 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ravagon
I don't know where Cali is and I don't really want to get flamed for bumping the one already at 500 so this will do for now ... |
Cal can't post from work like he used to. I still think:
Rugby - Vale J**** is the most appropriate title.
quote:
I guess we expect Clive to want to knock the SH 'decoy' runners on the head |
Unlikely. He's taken to it like a psychotic to avoiding his medication.
quote:
I would think another increase in the value of a try might be in order and maybe reduce a field goal/penalty to 2 points apiece might be more likely ... ? |
I'd certainly reduce the field goal/penalty to two points. The field goal is over-rewarded, IMHO, regardless of Wilko's ability. If the off-side law is policed, it's too easy to set up for and complete a field goal. And, these days, IMHO, too many teams settle for milking penalties. Still, I'm not sure that reducing their value will see fewer of either. I'm not sure that increasing the value of a try will, either. A point is a point, after all.
quote:
What about the presence (or more importantly the authority) of video referees?
Should they be able to rule over more aspects of the game - even (potentially) overruling the on-field ref if the situation warranted? ie: Should they be able to act without having the ref pass the ball, so to speak?
It's probably too soon for that one but it has come up in a fan 'suggestion box' or two of late. |
Mmmm. The same position in which cricket finds itself. Interrupt the game for the sake of absolute accuracy? It's a curly one. There's nothing worse than seeing a replay that indicates the ref made a corker of a blunder. I suspect that living with the current system requires an acceptance of the notion that (a) mistakes will be made; and (b) they will even out over a game. A very curly one.
quote:
Imagine the tragic effect on these threads if nobody were able to blame a loss on a ref or use a  again ...   |
Speaking of Tamerlin, where is the garçon?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
If nobody objects I"ll take up Finbar's suggestion for the new thread...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
I don't think your avatar realizes it's being teased by my avatar, finbar.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flipside
|
|
for Sean Marcelo
Jun 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ravagon
I'm inclined to agree that the current value of field goals/penalties are overrated - pop a couple and you'll beat out a try, three and you'll beat a converted try - given that its generally much easier to pick up a penalty in a good field position than it is to push across the line its really a no-brainer at the moment.
With a try worth 6 points though - needing 3 penalty equivalents just to match it, four to match a converted try and five to beat the same it alters the equation enough to, IMO anyway, give a team serious second thoughts about taking the easy points.
I think its a fair possibility within the next few years.
|
Hi . Hope everyone is okay.
This is just a thought, and, in way it is playing devil's advocate.
While at heart I agree that the try should be worth more than it currently is, I personally think reducing the score for a penalty may well have a negative effect.
If you reduce the penalty score teams are more likely to infringe at the ruck and maul, leading to a slowing down of play. The assumption I am making here is that any professional team will think "Disrupt and risk losing two points or allow the play to go and risk losing, well six, possibly?"
Everyone likes to see fast, flowing rugby with teams opening out and trying to score tries but to me the penalty does, to some extent at least, provide a reasonable deterrent to the slowing of play and a lack of discipline in its current form.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
flipside
|
|
for Sean Marcelo
Jun 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
Oh, and Tamerlin why are you awake at this time?
The Apolyton boards are only filled with alcoholics and Australians at this time of night.
Excepting the obvious poster, it's only the fact that the state of drunkeness does not have it's own flag yet that I can tell the difference usually.
EDIT: Apparantly the state of drunkeness has not got a flag because it is a minor Irish colony. Yay. Go us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flipside
This is just a thought, and, in way it is playing devil's advocate.
While at heart I agree that the try should be worth more than it currently is, I personally think reducing the score for a penalty may well have a negative effect.
If you reduce the penalty score teams are more likely to infringe at the ruck and maul, leading to a slowing down of play. The assumption I am making here is that any professional team will think "Disrupt and risk losing two points or allow the play to go and risk losing, well six, possibly?"
|
Good point.
In that case perhaps another (or an additional) form of penalty should be considered. I've long thought the 10m sin bin for a professional foul was far too lenient. Instead you could apply this 10m send-off to said penalty situations and increase the other to 25m or somesuch?
This level/frequency of infraction though may well have to be administered by a video ref as it could well have too much of an impact to be treated lightly.
Very likely though none of this will happen as each change would seem to introduce a roll-on effect, such that counterbalancing every new variable involves adjusting something else to a degree - the entirety of which would go far beyond the number of changes that would ever be made in a single session...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flipside
|
|
for Sean Marcelo
Jun 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ravagon
Good point.
In that case perhaps another (or an additional) form of penalty should be considered. I've long thought the 10m sin bin for a professional foul was far too lenient. Instead you could apply this 10m send-off to said penalty situations and increase the other to 25m or somesuch?
This level/frequency of infraction though may well have to be administered by a video ref as it could well have too much of an impact to be treated lightly.
Very likely though none of this will happen as each change would seem to introduce a roll-on effect, such that counterbalancing every new variable involves adjusting something else to a degree - the entirety of which would go far beyond the number of changes that would ever be made in a single session... |
I agree that any changes to the rules would change the current balance of the game.
I think, personally that 10m is generally about right myself.
My main problem with video ref's is that they create almost as much discussion as they end, especially with the current 2D foreshortening effect that the cameras have.
There was a classic example over here, when a cricket commentator placed a ball in his hand, rested his hand on the ground and then showed the resulting images.
I swear it was impossible to tell if was a "catch" or not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-01-2004 14:43
Yes! 
is often used by the drunk poster while this one 
best describes how I felt yesterday night (or this morning should I say). 
|