When do World Rugby string up Rassie Erasmus?

[Sandstorm]

There's no need/incentive for more than one defender to go in when things can be slowed down by an individual or attacking players flopping/anchoring make it useless to attempt a counter ruck.

But then you're advocating that every single tackle is a great chance for a defending player to go in and try to turn over the ball. That's (fortunately) not the case, otherwise keeping possession would be impossible.

I'm happy with 4-5 turnovers per team per half - maximum. Rugby is about keeping possession and moving up the field with the ball in-hand. Not a ruck penalty every 3rd phase of attack.

[Niegs]

There's no need/incentive for more than one defender to go in when things can be slowed down by an individual or attacking players flopping/anchoring make it useless to attempt a counter ruck.

But then you're advocating that every single tackle is a great chance for a defending player to go in and try to turn over the ball. That's (fortunately) not the case, otherwise keeping possession would be impossible.

I'm happy with 4-5 turnovers per team per half - maximum. Rugby is about keeping possession and moving up the field with the ball in-hand. Not a ruck penalty every 3rd phase of attack.

I’m suggesting an actual contest (without hands) could be better than what we have now. Isn’t ‘contest’ supposed to be the main aspect of the game, not ‘building phases’? More defenders allowed / forced to compete pulls them out of the line, equals more space to attack. Attack will probably have to put an extra body or two in to secure or they could chance more offloads and the old school open field maul (baffles me why these aren’t used more given how effective they are at lineout time).

I really think it’s the lone cheating defender and attempting to win a ‘collision’ with one or two members of the ‘pod’ (I hate these terms, btw) that slows the game down and allows defenders to fan out / realign with a couple of steps.

[Sandstorm]

I really think it’s the lone cheating defender and attempting to win a ‘collision’ with one or two members of the ‘pod’ (I hate these terms, btw) that slows the game down and allows defenders to fan out / realign with a couple of steps.

9s slow the game down. More than TMO's, scrum resets or diving Scottish 10s.

A pox on all their yappy houses.

[Grandpa]

There's no need/incentive for more than one defender to go in when things can be slowed down by an individual or attacking players flopping/anchoring make it useless to attempt a counter ruck.

But then you're advocating that every single tackle is a great chance for a defending player to go in and try to turn over the ball. That's (fortunately) not the case, otherwise keeping possession would be impossible.

I'm happy with 4-5 turnovers per team per half - maximum. Rugby is about keeping possession and moving up the field with the ball in-hand. Not a ruck penalty every 3rd phase of attack.

I’m suggesting an actual contest (without hands) could be better than what we have now. Isn’t ‘contest’ supposed to be the main aspect of the game, not ‘building phases’? More defenders allowed / forced to compete pulls them out of the line, equals more space to attack. Attack will probably have to put an extra body or two in to secure or they could chance more offloads and the old school open field maul (baffles me why these aren’t used more given how effective they are at lineout time).

I really think it’s the lone cheating defender and attempting to win a ‘collision’ with one or two members of the ‘pod’ (I hate these terms, btw) that slows the game down and allows defenders to fan out / realign with a couple of steps.

I think this is pretty much what Hansen advocates... that refs should enforce current laws... penalise players off their feet etc... while making the breakdown still competitive.. organised chaos rather than disorganised chaos..

[Grandpa]

I believe referee performances are already subject to review post-match. The process is relatively comprehensive and transparent, but it takes some time as the panel and officiating team needs to convene for the assessment. Not sure if they are always conducted the week after a test match, or once a couple of tests have been played and done in a batch.

I don't think anybody has an issue with this process and it works well, unless you have one of the officials assigned to your next test match and his assessment from his last match hasn't been published yet...which was one of the reasons why Rassie was throwing his little tantrum.

An outcome I'd like to see:
a. Penalties for players / coaches / administrators being critical of officials in the press.
b. Clearer guidelines on timeframes for referee performance assessments. Something like for pro tier 1 and tier 2 teams all efforts should be made for the Referee assessment to be published by the Tuesday after the test. I'm sure coaches would like to have it for the Monday technical session with the team already, but maybe a Tuesday can be a compromise.

In bold... This is already the case isn't it?

I stand to be corrected but wasn't that Rassie's argument? They'd asked for the review in order to select the team taking it into account for the next test and it hadn't been supplied by Tuesday and that WR ignored requests for it?

Yes it was and I remember at the time various people, including Nigel Owens saying... but they do come back on Tuesday... like it was standard protocol...

[Kawazaki]

"If you look at the rulebook, it talks about a ruck and it never talks about the breakdown. Breakdown is a word used more often than any other word in the game - there's not even a rule for a breakdown and we have an old, antiquated law that says two people will bond over the ball and that'll be a ruck. Well that never happens in the game."

Hansen suggests a simplified and clearly-officiated breakdown would increase the pace of the game; meaning there would be fewer players in any given defensive line and therefore a reduced amount of physicality in the tackle and fewer head knocks.

"A lot of the injuries we're getting are actually friendly fire, so you and I make the tackle and I knock my head against your elbow or your head.

"So we'd create a game where there's a clear picture at the breakdown that yes, ball is quicker, the defensive lines won't be able to set as quick; so attacking lines will be attacking against destabilised defences more often and there'll be more space.

"I think the opportunity to be really brutal will dissipate."

Hansen says this particular issue is a symptom of an even wider problem in the sport: that few people understand how it is actually played.

"I think the biggest issue is it's too complicated. When players don't understand it, when people watching the game don't understand it, when coaches don't understand it, when referees can't be consistent, we've got an issue and we've got to address that issue."

The way Hansen believes World Rugby needs to approach that problem is by instilling simplicity into the rulebook, so referees can manage a safe and entertaining game.

He couldn't offer some suggestions, though?

Some of the solutions, I think, are there: shoulders above hips, on feet, no hands (ref guidelines allow defender with hands on to continue to play it once attacker joins), and attacking players anchoring themselves to their tackled mate.

There's no need/incentive for more than one defender to go in when things can be slowed down by an individual or attacking players flopping/anchoring make it useless to attempt a counter ruck.

I still reckon my suggestion that a defender can't go for the ball with his hands at the tackle area unless he's clearly stepped over and placed at least one of his feet over the tackled opposition player first. It would clean up rucks and eradicate most of the cheating opportunities and also make the ruck far easier to referee.

[Niegs]

I still reckon my suggestion that a defender can't go for the ball with his hands at the tackle area unless he's clearly stepped over and placed at least one of his feet over the tackled opposition player first. It would clean up rucks and eradicate most of the cheating opportunities and also make the ruck far easier to referee.

Lobby WR for a trial! I keep thinking about this after seeing you mention it before. It's the reaching over and slowing it down when there's very little chance of actually stealing the ball which slows the game down (i.e. to lift it off the ground and use it, which should be the aim, I think, not trapping it in). Defence gets back into place and the conservative bosh approach is repeated again because teams feel it's too risky to play wide with the rushing defence likely to catch them behind the gain line.

[sorCrer]

"If you look at the rulebook, it talks about a ruck and it never talks about the breakdown. Breakdown is a word used more often than any other word in the game - there's not even a rule for a breakdown and we have an old, antiquated law that says two people will bond over the ball and that'll be a ruck. Well that never happens in the game."

Hansen suggests a simplified and clearly-officiated breakdown would increase the pace of the game; meaning there would be fewer players in any given defensive line and therefore a reduced amount of physicality in the tackle and fewer head knocks.

"A lot of the injuries we're getting are actually friendly fire, so you and I make the tackle and I knock my head against your elbow or your head.

"So we'd create a game where there's a clear picture at the breakdown that yes, ball is quicker, the defensive lines won't be able to set as quick; so attacking lines will be attacking against destabilised defences more often and there'll be more space.

"I think the opportunity to be really brutal will dissipate."

Hansen says this particular issue is a symptom of an even wider problem in the sport: that few people understand how it is actually played.

"I think the biggest issue is it's too complicated. When players don't understand it, when people watching the game don't understand it, when coaches don't understand it, when referees can't be consistent, we've got an issue and we've got to address that issue."

The way Hansen believes World Rugby needs to approach that problem is by instilling simplicity into the rulebook, so referees can manage a safe and entertaining game.

He couldn't offer some suggestions, though?

Some of the solutions, I think, are there: shoulders above hips, on feet, no hands (ref guidelines allow defender with hands on to continue to play it once attacker joins), and attacking players anchoring themselves to their tackled mate.

There's no need/incentive for more than one defender to go in when things can be slowed down by an individual or attacking players flopping/anchoring make it useless to attempt a counter ruck.

I still reckon my suggestion that a defender can't go for the ball with his hands at the tackle area unless he's clearly stepped over and placed at least one of his feet over the tackled opposition player first. It would clean up rucks and eradicate most of the cheating opportunities and also make the ruck far easier to referee.

Not the worst idea but they'd get absolutely hammered in the clean out.

[Kawazaki]

He couldn't offer some suggestions, though?

Some of the solutions, I think, are there: shoulders above hips, on feet, no hands (ref guidelines allow defender with hands on to continue to play it once attacker joins), and attacking players anchoring themselves to their tackled mate.

There's no need/incentive for more than one defender to go in when things can be slowed down by an individual or attacking players flopping/anchoring make it useless to attempt a counter ruck.

I still reckon my suggestion that a defender can't go for the ball with his hands at the tackle area unless he's clearly stepped over and placed at least one of his feet over the tackled opposition player first. It would clean up rucks and eradicate most of the cheating opportunities and also make the ruck far easier to referee.

Not the worst idea but they'd get absolutely hammered in the clean out.

That happens now with the exception that the target area of the jackler that gets hammered is between his shoulder blades. My suggestion would make the target area safer.

[JM2K6]

And even if that were a problem, you can tweak the laws regarding the ruck a bit further - there's simply no need to have someone smash the attempted jackal. Make it so the person trying to 'clean out' must stay on their feet the entire time or be penalised. That'll go some way to reducing the force of the hit and turn it into more of a grappling/pushing contest.

Currently we have players reaching over bodies, horizontal to the floor, getting hammered by shoulders with great force (and occasionally getting whacked in the head as well).

[Kawazaki]

And even if that were a problem, you can tweak the laws regarding the ruck a bit further - there's simply no need to have someone smash the attempted jackal. Make it so the person trying to 'clean out' must stay on their feet the entire time or be penalised. That'll go some way to reducing the force of the hit and turn it into more of a grappling/pushing contest.

Currently we have players reaching over bodies, horizontal to the floor, getting hammered by shoulders with great force (and occasionally getting whacked in the head as well).

Penalising the attacking team more really isn't the page we're on.

[Blake]

And even if that were a problem, you can tweak the laws regarding the ruck a bit further - there's simply no need to have someone smash the attempted jackal. Make it so the person trying to 'clean out' must stay on their feet the entire time or be penalised. That'll go some way to reducing the force of the hit and turn it into more of a grappling/pushing contest.

Currently we have players reaching over bodies, horizontal to the floor, getting hammered by shoulders with great force (and occasionally getting whacked in the head as well).

I wonder if it will help if the jackaler is forced to step over the tackled player with one leg before being allowed to contest for the ball with their hands?

Part of the problem I feel is that, yes players are going off their feet and not always supporting their weight, they also that they can form a very solid base when jackeling for the the ball. Forcing the step over the tackled player might have 2 benefits:
1. It adds an extra second for support to arrive
2. It will be a more unstable base to jackal from requiring less force to retain possession

And I think it might be simpler to referee as well. Just a thought.

[OomStruisbaai]

And even if that were a problem, you can tweak the laws regarding the ruck a bit further - there's simply no need to have someone smash the attempted jackal. Make it so the person trying to 'clean out' must stay on their feet the entire time or be penalised. That'll go some way to reducing the force of the hit and turn it into more of a grappling/pushing contest.

Currently we have players reaching over bodies, horizontal to the floor, getting hammered by shoulders with great force (and occasionally getting whacked in the head as well).

I wonder if it will help if the jackaler is forced to step over the tackled player with one leg before being allowed to contest for the ball with their hands?

Part of the problem I feel is that, yes players are going off their feet and not always supporting their weight, they also that they can form a very solid base when jackeling for the the ball. Forcing the step over the tackled player might have 2 benefits:
1. It adds an extra second for support to arrive
2. It will be a more unstable base to jackal from requiring less force to retain possession

And I think it might be simpler to referee as well. Just a thought.

They should just bring back proper rucking. Then nobody will end up in the wrong side of a ruck.

[JM2K6]

And even if that were a problem, you can tweak the laws regarding the ruck a bit further - there's simply no need to have someone smash the attempted jackal. Make it so the person trying to 'clean out' must stay on their feet the entire time or be penalised. That'll go some way to reducing the force of the hit and turn it into more of a grappling/pushing contest.

Currently we have players reaching over bodies, horizontal to the floor, getting hammered by shoulders with great force (and occasionally getting whacked in the head as well).

I wonder if it will help if the jackaler is forced to step over the tackled player with one leg before being allowed to contest for the ball with their hands?

Part of the problem I feel is that, yes players are going off their feet and not always supporting their weight, they also that they can form a very solid base when jackeling for the the ball. Forcing the step over the tackled player might have 2 benefits:
1. It adds an extra second for support to arrive
2. It will be a more unstable base to jackal from requiring less force to retain possession

And I think it might be simpler to referee as well. Just a thought.

Yup, I've suggested that before.

[JM2K6]

And even if that were a problem, you can tweak the laws regarding the ruck a bit further - there's simply no need to have someone smash the attempted jackal. Make it so the person trying to 'clean out' must stay on their feet the entire time or be penalised. That'll go some way to reducing the force of the hit and turn it into more of a grappling/pushing contest.

Currently we have players reaching over bodies, horizontal to the floor, getting hammered by shoulders with great force (and occasionally getting whacked in the head as well).

Penalising the attacking team more really isn't the page we're on.

You have to maintain a balance as well as look at safety factors. The proposed change absolutely makes it harder for the defensive team to win a turnover, so increasing the risk of penalising the attacking side for incorrect / dangerous cleanouts shouldn't be a problem.

[Ymx]

Clarify the definition of the proposed changed?

Because if it’s what you wrote Jm it just states the attacking team have to be less aggressive and careful in removing the defending team, else lose the ball as infringement.

But you’re saying this would make it harder for defending team????

Either that’s the craziest statement ever, or you are meaning another proposed change in combo with your part?

[Kawazaki]

And even if that were a problem, you can tweak the laws regarding the ruck a bit further - there's simply no need to have someone smash the attempted jackal. Make it so the person trying to 'clean out' must stay on their feet the entire time or be penalised. That'll go some way to reducing the force of the hit and turn it into more of a grappling/pushing contest.

Currently we have players reaching over bodies, horizontal to the floor, getting hammered by shoulders with great force (and occasionally getting whacked in the head as well).

Penalising the attacking team more really isn't the page we're on.

You have to maintain a balance as well as look at safety factors. The proposed change absolutely makes it harder for the defensive team to win a turnover, so increasing the risk of penalising the attacking side for incorrect / dangerous cleanouts shouldn't be a problem.

The 'balance' totally favours defensive jackler type players, it's why there's a preponderance of them in the game now. They never allow attacking players to place the ball back, they are on them immediately pinning the ball in. And worse they often do this without supporting their own bodyweight. It's a mess and, ironically, already illegal under current (ignored) laws that the tackled player must be allowed to place the ball back after he's tackled.

[JM2K6]

Clarify the definition of the proposed changed?

Because if it’s what you wrote Jm it just states the attacking team have to be less aggressive and careful in removing the defending team, else lose the ball as infringement.

But you’re saying this would make it harder for defending team????

Either that’s the craziest statement ever, or you are meaning another proposed change in combo with your part?

We're talking about players only being allowed to pick the ball up if they've gone past the ball, which makes life much much harder for the defending teams compared to right now. I don't think I was clear in my post that I was agreeing with Toga's suggestion - we've talked about this idea several times - but responding to the high level of risk faced by the person standing over the ball in that scenario, who'd be in a very vulnerable position.

So in short:

Defender having to step over = much harder for defending team
Attackers having to be less aggressive with their 'cleanouts' (which shouldn't be a thing) = redressing the balance a little bit

[Ymx]

Aha. With the stepping over the ball part, Togas suggestion, thanks. Will re read with that in mind.

[sorCrer]

Penalising the attacking team more really isn't the page we're on.

You have to maintain a balance as well as look at safety factors. The proposed change absolutely makes it harder for the defensive team to win a turnover, so increasing the risk of penalising the attacking side for incorrect / dangerous cleanouts shouldn't be a problem.

The 'balance' totally favours defensive jackler type players, it's why there's a preponderance of them in the game now. They never allow attacking players to place the ball back, they are on them immediately pinning the ball in. And worse they often do this without supporting their own bodyweight. It's a mess and, ironically, already illegal under current (ignored) laws that the tackled player must be allowed to place the ball back after he's tackled.

Yeah. Complete lottery at every breakdown.

[Ymx]

It was actually the end of my playing getting smashed in to by player flying in when standing over a breakdown, ankle got locked in place and pop. Was the 3rd bad sprain of that ankle that year so hung up the boots.

[Kawazaki]

It was actually the end of my playing getting smashed in to by player flying in when standing over a breakdown, ankle got locked in place and pop. Was the 3rd bad sprain of that ankle that year so hung up the boots.

Better an ankle than a cervical vertebrae.

[Kawazaki]

Clarify the definition of the proposed changed?

Because if it’s what you wrote Jm it just states the attacking team have to be less aggressive and careful in removing the defending team, else lose the ball as infringement.

But you’re saying this would make it harder for defending team????

Either that’s the craziest statement ever, or you are meaning another proposed change in combo with your part?

We're talking about players only being allowed to pick the ball up if they've gone past the ball, which makes life much much harder for the defending teams compared to right now. I don't think I was clear in my post that I was agreeing with Toga's suggestion - we've talked about this idea several times - but responding to the high level of risk faced by the person standing over the ball in that scenario, who'd be in a very vulnerable position.

So in short:

Defender having to step over = much harder for defending team
Attackers having to be less aggressive with their 'cleanouts' (which shouldn't be a thing) = redressing the balance a little bit

It needn't have to be harder for the defender, just more selective. If a defender is genuinely at the tackle first then he gets rights to the ball. He claims those rights by stepping over the prone tackled player. It's clear for the ref and us fans to see. Once he is in that position then he can claim the ball, he has the dominant position. The problem at the moment is that defender's are still going for the ball from weak starting positions, just to be a pain in the arse as much at anything else. It's spoiling the game.

[Gumboot]

This is taking forever. Can't we just have the execution now and worry about the trial bit later?

[Grandpa]

This is taking forever. Can't we just have the execution now and worry about the trial bit later?

If he pleads guilty, isn't the death penalty automatically taken off the table?

[Gumboot]

This is taking forever. Can't we just have the execution now and worry about the trial bit later?

If he pleads guilty, isn't the death penalty automatically taken off the table?

Even more reason to get on with the hanging before the trial.

[Chilli]

Jungle Justice

[Gumboot]

Jungle Justice

Nah, we just need one tree.

[Chilli]

Jungle Justice

Nah, we just need one tree.

A rope and a horse?
Or will a chair suffice?

[Gumboot]

Jungle Justice

Nah, we just need one tree.

A rope and a horse?
Or will a chair suffice?

Has to be a bucket for a water boy.

[Chilli]

Nah, we just need one tree.

A rope and a horse?
Or will a chair suffice?

Has to be a bucket for a water boy.

Great plan

[Chilli]

The longer this takes to not happen, the less likely anything will be done.

[Gumboot]

The longer this takes to not happen, the less likely anything will be done.

Yep, justice delayed is justice denied.

[Chilli]

The longer this takes to not happen, the less likely anything will be done.

Yep, justice delayed is justice denied.

Indeed.

[Gumboot]

The longer this takes to not happen, the less likely anything will be done.

Yep, justice delayed is justice denied.

Indeed.

I'd settle for a speedy trial and a suspended sentence.

[OomStruisbaai]

According to Rassies lawyers, WR will take some time to be able to get their something to string.

This.

[OomStruisbaai]

Frikkie Erasmus isn't the easiest of lawyers.

“I can categorically state that Rassie did not leak the video,” “The media has since reported it as fact that Rassie did it. The truth is that he went through the official channels.”

[handyman]

According to Rassies lawyers, WR will take some time to be able to get their something to string.

This.

First time I see someone "Thissing" his own post

[Kawazaki]

The fuckwit is doubling down big time on Twitter now.

https://twitter.com/RassieRugby/status/ ... iWUqQ&s=19






We've got a real loose cannon here. He wants to be a martyr.

[OomStruisbaai]

The fuckwit is doubling down big time on Twitter now.

https://twitter.com/RassieRugby/status/ ... iWUqQ&s=19






We've got a real loose cannon here. He wants to be a martyr.