Brumbies v Reds rd1 SR2013
- Thread starter Lindommer
- Start date
- Status
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Excellent in the air as well. He'd be great working on the short side with Genia.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Can't believe he's not a wallaby (Mowen)
Ghibli
Ted Thorn (20)
This view is shared by a few punters, including how the wobs are selected/play.
S15 has started, prefer to enjoy the rumble and stay away from that can of worms.
Can't wait for more matches next weekend.
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
He'll be a chance if he keeps up that sort of grunt work, I don't remember it previously being an outstanding element of his game.
If only he was a few kegs heavier. I always like a big bruiser at 8, like Palu at 116kg or Lyons at 119kg. Read gets away with 110kg as he's an outstanding rugby player. Mowen's listed at the same weight as Kieran, don't think he's up to that standard, yet.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Balancing the weight with ability is very hard but. A lot of guys gain those few extra kg's only to have a massive decrease in mobility. Others gain the kg's with no loss anywhere else. I know he's a back so it's a bad comparison but when Giteau bulked up that is exactly the point where his agility and elusiveness took a downward slide. These pro athletes walk a very fine line.
RoffsChoice
Jim Lenehan (48)
Case in point, Rob Horne. Told to bulk up to reduce chance of injury. Now he is injured just as frequently, is not particularly stronger but notably less agile.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Have they been instructed to very quickly escalate to penalty for early engagements as well?
Noticed that Lees called a penalty against the Reds for their second early engagement, which was a full fourty minutes after the first. However, the way he did it was almost an afterthought (as he actually signalled a half arm then quickly changed), which implied it was a directive that a just remembered at the last second.
Curious to see if this will be applied in other games or not. Another poster mentioned that it's already being done elsewhere...
Scott Allen
Trevor Allan (34)
No longer up to the ref to escalate - it is now set that you only get one short arm in a match for early engagement, then it's full arm penalties from then on.
This is a direction to all of the referees so we should see it in all matches.
Lees looked like he was trying to remember whether he'd given a short arm previously against the Reds in the match and once he remembered that he went with the full arm penalty.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Geez, I'm not sure I like that. That was a gift 3 points for what is a very subjective (at times) call. The next scrum we got a half arm for the Brumbies early engage and at the time I thought that was a get square for a harsh call from the ref because I certainly didn't think the Brumbies went earlier than the Reds in that scrum.
Scott Allen
Trevor Allan (34)
We talked to Laurie Fisher about this last night on the Podslam and he said the teams have no problem with it - they all knew about it going into the season and the packs will just have to practice better discipline and hold their own weight back.
It seems alright to me. It stops the weaker scrum from doing it repeatedly trying to win the hit and make their scrum better than it is.
This would seem to be something a weaker scrum could have taken advantage of on defensive scrums because they'd know that giving away a short arm for an early engagement was just likely to lead to another scrum in the past.
This would seem to be something a weaker scrum could have taken advantage of on defensive scrums because they'd know that giving away a short arm for an early engagement was just likely to lead to another scrum in the past.
RoffsChoice
Jim Lenehan (48)
If it was the front rows going down I'd feel like it was a bad thing. However, essentially every ref sets his pace for the scrum and then sticks with it. Early engage is entirely avoidable and if you've done it before, full arm is justified.
Done that
Ron Walden (29)
Ultimately the interpretation of the laws is up to the referees , whether it is those who are on the field , or those who direct them.
It is up to them to interpret the laws in the way that best serves the overall interests of the game of Rugby.
Rule changes are introduced with the aim of benefiting the spirit of the game , the players & the spectators.
Last year the number of yellow cards handed out was ridiculous .
As the season progresses I will be most interested to see whether the changes in the scrum rules introduced this year , have the benefit which they were intended to have.
God knows referreing is a difficult & often thankless task , but just as some players are better than others , so to are referees different in their abilities.
If some rules are too difficult for referees , & players (& spectators who have been involved in & watched many games ) to fully understand & implement , & the number of penalties in some games suggests they may be , then simplify them until this is not an ongoing problem with Rugby.
As a former referee and now spectator I think it's reprehensible referees engineer any sort of penalty at scrum time due to their vocal instructions. I couldn't give a shit about the SANZAR referees' guidelines on crouch/touch/set, especially they "mustn't set any sort of cadence about their calls". How about they consider getting on with the game and facilitating a quick and fair contest for the engagement they're supposed to be adjudicating?
BTW, nothing against you, Scotty.
Scott Allen
Trevor Allan (34)
The instruction is for the referees to call "Set" once both packs are steady. There is no engineering any penalty by delaying the "Set" call - if teams get stable quickly prior to engage, the "Set" call will come quickly - if they are not steady the call will not come until that is achieved. The timing of the "Set" call (and therefore the cadence of the whole call) is totally in the hands of the two packs.
It is all about reducing the chances for scrum resets - it is the resets that waste more time than any slight delay in calling "Set".
If you want a fair contest at the engage neither team should be engaging early - if a team is not steady prior to the engage they are likely to engage early as they tip in due to their instability. If they do that more than once I see merit in them copping a full arm penalty.
Having both packs steady will produce better outcomes as when packs are not steady before the engage there is a much greater chance they will not be stable as they engage and will go to ground immediately on the hit.
If you accept that having both packs stable before engaging is a good idea then there can be no set cadence because that would mean calling "Set" at a given time regardless of whether that stability had been achieved.
As Laurie Fisher points out this will force discipline from the packs to support there own weight and get steady.
Having spent tonight's training session coaching these very points it didn't take long for players to get it - they made mistakes early but it's really not that hard to get steady and stable. If it's going to cost your team a full arm penalty, you'll learn very quickly.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Thanks for the replies Scott. Really interesting.
Personally, so long as it is applied consistently I don't have a problem. The sad thing about no longer playing the game is that you miss out on these ref directives at the start of the season so stuff like this tends to come as a surprise.
Unfortunately for the Reds it cost them a gift three points on the weekend from what I think was their own feed. Hopefully the players adjust quickly. And hopefully it will reduce scrum resets.
Personally, so long as it is applied consistently I don't have a problem. The sad thing about no longer playing the game is that you miss out on these ref directives at the start of the season so stuff like this tends to come as a surprise.
Unfortunately for the Reds it cost them a gift three points on the weekend from what I think was their own feed. Hopefully the players adjust quickly. And hopefully it will reduce scrum resets.
- Status