Mostly unimportant questions that I'd like answered

BotFly

Why are friendly matches called tests?
Why do teams/countries name their starting xv so long prior to the game?
Why do the rules change every year?
Why are the rules called 'laws'?
Has anyone from a 'normal' school ever gone on to represent Ireland?
Why can most of the team not catch the ball?


Genuine questions.

murphym7

I had a full responce written to all your questions - then something told me to look at your other posts. Not a big fan of answering questions to guys who don't have a huge amount of respect for the game to be honest - use Google instead.

BotFly wrote: »

Going to private school gives you a good grounding in life.
Start as a noob - take it up the a88.
Progress to middle management - Take it up the a88 from above, take out your frustrations on those below you.
Reach the top - **** people in the a88.

Play rugby and you enjoy it all while getting to feel the balls of people from another company.

Also fair play on getting a red card in After hours on your first day - a rare achievement indeed.

randomname2005

BotFly wrote: »

Why are friendly matches called tests?

Its the same for many sports, why not ask them, or wait, google it.

BotFly wrote: »

Why do teams/countries name their starting xv so long prior to the game?

I would image this has to do with the logistics of printing programs and also so people can get into the midset of a game. If you are playing a game at the weekend, you have to prepare mentally, oh and pack a bag to fly/travel. Its the same in other sports.

BotFly wrote: »

Why do the rules change every year?

There are no rules, so they can't change every year.

BotFly wrote: »

Why are the rules called 'laws'?

The laws are called laws, but lmgtfy: They were made up by lawyers.

BotFly wrote: »

Has anyone from a 'normal' school ever gone on to represent Ireland?

I don't know what a normal school is opposed to an abnormal one.

BotFly wrote: »

Why can most of the team not catch the ball?

I'm pretty sure that every player can catch the ball, most people can catch the ball too. On occasion they might drop the ball, thats not the same as not being able to catch the ball.

Tim Robbins

Why do the rules change every year?

There are millions of rules in Rugby. They are not all applied otherwise you'd never have a game. The interpretation changes to try and make a better game and stop cynical teams winning.

Soccer (note: I was playing Footie last night - so I am not anti it), is a very simple game. There's not really a lot you can change to stop boring 0 - 0 draws. There's always a bit of scope with rugby to stop teams killing the ball, playing ping pong or whatever cynical tactic comes along.

Why are the rules called 'laws'?

That's just a technical thing. Why is Football technically called association Football. Granted you'll get some poshies who deliberately refer to it as the law thinking they are part of the legal class. They probably didn't do very well in the living and can't deal with it :-). Others will refer to as both. Others will just do so out of habbit not out of any poshness.

Has anyone from a 'normal' school ever gone on to represent Ireland?

I presume by "normal" you mean non-fee paying.

Tonnes but not enough. It's disportionate.

In recent times from Leinster:
Brennan, Horgan, O'Brien.
Munster:
Wallace, Hayse, Horan, O'Connell, Quinal.

Or if you mean by normal you mean not a rugby a school and not fee paying well then it's less again. For example, Wallace, O'Connell went to Crescent and Ard Scoil Ris they are not fee paying but they are rugby schools.

Or if you mean by normal not in the controlled Jesuits, the Holy Ghoust, the Christian Brothers well then you are really going to struggle to find a player.

Why can most of the team not catch the ball?

That's a stupid question.

buck65

BotFly wrote: »

Why are friendly matches called tests?
Why do teams/countries name their starting xv so long prior to the game?
Why do the rules change every year?
Why are the rules called 'laws'?
Has anyone from a 'normal' school ever gone on to represent Ireland?
Why can most of the team not catch the ball?


Genuine questions.

Beacuse it's shorter
So the players don't get too locked if they know they have a match on Saturday
no one knows the rules
Because most rugby players either are lawyers/ end up in jail
No all the players come from bush schools
See answer 2

Downtime

On 26th January, 1871, The Rugby Football Union was founded in the Pall Mall Restaurant in Regent Street, London, to standardize the rules that also removed some of the more violent aspects of the Rugby School game.

Along with the founding of the Rugby Football Union a committee was formed, and three ex-Rugby School pupils (Rutter, Holmes and L.J. Maton), all lawyers, were invited to help formulate a set of rules, being lawyers they formulated 'laws' not 'rules'. This task was completed and approved by June 1871.

Tim Robbins

Downtime wrote: »

On 26th January, 1871, The Rugby Football Union was founded in the Pall Mall Restaurant in Regent Street, London, to standardize the rules that also removed some of the more violent aspects of the Rugby School game.

Along with the founding of the Rugby Football Union a committee was formed, and three ex-Rugby School pupils (Rutter, Holmes and L.J. Maton), all lawyers, were invited to help formulate a set of rules, being lawyers they formulated 'laws' not 'rules'. This task was completed and approved by June 1871.

The word 'Car' comes from the word 'Carriage'. You don't see many cars with horses pulling them around but you probably did in the 19th century when Rugby was being founded. The importance of language is the intent and claritiy of meaning not the historical origin of the word.

"Rules" is actually a better word even though "Law" may be the historical word. Law usually refers to edicts from a state - not a sporting organisation. Rugby is separated from the edicts of the state and it should be very clear that it is. This might stop lawyers turning at disciplinary hearings and having influence on them, which is the equivalent of a lawyers on the sideline telling a ref when the pass was forward and being able to bear influence on that.

Downtime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This might stop lawyers turning at disciplinary hearings and having influence on them.

You are misinformed
but I'm not going to go into why you are.

Tim Robbins

Downtime wrote: »

You are misinformed
but I'm not going to go into why you are.

Because of the laws or the rules :-)?

Seriously the point about the disciplinary hearing was a bit of a throw away remark. There's no need to go into it.

Cheers.

JustinDee

Laws are what soccer (association football), AFL, cricket and rugby league are governed and played in accordance with.
Just semantics based on the origins of the sport in question.

daveharnett

Rugby has both laws and rules. The laws come from the IRB and apply to all games at all levels everywhere, and cover pretty much everything that happens in the playing area for the duration of the match.

Rules are specific to individual RFUs, tournaments, etc, and cover stuff which outside the scope of the laws - competition structure, player eligibility, after-the-fact disciplinary stuff, the role of management, blood capsules, and so on.

some_dose

Ok, I would also like to ask an unimportant question - upon kicking a penalty for the posts (i.e. going for the 3 points), can the opposition attempt to stop the ball from going over the crossbar? Say if the ball is dipping towards the cross bar, can someone be lifted (like for a lineout) to try intercept the ball or are they unable to touch the ball?

buck65

Not allowed.

niallon

some_dose wrote: »

Ok, I would also like to ask an unimportant question - upon kicking a penalty for the posts (i.e. going for the 3 points), can the opposition attempt to stop the ball from going over the crossbar? Say if the ball is dipping towards the cross bar, can someone be lifted (like for a lineout) to try intercept the ball or are they unable to touch the ball?

Not allowed but I think it was at some point? Somebody remarks on it in the Grand Slam book, about how they were frantically trying to figure out what could be done during Jones' kick to prevent it going over. Something I've always wondered about, can anyone clarify if this was ever allowed?

Downtime

niallon wrote: »

Not allowed but I think it was at some point? Somebody remarks on it in the Grand Slam book, about how they were frantically trying to figure out what could be done during Jones' kick to prevent it going over. Something I've always wondered about, can anyone clarify if this was ever allowed?

yes it was allowed - cant remember when it changed

CIARAN_BOYLE

BotFly wrote: »

Why are friendly matches called tests?

Because there is no joke matches in Rugby. Its not like soccer where there are joke games no one on either side cares about. The only jokes are club matches before the season or pre world cup warm up matches.

Eoin

I do know that they're called laws not rules, but I've never understood why so many people get so precious when people do refer to them as rules.

niallon wrote: »

Not allowed but I think it was at some point? Somebody remarks on it in the Grand Slam book, about how they were frantically trying to figure out what could be done during Jones' kick to prevent it going over. Something I've always wondered about, can anyone clarify if this was ever allowed?

Yes, I remember that Victor Costello used to have someone sitting on his shoulders to try and stop a long range penalty going over!

Why do the rules change every year?

To evolve the game, to adapt to the changes in the sport.

Tim Robbins

eoin wrote: »

I do know that they're called laws not rules, but I've never understood why so many people get so precious when people do refer to them as rules.

+1
Exactly my point. I think it's because some people like to or need to make themselves feel important. Law has a connation of:
"We're the power here".

Players at the highest level refer to them as rules, so anyone getting a bee in their bonnet about them being referred to that way needs to cop on.

JustinDee

Tim Robbins wrote: »

+1
Players at the highest level refer to them as rules

Really?
Interesting.

daveharnett

some_dose wrote: »

can someone be lifted (like for a lineout) to try intercept the ball

They used to, up until ~5 years ago. Since then, for penalties, the law allows players to do nothing but stand quietly with their hands by their sides for a penalty kick at goal, and explicitly forbids any attempts to prevent it from going over. Afaik still nothing to prevent a defending team from trying this for drop-goals/conversions mind.

durkadurka

Here's one. What are the rules on the make up of your bench. It seems you must have a replacement front row now?

thomond2006

durkadurka wrote: »

Here's one. What are the rules on the make up of your bench. It seems you must have a replacement front row now?

You must have two specialist props and one specialist hooker for most club competitions at the moment. I don't know if they're implementing that at test level, they should IMO.

There are no rules on the remaining makeup of the bench.

daveharnett

durkadurka wrote: »

Here's one. What are the rules on the make up of your bench. It seems you must have a replacement front row now?

In most competitions, teams should have two props, a hooker and 5 'others' on the bench. If three specialists aren't available, the permitted size of the bench reduces. In the worst case scenario, if a team can't provide any front rows for the bench, they cannot have any subs at all.

The idea is to avoid the necessity for uncontested scrums, particularly since we have seen props becoming 'injured' for tactical reasons.

Tim Robbins

JustinDee wrote: »

Really?
Interesting.

Yeah I have Reggie refer to them as rules. And Drico refer to them as rules.

Technically they are "the law". But it's a bit like the way McDonalds refer to themselves officially as a restuarant.

d'Oracle

I'm amazed that the Laws/rules question merits discussion.
Its a foible.
That's all.

Downtime

daveharnett wrote: »

In most competitions, teams should have two props, a hooker and 5 'others' on the bench. If three specialists aren't available, the permitted size of the bench reduces. In the worst case scenario, if a team can't provide any front rows for the bench, they cannot have any subs at all.

The idea is to avoid the necessity for uncontested scrums, particularly since we have seen props becoming 'injured' for tactical reasons.

When 19, 20, 21 or 22 players are nominated in a team there must be five players who can play in the front row to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is required, and on the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums. For Magners League and Heineken Cup this is six. For some competitions where only three subs are permitted this is four.

If a team cannot field suitable front row they must drop the number of subs they have e.g. AIL team with only one front row sub can only have 3 subs overall instead of the 5 permitted. Also if a tram nominate the prop as rep. hooker and he goes down injured they immediately fail to meet their requirements if the hooker then gets injured. This would also result in uncontested scrums.

twinytwo

some_dose wrote: »

Ok, I would also like to ask an unimportant question - upon kicking a penalty for the posts (i.e. going for the 3 points), can the opposition attempt to stop the ball from going over the crossbar? Say if the ball is dipping towards the cross bar, can someone be lifted (like for a lineout) to try intercept the ball or are they unable to touch the ball?

Back in the day if the kick was far enough out the defending team used to put their lineout under the posts and toss up one of the locks to try and catch/block the ball. obviously couldnt have that going on.. so they brought in laws to prevent it

BotFly

randomname2005 wrote: »

I would image this has to do with the logistics of printing programs and also so people can get into the midset of a game. If you are playing a game at the weekend, you have to prepare mentally, oh and pack a bag to fly/travel. Its the same in other sports.
It clearly isn't the same in other sports. You don't give away anything in other sports until you have to. Why give the other team the tactical advantage of knowing your team? Just so the daytrippers can have an accurate match programme? Get up the yard.


There are no rules, so they can't change every year.
How can you play a game that has no rules? This isn't Mornington Crescent, son. Take a pew in the sin bin for 10 minutes.



I'm pretty sure that every player can catch the ball, most people can catch the ball too. On occasion they might drop the ball, thats not the same as not being able to catch the ball.

No they can't, see below,

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There are millions of rules in Rugby. They are not all applied otherwise you'd never have a game. The interpretation changes to try and make a better game and stop cynical teams winning.
When will they come up with a rule that stops munster from going 30 rucks in a row to kill the last half hour of a game - the equivalent of holding the ball in the corner for the last 41 minutes in a soccer game?


That's a stupid question.

It's not though, is it? There is a serious lack of basic skill in alot of rugby players. Alot of them can't catch a ball. I mean cannot do something that most 6 year olds can do. Add that to the fact that the majority of a team also cannot kick a ball - and alot of them can't throw it - and you've got quite a number of players, nay athletes representing their country in some cases, at the pinnacle of the game - who cannot do things that a child can do.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Because there is no joke matches in Rugby. Its not like soccer where there are joke games no one on either side cares about. The only jokes are club matches before the season or pre world cup warm up matches.

Nonsense. Ever heard of the Magners league? Jokeshop competition where half the teams play their reserves for half of the league's games.
Now back to the matter in hand, friendly matches, why are they called tests?

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm amazed that the Laws/rules question merits discussion.
Its a foible.
That's all.

You're a foible.


Also, kudos to those of you who answered some of my original questions.

Eoin

This seems like a wind-up, but I'll bite:

BotFly wrote: »

Alot of them can't catch a ball. I mean cannot do something that most 6 year olds can do. Add that to the fact that the majority of a team also cannot kick a ball - and alot of them can't throw it - and you've got quite a number of players, nay athletes representing their country in some cases, at the pinnacle of the game - who cannot do things that a child can do.

No, not everyone on the team can scrummage, ruck, maul, lift in the lineout, tackle, catch, pass, kick, sprint, carry the ball etc into a tackle perfectly. They have different and complimentary skill-sets that form a team.

BotFly wrote:

When will they come up with a rule that stops munster from going 30 rucks in a row to kill the last half hour of a game - the equivalent of holding the ball in the corner for the last 41 minutes in a soccer game?

The ball is in play though, the opposing team have the latitude to try and stop them. And while it's not pretty, it's actually a pretty impressive feat IMO.

Not sure what you mean about the last 30 mins of a game though, I'd have thought maybe the last few mins at most. If a team bases their game plan around doing that for close to half the game, they won't win and therefore it won't be worth their while.

twinytwo

BotFly wrote: »

No they can't, see below,


It's not though, is it? There is a serious lack of basic skill in alot of rugby players. Alot of them can't catch a ball. I mean cannot do something that most 6 year olds can do. Add that to the fact that the majority of a team also cannot kick a ball - and alot of them can't throw it - and you've got quite a number of players, nay athletes representing their country in some cases, at the pinnacle of the game - who cannot do things that a child can do.


Nonsense. Ever heard of the Magners league? Jokeshop competition where half the teams play their reserves for half of the league's games.
Now back to the matter in hand, friendly matches, why are they called tests?


You're a foible.


Also, kudos to those of you who answered some of my original questions.

do you play rugby?? watch it even?? anyone can kick a ball.. tatical kicking on the other hand is an art as is lineout throwing.. so where your going with this..

shawpower

eoin wrote: »

This seems like a wind-up, but I'll bite:

It only seems like a wind-up to you? Really?

A more genuine question is why you see players charging a place kick sometimes and not others. From memory I think it's conversions you can charge, but a penalty you can't? And if so, why the difference?

Eoin

shawpower wrote: »

It only seems like a wind-up to you? Really?

I was being polite!

shawpower wrote: »

A more genuine question is why you see players charging a place kick sometimes and not others. From memory I think it's conversions you can charge, but a penalty you can't? And if so, why the difference?

You can charge a free kick or conversion, but not a penalty - or I think, a conversion of a penalty try. Don't know why the distinction was made though.

Goodluck2me

eoin wrote: »

I was being polite!



You can charge a free kick or conversion, but not a penalty - or I think, a conversion of a penalty try. Don't know why the distinction was made though.

you dont have to stand behind the try line for a penalty, so from 10m its easy to charge.

Eoin

I meant between a conversion for a normal try and a penalty try (unless I'm wrong, and you can try and charge down the latter).

JustinDee

Goodluck2me wrote: »

you dont have to stand behind the try line for a penalty, so from 10m its easy to charge.

Can't charge a penalty.

davidpfitz

eoin wrote: »

I meant between a conversion for a normal try and a penalty try (unless I'm wrong, and you can try and charge down the latter).

Laws regarding charging-down a kick from a dead ball situation

Penalty Kick (for goal)

21.5(c)
If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.

Free Kick

21.8(e)
Charging the free kick. Once they have retired the necessary distance, players of the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the kick being taken. They may charge the free kick as soon as the kicker starts to approach to kick.


Conversion Kick

9.B.3(a)
All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal line and must not overstep that line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions.

9.B.3(b)
When the ball falls over after the kicker began the approach to kick, the opponents may continue to charge.

Conversion from a Penalty Try

22.4(i)
A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts. The defending team may charge the conversion kick after a penalty try.

onlyrocknroll

I've never really thought about the use of the word laws in rugby until this thread.

Just to clarify, is the word 'law' always used rather than 'rule' in rugby just as a matter of convention?

Or is there a distinction between 'laws' and 'rules? i.e. laws referring to rucks and lineouts and scrums and forward passes etc, while there are rules about subs and other off-pitch matters? Or something like that?

Just asking because reading through the thread I got both these impressions?

davidpfitz

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

I've never really thought about the use of the word laws in rugby until this thread.

Just to clarify, is the word 'law' always used rather than 'rule' in rugby just as a matter of convention?

Or is there a distinction between 'laws' and 'rules? i.e. laws referring to rucks and lineouts and scrums and forward passes etc, while there are rules about subs and other off-pitch matters? Or something like that?

Just asking because reading through the thread I got both these impressions?

According to the purists, there are no rules - only laws. The handbook from the IRB is called "The Laws of Rugby". The pragmatists amongst us will use rules / laws interchangeably. So any time you hear 'rules', you can substitute that with 'laws' (or vice-versa, in my opinion).

Now, to make matters confusing the IRB also have a number of official law interpretations - I guess kind of like case law. This is where most of the "changes in the rules" occur.

One of these interpretations would be the forward pass law (called a "throw forward" in the laws):

According to the laws, "A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

For this to hold true, any pass which leaves a players hands and travels in the direction of the opponents goal line is a forward pass. But, this in practice can't hold true for the purposes of the game. Consider a player running at pace, and throwing the ball directly over and behind his head. Most people would consider this impossible to be a forward pass, but with enough speed (i.e. momentum) from the player, the ball will indeed travel towards the opponents goal-line (Look at about 2:30 into the video below). In this instance, the interpretation of the law allows for this, which is more commonly manifested between a pass with two players running at full-pace.

Here's an excellent video which demonstrates how the letter of the law of a forward pass is basically nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s

JustinDee

davidpfitz wrote: »

Here's an excellent video which demonstrates how the letter of the law of a forward pass is basically nonsense

Well its not really. Just an over-examination of the motion of a pass and that was about it.
I remember back when it was being distributed by Russell Trotter of the ARU.

Downtime

JustinDee wrote: »

Well its not really. Just an over-examination of the motion of a pass and that was about it.
I remember back when it was being distributed by Russell Trotter of the ARU.

Also interesting to note that there is no mention of 'forward pass' in the law book.

d'Oracle

BotFly wrote: »

Nonsense. Ever heard of the Magners league? Jokeshop competition where half the teams play their reserves for half of the league's games.
Now back to the matter in hand, friendly matches, why are they called tests?

Yes.
No its not, you have been listening to too many non-rugby fans talking about rugby. They don't play reserves at all.

They are not friendly matches.
So they are called tests.
Again trying to apply logic from a different sport to Rugby.
They are competitive matches which are played outside any tournament.

daveharnett

davidpfitz wrote: »

One of these interpretations would be the forward pass law (called a "throw forward" in the laws)

The video illustrates the point well, albiet at great length. How often have we seen it: a player makes a break and commits the fullback before passing to the winger. The try is denied because the pass happens to be near the 22M line.

What the video neglects to mention is that the ball can legitimately be carried forward by wind as well as momentum.

little173

Murphy7 was right, it doesnt warrant reply, and then I read this bit...

"I mean cannot do something that most 6 year olds can do. Add that to the fact that the majority of a team also cannot kick a ball - and alot of them can't throw it - and you've got quite a number of players, nay athletes representing their country in some cases, at the pinnacle of the game - who cannot do things that a child can do."

With due respect, you dont belong here.

I wont even debate the pros and cons of the technical rugby abilty of a professional rugby player with a 6 year old, its so ridiculous. Its a pass not a throw by the way.

amacachi

JustinDee wrote: »

Laws are what soccer (association football), AFL, cricket and rugby league are governed and played in accordance with.
Just semantics based on the origins of the sport in question.

League has rules rather than laws AFAIK.

davidpfitz

Downtime wrote: »

Also interesting to note that there is no mention of 'forward pass' in the law book.

It's called a 'throw forward' in the laws.

JustinDee

amacachi wrote: »

League has rules rather than laws AFAIK.

Incorrect. Rugby League is governed, played and officiated in accordance with its laws.

amacachi

JustinDee wrote: »

Incorrect. Rugby League is governed, played and officiated in accordance with its laws.

I apologise, just checked it and you're correct. Could've sworn I read elsewhere that League has rules but obviously I dreamt it or something. :pac:

Downtime

davidpfitz wrote: »

It's called a 'throw forward' in the laws.

I know. That's my point. Stuart Barnes was giving out yesterday about a touch judge not calling a forward pass. It wasn't forward. it was actually passed backwards and then traveled forwards. Perfectly legit.

Peter B

Could we please stop making a big thing about calling it 'laws' as opposed to 'rules'. Was listening to Rocky Elsom on Ruggamatrix last week and he called them 'rules'.

What actually is the difference? Officially they may be called 'laws' but really someone point is not automatically pointless if they refer to the laws as rules. (edit) - Doesn't apply to this thread but have seen it in the past.

Hyperbullet

I have a quick but fairly unimportant question also.

When a player transfers to an Irish province, they also have to join a club within that province. I'm looking at the squad for the Autumn Internationals and I see that Isaac Boss now plays with Terenure College. My question is: When a player transfers, how is it decided what club they join? For instance who decided that Boss would join Terenure College?

I know provincial players play very little, if any, games for their respective AIL clubs, but I'm curious about how this all works.

bamboozle

Hyperbullet wrote: »

I have a quick but fairly unimportant question also.

When a player transfers to an Irish province, they also have to join a club within that province. I'm looking at the squad for the Autumn Internationals and I see that Isaac Boss now plays with Terenure College. My question is: When a player transfers, how is it decided what club they join? For instance who decided that Boss would join Terenure College?

I know provincial players play very little, if any, games for their respective AIL clubs, but I'm curious about how this all works.

i think they're allocated to clubs, Nacewa and Mike Ross both are clontarf players, however i've never seen either set foot in castle avenue. Munster clubs seems to have a closer link with the province regarding use of players, Brugnaut & nick williams regularly played for dolphin last season, Ian Dowling, Jerry Flannery, Marcus Horan have all turned out for Shannon over the last 18 months when coming back from injury.