Jump to content

Barnacle

Member
  • Content count

    4,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    64

Barnacle last won the day on July 4

Barnacle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

504 Excellent

About Barnacle

  • Rank
    The Real Coach
  • Birthday 04/29/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Centurion
  • Interests
    Isn't it obvious?

Recent Profile Visitors

6,787 profile views
  1. Rugby’s 15 v 14 dilemma

    And I would give them for players shouting "holding on!"... I have actually "given" yellows for players during training sessions for shouting about infringements. There is one referee on the field and they make the calls, not the players!
  2. The Wisdom thread - feel free to add

    Luckily not tonal. The only aspect is that some syllables can be stressed like the sample above. A double consonant gives a pause in the middle of the consonant and a double vowel stretches the vowel. Generally however, it is a string of syllables all spoken at a reasonably constant tempo. And now just for fun.... さる is "saru" which means monkey
  3. SuperBru Pro14

    Stem 100% saam. Maar dalk vir ander redes. Vir my het dit te veel van 'n klug geword. Die skeidregters het te veel invloed op die uitslag en dit is nie meer twee spanne wat teen mekaar meeding om die beste span te bepaal nie. Dit is nou meer oor watter span die skeidregter die beste kan manipuleer om 'n "wen" te behaal. (Bv. Skrums is nie meer om die bal te wen nie, maar slegs 'n manier om 'n strafskop te melk...)
  4. The Wisdom thread - feel free to add

    I'm making the point that in the end Japan won... because I am currently learning some Japanese... I chose Japanese, because I see it as a challenge... Which it definitely is. I actually like the Japanese culture. They are extremely polite, punctual and hardworking (がんばれ) = Ganbare! (Do your best!) Just to show how tough some things can be: "shitte imasu" = to know "shite imasu" = to do If you ever wondered why Asian kids are so smart, try learning the hiragana, katakana and some of the kanji :-P
  5. Super Rugby 2017 - Lions

    Sad that it had to happen at this time when so much was at stake. More so when the Lions supporter are probably the least arrogant and vocal (probably due to the "recent" (10 year) past. But I do not believe the red card had much of an influence on the outcome in the end. If anything, it woke the Lions from their first half slumber. The influence of a red/yellow card is much more mental than physical. In 15s the field is crowded anyway and half the time some player is lying on the ground somewhere taking a rest or walking around aimlessly in any case. Most teams would be able to handle even playing with 13, if they are mentally prepared for it. On the other side of the coin, some teams completely fall apart mentally when confronted with the situation. The fact that the Lions "stayed in the game" proves that it had very little effect, if any... One can go on to speculate about what if's, but's and maybe's, but it is not going to change the outcome. --- My views on the topic of accidental impacts are well known and personally I also feel the the man in the air also voluntarily placed himself in that position, so if he gets injured it is a risk he accepted, when he decided to jump. Of course one could the arsehole who would intentionally try to tackle someone in the air, but you will still get borderline cases where it is not 100% clear. But as I said in another thread that something like this will happen to a team one/some of us support sooner than we think. I also said that we would not need to wait long... And it happened about 1 month after... The sad thing is that most of us support these measures, until it influences the team we support. Then we going into long debates bout how it should be changed.... But when it influences the opposition, we don't give a crap... I can go into a long philosophical discussion, but rugby ends up being the loser due to all the technicalities in the long run...
  6. The Wisdom thread - feel free to add

    Watashiwa nihingo ga sukoshi hanase masu. Nihon Masaru!
  7. World Rugby announce 6 law changes

    I don't have too much of a problem, with the pop pass, as long as it is immediate. Because that is in fact what the law states. Once again this is the crap of the refereed interpreting "immediate" as something different from immediate. I've seen players move the ball side to side away from others attempting to take the ball and only after that make a pass and play goes on... A change that I would also like to see is that when a player is forced to ground (one knee), even without continued contact becomes a tackle. Too many players are properly tackled, but only slip out of the tackle after it is complete and the referee calls "play on... not held..." That is a load of bullshit, because the tackle is complete, the moment his knee touches the ground. But to clean it up, so that there is no doubt, you just include the fact that if a defender forced the player to go down onto one knee (even without continuously maintaining contact), it should be sufficient to constitute a tackle.
  8. World Rugby announce 6 law changes

    My "Not so Humble" Opinion... Throwing the ball into the scrum Law 20.5 & 20.5 (d) 5 No signal from referee. The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line. Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in. Comment: The position of the scrum-half has ZERO influence on the stability of the scrum, so it cannot be part of the “rationale”, as it is irrational. How is it a “fair contest”, when you give advantage to a specific team. There is already an advantage in terms of the team throwing in, knowing the timing of the put-in and the hooker of the team throwing in is closer to the ball already. Giving additional advantages definitely do not make the contest “more fair”. Suggestion: Just APPLY the current laws! Handling in the scrum – exception Law 20.9 (b) The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows. Rationale: To promote continuity. Comment: This does not amount to much in normal situations. It does however protect a weaker team as it allows them to get the ball out quicker. Suggestion: Can be tested. Striking after the throw-in Law 20 Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball. Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession. Sanction: Free-kick Comment: In isolation the “rationale” may promote a “fair contest”, but the stability of the scrum is severely compromised when the prop, who supplies the stability is allowed to move his leg a considerable distance away from a “braced” position from which he is unlikely to recover if a considerable force is applied. The law change promotes instability and increases the risk for injury. Suggestion: Do not apply as it increases rick for injury! Just APPLY current laws. Law 15.4 (c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”. Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law. Comment: It removes the fair contest for possession and gives an extreme advantage to an attacking side. Getting up taking a single step to your “own side” and only then contesting give a time frame for a support attacking player to cover about 6m to protect the ball. So even if he was too slow to be an effective supporter the law change now allows him to become an effective supporter, even though he might have been too slow in the first place. This removes a “fair contest” for possession in open play. Suggestion: Just APPLY the current laws! Ruck Law 16 A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used. Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees. Comment: This cannot be a ruck. It is a player standing over the ball in open play. Nothing more. This means a player approaching the player standing over the ball, may not pick up the ball and is forced to make contact with the player and not the ball. Firstly this forces contact, which increases the risk of injury. Secondly, this is only to make it simpler for players and referees, who do not understand the law in the first place. Suggestion: Train referees and coach players so that they know and understand the current laws. There is nothing wrong with the current laws. Other ruck offences Law 16.4 A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion. Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law. Sanction: Penalty Comment: It is a good idea and the only proposed change where the rationale actually makes some sense (player welfare). Suggestion: Can be tested. Further suggestions: Scrum Laws: 1. Train referees to understand the motion of bodies and the transfer of force. 90% of the scrums are currently adjudicated incorrectly, which leads to a huge amount of penalties being “milked” where the cheating side normally wins the penalty. This is because the team throwing in know, they will usually gain the advantage as the defending team gets penalised in most cases. If the team already won the possession, it means they have already gained the advantage from the knock-on (or forward pass). Allow them to play the ball! They already have it! 2. In the case of repeated collapsed scrums, where the props from both teams clearly do not have the necessary competence or are clearly not coached correctly, make a forced substitution of all front row players. If collapsing continues, remove all props and play uncontested scrums. This measure is drastic, but it will generally prevent props from collapsing the scrum (injury risk) and both teams will be equally punished. No player wants to leave the field (pride), especially when it indicates incompetence!
  9. June Internationals

    1. Hy bedoel seker hoe relevant,,,, Nie onvanpas nie... Hahaha 2. Dis nie ek wat kerm nie. Eintlik andersom. Ek wil net hê die spel moet gespeel word SONDER 'n alewige gekerm oor "hy was lelik met my"... 3. En nou kerm ek oor die gekerm.........................
  10. June Internationals

    Hahaha..... Ek wag vir die dag wat dieselfde met een van julle gunsteling span se spelers gebeur... En die geskiedenis wys gewoonlik ek hoef nie te lank te wag nie! Botsings is deel van die game. En baie jare terug, voordat ons "wimps" geword het, het ons dit so aanvaar. Die harde spelers was helde. Nou is ons sag en eis (demand) dat die ander gestraf moet word omdat ons te pap is om teen hulle sterkstes te speel. Die enigste manier wat ons kan wen of mededingend wees is as die opposisie met minder as hulle sterkste kombinasies speel....
  11. Mooi Musiek.

    A slightly different take on a classic...
  12. June Internationals

    A VERY short clip of the incident. This is the reality. Not the slow motion bullshit you look at 20 times at 25% of the speed. (Which would mean the player has 80 times less time to make the decision and adjust, than what you have...
  13. June Internationals

    Problem is that when the call goes against your own team all fans will generally complain about it, if they had any clue. By the same token no Springbok supporter then have any right to complain if we disregard the limitations of human abilities when a call goes against them. Taking the sprinter example into context, there is absolutely nothing to think about and it is all predictable. There is no decision to be made. He reacts to one input only. It would only be an issue if he would have to run at a random angle that is called out when he needs to react. That means he would need to think about the angle and then adjust... Cricket is similar, as the ball can only leave the bat as determined by physics, so its trajectory is predetermined by science with small variations. Added to that the catchers reactions are also instinctive and there is only one aspect he needs to worry about. He either catches or drops the ball. A catch you have to think about and adjust to is in fact more difficult, such as a top edge going up high in a swirling wind, as only one example In rugby it is completely different as you have to react to an unpredictable input from the actions of another. The only action that can occur in less than about half a second is an instinctive reaction and not intentional. Just as an example, drivers expecting an input to react to in a motor vehicle react in 1.2 seconds on average, because the decision making process takes up the largest amount of time. Even in a heightened state of awareness, they rarely react in less than 0.8 seconds. (Contained in report NVVR/33 prepared by the CSIR for the National Road Safety Council). To say there was intent to harm is ridiculous and that is the point I'm making. Just as a matter of fact, I agree with the red, because that is what the law states. I do however not agree with the additional 4 week suspension, because it is not intentional, but instinctive, which are two completely different processes. As for his left arm, it was already raised before the step. His left arm was in position for a wrap tackle...
  14. June Internationals

    The players are supposed to know the laws (and the referees...). I coach the players to go for it when the ball is out. A good referee will know why the player is doing it and will call the player off when he does not agree. That means the player must also be aware of the referee and their calls. I would say we get penalised about 1 out of 10 times and successfully steal the ball the other 9 times. Generally the referees aren't as kuk as everyone imagines... And I 100% agree with the slowing down of the ball. If the referee needs to tell you to leave it, you already transgressed the laws and he should play advantage.
  15. June Internationals

    This is my biggest problem with these slow motion replays... Layperson opinions are formed based on footage that is slowed down considerably. It then appears as if there is an intention to hurt, after the armchair critic had the benefit to view it 5 times at the low speed. So, it is your OPINION, based on a perception of slowed down footage. Now looking at the real speed video and analysed (a clip I downloaded), at 4.3 seconds, the Lions player is moving lateral and SBW is tracking in that direction towards his left. At 4.480 seconds the attacker steps off his right foot and goes down slightly. At 4.642 seconds the impact occurs, while SBW is on his left foot, when the Lions player makes contact with his right shoulder. The left foot is in front, because he was expecting to make the tackle on his left side (tracking to the left but the player stepped back). That means according to you two, SBW saw what was happening, considered all possible outcomes and made the intentional decision to injure the opposition player in 0.162 seconds. If I gave you one simple task to hit a button in reaction to a light that came on... with no outcome to consider and no decision to be made, you would struggle to do it in 0.2 seconds. Trained Sprinters who also do not have to consider any decision have reaction times in the order of 0.12 to 0.16 seconds. There are many things that happen on the rugby field where the viewers make up their minds based on half-truths and perception, mostly involving collisions that occur in fractions of seconds. While it is practically impossible for a player to react in an ideal manner in those circumstances, the armchair critics still think their uninformed opinions are gospel. Let me sum this up for you in plain straightforward language... There was FUCKALL intent. It was merely an instinctive reaction to the step.
×