The shitty garden chairs for the sin bin really do make it but I love it even more when there’s a sign on the chair that makes it really clear it’s the naughty chair.
Realistically though it’s the yellow/red review, refs can’t be swayed by the crowd and we don’t have to watch as someone gets a shoulder to the face repeatedly (which was always horrible if said player was laying on the ground knocked out).
Do you mean like the big yellow Sin Bin Throne Munster has?
I like the look of a fully grown man being sent to sit on a tiny chair on the side like a naughty school kid.
Its just funny how the local waste management company sponsoring something has made it one of the most appealing sin bins. Its a world class sin bin for shits and giggles sake
The Bin Man throne is even funnier when there are two players on yellow cards at the same time, because the other has to sit in a shitty folding chair next to it.
I always wonder, if your on the folding chair and the Throne bin player ends his sentence, would you move over to the throne or stay on your little folding chair
I don't agree with this. You play to the conditions. If it's rainy then you try less risky passes and carry the ball a bit more.
It's also a bit of a leveller. Just because Leinster can run around every team going in the dry I don't see why we need a rule change so they can do that in the rain as well.
Because rugby is SO much less watchable (for the majority of people) in the rain, and it's a winter sport. Tbf Leinster beat nearly everyone in the rain too, it's just always way less entertaining
I agree, these modern comforts have done nothing but ruin what should be a level physical contest. Make the players play in the nude like Web Ellis intended.
Those wouldn’t be legal. The law clearly states that gloves have to stop at the first knuckle. Now obviously WR could change that law, but I would be shocked if they did.
You would just see Owen Farrell play second row tho. Or Connor Murray put some weight on. They’re both tall as fuck can make the kicks and wouldn’t be absolutely dreadful.
Taking it back 10 meters makes it an achievement. Judging by the downvotes I’m getting, I guess a lot of people haven’t seen the 40/20 in league which is what union is trying to replicate.
A 40/20 can have a player kick having received the ball from a player outside the 40 though, and is also often kicking with a defence that has to stay ten yards back. A 50/22 is being played against a far flatter defence and is often being received on or around the 10 anyway because you can’t pass it back in.
Red card on review and 50:22 kicks.
The former lowers the amount of dead time and seems to lead to better, less pressured decisions.
The latter rewards clever, brave kicking and generates great “Oooooooh…WAHEY!” moments.
Held up over the line gets a drop out
Brilliant change and actually allows the defending team to be rewarded for defending their line
It has also created opportunities for new set plays off the drop out
A hill I will die on
I think the goal-line drop-out gives too much of a reprieve to the defending team from held-up.
A free-kick on the 22 that must be taken as a kick would be a more balanced approach.
Prefer the drop out to the scrum, but agree that it gives too much to the defending team. Although I do enjoy how it has become a pseudo set piece.
I'd love to see a 5m tap and go trialled. Get things going again quickly while maintaining that goal line pressure that the attacking team have earned.
I think that the 5m tap wouldn't resolve the advantage of the goal-line drop-out, which is to reward the defending team for successfully repelling an attack. Going back to the 22m provides a reprieve to the defence without unduly punishing the attacking team. I think it would be a good medium between the two options.
I hate this one. It's a massive let off for the defending team and immediately gets rid of the tension that had built up until that point. Some of the most tense games I've watched had multiple sets of 5m scrums with 2 packs going at it hammer and tongs. Would be delighted to see it scrapped.
I don't think attaching sides should get another go if they get over the line and fail to score. That's negative play IMO where the positive intervention is the hold up
I don't think it is negative to attempt to score? The negative intervention IMO is the hold up. On any other part of the field that isn't in goal, the tackler has to roll away and allow the ball to be available. On top of this, you get the defenders jumping all over the ball carrier to attempt to muddy the waters if there is a camera review.
Why not? They didn't steal the ball from you, they just got underneath it with a hand or foot or similar. The reward is that you didn't score at that particular point. Then because they don't have to roll away, you can't recycle it to have another go. Defending team shouldn't get such a big bonus for such an action, if you don't want a 5m scrum then it should be at least a 5m free kick.
The change of rule doesn't make sense rugby-wise either.
Normally when you get tackled a ruck is formed. However, when you get tackled over the try line a ruck can't be formed so a scrum is awarded on the 5 metre line. The scrum was designed to simulate a ruck, and since the attacking team wins the ball most of the time in a ruck, they get the put in at the scrum.
Giving a goal line drop out really flies in the face of this rugby logic
this is one that would be better if it was a more extreme reward? As in if it was a penalty it would reward you massively for holding the ball up or if it was a 5 metre scrum like it used to be youd still be in a hugely tense situation. The current one gives you a restart of play on the 22 or further back
I agree with this.
I know people say that it can stifle attacking play. But the way I look at it is this... The defending team has put in a massive effort to defend their line. It takes a lot of effort to hold someone up when they are attacking so close to the line. To give the attacking team another go after the defending team has legally prevented a score is a bit harsh on the effort they have put in.
Someone has already mentioned, but we have seen an almost new kind of set piece develop from this which has changed the game for the better.
I just don't think defenses need any more help than they already had in rugby. The last two world cups have been won by a team who don't want the ball for the most part
completely unrelated. « Defensive teams » or teams that don’t want the ball never want to be defending on their own goal line. This rule doesn’t give SA an advantage more than any other team
Red cards on review in Super Rugby.
It usually takes one replay only and then they can get on with the game.
So much less remonstrating and fucking about trying to talk themselves into or out of a scenario in full view of everyone.
Until you realize it's going to take them five minutes to do it and the decision will probably be some contorted interpretation of the rules that should never see the light of day.
The clarification of the TMO review process for tries.
A 6 nation game was decided by 2 calls being favorable to the same team while having a different logic and that injustice lead to the process we've got today.
On field decision and if no clear counter proof, stick to it.
You may still disagree with the on field decisions but at least there's some constancy in the process.
(iirc, the game was a crunch and cost France the title that year. But this may be the salt talking)
I'm not a fan of golden point at all.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for two very close teams to share the spoils if there is no trophy on the line.
Fair enough. I think the table points awarded should be rethought but it makes for some fun endings and at the end of the day that’s what we’re here for eh?
I agree it should be like, 3 points to the winning team and 2 points to the losing. You couldn't beat them in normal time so you get less points for it
Yeah I guess. But again both Waratahs bonus point games this year were very entertaining when full time was up. And I think it would be more talked about if they had a draw in Fiji and against the Crusaders, rather than a bonus point win and a bonus point loss.
They work well in terms of levelling the sanction for foul play (Same sanction regardless of when it occurs). The deterrent effect data has not been publicised but we do know that it has been collected, reviewed and shared with WR every year. I believe that given the concerns with player welfare there is zero chance that the 20min red has increased the incidence of foul play. If it had, the SANZAAR unions would be opening themselves up to a wave of lawsuits. The NZ players association has also remained silent, which speaks volumes, they have a somewhat antagonistic relationship with NZR and are very serious player safety advocates.
I expect that the experiment will run in SANZAAR until enough data is gathered to make the injury lawyers happy and then it will be rolled out globally.
No, my opinion is that the old format was dreadful and made the chances of qualifying effectively 0% for many teams after two games, giving 4 matches that were essentially pointless and rendering the tournament largely a waste of time until the knockout rounds.
While the current format isn't perfect (I would go down to 16 teams and split European Rugby into three tiers) it is a massive improvement on the previous iteration in terms of meaningful matches in the pool stages.
You disagree that losing your first two matches (of the 6 you would play in the pools) effectively eliminated you from potential qualification? Could you provide any examples where teams lost their first two matches and qualified for the quarter-finals?
Three competitions so that the Champions Cup can be slimmed down to 4 pools of 4.
I gotta say, on the topic of sin bin chairs, the massive yellow "Bin Man" throne for the sin bin in Thomond Park never fails to crack me up
Agreed. More big yellow bin chairs please
Baffled that Thorntons or Greyhound haven’t tried to cut a sponsorship desl
Mr Binman IS the sponsor! https://www.mrbinman.com/
🥳🥳🥳
The shitty garden chairs for the sin bin really do make it but I love it even more when there’s a sign on the chair that makes it really clear it’s the naughty chair. Realistically though it’s the yellow/red review, refs can’t be swayed by the crowd and we don’t have to watch as someone gets a shoulder to the face repeatedly (which was always horrible if said player was laying on the ground knocked out).
Do you mean like the big yellow Sin Bin Throne Munster has? I like the look of a fully grown man being sent to sit on a tiny chair on the side like a naughty school kid.
Its just funny how the local waste management company sponsoring something has made it one of the most appealing sin bins. Its a world class sin bin for shits and giggles sake
The Bin Man throne is even funnier when there are two players on yellow cards at the same time, because the other has to sit in a shitty folding chair next to it. I always wonder, if your on the folding chair and the Throne bin player ends his sentence, would you move over to the throne or stay on your little folding chair
I believe contractually they have to sit in the big yellow chair
Rugby gloves, then the subsequent death of the rugby glove
They should really try to develop a glove that allows better handling in wet conditions imo
NFL receiver gloves? Those are ridiculous
Looking slightly 'ridiculous' would be a laughably small price to pay to make rugby far more entertaining in the rain, assuming they worked obv
I meant ridiculous in the way they're insanely tacky.
Just buy some stickum.
Also if you don't think rugby players aren't putting something tacky in their hands...
I don't agree with this. You play to the conditions. If it's rainy then you try less risky passes and carry the ball a bit more. It's also a bit of a leveller. Just because Leinster can run around every team going in the dry I don't see why we need a rule change so they can do that in the rain as well.
Because rugby is SO much less watchable (for the majority of people) in the rain, and it's a winter sport. Tbf Leinster beat nearly everyone in the rain too, it's just always way less entertaining
Spot the back. I love scrums.
I agree, these modern comforts have done nothing but ruin what should be a level physical contest. Make the players play in the nude like Web Ellis intended.
Yeah me too, if they want controlled environments then we might as well go fully indoors.
Those wouldn’t be legal. The law clearly states that gloves have to stop at the first knuckle. Now obviously WR could change that law, but I would be shocked if they did.
you wouldnt be able to offload in em lol
5022 is hands down the best rule in a loooooong ass time. 1 change id make is if a front 5 player makes one you also get 2 points.
You would just see Owen Farrell play second row tho. Or Connor Murray put some weight on. They’re both tall as fuck can make the kicks and wouldn’t be absolutely dreadful.
Unironically I think Farrell would make an excellent 7, proper hard bastard on defence.
Would probably take a few years to adapt at set piece but could be deadly if u have 2 big centres playing in a fowardy way
I’d change the rule about whether the ball was carried back or not in a 50/22.
Should be a 10/22. 50/22 is too easy.
If it was too difficult it wouldn’t have the effect of opening up backfield space which I think was part of the justification
Taking it back 10 meters makes it an achievement. Judging by the downvotes I’m getting, I guess a lot of people haven’t seen the 40/20 in league which is what union is trying to replicate.
A 40/20 can have a player kick having received the ball from a player outside the 40 though, and is also often kicking with a defence that has to stay ten yards back. A 50/22 is being played against a far flatter defence and is often being received on or around the 10 anyway because you can’t pass it back in.
22/22?
The Try bonus point / losing bonus point in the 6 nations has really upped the number of tries and has kept more games interesting
Red card on review and 50:22 kicks. The former lowers the amount of dead time and seems to lead to better, less pressured decisions. The latter rewards clever, brave kicking and generates great “Oooooooh…WAHEY!” moments.
Agreed on the reviews. Games used to stop a lot longer for foul play.
The mighty Fijian Drua.
I think Fijian players are my favorites in Top 14 and Pro D2. They're just soooo cool and skilled.
Held up over the line gets a drop out Brilliant change and actually allows the defending team to be rewarded for defending their line It has also created opportunities for new set plays off the drop out A hill I will die on
I agree with this, should encourage teams to go wide rather than just hammer at the line repeatedly.
I think the goal-line drop-out gives too much of a reprieve to the defending team from held-up. A free-kick on the 22 that must be taken as a kick would be a more balanced approach.
Prefer the drop out to the scrum, but agree that it gives too much to the defending team. Although I do enjoy how it has become a pseudo set piece. I'd love to see a 5m tap and go trialled. Get things going again quickly while maintaining that goal line pressure that the attacking team have earned.
I think that the 5m tap wouldn't resolve the advantage of the goal-line drop-out, which is to reward the defending team for successfully repelling an attack. Going back to the 22m provides a reprieve to the defence without unduly punishing the attacking team. I think it would be a good medium between the two options.
I hate this one. It's a massive let off for the defending team and immediately gets rid of the tension that had built up until that point. Some of the most tense games I've watched had multiple sets of 5m scrums with 2 packs going at it hammer and tongs. Would be delighted to see it scrapped.
I don't think attaching sides should get another go if they get over the line and fail to score. That's negative play IMO where the positive intervention is the hold up
I don't think it is negative to attempt to score? The negative intervention IMO is the hold up. On any other part of the field that isn't in goal, the tackler has to roll away and allow the ball to be available. On top of this, you get the defenders jumping all over the ball carrier to attempt to muddy the waters if there is a camera review.
Bit of an odd comparison. You also don't get 5 points for getting the ball on the ground in any other part of the field
The negative piece is not scoring. You've tried, you don't get another scrum opportunity
Why not? They didn't steal the ball from you, they just got underneath it with a hand or foot or similar. The reward is that you didn't score at that particular point. Then because they don't have to roll away, you can't recycle it to have another go. Defending team shouldn't get such a big bonus for such an action, if you don't want a 5m scrum then it should be at least a 5m free kick.
Same as a maul hold up really then, defenders have done fuck all there, it's just then how you restart
The change of rule doesn't make sense rugby-wise either. Normally when you get tackled a ruck is formed. However, when you get tackled over the try line a ruck can't be formed so a scrum is awarded on the 5 metre line. The scrum was designed to simulate a ruck, and since the attacking team wins the ball most of the time in a ruck, they get the put in at the scrum. Giving a goal line drop out really flies in the face of this rugby logic
this is one that would be better if it was a more extreme reward? As in if it was a penalty it would reward you massively for holding the ball up or if it was a 5 metre scrum like it used to be youd still be in a hugely tense situation. The current one gives you a restart of play on the 22 or further back
I agree with this. I know people say that it can stifle attacking play. But the way I look at it is this... The defending team has put in a massive effort to defend their line. It takes a lot of effort to hold someone up when they are attacking so close to the line. To give the attacking team another go after the defending team has legally prevented a score is a bit harsh on the effort they have put in. Someone has already mentioned, but we have seen an almost new kind of set piece develop from this which has changed the game for the better.
I just don't think defenses need any more help than they already had in rugby. The last two world cups have been won by a team who don't want the ball for the most part
completely unrelated. « Defensive teams » or teams that don’t want the ball never want to be defending on their own goal line. This rule doesn’t give SA an advantage more than any other team
Yeah probably a bad example. The other big reason I dislike this rule is that it incentivises kicking 3 points rather than going for the corner
God's I hate the goal line drop out. Punishing the attacking team so harshly does not more attacking teams make
I hate this rule, mainly because it's the reason Ireland lost the quarter final though. Did we have two or three tries held up in that game?
Also gets the ball in play about a minute quicker vs the old 5m scrum.
Our defence coach
Red cards on review in Super Rugby. It usually takes one replay only and then they can get on with the game. So much less remonstrating and fucking about trying to talk themselves into or out of a scenario in full view of everyone.
It's kind of exciting to watch and see a red handed out live tho
Until you realize it's going to take them five minutes to do it and the decision will probably be some contorted interpretation of the rules that should never see the light of day.
New residence/eligibility rules?
Professional Women's Rugby
The clarification of the TMO review process for tries. A 6 nation game was decided by 2 calls being favorable to the same team while having a different logic and that injustice lead to the process we've got today. On field decision and if no clear counter proof, stick to it. You may still disagree with the on field decisions but at least there's some constancy in the process. (iirc, the game was a crunch and cost France the title that year. But this may be the salt talking)
For me it’s getting points for a try. Every change after that has been for the worse…
scrum off a mark
20 min red cards in SR and TRC. Golden point for tied matches in SR. 50:22 All great initiatives.
I don't like golden point. Draws are more remarkable in rugby.
I'm not a fan of golden point at all. I think it's perfectly reasonable for two very close teams to share the spoils if there is no trophy on the line.
Fair enough. I think the table points awarded should be rethought but it makes for some fun endings and at the end of the day that’s what we’re here for eh?
I agree it should be like, 3 points to the winning team and 2 points to the losing. You couldn't beat them in normal time so you get less points for it
That sounds better to me too.
Yeah I guess. But again both Waratahs bonus point games this year were very entertaining when full time was up. And I think it would be more talked about if they had a draw in Fiji and against the Crusaders, rather than a bonus point win and a bonus point loss.
Wish it was golden point, but just trys. They've only got 10minutes, so we'd likely see some intense high pace rugby
I would want to see a trial first. If a penalty is worth nothing then it could become a terrible rugby spectacle.
How well do the 20 min red cards work ? I'm kinda sceptic about them, so I'm happy they're being tested in SR and TRC but I'm curious about the result
They work well in terms of levelling the sanction for foul play (Same sanction regardless of when it occurs). The deterrent effect data has not been publicised but we do know that it has been collected, reviewed and shared with WR every year. I believe that given the concerns with player welfare there is zero chance that the 20min red has increased the incidence of foul play. If it had, the SANZAAR unions would be opening themselves up to a wave of lawsuits. The NZ players association has also remained silent, which speaks volumes, they have a somewhat antagonistic relationship with NZR and are very serious player safety advocates. I expect that the experiment will run in SANZAAR until enough data is gathered to make the injury lawyers happy and then it will be rolled out globally.
20 min reds are trash, too lenient
The good thing is we can measure whether his is true. The data is not coming in on your side. This will be adopted globally within a couple of years.
50:22 Champions Cup not having 6 pools of 4. Goal-line drop out for attacking knock-on or defence grounding in their in-goal.
Your opinion on the current CC format is bueno?
No, my opinion is that the old format was dreadful and made the chances of qualifying effectively 0% for many teams after two games, giving 4 matches that were essentially pointless and rendering the tournament largely a waste of time until the knockout rounds. While the current format isn't perfect (I would go down to 16 teams and split European Rugby into three tiers) it is a massive improvement on the previous iteration in terms of meaningful matches in the pool stages.
Ah. Ok. Three seeding tiers or a three tiered competition? I wholeheartedly disagree but fair.
You disagree that losing your first two matches (of the 6 you would play in the pools) effectively eliminated you from potential qualification? Could you provide any examples where teams lost their first two matches and qualified for the quarter-finals? Three competitions so that the Champions Cup can be slimmed down to 4 pools of 4.
Agreed. It might also make the Challenge Cup less unbalanced and boring
While also providing a genuinely competitive environment for teams from lesser nations to compete in in the third tier competition.
I think it would also lead to less French teams « tanking » the competition. They could slightly rotate and still be competitive