G
galumay
Guest
whoops another try that probably shouldnt have been!
Crusaders v Chiefs Round 1 2016
- Thread starter waiopehu oldboy
- Start date
- Status
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Mo'unga shoulda got that.
G
galumay
Guest
I really like the look of McKenzie, has got a lot of ticker for a little bloke, scored that try like a forward!
teach
Trevor Allan (34)
And there is nothing wrong with that. He is probably one of the senior leaders too. Good on him for sticking around. He doesn't seem to be lacking for pace either.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Boys can't come back on so who goes to 7?
G
galumay
Guest
mmmm...another dubious try from a likely illegal rolling maul!
Quite an entertaining match, happy to see the Chiefs get up, the 'Saders showed the depth of NZ rugby, so many legends gone yet such a polished and powerful team!
Quite an entertaining match, happy to see the Chiefs get up, the 'Saders showed the depth of NZ rugby, so many legends gone yet such a polished and powerful team!
G
galumay
Guest
If players join the back of the maul, behind the ball carrier, the ball has to be passed, hand to hand back to the hindmost player bound to the maul.
In nearly all cases this round teams have scored with the ball carrier near or at the front of the Maul, clearly illegal.
The Tah's just got it right against the reds, and in fact you could hear the players calling it, they didnt try to really push over the line until they had confirmed the ball was in the hands of the hindmost player bound to the maul.
G
galumay
Guest
...the difference in the rule is that you used to be able to move the ball carrier to the back of the maul, now you have to move the ball.
G
galumay
Guest
I may be wrong, but there was nothing in the relevant rule (17) about players not being able to slide back. My understanding is that the application of the rules have been modified for the southern hemisphere to prevent it and specify that it has to be through the hands.
Happy to be corrected if I am wrong!
paraphrasing.
A player must be bound to the maul with their arm at all times. If you are sliding back you are not bound.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Ok, I still haven't seen a law that says the ball HAS to be with the last man, I thought the idea of making them pass it back by hand was the only change in law. If you have to have a screen of players in front of ball carrier it is a shit rule in my opinion!! certainly wasn't how I read the change.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
MAUL
Law 17.3
The ball can be moved backwards hand-to-hand once the maul has formed. A Player is not allowed
to move/slide to the back of the maul when he is in possession of the ball (PK).
This is from the World rugby rule changes press release, I cannot see where it says you have to take ball to back of maul! As I said before it just says if you do it has to be by hand! I personally think the refs have got it right (again) and the experts on tv and internet maybe wrong!
Law 17.3
The ball can be moved backwards hand-to-hand once the maul has formed. A Player is not allowed
to move/slide to the back of the maul when he is in possession of the ball (PK).
This is from the World rugby rule changes press release, I cannot see where it says you have to take ball to back of maul! As I said before it just says if you do it has to be by hand! I personally think the refs have got it right (again) and the experts on tv and internet maybe wrong!
G
galumay
Guest
You could well be right on reflection, they were definitely saying it was illegal because the ball carrier was REMAINING at the front of the maul - that seems irrelevant to the rule change.
G
galumay
Guest
Ok, semantics really. The law didnt speak to the issue directley, its does now.
Dismal Pillock
David Codey (61)
Great to see the Crudenator back running the cutter. Damn I ended up pulling for Chiffs so he'd get one over Andy Ellis for being such a niggly tool
quiet game for Ngatai but I 76% expected him to have a say in the clutch and there he was, winning final T.O at ruck. That player has just got IT. Not flashy with pace to burn etc but the rugby IQ, right place, right time, right play. I'd have no issue with him given a decent burl in the centre's for AB's
quiet game for Ngatai but I 76% expected him to have a say in the clutch and there he was, winning final T.O at ruck. That player has just got IT. Not flashy with pace to burn etc but the rugby IQ, right place, right time, right play. I'd have no issue with him given a decent burl in the centre's for AB's
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Yeah, Cruden was about the only positive I took away from this one. As I feared we had no real penetration in midfield & Mo'unga looked like a good provincial player struggling to step up to Super Rugby level.
As soon as I heard Pollock telling our manager that as Prinsep was going off concussed, wouldn't be back & wasn't bleeding therefore Boys couldn't come back on, even for 10 min, I suspected we were about to get rolled..........
As for Ngatai, he's already a Maori All Black so why not? Crotty's crocked so it's between him & Moala, I'd have thought, at least for the June Tests.
Anyways, I duly arrive at Aunty-in-law's 60th, the yard is full of people from Chiefs territory so I take a deep breath & prepare for the mocking. Strangely it lacked the intensity of previous mockings, perhaps their now being 8/11 in recent times & 4/5 at AMI it's no longer that big of a deal for them.............
Currently working on Chapter 1 of the Blues Rugby Dynasty 2016-2106 or whatever the fuck it looks like I'll have to produce after nek week
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Pretty sure the ball doesn't have to be moved back in the maul. Just that if players join behind the carrier, they can't move ahead of him/he can't slide backwards, the ball has to go backwards independently.
- Status