Aaron Smith knows law 22.4(b)

[Browner]

You can't defend against a dropped goal either

Yes, but since when did pitch furniture stop that ?

This picture was indeed very interesting to see, because it appears the posts have already been moved back from the Goal line, to accommodate a pad protector width ? So either this pitch doesnt meet IRB requirements (?) OR actually it doesnt actually materially matter ( coz no-one at the time spotted it!! ) if they are relocated 1- 5m etc

But hey, imagine the discussions if during the match in the picture a crucial kick had fallen short and bounced back off the crossbar , would the kick/ result have stood ... only likely I'd say (sarc)

I think this subject is only constricted by historical convention, and that it's time to move forward & improve things in whatever way practicable.

 

[Browner]

OB ,

(does your famed library resource indicate ) when the crossbar height went ( metric) to 3.0m did this increase or decrease its height from the previous imperial measurement ?

 

[Crucial]

Some rather interesting reading here.

My 10c worth (as that's the smallest denomination we have in NZ)

- Isn't the line called the 'Goal Line' all the way through the laws? Not the 'Try line', but the 'Goal Line'. Good luck getting someone to actually make that many changes to the book.
- as far as I can see there is actually no requirement as to where or how the goalposts are placed. The assumption is that the Goal posts are on the Goal line
- Those technicalities aside, making any sort of small gap probably increases danger to the players. If you make the line available for defensive purposes you also make it available for attacking purposes and instead of players scoring near the posts from static ball or careful placing of the ball against the pads, you will have players scoring with momentum near the posts.
- this also opens up a whole new avenue of things to look at in the act of scoring as you add another element into the in goal area.
- in an ideal situation you would have strong stable goalposts that don't touch the ground anywhere in the playing area but those don't exist as yet
- what's the big deal anyway? I'm far more concerned about the RWC being won or lost on an incorrect breakdown call than by a player whose team have got so close to the goal line that they afford this method of scoring. (and yes we have seen Championship Finals reffed by the best where an incorrect decision has changed a result at the death)

Actually that's about 50c worth. I'll put the money in the tin on the way out.

 

[OB..]

OB ,

(does your famed library resource indicate ) when the crossbar height went ( metric) to 3.0m did this increase or decrease its height from the previous imperial measurement ?

Before metrication it was 10 feet = 3.05 metres. Near as dammit the same

 

[OB..]

- Isn't the line called the 'Goal Line' all the way through the laws? Not the 'Try line', but the 'Goal Line'. Good luck getting someone to actually make that many changes to the book.
- as far as I can see there is actually no requirement as to where or how the goalposts are placed. The assumption is that the Goal posts are on the Goal line

Try-line and goal-line are synonyms. Law 1 includes a plan which shows where the goal posts are situated.

- Those technicalities aside, making any sort of small gap probably increases danger to the players. If you make the line available for defensive purposes you also make it available for attacking purposes and instead of players scoring near the posts from static ball or careful placing of the ball against the pads, you will have players scoring with momentum near the posts.

I don't understand why there is a problem here?

- this also opens up a whole new avenue of things to look at in the act of scoring as you add another element into the in goal area.

Different in what way from scoring wider out?

- what's the big deal anyway?

Scrum and maul safety. You don't want players getting driven back into the posts.

(This won't solve the problem with incorrect decisions, and isn't intended to. But it is a lot easier to solve!)

 

[Camquin]

Crucial
The plan is part of the laws- and it shows the goals on the goal line.
However given the cale, they could be just behind.

It fails to clarify that they are placed centrally or even that they have to line up.

1.4(d) does state "(d)
When padding is attached to the goal posts the distance from the goal line to the external edge of the padding must not exceed 300mm."

Which means a goal placed with the front edge on the line should only be 300mm. Wheras if the post i on the line it can be 600mm deep.

However, I cannot see a limit on the width of a line, but to some extent that does not matter as the line is the edge of the paint.

 

[Crucial]

I don't understand why there is a problem here?

Quite simple from a player's pov. If I know posts are set back from the tryline with a space in front in which to score I am far more likely to try and score in that area. I could be diving and sliding on an angle to the posts and then hitting them. Defending players with eyes on getting between me and the ground also have to contend with posts in the ingoal. What about a kick through in goal with the ball in front of the posts? Players will dive at that every day putting a try above personal risk.
How is this different to the present? You very rarely see a player sliding in the direction of the posts at present because of the likelihood that the posts may stop them from scoring.
Basically, opening up an area of in goal in front of a solid object has to increase risk.

Different in what way from scoring wider out?

Think about it. At present when a player is attempting a try while clearly in the in goal you have grounding to judge. Put a post with padding in there an you add another element in goal. Does the 'base of the post/ padding' rule apply from all directions? Has a player touched the post first then slid down it with another player's hand underneath? You are just creating a whole new set of things to look at. I can also see tactics of kicking a ball toward the padding on purpose to create a loose ball opportunity and random luck.

Scrum and maul safety. You don't want players getting driven back into the posts.

How often does this happen? Case history suggests this is not an issue. Why swap one known risk that appears to be very low with an unknown one (as described above) that is unknown as to it's regularity.

(This won't solve the problem with incorrect decisions, and isn't intended to. But it is a lot easier to solve!)

I don't see that it is easy to solve because of the newly created issues that have to be worked on. I'd rather see that effort put into clarifying and cleaning up the breakdown area to make it easier for both players and referees.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I was at a Bills game that the wind blew so hard it moved the posts cockeyed. They attached ropes and pulled them back into place.

v NE Patriots in 2008?

 

[OB..]

Camquin - I see what you are getting at now, but I think you are over-estimating the problem and under-estimating the scrum/maul problem. Referees routinely move scrums away from the posts, and stop play for safety if a maul looks to be in a dangerous position.

I would certainly like to see a trial, though the chances is are that it would be some time before any problems showed up either way..