The Roar
The Roar

Daffyd

Roar Rookie

Joined September 2014

0

Views

0

Published

221

Comments

Published

Comments

Daffyd hasn't published any posts yet

Oh I agree.. in many respects it is quite a slap in the face for the union players.

‘Absolutely nothing to worry about’: League shouldn’t fear union’s player raids

This whole thing is a furphy — few leaguies would convert and fewer still, if any would make the team. Even if cherry picked they’d need to come from a strong union background. The rules become the problem — it’s hard to adapt to union from league — there’s too many weird rules that differ. Sam Burgess was such a success for England in 2015 that he was dropped for the last game against Uruguay before England were bundled out missing the semis.

On the other hand, throwing open the idea of poaching leaguies has certainly done one thing… created a lot of free publicity.

‘Absolutely nothing to worry about’: League shouldn’t fear union’s player raids

I lived in Melbourne for a while and as you pointed out earlier, similar deal.. anything rugby was simply ignored, Cheers!

‘Absolutely nothing to worry about’: League shouldn’t fear union’s player raids

Not quite true Tim. I think you’re confusing Victoria with South Australia which was founded as a free Colony.
“The state’s colonial origins are unique in Australia as a freely settled, planned British province, rather than as a convict settlement. “

Before it became a colony, Victoria had several earlier settlements that had convicts, from both NSW and Van Dieman’s Land, starting in 1826 in Westernport Bay. One of the most famous convicts was William Buckley aka “Buckley’s Chance”. However you are right in saying that many free settlers did not want the colony tainted by the convicts that were being sent to them, while others were happy to see them as there was a labour shortage
https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/Victoriasearlyhistory/convicts

‘Absolutely nothing to worry about’: League shouldn’t fear union’s player raids

What other sport in the world has a rule where you are penalised for opposing an umpire’s decision?
Rugby.

Unfortunately, it’s not as strict as it used to be, (and for Rules 50m is far too severe, 20 m more like it) — but the refs used to dish out 10m consecutively if necessary. (on a 100 metre field it added up).

I was playing in a game when an opponent bitched about the decision and the ref pinged him he continued and the ref pinged him again — twice for 10 metres. Bang Bang. As he was about to bitch once again, one of his team mates grabbed him by the throat and said ” if you don ‘t *%&ing shut up, I’m going to knock you *%&ing out.” He shut up. Much to the amusement of us all. (and to the ref!) But those were the amateur days.

But generally players need to STFU and get on with the game. And the umps need to HTFU and save the 50s for real dissent!

Dissenting dissent: Why the masses are in uproar about the AFL’s controversial new rule

I agree that the tackler is more at risk, whether going high or low. However if the tackler goes high, then that risk is then being shared with the carrier. Ultimately it comes down to technique.

Rugby News: 'I held the World Cup and don't remember it' - hooker's harrowing battle, Edmed has 'all the tools', Campbell vows to step up

Outlaw ducking into a tackle by bending forward. It’s not the same as bracing

Rugby News: 'I held the World Cup and don't remember it' - hooker's harrowing battle, Edmed has 'all the tools', Campbell vows to step up

Very cool Mick. I’m a Souths supporter as well. But I didn’t live in Sydney (played my junior league in group 6) so never went to any games, but used to listen in as a kid on my trusty National Panasonic transistor I got for my 7th birthday. And when Eric Simms kicked at goal what did we invariably heard more often than not… Frank Hyde with his catch cry call… “It’s long enough, it’s high enough…it’s straight between the posts!”
Thanks for sharing Mick.

Remembering two fullbacks – Les Johns and Eric Simms

Great article Geoff, thanks for reminding people the scrum is not an “attacking weapon” but a means to restart play.

There was (what I think) a silly comment by Nick Stiles, “Weaknesses are going to be probed. Nobody says when a runner targets the weak shoulder of a centre, that’s negative play or it’s ruining the game.” I have no problem with probing weaknesses, but no player was ever awarded a penalty because they ran inside “the weak shoulder of a centre.” Or the centre falls over, or puts the hand on the ground. Could you imagine a ref blowing a penalty because a back fell off a tackle?

Also, in general we need to remember that on this forum many suggestions (like stopping the clocks for scrums) given might only be applied to elite level games, and we have to remember the vast majority of players are park players and refs are not Test level.

Agreed on making shots for goal faster. With the TMO called on almost every try, the kicker should be in a position ready to go.

And on that note the TMO needs to be much much faster — they could learn from cricket on that note, when they go to a replay the delivery is already ‘legal’ as far as a no ball. Last weekend, there was the ridiculous situation, where the TMO called a stop for a possible foul play…. and we waited 30 seconds before the evidence hit the screens. Way too long.

To also speed the game up keep water carriers on the sideline not the field. The only person on the field should be a medic if there is an injury. If players need a drink, go to the sideline. Refs shouldn’t have to waste time shooing them off the field, and then waiting till they dawdle to the touchline before restarting

There is also another way to speed up the game and that is to stop the ridiculous amount of coaching refs do.

Why is there a need to remind professional rugby players about a gap in the line out. Every. Single. Week. Why is there a need to remind forwards about (you choose a reason) in the scrum. Every. Single. Game. And often multiple times within a game!

If professional players don’t know the Law book inside out by now, then they need to get someone to read it to them. Slowly. Syl-la-ble. By. Syl-la-ble. There are al-so lots of pic-tures that will help the caulie-ear un-der-stand the Laws.

It is also ridiculous that a knock on leads to a scrum, leads to a penalty. Ironically the free kick was introduced in the mid 70s (’74, ‘75?) because there were too many scrum penalties and games being won because of penalty kicks. It is ironic it has come full circle.

But, to the matter at hand.

The way to make scrums complete is quite simple. Put the onus back on the players.
We have the absurd situation where (as you note) the Laws were changed to make the game safer with less collapsing scrum in the 70s and yet we reward a team with a penalty that has no interest in competing for the ball, but simply want to pus until the scrum collapses – even after the ball is won!

So the onus is on the forwards to ensure that it is in the interest of both packs to allow the scrum to complete. There will be no penalties at scrums unless it is dangerous or foul play.

There will be no resets. If the scrum doesn’t complete the team feeding the ball will be given a free kick.

Defending team needs to ensure that if they can’t win the ball (does the phrase “win a tight head”, mean anything these days) then to make the attacking team play with bad ball. And the defending half should be able to follow the ball through the scrum.

But if the scrum doesn’t complete, free kick to the non offending team.

Any interference while off-side on a player taking a quick free kick is a yellow card. If no quick tap the opposition can form up for defence. But they have the ball. And a free kick.

However, there also needs to be an appropriate Law change. The original change was not done correctly in the first place. In the old days backs defended a scrum like a ruck. Behind the last foot. The ELV moved the offside line to 5m behind the last foot and it was a mistake.

In keeping with other offsides at set play or even penalties, the players not in a scrum (ie the backs), need to be a minimum of 10m from the centre of the scrum, (not 5 metres from the back foot).

It would also bring consistency to the Laws. Practically this will mean that like a lineout free kick, the defending backs are automatically onside, and can respond to a quick free kick by immediately coming forward in defence (and not having to backpeddle a few paces) It is also one less thing for the ref to have to keep an eye on, because if the defending backs have not advanced then they would be onside.. As it stands the inside backs would all be offside on a quick tap.

And scrums should not be allowed to be called instead of a penalty or free kick. The team has the ball. The team has a free kick or penalty. The team should take it, not have a scrum.

And I can’t see in the Laws where a penalty is awarded because a scrum goes ‘backwards.” It is usually because the front row of the retreating scrum stands up or the scrum wheels or breaks up. But as far as I am aware going backwards is OK, so long as the formation is held together and stays straight

I am also contemplating only allowing pushing up to 1.5 meters. (With an exception for a 5 m scrum and the pushover try.) Why 1.5m? It’s the limitation already in place for schools / U19 rugby. And if there is a limit to pushing , particularly once it has been won, the ball can come into play.

I have an open mind on a scrum clock, but initially I cannot say I am in favour of it. The problem with a scrum clock is — assuming you stop the clock when the ref calls a scrum….exactly when do you re-start it? When the ball is fed into the scrum? What if there is a reset? Or when the ball comes out (then why isn’t the scrum considered “ball in play”? What if there is a penalty advantage; play it out and start it or wait until the advantage is not made? And while pro rugby has a time keeper, how would this play out for subbies team that struggle for touch judges let alone time keepers

Instead, let the clock continue and it would be unnecessary if the previous changes were adopted. To me it makes more sense to give a reasonable time, say 10-20 seconds for the forwards to be in a position to form a scrum. (This would also apply to a lineout). If the forwards from one team are not ready to pack down, then it’s a free kick to the team that is. Do it once at the start of a game and watch them hustle for the remainder. One way for the defending team to quickly get the ball back would be to form up quickly while the attacking team mills around.

Therefore… knock on and ref calls a scrum, players run to the mark and get ready to pack.

I want to see scrums. I don’t want to see the scrum disappear or be neutered like a league scrum.

But I want to see scrums do what was originally intended. Restart play. To “win more ball to play with.” Not be used as an “Attacking weapon” to force a penalty. And I only want to see 1 of them when a scrum is called not a plethora of resets that ends in a penalty.

Is this a problem without a solution? Why thinking around scrums needs a reset

Excellent article Zakia, thanks.
Unfortunately people don’t understand about intent. the “intent” is an irrelevant concept in rugby. Refs are not asked to judge intent, just what is seen and to add intent would already slow down an increasingly stop -start game.
Intent is the judiciary’s job, and some of those meetings last hours. It’s there the that the length of suspension is determined.
I agree with the 20 minute red.
But what I’d like to see is on top of the red is the loss of a sub. In pro rugby that would certainly add as an additional deterrent for a deliberate action early in the game. And if all subs are used in a game before the red, one less sub the following week.
I’d also like to see that 2 yellows =/= a red. Sometimes the second yellow has happened because the ref has no choice. If I’m an opposition coach I’m more than happy to see a player get 3 or 4 yellows — at the end of the day that player is an opposition’s asset with 30-40 minutes off the field.
People need to understand that contact with the head has to stop. It is due to poor tackle technique. And we’re also seeing a lot of shoulders making conatct with no attempt to wrap. It’s simply a red regardless of intent or technique.
BUT, having said that, ball carriers should not be ducking into tackles either. That has to stop as well. The ball carrier needs to also take responsibility. And I’m referring to ducking and leading with the head, not dropping down because of body height or being in a tackle already. A player should only be able to duck, in the attempt to score a try — there a ref might need to use judgement inside the 5 metre line…
Thanks for the article, its good to have some facts and figures, rather than just opinions.

‘The bias is obvious’: Why critics of the 20-minute red card aren’t doing their research

My first pair of boots were Les Johns, mid cut and with the aluminium springs nailed in.

Remembering two fullbacks – Les Johns and Eric Simms

John, you raise some interesting points, many I am in tune with.
I have become quite jaded with modern rugby. It’s become no tackle count league, without the 5 metres. Endless pick and goes from a standing start burrowing into a defensive player that is standing offside. And then if that hasn’t bored you to tears then, we have the interminable scrums and resets resulting in a penalty kick to the corner and yet another maul. William Webb Ellis took the ball and ran with it. Something the Law makers have forgotten.
There are a few things I’d like to see, and the first is the offside at the ruck. Every single ruck, every one of them a damn player is offside – attacking players as well, trying to shield the half from the defensive player that’s a metre offside.
To be consistent, with scrums and lineouts, a ruck should have a “receiver” usually the half, but if not, the closest player that is unbound to the ruck. All players not bound in the ruck must stay behind the receiver, this should allow about 1 metre between players and ruck, or at least daylight. And that is both feet behind the line. And the refs should be brutal. No penalty just a free kick. If a defensive player interferes with the quick tap, then a penalty and yellow card. Assistant refs could assist the ref on this.
Tries under the posts should skip conversions, much like a penalty try. The difference is a penalty try is awarded anywhere along the goal line.
I’d also skip most penalties for free kicks and encourage quick taps. This particular applies to scrums. Absurd a knock on can result in a penalty because a prop puts the hand on the ground or some more arbitrary reason that is incomprehensible to everyone. No more scrum penalties. Contrary to popular belief, a scrum is not a weapon, it is a means to restart play. If it doesn’t resolve with one scrum, the team that didn’t get an advantage gets the free. Simple and no resets, the onus is on the defending team to attempt to get a scrum result, because if they don’t they won’t get the ball and the attackers get 10 metres to play with. But no penalties. If a defensive player interferes with the quick tap then a penalty and yellow card.
(Now, every time the refs arm goes out for inevitable penalty advantage I wonder why we bother with scrums — just give the team that didn’t knock on a penalty so we don’t waste any more time on resets.)
And keep the water boys off the park. If a poor buggers need water they can go to the sideline. We have the ridiculous situation where this is a prolonged stoppage of play — say for an TMO call — and then after 2 minutes of prognostication, we waste more time with the ref then chasing the water boys off the field. The only non-players allowed on the field should be a medic in case of injury.
I could go on, but that’s enough for now…

How rugby union can change its laws to improve the spectacle... including six-point tries

The root cause of the red cards for tackling is poor technique.
If tackler tackles low then the ball carrier is not at risk of head contact through poor technique. Yes there is risk, if the tackler gets the technique wrong, but then it’s the tackler’s faulty not the tackled player. No one wants to see a player get concussed, but it should never be the ball carrier through any sort of contact with the head. Get the technique right and the red cards will stop
As far as ‘clean-outs’ go, it is charging in and under the laws of the game they are illegal and should be stamped out. There are no excuses.
Firstly, its dangerous play. (Law 20 A). The sanction should be a yellow for dangerous play and a red for head contact. At best it’s a penalty, for not binding before or on contact (Law 7 C).
Law 20 Dangerous Play
Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.
A. player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
Law 7 Joining a Ruck
Joining a ruck
C. A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
The law needs to be changed so that ball carriers do not duck into tackles head first. The only time a ball carrier should be able to go low is an attempt to score a try.
And the TMO really needs to look at cricket is going through replays. The review stars with the TMO already reviewed the front foot for a legal delivery. A decision is reached pretty quickly. While cricket and rugby are different, especially in regards to the technology and camer angles, in rugby we have the situation while we wait for the replay even after the TMO has alerted the referee. The views need to come immediately, often a minute or more has elapsed and we’re still waiting.
The game is so slowed with so many breaks, for TMO and then there is the dawdling to scrums and lineouts, and water carriers flooding the field at almost every opportunity. Stop the breaks.
Commentators constant whining and moaning is harming the game. They need to learn the Laws or STFU.

Crackdown? High tackle cards nothing new and are a failure of coaches and players, not the refs

Mr X has cleared out with property that doesn’t belong to him. The police would probably not care for $100 of footy… But if he tries to sell it for $5,000 they might.
And then there is the issue of provenance. Sure the photo of Mr X catching the ball is there. But how can a buyer be sure it’s *that* ball. After all X could sell another dozen or so if he wanted to… So long as he’s careful in his wording of his ad.
The solution is simple. He and the Swans do an exchange.
Mr X returns Buddy’s footy, and in return X gets another Sherrin. Signed by Buddy on one side, with acknowledgement of his 1000 goal milestone, and the other side of the ball, signed by the Swans team.
It will look great on his mantle. And the ball will even be worth something simply because of the notoriety, and it will also have provenance because of the signatures
And Buddy will get the footy he kicked his 1,000 goal with.
Providing Mr X returns the real footy

'I've got the pill!' Manhunt underway as Swans issue plea to find Franklin's 1000 ball

Thanks for your reply!

Most concussions are going to be when the ball carrier has a change of direction and the tackler ends up with the head in the wrong side, or hits the hip bone. We can’t do much about that.

However we can make sure head high tackles are a rare occurrence. Some onus needs to also be on the ball carrier. I also think it is essential to stop ball carriers ducking or falling into a tackle. I think ducking into a tackle should warrant a free kick to the defending side.

(The worst concussion I have seen is a winger taken ball and all in a perfectly legal tackle, and because he was wrapped up, could not get an arm out to take the fall. His head hit a baked hard (turf) cricket pitch. It sounded like a watermelon being dropped on concrete. Without any protocols in place he stayed on the field and afterwards had no idea — where we were, who we were playing, what the score was, etc — although he still recognised me. )

Gone in 82 seconds: Record-breaking red card paves way for Ireland's win over plucky England

First off… intent is irrelevant. The rules on what happens, not what is intended. Whether it is accidental or not is irrelevant.

Red cards — send off invariably unbalance a game, making it all but impossible to win. Especially the first half of a game.

A 20 minute Red Card replacement is best for the game as a spectacle, but also making sure that the offender is seen by a judiciary for additional sanction.

However, 20 minutes is in some ways a light punishment if the player who has been impacted has to leave the field and be replaced.

The Law should be: When a player is red carded he cannot play any further part in the game. After 20 minutes a reserve player may return to the field as a replacement. As well the offending team forfeits one substitution. That is one reserve is now unable to take the field.

And it is probably time to repeal two yellows equals a red. That can result in a nonsense send off.

Reds should be distinctly for foul play with a visit to the judiciary for possible further sanctions.

For example, if a player get 4 yellows in a game, it is an decided advantage to the team that has been fouled — effectively that player will have been off the field for 40 minutes

On a final note, ball carriers should not be allowed to ‘duck’ into tackles. The only time a player carrying the ball should be allowed to duck or lower their height is in an attempt to score a try.

Yes rugby is a contact sport. No it is not a ‘mans’ game. It is played by men, women and children and it is absolutely essential that players head’s are protected as best as the rules allow.

Gone in 82 seconds: Record-breaking red card paves way for Ireland's win over plucky England

The head is a ship’s toilet. Like a galley is a kitchen and a brig is a cell. Nothing to do with the yanks.

Does the NRL need the Bunker?

American Football is the only sport I’ve fallen asleep in a final — in the middle of the day.

“The artists had said the NFL was slow to embrace hip hop as a genre.”
A “genre”, so that’s what hip hop is… sure as hell isn’t music.

'Greatest ever': Hip hop legends' superb halftime show, Eminem's controversial moment

My first pair of boots were “Les Johns” with the studs nailed on. They were black.

The all-time great rugby league fashions

Hello Allan, thanks again for another great article.

I have a firm belief that ALL pro players MUST take a refs course, at least to Level 1 and when they have home games in (ie Super) go and ref U12 -U16 Saturday morning club and school games. It would not only give them an understanding of the laws of the game and help them appreciate the difficulties of being a ref, but even more importantly would help promote the game. Imagine being in the u14Ds at 10am and having Hoops, Nic White or T Thor turning up to ref your game in their ‘Super” jersey at 10am on a Saturday morning!

The other reason I say this because one of my bug bears is the nonsense that refs go through every single game of ‘explaining’ the laws to players and giving them ‘warnings’ at the start of the game. They should know the laws, there is no excuse not to. Nothing has changed from lass week’s game. For pro players this bullsh1te needs to stop — stop the warnings — just penalize them and keep doing it. They will work it out or someone on ther tem will tell them to work it out. Explaining the laws to a pro player should NOT be the job of a ref.

Regarding refs viewpoint in general… When a ref is standing 2 metres from a ruck on one side of the field, that view is nothing like a spectator standing 60 metres away on the other side of the field., or the camera viewpoint.

I was a level 2 ref and mainly reffed age groups U12-U19. I ended up stopping because I got tired of the abuse of parents – who didn’t know the laws.

When I played, after the game I recall refs dropping in for a beer (or two on the club!) and were quite amiable for a chat about any decisions made during the game. Regardless of the result, I never recalled any ill will. But then, those were different days when refs were called ‘Sir’ and players were called by the number on jersey.

The Roar Rugby Project Part 8: There is no game without a referee

There is an actual psychophysiological response on winning and losing. I suspect some people feel it more — a bigger high on winning, and a bigger kick in the guts on losing.

Here’s an interesting paper: Winning and Losing: An Evolutionary Approach to Mood Disorders and Their Therapy

Objective: To advance a new evolutionary model that examines the effects of winning and losing on mood and physiological variables. Previous studies have focused on the involuntary defeat strategy in de-escalating conflict. Here, we propose that there also exists an involuntary winning strategy (IWS) that is triggered by success and characterized by euphoria and increased self-confidence. It motivates efforts to challenge, and promotes reconciliation.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674371105600603

How far can self-belief take you in rugby? The top two inches - Part 1

And also a reason why fitness is so important, particularly in the closing minutes of the game. One small lapse in concentration — the brain loses focus and slows or even stops ‘thinking’ well before the legs have given out.

How far can self-belief take you in rugby? The top two inches - Part 1

No worries… I lived in a country for a while where the Govt would just switch it off for days. Made for interesting times.

Yes, it is fascinating how the mind works… It can take a lot of thought to word statements that don’t use don’t.

Sometimes it’s just planting a ‘seed’ — like my mum did when telling my sister, “Don’t you hit your brother with that shovel.” A minute later I was off to the hospital to get my first lot of stitches right on the top of my head. I was 4 years old 🙂

How far can self-belief take you in rugby? The top two inches - Part 1

NOT A LETTER FROM THE ABF

Dear Mr Novax Djocovid

RE: Irregularities in Application

We are advising you that it has recently come to light that there are further irregularities on your visa application and /or Border Entry Form(s) including:

Covid Laboratory test: results, q-codes, dates of results, sequence numbers and/or results questioning the legitimacy of the testing facility as well as countries visited and social media posts, before and after visa application.

We are giving you 48 hours of advance warning of a mask to mask interview so that you can contact your legal team and prepare an explanation and present authentic documentation. A note from your mum excusing you from attendance will not be considered.

If the irregularities have been caused due to the Laboratory, the lab will be struck off and be declared an invalid and unreliable lab for Australian entry requirements and any and all results from the lab that have been used for Visa entry into Australia since will also be declared invalid and will be immediately deported.

If the results are accurate and the documents have been ‘adjusted, amended, false or forged’, it caries severe penalties, including gaol terms & listening to videos and radio interviews by Pauline Hanson, Tony Abbott, John Howard, Alan Jones and a few other guest speakers regarding border security.

Unfortunately, due to a recent legal ruling we will be unable to return you to the deluxe accommodation at the Park Hotel. However, while we await the outcome of investigation, we will be providing accommodation at the Tropical Resort of Manus Island.

Your current travelling exemption will be valid for next 48 hours. If you should you require transport to the airport please use this voucher: #PO&FU2

Regards 🙂

'Error of judgement': Novak's stunning admission as German media reveals test anomaly

Agreed, jeznez, wanted to try to keep it simple.

And agree on the mistakes, no one deliberately makes one. It was important to have team mates actively encourage and support someone who did made a mistake — they didn’t need ‘reminding’ … or worse.

How far can self-belief take you in rugby? The top two inches - Part 1

close