[Law] World Rugby announces law amendment relating to scoring against the post protector

[L'irlandais]

Nigel Owens has his say on the matter. :wales:

European Cup Pool game January 2018

 

[crossref]

Maybe one problem with forks would be a post where people weren't expecting it .
I mean we are all used to the posts and probably the reason there aren't many collisions is that part of the brain is always conscious of them. Move the posts on some pitches might be dangerous

 

[Rich_NL]

Put the tuning fork 2m behind the line, curve it so the crossbar is over the line. Goal line is unimpeded, conversions unaffected.

The problems are cost (everyone needs new, more expensive posts, and a deeper foundation mounting) and shared pitches. Some clubs have two pitches back to back, sharing one set of posts, which is stupid but there you go, and they'd lose a pitch. Possibly torsional stability problems in high winds, too?

 

[didds]

Some clubs have two pitches back to back, sharing one set of posts

wow! Ive never seen it but now thats been said it doesnt really surprise me . Ive played cricket on grounds where to fit two pitches in the boundaries overlap in places so a boundary fielder on one pitch has his back to the wicket only 30-40m away...

Or two boundarty fiellders one frrm each game are facing each other!

didds

 

[didds]

and come what may, wherever and whoever installs a tuning fork set og posts unless it is a completely new pitch creation, will have to involve cost implications (leaving aside physical practicalities etc). Unless - MAYBE - both sets of posts basically break at the same time.

which isnt iunsuromoutable but most grass roots clubs will have better use for that money than to replace a set of otherwise perfectly usable posts.

Though as said above this isnt aimed at grass root clubs anyway...

didds

 

[crossref]

Yes , if they do come in I am sure there won't be a program to replace posts , there will just be guidance that says as and when new posts are installed, forks are regarded as best practice where possible. And then we will see them gradually come in.
A bit like standard pitch sizes. You don't have to dig up mis sized pitches, but if you were laying out a new pitch you would make it exactly the standard size, wherever possible

 

[didds]

Yes , if they do come in I am sure there won't be a program to replace posts , there will just be guidance that says as and when new posts are installed, forks are regarded as best practice where possible. And then we will see them gradually come in.

Yup. And that could of course be decades

didds

 

[OB..]

Yup. And that could of course be decades

didds

So be it. At least the problem could disappear at the top levels. The law would not need changing again as lower levels catch up.

 

[crossref]

Yup. And that could of course be decades

didds

But I think decades would be appropriate .. it's not a big problem

It's a bit like 4g pitches actually.

 

[Donk93953]

Sooooo, why not just move the posts to the back of the in-goal area...the dead ball line?

 

[beckett50]

Sooooo, why not just move the posts to the back of the in-goal area...the dead ball line?

Because then you'd have to mandate the depth of the 'In goal' area to ensure an equal opportunity of scoring from either a PK, conversion or Drop Goal. If I award a PK 18m out from the Goal line and you have the posts in the "In Goal" area then distance of the kick will vary as to whether I'm playing at Stamford or Cal Berkley - as each have different depths of In Goal area.

To place the posts at some pre-determined distance from the Goal Line will create other potential safety issues of which I, as a referee, have no desire to be involved.

 

[crossref]

Sooooo, why not just move the posts to the back of the in-goal area...the dead ball line?

as well as the problem of setting a standard in goal area - that's a change which would probably have to be implemented at every single pitch, all at the same time,

 

[SimonSmith]

With goal posts at the back of the goal line, the post protector now becomes an issue again. Would grounding it against the protector - unlikely, I know, but bear with me - be considered in goal, or the DBL?

 

[Donk93953]

If both teams are playing with goals at the back of the "Ingoal" area, how is that a disadvantage? To use your example...if Cal is 15 meters deep and Stanford is 12 meters deep both teams are playing with the same "disadvantage". Goal posts now on the try line make for a nice additional 2 man defense...and that is acceptable because both teams have them.

 

[OB..]

If both teams are playing with goals at the back of the "Ingoal" area, how is that a disadvantage? To use your example...if Cal is 15 meters deep and Stanford is 12 meters deep both teams are playing with the same "disadvantage". Goal posts now on the try line make for a nice additional 2 man defense...and that is acceptable because both teams have them.

You are unlikely to get many goal-line situations in any one game, which under current law means the result could well turn on who has the significant advantage of being the attacking team.

Is there any other situation where the cards are so heavily stacked against the defence?

Do professional sides actually practice this facet of the game?

 

[didds]

Do professional sides actually practice this facet of the game?

I dunno whether they PRACTISE it - but there is some pretty clear evicence/suggestions that players are AWARE that its a possibility if the need arises (if only because iof the post protector removal incident)

didds