Corner Post...do we need them

[Parra]

This proposed change would actually provide consistency & remove an area of doubt.

 

[Frailty]

This proposed change would actually provide consistency & remove an area of doubt.

Please explain how this would improved consistency and remove an area of doubt without creating an extremely larger amount of doubt and inconsistency?

Sure when it comes to adjudicating whether a play has gone into touch or not before he grounds the ball a little easier... You need to distinguish how a referee or video referee would actually rule where a player went into touch, or where a ball went into touch...

To be honest, if it ain't broken, then why fix it?

 

[Parra]

You still need the posts. Just change the rule that says that a player is out if he comes into contact with the post. Leave it as is for kicked balls etc.

At the moment a try in the corner can involve the usual grounding etc + is his arm/foot over the sideline + at what point did the player come into contact with the post + was if the player or defender who hit the post.

Removing the post from the equation makes things more straightfoward - the considerations are the usual stuff + did he go over the sideline.

 

[forward pass]

Vossy and Gus have NEVER said to get rid of the posts. All they have discussed is to change the rule so that you are not into touch if you touch the post. I agree. It is a pretty archaic rule.

 

[forward pass]

I disagree, keep them. Shows supreme skill to get the ball down around the corner post.

In fact, I'd go as far as adding them on the 20 metre line, to make adjudicating 40/20's easier.

Actually Paul Langmacks idea on the Roast some time back was much better. He suggested former players should sit on the 20 metre lines to adjudicate on 40/20's.:lol::lol:

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

its fine. adds extra challenge to scoring in the corner. a lot of amazing tries would be nowhere near as amazing had the corner posts not been there

It's that chaos element about it that I like. I agree, leave the rule as is.

 

[adamkungl]

Vossy and Gus have NEVER said to get rid of the posts. All they have discussed is to change the rule so that you are not into touch if you touch the post. I agree. It is a pretty archaic rule.

archaic? what about it is archaic?

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Stay for in goal delineation when the ball is kicked.

Has no part in the play otherwise (ie) a player is not "out" by merely touching the post

Agree they do this in Union and it works well.

Seriously its a farked rule.

 

[adamkungl]

yes...

this pic wins the thread.

 

[sooperdooper]

extra bit of advertising and money...

 

[Frailty]

I still have problems with it having no real purpose apart from being there for kicks. What should happen if the ball is grubbered towards the sideline, but come in contact with the corner post and remains in the field of play? Play on? Furthermore if a player comes into contact with the corner post, effectively knocking it over into touch and the players arm is only ever on top of the corner post whilst it is in touch, that should be ruled to be play on...

I just don't feel the need to make an unnecessary change to the rules, and as simple as people would like to make it out to be, it wouldn't be... People said the same thing about the one on one strip, or the dominant tackle, or the surrender tackle, or the fullback making the ball dead in goal, or the video referee...

 

[Danish]

this pic wins the thread.

If I were him I'd use that picture as wallpaper for my entire house.


It simply does not get better than that.

 

[Hanscholo]

I keep hearing Voss argue over it, but in 35 years of watching league closely i dont recall a single incident that would even make people worry about the corner post, its there for a couple of reasons both are still viable imo and the downside is non existent anywhere outside of the fantasy world voss lives in.

 

[Hanscholo]

I still have problems with it having no real purpose apart from being there for kicks. What should happen if the ball is grubbered towards the sideline, but come in contact with the corner post and remains in the field of play? Play on? Furthermore if a player comes into contact with the corner post, effectively knocking it over into touch and the players arm is only ever on top of the corner post whilst it is in touch, that should be ruled to be play on...

I just don't feel the need to make an unnecessary change to the rules, and as simple as people would like to make it out to be, it wouldn't be... People said the same thing about the one on one strip, or the dominant tackle, or the surrender tackle, or the fullback making the ball dead in goal, or the video referee...

Its there to judge bals crossing the line and to see if players are inside the field of play for trys. You can be outside the field of play in RL in mid air, therefore its entirely neccessary, that is why your out when you hit it.

If they want to change the rules about players leaving the field of play then thats fine, remove the post, but until then leave it alone. Its not hurting anything.

 

[Parra]

You can be outside the field of play in RL in mid air, therefore its entirely neccessary, that is why your out when you hit it.

If they want to change the rules about players leaving the field of play then thats fine, remove the post, but until then leave it alone. Its not hurting anything.

A player can be in the field of play, but part of his body crosses the plane of the sideline and is not grounded. He is still in.

The only place this rule changes is if there is a corner post, in which case if any part of your body touches it, you are out. So the rule about in/out is consistent across the entire field, including in-goal, except for the 4 corner posts. Assuming the posts are standing. If they have been knocked down, even by a defender in the tackle, the player carrying the ball is still in, even if he crosses the plane without touching the ground. You actually have to hit the post, not just cross the plane of the intersection of the goal line and sideline.

See the great photo in this thread - the player is clearly across the sideline, but he is in.

 

[Timmah]

Simple theory here - it ain't broke, don't fix it. The rules have always been relatively the same over time for corner posts, don't change them. We tinker too much with non-problematic rules already.

 

[RL1908]

It's akin to the argument that RL should have NFL-style touchdowns just to make life simpler - sure, it would do that, but why remove from RL yet another skill/test that makes RL unique? makes playing RL a challenge? makes people go "wow!" when they see a try scored despite the corner post and defenders.

We've killed off the scrum in the interest of making life easier, killed the play-the-ball as a contest for the ball in the interest of making life easier, given kickers kicking tees in the interest of making life easier, reduced the stripping rule down to one-on-one in the interest of making life simpler.

How about we change from a rugby ball to a soccer ball so that the bounce is predictable too?

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Why on earth do you have the change them?

Keep them. There is nothing wrong with them.

 

[dragonfire]

its fine. adds extra challenge to scoring in the corner. a lot of amazing tries would be nowhere near as amazing had the corner posts not been there

take away the corner post and i think you increase teh number of amazing tries to be honest. Where a guy will not attack the goal line because of the post if it doesnt restrict him more likely to have a crack and do so while in the air out of the field

 

[adamkungl]

take away the corner post and i think you increase teh number of amazing tries to be honest. Where a guy will not attack the goal line because of the post if it doesnt restrict him more likely to have a crack and do so while in the air out of the field

no, you increase the number of mediocre tries. Truly amazing corner tries would be never seen again.