Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
There already is: a loss
Rebels v Highlanders Rnd 6 Super Rugby 2012
- Thread starter Sir Arthur Higgins
- Start date
- Status
There already is: a loss
kronic
John Solomon (38)
Clearly isn't working then. I didn't mind the Fox Sports adjudicator's suggestion a few weeks back about Hill bringing a samurai sword to training and removing limbs.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
As he was for Joeys and indeed the Junior Tahs before he went to league; the point being that he had played a lot more rugby than Vuna did.
Yes, Vuna has toe and I have no objection to players being thrown in deep end if they have a sprinter's speed. The same applies to Davies at the Reds and whilst he is further along than Vuna is (he played for Oz Schools) the jury is still out on him - a long way out.
Without a Currie Cup or ITMC, to learn the game in, super coaches hope that such greyhounds can learn on the job when shoved into Super Rugby, but if they are struggling with the nous of it, there has to come a point when they are hooked for a while.
Vuna has no conception that a winger is a fullback helper and opponents know it. Playing club rugby when it starts up, and learning positional play, will be good for Vuna and the Rebels.
.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
There were some remarks about the merit of the Highlander forwards at the breakdown in the game and how they slowed the ball down when they wanted to and even earned turnovers.
Sometimes this year they won ball by making it unplayable because it's the team that is moving forward immediately before the log-jam that gets the scrum feed. It's how it should be because it rewards counter-rucking, If attackers, like the Rebels last night, get lazy and think they have a God-given right to keep their ball, they deserve to be punished by losing it.
Counter-rucking has been around since God's dog was a pup, but it went out of fashion when laws changed and the age of the fetchers arose. Now the crackdown on observing some of the laws as they were written is in vogue. Infractions like not releasing the tackled player, and falling on the wrong side of a tackle, are being pinged as in the olden times. Who would have thunk it?
The dividend from fetching is becoming risky. There will always be a place for skilled fetchers, whatever jersey number they wear, but now teams are not stopping at the ball in a ruck so much to fetch, or to assist the fetcher, but pushing through over the ball, and once there wreaking havoc. Their ruck binding becomes a bit dodgy if there is nobody left to push back and they emerge in the proximity of the poor scrummie. The Highlanders were doing this last night, again.
When referees see the robustness of the challenge they incline to allow it, even though some piss-ant law is being transgressed. They referee on the vibe of it. As mentioned, we have seen the Highlanders staggering forward out of their ruck binds into the real estate of the other team, like the All Blacks - and getting away with, not lazy running retreating, but lazy rucking advancing. Also, sometimes they start at the right gate but swing around the ruck changing their grips like teams do in mauls sometimes, and kick at the ball, or at least wheel the ruck a bit.
But I digress. Instead of whingeing about it Oz teams should do the same and cause some mischief themselves. To do that they have to get to the ruck first, and they don't: certainly not the Rebels last night.
The only Oz team which has a clue on the matter is the Force.
.
Sometimes this year they won ball by making it unplayable because it's the team that is moving forward immediately before the log-jam that gets the scrum feed. It's how it should be because it rewards counter-rucking, If attackers, like the Rebels last night, get lazy and think they have a God-given right to keep their ball, they deserve to be punished by losing it.
Counter-rucking has been around since God's dog was a pup, but it went out of fashion when laws changed and the age of the fetchers arose. Now the crackdown on observing some of the laws as they were written is in vogue. Infractions like not releasing the tackled player, and falling on the wrong side of a tackle, are being pinged as in the olden times. Who would have thunk it?
The dividend from fetching is becoming risky. There will always be a place for skilled fetchers, whatever jersey number they wear, but now teams are not stopping at the ball in a ruck so much to fetch, or to assist the fetcher, but pushing through over the ball, and once there wreaking havoc. Their ruck binding becomes a bit dodgy if there is nobody left to push back and they emerge in the proximity of the poor scrummie. The Highlanders were doing this last night, again.
When referees see the robustness of the challenge they incline to allow it, even though some piss-ant law is being transgressed. They referee on the vibe of it. As mentioned, we have seen the Highlanders staggering forward out of their ruck binds into the real estate of the other team, like the All Blacks - and getting away with, not lazy running retreating, but lazy rucking advancing. Also, sometimes they start at the right gate but swing around the ruck changing their grips like teams do in mauls sometimes, and kick at the ball, or at least wheel the ruck a bit.
But I digress. Instead of whingeing about it Oz teams should do the same and cause some mischief themselves. To do that they have to get to the ruck first, and they don't: certainly not the Rebels last night.
The only Oz team which has a clue on the matter is the Force.
.
C
Cave Dweller
Guest
Vuna was cited. Expect a ban coming up
- Status