Six Nations rugby Friday anyone?

UKRob said:
I don't see it that way Chris - the fact is that England had so many line breaks and good scoring opportunities that they should have buried the Scots. It was their lack of composure and using their support runners that cost them tries - hardly anything to do with Scottish pressure.
Click to expand...

Fair point - I was being charitable.

UKRob said:
I don't profess to understand the nuances of rugby...
Click to expand...

Me neither!

UKRob said:
...but my overall impression of this seasons tournament so far is a complete lack of standards and interpretation when it comes to referees. Scrums appear to be a lottery in terms of who is penalised - and as for rolling away at the breakdown, they might just as well flip a coin to decide whether a penalty is warranted or not.
Click to expand...

I concur.
 
UKRob said:
One rule change I'd like to see is the truck and trailer outlawed - it just seems to be contrary to the rules that someone at the back of a maul with only the slightest connection can carry the ball and have team-mates legally protect him. Might as well be playing American football.
Click to expand...

Where would you have the ball held in a maul, Rob? And it can't be banned because it is Tigers stock in trade, perfected by the all time great No. 7 - Neil Back.

Isn't a truck and trailer just two guys and is outlawed?
 
Bechet45 said:
UKRob said:
One rule change I'd like to see is the truck and trailer outlawed - it just seems to be contrary to the rules that someone at the back of a maul with only the slightest connection can carry the ball and have team-mates legally protect him. Might as well be playing American football.
Click to expand...

Where would you have the ball held in a maul, Rob? And it can't be banned because it is Tigers stock in trade, perfected by the all time great No. 7 - Neil Back.

Isn't a truck and trailer just two guys and is outlawed?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not just the nuances I don't get then Carl - but we are referring to the same thing I think. To me, having men in front of the ball whose sole intention is to stop the opposition getting at the ball carrier is obstruction. So to answer your question, the ball carrier would have to be at the front of the maul.

Incidentally, why is the rule different if, as you say, just two men is deemed an offence?
 
UKRob said:
Bechet45 said:
UKRob said:
One rule change I'd like to see is the truck and trailer outlawed - it just seems to be contrary to the rules that someone at the back of a maul with only the slightest connection can carry the ball and have team-mates legally protect him. Might as well be playing American football.
Click to expand...

Where would you have the ball held in a maul, Rob? And it can't be banned because it is Tigers stock in trade, perfected by the all time great No. 7 - Neil Back.

Isn't a truck and trailer just two guys and is outlawed?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not just the nuances I don't get then Carl - but we are referring to the same thing I think. To me, having men in front of the ball whose sole intention is to stop the opposition getting at the ball carrier is obstruction. So to answer your question, the ball carrier would have to be at the front of the maul.

Incidentally, why is the rule different if, as you say, just two men is deemed an offence?
Click to expand...

The maul is a legitamate way to gain ground, and is a part of the on field battle between two packs. If a teams pack is significantly stronger than their opponents then they can use this to great advantage throughout the game. It is also a tool to let your team regroup and your backs to reset thier line. The following I think is a fairly clear introduction to the rules on mauling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/4204094.stm
 
UKRob said:
Where would you have the ball held in a maul, Rob?
Click to expand...

So to answer your question, the ball carrier would have to be at the front of the maul.

[/quote]

With two men, the truck would be obstructing and thus it has been outlawed.

If the ball were at the front of the maul, it would be easier to cross the line and score.
 
Regarding the truck and trailer then if it's far enough from the line and your team as the nerve the easiest way of stoping it is the opposing pack just leave it and retreat quickly, all the other forwards must detach and leave the ball carrier allowing him to be tackled, easier said than done though.
 
mbnu54 said:
The maul is a legitamate way to gain ground, and is a part of the on field battle between two packs. If a teams pack is significantly stronger than their opponents then they can use this to great advantage throughout the game. It is also a tool to let your team regroup and your backs to reset thier line. The following I think is a fairly clear introduction to the rules on mauling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/4204094.stm
Click to expand...

That's a useful link - and does seem to cover exactly what I was complaining of:

''One of the infringements referees have clamped down on in the past few years has been obstruction in the maul, or "truck and trailer" as it has been called.

This is when a player acts as a screen, blocking tacklers from reaching the ball carrier.
However players can circumvent this law if two or more team-mates bind around the ball together and move forwards.''

So it seems to me that that part of the law is not being penalised often enough because all teams are using the tactic of using a carrier loosely attached at the back - the opposition can't get at him unless they come in at the side - but would then be penalised.

There certainly seems to be scope to look at it again.
 
England are not quite there, but so close, I think. We need a top quality open side. Robshaw is a colussus but he isn't a Warburton or, dare one say it, a Steffon Armitage. Front five is good and has options, although I am not a fan of Dylan Hartley. Half backs seems to be sorted, but I'd prefer Care to Wigglesworth as number two number nine.

Ford and Joseph are top quality 10 and 13, but Burrell is, I think, a little bit limited. Maybe Farrell at 12, or Tuilagi would have the vision to see the space and the passes required. Plenty of options on the wings, although I not convinced by any of them just yet. Mike Brown is a shoo-in at full back and Goode is a more than decent replacement.

Keep that group together and they have got to be up there for the 2019 World Cup. This one is too soon.

Interesting weekend coming up. I can see Wales putting a decent amount on Italy - they have nothing to lose really. I fear for England. It seems to me that people are writing off France too easily. 29 points without reply in Rome is not to be sniffed at. Scotland will be brave, but not quite good enough.
 
UKRob said:
mbnu54 said:
The maul is a legitamate way to gain ground, and is a part of the on field battle between two packs. If a teams pack is significantly stronger than their opponents then they can use this to great advantage throughout the game. It is also a tool to let your team regroup and your backs to reset thier line. The following I think is a fairly clear introduction to the rules on mauling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/4204094.stm
Click to expand...

That's a useful link - and does seem to cover exactly what I was complaining of:

''One of the infringements referees have clamped down on in the past few years has been obstruction in the maul, or "truck and trailer" as it has been called.

This is when a player acts as a screen, blocking tacklers from reaching the ball carrier.
However players can circumvent this law if two or more team-mates bind around the ball together and move forwards.''

So it seems to me that that part of the law is not being penalised often enough because all teams are using the tactic of using a carrier loosely attached at the back - the opposition can't get at him unless they come in at the side - but would then be penalised.

There certainly seems to be scope to look at it again.
Click to expand...

Is it possibly the case that the players in front of the ball carrier are deemed to be binding around the ball and moving forwards as per the Law quoted above?
 
chrisbell said:
Is it possibly the case that the players in front of the ball carrier are deemed to be binding around the ball and moving forwards as per the Law quoted above?
Click to expand...

I don't think so Chris - you see too many examples of the ball carrier attaching one hand to a shirt or whatever - but the player has his back to the carrier so I don't see that it's binding.

However, as I started off by saying - I don't know the rules top a great extent, so maybe it's all legal.
 
UKRob said:
chrisbell said:
Is it possibly the case that the players in front of the ball carrier are deemed to be binding around the ball and moving forwards as per the Law quoted above?
Click to expand...

I don't think so Chris - you see too many examples of the ball carrier attaching one hand to a shirt or whatever - but the player has his back to the carrier so I don't see that it's binding.

However, as I started off by saying - I don't know the rules top a great extent, so maybe it's all legal.
Click to expand...

Agreed Rob, hence why I said "deemed to be" - it certainly isn't what I would consider correct!
 
Pleased Carl yes, but when I look back at the first game against England I can honestly say that second half I have never seen such a poor performance from Wales I just think we were pretty complacent going into that game, and that loss could be a blessing in disguise come the world cup as we know that we cannot have a bad day at the office, but Gatland and co will have them in camp for two months leading up to the kick off I'm sure Wales will get better than we have seen during this six nations.
 
England v France... the craziest game of rugby I've seen in a long time.

Sooner it's over the better. Heart in mouth all bloody day.


And it's all over...

What a fantastic day of sport. Simply fantastic effort by all three contenders. What an effort by England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom