DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 25363--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: June 18, 2019, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: deadlyfrom5yardsout link ---
>
> Obtuse people.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm serious. What's the 5m grace?
#Post#: 25368--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: June 19, 2019, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The distance in front of the passer that the passee is allowed
to receive the ball due to momentum in a running pass scenario.
I think.
#Post#: 25467--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: June 20, 2019, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, so: bear with me here.
At a "run" - ie, not walking - you're advocating for a 5m grace.
Which means:
a) Referees need to be able to judge 5m from the original
passing point to the catching point
b) No matter how fast a run, it's 5m only
c) No matter how long a pass, it's 5m only
This isn't really workable is it? It's entirely arbitrary and
would mean that one pass is illegal and another legal purely
depending on how fast you were running at the time.
#Post#: 25471--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: June 21, 2019, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well....
a) 5 metres is purely arbitrary
b)see a) above
c)see b) above
I simply feel that the principle of accepting that due to
momentum a receiver can in fact be in front of the point where
the ball was released should be written into the Law. It's not
my problem to work out how to police it fortunately but
certainly at the upper levels of the game there may be room for
technology to be used. Or we could just continue to turn a blind
eye to it like crooked feeds etc etc...
#Post#: 25473--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: June 21, 2019, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You still don't see that the main problem you have is that you
don't understand the law.
#Post#: 25474--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: T-Bone
Date: June 21, 2019, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Before anyone accuses me of being thick or not understanding the
law, I do understand it and don't have any real problem with it.
It does sometimes look rather odd when a long, hard pass thrown
by someone running at speed drifts fairly far forward, but I
understand why it's ok. Admittedly I didn't initially but then
there was a fairly helpful IRB video. It is also, like much in
rugby, quite frustratingly inconsistently refereed sometimes.
One comment I would make on the above argument though, is that I
disagree that "rugby has always been like this". Until
relatively recently, when a ball was passed down the line it
tended to be looping passes and not hard spin passes - that has
come about as defences have got better and faster - the rush
defence. So I suspect in the past the momentum issue wasn't
quite as important. Obvious the laws of physics haven't changed
due to professionalism, but the way a backline attacks has. You
would also often see players swivelling their bodies to the man
they were passing to, and back lines tended to stand a lot
deeper. The rush defence has changed all that so that the
attacking players now stand much flatter and now the majority of
passes down the line are hard, spin passes by someone running at
pace. That mans that we see more passes drafting forward from
where they were thrown.
I still don't have an issue with the law and I'm not saying we
need to go back to when the ball was passed more slowly down the
line, but I don't agree that we have always had these issues
going backs decades.
#Post#: 25475--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: June 21, 2019, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We may not have had the issues but I suspect increased TV
coverage has influenced that as much as any changes in how the
game is played.
For clarification, when I say it's always been like this, I mean
it's always been the case that the ball can't be passed towards
the opposition try line. There has never been a time when rugby
players, or referees, have been expected to be mathematicians or
physicists and calculate on the fly the angle and speed at which
they must pass the ball in order to ensure that it doesn't
travel forwards in relation to the pitch.
#Post#: 25486--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: never sleep
Date: June 21, 2019, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Surely, the who point about the moment argument could be
simplified - couldn't it?
I think that the rule on being offside from a kick is clear. At
the time of the kick, the receiver has to be behind the kicker.
Easy.
When two guys are running a speed, the ball needs to go
backwards from the passing runner. Therefore, the simple rule
would be that the receiver would need to be behind the passer at
the time that the ball leaves his hands.
Wouldn't this work?
#Post#: 25487--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: June 21, 2019, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: never sleep link ---
>
> When two guys are running a speed, the ball needs to go
backwards from the passing runner. Therefore, the simple rule
would be that the receiver would need to be behind the passer at
the time that the ball leaves his hands.
> Wouldn't this work?
>
--- End Quote ---
The receiver can also be flat, I believe, but that, in essence,
is the current law.
#Post#: 25491--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Wish List
DIR By: Yareet
Date: June 21, 2019, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: never sleep link ---
>
> Surely, the who point about the moment argument could be
simplified - couldn't it?
> I think that the rule on being offside from a kick is clear.
At the time of the kick, the receiver has to be behind the
kicker. Easy.
>
> When two guys are running a speed, the ball needs to go
backwards from the passing runner. Therefore, the simple rule
would be that the receiver would need to be behind the passer at
the time that the ball leaves his hands.
> Wouldn't this work?
>
--- End Quote ---
Blue kick the ball forward. Red 11 chases back with Blue 14 in
pursuit. Red 11 is first to the ball but has Blue 14 bearing
down on him. Red 15 is 10 yards further infield but not yet
behind Red 11. Red 11 wants to get rid of the ball. He therefore
passes the ball towards his own try line but nearer to Red 15.
It’s not offside (there’s no ruck) and the ball has gone
backwards.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 13
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page