Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 387 | 388 | 389 | 390 | 391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395 | 396 | 397 | ... | 640

94 posts

Master Geek

#2605138 17-Nov-2020 08:05

tukapa1:

Interestingly if a player makes a mark on the ground after being awarded a penalty that means a penalty shot must be taken. This doesn't get enforced either. You regularly see a player walk up, grab the ball, make a mark in the ground, take two steps back then run about 5 metres past the mark to kick to touch. They should be forced to have a shot at goal once they make the mark in the ground if refs were enforcing the laws.

Sorry, but have never heard of this rule in all of my years involved with rugby. Have just checked the rule book (Law 20 - Penalty and Free kick) as well and cant find anything that says this.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2605139 17-Nov-2020 08:08

Simplest fix is stop the clock, then restart when the kicker starts his jog to kick. They will probably then have a team talk to decide to kick or not...

GV27

5882 posts

Uber Geek

#2605140 17-Nov-2020 08:10

tukapa1:
The rule is the 60 seconds starts from when the team indicates they are having a shot. If they don't do that within 60 seconds it's a scrum to the other side. It's not a penalty offence.

I thought the actual time-wasting foul was a penalty but it turns out it's a free kick. But yes, it would be good to see a bit more a crackdown around marks and time wasting considering how much people moan about scrum reset times for safety reasons.

tukapa1

724 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2605142 17-Nov-2020 08:12

Grunta47:

tukapa1:

Interestingly if a player makes a mark on the ground after being awarded a penalty that means a penalty shot must be taken. This doesn't get enforced either. You regularly see a player walk up, grab the ball, make a mark in the ground, take two steps back then run about 5 metres past the mark to kick to touch. They should be forced to have a shot at goal once they make the mark in the ground if refs were enforcing the laws.

Sorry, but have never heard of this rule in all of my years involved with rugby. Have just checked the rule book (Law 20 - Penalty and Free kick) as well and cant find anything that says this.

I've seen it in the World Rugby Laws - section 8 (scoring)

20. If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2605216 17-Nov-2020 09:34

GV27:

My comment around it 'not being allowed to happen' was based on two things:

1) Tasman going into a game a couple of weeks ago with a massive +/- points differential with Canterbury and coming up with a donut. Really stretched the boundaries of plausibility.

2) The frustrating game on Sunday where the Auckland side was penalised into the ground (usually with good reason) but the final Canterbury penalty shot taking 24 seconds longer than legally allowed to be kicked in the last three minutes of the game. The rules are very clear on this. Even the commentators (who weren't having the best of games as far as objectivity goes) remarked on how long it was taking. It should have been a penalty for time-wasting on the Canterbury side of halfway - at that point the game was still very winnable (hell, Auckland might have kicked that themselves).

As an Aucklander, you get used to these interesting little quirks (watching Waikato games with Glen Jackson refereeing has probably taken a decade off my life) but it doesn't make them any less frustrating to see one side almost always get out of jail at the death (compounded by watching your own team usually find a way to bottle it).

1) Did you actually watch the game? If not, do yourself a favour, watch the game, it was absolutely brilliant. That should put your mind at ease. Luke Romano put in a player of the competition performance.

If you as a rational adult are thinking that Tasman were told to lose to Canterbury, so badly as to not score a single point, and the entire team and management are all keeping it a secret as some plan to keep Canterbury in the premiership, I am honestly lost for words.

Watch the game.

I didn't watch the Auckland game, so I can't comment about the fairness of the penalties, but surely if the plan was to ensure Canterbury won, it would have been safer to have a bigger margin than a single point (co-incidentally Canterbury lost a number of games by a single point this season).

GV27

5882 posts

Uber Geek

#2605224 17-Nov-2020 09:50

networkn:

1) Did you actually watch the game? If not, do yourself a favour, watch the game, it was absolutely brilliant. That should put your mind at ease. Luke Romano put in a player of the competition performance.

If you as a rational adult are thinking that Tasman were told to lose to Canterbury, so badly as to not score a single point, and the entire team and management are all keeping it a secret as some plan to keep Canterbury in the premiership, I am honestly lost for words.

Watch the game.

I didn't watch the Auckland game, so I can't comment about the fairness of the penalties, but surely if the plan was to ensure Canterbury won, it would have been safer to have a bigger margin than a single point (co-incidentally Canterbury lost a number of games by a single point this season).

I did watch the game. I'm not seriously implying there was a grand conspiracy for Tasman to run around like gooses so Canterbury could get the win. Maybe don't take this so personally?

As far as the Auckland games, games come down to two or three key moments where teams either bottle it or a call goes a certain way that doesn't stack up. In this case, it was both.

Frankly if Canterbury play so badly for the season that the integrity of the competition gets called into question when results suddenly start going well then that's probably for their fans to reflect on, not me.

Grunta47

94 posts

Master Geek

#2605340 17-Nov-2020 11:38

tukapa1:

I've seen it in the World Rugby Laws - section 8 (scoring)

20. If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

Aha, thanks for pointing that out. That's one of those laws that is open to a wide variety of interpretation, as in gametime it usually goes along the line of

- Penalty awarded......Referee to captain 'what are you doing'......Captain responds 'kick for a lineout'......kicker walks up and makes a mark before kicking, which is usually to confirm the spot (ignoring the 2-3m grab of extra space), or

- Penalty awarded.....kicker walks straight up and makes a mark while looking at the sideline.....kicks it out.

The referee usually asks for confirmation of what the team is doing, but yes an interesting one

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2605344 17-Nov-2020 11:48

GV27:

I did watch the game. I'm not seriously implying there was a grand conspiracy for Tasman to run around like gooses so Canterbury could get the win. Maybe don't take this so personally?

As far as the Auckland games, games come down to two or three key moments where teams either bottle it or a call goes a certain way that doesn't stack up. In this case, it was both.

Frankly if Canterbury play so badly for the season that the integrity of the competition gets called into question when results suddenly start going well then that's probably for their fans to reflect on, not me.

It's not the first time you've inferred a conspiracy. It's hard to infer a joke without an indication of such, especially when persisting with it.

I am not taking it personally despite saying I disagree with your assessment of the result of the season. I think Canterbury had an awful season, the worst I can recall, but it shouldn't really surprise you that a proud rugby region would

lift their game in the face of relegation. I did take the nasty comments hoping for Canterbury to be relegated somewhat personally, but I think it's poor form to do it to anyone.

You are the only person I have heard calling the integrity of the season into question.

On another note;

I must admit that whilst not watching as much M10 this year, I felt what I did watch had some high moments, but the quality of rugby overall has dropped. I am a little worried about what we have coming through the pipeline. NZR has long had a pretty good production of good quality replacement players, but my feeling is that we don't have forwards who are powerful as the ones being produced

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2605348 17-Nov-2020 11:56

Handle9:

I can't say the other way but I've never been abused by people I don't really know like the way I have been in Christchurch. It's even worse if the Blues have lost and the Crusaders have won.

I cope with it fairly easily (it helps being tall and quite happy to be sarcastic) but it's quite pathetic.

I've heard from Australians about it happening to them in Auckland though. Really unpleasant stuff.

That's really unfortunate. Honestly, I had been there, I would have read the riot act to someone behaving that way, the way I do if I attend a game in person and people boo the kicker. It's a disgraceful way to behave.

Two years ago when I was in Whangamata, on a Saturday night, I went into town get takeaways for dinner wearing my Crusaders jersey, on a night the Chiefs were playing the Crusaders. I was confronted by a rather inebriated gentleman in a group of 5 others who weren't as drunk, on the street.

After trying to ignore him swearing/abusing me, he decided he wasn't getting the reaction he wanted, and decided to push me, then take 2 swings at me (Despite me saying not one word to him the entire time). I was stone cold sober and easily avoided him. His friends tried to calm him but made no attempt to stop the physical confrontation, though afterward they did apologise. The police turned up and took him out for a drying out session. There are some pillocks in every community.

I was also fairly heavily abused wearing an AB's jersey in a Melbourne bar many years ago during a AB's Wallabies game. My most recent trip to Melbourne, same situation except I was welcomed by the most friendly group of hardcore fans, and didn't pay for a drink all night despite my protests. They insisted I was their guest and wouldn't let me buy a round. They all shook my hands after the game and it was one of the best experiences watching sport I've ever had.

tukapa1

724 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2605366 17-Nov-2020 12:36

Grunta47:

tukapa1:

I've seen it in the World Rugby Laws - section 8 (scoring)

20. If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

Aha, thanks for pointing that out. That's one of those laws that is open to a wide variety of interpretation, as in gametime it usually goes along the line of

- Penalty awarded......Referee to captain 'what are you doing'......Captain responds 'kick for a lineout'......kicker walks up and makes a mark before kicking, which is usually to confirm the spot (ignoring the 2-3m grab of extra space), or

- Penalty awarded.....kicker walks straight up and makes a mark while looking at the sideline.....kicks it out.

The referee usually asks for confirmation of what the team is doing, but yes an interesting one

Yeah - sometimes it's obvious that a captain has advised the ref but sometimes the captain isn't anywhere near the ref and there's no obvious communication with the ref when you see the kicker grab the ball, make the mark and kick the ball out. Like all laws - interpretation is king.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2605544 17-Nov-2020 14:53

GV27:

My comment around it 'not being allowed to happen' was based on two things:

1) Tasman going into a game a couple of weeks ago with a massive +/- points differential with Canterbury and coming up with a donut. Really stretched the boundaries of plausibility.

2) The frustrating game on Sunday where the Auckland side was penalised into the ground (usually with good reason) but the final Canterbury penalty shot taking 24 seconds longer than legally allowed to be kicked in the last three minutes of the game. The rules are very clear on this. Even the commentators (who weren't having the best of games as far as objectivity goes) remarked on how long it was taking. It should have been a penalty for time-wasting on the Canterbury side of halfway - at that point the game was still very winnable (hell, Auckland might have kicked that themselves).

As an Aucklander, you get used to these interesting little quirks (watching Waikato games with Glen Jackson refereeing has probably taken a decade off my life) but it doesn't make them any less frustrating to see one side almost always get out of jail at the death (compounded by watching your own team usually find a way to bottle it).

Tasman has put in a few bad performances this year. They have been inconsistent, which is understandable if you look at their lineup this year compared to last year. They gave up a bigger margin to Auckland and quite a few to Harbour. Even against Otago on Saturday they didn't look that flash. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Bay of Plenty roll them in the semi-final. Actually, I am picking an Auckland v Bay final.

Canterbury at one stage had a tight five with no one older than 21. Only in the last 2 to 3 rounds have they had some experience back. Plus they have Brett Cameron, you normally only get 1 or 2 good games out of him. He might be the worst ever All Black 1st five.

GV27

5882 posts

Uber Geek

#2605557 17-Nov-2020 15:19

Jas777:

Tasman has put in a few bad performances this year. They have been inconsistent, which is understandable if you look at their lineup this year compared to last year. They gave up a bigger margin to Auckland and quite a few to Harbour. Even against Otago on Saturday they didn't look that flash. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Bay of Plenty roll them in the semi-final. Actually, I am picking an Auckland v Bay final.

Canterbury at one stage had a tight five with no one older than 21. Only in the last 2 to 3 rounds have they had some experience back. Plus they have Brett Cameron, you normally only get 1 or 2 good games out of him. He might be the worst ever All Black 1st five.

It's been the kind of season where no team has been dominant and form has been all over the place with a really tight table - at times I would have thought that would make for a better season but it's just annoyed the hell out of me.

cshwone

1069 posts

Uber Geek

#2605597 17-Nov-2020 16:29

Genuine qquestion.Can someone explain the logic that put Waikato 4th with the same points and points difference as Canterbury in 5th and same points but inferior pd to Wellington in 6th?

Thanks

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2608594 22-Nov-2020 17:52

Tasmans result didn't reflect how badly they played, how undisciplined they were. They were exceptionally lucky to not be without a second player to a yellow for endless infringements. All of that said as a big Tasman fan.

Hawkes Bay totally smoked Taranaki with some beautiful Rugby.

Australia didn't seem to learn from the AB's the prior weekend, allowing themselves to get dragged into niggle and initating plenty themselves. Galvanised Argentina into another fierce defensive effort. Probably saved our bacon to be honest.

Hopefully, next weekend we have some hope at a real AB's performance with significantly improved discipline.

Handle9

11241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2608716 23-Nov-2020 06:37

England were superb against Ireland. Just ruthless and totally in control. Compared to the trinations teams they are clearly superior at the moment.

France - Scotland was more comparable to the trinations games - some good stuff together with a heap of mess. Saying that Wayne Barnes is do far ahead of any referee in the world. He still blows his whistle more than I'd like but his games are fast, the players shut up and play and it feels like he's enjoying himself. Having a game without heaps of tmo intervention or every scrum being reset is so refreshing.

1 | ... | 387 | 388 | 389 | 390 | 391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395 | 396 | 397 | ... | 640