Laws Question? Ask here!

The Lost Sheep · 02-03-2017 2:04pm

TheCitizen wrote:

I disagree. I've been watching the 6 nations and in my view defending teams are routinely giving away penalties in the red zone in the knowledge that they'll get 2 or 3 opportunities to give away penalties before they receive a warning. While this is happening the attacking side are frustrated and the pressure builds on them to get over the line often resulting in a turn over as the pressure ramps up and gets to them.

I don't and that's based on what I've seen at ref meetings etf

TheCitizen wrote:

It appears arbitrary, different refs will warn earlier than others in a red zone cycle. I reckon a penalty given away in a red zone should be met with an immediate warning. If the defensive team then offends again, the attacking team should then be afforded the opportunity to go for another try in the knowledge that if the ball is turned over legitimately they can revert to the advantage of a penalty kick and 3 points. Another infringement by the defensive side at that point should result in a penalty try.

because advantage is played differently wrt the situation and it will depend on how a ref likes to play advantage if at all.

TheCitizen wrote:

That's my view on it, I think something should be done because it's inconsistent with different refs approaching red zone offences in different ways.

because that's how rugby works with laws and interpretation.

Hungrycol wrote:

If a ref gets injured during the course of a game do the Assistant Refs take over, so are there sub refs/assistant refs?

they are assistant refs at pro level and touch judges in amatuer game. In all games where there is 3/4/5/6 officials there is a hierarchy. One of the assistant referees will be first replacement if ref goes off and everyone else steps up. At an amatuer level you can have the situation where ref goes off injured and neither touch judge can replace him as neither are suitably qualified to referee the match in question

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 2:11pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

But they already do?????

They get the advantage off every penalty, unless the ball is unplayable.

When they have the advantage they can go for another try safe in the knowledge if they don't succeed they get the penalty back.

I'm petty sure what your arguing for already exists.

I'm talking about when an attacking team keeps going for the try in the red zone and then it's advantage over, this can happen multiple times if the ref is reluctant to call a penalty try. The defending team are happy to yield 3 points and will keep offending gambling that the penalty try won't be awarded and sometimes the pressure builds on the attacking side and the ball is legitimately turned over, at that point I reckon a shot at goal default should be awarded. The psychological balance in the red zone is towards the defending team who are often multiple infringing with nothing to lose and everything to gain, the balance should be the other way in my view.

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 2:19pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

because that's how rugby works with laws and interpretation.

Yes, that's what I think should change, in relation to the red zone. They're always making law changes in rugby. There should be a change in red zone officiating in my view. A team that keeps attacking for the try can come away with nothing despite multiple infringements by the defending side. In my view a penalty kick should be the default after multiple defensive infringements and the regular "advantage" is followed by a turnover.

sydthebeat · 02-03-2017 2:21pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'm talking about when an attacking team keeps going for the try in the red zone and then it's advantage over, this can happen multiple times if the ref is reluctant to call a penalty try. The defending team are happy to yield 3 points and will keep offending gambling that the penalty try won't be awarded and sometimes the pressure builds on the attacking side and the ball is legitimately turned over, at that point I reckon a shot at goal default should be awarded. The psychological balance in the red zone is towards the defending team who are often multiple infringing with nothing to lose and everything to gain, the balance should be the other way in my view.

If by the red zone you mean within the 5, then it's highly unlikely a ref will allow advantage to be over without a score, unless he calls advantage over for something like a 4 on 1 and the attacking team butcher it.

I still think your arguing for anything that's already in place.

The Lost Sheep · 02-03-2017 2:24pm

TheCitizen wrote:

I'm talking about when an attacking team keeps going for the try in the red zone and then it's advantage over, this can happen multiple times if the ref is reluctant to call a penalty try. The defending team are happy to yield 3 points and will keep offending gambling that the penalty try won't be awarded and sometimes the pressure builds on the attacking side and the ball is legitimately turned over, at that point I reckon a shot at goal default should be awarded. The psychological balance in the red zone is towards the defending team who are often multiple infringing with nothing to lose and everything to gain, the balance should be the other way in my view.

a penalty try can only be awarded if a probable try would have been scored but for foul play that is why they don't occur more as more often than not a probable score wasn't prevented. And no a shot at score should never just be made automatic.

TheCitizen wrote:

Yes, that's what I think should change, in relation to the red zone. They're always making law changes in rugby. There should be a change in red zone officiating in my view. A team that keeps attacking for the try can come away with nothing despite multiple infringements by the defending side. In my view a penalty kick should be the default after multiple defensive infringements and the regular "advantage" is followed by a turnover.

that isn't needed.

Quin_Dub · 02-03-2017 2:41pm

Hungrycol wrote: »

Question:

If a ref gets injured during the course of a game do the Assistant Refs take over, so are there sub refs/assistant refs?

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

they are assistant refs at pro level and touch judges in amatuer game. In all games where there is 3/4/5/6 officials there is a hierarchy. One of the assistant referees will be first replacement if ref goes off and everyone else steps up. At an amatuer level you can have the situation where ref goes off injured and neither touch judge can replace him as neither are suitably qualified to referee the match in question

The order of events at an amateur/youth game if a referee gets injured is that if there is a qualified referee available (e.g. a member of the relevant referees association) they can take over the game , regardless of their club affiliation. At Adult level if there isn't another referee available , then that's that, the game is called off.. If it happens after 75% (I think) of the game has already been played, the result stands , otherwise it's a replay.

At Schools/Youth there is an additional option - Associate Referees , these are coaches/teachers who have completed a basic refereeing course and hold a valid certificate from the IRFU. Most clubs would try to have at least 1 Associate Referee at each age group.

The Home team have first dibs as it were if they have Associate ref available , failing that a visiting Teams Associate can referee.

If that fails then it's back to the game being called off as above.

Associate Referees can only referee games up to U18 and only games involving their own club/school. (you can be aligned to 1 School and 1 Club only)

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 3:11pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

a penalty try can only be awarded if a probable try would have been scored but for foul play that is why they don't occur more as more often than not a probable score wasn't prevented. And no a shot at score should never just be made automatic.

I disagree.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

that isn't needed.

I think it is. I think the way it stands the balance is weighted against the attacking side going for the try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-3RGSnyw5g

35 minutes into this. Ref gives a penalty against France just inside their 22. Ireland push on for the try. Then another penalty in the red zone, no warning. Then another penalty, France infringe again on the try line. This one is met with a warning. After that France turn it over legitimately and Ireland get nothing. France rewarded for continually infringing.

I'm saying the first incident in the red zone (the second of the incidents I referred to above) should have also had a warning issued. It encourages the defending team to gamble and give away penalties.

blackwhite · 02-03-2017 8:08pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

I disagree.

I think it is. I think the way it stands the balance is weighted against the attacking side going for the try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-3RGSnyw5g

35 minutes into this. Ref gives a penalty against France just inside their 22. Ireland push on for the try. Then another penalty in the red zone, no warning. Then another penalty, France infringe again on the try line. This one is met with a warning. After that France turn it over legitimately and Ireland get nothing. France rewarded for continually infringing.

I'm saying the first incident in the red zone (the second of the incidents I referred to above) should have also had a warning issued. It encourages the defending team to gamble and give away penalties.

After each French infringement, a penalty was awarded.
Owens didn't call advantage over for any one of them. In each instance, when ireland failed to score a penalty was awarded. Ireland could have taken the three points each time, but chose to kick the corner instead.
They were never, not once, denied the opportunity to kick for 3.
After ireland were awarded the final penalty they chose to kick for touch instead, and France didn't infringe again between this and their turnover.

Are you trying to argue that after a penalty is awarded then a team should be allowed to turn down the kick at goal and kick the corner instead, and then still have the option to go back for the kick at goal if it turns out they made the wrong choice? Basically give them two penalties for the offence if they get their choice wrong the first time?

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 9:57pm

blackwhite wrote: »

After each French infringement, a penalty was awarded.
Owens didn't call advantage over for any one of them. In each instance, when ireland failed to score a penalty was awarded. Ireland could have taken the three points each time, but chose to kick the corner instead.
They were never, not once, denied the opportunity to kick for 3.
After ireland were awarded the final penalty they chose to kick for touch instead, and France didn't infringe again between this and their turnover.

Are you trying to argue that after a penalty is awarded then a team should be allowed to turn down the kick at goal and kick the corner instead, and then still have the option to go back for the kick at goal if it turns out they made the wrong choice? Basically give them two penalties for the offence if they get their choice wrong the first time?

I'm saying a defending team is happy to ship 3 points by infringing. Let me spell it out. In my view there should be an interim default penalty.

1 If a defending team infringes in the red zone they should immediately be warned.
2 If they infringe again then a second warning with a default penalty should be issued.
3 If they infringe a 3rd time in a row then a penalty try should be given.
So, if on this play the defensive side turnover possession legitimately then they prevent the try and possible conversion but the attacking side gets a penalty because the defensive side had already infringed twice in the red zone.

The way it is now a defending team can be rewarded for deliberately fouling twice or sometimes even more in the red zone depending on the ref and an attacking side can end up with nothing because they keep going for a try. The balance of the current scenario is wrong and skewed in favour of the defending team who are deliberately spoiling and giving away penalties knowing they'll have two or even more chances to infringe and frustrate the opposition by fouling. It should be skewed the other way so that defending teams are less likely to get rewarded for deliberately infringing in the red zone.

sydthebeat · 02-03-2017 10:13pm

It sounds like your arguing that every penalty in the "red zone" should result in at least 5 points?

Kind of like a penalty kick in soccer? ie a foul close to the goal incurs a higher penalty....

Its an interesting idea.

Losty Dublin · 02-03-2017 10:39pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

The way it is now a defending team can be rewarded for deliberately fouling twice or sometimes even more in the red zone depending on the ref and an attacking side can end up with nothing because they keep going for a try. The balance of the current scenario is wrong and skewed in favour of the defending team who are deliberately spoiling and giving away penalties knowing they'll have two or even more chances to infringe and frustrate the opposition by fouling. It should be skewed the other way so that defending teams are less likely to get rewarded for deliberately infringing in the red zone.

It has already been spelt out to you that what you think is happening is not the case. If it ever happens then there are already ways and means to deal with it.

blackwhite · 02-03-2017 10:43pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'm saying a defending team is happy to ship 3 points by infringing. Let me spell it out. In my view there should be an interim default penalty.

1 If a defending team infringes in the red zone they should immediately be warned.
2 If they infringe again then a second warning with a default penalty should be issued.
3 If they infringe a 3rd time in a row then a penalty try should be given.
So, if on this play the defensive side turnover possession legitimately then they prevent the try and possible conversion but the attacking side gets a penalty because the defensive side had already infringed twice in the red zone.

The way it is now a defending team can be rewarded for deliberately fouling twice or sometimes even more in the red zone depending on the ref and an attacking side can end up with nothing because they keep going for a try. The balance of the current scenario is wrong and skewed in favour of the defending team who are deliberately spoiling and giving away penalties knowing they'll have two or even more chances to infringe and frustrate the opposition by fouling. It should be skewed the other way so that defending teams are less likely to get rewarded for deliberately infringing in the red zone.

So if the attacking team decides to kick at goal after the 2nd offence, but misses the kick, you think they should be given a second attempt at the kick?

Because that's exactly what you are arguing should happen if they go for a try instead of taking the kick at goal.

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 10:47pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

It sounds like your arguing that every penalty in the "red zone" should result in at least 5 points?

No the initial penalty would come with just a warning and the attacking side can kick at goal or keep going for a try. The point is they should be incentivised further even than they are currently to keep going for the try.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Kind of like a penalty kick in soccer? ie a foul close to the goal incurs a higher penalty....

Its an interesting idea.

Yes. Right now I think it's skewed in favour of the defending side. Should be the other way.

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 10:50pm

blackwhite wrote: »

So if the attacking team decides to kick at goal after the 2nd offence, but misses the kick, you think they should be given a second attempt at the kick?

Because that's exactly what you are arguing should happen if they go for a try instead of taking the kick at goal.

No. If they miss the kick they miss the kick.

Why would they be given a second kick, if they missed the kick

CMOTDibbler · 02-03-2017 10:58pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

No the initial penalty would come with just a warning and the attacking side can kick at goal or keep going for a try. The point is they should be incentivised further even than they are currently to keep going for the try.

Yes. Right now I think it's skewed in favour of the defending side. Should be the other way.

There's one issue I have with this. A lot of infringements are technical ones. You see a guy being penalised for not rolling away in the tackle when in fact he's pinned down and unable to move. Or a defender steps offside as the scrum half goes for the ball, going just too early and getting penalised.

There are many of these in the red zone because players are under pressure and so are the officials.

Granted persistent infringements of the same type which are designed to slow the attack down are cynical and should be punished. But just because they're in the red zone doesn't automatically mean they're cynical.

blackwhite · 02-03-2017 11:16pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

No. If they miss the kick they miss the kick.

Why would they be given a second kick, if they missed the kick

Then, if there is no further infringement, why should they be given a kick if they mess up after choosing to take a line out instead?

You're contradicting your own argument!

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 11:19pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's one issue I have with this. A lot of infringements are technical ones. You see a guy being penalised for not rolling away in the tackle when in fact he's pinned down and unable to move. Or a defender steps offside as the scrum half goes for the ball, going just too early and getting penalised.

There are many of these in the red zone because players are under pressure and so are the officials.

Granted persistent infringements of the same type which are designed to slow the attack down are cynical and should be punished. But just because they're in the red zone doesn't automatically mean they're cynical.

Some of that is down to ref interpretation but there should be stronger guidelines favouring the attacking side I reckon.

I think there's a balance there right now around this issue which favours the defending side, when it really should favour the attacking side.

TheCitizen · 02-03-2017 11:25pm

blackwhite wrote: »

Then, if there is no further infringement, why should they be given a kick if they mess up after choosing to take a line out instead?

Because as things are right now; defending sides essentially know when they face a team in the red zone in set pieces, they are given rope to foul at least twice and sometimes more depending on the ref. This puts more pressure on the attacking side which rewards a defending side deliberately fouling in the red zone.

blackwhite wrote: »

You're contradicting your own argument!

No, I'm not.

The Lost Sheep · 03-03-2017 2:10am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The order of events at an amateur/youth game if a referee gets injured is that if there is a qualified referee available (e.g. a member of the relevant referees association) they can take over the game, regardless of their club affiliation. At Adult level if there isn't another referee available, then that's that, the game is called off.. If it happens after 75% (I think) of the game has already been played, the result stands, otherwise it's a replay.

Yes its if ref is injured or cannot continue and another qualified referee, ie branch association and at a level to referee the game, they can do it. If a ref in an AIL or J1 level game pulls up even if theres two touch judges neither may be qualified enough to ref the game.
It isnt 75% generally that a result stands. Its slightly more. So 70 minutes of an 80 minute game. 62 minutes of 70 minute game etc. And yes otherwise the game must be replayed.

TheCitizen wrote: »

I disagree.

You can disagree but you are wrong and its in the laws

I think it is. I think the way it stands the balance is weighted against the attacking side going for the try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-3RGSnyw5g

35 minutes into this. Ref gives a penalty against France just inside their 22. Ireland push on for the try. Then another penalty in the red zone, no warning. Then another penalty, France infringe again on the try line. This one is met with a warning. After that France turn it over legitimately and Ireland get nothing. France rewarded for continually infringing.

I'm saying the first incident in the red zone (the second of the incidents I referred to above) should have also had a warning issued. It encourages the defending team to gamble and give away penalties.

The defending team is in say a ruck always looked at first. Say if there's a tackle and ruck forms. you will look at tackler, arriving players and then ball carrier last. That comfortably shows the balance is weighted in favour of the ball carrying team. France were not rewarded for continous infringing. Your proposals are completely unreasonable.

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'm saying a defending team is happy to ship 3 points by infringing. Let me spell it out. In my view there should be an interim default penalty.

1 If a defending team infringes in the red zone they should immediately be warned.
2 If they infringe again then a second warning with a default penalty should be issued.
3 If they infringe a 3rd time in a row then a penalty try should be given.
So, if on this play the defensive side turnover possession legitimately then they prevent the try and possible conversion but the attacking side gets a penalty because the defensive side had already infringed twice in the red zone.

Seriously? What is your involvement in the game? Have you ever coached/refereed/played as your proposals are completely unrealistic and devoid of reality of refereeing a game.
A default penalty is ridiculous and not needed. If a team infringes in their own red zone they will be warned. The attacking team then has a choice of what to do. They can run the ball/kick at goal or kick to the corner. A third infringement cant simply be a penalty try. That is completely unrealstic.

TheCitizen wrote: »

No the initial penalty would come with just a warning and the attacking side can kick at goal or keep going for a try. The point is they should be incentivised further even than they are currently to keep going for the try.

Yes. Right now I think it's skewed in favour of the defending side. Should be the other way.

The laws are not skewed though and you dont see that. There isnt any need for all this inventivising especially in the format you are proposing.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Because as things are right now; defending sides essentially know when they face a team in the red zone in set pieces, they are given rope to foul at least twice and sometimes more depending on the ref. This puts more pressure on the attacking side which rewards a defending side deliberately fouling in the red zone.

Theyre not and a penalty try can only be awarded for a probable score. Not a possible score not where a try might be scored. Your argument lacks the knowledge of this essential element.

CMOTDibbler · 03-03-2017 9:07am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Theyre not and a penalty try can only be awarded for a probable score. Not a possible score not where a try might be scored. Your argument lacks the knowledge of this essential element.

Indeed. Italy got a penalty try for a first time maul infringement by Ireland. That's just the most recent example I can think of.

TheCitizen · 03-03-2017 11:49am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You can disagree but you are wrong and its in the laws
The defending team is in say a ruck always looked at first. Say if there's a tackle and ruck forms. you will look at tackler, arriving players and then ball carrier last. That comfortably shows the balance is weighted in favour of the ball carrying team. France were not rewarded for continous infringing. Your proposals are completely unreasonable.

There was 3 penalties in succession, two in the red zone. They didn't get warned till the last of those. I'm saying they should get warned for a first infringement in the red zone.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Seriously? What is your involvement in the game? Have you ever coached/refereed/played as your proposals are completely unrealistic and devoid of reality of refereeing a game.
A default penalty is ridiculous and not needed. If a team infringes in their own red zone they will be warned. The attacking team then has a choice of what to do. They can run the ball/kick at goal or kick to the corner.

The point is when a team infringes in the red zone, they don't always get warned, they often get another chance or two to infringe before a warning is issued. Seriously, do you know what you're talking about at all?

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

A third infringement cant simply be a penalty try. That is completely unrealstic.

Why not? Because you think not changing rules or being conservative makes you look like you know more than you do? Basically what's happening and what you appear to concede is a defending team knows that generally they can infringe at least twice in the red zone before they face a warning. So naturally what will happen is they will play to the whistle.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The laws are not skewed though and you dont see that. There isnt any need for all this inventivising especially in the format you are proposing.

Theyre not and a penalty try can only be awarded for a probable score. Not a possible score not where a try might be scored. Your argument lacks the knowledge of this essential element.

My argument is based on coming down on the side of the attacking team and encouraging further attacking teams to go for tries.

You're a bit of a knowitall aren't ya, you can get uppity all you like, it doesn't make you look any more knowledgeable pal. Your argument is to maintain the status quo. I'm making an observation that defending teams generally infringe once or twice in the red zone because they know most refs will allow them to. I'm saying as things currently stand when the ball is in the red zone the balance is in favour of the defending team. That's my view on it, you can disagree if you like, but you'll be wrong.

CMOTDibbler · 03-03-2017 12:23pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

There was 3 penalties in succession, two in the red zone. They didn't get warned till the last of those. I'm saying they should get warned for a first infringement in the red zone.

The point is when a team infringes in the red zone, they don't always get warned, they often get another chance or two to infringe before a warning is issued. Seriously, do you know what you're talking about at all?

You're making the assumption that a team infringes in the red zone as a tactic. The vast majority of times, infringements are as a result of a scramble defence and mistakes being made. Set-piece infringements are a different kettle of fish because there's an element of team infringements in those cases. And as I pointed out above, they can often be sanctioned by a penalty try on the first offence.

But if you watch international rugby you'll notice that there are actually fewer and fewer penalties being conceded by teams. A few years ago, it could easily be in high double figures, these days it's unusual for a team to concede in double figures, or at worst low double figures. That's in total, the number of penalties in the 22 is obviously far fewer than that.

When Serin stepped Rob Kearney and Heaslip tackled him, he played the ball on the ground while off his feet, giving away a three pointer. Would you award a penalty try for that? I ertainly wouldn't because he got his hand on the ball before Jack McGrath actually flattened him in his efforts to bind on to him in the ruck. Either way, it was a marginal call and the ball actually got played back to the French side meaning there was no real slowing down of the ball and they could continue their attack. In fact they actually scored a subsequently disallowed try from the next phase.

So in that case, they got quick ball, almost scored a try but for a handling error by Fikou and got a second bite of the cherry from the subsequent penalty.

In that match, France conceded 13 penalties and we conceded 8.

The other side of the equation is what we do with the penalties we're awarded. It seems like we eschew kicks at goal in the first half of matches in favour of going for the set-piece. That can skew the penalty count a bit because we either play advantage or go for the set-piece or tap and go. In the second half we change tack and look for the points.

The biggest problem I have with your suggestion is that it will effectively end any competition for the ball at rucks in the 22. That would put huge pressure on defending teams and create a tackle-fest with no possibility of a turnover other than by error.

TheCitizen · 03-03-2017 12:38pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You're making the assumption that a team infringes in the red zone as a tactic. The vast majority of times, infringements are as a result of a scramble defence and mistakes being made. Set-piece infringements are a different kettle of fish because there's an element of team infringements in those cases. And as I pointed out above, they can often be sanctioned by a penalty try on the first offence.

But if you watch international rugby you'll notice that there are actually fewer and fewer penalties being conceded by teams. A few years ago, it could easily be in high double figures, these days it's unusual for a team to concede in double figures, or at worst low double figures. That's in total, the number of penalties in the 22 is obviously far fewer than that.

When Serin stepped Rob Kearney and Heaslip tackled him, he played the ball on the ground while off his feet, giving away a three pointer. Would you award a penalty try for that? I ertainly wouldn't because he got his hand on the ball before Jack McGrath actually flattened him in his efforts to bind on to him in the ruck. Either way, it was a marginal call and the ball actually got played back to the French side meaning there was no real slowing down of the ball and they could continue their attack. In fact they actually scored a subsequently disallowed try from the next phase.

So in that case, they got quick ball, almost scored a try but for a handling error by Fikou and got a second bite of the cherry from the subsequent penalty.

In that match, France conceded 13 penalties and we conceded 8.

The other side of the equation is what we do with the penalties we're awarded. It seems like we eschew kicks at goal in the first half of matches in favour of going for the set-piece. That can skew the penalty count a bit because we either play advantage or go for the set-piece or tap and go. In the second half we change tack and look for the points.

The biggest problem I have with your suggestion is that it will effectively end any competition for the ball at rucks in the 22. That would put huge pressure on defending teams and create a tackle-fest with no possibility of a turnover other than by error.

Those are good points, well made. I still feel as an observer of the game that defending teams will infringe in the end zone knowing they'll usually get at least a couple of opportunities before a warning is issued, and they can stop momentum and increase pressure on the attacking team in the process. It's a tactic both sides can use. I can see the points you make , having said that I still think the way it is now favours the defending side.

CMOTDibbler · 03-03-2017 12:47pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

Those are good points, well made. I still feel as an observer of the game that defending teams will infringe in the end zone knowing they'll usually get at least a couple of opportunities before a warning is issued, and they can stop momentum and increase pressure on the attacking team in the process. It's a tactic both sides can use. I can see the points you make , having said that I still think the way it is now slightly favours the defending side.

I understand your point and I actually think it's well made. But I can't get away from the danger it represents for the game as a whole. Competition for the ball at the breakdown has been legislated for numerous times in an effort to speed up the game and make it more open. Another tweak (and to me it's a massive one) could change the look of the game completely.

A lot of peple don't particularly like penalty tries. They smack a little of over-involvement of the officials. For me, the best reward for repeated offences in the red zone is a yellow card. That's what really concentrates minds and helps keep the penalty count down. A yellow card is usually at least three points and invariably leads to a try being scored. There have also been cases of 14 man teams holding out against repested attacks and that's an enthralling specatcle in itself.

The Lost Sheep · 03-03-2017 1:00pm

TheCitizen wrote:

There was 3 penalties in succession, two in the red zone. They didn't get warned till the last of those. I'm saying they should get warned for a first infringement in the red zone.

but just warning a team of escalating the sanction if they concede a penalty doesn't help the game. Makes game management more difficult and is completely unrealistic.

TheCitizen wrote:

The point is when a team infringes in the red zone, they don't always get warned, they often get another chance or two to infringe before a warning is issued. Seriously, do you know what you're talking about at all?

they don't get warned as there is no need to warn them. Seriously what's your involvement in the game? Have you played coached or refereed as you are showing a real lack of knowledge on playing the game/realism.

TheCitizen wrote:

Why not? Because you think not changing rules or being conservative makes you look like you know more than you do? Basically what's happening and what you appear to concede is a defending team knows that generally they can infringe at least twice in the red zone before they face a warning. So naturally what will happen is they will play to the whistle.

it isn't at all true that a team can commit infringement twice before a warning. It's all in the context of what the infringement is, when in the game the infringement occurs. If player has given away numerous penalties already. You are looking for a one size fits all solution that's completely unrealistic. Again if you'd ever reffed a game you would know your proposals are not realistic.

TheCitizen wrote:

My argument is based on coming down on the side of the attacking team and encouraging further attacking teams to go for tries.

but the laws do suit and favour attacking sides/team in possession

TheCitizen wrote:

You're a bit of a knowitall aren't ya, you can get uppity all you like, it doesn't make you look any more knowledgeable pal. Your argument is to maintain the status quo. I'm making an observation that defending teams generally infringe once or twice in the red zone because they know most refs will allow them to. I'm saying as things currently stand when the ball is in the red zone the balance is in favour of the defending team. That's my view on it, you can disagree if you like, but you'll be wrong.

my position comes from my direct involvement in the game especially as a ref and coach. Does yours? Or are you just an armchair supporter?

TheCitizen · 03-03-2017 3:07pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

but just warning a team of escalating the sanction if they concede a penalty doesn't help the game. Makes game management more difficult and is completely unrealistic.

they don't get warned as there is no need to warn them. Seriously what's your involvement in the game? Have you played coached or refereed as you are showing a real lack of knowledge on playing the game/realism.

it isn't at all true that a team can commit infringement twice before a warning. It's all in the context of what the infringement is, when in the game the infringement occurs. If player has given away numerous penalties already. You are looking for a one size fits all solution that's completely unrealistic. Again if you'd ever reffed a game you would know your proposals are not realistic.

but the laws do suit and favour attacking sides/team in possession

my position comes from my direct involvement in the game especially as a ref and coach. Does yours? Or are you just an armchair supporter?

Dear oh dear.

The game I'm involved in is soccer, that doesn't preclude me from having a valid observation of rugby. Neither does being involved in a game make your opinions right all the time. An outsiders view can sometimes see things that insiders always involved might miss. And sometimes an insider as you say you are can't see the wood for the trees, or perhaps is a luddite. "Seriously", being "realistic", get over yourself pal.

The Lost Sheep · 03-03-2017 3:12pm

TheCitizen wrote:

The game I'm involved in is soccer, that doesn't preclude me from having a valid observation of rugby. Neither does being involved in a game make your opinions right all the time. An outsiders view can sometimes see things that insiders always involved might miss. And sometimes an insider as you say you are can't see the wood for the trees, or perhaps is a luddite. "Seriously", being "realistic", get over yourself pal.

I never said your opinion doesn't count I simply was asking as that is important in determining things. And yes an outsider's viewpoint is Important but you just are not seeing what you propose isn't feasible based on direct involvement in the game.

Quintis · 08-03-2017 1:03pm

Question, if a 9 were to kick the ball from the base of a tackle, no ruck formed is there an offside line, i.e. can the chasers be ahead of the 9 as it is general play?

Granny15 · 08-03-2017 1:16pm

Quintis wrote: »

Question, if a 9 were to kick the ball from the base of a tackle, no ruck formed is there an offside line, i.e. can the chasers be ahead of the 9 as it is general play?

Chasers have to be behind the kicker whether in general play or not. Offside line is irellevant here.

The Lost Sheep · 08-03-2017 2:36pm

Quintis wrote: »

Question, if a 9 were to kick the ball from the base of a tackle, no ruck formed is there an offside line, i.e. can the chasers be ahead of the 9 as it is general play?

To be involved the chasers will have to be behind the ball. There is still offside with a tackle. You must be behind the ball on your side at a tackle to play the ball

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments