General Rugby Discussion

AbusesToilets

When are the goggles due to be approved? I thought that was in the works to be cleared at higher levels.

irishbucsfan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

When are the goggles due to be approved? I thought that was in the works to be cleared at higher levels.

It's up to the individual unions. They're only banned in some countries (Ireland being one of them).

Stheno

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's up to the individual unions. They're only banned in some countries (Ireland being one of them).

There was an article online somewhere last week (I think it was the daily fail) about a young child not allowed play due to needing googles

Stheno

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's up to the individual unions. They're only banned in some countries (Ireland being one of them).

And sorry for the double post but how does that work on an international level? Void McKinley at e.g. for Ireland in an international in Rome but not in Dublin?

AbusesToilets

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's up to the individual unions. They're only banned in some countries (Ireland being one of them).

Strange one, you'd figure WR would put out a policy to cover everyone. Either they are safe or they aren't, bit silly to piecemeal it.

The Lost Sheep

Millenium Stadium to be renamed Principality Stadium in deal
http://www.wru.wales/eng/news/34743.php#.Ve7c7U3bLcs

AFAIK the 10-year deal could be worth up to £15m.

Clearlier

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Millenium Stadium to be renamed Principality Stadium in deal
http://www.wru.wales/eng/news/34743.php#.Ve7c7U3bLcs

AFAIK the 10-year deal could be worth up to £15m.

That seems low given ten year naming rights for the Aviva were reported to be in the region of €40 - €45M.

CatFromHue

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's up to the individual unions. They're only banned in some countries (Ireland being one of them).

I think they're technically banned everywhere but in some countries they're trialling there use, Ireland isn't one of these countries.

total former

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think they're technically banned everywhere but in some countries they're trialling there use, Ireland isn't one of these countries.

World Rugby is running a global trial so I think (and I'm completely open to contradiction here), if you wanted to wear them in a world cup, then you can.

The Lost Sheep

total former wrote: »

World Rugby is running a global trial so I think (and I'm completely open to contradiction here), if you wanted to wear them in a world cup, then you can.

You are correct. Anyone who wants to wear the goggles can do so but only the Goggles carrying the official World Rugby Trial Approved logo will be permitted to be used in the trial, and all participants must demonstrate their need for the Goggles through a letter from their ophthalmologist etc.
Referees check the goggles just like they check studs etc before a game

b.gud

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/23464/exclusive-premiership-salary-cap-breaches-will-go-unpunished/

Ceadog

b.gud wrote: »

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/23464/exclusive-premiership-salary-cap-breaches-will-go-unpunished/

Hardly surprising. Turning a blind eye to the transgressions of the two most successful clubs suits the RFU.

molloyjh

b.gud wrote: »

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/23464/exclusive-premiership-salary-cap-breaches-will-go-unpunished/

Oh goody, a PRL debate. IBF, you're up.... :P

irishbucsfan

It's a joke, it shouldn't be up to the clubs to decide these things. I'm convinced now that if you're going to have a salary cap you need an independent body to enforce it, I feel bad for the guy who manages the cap (can't remember his name), he gave an interview a few years ago where he sounded very passionate about enforcement, I can imagine there was a bunch of work put into building the case only to see it get dismissed by politics, really at the end of the day it's the smaller clubs doing these deals who are harming themselves. No point in having the cap at all if you're not going to enforce it correctly.

In saying that, I don't trust the details in that article above in the slightest, that paper is a rag, but I'm sure the general gist of it is correct.

thomond2006

So instead of a uniform punishment, the other clubs are going to extort the implicated clubs? That's ridiculous.

Ceadog wrote: »

Hardly surprising. Turning a blind eye to the transgressions of the two most successful clubs suits the RFU.

This is involving Premier Rugby, I don't think the RFU is involved in discipline of clubs.

CatFromHue

The IRB are trialling some new laws, some of them are:

Penalties awarded after time has expired can be kicked to touch and the lineout will be played.

Teams can choose which advantage they want to play if a side infringes on multiple occasions.

Revised points scoring: Six points for a try, two points for a conversion, two points for a penalty, 2 for a drop

No conversions after a penalty try, which is automatically worth eight points.

A maul must start to move within five seconds or the ball must be used.

A player who plays the ball while his foot is in touch but before the ball has crossed the plane of the touchline is deemed to have carried the ball into touch.

Scrum changes allowing a scrum-half to stand with his shoulder level with the centre of the scrum, promoting scrum stability.

The introduction of a five-metre line drop-out as an alternative to a five-metre scrum for a defending team.

If you go to uncontested scrums due to sending off or injury you still have to have 8 in the pack

There's more too
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/90108

A few focus on the scrum and alot are to do with speeding up the amount of time the ball is in play.

thomond2006

There's a lot to digest there. Does national competition mean the pros or AIL level etc?

CatFromHue

mainly underage comps and some amateur/semi pro comps

World Rugby’s Pacific Challenge, U20 Trophy, Tbilisi Cup and Nations Cup in 2016 will trial the full package of law amendments, while the first trials are underway with the Principality Cup in Wales and the National Rugby Championship in Australia. A full inventory of competitions will be released in due course.

I don't follow sevens so does anyone know what this means?

To increase ball in play time, penalise poor kicks and reduce scrum time, the sevens variations for
kick-off sanctions will apply: Free kick at the centre of the halfway line. There is not a scrum option
from this free kick

The Lost Sheep

CatFromHue wrote: »

The IRB are trialling some new laws, some of them are:

Penalties awarded after time has expired can be kicked to touch and the lineout will be played.

Teams can choose which advantage they want to play if a side infringes on multiple occasions.

Revised points scoring: Six points for a try, two points for a conversion, two points for a penalty, 2 for a drop

No conversions after a penalty try, which is automatically worth eight points.

A maul must start to move within five seconds or the ball must be used.

A player who plays the ball while his foot is in touch but before the ball has crossed the plane of the touchline is deemed to have carried the ball into touch.

Scrum changes allowing a scrum-half to stand with his shoulder level with the centre of the scrum, promoting scrum stability.

The introduction of a five-metre line drop-out as an alternative to a five-metre scrum for a defending team.

If you go to uncontested scrums due to sending off or injury you still have to have 8 in the pack

There's more too
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/90108

A few focus on the scrum and alot are to do with speeding up the amount of time the ball is in play.

Varies on competition/country as to how many of the changes will be in place

Better discussed in this thread. No????
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520903&page=61

flouncer

Wonder what folks think of the modern game of rugby. Without doubt it has developed in its own way. If I look at today's game its all wham bam, you fall over the line with loads of big guys in support. Then you need the television official to work out if the ball was grounded. Over and over again this is the case. The days of a back line running in a try seems to be gone. Its simply muscle. And each and every team are physically building their players to this style of play. It doesn't lead towards pleasant viewing and is a direction I simply don't agree with. Its along the lines of this idea of blanket defence in gaa. Its simply boring and modern day rugby is simply getting boring. Time for change.

The Lost Sheep

Try identify all of the jersies of teams competing in the world cup....

http://www.twentyxv.com/

curious incident

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Try identify all of the jersies of teams competing in the world cup....

http://www.twentyxv.com/

CONGRATULATIONS
You’ve done it! 40 points is a fantastic score at this level and against this competition.

Let the world know that you’re a champion.

accidentprone1

flouncer wrote: »

Wonder what folks think of the modern game of rugby. Without doubt it has developed in its own way. If I look at today's game its all wham bam, you fall over the line with loads of big guys in support. Then you need the television official to work out if the ball was grounded. Over and over again this is the case. The days of a back line running in a try seems to be gone. Its simply muscle. And each and every team are physically building their players to this style of play. It doesn't lead towards pleasant viewing and is a direction I simply don't agree with. Its along the lines of this idea of blanket defence in gaa. Its simply boring and modern day rugby is simply getting boring. Time for change.

What change do you suggest?

The Lost Sheep

CatFromHue wrote: »

mainly underage comps and some amateur/semi pro comps

I don't follow sevens so does anyone know what this means?

It simply means there should be less scrums as teams will be awarded a free kick instead of having the option of being awarded the put in to a scrum.
Games should be quicker with this change

Akrasia

CatFromHue wrote: »

The introduction of a five-metre line drop-out as an alternative to a five-metre scrum for a defending team.

This is an interesting one. I presume the drop-out won't be allowed to find touch, so this would be an interesting choice for a defending team, do they risk giving the ball back so it can be run straight back at them, or do they take the scrum and clear the ball into touch.

molloyjh

flouncer wrote: »

Wonder what folks think of the modern game of rugby. Without doubt it has developed in its own way. If I look at today's game its all wham bam, you fall over the line with loads of big guys in support. Then you need the television official to work out if the ball was grounded. Over and over again this is the case. The days of a back line running in a try seems to be gone. Its simply muscle. And each and every team are physically building their players to this style of play. It doesn't lead towards pleasant viewing and is a direction I simply don't agree with. Its along the lines of this idea of blanket defence in gaa. Its simply boring and modern day rugby is simply getting boring. Time for change.

You haven't watched a huge amount of rugby lately have you? There's still plenty of backs scoring tries from Kearney in Twickenham last year to Abendanon in Twickenham (CC final) this year. Space is definitely at a premium and defences are really well structured so it isn't the way it was 10+ years ago. But it's not as bad as you're describing either.

sydthebeat

flouncer wrote: »

Wonder what folks think of the modern game of rugby. Without doubt it has developed in its own way. If I look at today's game its all wham bam, you fall over the line with loads of big guys in support. Then you need the television official to work out if the ball was grounded. Over and over again this is the case. The days of a back line running in a try seems to be gone. Its simply muscle. And each and every team are physically building their players to this style of play. It doesn't lead towards pleasant viewing and is a direction I simply don't agree with. Its along the lines of this idea of blanket defence in gaa. Its simply boring and modern day rugby is simply getting boring. Time for change.

ever watch super rugby?

the game is not at fault, the mindset and ethos of some coaches is.

English Lurker

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's a joke, it shouldn't be up to the clubs to decide these things. I'm convinced now that if you're going to have a salary cap you need an independent body to enforce it, I feel bad for the guy who manages the cap (can't remember his name), he gave an interview a few years ago where he sounded very passionate about enforcement, I can imagine there was a bunch of work put into building the case only to see it get dismissed by politics, really at the end of the day it's the smaller clubs doing these deals who are harming themselves. No point in having the cap at all if you're not going to enforce it correctly.

In saying that, I don't trust the details in that article above in the slightest, that paper is a rag, but I'm sure the general gist of it is correct.

There was an article in the Times not that long ago on the subject which I saw posted elsewhere, could try and find it if people want. Agreed that the Rugby Paper has a bad rep.

It's all, uhm, rather poor. Thankful I don't go to AP games and as long as the continue, very rarely will.

Yeah_Right

I think flouncer must've missed the last day of the 6 Nations. Or I was drunk and all of those tries were actually just big groups of forwards falling over the line together.

aimee1

Yeah_Right wrote: »

were actually just big groups of forwards falling over the line together.

That was just Vincent Debaty

durkadurka

This is a good read . How the all blacks do it...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/sep/11/all-blacks-how-new-zealand-sustains-its-rugby-dynasty?CMP=fb_gu

Wang King

Lomu speaking about his career, coming to Kerry and his health.
http://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/world-cup/i-told-the-doctor-in-40-minutes-make-sure-youve-got-an-ambulance-ready-31521439.html

mogwai81

durkadurka wrote: »

This is a good read . How the all blacks do it...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/sep/11/all-blacks-how-new-zealand-sustains-its-rugby-dynasty?CMP=fb_gu

Great read

The Lost Sheep

MJohnston wrote: »

Hopefully in a couple of years we'll see an alternative to the TMO with the referees potentially provided with some kind of tablet that could allow them to tap into specific footage themselves. There are already refs starting to watch the video footage themselves on the big screen and then make the decision before the TMO, but I'd like to see it more - the reason I want this is because I think there are a lot of referee-TMO communication mistakes that take place, whether it be because of crowd noise preventing the ref hearing the TMO correctly, a language barrier between the two, or just a simple crossed wires. I can remember pivotal decisions being missed because of this miscommunication.

Edit: incidentally, I'm sure this is why they've been muting the TMO in recent times.

That isnt why TMO was muted....
That alternative isnt feasible. You really expect someone to come on to field/for referee to go to side of pitch to look at a tablet.... :rolleyes:
The AR's can hear what TMO says... what decisions are you referring to were missed due to miscommunication.

irishbucsfan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

That alternative isnt feasible. You really expect someone to come on to field/for referee to go to side of pitch to look at a tablet.... :rolleyes:

It's what they do in the NFL, not sure I would roll my eyes at the possibility. It would actually say it's almost a certainty that we'll see something along those lines for refs at some point the future, it's a much better idea than them squinting at a big screen.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's what they do in the NFL, not sure I would roll my eyes at the possibility. It would actually say it's almost a certainty that we'll see something along those lines for refs at some point the future, it's a much better idea than them squinting at a big screen.

Most of the time when you see a ref watching on the big screen they come to a decision quicker than the TMO. I don't see any need to change it. Plus, one of the biggest problems I have with American sports is how long the stoppages are.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Most of the time when you see a ref watching on the big screen they come to a decision quicker than the TMO. I don't see any need to change it. Plus, one of the biggest problems I have with American sports is how long the stoppages are.

Well that has nothing to do with how long the stoppages are, it very rarely happens, I'd suggest waiting until you see it before forming an opinion on their version.

I think it will happen. It doesn't have to take very long at all, someone can just run out to the ref if he wants it, just as when communications go down.

lbj666

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well that has nothing to do with how long the stoppages are, it very rarely happens, I'd suggest waiting until you see it before forming an opinion on their version.

I think it will happen. It doesn't have to take very long at all, someone can just run out to the ref if he wants it, just as when communications go down.

Bucsfan , NFL reviews take absolutely ages so much so most networks go to an ad break . The ref walks to a curtained booth on the sideline, the replays is replayed to them in the best quality possible and they are also advised by a "command centre" what to look for, its the head ref that makes the decision. Its fine for NFL because of the nature of it.

A rugby ref on the field cannot be the best judge for a lot of marginal things such as ball touch line foot in touch etc if all he has to look at is a tablet or a big screen from a distance.

The TMO will always have the best tools at his disposal.

irishbucsfan

lbj666 wrote: »

Bucsfan , NFL reviews take absolutely ages so much so most networks go to an ad break . The ref walks to a curtained booth on the sideline, the replays is replayed to them in the best quality possible and they are also advised by a "command centre" what to look for, its the head ref that makes the decision. Its fine for NFL because of the nature of it.

A rugby ref on the field cannot be the best judge for a lot of marginal things such as ball touch line foot in touch etc if all he has to look at is a tablet or a big screen from a distance.

The TMO will always have the best tools at his disposal.

They almost the same amount of time as our reviews, they just seem like they take longer because of the adverts, it was reviewed a couple of years ago (I think it was the RFU/PRL who did it before trialling the extra TMO involvement).

I'm not saying we should use their system. I'm not saying the refs should use a booth. I'm not saying anything like that, not sure where you've got that from. Maybe you didn't read the entire context of the post.

I'm saying that it's perfectly feasible for someone to come in from the sideline with a device that allows the ref to see what the TMO is seeing at the same time up close instead of looking at the big screen and there's no reason it should take any more than a couple of extra seconds to do that.

irishbucsfan

Do you know what would be awesome?

Applying this to rugby and keeping it updated:

http://www.eloratings.net/system.html

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Do you know what would be awesome?

Applying this to rugby and keeping it updated:

http://www.eloratings.net/system.html

My head hurts.

Clearlier

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Do you know what would be awesome?

Applying this to rugby and keeping it updated:

http://www.eloratings.net/system.html

Is that not just a different version of what happens with the world rankings? AFAIR only world cup games are given extra weighting but points are adjusted based on where the opposition are ranked and whether it's home or away. Do you think that this would be notably better? I know that a certain amount of griping about the rankings does happen (usually Welsh fans in our direction IME) but I think that they tend to be a reasonable indicator of past form.

Peterx

Why are there not 5 pools of 4 teams in the World Cup?

All the minnows, including those lovely cherry blossoms, have 4 day turnarounds as standard with 4 pools of 5.

Podge_irl

Who qualifies with 5 pools? Given the pretty large disparity that exists in the 4th and 5th seeds, having a top 3 runners-up type qualification would be grossly unfair.

The Lost Sheep

Peterx wrote: »

Why are there not 5 pools of 4 teams in the World Cup?

All the minnows, including those lovely cherry blossoms, have 4 day turnarounds as standard with 4 pools of 5.

Because you then have the issue of deciding how to get 8 teams from 5 pools and doing best runners up or playoffs.
All the "minnows" don't have 4/5 day turnarounds and the top 4 seeded sides going into the world cup have short turnarounds for games as well

lbj666

Peterx wrote: »

Why are there not 5 pools of 4 teams in the World Cup?

All the minnows, including those lovely cherry blossoms, have 4 day turnarounds as standard with 4 pools of 5.

They had 5 pools of 4 in 1999. The 5 winners of the pool automaticaly made the 1/4 finals. The runners-up of each pool and the best third-placed had a playoff for the final 3 spot.

It meant that the playoff were played midweek before the 1/4 final, all the playoff winners lost their 1/4 final 4 days later. It was a horrible format.



20 Team tournament formats in anything are terrible and there is no right or fair way of doing them .

Look at the champions cup, the football world cup til 1994 ( ireland in italy '90 with 3 draws in the pools)

Euro 2016 will be 20 and will have 3rd places teams going to the 2nd round

Winters

1 of the 2 individuals involved in "RugbyLaw" which is trying to set up a non affiliated professional rugby league in the USA has parted ways. The same company was also unsuccessful in two attempts this year to host showpiece games in Philadelphia (involving Leicester Tigers) and New Orleans.

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2015/06/21/rugbylaw-moves-on-without-robertson/

Vital to have support of the governing body. Futile otherwise.

Winters

On the topic of the number of teams in the World Cup. How far are we from having a 24 team tournament I wonder?

Spain, Russia, Chile and Hong Kong for arguments sake are the next 4 teams in the rankings that didn't qualify. Portugal have appeared before.

Clearlier

Winters wrote: »

On the topic of the number of teams in the World Cup. How far are we from having a 24 team tournament I wonder?

Spain, Russia, Chile and Hong Kong for arguments sake are the next 4 teams in the rankings that didn't qualify. Portugal have appeared before.

The Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe have appeared before too but I think that the current standard of the next 4 in the world rankings that you mention doesn't inspire confidence that we're anywhere near being ready to expand the tournament. You could maybe argue that Uruguay and Namibia are the two luckiest team to be in the RWC but none of the 4 next in line have been screaming for inclusion ahead of those two or making huge strides that I'm aware of. I guess Russia might possibly develop to that level by the next RWC but you're still a long way away from another 4 teams who are not cannon fodder. I haven't seen Namibia play but for all of their willingness the disparity in the size of the Uruguayan players compared to the Welsh was very evident on the pitch.

Podge_irl

Fairly far away still I would think. I wouldn't look at expanding until all the current 5th seeds are putting up at least very respectable scores and we're a long enough way off that yet.