The kick debate...again
- Thread starter Coxy
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #20
far as i'm concerned they're not fucking tries! To score one you should have control of the ball. Not just put a fucking finger tip on it as is the case now.
Just because "the fans" want it doesn't mean i have to like it, nor does it make them right.
Just because "the fans" want it doesn't mean i have to like it, nor does it make them right.
- Thread starter
- #22
good tries, yep. Our game is played boring at the moment, and a stacks on with 5 people trying to ground a bouncing ball and 5 minutes to decide if an attacker grounded it is dead fucking boring.
Nothing wrong with well placed, well chased, cleanly caught and grounded kicks for tries. Beautiful. I just hate the tries reminiscent of a rugby push over try where you don't even really see the ball get put down. That's what those really messy grubber and bomb converts often look like.
Nothing wrong with well placed, well chased, cleanly caught and grounded kicks for tries. Beautiful. I just hate the tries reminiscent of a rugby push over try where you don't even really see the ball get put down. That's what those really messy grubber and bomb converts often look like.
- Thread starter
- #24
difference being a rushed behind gets the ball back to the defence. In my rule if you don't clean up and get out of the in goal, or catch it on the full, you have to face another set of six. But you don't get 6 points put on you for a fumble a thon.
Anyway, agree to disagree i guess. I'd just fucking hate to lose a grand final with a joke try like those.
Anyway, agree to disagree i guess. I'd just fucking hate to lose a grand final with a joke try like those.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 8,117
- 7,110
Now the trend is to send one up to batt the ball backwards and gives the D next to no chance of making a play at the ball.
Kicking is an easy way out for the attack and something needs to be done to take the incentive away from a kick.
Some thoughts.
Make the in goals much smaller say 3mts.
Unless a kick from inside the 20 results in a try its a 20m restart.
No kicking from inside the 20mtr mark.
A defused kick results in a free kick to the D from the centre of the posts.
A kick try can't be converted
A defused kick inside the 20 results in a zero tackle restart.
Kicking is an easy way out for the attack and something needs to be done to take the incentive away from a kick.
Some thoughts.
Make the in goals much smaller say 3mts.
Unless a kick from inside the 20 results in a try its a 20m restart.
No kicking from inside the 20mtr mark.
A defused kick results in a free kick to the D from the centre of the posts.
A kick try can't be converted
A defused kick inside the 20 results in a zero tackle restart.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,586
- 8,889
As a few of us posted before elsewhere - why have an in-goal area at all?
The ball has to be carried to the line and planted on it, or a player dives from the field of play onto or over the line and that's the only way a try can be scored.
The ball has to be carried to the line and planted on it, or a player dives from the field of play onto or over the line and that's the only way a try can be scored.
I love seeing the returns from out of the defenders in-goal area, especially when he has to beat a few attackers.rnabokov said:
Wasn't Melbourne having a stink about how their in-goal area was shorter in width compared to others an wanted to
have the other venues changed to meet their own? Last year i think it was.
Kicks are fine.
Let them bring in the 2nd Ref and that will improve our game. The Refs with their craptastic decisions week in
week out are ruining the game. No need for this new kicking rules rubbish.
