Rainbow Cup 2021

bilston · 27-03-2021 11:54pm

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.

"Money grabbing"?

Thhis is money that is fundamental to the existence of the professional game and money that keeps lots of people (not just players) in employment.

AbusesToilets · 27-03-2021 11:55pm

I'll be happy with a more competitive competition. My hope is that this will be a bridge to some form of Euro league.

thomond2006 · 28-03-2021 12:30am

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.

Ah yes, the great and mighty Pro14.

It's a professional sport. Of course money is a concern.

KBurke85 · 29-03-2021 8:33am

Could be some new rules being trialed also

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2021/0326/1206390-rainbow-cup-in-line-for-20-minute-red-card-trial/?fbclid=IwAR0txX4V1xtaANnJAJi6Yzzwp57_sotqy4p8GUOwA6b7_KQqGYOU2Wom7wY

Pussyhands · 29-03-2021 8:45am

Red card rule trial is rubbish.

If you want to get rid of dangerous play, you don't allow teams to get away with it.

There's more red cards now but players are learning. You can see it during games.

Caranica · 29-03-2021 9:06am

Not loving the goal line dropout in Super Rugby Aotearoa, penalising the attacking team goes against the spirit of most of the other laws. Can see it being even less popular up here given the proportion of maul tries.

The red card idea is just dangerous.

sydthebeat · 29-03-2021 9:21am

Caranica wrote: »

Not loving the goal line dropout in Super Rugby Aotearoa, penalising the attacking team goes against the spirit of most of the other laws. Can see it being even less popular up here given the proportion of maul tries.

The red card idea is just dangerous.

I don't mind the goal line drop out to much, the attacking team invariably end up with an another attack within the 22 from it. It discourages the endless pick and jams which, to me, should be used to draw in defenders to open space out wide which should be utilised.

I also like the red card trial, but it's one I don't see being made common place. I think the stats are that a team usually concedes 7 points per yellow card so take from that that a red card will cost your team somewhere between 10-14 points.

If red cards were given for only the most egregious acts of foul play then I'd agree that there should be no leniency.... However we're seeing more and more red cards been given for acts of bad timing, clumsiness or bad technique.... So from that point of view I don't mind the 20min replacement rule.

thomond2006 · 29-03-2021 10:02am

Pussyhands wrote: »

Red card rule trial is rubbish.

If you want to get rid of dangerous play, you don't allow teams to get away with it.

There's more red cards now but players are learning. You can see it during games.

It doesn't change the fact that rugby is an entertainment business and a traditional red card can ruin games. It's worth trialling.

irishbucsfan · 29-03-2021 10:06am

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.

errlloyd · 29-03-2021 10:47am

sydthebeat wrote: »

If red cards were given for only the most egregious acts of foul play then I'd agree that there should be no leniency.... However we're seeing more and more red cards been given for acts of bad timing, clumsiness or bad technique.... So from that point of view I don't mind the 20min replacement rule.

I also think it's really weird how red cards exist on a sliding scale of severity. The difference between POM committing a red card foul in the first quarter against Wales, and Russell committing a red card foul in the final ten against France is HUGE. Because the "onfield" punishment, is such a high proportion of the deterrent, I think it is disproportionate how it falls right now.

Jump_In_Jack · 29-03-2021 11:09am

If they want to reduce scrums, maybe if they didn't start the clock until the ball had been put into the scrum it could prevent using the scrum for time wasting.

Another issue for time wasting in the game is people walking in to join the back of a ruck like a caterpillar to give the scrumhalf time and space to kick the ball.
Adds time on to every kick from a ruck.
The scrum half should have to pick the ball out of the ruck with his hands where it was left by the player on the ground and kick it as soon as he picks it, not be allowed roll it back with his heel, sometimes a few metres to get a better kick and waste more time.

irishbucsfan · 29-03-2021 12:03pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

If they want to reduce scrums, maybe if they didn't start the clock until the ball had been put into the scrum it could prevent using the scrum for time wasting.

Another issue for time wasting in the game is people walking in to join the back of a scrum like a caterpillar to give the scrumhalf time and space to kick the ball.
Adds time on to every kick from a ruck.
The scrum half should have to pick the ball out of the ruck with his hands where it was left by the player on the ground and kick it as soon as he picks it, not be allowed roll it back with his heel, sometimes a few metres to get a better kick and waste more time.

Scrums really aren’t being used for time wasting that much.

Put it this way. If you’re a team trying to waste time, how do you initiate a scrum?

The issue with scrum halves taking too long at the base of the ruck should be policed better by refs who already have the ability to do that but aren’t doing so very strictly. The suggestion of not adjusting the ball is a non-runner but if refs call it quicker and actually enforce 5 seconds strictly it’d help a bit. Don’t think it’s a huge problem though. Neither of these new rules are there with the intention of affecting time wasting afaik.

sydthebeat · 29-03-2021 12:09pm

there should be some sanction against refs who are caught calling "use it" twice at the base of a ruck... drives me mad !

also, when a ref calls "use it" at the base of a scrum its supposed to be used immediately... but more often than not i see SHs think they have 5 seconds and wait for the play to develop.

Jump_In_Jack · 29-03-2021 12:09pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Scrums really aren’t being used for time wasting that much.

Put it this way. If you’re a team trying to waste time, how do you initiate a scrum?

The issue with scrum halves taking too long at the base of the ruck should be policed better by refs who already have the ability to do that but aren’t doing so very strictly. The suggestion of not adjusting the ball is a non-runner but if refs call it quicker and actually enforce 5 seconds strictly it’d help a bit. Don’t think it’s a huge problem though. Neither of these new rules are there with the intention of affecting time wasting afaik.

The set up time for scrums on resets are definitely used for time-wasting though, the clock should stop every time a scrum stops. Also you can't start a scrum as you say intentionally, but if given the chance you can definitely drag it out.
I also think the clock should be stopped from when the ball crosses the touchline and is thrown back into play, but that is asking a lot of the time keeper.

Lost Ormond · 29-03-2021 12:14pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that rugby is an entertainment business and a traditional red card can ruin games. It's worth trialling.

It doesnt take into account a team can be rewarded for foul play then. Red cards dont ruin games. A red card is a punishment and a deterrent for serious foul play. Allowing a replacement totally reduces the deterrent for foul play for teams during the game.

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.

Very good point about better attacking platform. Just getting over the line means you get a 5m scrum which gives you a set pattern to attack from...

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

If they want to reduce scrums, maybe if they didn't start the clock until the ball had been put into the scrum it could prevent using the scrum for time wasting.

Another issue for time wasting in the game is people walking in to join the back of a scrum like a caterpillar to give the scrumhalf time and space to kick the ball.
Adds time on to every kick from a ruck.
The scrum half should have to pick the ball out of the ruck with his hands where it was left by the player on the ground and kick it as soon as he picks it, not be allowed roll it back with his heel, sometimes a few metres to get a better kick and waste more time.

Game goes on too long as it is. Stopping clock during scrum isnt a good thing.

I assume you mean caterpillar from rucks not scrums?
I dont agree with scrum half having to pick ball out of ruck from where it was left by player on ground as it allows defensive players up to make hit earlier and causes issues there with just more likelihood of another ruck fromed right beside first ruck.

Jump_In_Jack · 29-03-2021 12:27pm

Lost Ormond wrote: »

It doesnt take into account a team can be rewarded for foul play then. Red cards dont ruin games. A red card is a punishment and a deterrent for serious foul play. Allowing a replacement totally reduces the deterrent for foul play for teams during the game.

Very good point about better attacking platform. Just getting over the line means you get a 5m scrum which gives you a set pattern to attack from...

Game goes on too long as it is. Stopping clock during scrum isnt a good thing.

I assume you mean caterpillar from rucks not scrums?
I dont agree with scrum half having to pick ball out of ruck from where it was left by player on ground as it allows defensive players up to make hit earlier and causes issues there with just more likelihood of another ruck fromed right beside first ruck.

YEs, rucks

Pussyhands · 29-03-2021 12:28pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

there should be some sanction against refs who are caught calling "use it" twice at the base of a ruck... drives me mad !

also, when a ref calls "use it" at the base of a scrum its supposed to be used immediately... but more often than not i see SHs think they have 5 seconds and wait for the play to develop.

Oh yes! Annoys me so much. If refs stopped saying "Use it!" and started giving free kicks instead it would improve things.

In my view there's far too much coaching by referees. Telling players to stop running etc when offside. Just leads to players chancing their arm knowing well the referee will tell them to stop if they are caught.

Lost Ormond · 29-03-2021 12:30pm

Pussyhands wrote: »

Oh yes! Annoys me so much. If refs stopped saying "Use it!" and started giving free kicks instead it would improve things.

In my view there's far too much coaching by referees. Telling players to stop running etc when offside. Just leads to players chancing their arm knowing well the referee will tell them to stop if they are caught.

That isnt coaching. Its preventative refereeing. We need it to keep the ball in play. Otherwise you have to sanction it with a penalty/free kick and we should be reducing how much the whistle is blown.

AbusesToilets · 29-03-2021 12:37pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that rugby is an entertainment business and a traditional red card can ruin games. It's worth trialling.

I'd like to see differentiation between an act of deliberate violence or thuggery and a mistimed tackle.

Pussyhands · 29-03-2021 12:37pm

Lost Ormond wrote: »

That isnt coaching. Its preventative refereeing. We need it to keep the ball in play. Otherwise you have to sanction it with a penalty/free kick and we should be reducing how much the whistle is blown.

Players would soon change.

sydthebeat · 29-03-2021 12:40pm

Pussyhands wrote: »

Oh yes! Annoys me so much. If refs stopped saying "Use it!" and started giving free kicks instead it would improve things.

.

the "use it" call has a very significant purpose and its a great tool for a ref to have... however if a ref finds himself calling "use it" a second time at the same ruck then something is very wrong.

i noticed Luke Peace this weekend calling 'use it'... and two seconds later would call "3" to notify the SH that he was counting.... it was an interesting development.

personally id prefer a few more to be caught not using it strictly within the 5 seconds to concentrate and pressurise them more.... and off scrum once 'use it' is called the ball should be picked up immediately.. absolutely no lee way there

Lost Ormond · 29-03-2021 12:41pm

Pussyhands wrote: »

Players would soon change.

They wont with everything. You cant just referee with sanctions. you must allow continuity of play and not have the ref blowing everything otherwise the ref plays even more of a role in the game that they dont need to.

irishbucsfan · 29-03-2021 12:53pm

Lost Ormond wrote: »

They wont with everything. You cant just referee with sanctions. you must allow continuity of play and not have the ref blowing everything otherwise the ref plays even more of a role in the game that they dont need to.

This is absolutely true. I really don’t think this is a major issue and when it becomes one it can be “reinforced”

We’re talking one or two seconds per box kick if referees became stricter. Maybe 30-60 seconds per match at worst.

It looks worse because of an odd peculiarity with space time caused by a part of the brain called Shattner’s Bassoon which actually means that time seems to last longer when your team is losing and they don’t have the ball.

It’s a very similar phenomenon to how light actually bends to make fans think the opposition are offside on every phase, causing bizarre involuntary screaming at rugby matches.

Buer · 29-03-2021 1:05pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

The set up time for scrums on resets are definitely used for time-wasting though, the clock should stop every time a scrum stops. Also you can't start a scrum as you say intentionally, but if given the chance you can definitely drag it out.
I also think the clock should be stopped from when the ball crosses the touchline and is thrown back into play, but that is asking a lot of the time keeper.

I think you need to factor in that the players are not machines. These forwards are huge units and, regardless of being professional athletes, need a few seconds to actually catch their breath.

Scrums in particular are exhausting. There are very few players who don't want to take a few seconds to compose themselves before having to get into a wrestling match against 900kg worth of opposition forwards.

We can stop the clock when the ball goes out but player welfare needs to come into account. The ball is in play for approximately 35-40 minutes in most rugby games currently. Players are going to struggle if that goes up significantly.

irishbucsfan · 29-03-2021 1:08pm

Buer wrote: »

I think you need to factor in that the players are not machines. These forwards are huge units and, regardless of being professional athletes, need a few seconds to actually catch their breath.

Scrums in particular are exhausting. There are very few players who don't want to take a few seconds to compose themselves before having to get into a wrestling match against 900kg worth of opposition forwards.

We can stop the clock when the ball goes out but player welfare needs to come into account. The ball is in play for approximately 35-40 minutes in most rugby games currently. Players are going to struggle if that goes up significantly.

Also how are you going to automatically stop the clock? Is the ref going to do that? What if the ref didn’t notice at first and we have to go back, do they have to adjust the clock now? What if there’s a quick line out while time is off? What technology will be involved in that? If you want to try do it automatically how is that going to work at amateur level?

It’s not feasible even if it would make a positive difference (which I don’t think it would).

Time wasting really isn’t that much of a problem and the time the ball is out of play certainly doesn’t seem a major issue to me.

Buer · 29-03-2021 1:41pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Time wasting really isn’t that much of a problem and the time the ball is out of play certainly doesn’t seem a major issue to me.

It's not really a massive issue. There are occasions where a team goes out to deliberately slow down a game such as the France vs Scotland game on Friday. But the referee picked up on that relatively early and raised it with Scotland as being too slow to scrums and line outs. Once the officials are smart enough that teams might look to deliberately slow down a game, they'll raise it as an issue.

Jump_In_Jack · 29-03-2021 2:01pm

The biggest issue in the game at the moment is the complete lottery around rucks.
Players constantly leaning on their hands, two or three guys on their knees at every ruck,
To a spectator, it's impossible to understand the sealing off, off the feet, over the top, not taking own weight, coming in at the side, taking out players not in the ruck or way beyond the ruck, holding on to players on the ground, not rolling away from the ruck when lying on the ground etc as it's at every ruck.
The Munster Leinster game was ridiculous, Fardy for example (just one person I noticed, many other too) broke every rule in the game at the rucks repeatedly throughout the game and was left do whatever he wanted, the ref seemed to just say, sure I'm not getting too involved in rucks today, do what you like.
Fair play to the players figuring out what they can get away with, but if the refs could tighten up on the basics of rucks then it would make the game easier to follow and better for the spectator.

randomname2005 · 29-03-2021 3:27pm

errlloyd wrote: »

I also think it's really weird how red cards exist on a sliding scale of severity. The difference between POM committing a red card foul in the first quarter against Wales, and Russell committing a red card foul in the final ten against France is HUGE. Because the "onfield" punishment, is such a high proportion of the deterrent, I think it is disproportionate how it falls right now.

Looking at the red card as it stands now, I can't see a different way of implementing it and it is similar to how it is implemented in different sports.

For example, in match 1, Player A punches Player B at 7:30 and his team has to play the rest of the match a player down. In match 2 Player C punches player D at 79:30 and gets sent off, the punishment is still the same - their team gets to play the rest of the match with one less player and a citing follows.

Should there be some kind of retrospective action that somehow the actions of player A and player Cshould be removed from the entire game? I don't see how you can reapportion it without a point penalty against Player A's team and Player C's team. Or maybe I am misunderstanding where you are coming from.

On the 20 minute trial I think a three level card system could be used. Yellow as it stands, <Colour 3> for a 20 minute sin bin with replacement and Red for rest of match. The red is used for obvious dangerous play/foul play like punching, kicking, slide tackling. The 20 minute sin bin with replacement is for more 'accidental' incidents. Now, I have no idea where these lines are drawn so don't ask for more specifics

Jump_In_Jack · 29-03-2021 3:40pm

randomname2005 wrote: »

Looking at the red card as it stands now, I can't see a different way of implementing it and it is similar to how it is implemented in different sports.

For example, in match 1, Player A punches Player B at 7:30 and his team has to play the rest of the match a player down. In match 2 Player C punches player D at 79:30 and gets sent off, the punishment is still the same - their team gets to play the rest of the match with one less player and a citing follows.

Should there be some kind of retrospective action that somehow the actions of player A and player Cshould be removed from the entire game? I don't see how you can reapportion it without a point penalty against Player A's team and Player C's team. Or maybe I am misunderstanding where you are coming from.

On the 20 minute trial I think a three level card system could be used. Yellow as it stands, <Colour 3> for a 20 minute sin bin with replacement and Red for rest of match. The red is used for obvious dangerous play/foul play like punching, kicking, slide tackling. The 20 minute sin bin with replacement is for more 'accidental' incidents. Now, I have no idea where these lines are drawn so don't ask for more specifics

I think a 5 point penalty for yellow card, and a 10 point penalty for a red card, and 10 minutes sin bin for both, and red carded player gets replaced by a sub after 10 minutes maybe?
Could help clean up the game a bit, although maybe need to specifically target these measures at violent play as opposed to technical penalties or repeated penalties and a team yellow for example.

Bridge93 · 29-03-2021 3:44pm

If they want to improve the quality of the spectacle, how about they trial officials actually refereeing the offside line correctly? Maybe a bit outlandish.

Lost Ormond · 29-03-2021 3:57pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

I think a 5 point penalty for yellow card, and a 10 point penalty for a red card, and 10 minutes sin bin for both, and red carded player gets replaced by a sub after 10 minutes maybe?
Could help clean up the game a bit, although maybe need to specifically target these measures at violent play as opposed to technical penalties or repeated penalties and a team yellow for example.

God no. That just isnt good. A red card shouldnt be equal to a yellow in terms of punishment.
A points penalty isnt fair or right at all for cards. It wouldnt clean the game up and isnt fair on teams

Jump_In_Jack · 29-03-2021 4:42pm

Lost Ormond wrote: »

God no. That just isnt good. A red card shouldnt be equal to a yellow in terms of punishment.
A points penalty isnt fair or right at all for cards. It wouldnt clean the game up and isnt fair on teams

A red card can ruin a game for spectators, so that's why the suggestion of a ten minute delay before a substitute being allowed replace the red carded player.

The red card should punish the individual by not being allowed back on the field, and followed up with a ban.

It should also impact the team though so a team cannot benefit from targeting a player and taking them out with a dangerous tackle, so the best balance I can think of is to award penalty points against the team that got the red card while allowing a replacement after 10 minutes so the match can continue on with 15 a side.

It covers the situations mentioned where a player gets red carded at the end of a match, and it allows a team to compete 15 v 15 if a player got red carded early in the match.

Lost Ormond · 29-03-2021 4:52pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A red card can ruin a game for spectators, so that's why the suggestion of a ten minute delay before a substitute being allowed replace the red carded player.

The red card should punish the individual by not being allowed back on the field, and followed up with a ban.

It should also impact the team though so a team cannot benefit from targeting a player and taking them out with a dangerous tackle, so the best balance I can think of is to award penalty points against the team that got the red card while allowing a replacement after 10 minutes so the match can continue on with 15 a side.

It covers the situations mentioned where a player gets red carded at the end of a match, and it allows a team to compete 15 v 15 if a player got red carded early in the match.

A red card is a serious punishment for serious foul play, intentional or not and that shouldnt be excused by allowing a team not be punished appropriately. returning to 15 players after 20 minutes is not at all suitable. It diminishes the punishment.
A red card doesnt ruin a game. A game is very different because of a red card

A change could make players more likely to commit offences knowing that the team will only be down one for slightly longer than a yellow.

Burkie1203 · 29-03-2021 5:53pm

Bridge93 wrote: »

If they want to improve the quality of the spectacle, how about they trial officials actually refereeing the offside line correctly? Maybe a bit outlandish.

Automatic YC after 5/3/3/3/3 penalties including advantages

Foul play dealt with separately but the Penalty counts towards the tally

Ref calls use it and no more players can join the caterpillar to protect the 9

Depower defences goes a long way towards creating space

Burkie1203 · 11-04-2021 8:23am

https://twitter.com/rugby_ap/status/1381141509551063042?s=19

Buer · 11-04-2021 8:28am

It has been reported in the SA media also. Disaster for Leinster and Ulster who need some game time desperately.

I imagine the competition will take place in some manner minus the SA sides.

Burkie1203 · 11-04-2021 8:33am

Buer wrote: »

It has been reported in the SA media also. Disaster for Leinster and Ulster who need some game time desperately.

I imagine the competition will take place in some manner minus the SA sides.

Inter pro series.

hahashake · 11-04-2021 8:36am

Better to be optimistic but with the current global "situation", pessimism seems to be a safer bet.

Eod100 · 11-04-2021 9:24am

Always seemed fairly ambitious trying it this years of a years. Might not be a bad thing if it leads to less games and more of a break for players but guess there would have been a lot of rotation for it either way.

11-04-2021 9:32am

Someone posted this on planet rugby about a week ago, they used to work for the IRFU in some capacity I'm pretty sure so had been reliable in the past.

Paul Smeenus · 11-04-2021 9:35am

Ulster missed out on Pro14 playoffs for this.

Pussyhands · 11-04-2021 9:43am

They botched the pro 14 and changed the structure mid way through the season for the SA teams...what a joke rugby governance has been especially considering Toulon being thrown out of the HCC.

Very amateur.

prawnsambo · 11-04-2021 10:13am

Pussyhands wrote: »

They botched the pro 14 and changed the structure mid way through the season for the SA teams...what a joke rugby governance has been especially considering Toulon being thrown out of the HCC.

Very amateur.

Not really in the hands of rugby governance based on this

sydthebeat · 11-04-2021 10:19am

Let them come here and we'll play an 8 team Bokke / Paddy competition

Sure that's all people want to see anyway

PMC83 · 11-04-2021 10:22am

sydthebeat wrote: »

Let them come here and we'll play an 8 team Bokke / Paddy competition

Sure that's all people want to see anyway

Yeah that would be good tbh

Eod100 · 11-04-2021 10:26am

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not really in the hands of rugby governance based on this

Were they planning to play their home games in England? Wonder could they just play them in Wales or Scotland instead or if Westminster would decide either way. Sure wasn't UK offering to host Lions games at one stage? Probably easier with the 1 team but still..

thelad95 · 11-04-2021 10:52am

The plan was ambitious and was something that had been mooted for quite a while.

The execution (botching up a season already in progress) and timing (in the midst of a global pandemic when governments are terrified of variants) was baffling.

The alternative will be inter-pros rehashed to form some sort of Celtic cup but the public interest will be close to non existent.

Caranica · 11-04-2021 11:02am

Would basing themselves in a low incidence European city work? Saracens played at least one European game in Brussels (2012/2013 season) for example, I was expecting them to base the South African teams somewhere like that.

bilston · 11-04-2021 11:39am

SA is on the UK Red list so it was always on the cards. Basically if you've been in SA in the last 10 days and aren't a UK national you'll be refused entry to the UK.

Maybe the Saffers could go to another country for 10 days and then travel to the UK?

I assumed this was the reason why the South African sides were joining the competition late? Surely they knew they were on the UK red list?

Squidgy Black · 11-04-2021 11:53am

bilston wrote: »

SA is on the UK Red list so it was always on the cards. Basically if you've been in SA in the last 10 days and aren't a UK national you'll be refused entry to the UK.

Maybe the Saffers could go to another country for 10 days and then travel to the UK?

I assumed this was the reason why the South African sides were joining the competition late? Surely they knew they were on the UK red list?

They were probably hoping to get away with an exemption with a mandatory hotel quarantine or something, but it sounds like they've been told they can't base themselves in the UK at all.

Honestly I think at this point it's probably best to just scrap it all and play a round of interpros, I mean we're coming in to what would have been the off-season anyways. Just revisit it for later in the year and start from scratch where the Champions Cup qualification etc can be taken into account and a proper setup in place

Rainbow Cup 2021

Comments