A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
But their statement says line of the waist and below n ot between the waist and the sternum (midriff?)
I'm happy to say they should have been clearer. But people saying below the waist are just straight up wrong, and there's not even the excuse that the RFU haven't been clear enough when you say that.
Horrible arrogance, didn't take long for all that to come back. Eddie was rightPaddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:43 pmYep exactly, I wouldn't be shocked to see us have a pretty good year, that's not the same as thinking we're going to win the World Cup but the basis of a very competitive side that people don't want to play is all there.Ovals wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:53 pmEngland's performances in the Autumn were especially woeful - but looking back to last year's 6N, we wouldn't have needed to play much better to have had some decent results. We were heading for a win away to Scotland before LCD's brainfart, PT and YC. We held Ireland for 70 minutes at home despite playing the whole game with 14 men following Ewel's RC after just 2 mins.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:07 pm There's a couple of elements for me:
1) We haven't been able to regularly put away sides of the strength of Scotland/Wales/Argentina/Australia as any side with pretensions to the top table has to be able to do
2) Excluding a miracle comeback against NZ we have been at least 14 points worse than those sitting at the top table recently
So for me the bare minimum is home wins over Scotland and Italy. Cardiff is a tough place to go, but Wales are crap atm and so 3 wins is very attainable.
Which leads to point 2. We have to at least make France and Ireland really work for a win. This is completely attainable, both have struggled to turn over comparable sides to us and particularly France have vulnerabilities that aren't quite getting ironed out. Ireland's reliance on Sexton is nothing new.
My best case scenario for this 6N looks something like:
- rejuvenated England edge out Scotland, Torq is still mocking Russell's performance the following Saturday
- Italy put up a better fight than they have recently, but England in the end comfortably win with a bonus point
- win in Cardiff, ageing Wales can't last the distance
(yes I am aware these next two are less likely)
- England turn over a sloppy France by 3-5 points
- Loss in a tight decider in Dublin
Just getting some basics right (and good discipline) could see us being quite competitive - obviously it might take some time for the new team to gel - that 1st game will be the key - the Scots will throw everything at us and play a high intensity game - so there's no room for us to be tentative. Getting a win, against them, with a decent performance will do wonders for their confidence.
Hopefully Borthwick has got the selection pretty well right - because we need to keep the same set of players together from now through the WC with just minor tweaks.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:43 pmYep exactly, I wouldn't be shocked to see us have a pretty good year, that's not the same as thinking we're going to win the World Cup but the basis of a very competitive side that people don't want to play is all there.Ovals wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:53 pmEngland's performances in the Autumn were especially woeful - but looking back to last year's 6N, we wouldn't have needed to play much better to have had some decent results. We were heading for a win away to Scotland before LCD's brainfart, PT and YC. We held Ireland for 70 minutes at home despite playing the whole game with 14 men following Ewel's RC after just 2 mins.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:07 pm There's a couple of elements for me:
1) We haven't been able to regularly put away sides of the strength of Scotland/Wales/Argentina/Australia as any side with pretensions to the top table has to be able to do
2) Excluding a miracle comeback against NZ we have been at least 14 points worse than those sitting at the top table recently
So for me the bare minimum is home wins over Scotland and Italy. Cardiff is a tough place to go, but Wales are crap atm and so 3 wins is very attainable.
Which leads to point 2. We have to at least make France and Ireland really work for a win. This is completely attainable, both have struggled to turn over comparable sides to us and particularly France have vulnerabilities that aren't quite getting ironed out. Ireland's reliance on Sexton is nothing new.
My best case scenario for this 6N looks something like:
- rejuvenated England edge out Scotland, Torq is still mocking Russell's performance the following Saturday
- Italy put up a better fight than they have recently, but England in the end comfortably win with a bonus point
- win in Cardiff, ageing Wales can't last the distance
(yes I am aware these next two are less likely)
- England turn over a sloppy France by 3-5 points
- Loss in a tight decider in Dublin
Just getting some basics right (and good discipline) could see us being quite competitive - obviously it might take some time for the new team to gel - that 1st game will be the key - the Scots will throw everything at us and play a high intensity game - so there's no room for us to be tentative. Getting a win, against them, with a decent performance will do wonders for their confidence.
Very hard to tackle someone at waist height and not be also hitting belly above and other bits below, what with the waist line being just a line and someone's shoulder and arms being quite thick in comparison...
Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:10 pmI'm happy to say they should have been clearer. But people saying below the waist are just straight up wrong, and there's not even the excuse that the RFU haven't been clear enough when you say that.
A lot of people seem to have gotten very cross in response without looking into what was meant, though this is a world where people object to things intended to keep them safer, whether vaccines, seatbelts or whatever. That said there's been very little attention as to the carrier being asked not to dip and to adhere instead to 'principles of evasion'
Tbf there's been very little detail on that so I can understand whyRhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:40 pmA lot of people seem to have gotten very cross in response without looking into what was meant, though this is a world where people object to things intended to keep them safer, whether vaccines, seatbelts or whatever. That said there's been very little attention as to the carrier being asked not to dip and to adhere instead to 'principles of evasion'
But people haven't reacted to there being little detail consistently. They've run screaming from an imagined burning building on point (a) and then decided yes point (b) might be a bomb but there's probably plenty of time until it explodes so we'll come back to that laterJM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:34 pmTbf there's been very little detail on that so I can understand whyRhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:40 pmA lot of people seem to have gotten very cross in response without looking into what was meant, though this is a world where people object to things intended to keep them safer, whether vaccines, seatbelts or whatever. That said there's been very little attention as to the carrier being asked not to dip and to adhere instead to 'principles of evasion'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64395234Rugby Football Union council members, who voted to lower the tackle height, are to seek guidance from their clubs over the controversial law change.
It was announced last week the legal height of the tackle would drop to the waist for levels below the Premiership, Championship and Premier 15s.
The news was met with uproar by those in the community game, who weren't consulted over the decision.
"We did not get the communication right this time," said one RFU councillor.
I'm sure they will get round to discussing it with the Societies at some stage.
They get issued guidelines/updates all the time.
I thought that when Tom Curry scored against Ulster (I think). There was a big debate about whether he placed the ball immediately, but no debate about whether the tackler had released him, as he should. No idea what the solution is, other than maybe that a player has to be bound on in a proper tackle as the tackled player crosses the line, rather than charging in from any angle in a last ditch effort to get under the ball after.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:59 am Hmm. I am sympathetic to anyone being unhappy about major change even though I believe it's for the best. However, I don't see how this so badly affects referees. It's largely a clear situation for refereeing the tackler.
The questions still to be answered are:
- How do you handle "grabs" above the belly, i.e. a shirt grab or an arm that goes for the ball
- What is the guidance on what the ball carrier is allowed to do and how is that refereed
- How much leeway is given for soak tackles / being upright when someone runs into you (related to the previous point)
- How is holding up players handled - particularly in the dead ball area
On the plus side, no need to try and work out if that KO was a legal tackle or not...
For the record I'd be happy to see a reduction in "ball held up" stuff. It's a huge time sink in the game, it becomes a massive breakdown of the laws with a lot of things thrown out of the window, and it's messy as fuck. So much illegality is allowed in service of trying to prevent a try, and that's before the ball even gets over the line. We end up with this mad scramble and it's just... so odd. You can't play the ball on the floor anywhere else but here it's a weird bunfight that has no rules until the ref blows the whistle and someone makes a decision.
I do appreciate what we'd lose if that went away, don't get me wrong, but I think we'd gain a fair amount.
According to that diagram the thresholds for cards haven't changed, so what do you see as driving an increase in disciplinaries? Abuse of officials?
I don't think it's clear that this complicates the game. Very much wait and see on this one.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:01 am Forget about players leaving the game, without refs there's no rugby. If the professional refs with the help of 20 cameras and a TMO keep getting it wrong then what chance the poor sod tasked with managing a game on his own? The game is so complicated now, it's just bound in red tape.
There's all kinds of recent examples of how much of a chaotic shitshow it can be. It's definitely an odd quirk of the game.Brazil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:05 amI thought that when Tom Curry scored against Ulster (I think). There was a big debate about whether he placed the ball immediately, but no debate about whether the tackler had released him, as he should. No idea what the solution is, other than maybe that a player has to be bound on in a proper tackle as the tackled player crosses the line, rather than charging in from any angle in a last ditch effort to get under the ball after.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:59 am Hmm. I am sympathetic to anyone being unhappy about major change even though I believe it's for the best. However, I don't see how this so badly affects referees. It's largely a clear situation for refereeing the tackler.
The questions still to be answered are:
- How do you handle "grabs" above the belly, i.e. a shirt grab or an arm that goes for the ball
- What is the guidance on what the ball carrier is allowed to do and how is that refereed
- How much leeway is given for soak tackles / being upright when someone runs into you (related to the previous point)
- How is holding up players handled - particularly in the dead ball area
On the plus side, no need to try and work out if that KO was a legal tackle or not...
For the record I'd be happy to see a reduction in "ball held up" stuff. It's a huge time sink in the game, it becomes a massive breakdown of the laws with a lot of things thrown out of the window, and it's messy as fuck. So much illegality is allowed in service of trying to prevent a try, and that's before the ball even gets over the line. We end up with this mad scramble and it's just... so odd. You can't play the ball on the floor anywhere else but here it's a weird bunfight that has no rules until the ref blows the whistle and someone makes a decision.
I do appreciate what we'd lose if that went away, don't get me wrong, but I think we'd gain a fair amount.
This is the crux of it. Currently, the line between a good hit and a red card is too fine, with a degree of subjectivity and with a whole bunch of mitigations, each of which can be argued.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:27 amI don't think it's clear that this complicates the game. Very much wait and see on this one.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:01 am Forget about players leaving the game, without refs there's no rugby. If the professional refs with the help of 20 cameras and a TMO keep getting it wrong then what chance the poor sod tasked with managing a game on his own? The game is so complicated now, it's just bound in red tape.
Making it harder to ref is definitely a negative, no doubt about it. But the assumption is a strange one. The current laws require a huge amount of subjective opinion from the ref and what determines the level of sanction is a complicated process requiring a clear view of what happened. Dropping the tackle height would seem to make that much clearer. We don't have enough details on the ball carrier laws yet to make a judgment on that.
The French trial seemed to suggest everyone was happy with the changes, which would include the refs.
Hahah, yeah. I will admit to being deeply amused that some of the most vocal opponents of this have the worst disciplinary records - Rhodes can join Marler and Hamilton in that group.Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:25 am Why on earth would you interview someone who's been done for stamping on someones head, missiling himself into rucks, high tackles and damn near broke another players neck, with regards to changes to the community game with an eye to making it safer?
Rhodes is on the same level as Callum Clarke for me.
Hadn't thought of that.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:13 amAccording to that diagram the thresholds for cards haven't changed, so what do you see as driving an increase in disciplinaries? Abuse of officials?
It isn't, but it's also very hard to put a shoulder in legally under any of the laws of the last decade or so. Grab-and-hold is your best bet and I'm curious to see how that is approached (see my point about the soak tackle, also the data guy's comments about this) but it's definitely an area that needs clear understanding.inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:34 amThis is the crux of it. Currently, the line between a good hit and a red card is too fine, with a degree of subjectivity and with a whole bunch of mitigations, each of which can be argued.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:27 amI don't think it's clear that this complicates the game. Very much wait and see on this one.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:01 am Forget about players leaving the game, without refs there's no rugby. If the professional refs with the help of 20 cameras and a TMO keep getting it wrong then what chance the poor sod tasked with managing a game on his own? The game is so complicated now, it's just bound in red tape.
Making it harder to ref is definitely a negative, no doubt about it. But the assumption is a strange one. The current laws require a huge amount of subjective opinion from the ref and what determines the level of sanction is a complicated process requiring a clear view of what happened. Dropping the tackle height would seem to make that much clearer. We don't have enough details on the ball carrier laws yet to make a judgment on that.
The French trial seemed to suggest everyone was happy with the changes, which would include the refs.
This change looks like making it a much, much clearer distinction (noting they need to clearly define the lines and levels to everyone's understanding), loosely and glibly anything below midriff is fine, anything between midriff and tit is a penalty, anything north of that is a card, and no-one should realistically be able to claim 'accident' for a head high tackle except in a very exceptional cases.
Still need to sort the dive at the tryline though. I'd prefer to change the rules relating to attacking, maybe to require a shift of the ball back to 5 metres out so the players can't just dive off the base of rucks. It's simply not possible to tackle low in those situations.
Given that the pick and go is high on a long list of boring shite in rugby, that sounds like a good idea.
I was convinced - utterly certain - that falling to the ground to avoid a tackle was already prohibited, but I had a look at the Laws (yes, it was raining that day) and couldn't find any reference to it.
inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:18 pmMuch as their laughter's contagious, I'm still not sure what the actual joke is.
inactionman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:18 pmMuch as their laughter's contagious, I'm still not sure what the actual joke is.
I'm sure that if the French can manage it, so will we - just as soon as people stop being such drama queens about it.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:54 pm
Well it's an above waist tackle. This is such a mess. Just read this thread, everyone is suggesting more Laws to try and make this new Law workable. It's all on the referees. And what's the betting that the first the referees heard this was coming in was the same time the rest of us heard about it?!