Yes I understand that. However that is not the full picture, and is not what I am saying.still not seeing how providing an excuse for throwers to not be straight refines skills.
whilst removing legal tactical defensive decisions.
Potentially if the idea is to FORCE defenders into lifting a pod, it can only ultimately lead to more mauled 5m tries - which its clear a sizeable demographic see as a blight on the game.
Is this the official view on the new law?Outside shoulder will always be not straight
so why not be accurate if they don't? After all, its EXACTLY the same skill against even less defense for the catch.Yes I understand that. However that is not the full picture, and is not what I am saying.
To look at it another way;
- If, as a hooker you believe that the defence will put a jumper up at EVERY lineout, then you need to be accurate.
Well yes, why not?so why not be accurate if they don't? After all, its EXACTLY the same skill against even less defense for the catch.
If I can be sure driving down the motorway at 3am means there is no traffic going the opposite way, why shouldn't I drive on the wrong side?
I dont. I was following yuour line of thinking.Well yes, why not?
Its not as if the defensive team will advise the hooker that they're not going to compete.
"Don't worry about the throw pal, we're not competing at this one!"
Or to follow your analogy, how do you know that theres no traffic coming around the corner?
so a slightly fumbled catch and knock on that is immediately retrieved by the player dropping the ball while the nearest opposition is 35m away is equally immaterial?No, the idea is if the defenders decide not to compete then a slightly not straight throw is immaterial.
I think your motorway analogy was fine, I really have no preference. I understand it. I just don't think it portrays the whole picture. The knock-on analogy adresses a different matter, that of the introduction and reasoning of the law itself. I am just commenting of the erosion of skills issue.I dont. I was following yuour line of thinking.
If you prefer I'll use a rugby based analogy.
Red 10 kicks long.
Black 15 tries to catch it, fumbles forward.
Nearest black defender 35m away. Red has time to regather and play on and the game can continue.
Why not play on and ignore the failure of a basic skill ? (ie the knock on)
I'm with you didds. Just learn how to throw straight. But then I am a front row, played hooker (plus 1 and 3) for many years and prided myself on being able to get it down the middle 90% of the time.We will have to agree to doisagree then
Various suggestion above are that this squint throw mularkey is to not stop the game when there is no need
Which blowing for a knock on 35m upfield that is immediately retrieved by the perp does end up in the game stopping when there is no need.
The two things are analogous. The knock is meaningless in terms of the oppo gaining possession. The argument being made is that catching an uncontesed squint throw is meaningless in terms of the oppo gaining possession,
Former is pinged. Latter isn't.
Makes zero sense.
I appreciate I am in a minority of one (there may be a seconds ISTR!)
My money? Australia and NZ have to compete with NRL for eyeballs, and they put out a lesser product. Anything to increase 'continuity' and the ball in play is unequivocally better, apparently. Lack of skill? No worries mate, ball in play.I'm with you didds. Just learn how to throw straight. But then I am a front row, played hooker (plus 1 and 3) for many years and prided myself on being able to get it down the middle 90% of the time.
It is a skill that is part of the game. If the hooker can't throw in straight give the ball to someone else who can.
I do wonder, the first I heard of this was watching Super Rugby about 2 seasons ago and the Aussie commentators were going on about it week in week out, about how the law needs to change, as throws were put in squint. I just wonder how much the powers that be capitulated due to the very public whinging of these high profile commentators.
Rugby has never really attracted the outright fanaticism that soccer has.Live audiences are not fans and watching the game is not the purpose of being in the ground, we must ask why?
It also does make you wonder though if they are trying to grow the spectator base why do they hide the Invested Champions Cup away on a Z list tv channel.
Its been changing for decades - even before professionalism hence the England players issue pre pro when they were being asked to do all sort of promo/sponsorship shizzle for the RFU whilst being amateurs.Rugby has never really attracted the outright fanaticism that soccer has.
And a day out at the rugby has always been a social event as much as it has been for the actual game. The game itself was for the players, and not about a 'product' for eyeballs.
That equation is changing, and not, I think, always for the better.
It seems the pundits might actually be catching up about standing in the field of play, just need to sort out all the movement before the ball is thrown and then get the refs to actually apply it.
Sale v Exeter yesterday was called a few times but see 49:15 game clock for both offences before maul collapse leading to Sale try PT!
Please talk to me about materiality.
You mean all the players out of line when the ball was thrown? I think that law is optional at the elite level.I have no issues with bringing the maul down as an illegal act and white 4 as the cause of that collapse. But the maul to my mind was set up illegally and the throw was illegal. Both clear and obvious so we should not even be at the stage of assessing the collapse of the maul.