Steamers v Counties Manukau
-
-
Strange game - we should have taken the win - 3 may not be enough at the business end of the season. Scrum was strange as mentioned, but I also thought our lineout underpreformed. Late in the game James O'Reilly was all overthe place. Hugh Blake was immense and stepped up when we had 3 key players lost to injury.
Weber was contained well and Delaney made some poor kicks in general play. It'll be interesting to see the injury list - those 3 games have knocked us around - as it has every other team of course.
-
@KiwiPie said in Steamers v Counties Manukau:
I reckon the ref didn't know what to do - was scared to award a penalty/yellow in case he was shown to be incorrect.
And who would blame him? What Law did Pulu transgress?
At a stretch you could claim unfair play but it is a bit like yelling at a line out.What it highlights is a law that needs brushing up. Either players should be allowed to defend in front of the post or remove grounding at the base. I favour the second option.
-
I thought what Pulu did was stupid, but it was dealt with fairly by the ref. Sumo and co had a good chuckle about it - fair enough - but that kind of crap is why Pulu is not an All Black. Wasted talent really. Hopefully something positive will come out of it all. As a Bay supporter - we should have done more to win this game and we didn't.
-
Just read the discussion on this at RugbyRefs. Really funny how they are coming up with all sorts of solutions around moving posts and changing field markings yet ignoring the obvious one of removing the ability of grounding the ball against the base.
Wasn't it not that long ago that the law made it possible to just touch any part of the padding and we had silly tries with players tapping the ball halfway up the pad? They tidied that to making it 'ground and pad' but even that is now being used as a tactic. Set up a ruck close to the post and you have a free access to the post. If tries were scored on or over the paint you could remove the issue. -
@crucial is more of an issue in recent times due to the sheer size of the padding which protrude about 6inches or so onto the park, which effectively means there is an arear of maybe ~20inches that is undefendable...although TBF we still don't see huge amounts of tries scored there.
Pulu just highlighted a bit of an issue as the pads are there for safety, so removing them he has created an issue, for which I don't expect they thought would be an issue or consideration to go through a players mind.
-
So 300mm is 11 inches short of the line.
-
@taniwharugby said in Steamers v Counties Manukau:
So 300mm is 11 inches short of the line.
Not sure what you mean by this but have amended my post to be clearer.
This is what the Laws say
When padding is attached to the goal posts the distance from the goal line to the external edge of the padding must not exceed 300mm.
So with the post on the line the depth of the pad can be 300mm max. That would mean that the square type of pad would be 300+300+gap for post wide along the try line. Probably close to say 800mm of target for grounding at the base
-
D Duluth moved this topic from BOP Mafia on
