Aaron Smith knows law 22.4(b)

[Ian_Cook]

CFL and NFL ones are 6 feet (just under 2m) behind the line and trust me when I tell you that they wobble when you touch them. Imagine making that 10x longer

The Buffalo Bills can testify to that!!!

Try to imagine what this would look like if the horizontal offset beam was 15m long instead of 2m

 

[Seaton]

Why make tons of VERY expensive changes to pitches around the world? If you think it's cheap to take out a set of posts and move them, or take out a set of posts, throw them in the garbage and buy a new fancy WR set of posts, you must be dreaming. 99% of pitches will no longer be up to the standard set by WR, and the 1% will be professional grounds. I doubt my city would accept a request to move our posts as we barely generate revenue for them. If we did want to get them moved, our club would fold as membership dues would jump through the roof and we wouldn't have players anymore.

As well, Browner, I'm not sure if you've taken a glance through the WR law book recently where it specifies in goal length, but an in goal can vary from 10m to 22m. I've yet to see a set of "wishbone" posts that have a horizontal beam that's 22m long...CFL and NFL ones are 6 feet (just under 2m) behind the line and trust me when I tell you that they wobble when you touch them. Imagine making that 10x longer?

A much simpler solution would be to re-write the law to say something along the lines that the goal line runs through the post and post protectors instead of the current law that say it that the post padding and post are part of the goal line.

Surely the cheapest and easiest solution, as opposed to changing the laws of the game, moving goalposts or generally thinking too hard about this is...

To paint the tryline a few centimetres further infield?

I must be missing something...

 

[didds]

Have a look at the video didds. The ruck was almost rioght up againt the padding. The SH effectively has nothing/no-one to stop him just picking up the ball and placing it against the post;

then I concur. You can't defend it. Presumably the oppopsition could do the same thing at the other end though - equity?

didds

 

[didds]

A much simpler solution would be to re-write the law to say something along the lines that the goal line runs through the post and post protectors instead of the current law that say it that the post padding and post are part of the goal line.

This is still a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist though in any meaningful and desperate way...

didds

 

[Dickie E]

You can't defend against a dropped goal either

 

[crossref]

Here's a cheap solution for grassroots, why not site their traditional posts 5m back from the Goal line? .

Thoughts?

You are just moving the goalposts

 

[didds]

ba doom tish!

 

[Dickie E]

get rid of the posts altogether. Tries only.

 

[didds]

Holographic posts.

didds

 

[matty1194]

Im thinking hard of actually how many tries I have awarded this season where the ball has been grounded at the base of the post.

Im struggling to think of more than 2 occasions in the 65+ matches of XV's that I have refereed this season. I reckon most other referees on this forum will not be awarding tries on a regular basis against the base of the post.

I reckon some people are trying to reinvent the wheel, it doesnt happen all that often, lets just award it when it is and if not move on.

 

[didds]

it doesnt happen all that often, lets just award it when it is and if not move on.

*LIKE*

I can't recsall a single instance of it happening in a game I have been involved with in 40 years.

That's not to say it isn;t a valid tactic, and as Ian points out in the right situation it is undependable - like drop goals are to a large degree.

didds

 

[OB..]

I can't recall it ever happening in games at my levels, but that does not mean the problem can be entirely ignored. What if it decided a World Cup final? It does mean that equity is not really relevant because the chance of both teams having the opportunity in the same game is statistically zero.

I don't think anybody is proposing moving the posts all the way back to the dead-ball line - just far enough for defenders to be able to stand in front. That means repainting the lines a few centimetres forward would not be enough. It needs at least 2 metres, which is reasonable for the wishbone posts.

At top levels the expense is probably insignificant. At lower levels it is not worth it, but when a club buys new posts, it would be worth making the change. It affects not only the unusual try-scoring situation but also any scrums awarded just near the posts that might get pushed into them.

 

[Browner]

Surely the cheapest and easiest solution, as opposed to changing the laws of the game, moving goalposts or generally thinking too hard about this is...

To paint the tryline a few centimetres further infield?

I must be missing something...

Eureka !

if unrestricted Goal line access is the 'holy grail' then shortening the pitch by 1m x2 works ( provided the 5m line & 22 are retained) alternatively make it a 21 !

 

[didds]

I still feel its an issue that really isn't one. So a RWC final may get decided on it. That's the cookie that crumbles.

I would suggest the game has bigger issues to concern itself with - PKs/PTs from scrummages that _may_ be little more than guesswork when awarded for starters.

didds

 

[Browner]

I can't recall it ever happening in games at my levels, but that does not mean the problem can be entirely ignored. What if it decided a World Cup final? It does mean that equity is not really relevant because the chance of both teams having the opportunity in the same game is statistically zero.

.

Indeed.

Goal line rucks have evolved , Inching forward via pick&go hasn't historically been a feature of these modern rucks , which ( remember England v Scotland Dan Cole etc) can lead to an inordinate amount of scanning time for a 9 !!! AS had loads of time to think about it also.

In addition, social media spreads/highlights all rare worldwide occurrences into our 'device' players minds & this power of sharing influences the spread like never before known in history.

So I'm with OB, find a way to remove these unnecessary 'obstacles' from the goal line , I'm not too bothered how, but make it within affordability if you wish
Say....
Pros = Better posts,
Semi pro = repositioning of posts
Amateur = repositioning of goal line

Safety, access, defensive equity all solved.

 

[OB..]

I still feel its an issue that really isn't one.
didds

I think the problem of an awkward scrum award is actually a more important driver. It involves safety. Solving the weird try option is a side benefit.

 

[didds]

.. and that is a much better reasion OB. Though not raised AFAIK before despite its constancy for ... well... ever.

Though the safety aspect is usually avoided by moving the scrum a few feet away from the nearest post

didds

 

[Browner]

.. and that is a much better reasion OB. Though not raised AFAIK before despite its constancy for ... well... ever.

Though the safety aspect is usually avoided by moving the scrum a few feet away from the nearest post

didds

Ive mentioned it previously , as has OB ... His here ...http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17610-off-side-line-when-near-the-posts&highlight=fork

 

[thepercy]

The Buffalo Bills can testify to that!!!

Try to imagine what this would look like if the horizontal offset beam was 15m long instead of 2m

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.

 

[Browner]

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.

There are better / more substantial posts in production nowadays, and available to pro clubs , than those flimsy efforts !