Brumbies v Waratahs, Sat 1st April, GIO

[qwerty51]

I'm not sure your point there, why would the timing make a difference? The other side of the argument - that you cannot take the ball carrier to ground would still apply?

 

[Pokinacha]

I'm not sure your point there, why would the timing make a difference? The other side of the argument - that you cannot take the ball carrier to ground would still apply?

After you’ve latched, the referee will interpret the ball carrier going to ground as just that, rather than the defender collapsing.
This conversion just reiterates that the maul needs to be changed and is a flawed part of our game that directly opposes the spirit in which we play it

 

[dusk]

Not sure if anyone has brought it up but there is no excuse for Foketi's grounding. That was beyond fucking stupid and was inches away from a spectacular try being disallowed.

 

[Slim 293]

It's not collapsing the maul; it's tackling the ball carrier, which is always allowed - at any time.

I've watched a lot of rugby. This was the first time I've ever seen a player penalised for "collapsing a maul" when tackling the guy with the ball.

If the call was correct, fine but something has changed.

I don’t think we’re making any progress here, so I’ll just leave you with this…

Was it a maul? Yes.

Is a defender allowed to collapse a maul? No.

Did HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) collapse the maul by bringing down the ball carrier? Yes

Nothing new.

 

[KOB1987]

I don’t think we’re making any progress here, so I’ll just leave you with this…

Was it a maul? Yes.

Is a defender allowed to collapse a maul? No.

Did HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) (Harry Johnson-Holmes) collapse the maul by bringing down the ball carrier? Yes

Nothing new.

I’ve just been browsing the laws, and whilst I’ll concede I haven’t had a thorough look there are 2 things I can’t find - the first is a specific reference to ‘tackling’ the ball carrier. The second is I can’t find anything that specifies the sanction should be a yellow card - if it was a repeated infringement then sure, but that was not the case here.
I’m still inclined to think that Harry was on QWERTY’s wavelength I.e. he thought that as he legally came through the middle and wrapped the ball carrier it was game on

 

[qwerty51]

Nothing new.

Should be plenty of incidents where it's happened before then.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I’ve just been browsing the laws, and whilst I’ll concede I haven’t had a thorough look there are 2 things I can’t find - the first is a specific reference to ‘tackling’ the ball carrier. The second is I can’t find anything that specifies the sanction should be a yellow card - if it was a repeated infringement then sure, but that was not the case here.
I’m still inclined to think that Harry was on QWERTY’s wavelength I.e. he thought that as he legally came through the middle and wrapped the ball carrier it was game on

I'm sure he will learn from this incident. The other aspect of maul play is that we pretty much all applaud as fans when a team takes a rolling maul from near halfway into the 22m zone. It is exciting rugby.

 

[John S]

Not sure if anyone has brought it up but there is no excuse for Foketi's grounding. That was beyond fucking stupid and was inches away from a spectacular try being disallowed.

I thought at the ground that he had taken it out, and that's what the TMO was checking

 

[cyclopath]

I'm sure he will learn from this incident. The other aspect of maul play is that we pretty much all applaud as fans when a team takes a rolling maul from near halfway into the 22m zone. It is exciting rugby.

Not me, it's effective but I would not call it exciting.

 

[dusk]

I thought at the ground that he had taken it out, and that's what the TMO was checking

Do you mean if he had run into touch? Because yes thats what im refering too but also if he had placed the ball onto the line because when the tmo had reviewed it, it was like an inch away from the line.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Not sure if anyone has brought it up but there is no excuse for Foketi's grounding. That was beyond fucking stupid and was inches away from a spectacular try being disallowed.

Did you see Beauden Barrett do it? Made me feel warm on the inside.

 

[dusk]

Did you see Beauden Barrett do it? Made me feel warm on the inside.

Yep i did see that! Seriously don't know why he needed to show off (maybe he wasn't but nonetheless stupid) especially when playing the top side of super rugby. Side note, I think DMAC has now pushed himself to the number 2 10 in nz. Could def be argued that he is currently no 1 but thats for another discussion on a different thread.

 

[Brumbieman]

There is nothing too good about it either, the Raiders, Brumbies and ACT Football deserve better if equality of infrastructure is important. I think an equivalent of Forsyth Barr would be ideal.

As this is not a political forum I will not comment on his politics.

Does anyone know if he is the "number 1 member" that usually goes to a public figure?

Pocock is pushing for a new stadium in Civic where the pool is.

It's an absolute no brainer - 10-15000 people spilling out of a stadium 5mins walk from the city is infinitely better than a 20min bus ride out to a cold stadium with nothing around it. The issue seems to be parking space, but I don't think that really makes sense - plenty of public transport options to the city already, and if you're already in the city you don't need to then get out to the game.

I'd build exactly the same design as Bankwest in Parra, or maybe Forsyth Barr. Bankwest model but with a roof would be the best option as it would hold 30k so allows for longevity as Canberra grows, and also allow for Wallabies tests or big music concerts etc to be held there. Having a roof would be better as it keeps more heat in/dew out and increases the acoustics inside the stadium.

I was chatting about this with some of the Tahs fans and a few mates at the ground - after the fulltime siren, there were 3 options - taxi/Uber, Bus, or driving. If you've been on the cans you're not driving and it's a good 20-30mins at least back to the city due to all the traffic trying to get out of the same place. The busses have their own lanes and are free, and can be good fun keeping the vibe going, but generally I reckon 50% of people who were keen on kicking on after the game, change their minds by the time the bus gets back to Civic.

If you're a 5-10min walk from all the pubs in Civic/Braddon, that 50% who change their mind on the ride back would be in the bars and restaurants before they've finished having a rant about a bad ref call or raving over a good try, and the boost for the nightlife and local economy of the bars etc in Civic would be boosted by 1000%. Similar to the SFS and everyone piling out of there and into Surry Hills.

It's just such an absolute no brainer i've been ranting about for 10 years and still cant figure out why the hell anyone would think redeveloping Bruce makes sense.

 

[John S]

Do you mean if he had run into touch? Because yes thats what im refering too but also if he had placed the ball onto the line because when the tmo had reviewed it, it was like an inch away from the line.

Yeah that's what I meant

 

[Dismal Pillock]

we pretty much all applaud as fans when a team takes a rolling maul from near halfway into the 22m zone. It is exciting rugby.

 

[Lindommer]

This conversion just reiterates that the maul needs to be changed and is a flawed part of our game that directly opposes the spirit in which we play it

Too bloody right. Let's look at the Law on mauls:

"LAW 16 Maul The purpose of a maul is to allow players to compete for the ball, which is held off the ground.
FORMING A MAUL A maul can take place only in the field of play.
1. It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet."

HTF can the team without the ball compete for it in the modern iteration of the maul? It's usually so far back from the most forward opponent any semblance of competition's impossible. And, the Law quite clearly states the ball carrier must be bound to an opponent; this has also gone out the window.

Correctly officiated, once the ball's passed back so's the carrier doesn't have contact with an opponent it's obstruction. Call me pedantic, I plead guilty.

 

[Lindommer]

Pocock is pushing for a new stadium in Civic where the pool is.

Going back to rugbyskier's reply to me and his piccy of the proposed Christchurch stadium, a quick glance at the pool site and the FB Stadium seems to indicate their sizes are very similar. The new Chch one, dunno. I'm not an architect so happy to be corrected.

Bm, your sentiments about post-match behaviour are spot on. Imagine the crowd at BentSpoke if the new stadium was on the pool site.

 

[Tomthumb]

The Maul is the most Ludacris thing in any sport. It's obstruction that in that one random instance is somehow legal

There is no logical sense for it to be a legal play

 

[wamberal]

I'm sure he will learn from this incident. The other aspect of maul play is that we pretty much all applaud as fans when a team takes a rolling maul from near halfway into the 22m zone. It is exciting rugby.

Bullshit. We all applaud when players run with the ball in hand, or when a player executes a good tackle. That is the game of rugby. Rolling mauls are a a very recent "innovation". They are boring as batshit.

Defending players should be able to tackle the ball carrier, maul or no maul.

 

[Slim 293]

The Maul is the most Ludacris thing in any sport. It's obstruction that in that one random instance is somehow legal

There is no logical sense for it to be a legal play