Leinster #8 vs London Irish

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I was given these figures:

Lineout: 45 - 24 FK, 21 PK
Scrum: 45 - 19 FK, 26 PK
Tackle: 23 - 0 FK, 23 PK
Ruck: 19 - 4 FK, 15 PK
Maul: 14 - 2 FK, 12 PK

Not quite 88, unless you apply 45 to each team :biggrin:

I asked for somewhat similar numbers last week and was scorned.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8982

Thank you Phil, you are Heaven sent

 

[Phil E]

Thank you Phil, you are Heaven sent

I can't take the credit. It was someone on here who posted them originally and I don't think it was OB.

May or may not be 100% accurate, but they are near enough.

I have found it closes a lot of arguments when you say (with a bit of artistic license) "there are 45 separate offences at a lineout. If you want me to be a stickler for the laws I can look for all of them and we can have one continuous lineout for 80 minutes........or you can leave it to me and we can play some Rugby?"

 

[Adam]

I can't take the credit. It was someone on here who posted them originally and I don't think it was OB.

May or may not be 100% accurate, but they are near enough.

I have found it closes a lot of arguments when you say (with a bit of artistic license) "there are 45 separate offences at a lineout. If you want me to be a stickler for the laws I can look for all of them and we can have one continuous lineout for 80 minutes........or you can leave it to me and we can play some Rugby?"

It's a count of all the specific offences mentioned. i.e. the ones with a specific red PK or green FK penalty indication below the description.

 

[OB..]

It's a count of all the specific offences mentioned. i.e. the ones with a specific red PK or green FK penalty indication below the description.

So the first paragraph of 20.1 (e) counts as one penalty offence even though there are several (I refuse to specify) ways in which this penalty can be achieved.

A good example of a meaningless bit of statistical data.

 

[Adam]

So the first paragraph of 20.1 (e) counts as one penalty offence even though there are several (I refuse to specify) ways in which this penalty can be achieved.

A good example of a meaningless bit of statistical data.

Are the extras likely to be penalised ever? Someone asked me for the statistics, and I counted them in about five minutes, quickly. It's a good reference, and is not meaningless as its use is to illustrate how many possible infringements that could occur. For example, most people would say, "there are over 45 offences" If anything, it's an underestimate.

There may be several ways you can contrive this penalty, the penalty is nevertheless for a failure to form a scrum properly. Isn't it a bit like committing murder: you can act illegally against the Law, but there are several different ways to do it. In this case, it amounts to the same thing.

 

[SimonSmith]

I have to agree with OB - I can't see the use of that data.

Never needed it, and never will.

 

[OB..]

What matters to the players is knowing what actions they can or cannot take. Stating you must form the scrum properly is not sufficient, so it does matter what the details are. Murder on the other hand is well enough defined without attempting (ineffectively) to list the ways you can commit it.

By all means tell the players "There are so many ways to get things wrong that you could be here all day listening to me blowing my whistle."

 

[Phil E]

OB/Simon if you've no use for this then just ignore it.
Others do find it useful.

I find it closes conversations quickly.

"You missed such and such at the lineout".
"there are 45 possible offences at a lineout, it would be impossible for me to spot all of them, but I do my best".
"Oh! I hadn't realised there were that many".

I agree that the specific number is not really relevant, its the sheer number of possible offences that surprises most people.