Rainbow Cup 2021

Podge_irl

Having the same outcome for the attacking team being held up and the attacking team putting through a speculative kick that the defending team easily recovers seems odd.

Dave_The_Sheep

- Don't like the red card idea. A red should be for serious incidents, and the punishment for them shouldn't be simply double a yellow card punishment.

- Don't like the held up over the line either. What happened to "benefit of the doubt to the attacking team"? Why should you get a turnover simply because you held someone up? If that's a tackle in normal play, it would turn into a ruck and the attacking team would (probably) keep possession and play would go on. This one seems non-sensical to me.

Like, what's the problem they're trying to fix here? Pick and goes are seen as a problem?

errlloyd

Podge_irl wrote: »

Having the same outcome for the attacking team being held up and the attacking team putting through a speculative kick that the defending team easily recovers seems odd.

Yeah, I think in the stadiums with long end zones, Murrayfield for example. A kicker sending a long one down the middle will become more viable in the hopes of earning a goal line dropout will become more viable.

irishbucsfan

This is why I think the drop out rule change is good, and I hope it works out as expected and is kept.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think the drop out rule is a positive change. At the moment you can effectively use being held up as a form of attacking exit because you get a 5 meter scrum from it which is very often a better attacking platform than where you started from. A really good example was the second time Leinster got held up last weekend, that carry would not happen that way if this law was in place.

Now we’ll see teams having to start again from between the 22 and 10 meter line. That should reduce the amount of those kinds of situations.

The red card one doesn't exite me hugely tbh

sydthebeat

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

- Don't like the red card idea. A red should be for serious incidents, and the punishment for them shouldn't be simply double a yellow card punishment.

the problem here is that the scope for giving red cards has been opened significantly wider than originally intended in the laws.

reds arent given for only serious elements of foul play any more, they are often given for bad timing, bad technique or pure unluckiness.

there have been 14 red cards so far in the premiership this season, and we're only 2/3rds into the season.

There was 7 red cards in the whole of the 17/18 season.
There was 4 in the 2010/2011 season.
There was 2 in the 2000/2001 season.
There was none in the first full premiership in 97/98

are we saying players are infinitely more thuggish now than 24 years ago?

arsebiscuits1

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

- Don't like the red card idea. A red should be for serious incidents, and the punishment for them shouldn't be simply double a yellow card punishment.

- Don't like the held up over the line either. What happened to "benefit of the doubt to the attacking team"? Why should you get a turnover simply because you held someone up? If that's a tackle in normal play, it would turn into a ruck and the attacking team would (probably) keep possession and play would go on. This one seems non-sensical to me.

Like, what's the problem they're trying to fix here? Pick and goes are seen as a problem?

You're not turned over though. The chances of the team who sends the goal line drop out regathering are quite slim as most will use it as an exit strategy. Those who chance a 5m distance and regather will just add a bit of excitement I feel.

90% of the time the team held up with regather the ball still in their opposition third which is still a prime attacking position.

I do think they're trying to move away from pick and goes though yes. The general consensus to these rules is they'd prefer to see teams actively create and exploit space in the oppo 22 rather than brute force and latching for 20 phases until the defending team cracks.

arsebiscuits1

One thing that I'm not so sure about regarding the held up rule though....

We might see a few teams actively pulling players back towards their own line

sydthebeat

the held up rule invariably means the attacking team get an attacking platform usually central just outside the 22 pretty much immediately.

no collapsed 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th etc scrum like we had in france wales 2019 which was a mind melt of a watch

Tigerandahalf

Strange rule changes. It seems like they want teams to pass it out wide rather than repeat collisions near the goal line with pick and go's.

But will teams pile in even more now as if the referee can't see it does he give an attacking scrum?

This will go against Ireland as our gameplan has been very reliant on scoring from these scenarios.

The red card is a dangerous one. Take the best opposition player out and you lose 20 mins before you get a replacement.

Tigerandahalf

sydthebeat wrote: »

the held up rule invariably means the attacking team get an attacking platform usually central just outside the 22 pretty much immediately.

no collapsed 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th etc scrum like we had in france wales 2019 which was a mind melt of a watch

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

Squidgy Black

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

Same as a 22 drop out, you lose the chance of competing for it to win possession if you kick it long. And it'd be a monster of a kick to get it past your own 10 metre line from your goal line, which then opens space right up for a team to run it back.

sydthebeat

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

thats usually what they do... remember the fdrop out is from the its from the goal line

the balls caught usually around the halfway line, and the receiver runs it back to (usually) just outside the 22 before the defensive line catches him.

Tigerandahalf

Most drop outs kicked long from the 22 would go as far as the opposition 10m. They'd be met at half way no?

arsebiscuits1

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

Even the furthest kicker in the world wont be able to prevent a scenario in which the opposition can attack in them in their third of the pitch.

Advantage is very much still with the team receiving the kick

Dave_The_Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

are we saying players are infinitely more thuggish now than 24 years ago?

No, we're saying that players need to change their tackle technique and stop hitting other players in the head/neck area. Because let's be honest, that's what the vast majority of these cards have been.

I agree the number of red cards this year seems really off, because it is, but there's a reason for that.

Do you think that lessening the punishment for red cards will lead to more red cards, or less?

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

You're not turned over though.The chances of the team who sends the goal line drop out regathering are quite slim as most will use it as an exit strategy. Those who chance a 5m distance and regather will just add a bit of excitement I feel.

90% of the time the team held up with regather the ball still in their opposition third which is still a prime attacking position.

I do think they're trying to move away from pick and goes though yes. The general consensus to these rules is they'd prefer to see teams actively create and exploit space in the oppo 22 rather than brute force and latching for 20 phases until the defending team cracks.

You're 100% turned over. The defending team gets possession of the ball, and what will happen there is they will simply dropkick the ball as far as they can up the pitch and chase after it. You're going to see attacking teams losing 30 metres for being held up.

The clearing dropgoal isn't going to require accuracy, just power. If a teams kicker can accurately knock over a drop goal from 20-25 metres out, how far will they get it just going exclusively for power?

I agree with your last sentence, by the way. It's what they're going for. I just don't like it.

[edit] (ok maybe 40m was optimistic)

sydthebeat

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Most drop outs kicked long from the 22 would go as far as the opposition 10m. They'd be met at half way no?

nope

the defense is running from their behind their tryline, as they have to be behind the kicker

They usually meet just outside the 22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0wwEsWrhEM

prime example here in the first ever super rugby aotearoa goal line drop out

thelad95

I really don't like the red card idea. At a time when the game is in an extremely delicate situation in regards to protecting player's welfare I'm surprised that they're happy to be seen to be lessening the impact of a red card.

So a South African team comes to Dublin fired up and goes for a cheap head shot on Johnny Sexton putting a key player for Leinster out for a HIA? No problem, grind through twenty minutes and bring on a replacement. It's a truly truly awful idea

sydthebeat

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Do you think that lessening the punishement for red cards will lead to more red cards, or less?

i dont think it will impact the number of reds either way.

we are seeing a growth in red cards

if that growth stops and this law variation is in place.. will it be because of the variation or behaviour change?

look, im not an advocate for the law variation, but i do recognise that the increase in red card offenses has lead to an increase in red cards... and rugby is a game where a red card can have a significant impact on both the result of the game, and the points differential with other teams.

arsebiscuits1

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

No, we're saying that players need to change their tackle technique and stop hitting other players in the head/neck area. Because let's be honest, that's what the vast majority of these cards have been.

I agree the number of red cards this year seems really off, because it is, but there's a reason for that.

Do you think that lessening the punishment for red cards will lead to more red cards, or less?



You're 100% turned over. The defending team gets possession of the ball, and what will happen there is they will simply dropkick the ball as far as they can up the pitch and chase after it. You're going to see attacking teams losing 30 metres for being held up.

The clearing dropgoal isn't going to require accuracy, just power. If a teams kicker can accurately knock over a drop goal from 20-25 metres out, how far will they get it just going exclusively for power?

I agree with your last sentence, by the way. It's what they're going for. I just don't like it.

[edit] (ok maybe 40m was optimistic)

Ok yes in the technical sense of the word you're turned over.

But in a broader context you're getting the ball back immediately in a favorable position on the pitch

breezy1985

Pussyhands wrote: »

They should have just called this the Money Cup.

That's the only reason for it. Change the structure of the Pro 14 mid way through the league to create this money grabbing thing.

You would want to be very cynical to be watching Vodacom vs DHL and think it's all about the money

pickarooney

Podge_irl wrote: »

Having the same outcome for the attacking team being held up and the attacking team putting through a speculative kick that the defending team easily recovers seems odd.

Maybe but 5 metre scrums against you after a heroic last ditch tackle always seemed like a ****ty reward

Dave_The_Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

look, im not an advocate for the law variation, but i do recognise that the increase in red card offenses has lead to an increase in red cards... and rugby is a game where a red card can have a significant impact on both the result of the game, and the points differential with other teams.

Which is fair, but I think the red card should have a significant impact on a game and this lessens that quite a bit.

Any change in red card frequency (assuming ref's keep their behaviour - hah - consistent, big ask given it's hardly consistent at the moment) will be down to the players.

Will they continue to make hits and risk getting a red card and their team being down a player for the rest of the game, or their team being down a player for 20 minutes? Rugby players are cynical, and that's not an insult, it's simply part of the game. How far can I push this ref, how much can I get away with in this ruck before I get pinged, how much can I risk this dominant tackle going high without getting carded? Lessen the punishment and I think you're increasing the likelyhood they'll go for it.

Dave_The_Sheep

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Ok yes in the technical sense of the word you're turned over.

But in a broader context you're getting the ball back immediately in a favorable position on the pitch

More favourable than a 5 metre scrum?

This is favouring defense over attack, because it's not the right form of attack, it seems (presumably the claim is it's to stop player-risking pick and drives?).

Lost Ormond

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe but 5 metre scrums against you after a heroic last ditch tackle always seemed like a ****ty reward

But heroic last ditch tackles should reward the defensive team with a line clearance kick down thirty/forty metres and a lot of work the attacking team did to get to the try line is for nothing and theyve to work through the defensive line yet again to get to same position.

Tigerandahalf

They usually meet just outside the 22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0wwEsWrhEM

prime example here in the first ever super rugby aotearoa goal line drop out[/quote]

So the attacking team will lose at least 25m?

This will encourage more and more long kicking. Hopefully players will counter from it and not just boot the ball down field.

A rule change that they need to look at is rewarding players who make a break and who could gain 50m side stepping 4 or 5 players. The player then gets tackled and is deemed to have held and a penalty is awarded against him. A scrum should be awarded at most.

It is not allowing flair players to run with the ball as they are afraid of their life of giving away a penalty if they get isolated.

Tigerandahalf

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Ok yes in the technical sense of the word you're turned over.

But in a broader context you're getting the ball back immediately in a favorable position on the pitch

You aren't though. You first have to ensure that you field the ball. Knock it on a wet day and you could lose 50m.

If I was dropping the ball out from my goal line I would kick it low and hard - makes it very hard for the opposition to field the ball, either having to stop it first with their foot to control the ball and then pick it up, or risk handling it at the first opportunity. The drop out team would be upon you. Strange rule.

Squidgy Black

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

They usually meet just outside the 22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0wwEsWrhEM

prime example here in the first ever super rugby aotearoa goal line drop out

So the attacking team will lose at least 25m?

This will encourage more and more long kicking. Hopefully players will counter from it and not just boot the ball down field.

A rule change that they need to look at is rewarding players who make a break and who could gain 50m side stepping 4 or 5 players. The player then gets tackled and is deemed to have held and a penalty is awarded against him. A scrum should be awarded at most.

It is not allowing flair players to run with the ball as they are afraid of their life of giving away a penalty if they get isolated.

That makes no sense, why penalise the defensive team for a good turnover because the attacking team didn't have any players running in support and couldn't execute a clearout properly?

Tigerandahalf

Squidgy Black wrote: »

That makes no sense, why penalise the defensive team for a good turnover because the attacking team didn't have any players running in support and couldn't execute a clearout properly?

Because the attacking player made 50m and side stepped a number of players - isn't that what we want rugby players to be doing, not crashing into each other.

A lot of players take the ball up close to the ruck and traffic as they are afraid of getting isolated. If they knew the most they'd give away was a scrum players would be a lot more inclined to run the ball and take a chance (with less likehihood of collisions).

The game is boring to watch at the moment.

A good example is Michael Lowry at the moment. A small player easily turned over if he gete isolated. Yet he has the pace and step to go past many players but will get penalised for that effort if he holds on. He has been pinged a number of times for this already. As has Hugo Keenan, another fairly light player.

irishbucsfan

Holding on is either a penalty or a scrum. It can’t be dependent on what the attacker did with the ball, that’s ridiculous hard to enforce.

Now, would it be worth a trial to change it from a penalty to a scrum against? I’d be very interested to see it, but the implications would be absolutely huge.

Cookiemunster

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

More favourable than a 5 metre scrum?

This is favouring defense over attack, because it's not the right form of attack, it seems (presumably the claim is it's to stop player-risking pick and drives?).

This smacks of more Southern Hemisphere tinkering to reduce the influence of the scrum. I still think that on a ****ty wet December night (or any time between November and March really) that more often than not, after the drop out the play will very quickly end up back at the try line with more pick and drives. It's just a different way of getting there.