General Rugby Discussion II

swiwi_

sydthebeat wrote: »

hes only muting it as a possible discussion point about the use of technology going forward... its a bit early to be dissecting it yet

*mooting*

jacothelad

sydthebeat wrote: »

hes only muting it as a possible discussion point about the use of technology going forward... its a bit early to be dissecting it yet

He's doing it quietly then.......;);)

sydthebeat

jacothelad wrote: »

He's doing it quietly then.......;);)

yes... very hushed tones


smart asses

troyzer

Raelene Castle just resigned.

sydthebeat

troyzer wrote: »

Raelene Castle just resigned.

Humm I wonder if the liquidation, or some kind of legal rebranding, of ARU is to follow?

troyzer

sydthebeat wrote: »

Humm I wonder if the liquidation, or some kind of legal rebranding, of ARU is to follow?

I think it has more to do with this open letter that was sent to the ARU.

sydthebeat

troyzer wrote: »

I think it has more to do with this open letter that was sent to the ARU.

Only reading that article now.

As much as RA have to take the blame as administrations of the game in Australia, I do feel a little sympathy towards her in light of the fall off in support for union in Australia. She inherited a hot potato in 2017.

troyzer

sydthebeat wrote: »

Only reading that article now.

As much as RA have to take the blame as administrations of the game in Australia, I do feel a little sympathy towards her in light of the fall off in support for union in Australia. She inherited a hot potato in 2017.

She had no chance.

Tomtom364

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The problem with using something like Hawkeye is that for an Offside Penalty you have to be both Offside AND Material to the play.

So the right winger being offside on the far touchline when the play is on the left touchline is irrelevant to play. How would a tool like Hawkeye determine materiality?

So not altogether sure what Hawkeye brings to the issue of offside that we don't already have covered with AR's or Tocuh Judges and Video refs

That seems pretty simple to resolve.

A live notification of offside from Hawkeye given to the TMO who then makes the call "is it material?" And notifies the ref if it is.

Even just providing the TMO with a constant camera view with offside lines imposed on the image would be helpful.

testtech05

Tomtom364 wrote: »

That seems pretty simple to resolve.

A live notification of offside from Hawkeye given to the TMO who then makes the call "is it material?" And notifies the ref if it is.

Even just providing the TMO with a constant camera view with offside lines imposed on the image would be helpful.

Isn't offside one of the primary functions of the linesman/woman? Surely there wouldn't be a need for technology on this department at least not yet if the rules were applied properly for a while. The amount of stuff that seems to be let go without calling the referees attention at times is mind boggling

The Lost Sheep

Tomtom364 wrote: »

That seems pretty simple to resolve.

A live notification of offside from Hawkeye given to the TMO who then makes the call "is it material?" And notifies the ref if it is.

Even just providing the TMO with a constant camera view with offside lines imposed on the image would be helpful.

why bother have a camera focused on this and miss out on much more valid issues within games and make worse TV as well.

testtech05 wrote: »

Isn't offside one of the primary functions of the linesman/woman? Surely there wouldn't be a need for technology on this department at least not yet if the rules were applied properly for a while. The amount of stuff that seems to be let go without calling the referees attention at times is mind boggling

the laws are applied properly. A lot of time what people think is offside and has to be penalised isnt because it's not material and doesnt need a sanction.
What other stuff that is let go do you consider mind boggling?

testtech05

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

why bother have a camera focused on this and miss out on much more valid issues within games and make worse TV as well.

the laws are applied properly. A lot of time what people think is offside and has to be penalised isnt because it's not material and doesnt need a sanction.
What other stuff that is let go do you consider mind boggling?

Sorry mind boggling was probably the wrong term to use. But I have seen plenty of blatant and very material offsides not given both for an against my teams over the last few years. I just think there is plenty of room for improvement there.

I often see people mentioning the outside defender let's say winger rushing up is immaterial but when this winger forces the attacking team to stay narrow as he is shutting down there space to play wide surely it becomes material pretty quickly?

sydthebeat

According to the Times just now, Joe Marler won't have to serve any ban now due to the corona virus suspension

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

According to the Times just now, Joe Marler won't have to serve any ban now due to the corona virus suspension

I thought bans cover game weeks, how are there any game weeks during this period? Not sure how anyone could argue that

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I thought bans cover game weeks, how are there any game weeks during this period? Not sure how anyone could argue that

I thought the same, though it seems Cronin ban similarly is expiring before games are back.

sydthebeat

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I thought bans cover game weeks, how are there any game weeks during this period? Not sure how anyone could argue that

Joe Marler will be free to play as soon as the rugby season resumes after a secret Six Nations disciplinary review permitted the England prop to serve his full ten-week ban without missing a match.

Marler was found guilty of “squeezing” Alun Wyn Jones, the Wales captain, by the genitals in England’s 33-30 victory at Twickenham on March 7 and suspended until June 8.

Manu Tuilagi, the England centre, received a four-week ban for a dangerous tackle on George North in the same game.

The Times has learnt that David Hurley, who was chairman of the disciplinary panel in both cases, wrote to the Six Nations to open a review of the sanction decisions after the coronavirus crisis had put the rugby season on hold.

World Rugby’s disciplinary guidelines state that each week of a suspension must correspond to a meaningful match. Marler’s ten-week ban covered 12 weeks in duration, taking into account two weekends when he was not due to play a match.


The disciplinary panels heard arguments from both sides but concluded that they were not entitled under Six Nations rules to reconsider the sanctions, despite the change in playing schedule of the players and the committee’s own desire to impose bans that equated to meaningful matches.

Tuilagi’s ban therefore expired on April 14. With the Gallagher Premiership not slated to resume until June 27 at the earliest, Marler will have served his entire ban while on lockdown and without missing any fixtures for club or country.

The disciplinary panel that dealt with the case of Mohamed Haouas, the France prop who was sent off for punching Jamie Ritchie in his side’s defeat by Scotland at Murrayfield, took the opposite view.

Haouas had been banned for three weeks and the panel responded to the Six Nations review by amending the terms of the suspension so it began once the season resumed; thereby applying the meaningful match definition.

The 25-year-old appealed that decision and his challenge was upheld on Thursday without argument from the Six Nations, which is understood to have accepted the need for consistency. Haouas will therefore have also served his ban without suffering any playing disadvantage.

The Times can reveal that Jones, who had complained about Marler’s actions immediately after the match, declined to provide a written statement to be used as evidence.

Marler accepted that his actions had been inappropriate but denied any intent to harm. He said he intercepted Jones, his former British & Irish Lions team-mate, during a scuffle “to have a big laugh with him” and that he ended up “tickling” him in a way the Wales lock “would have been accustomed to in the past”.

The disciplinary panel concluded its judgment by saying it would have been beneficial to have received a statement from Jones.

Bazzo

That.... Makes absolutely no sense. Am I missing something? There's no explanation as to how the disciplinary committee came to the conclusion that a period where matches are suspended corresponds to a period where the player is missing meaningful matches?

sydthebeat

Bazzo wrote: »

That.... Makes absolutely no sense. Am I missing something? There's no explanation as to how the disciplinary committee came to the conclusion that a period where matches are suspended corresponds to a period where the player is missing meaningful matches?

by my reading of it....
the original sanction (disciplinary process) had a 'start' and 'end' date attached to the order.... and took in the schedule as existed at that time.

it was only after the order was made that the schedule changed.

six nations are now arguing that they cannot reopen the sanction to apply the "meaningful matches" clause .. therefore the original 'end' date is still applicable.

JimmyCorkhill

I havent looked to much into their respective policies as part of their role as Chairman of World Rugby but from a high level view, I prefer Pichots proposals/policies.
They seem fairer in terms of "World Rugby" and seem to try to help the smaller teams improve etc.

I see Ireland are apparently going to vote for Beaumont.

Even Clive Woodward is hoping for Pichot.

Any thoughts on it?

Squidgy Black

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

I havent looked to much into their respective policies as part of their role as Chairman of World Rugby but from a high level view, I prefer Pichots proposals/policies.
They seem fairer in terms of "World Rugby" and seem to try to help the smaller teams improve etc.

I see Ireland are apparently going to vote for Beaumont.

Even Clive Woodward is hoping for Pichot.

Any thoughts on it?

There's a lot of support behind Pichot from the people who believe rugby has gone stale and needs major change etc, but Beaumont has a lot of prior experience with the 6 Nations, World Cups and the RFU, whereas Pichot is just a bit of a mouth, and has made some really poor tweets about foreign player percentages, and the whole Toner tweet about the Jean Kleyn selection.

He's a wildcard who nobody knows if he can actually live up to his talk or end up leaving things a mess. Beaumont has a lot of similar policies in terms of the review for a potential alignment of schedules, but a greater focus on player safety and promoting the women's game.

irishbucsfan

There's a huge amount of skepticism about Pichot's ability to deliver on what he promises, and there's also some people questioning his motives as well

Bazzo

Yeah I've seen a few bits about Pichot that made me question his motives, some of the stuff around the global competition a while back in particular. I don't think he's quite the man of the people he paints himself to be.

Dave_The_Sheep

Instinct and seeing the things he's said regarding a world league mean I wouldn't trust Pichot with the 6 Nations as far as I can throw him.

Mind you, I don't trust Laporte either, so there's that.

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/Argentina_2027/status/1254543029794414599?s=19

Former Former

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Instinct and seeing the things he's said regarding a world league mean I wouldn't trust Pichot with the 6 Nations as far as I can throw him.

Mind you, I don't trust Laporte either, so there's that.

But he would have no say in the Six Nations? Like, he can't force the 6N to open it up to other countries.

Pichot's motives are just as driven by his own self-interest as anyone else.

bilston

Ruaidhri O'Connor was suggesting last week on OTB that Beaumont should win the vote but that he may be forced into a bit more innovation due to ensure he fends off Pichot.

The status quo has to change. It had to change three months ago...now it REALLY has to change.

The 2019/20 season is gone as far as I'm concerned. The powers that be need to figure out how to organise the 2020/21 season. If international travel isn't possible then we are in trouble. Do we just play endless Inter Pros behind closed doors for 9 months?

bilston

So the French professional sporting season for 2019/20 has been ended by the French government. I guess that means that the Champions Cup will be cancelled. No surprise if that's what transpires.

Burkie1203

I reckon the Lions tour is in danger now.

irishbucsfan

Burkie1203 wrote: »

I reckon the Lions tour is in danger now.

Noooooooooooooo

Would be devastating for SARU

Bazzo

Burkie1203 wrote: »

I reckon the Lions tour is in danger now.

Waaaaay too early to call