to the scrum, defenders and attackets alike, the ball is not in hand, the ball must remain in the scrum and the hlaf back may come around the scrum to attack the player who plays the ball as long as he stays behind the ball. At a maul the offside line is restricted as the defender may nit come around the maul, whereas the defending scrumhalf may, as long as he is behind the ball. A scrum is a fair contest, a maul is not.
mitzter
Guest
a scrum
Bob Anderson
Guest
Sorry to quible, but ice hockey doesn't have cumulative infringements leading to penalties. A penalty is a penalty, for most infractions resulting in a two minute minor penalty (power play for the other team for two minutes). A 5 minute major penalty is normally issued for fighting (like in the band name, Five for Fighting), or when an infringement draws blood. Infringements that aren't called by the referree are normally handled between the players themselves via on-ice retribution or fights, hence why fighting is considered a legitimate part of the game. If you want to look to hockey as an example, perhaps allowing fights or the threat of fights could reduce minor infractions in rugby?
Mitzter, push over try from what?
Chivas
Guest
True but that and scrag are fond memories :-). The advantage of scrag is you didn't even need a ball. Sometimes someone's shoe would suffice.
Chivas
Guest
Chivas
Guest
Don't agree Mania. They first brought in the rule to stop the truck n trailer in the 90's I think I recall. And then it has been policed off and on. The best maul I have seen is in a Waikato game when Buck Anderson caught an opposing Otago player (Timu I think), wrapped him up ball, turned around to face his own posts... Then the Waikato team drove it from our 22 down to theirs. I love a good maul. And comments about tripping up and pulling down a maul aren't the issue. It's when a player is swinging with their feet off the ground. It normally takes a couple of them to pull down a good maul. And that should be penalised. Otherwise I'm in BT's camp that the team mauling has a responsibility to keep it up. HT does make the point that some mauls are created as a result of the opposition trying to get a turnover, but I am more talking about the attacking rolling maul. The problem is it's energy sapping. You make a few good meters and then get pinged or lose it. It's too high risk so teams tend to do it less and consequently it is not a very developed skill these days. That may be another reason it looks like such a shambles. Add to that BT is able to string a sentence together and he calls himself a prop. The game has well and truly gone to the dogs. Soon my mother will be my father and up will be down. Mauling along with good counter rucking has hurt the AB's but killed the Bok.
Chivas
Guest
Interest about the last 3 mins HT. but you also notice no-one is committing unless sure. Then you have all this hesitancy. One of the great skills of Mc Caw is his ability to know where he is on the field. It may sound simple, but really you don't. Picking up the ball in an offside position is as much to do with lack of awareness and making a spot decision as it is callous. Anyway if you don't pick it up you are leaving it for the opposition which will hurt as much or more. I don't have an answer but it's a part of the game I never enjoyed either playing or watching.
Chivas
Guest
BT I agree 100%. I don't even understand the rule on the truck and trailer. It's always passed to the back of the maul, while it moves forward. I have yet to see a maul where the ball is in the contact area and when you peel off and run, only if it's completely obvious is a truck and trailer called. I've been ripped out by my mate and we charge forward, me with the ball and him joined at my hip to smash it up and when we hit sometimes he is slightly in front but hardly gets called. I just need to go back to the rule book because it doesn't make sense to me. I love the maul but the rules are pretty fluid. And then once the maul collapses it's a free for all and someone is going to get penalised.
Rebel
Guest
How many of that 43% are offered token degrees at certain Sydney and Brisbane clubs before heading to super rugby teams. AFL and NRL don't have this.
Same happened in the Cheetahs vs Tahs, first scrum immediately a penalty.
Bakkies
Guest
There is too much of a gap between Crouch and Touch. You see too many refs in Europe delay the calls then they have to reset the scrum.
mitzter
Guest
How about 2 pts for pnalties and field goals (then all kicks ae 2 pts) and have a red zone penaly worth 3 o even 4 pts
mitzter
Guest
How is a maul any different to a pushover try then biltongbek?The ball is at the back and the defence can't touch it. Mauls are great as they allow a drilled forward pack to beat an undrilled team. They are also a dynamic moving breakdown which is very exciting. I didn't like neil back's bind with one hand either and moving about the back of the maul - that is not being bound but most refs do spot that and act accordingly