• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

2011 S15 Semi Stormers vs Saders @ Newlands

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daz

Guest
The Reds idea of slowing the ball is simple hands in the ruck. It is what they get penalised at least two or three times for each game and get away with a few more times. .

Usually by one S Finger. Hell's donkey's, how many times do you need to be pinged before you get the message.....

He is an impressive young man with a big future, but this week he should be sitting in meetings with coaches and refs to learn about keeping your hands out of the ruck, and the rest of the time practicing line out throws.
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
I think the issue is more the fact that a surprisingly large number of Crusaders tacklers / ruck joiners end up in the position needing to roll away in the first place. Players arriving from the opposition are hindered from joining the ruck effectively, even if just for a second, allowing Crusaders a better chance of pilfering or at least slowing quick ball.

This isn't limited to one team, but does seem to be more common and effective from certain teams.

It would be very interesting to have an honest discussion with someone involved in (for example) the Crusaders franchise. Would love to know if this is coached at that level or just skills picked up as part of playing rugby in NZ, or just all in the imagination.

While not from the Crusaders franchise at all (this is the first year EVER I have barracked for them) this is what happens IMO.

When you get anymore than 2 people in a tackle all trying to drive the ball-carrier backwards, it's almost inevitable that at least one of those tacklers will end up on the wrong side of the ruck. If the refs are blowing the whistle when players aren't trying to 'roll away' (and sometimes I think it's better for the attacking team if the tacklers didn't roll away) then you can't complain when they are trying to get out of the ruck area.

Can it interfere with the attacking team? Yes - of course it can. But I think that's the advantage a team should have of having more dominant tackles or committing more people to the tackle. I don't think you really deserve nice quick ball if you just got dominated in the tackle.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
While not from the Crusaders franchise at all (this is the first year EVER I have barracked for them) this is what happens IMO.

When you get anymore than 2 people in a tackle all trying to drive the ball-carrier backwards, it's almost inevitable that at least one of those tacklers will end up on the wrong side of the ruck. If the refs are blowing the whistle when players aren't trying to 'roll away' (and sometimes I think it's better for the attacking team if the tacklers didn't roll away) then you can't complain when they are trying to get out of the ruck area.

Can it interfere with the attacking team? Yes - of course it can. But I think that's the advantage a team should have of having more dominant tackles or committing more people to the tackle. I don't think you really deserve nice quick ball if you just got dominated in the tackle.

It dont need any explanation. Play the ref as easy as pie. That blond Reds flanker got away with murder in the other semi, Kaplan and all.
 

whatty

Bob Loudon (25)
Good point Blue but PB does make a good point....
Your problem is Meisiekind in 12, he never pass the ball or at least the few Morne or FdP dont send up in the sky.

Thats the truth, albeit he did start scoring tries near the end.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Cheating in rugby games is a nice thread digression even though "they do it and we don't" is a bit silly.

Current day cheating has evolved to a higher form: it's like a virus that changes into something nastier a few generations down the track.

I used to rail against McCaw for tackling and sliding down, even throwing himself down, on the "wrong" side of the tackle, which he did better than anybody else. The law crackdrown stopped that obvious stuff and now it's more subtle: the oh so accidental flop - even a bogus getting away like Goody Two Shoes flop, faking compliance and slyly obstructing rivals as it is done. One could even give a mark like the diving judges do and give extra points for degree of difficulty.

It's getting so the ref has to take the view: "If there was a snake present, could he have avoided being there?"

Still, it's better than it used to be before the crackdown.


Not quite to the point but I am surprised that commentators keep on asking how a player could be expected to roll away from a certain situation, but it's the wrong question. What they should be asking instead is: why did the tackler put himself into a position where he couldn't roll away from?

Sometimes a tackler has no choice in the matter, but on more occasions than we think he decided to land where he did which made him vulnerable to being trapped there. Often he could have displaced himself more towards his own team or to the side just before hitting the deck and still effected the tackle.

I think that referees know that some tacklers could never have rolled away but that some others could have if they took action before they hit the ground, without any danger of them having to release the tackled player to do so. Sometimes they see tacklers wrestle themselves to be in the wrong position as they fall.

Referees' responses to the matter reveal another convention that they use: not sanctioning against a law infringed (not rolling away), but sanctioning the underlying reason for the infringement (putting themselves in a position from which they could not do so, beforehand.)

There are many conventions that referees use and most, like the convention of allowing the skew feed to the scrum, are harmful, but this convention, like a couple of others, is good for the game.

But I have digressed from the digression.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
The Schalk Brits/Freddie Michalak incidents need adressing
Sport24
No more Brits scenarios?
Cape Town - SANZAR will review its policy on the recruitment of overseas players at the end of the year.

This comes after criticism of the existing policy in recent weeks.

The Stormers included Saracens' Schalk Brits in their line-up for their Super Rugby semi-final against the Crusaders at Newlands, even though he did not play a single round robin match for the Cape based franchise.

The Sharks also hit the headlines when they signed French international Frederic Michalak to combat their injury woes.

The Stormers claimed that Brits was needed because of injuries to loose forwards Pieter Louw, Duane Vermuelen and Siya Kolisi, while the Sharks faced a crisis at scrumhalf, but mainly used Michalak at flyhalf.

This forced SANZAR to accept that there may be reason to tighten regulations.

SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters told the website ESPNscrum that the governing body will review its policy on the recruitment of overseas players at the end of 2011.

"We will have a look at this at the end of the season," said Peters. "We review a lot of things and maybe we could look at players being in the round robin for a minimum number of games.

"Or we could insist that a player has to be registered with a franchise by a certain date - say, May 1, just as we do in the ITM Cup. I'm not saying that is what SANZAR will do but it is the sort of thing we could look at."

Maybe the squad numbers may adress this. Understand Aus franchises will have to do with smaller squads?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top