Raggs wrote:Thing is, players should be extra aware that refs are watching for it in the dying minutes, they always are. So many games see teams trying to grind their way up, or hold onto the ball for the dying minutes, and give away exactly that penalty.
True but I always think the really good refs set out their priorities with decisions in the first ten minutes. Strangely, you hear a lot of spectators pipe up with 'we've got a whistle-happy bugger here' or 'why doesn't he let the game flow'. Often, the good one does let the game flow for more minutes out of the 80 having demonstrated early on exactly what the players can/cannot get away with.
Another issue that I suspect but cannot be categorical about is that refs do more talking early in the game and less later on when they are a bit knackered. Thus, 'don't go in there' etc. Is expected by the players only for it to be a whistle instead later on. It makes me wonder whether the pre-emptive chat is really useful overall or not.
Raggs wrote:Thing is, players should be extra aware that refs are watching for it in the dying minutes, they always are. So many games see teams trying to grind their way up, or hold onto the ball for the dying minutes, and give away exactly that penalty.
True but I always think the really good refs set out their priorities with decisions in the first ten minutes. Strangely, you hear a lot of spectators pipe up with 'we've got a whistle-happy bugger here' or 'why doesn't he let the game flow'. Often, the good one does let the game flow for more minutes out of the 80 having demonstrated early on exactly what the players can/cannot get away with.
Another issue that I suspect but cannot be categorical about is that refs do more talking early in the game and less later on when they are a bit knackered. Thus, 'don't go in there' etc. Is expected by the players only for it to be a whistle instead later on. It makes me wonder whether the pre-emptive chat is really useful overall or not.
Agreed. Especially since if you whistle early and harshly, then it has less of an impact on the result than killing the last attack.
It did seem hugely unfair on Sale, to be bearing down on the Exeter line for a match-winning try and abruptly get whistled for something that Exeter got away with a dozen times in the lead-up to their try. I suspect Diamond might see a ban for his post-match interview though.
I do agree btw, the best refs quickly set out expectations, and then we see the game flow much better. But even the best refs love pinging a diving off feet in the last 5 minutes, Owens is a prime example, pretty much any game within 7, and with 5 to go, will see a penalty given away for it, it's great for drama. I think refs basically get sharper on these technical mistakes, when the game is coming to a close and such things are suddenly seen as making more of a difference than in the previous 75 (which is a nonsense of course).
reffing at this level is bloody hard and i do have sympathy, but the worst thing they can do is yell "stay on your feet" when a side is close to the line and then do absolutely nothing when breakdown after breakdown consists of players flopping on to the tackled player.
either penalise it throughout the game and set down a very clear marker, or just let the players go off their feet without penalty, which is what happens 90% of the time anyway.
[quote="fivepointer"]reffing at this level is bloody hard and i do have sympathy, but the worst thing they can do is yell "stay on your feet" when a side is close to the line and then do absolutely nothing when breakdown after breakdown consists of players flopping on to the tackled player.
either penalise it throughout the game and set down a very clear marker, or just let the players go off their feet without penalty, which is what happens 90% of the time anyway.[/quote]
Reffing is hard, but they can at least try to make things easier for themselves by not suddenly changing the way they've been making decisions, in a key area, all game.
The Claret soaked pundit from Sky and The Times observed this week that Exeter's habit of multiphase play wherein they deny any opportunity for the counter ruck is as useful for rugby as the Munster pick and go game from a few seasons back. Is he right? I don't know I quite agree with everything he says, I do agree players are too low going over the ball and should have to stay on their feet rather more, but I don't know Exeter are much worse at that than others, they just do it better. So I don't think there's a problem with Exeter, but there is with the game generally with players going off their feet/not supporting body weight
I shan't name names as to which plus sized Sky Sports staffer who writes in the Times made such comments, but merely comment his name might appear on the train map for commuters going past Clapham Junction out towards Richmond/Twickenham way
Digby wrote:The Claret soaked pundit from Sky and The Times observed this week that Exeter's habit of multiphase play wherein they deny any opportunity for the counter ruck is as useful for rugby as the Munster pick and go game from a few seasons back. Is he right? I don't know I quite agree with everything he says, I do agree players are too low going over the ball and should have to stay on their feet rather more, but I don't know Exeter are much worse at that than others, they just do it better. So I don't think there's a problem with Exeter, but there is with the game generally with players going off their feet/not supporting body weight
I shan't name names as to which plus sized Sky Sports staffer who writes in the Times made such comments, but merely comment his name might appear on the train map for commuters going past Clapham Junction out towards Richmond/Twickenham way
I think I know who you are talking about. He normally couldn’t hit a barnes door with a banjo when it comes to his analysis and I think it’s true again this time. For me, Exeter haven’t really adapted their play but rather the laws have moved in their favour and accentuated the stuff they already did well. So, rather than Exeter being bad for rugby, the new laws are bad for rugby. Why a club or coach should be derided for using the laws to suit their players’ strengths I have no idea
Digby wrote:The Claret soaked pundit from Sky and The Times observed this week that Exeter's habit of multiphase play wherein they deny any opportunity for the counter ruck is as useful for rugby as the Munster pick and go game from a few seasons back. Is he right? I don't know I quite agree with everything he says, I do agree players are too low going over the ball and should have to stay on their feet rather more, but I don't know Exeter are much worse at that than others, they just do it better. So I don't think there's a problem with Exeter, but there is with the game generally with players going off their feet/not supporting body weight
I shan't name names as to which plus sized Sky Sports staffer who writes in the Times made such comments, but merely comment his name might appear on the train map for commuters going past Clapham Junction out towards Richmond/Twickenham way
Digby wrote:The Claret soaked pundit from Sky and The Times observed this week that Exeter's habit of multiphase play wherein they deny any opportunity for the counter ruck is as useful for rugby as the Munster pick and go game from a few seasons back. Is he right? I don't know I quite agree with everything he says, I do agree players are too low going over the ball and should have to stay on their feet rather more, but I don't know Exeter are much worse at that than others, they just do it better. So I don't think there's a problem with Exeter, but there is with the game generally with players going off their feet/not supporting body weight
I shan't name names as to which plus sized Sky Sports staffer who writes in the Times made such comments, but merely comment his name might appear on the train map for commuters going past Clapham Junction out towards Richmond/Twickenham way
I think I know who you are talking about. He normally couldn’t hit a barnes door with a banjo when it comes to his analysis and I think it’s true again this time. For me, Exeter haven’t really adapted their play but rather the laws have moved in their favour and accentuated the stuff they already did well. So, rather than Exeter being bad for rugby, the new laws are bad for rugby. Why a club or coach should be derided for using the laws to suit their players’ strengths I have no idea
agreed, Exeter's trade mark under Baxter has been rapid keep ball.
Digby wrote:The Claret soaked pundit from Sky and The Times observed this week that Exeter's habit of multiphase play wherein they deny any opportunity for the counter ruck is as useful for rugby as the Munster pick and go game from a few seasons back. Is he right? I don't know I quite agree with everything he says, I do agree players are too low going over the ball and should have to stay on their feet rather more, but I don't know Exeter are much worse at that than others, they just do it better. So I don't think there's a problem with Exeter, but there is with the game generally with players going off their feet/not supporting body weight
I shan't name names as to which plus sized Sky Sports staffer who writes in the Times made such comments, but merely comment his name might appear on the train map for commuters going past Clapham Junction out towards Richmond/Twickenham way
I think I know who you are talking about. He normally couldn’t hit a barnes door with a banjo when it comes to his analysis and I think it’s true again this time. For me, Exeter haven’t really adapted their play but rather the laws have moved in their favour and accentuated the stuff they already did well. So, rather than Exeter being bad for rugby, the new laws are bad for rugby. Why a club or coach should be derided for using the laws to suit their players’ strengths I have no idea
He also slurs when talking about players entering the ruck 'Exeter feet just about touch the ground (albeit it is a bog toe). Their heads are never below the hips but hips are only inches off the ground with arms taking the weight (not illegal).'
And I don't know I follow what's he's driving at with such passages. Although I do think he's right Exeter are happier than ever to keep the ball, maybe they were progressing that way anyway, maybe they are in a good place with regards to current law interpretations, maybe they're in that place on purpose. Baxter has had Exeter execute well in quite a few cynical ways since coming up to the AP, then again all the top teams have
