Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Options
1…457910…23

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Pudsy33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭Pudsy33


    JF100 wrote: »
    Thanks to Speranza & Lost Sheep.
    However I am still confused.

    1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

    2. Oz v Scot:does anybody know whether Joubert was correct in awarding the penalty at the end?
    There seems to be talk today that he was in fact incorrect to award the penalty.
    (I do not know enough to know whether he was technically correct or not?)

    1. He was talking to the Argentina captain at the time and Madigan was in the wrong spot.

    2. It was probably incorrect as in slow motion it appears to have hit an Aussie before the Scottish caught it. However it was a tough call either way so he doesn't deserve vilification for it .


  • Options
    #183
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    JF100 wrote: »
    Thanks to Speranza & Lost Sheep.
    However I am still confused.

    1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

    2. Oz v Scot:does anybody know whether Joubert was correct in awarding the penalty at the end?
    There seems to be talk today that he was in fact incorrect to award the penalty.
    (I do not know enough to know whether he was technically correct or not?)
    Madigan didn't take the penalty from the correct position
    On 2 I don't think he was correct but when everyone is looking at it from all different angles, slo mo replays its easier....


  • Options
    #184
    PJ Maybe
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭PJ Maybe


    JF100 wrote: »
    1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

    I put the ref-mic on to find that out. He said something like "I'd given permission for him to speak".


  • Options
    #185
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,713 ✭✭✭✭phog


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Madigan didn't take the penalty from the correct position
    On 2 I don't think he was correct but when everyone is looking at it from all different angles, slo mo replays its easier....

    After the ref disallowed the pen, did he say that Healy was offside so couldn't allow the tap&go? Or was I hearing things?


  • Options
    #186
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Decision was a penalty for deliberate action to play the ball while offside but it could probably have been a scrum to Australia for accidental offside but I don't.
    Referee clearly thought it was clear and obvious infringement for deliberate action to play the ball while offside which is a penalty


    This page makes for an interesting read on the call.

    http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-the-final-scottish-nail/2830520/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,535 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    At RWC 15 does the ref keep an official record of why penalties were given and against whom? Is that made public?


  • Options
    #188
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    There was an incident in one of the semis at the weekend where a kick went over the touch line and the full back leaped in the air caught the ball and then passed it backwards back into the pitch before his feet had actually landed in touch. The ref still gave a line out but the replays clearly showed he released the ball before feet were in touch. Was this a wrong call by the ref?


  • Options
    #189
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    At RWC 15 does the ref keep an official record of why penalties were given and against whom? Is that made public?

    Referees don't but there are people at games who keep stats, both official and otherwise. World Rugby should have some figures on their website if you are interested in same.


  • Options
    #190
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    There was an incident in one of the semis at the weekend where a kick went over the touch line and the full back leaped in the air caught the ball and then passed it backwards back into the pitch before his feet had actually landed in touch. The ref still gave a line out but the replays clearly showed he released the ball before feet were in touch. Was this a wrong call by the ref?

    I discussed this in the Laws thread; hopefully this will sort you out.


  • Options
    #191
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    do you have a link to your post, that thread is huge!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Flipper22
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭Flipper22


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    There was an incident in one of the semis at the weekend where a kick went over the touch line and the full back leaped in the air caught the ball and then passed it backwards back into the pitch before his feet had actually landed in touch. The ref still gave a line out but the replays clearly showed he released the ball before feet were in touch. Was this a wrong call by the ref?

    If it's the same one I'm thinking of, he jumped from beyond the touchline so the call was right. The only way to keep the ball in in that scenario is to jump from inside the touchline and bat the ball back when in the air. If you jump when already in touch the ball is out as soon as you touch it.


  • Options
    #193
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    do you have a link to your post, that thread is huge!

    Here you go :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97507823&postcount=2488


  • Options
    #194
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    The pack is divided into the front row (3 players), 2nd row (2) and back row (3). Yet when I saw some aerial shots of scrums during the WC, the front rows had three players but the second row had four, with a single player at the back. What gives with the nomenclature?


  • Options
    #195
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    The pack is divided into the front row (3 players), 2nd row (2) and back row (3). Yet when I saw some aerial shots of scrums during the WC, the front rows had three players but the second row had four, with a single player at the back. What gives with the nomenclature?

    the 2 flankers bind onto the second rows, but their shoulders are on the arses of the props to help push them

    so it looks like theres 4 across the second row from an aerial point of view.

    they are still called the "back row" however because they have the ability to play 'heads up' and break quickly where the other "tight" five dont


  • Options
    #196
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,535 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    So, wrt collapsing the scrum. are there guidelines to help refs decide whether a team has deliberately collapsed the scrum? Did Oz get away lightly against Arg in this regard or was the ref on the button?


  • Options
    #197
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    So, wrt collapsing the scrum. are there guidelines to help refs decide whether a team has deliberately collapsed the scrum? Did Oz get away lightly against Arg in this regard or was the ref on the button?

    Top level referees will be coached on what's what and this includes the scrums. That said, most referees never played in the pack so the inner secrets of the front row will never be divulged to them. And of those refs who scrummed, well we won't be giving it away too easily :pac:


  • Options
    #198
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    So it's me again, prompted by the OH.

    We were at the Leinster game yesterday and he announced at one point that he doesn't understand the point of scrums being awarded.

    I tried to explain it as follows:

    1. When a minor offence has occured the scrum is awarded to the offended attacking team and they do not lose territory.
    2. When a more serious offence has been awarded, the attacking team has two choices if they are close to scoring, either take a kick to the corner to increase possession/territory and chance a lineout, or take a penalty to score points.

    Does that make sense?

    He also doesn't seem the point of scrums as a way of restarting, and I compared it to a lineout where the defending team have a chance of winning back the ball, but need to compete for it.

    Is that too simplistic an understanding?


  • Options
    #199
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Stheno wrote: »
    So it's me again, prompted by the OH.

    We were at the Leinster game yesterday and he announced at one point that he doesn't understand the point of scrums being awarded.

    I tried to explain it as follows:

    1. When a minor offence has occured the scrum is awarded to the offended attacking team and they do not lose territory.
    2. When a more serious offence has been awarded, the attacking team has two choices if they are close to scoring, either take a kick to the corner to increase possession/territory and chance a lineout, or take a penalty to score points.

    Does that make sense?

    He also doesn't seem the point of scrums as a way of restarting, and I compared it to a lineout where the defending team have a chance of winning back the ball, but need to compete for it.

    Is that too simplistic an understanding?
    Scrums are a method to restart the game. Your explanations are not exactly correct and scrums take place to restart a game following knock ons etc
    When a "more serious offence" occurs a team has more than 2 choices and that is regardless if they are close to scoring or not. The non infringing team can choose to take a shot at goal, Kick the ball to touch and have the throw in at the lineout, they can have a scrum at the place of infringement or they can run the ball(tap and go)
    Scrums as a method of restarting create more space to attack.


  • Options
    #200
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Scrums are a method to restart the game. Your explanations are not exactly correct and scrums take place to restart a game following knock ons etc
    When a "more serious offence" occurs a team has more than 2 choices and that is regardless if they are close to scoring or not. The non infringing team can choose to take a shot at goal, Kick the ball to touch and have the throw in at the lineout, they can have a scrum at the place of infringement or they can run the ball(tap and go)
    Scrums as a method of restarting create more space to attack.
    Thank you, that's a good explanation, I did explain that they are a method of restarting the game, but was unsure outside of the minor penalties as to why they would be used.

    Your explanation that they give more space to attack makes sense, especially for a team with quick ball out of the scrum.


  • Options
    #201
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    How long after a try can a ref call back a TMO? Just saw Dan Biggar get stopped during his run up for a conversion. That seems far too late.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    connemara man wrote: »
    How long after a try can a ref call back a TMO? Just saw Dan Biggar get stopped during his run up for a conversion. That seems far too late.

    Think it's two minutes for the conversion to be taken?


  • Options
    #203
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    Stheno wrote: »
    Think it's two minutes for the conversion to be taken?

    No he didn't penalise for taking too long. He stopped Biggar while taking the conversion to check a TMO


  • Options
    #204
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    connemara man wrote: »
    No he didn't penalise for taking too long. He stopped Biggar while taking the conversion to check a TMO

    Yeah but there is a time limit in which they can do that.


  • Options
    #205
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    Stheno wrote: »
    Yeah but there is a time limit in which they can do that.

    Really? I thought it was when the conversion was being taken.


  • Options
    #206
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    connemara man wrote: »
    Really? I thought it was when the conversion was being taken.

    I *think* that the kicker has a certain time to take the conversion, and prior to that the ref can stop it

    If they physically hit the ball, they can't


  • Options
    #207
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    the kicker has 60 seconds for a penalty, 90 for a conversion.

    but....

    in the biggar case, the ref wanted to check the grounding of the try after he (or the tmo, i dont know) saw a replay.

    once a conversion is taken, he cannot go back and review the try so he blew the whistle just before biggar kicked the ball.

    farcical really


  • Options
    #208
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    I thought there was a minimum length for the in goal area, what was the story with the one at Leicester's ground? Looked quite short, and I'm sure I've seen what look like short ones at other grounds too.


  • Options
    #209
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    I thought there was a minimum length for the in goal area, what was the story with the one at Leicester's ground? Looked quite short, and I'm sure I've seen what look like short ones at other grounds too.

    technically no, but min 6 m is recommended

    http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1&language=EN

    preferably 10 m

    max 22 m


  • Options
    #210
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Yeah, that's the diagram I checked before posting, so it's just advisory rather than law. I would have thought it makes sense for it to standardised and be law, how often do you see tries scored after a sprint and a dive to tap a loose ball down before it goes dead. In a short goal area you could feel cheated not having that extra bit of distance to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    the kicker has 60 seconds for a penalty, 90 for a conversion.

    but....

    in the biggar case, the ref wanted to check the grounding of the try after he (or the tmo, i dont know) saw a replay.

    once a conversion is taken, he cannot go back and review the try so he blew the whistle just before biggar kicked the ball.

    farcical really

    It's ridiculous it should be changed to when kicker is in the process of kicking, ie same as when the opposing team can go for a charge down. The game has restarted by then.


Advertisement