The UAFC

Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

They were supposed to be clamping down on crooked feeds a couple of seasons ago, but it went by the bye when the next raft of directives came in.

Snipe Watson wrote:

Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

They were supposed to be clamping down on crooked feeds a couple of seasons ago, but it went by the bye when the next raft of directives came in.

I think they're still straighter than they used to be.

Interesting, though, watching the match yesterday, with both hookers actually hooking the ball.

Snipe Watson wrote:

BR wrote:

Dave wrote:

BR wrote:

scrum5 wrote:Would like to see a penalty awarded and a YC for a player knocking on and then diving on the ball killing any advantage to the opposing team.

So when a team has been awarded advantage are you just supposed to stand back and let them run in a try?

I think he means a deliberate infringement knowing they have conceded a penalty anyway. Could be a yellow card.

I thought he meant where they knew they'd conceded the scrum. Similar to offside at a knock-on.

I think BR has the correct reading of it. In theory a penalty sounds like a reasonable call, but a yellow card would be a bit much. In reality would it be workable? I'm not sure.

It would be a nonsense.

The offside from a knock-on law is contrived enough, but at least it requires the offending player to be in front of the ball before it is knocked-on.

With this, you would be penalising a player in a legitimate position for doing what is normally part of the game, because he had previously dropped the ball.
A knock-on isn't a knock-on until the referee says it is, so how can you blame a player in an onside position for continuing to play to the whistle?

Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

If they policed all the laws as they were written, we'd hardly see any rugby as we currently know it.

That said, I would love to see the emphasis on ignoring infringements by the team in possession redressed.

The one that's really getting on my tïts in recent times is the liberal interpretation of 'not held'.

I was at a schools match yesterday and at one point a player knocked the ball on at his own 5m line. It was not deliberate as he was genuinely going for the intercept but he couldn't hold the ball. He then immediately stopped and put his hands up because he thought he was just giving up a scrum, instead of picking the ball up which was at his feet. The opposition scrum half proceeded to pick the ball up instead, fling it out wide and the team scored.

But had he picked it up, he would have prevented a certain try as the other team had an overlap of about three guys. So in this new system we're proposing, what's the punishment there? Is there one?

BR wrote:

Rooster wrote:Wonder will they ever go back to straight feeds at the scrum, and not straight to the 8 like NZ were doing yesterday.

Perhaps if they just policed the laws as they are already written everything would work out without this messing around with changes.

If they policed all the laws as they were written, we'd hardly see any rugby as we currently know it.

That said, I would love to see the emphasis on ignoring infringements by the team in possession redressed.

The one that's really getting on my tïts in recent times is the liberal interpretation of 'not held'.

That's what happens with every new laws they quickly become a matter of interpretation rather than fact.
If WR keep adding to the law book, it becomes more and more contrived and less and less workable. Look at "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" as a case in point. 750 pages or thereabouts.

Russ definitely not Rum

Rum does not believe in double penalties for infringements

Violence yes but a knock on is an incomplete interception at times .

Personally I think the foot out of play catch and play should be done away with or the touch down with the foot behind the dead ball line for the scrum back
.

If an out half can weight his kick to keep it in play he deserves credit for the skill .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Wasn't there something one time about protecting the head and neck area; high tackles, clearing out rucks etc. Didn't Ulster even get someone binned for a fairly innocuous clear out recently? Maybe it'll all start again next week.

rumncoke wrote: ...or the touch down with the foot behind the dead ball line for the scrum back
.

You mean picking up with foot behind dead ball line?

Touching down would be a 22.

If the foot is behind the dead ball line when he touches down its a scrum back not a 22 drop
Out
Which in my opinion would be fairer .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

rumncoke wrote:If the foot is behind the dead ball line when he touches down its a scrum back not a 22 drop
Out
Which in my opinion would be fairer .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

?