The quick tap from the 20

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

DaveO posted:
Given people have put forward well reasoned arguments why one specific aspect of the game, the quick tap, should revert to the way it used to be - which worked for years what sort of comment is that?

It certainly does not refute any of the arguments put forward and this idea of the ref being out of control if he blows before getting back to the 30m line is baloney.

I don't know the precise reason behind it but I suspect it has come from getting the referees to have a tighter control on the game. It's not baloney (that's a type of sausage isn't it?) it's about refereeing the game in a manner that ensures you keep control of every aspect of it.

People say there are too many penalties in matches and would like to see a more flowing game. There is a fine line though between letting a game flow and the players getting out of control because they didn't like being laid upon or having their face rubbing in the mud. It's the reason behind the early match clamp down.

The old adage "if it aint broke don't fix it" springs to mind. I can't recall anyone ever complaining about the quick tap before - except ruing the fact their teams defence was half asleep if they were caught out.

Refs didn't need tighter control over this aspect of the game. Do they over other aspects? Maybe but that is a different debate and one I am sure we will have if (for example) they start getting as pedantic as RU refs do over setting the scrum.

Dave

[damien morrissey]

robjoenz posted:

DaveO posted:
Given people have put forward well reasoned arguments why one specific aspect of the game, the quick tap, should revert to the way it used to be - which worked for years what sort of comment is that?

It certainly does not refute any of the arguments put forward and this idea of the ref being out of control if he blows before getting back to the 30m line is baloney.

I don't know the precise reason behind it but I suspect it has come from getting the referees to have a tighter control on the game. It's not baloney (that's a type of sausage isn't it?) it's about refereeing the game in a manner that ensures you keep control of every aspect of it.

People say there are too many penalties in matches and would like to see a more flowing game. There is a fine line though between letting a game flow and the players getting out of control because they didn't like being laid upon or having their face rubbing in the mud. It's the reason behind the early match clamp down.

Where is the loss of control the play is restarted and flows as it would during open play. What does the ref do if he is unsighted or doesnt feel in control then blow the whistle and call the play back.

[robjoenz]

damien morrissey posted:
Where is the loss of control the play is restarted and flows as it would during open play. What does the ref do if he is unsighted or doesnt feel in control then blow the whistle and call the play back.

From personal expereince if you allow the quick tap when you're not ready the player will either run towards you or run for the nearest defensive player that has not made it back to the 30 m line. If you're running the opposite direction to what you're trying to see it makes it harder to spot things and reduces your ability to make a correct call.

As regards allowing the game to flow. I've tried letting a game flow by allowing a little longer for players to get up from the tackle, allowing a bit of leeway with offsides when the players didn't interfere. Seeing as I had set the precedent I couldn't then start to penalise everything. Since then I have always being more strict on ill-discipline. I have noticed that a good side will sort their discipline out and if their opposition does not follow suit they will more than likely lose. That way the winner of the match has played the best rugby and shown the best discipline.

[cpwigan]

The best disciplined side does not always win Rob. Warren Ryan coached teams such as Canterbury in the 80s pushed every rule / broke many. I think what happens is that referees often reach a limit that they are personally comfortable with and start turning a blind eye to further offences. Similarly, if a team has a player sent off you sometimes find referees then become reluctant to send another player off and a team can play on that. My father was one of the few men I ever came across who would simply award what he saw and once awarded 9 penalties in a football match. Where do you stand on referees erring towards a junior team getting beaten heavily and giving them lots of bonus decisions and penalising the team that is winning easily far more?

[damien morrissey]

robjoenz posted:

damien morrissey posted:
Where is the loss of control the play is restarted and flows as it would during open play. What does the ref do if he is unsighted or doesnt feel in control then blow the whistle and call the play back.

From personal expereince if you allow the quick tap when you're not ready the player will either run towards you or run for the nearest defensive player that has not made it back to the 30 m line. If you're running the opposite direction to what you're trying to see it makes it harder to spot things and reduces your ability to make a correct call.

As regards allowing the game to flow. I've tried letting a game flow by allowing a little longer for players to get up from the tackle, allowing a bit of leeway with offsides when the players didn't interfere. Seeing as I had set the precedent I couldn't then start to penalise everything. Since then I have always being more strict on ill-discipline. I have noticed that a good side will sort their discipline out and if their opposition does not follow suit they will more than likely lose. That way the winner of the match has played the best rugby and shown the best discipline.

Rob i have never coached a game in my life and the statements made are not me attempting to act as devils advocate.
I agree with your second paragraph in its entirety and good sides will do this or be punished by the penalty count and the club coach.
As far as i am concerned though with the quick tap rule it is the refs that need to be more alert not the players.
"If your running in the opposite direction to what you are trying to see it makes it harder to see things." Stop running then turn to the side wait for the player to come on to you and follow the play as you would in open field.
Is that too simple, not being sarcastic in the slightist. If the attacking side gain an advantage from this then its only right and fair surely it will improve the game for us speccies.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
The best disciplined side does not always win Rob.

Which of my games have you watched CP?

Where do you stand on referees erring towards a junior team getting beaten heavily and giving them lots of bonus decisions and penalising the team that is winning easily far more?

That's clearly wrong!

I don't think any side should be shown leniency for any reason in a competitive match. A team winning 60 0 would get annoyed if you started to ignore high tackles or offsides against them, for example, which would only result in them getting wound up and risking creating a situation.

[robjoenz]

damien morrissey posted:
As far as i am concerned though with the quick tap rule it is the refs that need to be more alert not the players.

I agree, I've just tried to explain why they don't always allow a quick tap.

"If your running in the opposite direction to what you are trying to see it makes it harder to see things." Stop running then turn to the side wait for the player to come on to you and follow the play as you would in open field.
Is that too simple, not being sarcastic in the slightist.

The attacking player is likely to run towards you (this happened to me the other week and I got tackled). Best option is to run like mad towards the 30 m mark.

The difference to normal play is the fact that you're being turned around, from the ball being live in front of you to it being live behind you. This doesn't happen often in normal play.

If the attacking side gain an advantage from this then its only right and fair surely it will improve the game for us speccies.

Why is that? If team 1 is awarded a 20 m restart it's because of attacking play from team 2. If team 2 had chosen to run the ball in, team 1 would have had a turnover instead putting team 1 in a stronger position defensively had they not scored a try. Kicking for in-goal is the more attacking option so it could be argued that allowing the defensive line to set is reward for team 2s attacking play in the first instance.

[damien morrissey]

As i said Rob i am not acting as devils advocate or being sarcastic.
I just dont understand this rule and the way the refs manage it

[cpwigan]

Rob I have never seen you referee nor would I heckle you. I criticise referees but do not abuse them whilst they are doing their job

I often see that Rob, evening up the match, taking pity and do you know, we agree I think it causes more problems than it solves. I used to work with a PE teacher that did it to his own teams and they hated him for it and I have seen well qualified referees do it and it often leads to dissent from the winning players.

[robjoenz]

damien morrissey posted:
As i said Rob i am not acting as devils advocate or being sarcastic.
I just dont understand this rule and the way the refs manage it

I was just trying to explain my opinion on it and in the last case I was playing devils advocate. There's two sides to every coin.