General rugby thread

[Kermit power]

JuniorD said:

Don't know if I'm overly surprised, but of the 50 British athletes currently serving bans for anti-doping violations, 27 are rugby. The testers must be kept busy down in the valleys

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations...

What amazes me is the level at which these guys were playing at!

If you're playing for a team in Western Counties North or North East 1 or similar, just how much do these guys think they're going to progress even with the drugs? Going from Level 7 to Level 5 of English rugby or whatever hardly seems worth the cost, risk and everything else.

Maybe they just are all taking the stuff by accident?

[London424]

New law changes for next year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/07/20/...

Now I'm sure there were some experts on here that stated it was unsafe to strike the ball on the scrum feed due to the power in the scrums now...kind of funny that you 'must' strike it now.

[DocJock]

Also strange that any front row forward can strike for the ball?

They really are overcomplicating it with this and the 'scrum half can stand with his shoulder at the centre line' to give an advantage to the side putting in. They already had an advantage with their hooker being closer to the put in. KISS!

That said, I won't be holding my breath to see squint feeds penalised...

[Kermit power]

London424 said:

New law changes for next year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/07/20/...

Now I'm sure there were some experts on here that stated it was unsafe to strike the ball on the scrum feed due to the power in the scrums now...kind of funny that you 'must' strike it now.

So what happens if they try and hook it and fail? Are they then allowed to put a shove on, or do they all have to stand there playing footsie until one of them gets it back?

[768]

London424 said:

... you 'must' strike it now.

Must strike for it. Which could just be a prop wiggling his toe depending on how it gets interpreted.

These things always seem to be terribly worded. Still, some interesting additions that are sure to cause controversy.

[hornetrider]

So I'm trying to figure out the new 'Pro14' format and why they've done it. I take it 26 games is adjudged too many hence two parallel divisions/conferences, however the French seem to manage it.

Not convinced as we'll have less derby days which won't be great for attendances certainly in Wales.

Also, how st were the Saffas to get booted from super rugby?

[Kermit power]

hornetrider said:

So I'm trying to figure out the new 'Pro14' format and why they've done it. I take it 26 games is adjudged too many hence two parallel divisions/conferences, however the French seem to manage it.

Not convinced as we'll have less derby days which won't be great for attendances certainly in Wales.

Also, how st were the Saffas to get booted from super rugby?

From what I was reading this morning, they've confirmed that they're keeping the main recognised derby matches, and if I understood it correctly, they might even play each other three times per season some how?


As for how st the Saffas were, whilst they were indeed st, they both finished the season with more points than the Bulls, so how come the Bulls stay in?

[DocJock]

Because Transvaal...

[hornetrider]

Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are to be prosecuted for rape after an alleged incident over a year ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-4071...

What I find unfortunate for these guys is the IRFU is effectively suspending them pending the outcome of the trial, which will basically rule them out for at least this season minimum. Harsh.

[JonChalk]

New Zealand Rugby "bending" rules to breaking point to get Sonny Bill thru his suspension:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40823540

[DocJock]

They all do it when it suits them.

[Kermit power]

JonChalk said:

New Zealand Rugby "bending" rules to breaking point to get Sonny Bill thru his suspension:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40823540

I've always thought that bans should be served for the team they were incurred with.

If a player picks up a 4 match ban in the last game of the Six Nations, for example, why should their club side suffer from the ban?

[DocJock]

That would seem to be the sensible approach.

I also don't know why some suspensions are 'x number of matches' and others are 'y number of weeks'

[768]

Kermit power said:

If a player picks up a 4 match ban in the last game of the Six Nations, for example, why should their club side suffer from the ban?

If they've been banned for something like a poorly timed/placed tackle that previously wouldn't have resulted in a ban, perhaps they shouldn't. It's excessively harsh on the club.

If they're banned for something along the lines of biting, punching, eye gouging (ok, you may expect longer bans) then I don't think they should be able to turn up the next week even for the club side and get paid as if nothing had happened.

[JonChalk]

Kermit power said:

I've always thought that bans should be served for the team they were incurred with.

If a player picks up a 4 match ban in the last game of the Six Nations, for example, why should their club side suffer from the ban?

.....and at an equivalent level.

SBW still turning out for NZ in a mickey-mouse show game so he doesn't have to serve his ban at test level, where he incurred it.

One might be tempted to say that the media event is placed for just this purpose - any players that incurred penalties during Lions tour can "serve" them out in some pointless, no-mark circus event.

[The Mad Monk]

768 said:

If they've been banned for something like a poorly timed/placed tackle that previously wouldn't have resulted in a ban, perhaps they shouldn't. It's excessively harsh on the club.

If they're banned for something along the lines of biting, punching, eye gouging (ok, you may expect longer bans) then I don't think they should be able to turn up the next week even for the club side and get paid as if nothing had happened.

If they are banned, they shouldn't be able to play for anyone. It's a punishment and sometimes "innocent" parties suffer as well. That's the way it works.

[hornetrider]

Uh-oh.

Tuilagi and Solomona on the naughty step.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40851494

[anonymous-user]

hornetrider said:

Uh-oh.

Tuilagi and Solomona on the naughty step.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40851494

Shame - further evidence that the whole ship is run much more tightly than under previous regimes.

[anonymous-user]

desolate said:

hornetrider said:

Uh-oh.

Tuilagi and Solomona on the naughty step.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40851494

Shame - further evidence that the whole ship is run much more tightly than under previous regimes.

You'd think they could follow the rules just for a couple of days on a training camp?

[DocJock]

Especially Tuilagi, who has

A. Waited a long time to get back in the squad
B. Been in strife before for disciplinary reasons

Edited by DocJock on Monday 7th August 13:33