• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Player throwing ball in

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.
Yes I understand that. However that is not the full picture, and is not what I am saying.

To look at it another way;
  1. If, as a hooker you believe that the defence will put a jumper up at EVERY lineout, then you need to be accurate.
  2. I don't think that anyone is removing any tactical defensive decisions, just changing them. I know why you are thinking this but if today we have a situation today whereby most defensive 5m Lineouts are not contested, we see a tactical defensive decision to contest from time to time. All that will happen here is that the status quo turns around in that the surprise move is to NOT contest in the air but remain on the ground.
I am not fussed whether this law comes in or not, but considering that it probably will, and I will need to manage it I am quite happy that I can do so. Further, I believe that it will not have any detrimental affect on the game, or indeed the skills around the lineout.
 
Yes I understand that. However that is not the full picture, and is not what I am saying.

To look at it another way;
  1. If, as a hooker you believe that the defence will put a jumper up at EVERY lineout, then you need to be accurate.
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?
 
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?
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?
 
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?
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 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 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.

By the way, my response was not intended to be sarcastric or facetious (if indeed it came across that way), it was intended to highlight my point of view, in that after making the decision (to drive on the wrong side or to throw not straight, you have no idea what may come next, traffic appearing around the corner, or the opposition challenging in the line) its always a risk to assume you can bend/break the law with no consequence. Thats all.

My line of thinking - to be clear - is that the proposed law change (re not straight/challenging etc) is not going to erode the skills of the hooker.

Again, to be absolutely clear, and reiterating I am not ssupporting the law change, indeed I noted above I am not fussed either way whether it happens or not. Your analogy of the knock-on is reasonable in the sense of challenging the purpose of the law change.
 
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!)
 
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!)
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.
 
I mean you wouldn't see a top tier team like England continue to select a scrum half that couldn't pass the ball off the floor without lifting and stepping no would you:censored:
 
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.
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.

It's this attitude to skills and basics that's led to the scrum being the current shitshow that it is? Competition? Who needs it? The boys have the ball in play.
 
So let's just drop to 13 players per team and accept scrums are just a means to keep 12 people occupied and out of the way so the pretty people can show how silkily they run and gorgeously they handle the ball. Right up until they drop it and we get the perennial excuse it's wet and the ball is like a bar of soap:cautious:. Jeez if only they had grown up with a mitre ball that had been kicked to death around the concrete playground and was covered in slippery lino. We used to throw in with one hand using that wonderful slippery ball. But if you're not going to allow competition for the restart why even bother with it? So let's stop the pretence if you remove the competition it is not rugby!

Watched a chat programme with Ali McCoist, Bryan Habana and some bloke called Macca (think he was ex Liverpool but). Anyway Macca was telling how when went to a rugby match he was amazed at the drinking in the crowd but more so by the number of times that people were leaving their seats to go to the bar! The spectator are not fixated by the game!

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.

And Ive never got why people cough £120+ for an international and miss at least a third of it toing and froing to the bar and toilet - £40 for a poor pub expereince
 
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.
 
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.

Ref does seem to be well positioned, maybe things had been said previously?

Bringing down the maul at that point does stop the BC from getting over the line, he comes down just shy of the line with no way to reach forward. Maybe that’s the materiality as the ref saw it?

*edit for broken link
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
You mean all the players out of line when the ball was thrown? I think that law is optional at the elite level.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0198.jpeg
    IMG_0198.jpeg
    505.9 KB · Views: 13
Back
Top