'Game's out of control': Coaches, players, fans and refs are united by their hatred of the dumbest law in rugby

The laws are indeed complicated and it takes a smart man (or woman) with a cool head to ensure they are applied correctly. My second favourite all time comment heard over a ref mike was Wayne Barnes explaining “It’s a law. It’s a stupid law, but it’s still a law” during the match at Wellington. I can’t actually remember to which stupid law he was referring, but let’s face it……there’s a choice! I remember the Ireland Italy game when the Georgian referee (correctly if cruelly) reduced the Italian team by another player as a punishment for their needing to resort to uncontested scrums. Nobody in the stadium seemed to know what was going on but World Rugby actually does have an org chart on its website which explains all the permutations regarding removing players from the field in the event of uncontested scrums. The ref was right, but many thought, and think, the law could be looked at again. Peyper did indeed screw up both with not reducing New Zealand further because of the temporary need for uncontested scrums and with barring the wrong man (it shouldn’t have been Savea) from rejoining the field following the reshuffles after the red-card incident. I would level some of the blame at the NZ coaching staff for this. They knew damn well they were permanently reduced to 14 men so having 15 on the field was clearly wrong. Maybe they thought the sensory overload of the ref would somehow work in their favour. Boy did that one backfire? (PS My all-time favourite comment heard over a ref mike was from Roman Poite to a bemused England team a few years ago when they were being bamboozled by the Italians cleverly exploiting the offside law in open play by not actually joining a ruck and thereby being allowed, legally, to run around and pick up the ball from under the England scrum half’s nose. “What are we supposed to do?” wailed the England players. “I am the referee, not your coach” replied the Frenchman, with delicious Gallic disdain. )

Stander went back to his farm on the Cape. So Ireland had to bring on Rob Herring (also S African born) to complete their rainbow. You got a problem with non-natives playing for a rugby test team? Then write to the management of the All Blacks or the Wallabies and say "Down with this sort of thing!!" Then you'll have some credibility.

Oh God! The Worst of the Wokies: English-speaking people who get sniffy about the word soccer. Actually, it is the English-speaking world in general that uses the word “soccer” to distinguish As-SOC-iation Football from the other codes, because it is the English speaking world that has so many variants of, let’s call it Kick Ball to be generic. In the USA or Canada, the default meaning of football is American Football. In Ireland it’s Gaelic Football. In Australia it’s that variant of bare-knuckle kick boxing called, variously, Aussie Rules, Australian football or just “footie”. The “rest of the world” that uses the word football to refer exclusively to Association Football is the non English speaking part which calls it Futbol or Futebol (French, Spanish, Portugese) or Fussball (Germany). In Italy it is usually called Calcio, in reference to the medieval form of the game that was played in that country by people in elaborate costumes during major festivals. An example of it is shown in the opening sequence of one of the later James Bond films. As other Roarers have pointed out the etymology of the word soccer is quintessentially English, and a typical example of the argot of the public school types who first codified the various forms of football in the 19th century. They used the word soccer with the same ease with which their contemporaries called rugby “rugger”. It is only in the 21st century with the fashion for highly deterministic and judgmental attitudes to language that people feel empowered to become priggish about words they don’t like, or more accurately, words being used in a context they don’t like. I think they should take their condescending attitudes and stick them up their gender neutral orifice. Whatever their pronouns.

The player just needs to regather it. The overlap was the reason for the yellow plus it’s near the 22 line. If you are the attacking team and a player stops a pass and knocks it on and wasn’t in a position to regather it, it’s effectively a negative play or professional foul. Especially if you have that overlap or close to the try line.

On the attempted intercept. There was a clear overlap that’s why it’s a yellow card. You have to regather the ball if you attempt a intercept and they know that’s the law. Otherwise you can get a penalty or yellow or penalty try. This stops professional fouls even if it’s a genuine attempt.

Correct. This absurd rule defies all logic You're right, there is no problem in League and is not even a discussion point. A ball in the air travelling between 2 attackers should be "fair game" to any defender close enough to attempt to grab possession. If he drops it, bad luck, scrum feed to the non-offending side if necessary. Just get on with the game. Also, when a pass is thrown and a defender intercepts or makes contact with the ball, it may be deemed a poor or ill-timed pass and the attacking team should not be rewarded. These occasions are not common as most elite footballers know when to pass to avoid opposition players. The last straw for me last week-end would have been if a penalty try had been awarded and that outcome no doubt would have been considered by the TMO. Like many others, there is limited entertainment value for me watching Rugby these days with the rules (in particular applying to R & Y/C) they have in place and is simply not the game I used to play. Such a shame.

Sorry for being over-sensitive

Didn't mean to be condescending Ozinsa. Apologies. Just trying to make a point that IMO, it's not realistically possible to tackle low all of the time. Officials don't want to differentiate between accidents & carelessness and whilst that approach continues to exist, nothing will be resolved.

Never too late. Bring back the Emperor and bring back Buck!

They have no backbone. Just over rule the TMO. I watched a Garden ref game in the SR and he was more then happy to do it. Game actually flowed and was good to watch.

i have seen a few URC matches where she was TMO - thatrs how i learnt she had a baby and is now only doing sitting duty. she is not good shes like a footy ref ( soccer for u non beleivers ) footy refs when they get something wrong try to make up by giving a penalty when something else happens - which may be a minute thing it happens with fouls - and with penalty kicks. they make up as they go along. Joy is like that - she misses something and goes way back just to make a point. and when she was a running ref - she would give a [enalty right after missing something significant - just to make it up. i do not think aussy were rubbish and england were fantastic i thought the calls favored england rather than aussy. that helped in the outcome. a simple eg i said before also - there was a penalty given against the prop thor - and the tv crew struggled to find footage. in fact it was not shown why the penalty was given - called by TMO!!!

Doubt he meant the ref could plonk the kick anywhere. Think the inference is a series of questionable, or favourable decisions marches the beneficial team way upfield and out of trouble, until they get to play for a kickable pen or whatever attacking option they choose, which did happen a lot. I can see that. The best team still seems to have won, but was it entirely unassisted? I didn’t think England were THAT good, or that we were that bad over 80mins. Game 3 should be a ripper in any case.

So your theory is that the refs decide on where Farrell can take a penalty kick from on the basis of bribes from the NH rugby unions? I’ve seen some unhinged nonsense in my time, but that takes the biscuit. The only time there appears to be anything fundamentally ‘wrong’ with the game is when Oz and the ABs lose.

It's been a pet hate of mine for years. The ABs are by far the worst offenders at it. They also tackle players who give the vaguest indication they might be thinking about going into the ruck - mostly to ensure they're not part of the next phase.

A knock on is an infringement- its a scrum to the opposition- it’s an infringement and the sanction is a scrum against you- just as a forward pass is an infringement. An infringement does not mean penalty offence but play not in accordance with the Law. So say in the case I stated it was obviously a deliberate knock down . So the difficulty in applying the Law is deciding whether the knock on was “ intentional “. So that is where 11.4 comes in to give better guidelines to the Refs. But if you think a clear and obvious knock on by a defender is OK and scrum only is the result that is our difference and neither of us is going to change our minds. But if you think a player who just batts the ball down should be a penalty then we come to those more difficult areas of deciding deliberate or intentional. 11.4 was introduced to clarify and make the decision more on outcomes than opinions.

Haha merci, mon ami! Bonne chance a l'empereur peut-être trop tard?

Oh, those naughty rugby rules! As much as armchair fans want objective rule outcomes and interpretations, it's never going to happen. The professional game's entirely controlled by the financial northern hemisphere hierarchy, and those naughty bent rule interpretations mean cashed up unions can continue to submit their plumped-up brown paper bags along with their preferred game plans to the IRB, who can then direct their appointed match officials appropriately, so they can tweak 50/50 outcomes to suit the size of the donation.. say, where Farrell likes to take penalty kicks from. Or earning inexplicable scrum penalties when deep in trouble. Just like the Qatar football world cup - big money talks for the top federations who can afford it. RA's broke so they don't even have a brown paper bag. The top cashed-up unions would definitely be swimming in it with the IRB to get their 60/40 on-field decisions locked in.. let's not be naive. Major match outcomes would rarely be decided purely by on-field player interactions alone.

He's not deliberately infringing though, he's deliberately stopping the pass. A knock on isn't an infringement, it's only this law calling it deliberate that makes it one. Have you ever seen a team warned for too many knock ons?

Tres bien, mon frere. Vive l'empereur! Vive mon empereur Napoleon!

If we got rid of this law today, next week I reckon you'd see a few players try it on, get beaten by dummy passes or sidesteps and give up tries, and next week we'd be back to business as normal, only players wouldn't be getting yellow cards for nonsense (at least not as many)