French Six Nations Grand Slam?
- Thread starter Jethro Tah
- Start date
- Status
J
Jury
Guest
I didn't make it to the game, but got to watch it with a French mate at his place. I thought it was a great game and England were right in it until the end. I agree with other posters on Lawrence's performance around the scrum, but the French pack pretty much outclassed the Pommie one. I thought this game might be a kick fest, but I found it pretty engrossing. Well played France. Deserved winners imho.
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
macg101 said:
We've seen some tight affairs in the Super 14 this year. One that sticks out in my mind was the Stormers/Brumbies game. It wasn't a 3-0 type affair, but the game was defined by tough and uncompromising defence for the most part. The interpretations as seen are not the cause for the high scores. Ultimately, its how the team chooses to play the game. I am irritable about northern hemisphere scribes and their pundits banging on about how the chiefs and the lions put up 130 points and then ascribing that to the rules. I am annoyed because it's not an opinion formed logically, nor based on evidence. It's an opinion that has been formed because they've looked at the scores and not done any more research than that. Have you done any more research, such as watching some of the games from the Super 14 this year?
What is relevant is that the team (note: singular) that has had 70 points put up against them (twice) is notoriously bad at defence. No interpretation of the rules is going to matter when a team just doesn't tackle well. What has happened is good teams are beating weak teams soundly, and good teams are having tight contests with good teams. I'm sure that similar things occur in the Northern Hemisphere.
If you will observe from my original post, my comment of 'how the game is supposed to be played' followed directly after a statement of how teams are turning over the ball at the moment. That is, they are pinching it off runners without support and they are counter rucking to good effect. That means that players need to support their runners and commit their pigs to the breakdown. Are these not elements of the game that people in the Northern Hemisphere cherish in the game?
I am sorry if you found my tone condescending or patronising, but it is a position I would take with anyone who I perceive to be running their mouth off about something that they have not observed themselves. What we have seen in the Super 14 is a number of teams trying new things with the laws to work out what works and what doesn't. Before the tournament started, no-one was sure how the rules would be best played, and now we have some idea of how they are. Further, many of the northern hemisphere scribes have lamented the transition of the game into a kick-fest, and attempted to blame that on the ELVs (which again, is mistaken). These interpretations have changed that; disregarding scores, it has resulted in a game played more with ball in hand. This in turn has placed more emphasis on defence and the physical elements of the game. But, there is still tactical kicking, the set pieces are still important (arguably more so, since they offer a genuine chance to gain possession) and there are still turnovers - they just require teamwork rather than individual efforts. What is played down here is still rugby, it is anything but league and to deride it as such will draw condescending and patronising responses from supporters of the 15 man game here.
So instead of being narky about my attitude perhaps you should a) watch some Super 14 before commenting on it, b) actually read my post next time and observe where I use the phrases that you seem to be getting your nose out of joint about and c) realise that posting abrasive comments (such as the inference that we are playing a variation of league down here) will draw equally abrasive responses and if you choose to do so in future, harden up.
M
macg101
Guest
James Buchanan said:
Alright ok ok ok I withdraw the league comment!! I rectract!
Jesus im not going to have an argument on the internet... let shake hands and be done with it, alright? Agree to disagree? like good chaps!
Just chilax a bit more man.. you'll lose your mind!
M
macg101
Guest
DPK said:
Ah he deserves to win this one to be honest! I just unleashed some sort of rugby animal that I wasn't ready for. I don't think my employers would appreciate me clocking up time trying to dig my way out of a hole on an internet blog!
Throw away comments - 0
Super 14 Rugby Blogger - 7 (converted try)
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
Hold on, James; the biggest reasons for the kick-fest have been two things.
One isn't an ELV, but was a toy-throwing reaction to them not all being accepted - Paddy O'Brien's unilateral decision to say that you could keep your hands on the ball in a ruck. The new ruling on the tackle has largely just been a part reversal of that. We'd do better to reverse it in toto; ruck = hands-out, end of. Simple, clear, enforceable, and how it always was until O'Braindead started dicking around.
The other one is an ELV, the 22 ELV. Now, with a good kick-chase, teams can't clear their lines as they used be able to, so you gain ground when they kick it back to you, and ideally possession when they mis-kick or kick to touch. I was in favour of this one, but it hasn't worked; rather, it's been a perfect example of unintended consequences.
We should have binned this one, and the one about receivers having to be out of the lineout (why create new offences, FFS?) and kept the no numbers at the lineout one (which I thought was working perfectly, and with the maul back had potential to be an absolute cracker).
One isn't an ELV, but was a toy-throwing reaction to them not all being accepted - Paddy O'Brien's unilateral decision to say that you could keep your hands on the ball in a ruck. The new ruling on the tackle has largely just been a part reversal of that. We'd do better to reverse it in toto; ruck = hands-out, end of. Simple, clear, enforceable, and how it always was until O'Braindead started dicking around.
The other one is an ELV, the 22 ELV. Now, with a good kick-chase, teams can't clear their lines as they used be able to, so you gain ground when they kick it back to you, and ideally possession when they mis-kick or kick to touch. I was in favour of this one, but it hasn't worked; rather, it's been a perfect example of unintended consequences.
We should have binned this one, and the one about receivers having to be out of the lineout (why create new offences, FFS?) and kept the no numbers at the lineout one (which I thought was working perfectly, and with the maul back had potential to be an absolute cracker).
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
Biffo said:
This - http://essexrugbyrefs.com/?p=369 - is the first one I found. Note that the NZRU asked when you have to leave go; and O'Brien decided to make it that you didn't have to, in plain violence to the words of Law 16 (4) - because if you're one of the two players who make up the formation of the ruck, you're in the ruck, and you therefore can't play the ball with your hands. If you have it in your hands before the ruck forms, it's off the ground and held by a player - and so it's a maul, not a ruck. And note the difference even between the ruling - "in their hands prior to contact" - and O'Braindead's version - "...his hands on the ball prior to a ruck being formed may continue to attempt to play/win the ball "
In other words, Paddy decided, off his own bat, to throw the "no hands in the ruck" law which was actually working out the door, and introduce a spoilers' charter. Hence the crackdown to sort out the problem he caused.
I'll get the proper link and put it up - and here's the link for the PDF. http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/englishrulings_9202.pdf It's even clearer in this one, when you read it, that if the player on his feet isn't in possession he must release the ball when the ruck forms - which is not what O'Braindead said it said, but rather the exact opposite. O'Braindead said you could "continue to attempt to play/win the ball"; the actual ruling made it clear that if you didn't have possession when it formed - not just hands on, but possession - you couldn't continue to attempt to play/win the ball.
So, the brutal truth of it is this; the IRB's chief ref didn't know what the laws said. And inflicted his - demonstrably wrong - version of it on all of us.
Note, it's not ratified or voted on by anyone at the IRB meetings; it's Paddy O'Braindead, off on a frolic of his own.
D
djoudy68
Guest
Thomond 78 :
I'm not Albigeois , I'm Alsacien.
I'm not Albigeois , I'm Alsacien.
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
macg101:
No worries mate, my ire on the matter is more directed to the commentaries of the Northern Hemisphere scribes who appear to be partaking in the worst form of parochialism. I've generally got a lot of time for Northern Hemisphere rugby, I was most often a prop who's greatest strength was the scrum in my playing days. But, I don't have much time at all for anyone who chooses to denigrate something without informing themselves about it first, whether that's to do with rugby, politics, current affairs or whatever.
Apology accepted, agree to disagree and all that. Just, do watch some Super 14; it's not bad, I promise
Fair points, although I would counter that somewhat by noting that the game was already trending in that direction prior to any ELV involvement eg: Argentina in WC2007. And although I recognise it was probably intended humorously, I'd say the link between Obrien and the ELVs you made there is tenuous at best, but it's probably because I am not a fan of one and a fan generally of the other.
However, it is more the conjunction between those two rulings that has caused the problem we have seen. I would argue that the 22 ELV is not strictly a problem, unless there is a problem with retaining the ball once you have taken possession of it. Generally under the new interpretations of the tackle situation, this isn't a problem. While the 22 ELV is a contributing factor, I would argue that the cause of the recent degradation was O'Brien's interpretation, which was unfortunately introduced in or around the time that some of the ELVs were introduced.
As for the no hands in the ruck thing, while I am not opposed to it as its how I always played, I think it's a nice ideal but not something that has actually occurred in a very long time at the highest level; there's been balls miraculously coming out of the messiest of rucks for a goodly time now. I think the current interpretations takes a more realistic approach to how the game is actually played now without detracting from the objectives of the ruck.
No worries mate, my ire on the matter is more directed to the commentaries of the Northern Hemisphere scribes who appear to be partaking in the worst form of parochialism. I've generally got a lot of time for Northern Hemisphere rugby, I was most often a prop who's greatest strength was the scrum in my playing days. But, I don't have much time at all for anyone who chooses to denigrate something without informing themselves about it first, whether that's to do with rugby, politics, current affairs or whatever.
Apology accepted, agree to disagree and all that. Just, do watch some Super 14; it's not bad, I promise
Thomond78 said:
Fair points, although I would counter that somewhat by noting that the game was already trending in that direction prior to any ELV involvement eg: Argentina in WC2007. And although I recognise it was probably intended humorously, I'd say the link between Obrien and the ELVs you made there is tenuous at best, but it's probably because I am not a fan of one and a fan generally of the other.
However, it is more the conjunction between those two rulings that has caused the problem we have seen. I would argue that the 22 ELV is not strictly a problem, unless there is a problem with retaining the ball once you have taken possession of it. Generally under the new interpretations of the tackle situation, this isn't a problem. While the 22 ELV is a contributing factor, I would argue that the cause of the recent degradation was O'Brien's interpretation, which was unfortunately introduced in or around the time that some of the ELVs were introduced.
As for the no hands in the ruck thing, while I am not opposed to it as its how I always played, I think it's a nice ideal but not something that has actually occurred in a very long time at the highest level; there's been balls miraculously coming out of the messiest of rucks for a goodly time now. I think the current interpretations takes a more realistic approach to how the game is actually played now without detracting from the objectives of the ruck.
P
PhucNgo
Guest
Thomond78 said:
I'd suggest that its a little less clearcut than this. I'd posit that in fact kickathons have developed primarily as a counter to increasingly more robust defensive lines coupled with the unacceptably high risk of the team in possession of the ball losing possession at the breakdown. I think we've seen that under the rule re-interpretations that there is a positive advantage in having possession and that the kick-chase is really only an advantage when executed well. I'd like to say that this has naturally led to a decrease in its prevalence but don't have the stats (nor the inclination). I'd say tho that its now not the only option available and on balance that the two (the 22 ELV and breakdown interpretation) complement each other well.
Reverting to the old rules at this stage would therefore be a retrograde step in that, like it or not, Rugby as a professional sport does compete for public attention and the stop-start nature of play under the old rules doesn't really cut it this century.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
Fair point about Argentina, James - dodgy SH types that they are :fishing. But the thing is, if the primary task is, first do no harm, they failed. There was no reason to create those new lineout offences, for example. And the problem with the 22 ELV can be shown by the response to a kickathon. If the oppo had a poor lineout, and you had a good one, you'd take the ball outside your 22, pass it back, gain forty or fifty yards and attack their lineout. The Bokke would have done that, instead of a kickathon. Net result, at least it wasn't ping-pong, and the team attacking the oppo lineout were at least trying to do something, rather than just waiting for a fumble or mis-kick to do it for them.
The 22 ELV looked like a good idea. I was initially in favour of it. It was right to try it, but it didn't work. Such is life. It shouldn't have been kept.
I was initially against no numbers. It worked. It should have been kept.
And you're right that the combination of the 22 ELV and O'Braindead's frolic was the killer. In fact, last season, there was a crack-down on hands-in and off-your-feet up here, and it worked. So why he then undid all that good work moving it back to what everyone knows works and what everyone wants is beyond me.
And if the players aren't abiding by hands-in - penalise the bastards. And then bin them. And tell the crowds why you're cracking down it. They'll stop when it costs them games. And then you'll get better games again. Because, to answer PhucNgo's point, it's essentially what happened in the NH last season. You got more forwards being committed by both sides; attackers because they had to drive over it to get the ball safe, defenders because they had a realistic chance of turning it over. The result was more forwards, on their feet, in the ruck - and fewer hanging out wide, cutting off space and overlaps for the backs to run at. And, best of all, proper rucked-over ball is fast - and when you blitz over it, with the defence resetting and back-pedalling, the mis-matches, doglegs and slowed-down defensive lines leave opportunities for a good attack to exploit.
The 22 ELV looked like a good idea. I was initially in favour of it. It was right to try it, but it didn't work. Such is life. It shouldn't have been kept.
I was initially against no numbers. It worked. It should have been kept.
And you're right that the combination of the 22 ELV and O'Braindead's frolic was the killer. In fact, last season, there was a crack-down on hands-in and off-your-feet up here, and it worked. So why he then undid all that good work moving it back to what everyone knows works and what everyone wants is beyond me.
And if the players aren't abiding by hands-in - penalise the bastards. And then bin them. And tell the crowds why you're cracking down it. They'll stop when it costs them games. And then you'll get better games again. Because, to answer PhucNgo's point, it's essentially what happened in the NH last season. You got more forwards being committed by both sides; attackers because they had to drive over it to get the ball safe, defenders because they had a realistic chance of turning it over. The result was more forwards, on their feet, in the ruck - and fewer hanging out wide, cutting off space and overlaps for the backs to run at. And, best of all, proper rucked-over ball is fast - and when you blitz over it, with the defence resetting and back-pedalling, the mis-matches, doglegs and slowed-down defensive lines leave opportunities for a good attack to exploit.
- Status