Bath v Wasps - Cripple Fight!

[Digby]

Much could be cleared up if they required players to be bound before playing, though that would come with different issues

That'd definitely reduce injury risks unless they do themselves a mischief trying to free themselves. Although it might lead to a rather static game.

The law of unintended consequences could prove an issue, but we've never tried requiring players needing to be bound and on their feet to even see if it could work, which is odd when in theory that's been accepted law in the game all this time.

[Puja]

Much could be cleared up if they required players to be bound before playing, though that would come with different issues

That'd definitely reduce injury risks unless they do themselves a mischief trying to free themselves. Although it might lead to a rather static game.

The law of unintended consequences could prove an issue, but we've never tried requiring players needing to be bound and on their feet to even see if it could work, which is odd when in theory that's been accepted law in the game all this time.

Didn't I just make a long post about why reverting to the previous ruck laws wasn't a universal panacea?

Puja

[Digby]

That'd definitely reduce injury risks unless they do themselves a mischief trying to free themselves. Although it might lead to a rather static game.

The law of unintended consequences could prove an issue, but we've never tried requiring players needing to be bound and on their feet to even see if it could work, which is odd when in theory that's been accepted law in the game all this time.

Didn't I just make a long post about why reverting to the previous ruck laws wasn't a universal panacea?

Puja

Is this a QI moment, in that nobody knows?

Tbh I often don't even read responses where I get notifications, I just click on a thread to make the notification update go away, never mind scrolling back through comments. Though other times I will scroll to see if anything seems of interest

[Raggs]

If you click on the little orange notification on the left of the thread name, it takes you to where you last read, you can see the little orange/red pips next to the name just below the thread title on each post, to see which you haven't read.

[Puja]

The law of unintended consequences could prove an issue, but we've never tried requiring players needing to be bound and on their feet to even see if it could work, which is odd when in theory that's been accepted law in the game all this time.

Didn't I just make a long post about why reverting to the previous ruck laws wasn't a universal panacea?

Puja

Is this a QI moment, in that nobody knows?

Tbh I often don't even read responses where I get notifications, I just click on a thread to make the notification update go away, never mind scrolling back through comments. Though other times I will scroll to see if anything seems of interest

Well, here's another notification for you to ignore: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 25#p252418

Puja

[Digby]

ah, the Cockerill doctrine. there's no point asking for change in such fashion because it would be impossible to do even though we've never tried it

[Puja]

ah, the Cockerill doctrine. there's no point asking for change in such fashion because it would be impossible to do even though we've never tried it

Not exactly. To summarise, each change happened as a reaction to something in the game. If you want to enforce binding and shoving and staying on feet, then jackallers get carte blanche because there's literally no way of removing one if you have to walk up, bind to them, then start shoving, which brings us back to 2007.

No-one wants to be in 2007 again (at least in rugby terms).

You can't just revert to a previous ruleset without finding another way of fixing the problem that the last change was brought in to fix.

Even more summarised - if you think that there is a clear and obvious simple answer that the experts are inexplicably deciding to ignore, Occam's razor suggests that it is less likely that you are a genius and more likely that you don't know enough/haven't thought about it enough to understand the problem correctly.

Puja

[Mr Mwenda]

The law of unintended consequences could prove an issue, but we've never tried requiring players needing to be bound and on their feet to even see if it could work, which is odd when in theory that's been accepted law in the game all this time.

Didn't I just make a long post about why reverting to the previous ruck laws wasn't a universal panacea?

Puja

Is this a QI moment, in that nobody knows?

Tbh I often don't even read responses where I get notifications, I just click on a thread to make the notification update go away, never mind scrolling back through comments. Though other times I will scroll to see if anything seems of interest

I just thought tying players with ropes would certainly slow things down.

[Digby]

ah, the Cockerill doctrine. there's no point asking for change in such fashion because it would be impossible to do even though we've never tried it

Not exactly. To summarise, each change happened as a reaction to something in the game. If you want to enforce binding and shoving and staying on feet, then jackallers get carte blanche because there's literally no way of removing one if you have to walk up, bind to them, then start shoving, which brings us back to 2007.

No-one wants to be in 2007 again (at least in rugby terms).

You can't just revert to a previous ruleset without finding another way of fixing the problem that the last change was brought in to fix.

Even more summarised - if you think that there is a clear and obvious simple answer that the experts are inexplicably deciding to ignore, Occam's razor suggests that it is less likely that you are a genius and more likely that you don't know enough/haven't thought about it enough to understand the problem correctly.

Puja

In 2007 players were binding and staying on their feet, is that the charge?

And yes there are concerns about being able to move players if you can't smash into them at pace, not least from the players, but really we should be for them having to bind if only from a health and safety standpoint. And if nobody can work out how to have the game function I'll be surprised, but perhaps that'd be an indicator it's not a vey good idea to begin with

Frankly looking at rugby even today there are plenty of chances to ruck over the ball without using feet to move a player on the ground, and the players don't do it because they're not looking for it. So we'd change which rucks get contested and how, but we might not change the balance of th game much, especially if they HAD to work with the idea of binding and staying on their feet. hard to say when we never try it, I'd likely agree in advance it wouldn't be a final change to fix all changes and nothing would ever change again

[Puja]

ah, the Cockerill doctrine. there's no point asking for change in such fashion because it would be impossible to do even though we've never tried it

Not exactly. To summarise, each change happened as a reaction to something in the game. If you want to enforce binding and shoving and staying on feet, then jackallers get carte blanche because there's literally no way of removing one if you have to walk up, bind to them, then start shoving, which brings us back to 2007.

No-one wants to be in 2007 again (at least in rugby terms).

You can't just revert to a previous ruleset without finding another way of fixing the problem that the last change was brought in to fix.

Even more summarised - if you think that there is a clear and obvious simple answer that the experts are inexplicably deciding to ignore, Occam's razor suggests that it is less likely that you are a genius and more likely that you don't know enough/haven't thought about it enough to understand the problem correctly.

Puja

In 2007 players were binding and staying on their feet, is that the charge?

No.

in 2007, jackallers were in the ascendancy because the ruck had got into a state where it was impossible to move them and turnovers were free and easy. As a result, sides played without the ball and we ended up with a game where no-one went 2 phases without kicking it away.

You are advocating massively depowering the ability to defend against jackallers, but without any apparent solutions about how to stop it from becoming a game where it's well nigh impossible to keep your own ball.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Yep. Similarly I'd love to make it so you actually have to use the ball immediately when it's playable. No caterpillars, no shuffling it around with your feet or kneeling on the ground holding the ball until you're ready to make a pass, but I don't know how you'd do this without giving another huge advantage to the defending side.

I'm more and more of the opinion that this game is just utterly stupid and there's no way it will ever really 'work' in a way where teams can't bend the rules to their advantage.

[Puja]

Yep. Similarly I'd love to make it so you actually have to use the ball immediately when it's playable. No caterpillars, no shuffling it around with your feet or kneeling on the ground holding the ball until you're ready to make a pass, but I don't know how you'd do this without giving another huge advantage to the defending side.

I'm more and more of the opinion that this game is just utterly stupid and there's no way it will ever really 'work' in a way where teams can't bend the rules to their advantage.

I think that's part of my enjoyment of it - constant battle between cheating sods and the lawmakers trying to keep it functional. As of a rule, I have to say I think the IRB generally does a pretty good job staying on top of it.

If we're making wishes, I'd still be in favour of banning a kick within 5m of a ruck or maul. Make sides pass it back to 10 to kick - would depower the high ball because chasers would start 5-10m further back and add additional risk to the tactic. Would we really miss the box-kick if it went?

Puja

[Digby]

Not exactly. To summarise, each change happened as a reaction to something in the game. If you want to enforce binding and shoving and staying on feet, then jackallers get carte blanche because there's literally no way of removing one if you have to walk up, bind to them, then start shoving, which brings us back to 2007.

No-one wants to be in 2007 again (at least in rugby terms).

You can't just revert to a previous ruleset without finding another way of fixing the problem that the last change was brought in to fix.

Even more summarised - if you think that there is a clear and obvious simple answer that the experts are inexplicably deciding to ignore, Occam's razor suggests that it is less likely that you are a genius and more likely that you don't know enough/haven't thought about it enough to understand the problem correctly.

Puja

In 2007 players were binding and staying on their feet, is that the charge?

No.

in 2007, jackallers were in the ascendancy because the ruck had got into a state where it was impossible to move them and turnovers were free and easy. As a result, sides played without the ball and we ended up with a game where no-one went 2 phases without kicking it away.

You are advocating massively depowering the ability to defend against jackallers, but without any apparent solutions about how to stop it from becoming a game where it's well nigh impossible to keep your own ball.

Puja

If we need to look at how defenders can enter and contest so be it. Nonetheless I remain in favour of playings being on they feet to play, and being bound rather than assaulting people at speed.

And the harder to shift people works both ways

[Puja]

In 2007 players were binding and staying on their feet, is that the charge?

No.

in 2007, jackallers were in the ascendancy because the ruck had got into a state where it was impossible to move them and turnovers were free and easy. As a result, sides played without the ball and we ended up with a game where no-one went 2 phases without kicking it away.

You are advocating massively depowering the ability to defend against jackallers, but without any apparent solutions about how to stop it from becoming a game where it's well nigh impossible to keep your own ball.

Puja

If we need to look at how defenders can enter and contest so be it. Nonetheless I remain in favour of playings being on they feet to play, and being bound rather than assaulting people at speed.

And the harder to shift people works both ways

You cannot just say, "If we need to solve this problem, then so be it". Well, I suppose you can if you're a Conservative minister being asked a question about Brexit negotiations, but in regular life you can't just say "a solution will become apparent at the proper time."

What would be your solution to there being no way to remove jackallers because you've ruled out the main method of forcibly clearing them out?

Puja

[Digby]

I don't know exactly what the situation would look like if players had to bind and stay on their feet. So what the answer is to an unknown situation I don't know.

I start from the position allowing players to fly into rucks is dangerous, to ankles, knees, shoulders, ribs when the cheap shot merchants target a player's side, and neck/head with concussive risks atop. And so I'm not interested in allowing them to play without needing to bind first. I appreciate not everyone is going to start from a position of safety, partly why the arguments for the status quo remind me of the Cockerill doctrine, and I appreciate I don't have a fully mapped solution. But it seems to me a more sensible starting point, and I'm not perturbed further changes might be warranted, further change is always going to be warranted

[Puja]

Ouch

FB_IMG_1637067073400.jpg

Puja

[Beasties]

Ouch

FB_IMG_1637067073400.jpg

Puja

Oh Lord that IS funny.

[Which Tyler]