European Rugby and full arm penalties

eagle eye

I rarely post here.
Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on penalties for minor infringements. I thought I'd put up this thread before the Heineken Cup matches tomorrow in case somebody thought it was sour grapes or something.

I am not a fan of the full arm penalty in a lot of situations.

In situations like when a team is on defence and an infringement occurs during a ruck, when its clear that there is no attack going to happen I don't think the full arm penalty is really fair. The free kick/choice of scurm down gives you the chance to start again from the same position on the field or to kick the ball and play for field position but giving a team a full arm seems very unfair as they gain more ground than was originally likely and still maintain possession. I'm not saying that there are not times when a full arm penalty is not warranted, I'm talking about the times when the infringement was accidental rather than purposeful.

I was just wondering what other peoples thoughts are on this. Would it be fairer to give the officials room to decide between which penalty is better in these situations or would you change the rules so that free kicks are giving for certain infringements or would you leave it as it is right now with the full arm penalty all the time?

Stev_o

eagle eye wrote: »

I rarely post here.
Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on penalties for minor infringements. I thought I'd put up this thread before the Heineken Cup matches tomorrow in case somebody thought it was sour grapes or something.

I am not a fan of the full arm penalty in a lot of situations.

In situations like when a team is on defence and an infringement occurs during a maul, when its clear that there is no attack going to happen I don't think the full arm penalty is really fair. The free kick/choice of scurm down gives you the chance to start again from the same position on the field or to kick the ball and play for field position but giving a team a full arm seems very unfair as they gain more ground than was originally likely and still maintain possession. I'm not saying that there are not times when a full arm penalty is not warranted, I'm talking about the times when the infringement was accidental rather than purposeful.

I was just wondering what other peoples thoughts are on this. Would it be fairer to give the officials room to decide between which penalty is better in these situations or would you change the rules so that free kicks are giving for certain infringements or would you leave it as it is right now with the full arm penalty all the time?

Sorry but that would result in ref's really being confused. How is a ref supposed to tell the difference between one player being cynical and another being clumsy?

eagle eye

Stev_o wrote: »

Sorry but that would result in ref's really being confused. How is a ref supposed to tell the difference between one player being cynical and another being clumsy?

I gave three options, you choose which one you think is best.

Podge_irl

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying that there are not times when a full arm penalty is not warranted, I'm talking about the times when the infringement was accidental rather than purposeful.

If there weren't full arm penalties for accidental infringements I think you'd find a lot more "accidental" infringements taking place. I don't think a ref can be expected to read a player's mind, so the laws can't really take intent into account. I struggle to think of exactly what kind of infringements you are talking about? You mentioned the maul, but there are few offences you can commit in a maul short of pulling it down illegally - which is a serious offence.

eagle eye

Podge_irl wrote: »

If there weren't full arm penalties for accidental infringements I think you'd find a lot more "accidental" infringements taking place. I don't think a ref can be expected to read a player's mind, so the laws can't really take intent into account. I struggle to think of exactly what kind of infringements you are talking about? You mentioned the maul, but there are few offences you can commit in a maul short of pulling it down illegally - which is a serious offence.

I did say maul:o, I meant ruck.

I'm talking about technical infringements which take place around rucks, such as an offside player tackling somebody. I'm talking about the guy just offside here that hasn't realised it. A full arm penalty against him is a little unfair imo.

The reason I bring it up is that it was up for discussion recently and was turned down. They don't like the way things have gone in the Super 14's and the laws seem set to become more stingent if anything.
The maul(and I mean it this time) cannot be legally brought down from next season onwards. I don't like this one either. I'm not anti the maul but I like the idea it can be brought down.

theKramer

I was always totally against the free kicks for most infringements but watched some Super 14 this weekend for the first time and to be honest it wasnt the nightmare I expected it to be. Definitely a faster game, but its not been turned into "League" like most people fear.

I would still like the maul to be brought back. As a J4 level player, having a maul pulled down or pulling a maul down on ya is a scary feeling. Every time I it happened I was praying I wouldnt get busted.