The Quickening. 2016

[curates_egg]

Potayto, potahto.
It was neither probable, definite, certain...nothing. Pretty much every Ulster fan I know agrees. Semantics don't change the fact it was a cr@p decision from a ref with a history of making cr@p decisions against us.
You are really expecting a bit much of fans to memorise the exact wording of all the rules (I know they're called laws but only a pedant would insist on using that high-fallutin term) off by heart. If that disheartens you, you must have a very sensitive heart Dave.

They don't have to memorise them, but if they want to shite on about it, then they should at least know what they're shiteing on about. Then they mightn't be so aghast when a ref makes a decision that they don't agree with. Its fine to have an opinion on whether the decision was correct or incorrect, its not fine to base that opinion on an antonymonous understanding of the Law.

Rugby has laws. They're called The Laws of the Game. The website is laws.worldrugby.org, we had the Experimental Law Variations. I'd suggest that the only reason someone would call them anything else is ignorance.

Much and all as I would be a proud ignoramus, I know they're called laws; so calling them rules in my case would not be a case of ignorance. I think it is a stupid high-fallutin word to describe the rules of rugby. They are rules by definition, so I have no problem with people calling them rules. Arrest me if that's against the law...oh wait.

[wixfjord]

Guaranteed ways to make yourself sound like a pompous, smug rugby fan:

1 - 'Well this isn't soccer' or 'You wouldn't see that in rugby'. (Are you listening Nigel?)
2 - Correct someone on the wording of laws vs rules.
3 - Shush someone in a pub when your team is kicking.

You've just broken one of the cardinal rules Dave...

[simonokeeffe]

Guaranteed ways to make yourself sound like a pompous, smug rugby fan:

1 - 'Well this isn't soccer' or 'You wouldn't see that in rugby'. (Are you listening Nigel?)
2 - Correct someone on the wording of laws vs rules.
3 - Shush someone in a pub when your team is kicking.

You've just broken one of the cardinal rules Dave...

3 always got my goat

[Dave Cahill]

Guaranteed ways to make yourself sound like a pompous, smug rugby fan:

1 - 'Well this isn't soccer' or 'You wouldn't see that in rugby'. (Are you listening Nigel?)
2 - Correct someone on the wording of laws vs rules.
3 - Shush someone in a pub when your team is kicking.

You've just broken one of the cardinal rules Dave...

2 just gets on my tits big time

[curates_egg]

Guaranteed ways to make yourself sound like a pompous, smug rugby fan:

1 - 'Well this isn't soccer' or 'You wouldn't see that in rugby'. (Are you listening Nigel?)
2 - Correct someone on the wording of laws vs rules.
3 - Shush someone in a pub when your team is kicking.

You've just broken one of the cardinal rules Dave...

2 just gets on my tits big time

I'm not sure Glanville Williams had rugby on his mind.

What world rugby describes as laws are, in fact, rules of the sport of rugby. The law applying to rugby would be a wider body of sports law, as far as my legal knowledge extends, and criminal law (in the case of decisions by Clancy and Fitzgibbon).

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I actually like refs having some leeway in how they interpret things, but offside is one that I don't understand. It's black and white, players are either onside or they're not. The TMO should be far more involved with it too, it's easy for them to spot in the stands so should be getting on to the ref about teams constantly being offside so the refs can then watch out for it.

We don't need the TMO for offside- use the Assistant Referees (AKA as 'linesmen' in old money. Take a page out of the much derided soccer handbook- with the added advantage that there's no worry on judging 'when the ball is played' and all that mullarkey.

Either the defender is behind the rear foot or not- easy, you'd think. They are ideally positioned to make those calls and it baffles me why they don't- or do not have it demanded of them!

TJs should be doing it now anyway, my point is that if the TMO can see that it's happening then he should call it regardless of whether someone else can or not. I'm not saying that you make the TMO the sole arbitrator of offside decisions.

I'd like TMOs to play a much bigger part. Not necessarily in open play because we don't want the game to be more stop start, but take our game against Toulon last season. Armitage was off his feet all day long, the TMO could mention that kind of thing to the ref at HT.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

3 - Shush someone in a pub when your team is kicking.

Do people do that?

Thankfully I've never encountered it!

[simonokeeffe]

3 - Shush someone in a pub when your team is kicking.

Do people do that?

Thankfully I've never encountered it!

Yup encountered it in town a couple of times

[olaf the fat]

I always believe that the standard of refs a country produces is a reflection of the game in that country - its a bug bear of mine, but it irks me when supporters complain about refs or their decisions without knowing the laws themselves. This weekend was a perfect example. Now whether one thinks it should have been a penalty try or not is neither here nor there, but the amount of people who said it couldn't or shouldn't have been a penalty try because the ref couldn't have been certain a try would have been scored, or couldn't say that try would definitely have been scored and went on to criticise the ref when they didn't know the law was disheartening.

Dave, Can we put some blame on TV pundits rather than solely the hapless fans? RTE has one or two ex internationals from down south (cork - not NZ), who often make inaccurate declarations on what the ref can do/see/ask/think/imagine. Fans will watch a hell of a lot of games on TV, and that's were most will be updated on the ever changing interpretation of the laws - but by witless "experts". When they go to games this gets added to emotion and excitement and just adds fuel to abuse directed at the referees.

[Dave Cahill]

Dave, Can we put some blame on TV pundits rather than solely the hapless fans? RTE has one or two ex internationals from down south (cork - not NZ), who often make inaccurate declarations on what the ref can do/see/ask/think/imagine. Fans will watch a hell of a lot of games on TV, and that's were most will be updated on the ever changing interpretation of the laws - but by witless "experts". When they go to games this gets added to emotion and excitement and just adds fuel to abuse directed at the referees.

Thats a very good point - the influence of the likes of Hook and McGurk who simply haven't kept current in terms of the laws of the game has been significant.

[simonokeeffe]

Dave, Can we put some blame on TV pundits rather than solely the hapless fans? RTE has one or two ex internationals from down south (cork - not NZ), who often make inaccurate declarations on what the ref can do/see/ask/think/imagine. Fans will watch a hell of a lot of games on TV, and that's were most will be updated on the ever changing interpretation of the laws - but by witless "experts". When they go to games this gets added to emotion and excitement and just adds fuel to abuse directed at the referees.

Thats a very good point - the influence of the likes of Hook and McGurk who simply haven't kept current in terms of the laws of the game has been significant.

Or the oldchestnut of fans dont want to see games ruined by cards, leave it to citing officer etc

And other side of coin, heres a replay of something nobody noticed twenty minutes ago

[the spoofer]

Who get's the money for a home semi final in the Pro 12? Is it IRFU, the Pro 12 or province?

[johng]

The province. But effectively the IRFU.

[wixfjord]

Whatever about a home semi, am I correct in saying that the other thing that we lose if we don't get 1st at the weekend is guaranteed top seeding for Europe next year? Isn't it random whether second in Pro12 gets top or second tier? Think that's what happened to Munster last year.

[curates_egg]

Whatever about a home semi, am I correct in saying that the other thing that we lose if we don't get 1st at the weekend is guaranteed top seeding for Europe next year? Isn't it random whether second in Pro12 gets top or second tier? Think that's what happened to Munster last year.

I thought the seeding in Europe was based on the play-off results? So, the winners in the three competitions are top seeds. The top seeds in the remaining two pools are done based on a draw supposedly, so Munster missed out by luck of the draw...supposedly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%8 ... up#Seeding

[kermischocolate]

Whatever about a home semi, am I correct in saying that the other thing that we lose if we don't get 1st at the weekend is guaranteed top seeding for Europe next year? Isn't it random whether second in Pro12 gets top or second tier? Think that's what happened to Munster last year.

No. Seeding goes on winner of the leagues, not league finishing position iirc.

So 3 league winners go as top seeds. But as there's only 5 groups there's draw for 2 out of the 3 runners up to be top seeds.
The other one goes as second seed.

[wixfjord]

Whatever about a home semi, am I correct in saying that the other thing that we lose if we don't get 1st at the weekend is guaranteed top seeding for Europe next year? Isn't it random whether second in Pro12 gets top or second tier? Think that's what happened to Munster last year.

No. Seeding goes on winner of the leagues, not league finishing position iirc.

So 3 league winners go as top seeds. But as there's only 5 groups there's draw for 2 out of the 3 runners up to be top seeds.
The other one goes as second seed.

Is that runner up in terms of league position, or loser of the final?

[curates_egg]

Whatever about a home semi, am I correct in saying that the other thing that we lose if we don't get 1st at the weekend is guaranteed top seeding for Europe next year? Isn't it random whether second in Pro12 gets top or second tier? Think that's what happened to Munster last year.

No. Seeding goes on winner of the leagues, not league finishing position iirc.

So 3 league winners go as top seeds. But as there's only 5 groups there's draw for 2 out of the 3 runners up to be top seeds.
The other one goes as second seed.

Is that runner up in terms of league position, or loser of the final?

Loser in the final. See my post above.

[Oldschool]

The main problem with the laws of the game lies with how they are being interpretated.
When is a pass forward being a case in point.

[molloyjh]

Guaranteed ways to make yourself sound like a pompous, smug rugby fan:

1 - 'Well this isn't soccer' or 'You wouldn't see that in rugby'. (Are you listening Nigel?)
2 - Correct someone on the wording of laws vs rules.
3 - Shush someone in a pub when your team is kicking.

You've just broken one of the cardinal rules Dave...

3 always got my goat

It's never bothered me, just confused the f*** out of me. Seriously, why!?