Reds v Brumbies - Super Rugby Round 7 2012

[Cave Dweller]

Does anyone have a link to the TMO rules?

Lions v Cheetahs they went up to the TMO, Mark Lawrence was heard saying over mic watching the replay on the big screen that if the player was in touch simultaneously when they put the football down for a try then it is no try. That's what happened and no try was given. I'd like to know because I thought at best Higgers was a simultaneous situation also. Consistency as per usual seems to be an issue.

Look over at this site
http://www.sareferees.com/News/expanding-the-tmoacutes-scope/2829585/

 

[Cat_A]

Why? I reckon it word give him an education. We need to start a "Bruce for Journo" campain!!!!

Don't you dare- his work on dissecting the processes of journalism is too brilliant to take away from this site!!

Bruce: PLEASE NEVER WRITE FOR "CREDIBLE" OUTLETS!!

 

[MrMouse]

Don't know how anyone can be "definite" about that try - if it was definite we'd all agree and the TMO would have said no try. It's possible to have a strong opinion, but I doubt that even if they were high speed cameras fed into a digital 3d imaging program to rotate the view you'd get to definite. A lot happened pretty much simultaneously.

Meh as a neutral it was definitely no try

 

[vidiot]

As I sat in the stadium diagonally opposite and >100m away and waited for someone - anyone - to provide more beers it was definitely a try. In the cold light of sobriety I am still 51% definite.

 

[fatprop]

Finally watched the game last night, some thoughts

strange game, no rhythm, lots of turnovers, most of the game played between the 22s, Brumbies really unlucky to be down some far early but the Reds took their limited chances

Brumbies
Should have started Hooper, because they didn't they played very narrow and were easy to defend against.
Nic White really looks the business, loved his wide pass, loved his flat pass, loved his good kicking game and sniping
Dan Palmer has got fit and worked well - much less a pot plant
Mogg got found out a bit, he looks like Drew Mitchell when he first started, needs to work on his strength in the tackle

Reds
Much better effort from the Reds pigs, they attacked the ball and got a load of turnovers
Lane was very adroit for his first game, I wonder where he will finish up next season
Horwill was back, nice to see
Hanson was very effective as well
Higgenbottom reminds me of Adam Thompson, mobile, effective in looser games and gets the to the big play, but without the heavy lifting component that is required at test level for a quality 6/8 (see the workrate of Kaino, Ried etc). But he definitely has that something.

 

[Scotty]

He seems the best we have (higgers) based on form. There arent many Kainos and Reids around the world!

 

[fatprop]

He seems the best we have (higgers) based on form. There arent many Kainos and Reids around the world!

Whitelock is up their as well, as is a few of these Bok monsters

Higgers clearly has form at S15 level, but that is the same with Thompson. He was able to seagull because they had two opensides on the ball, with the Highlanders it is having a 6 play at lock to get the on ball mobility

To play him you will need a backrow loaded with workers to allow him the freedom to do his thing. We can afford that against lessor sides, but starting against the Boks & ABs? dunno.

 

[vidiot]

Higgers is still growing into his game. More grunt this year than last, maybe because he had to in the earlier games this season. Don't know whether that will translate into effectiveness at test level.

 

[wamberal]

I would like to see Saffy in the mix, on the bench to tighten up the D in the last quarter of the game. While the seagulls have their flutter.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Meh as a neutral it was definitely no try

Tahs aren't neutral.

 

[MrMouse]

Let me put it this way...if it was the Tahs, I wouldn't expect it but I would accept it

 

[emuarse]

OK. Have watched the replay now. What a great grinding win by the boys. Hopefully this will give the Reds some confidence for the rest of the season.

My thoughts (some maybe repeated from the previous posters but I will try not to).

Reds:
- Lane looks good. Cramping towards the end of the game and sucking in the big ones at times. Hopefully fitness will improve. Has done a lot for his stock value in that one game. Settled in well after the nerves wore off.
- Toua did well in defence. Was limping at the end of the game so I hope to god that it was just some cramp rather then another injury.
- Taps is going to have to be careful with his tackles. He has been lifting a few times this season and it will only be a matter of time before something goes wrong, or a JO takes exception. But wow - Those quads!!!! That is where the power is.
- Genia gets frustrated when crowded. I think that the Irish showed how to play him and teams have picked up on it.
- Hanson has made a claim for the #1 hooker spot.
- Slipper was absolutely empty by the end of the game.
- Higgers has been by far and away the best Reds player this year. Long may it continue. Loved the Robbo, Gill & Higgers backrow. They seemed to complement each other well.
- Shipperly has cemented his spot on the wing. Can even pack into a scrum at flanker if necessary.
- Horwill's nose wasn't bleeding at the end of the game.
- Chase the f*^&%$g kicks would you!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Higgers try #2 - I HATE THE CHIP KICK! Even when it is successful I still hate it. (I am starting to sound like Kernsy, but he is right it rarely comes off.) Well done Davies for the pass though.
- Reds tackling degraded in the second half.

Brums:
- Mogg has found his razor. Yay!!!!! Shows a wonderful turn of speed. He is going to be scary good at 15. His kicking is coming along nicely.... very Berniesque.
- White had a good game.
- Hooper and Gill played well. They both had brain farts as you can expect from young players. Gill just got a 12 min rest for his.

Ref:
- I was giving Walshy dig rap before the game to the blokes I was there with. Well, live it didn't look that good, but from the replay maybe he can be forgiven. Although it wasn't his best, it was not the worse ref preformance from the weekend. His handling of the breakdown wasn't good, but it was consistant so you can't complain. Called one forward that wasn't but missed one that wasn't so that evened out.
- Higgers try #1 - Live I initally thought yes. On replays I thought maybe not. I think the call could have gone either way. Instantenious. (I know it is not spelt right but I am to lazy to look it up OK.) Though call for the TMO. Robbo, Davies, Taps and Higgers all need raps for the try though.
- Palmer and Daley lucky not to be dealing with a White card. Well handled by Walsh. Handbags at 40 paces.
- Is it a ruck if there is no oposition pushing against you? I thought not. How then should this be handled in the laws? Not bitching, just asking.

Quote of the game:
Marto - "It's like a game of speed dating. Every week he [Will] has a different 5/8."

With regard to your question of is it a ruck if there is no opposition pushing against you, I am assuming you probably mean a maul.
The rules of rugby from the IRB state as follows:

Law 16 Ruck

Definition

A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball.......


Law 17 Maul

Definition

A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team........

In either case you have to have opposition player(s) involved, and if you don't, it is neither a ruck nor a maul. If the ball is being held by a player behind the front player in a maul, then there is confusion in that if an opposition player attempts to reach the ball, it is instantly a maul. but if no one engages, then could it be construed as shepherding the ball?

Any opinions here?

 

[suckerforred]

With regard to your question of is it a ruck if there is no opposition pushing against you, I am assuming you probably mean a maul.
The rules of rugby from the IRB state as follows:
?

Was specifically thinking about rucks:

"A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground"

Quite a few times that season we have seem a pile of the attacking team with the ball at the back of them, but no defending team therefore stricty not a ruck, or a maul. Should this be treated differently in the laws of the game?

 

[Sully]

The ruck was formed but the defending player left?

 

[suckerforred]

The ruck was formed but the defending player left?

Yes. Usually tackle completed and then tackler(s) leave.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

With regard to your question of is it a ruck if there is no opposition pushing against you, I am assuming you probably mean a maul.
The rules of rugby from the IRB state as follows:

In either case you have to have opposition player(s) involved, and if you don't, it is neither a ruck nor a maul. If the ball is being held by a player behind the front player in a maul, then there is confusion in that if an opposition player attempts to reach the ball, it is instantly a maul. but if no one engages, then could it be construed as shepherding the ball?

Any opinions here?

With the maul situation its called a "flying wedge" the Bulls got penalised for it in the Saders game. Bulls won their lineout, brought it down to maul it but no Saders even touched a Bulls player in this attempted maul, in fact they stood back. So what you ended up with was a Bulls player with the ball at the back of several team mates thus obstructing the Saders illegally. The SA commentators also identified it as a "flying wedge". I'd say yes it is a form of shepherding as you say because if you're the ball carrier you're using team mates to prevent to opposition to get the ball despite the fact that their is no maul & is supposed to be open play.

 

[Sully]

Yes. Usually tackle completed and then tackler(s) leave.

No expert but I think that still counts as a ruck.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Yes. Usually tackle completed and then tackler(s) leave.

The ruck/maul starts with opposing players in contact over the ball, and finishes when the ball leaves.

 

[Penguin]

He's the dude from the last couple
of years, he is good. The other guys they've had this year aren't nearly
as good.

Announcer dude, if you are reading this, can you go back to screaming like a lunatic, "this is our time" as the reds run out.? Always gets everyone psyched.

I might be in the minority on this but I can't stand the bloke, then again I can't stand the radio announcers on commercial radio either & I think he must have gone to the same school. I much prefer the old days when the crowd just got involved on their own accord when the play warranted it.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I might be in the minority on this but I can't stand the bloke, then again I can't stand the radio announcers on commercial radio either & I think he must have gone to the same school. I much prefer the old days when the crowd just got involved on their own accord when the play warranted it.

What he's done the last two seasons has actually worked. Most other things they've tried have not.

Broadcasting the pissweak world dancers around the stadium just weirds people out, and the start of this game deserved a lot more crowd involvement than it got.

The Volvo stuff is very lame. McDonald's promo was terrible.

Also, it was better last year when the teams ran out near my seats!