Clock Management

i was a goal kicker (about all i was fit for) and we worked on a 20 second drill which made 30 seem like a luxury.
line it up, take a step, take a breath, take a kick. i honestly think that is all the routine you need. 30 seconds max.

a common sense suggestion cc.
kicking in brutal conditions was always bizzarly enjoyable as the pressure was off. it was in front of the posts with no wind  that was brutal pressure

I agree that scrums are taking up too much time, and even the scrum set up seems to take an age.

RM the 60secs starts from when the kicking tee appears on the pitch, not at the decision to kick.

Yup that in essence is the way in works, Capt signals to ref, posts please sir, then the tee is brought onto the pitch. 60secs starts from there.

Now if you have a team acting the boll  ix then you stop the clock and warn them that you will reverse the pen for time wasting.

As regards the actual 60secs, its something that a good ref will manage, ie kicker takes 55-65 secs for the first kick you would have a word, after that you would penalise.

Think everybody agrees that scrums and penalties take  far too long . Sorting it out requires a bit of non traditional thinking possibly .

Personally I would reduce penalty and drop kicks  value to 2 , and conversions to 1 . For a start that would reduce the emphasis on kicking points as against scoring tries .  Might not be a bad place to start from before tightening up the rules and regulations regarding timings .

have to agree with ozy on this one if you devalue pens you simply add to the value of giving them away in the first place.

I refuse to descend to your level of comment , Ozy , for a so called educated person you display a lack of decency in relation to suggestions with which you disagree .

You are obviously against increasing the value of a try , that is the corollary of decreasing kicks value .  Suffice to say that doesn't get on my wick  , its merely a difference of opinion , just like you backing one team while I back the other .

Rugby football is supposed to be a running game , it evolved when Webb Ellis  allegedly picked up a football and ran with it .  Anything which encourages a team to score a try is to be applauded in my book .

Negatives are not always the answer Ozy .  Increasing the value of a try would encourage teams to score more tries . You may think your logic is flawless , but there are always 2 sides to every story .

The "giving away penalties" process presumably is predicated on that option being the lesser of 2 evils . The answer to that one is to encourage referees to be more pro active in awarding penalty tries . The punishment fitting the crime is a mantra I ascribe to . Does not work in life or in sport as often as it should , but if a side deliberately ( in the refs opinion ) commits a foul to obviate a try being scored should he not award a penalty try ?

I think the golf guys have got it right in so far as they disallow retroactive penalties if the only evidence can be gleaned by slow motion . I have watched at least one try being disallowed recently because a defender touched the ball  after it crossed the try line( he could not possibly have exerted any "downward pressure" on the ball as he was sliding flat on his back and just touched the ball , which was then grounded properly by an attacker . Naked eye would always award that try . Attackers should get benefit of doubt in my book , evens out in the long run , and its the better option , reward for going forward .

Good option , the vis . Concentrate the minds of the preying mantis kickers .

Mind you Sexton is only finishing what others started .  First  high profile posing kicker ( what goes through your mind when you are standing there motionless with your arms flexed like a ballet dancer ) though was Johnny Wilkinson much though I admire him as a person and as a player .  First I can remember anyhow introducing the "art form " which has almost reached paralysis now betimes .

TMO decisions now take forever , plenty of time for a station break / comfort break if needed . If it cant be resolved quickly , the benefit of the doubt option enters my mind as suggested by you .

According to you its too dangerous for young players (false) the players are getting bigger every year (false) skill levels were higher in the old days (false) etc etc etc. 

Enough!  Just f**k off back to the GAA.

I try Yummy, I try, but he just gets my goat for whatever reason!

We Irish all know why Ozy takes such an extreme view . Basically he dislikes intensely the GAA and anyone who either played it or supports it .

Reference rugby I played it before I played GAA  , I was a regular at Ravenhill every Saturday ( along with our Parish Priest of that time -- which nails some of shibboleths about Catholics / GAA / clergy / rugby etc) . I watched Kyle , Henderson , Pedlow , Hewitt , and others , who all played to a high skill level , then Gibson came along , doubt if OZY ever saw Gibson play in the flesh .  Any true Irishman and any true rugby follower who disses Gibson on or off DVD is unworthy of the name .The fact that he was from Belfast / Ulster and not Dublin 4 may also stick in Ozys craw .

I saw David Hewitt run within 0.4 secs of the then world record on a grass track when he was 18 . Plus he was an excellent rugby player / Lion .  Any current rugby player in the WORLD capable of 9.7 secs for the 100 metres ? You can throw cold water at stars from the past if you like OZY , but facts are facts . And those guys were amateurs completely and utterly . And they represent the standard for me , too bad if you did not see them .

Rugby was a different game then as compared to now . The players are bigger now , and the ones we see most of are professionals . The contacts are much more severe than they used to be  , mass and velocity being the criteria , basic physics . Whether or not it is a better spectator sport now than years ago is open to question . 

Rugby is a potentially dangerous contact sport unless played correctly and in the proper spirit . Players are bigger now even if OZY hasn't noticed .  Injuries increasingly determine the results of matches . Ferris and Bowe of our province have not played more than 50% of the last 2 seasons due to injury , neither of them wilting violets in a physical sense  , both easily Lions standard and in their physical prime. No other local sport has as bad a record as that for injuries , and they are only 2 out of a lot more you could mention . Ignore the facts if you like , but I am a realist , more players are getting injured largely because of increases in physical contacts between bigger and heavier athletes . Dont think I ever remember a case of concussion in all the matches I have seen up to about year 2000 , each week now how many cases do we see ?

I realise that those who fancy themselves as pundits for a sport they love and cherish will disagree with some of what I say ( and OZY EVERYTHING automatically ). Just possible though that I am correct in my observations .

Anyone who disputes my views is free to do so , we live in a democracy allegedly . But only please if you can advance a cogent argument regarding the facts quoted by me .

Here is a fact; Kelly you are a long winded boring ****, unable to express himself succintly, stuck in the past, with all of your post inevitably defaulting back to either of your icons, Mike Gibson or Rory McIllroy.

Who gives a toss what time David Hewitt ran the 100m in?  Whats the relevance?  And who has dissed Gibson on here?  Answer, no one.  We all know he was a great.

As regards hating the GAA, I don't give a damn about it.  I don't haunt GAA threas the way you haunt rugby threads.  It would be oh so easy to do so, to point out the lack of a tackle law, that the game is one long scragging contest, to harp on about Christy Ring etc etc I just have no interest in doing so.

We had a thread here recently that showed statistically injuries are no more prominent than they were 10 years ago, as far as I can recall.

As regards size of rugby players increasing..compared to the 70's yes, of course...back then it was bank managers and doctors, now we have full time professional athletes.  But in the past 5 years or so, they have bulked down.  For reasons previously explained.

The vis , in words of one syllable , David Hewitt ran the 100 yards in 10 secs  , I was there , waiting for the next heat which I was running in . Grass . The world record then was 9.6  , difference 0.4 secs .

Current world record for 100 metres is 9.3 I think . Add 0.4 seconds , makes 9.7 .  My question was " can any current rugby player run the 100 metres in 9.7 "( which would guarantee them an Olympic medal even in todays "breakfast eating Jamaican rice and peas" world .

That element of the post was merely to emphasise the athletic ability of the player , never mind his rugby skill , which was excellent as he showed for Ireland and the Lions .

Did anyone claim that no one could sprint in the old days?

this is all becoming a bit baffling.

The question was, on the whole, which era had the higher skill level?  That includes all players, not just an anomaly in the form of Gibson.

Inevitably skill levels are, in general, far higher now.  They have more time to train and devote to skills and training techniques have also improved.  Players have such little time to execute anything on the pitch these days that their skill levels have to be higher.

We have already dealt with the forward pass issue adequately on here...you don't seem to listen or absorb new information very well.  Defences these days are hugely organised, to breach them you have to play very flat and take chances with passes..ergo more forward passes.  Nobody lay flat in Gibsons day, there was no need to.

We know you are getting on in years but Please don't make us repeat points that have already been made to you.