TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98)
-
@Snowy said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
(get those useless fucks on the sideline to help, like they are supposed to).
Yep it should be the AR(ses) doing that, they draw the line and have the best view. They are still touch touches at the moment.
The players can also see it and act accordingly.you couple being a step offside, with the speed and regularity of the modern defensive line, and it's very little wonder that, especially at the top level, the game often resembles trench warfare.
All modern professional football codes are having to deal with the quality of defense currently beating the quality of attack, rugby just has the least space to operate in.
-
@mariner4life Got an answer? Other, than actually policing the line by the AR's as you suggested?
-
@Snowy said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@mariner4life Got an answer? Other, than actually policing the line by the AR's as you suggested?
nah, not really. Not sure there is an answer really. That extra step might help, but only partially.
Professional coaches will still coach low-risk rugby with a high emphasis on defense. And attempted changes by administrators will be twisted and exploited by smart coaches to still come out with the opposite of the intended outcome. That's professional football, winning is all that matters.
-
I know that players from the team not in possession that try for turnovers in tackle situations when the ball is on the ground must support their own bodyweight but in almost 100% of these type of situations you see supporting players from the team in possession bridging over their player with their hands on the ground supporting their bodyweiht as they form a protective barrier in their attempt to keep opposition away from a chance to contest the ball. Is that allowable in the laws?
-
@Higgins said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I know that players from the team not in possession that try for turnovers in tackle situations when the ball is on the ground must support their own bodyweight but in almost 100% of these type of situations you see supporting players from the team in possession bridging over their player with their hands on the ground supporting their bodyweiht as they form a protective barrier in their attempt to keep opposition away from a chance to contest the ball. Is that allowable in the laws?
No, they're not supporting their own bodyweight on their feet.
If you want to blame anyone for the state of the modern ruck, it would be McCaw. His dominance lead to law changes which have heavily favoured the attacking team leaving defenders to fan out and tackle.
-
-
BAN THE BOX KICK!!
-
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
BAN THE BOX KICK!!
That's what she said.
-
@Bones said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
BAN THE BOX KICK!!
That's what she said.
nah she's a kinky bitch
-
wait, did i just get us flagged again?
-
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Bovidae said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@pakman Yep, players are now conditioned to wait for the ref to tell them to get their hands off the ball in a ruck so know they can push the boundaries.
@taniwharugby I was going to make the same point.
not just now, it's been that way for ages. And in all honesty, for what is in the main a question of timing, i am pretty good with a ref allowing leeway there. For a huge number of those rucks, the player thinks he has rights to the ball, and there is no way he is going to know when he loses that right. So a warning from the ref is fine. Rugby, unlike say league, has a huge amount of penalisable offences that can start as legitimate plays, but change as time progresses. It can't be reffed in black and white all the time and still be the game in its current form.
A year or two ago I'd have agreed. To take Itoje as an example I am almost certain when he goes into many/most rucks he KNOWS he doesn't have rights to the ball, and so long as his attempts aren't too obviously heinous refs will tell him to let go. It has become the latest tactic in slowing the ball down to allow defensive alignment. Allied to pushing the offside line to the limit, we get trench warfare. Yawn.
No question refs should allow some leeway, but if they think a player has misjudged badly get in and penalise hands in the ruck. I know at least one international coach who has spoken to the refereeing body about this.
In the English Premiership final, first half, Itoje was penalised a couple of times for getting it wrong and surprise, surprise the Saracens defence suddenly wasn't a brick wall and we had an entertaining match.
Question of balance, but swung far too far the other way, and now abused as a deliberate tactic. Pendulum needs to swing back a bit. End of rant.
-
The amount of “diving in” by attacking team players at the ruck is a blight on the game in my view. Watching live today it is was so noticeable that when a tackler takes a ball carrier to deck and the tackler isn’t even on the wrong side that attacking players are just going in off their feet with plenty of latitude.
I guess rucking would solve that issue.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
The amount of “diving in” by attacking team players at the ruck is a blight on the game in my view. Watching live today it is was so noticeable that when a tackler takes a ball carrier to deck and the tackler isn’t even on the wrong side that attacking players are just going in off their feet with plenty of latitude.
I guess rucking would solve that issue.
It really wouldn't
-
-
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I'd cop a rucking to kill a ball.
Have repeatedly. You don't feel it till the next day anyway ....
Yeah, lost count of the number of times I'd catch my back/side in a mirror that night or the next day and notice the stripes, thinking "I don't remember that".
-
@Bones said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I'd cop a rucking to kill a ball.
Have repeatedly. You don't feel it till the next day anyway ....
Yeah, lost count of the number of times I'd catch my back/side in a mirror that night or the next day and notice the stripes, thinking "I don't remember that".
Until you get one that means you can't sleep on your back
-
@Bones said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I'd cop a rucking to kill a ball.
Have repeatedly. You don't feel it till the next day anyway ....
Yeah, lost count of the number of times I'd catch my back/side in a mirror that night or the next day and notice the stripes, thinking "I don't remember that".
If you actually registered you got rucked at the time it happened... yeah ... that hurt. But only after the game.
Otherwise it was ... oh yeah .. don't remember that... owww now ...
-
@mariner4life said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Bones said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I'd cop a rucking to kill a ball.
Have repeatedly. You don't feel it till the next day anyway ....
Yeah, lost count of the number of times I'd catch my back/side in a mirror that night or the next day and notice the stripes, thinking "I don't remember that".
Until you get one that means you can't sleep on your back
Only fat people sleep on their back.
