Reds v Tahs Trial
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
- Status
T
TOCC
Guest
Lion said:
Well it depends, the Reds can only sign so many outside backs, Rokoburra came through the same time Reds Academyt backs Morahan, Toua, Lance and Tapuai.
Also he was playing rugby union, he was in the QLD II Schoolboys at the championships in 2007, behind the players i mentioned above.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
TOCC said:
You sure? Not that it matters a lot; it's how good he is now that's important. He's not in the 2007 programme. Sometimes players get replaced after the printing of the programme but I can't remember him.
Well, if he went to school in Oz I'm not too concerned about poaching him.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
i spoke to TC earlier today and he said that hickey asked the Tahs to underplay there hand, the fact they were still in the game actually had the coach quite pissed off, he wanted Queensland to get there inflated ego win earlier this year so it was out of them by the time round one rolled around, however he didnt anticipate it being so close at all.
he also said that its a running joke in the Tahs that Kingi and Genia are getting such big raps for there pass which he discribed as slower than george gregan in 20 years
he also said that its a running joke in the Tahs that Kingi and Genia are getting such big raps for there pass which he discribed as slower than george gregan in 20 years
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
waratahjesus said:
I call rubbish. That sort of psychology is nonsense. Maybe the odd play is kept back, the odd combination not shown but unbderplaying your hand? Codswallop. Crap excuse for losing.
Anyway can anyone who was at the game comment on the different interpretation at the breakdown and whether it allowed the game to flow more in any way?
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
Epi said:
havnt had much time to joke the last few years, having to play post regular season games and all, it was nice to have the same off season as the rest of the aussie super 4 teams for once, extra rest for the upcoming year
T
TOCC
Guest
Lee Grant said:
he at least made AICII in the QLD championship, from there i think i remember him been picked for QLDII but i guess he might of been injured
G
Geronimo
Guest
Blue said:
The new rules as I understand allow for the first man at the breakdown to continue to fight for the ball. I overheard a conversation after the game as to the Ref not allowing this to happen and that is why there were so many penalties in the first half. Can any one confirm this? As spectator says Tomiki came out and looked very promising, I think well short of a gallop and should improve, Andrew Shaw gave away a couple of silly penalties. The backs looked quite good across the board, Walsh's kicking (why did Fiainga and Kingi kick??) gave him the slight edge over Lucas while Lucas tackles with much more venom than Walsh. The centres did well and I gave Tapaui the points in attack and Anthony Faianga the
defensive points. Schatz and Higgers looked good as did a number of the props (Kennedy). Van, Byrnes and Simmons held there own and the lineouts went well. Hansen and Saia will have a good battle as the season progresses. Interestingly I thought Kingi didn't go as well as everyone else says. He got caught out a couple of times and on one occasion was turned over after a brain explosion that lead to a Tahs try. Must also remember the Tahs only made two changes at half time to combat a new Reds team. All in all a positive Reds performance.
G
Geronimo
Guest
I believe that is in response to the ridiculous situation that we saw on numerous occasions last year when the attacking team was penalised for some trivial misdemeanour when they were always going to win the ball. What I am talking about in my previous post is that at the breakdown the first player to get over the ball can keep his hands on it longer than previously allowed. Is this correct? Are there any refs browsing?
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
fatprop said:
Cheers that prompted me to listen to that podcast.
Well if the change in interpretation allows the phase play that made the Brumbies so effective in their golden years we should all get very worried. They have the backs to take advantage of quick ball and strike runners who can set it up.
I just hope we don't move from slowed down ball with lots of turnovers to even more penalties.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
That "new rule" is not new. Not brand new. The ruling was introduced in May 2009 and we had a big discussion at the time. We have seen it in 3N and on the EOYT, but we haven't seen it in Super rugby yet.
In retrospect it is a silly ruling because it gives the tackler an advantage he didn't have before, and let's think if our game really needs defenders to be advantaged more. No, I don't think so either.
On another thread .....
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/index.php?topic=9775.0;all
..... we talked about the proposed crackdown on tacklers not releasing tackled players in this year's S14, and the tacklers using them as leverage to get themselves up to a starfish position. If this is enforced the silly hands in ruling won't matter so much because a lot of the "hands in" incidents would have been tainted anyway from the earlier no releasing crackdown.
So a heap of those hands in tacklers should be penalised a split second earlier. That's the theory but let's not hold out breath. Much better to delete the silly ruling or tweak the law with a few words.
I don't think that Brumby Ball will make a comeback. Despite the claims by referees that this crackdown and that crackdown will take place people are killing the ball a lot more than the were 10 years ago. Teams are too scared to hold the ball too long and especially in their own half.
If they're not persuaded by that they look at the success of SA rugby recently. Sure they have some great players but their percentage play of kicking high and waiting for mistakes - playing without the ball rugby - is getting a lot of dividends provided teams have good long kickers from hand, good kick chasers and vitally, good goal kickers, including field goal kickers.
There's no percentage in Brumby Ball these days.
In retrospect it is a silly ruling because it gives the tackler an advantage he didn't have before, and let's think if our game really needs defenders to be advantaged more. No, I don't think so either.
On another thread .....
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/index.php?topic=9775.0;all
..... we talked about the proposed crackdown on tacklers not releasing tackled players in this year's S14, and the tacklers using them as leverage to get themselves up to a starfish position. If this is enforced the silly hands in ruling won't matter so much because a lot of the "hands in" incidents would have been tainted anyway from the earlier no releasing crackdown.
So a heap of those hands in tacklers should be penalised a split second earlier. That's the theory but let's not hold out breath. Much better to delete the silly ruling or tweak the law with a few words.
I don't think that Brumby Ball will make a comeback. Despite the claims by referees that this crackdown and that crackdown will take place people are killing the ball a lot more than the were 10 years ago. Teams are too scared to hold the ball too long and especially in their own half.
If they're not persuaded by that they look at the success of SA rugby recently. Sure they have some great players but their percentage play of kicking high and waiting for mistakes - playing without the ball rugby - is getting a lot of dividends provided teams have good long kickers from hand, good kick chasers and vitally, good goal kickers, including field goal kickers.
There's no percentage in Brumby Ball these days.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
So Lee you are in effect suggesting that if Brumbie Ball is one one end of the sectrum and SA Ball circa 2009 is on the other, this interretation will only slightly move us back on that spectrum but on the balance the hot potato attitude will prevail?
I guess time will tell but I hope we aren't adding yet another varibale that the ref will interpret differently...
I guess time will tell but I hope we aren't adding yet another varibale that the ref will interpret differently...
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
More or less.
In the sense that on the one hand a team keeps the ball phase after phase - and on the other hand another team kicks a lot of their possession away to get good field position and feed off mistakes - yeah, they are the extremes as far as use of possession is concerned.
It is not as simple as that we know: the Brumbies did a lot more than recycle the ball, and we know that the Bulls and Boks do more than just hoist and chase and pounce. They were/are just team signatures, but they are signatures written on a tapestry created by laws and the interpretation of them, plus the conventions that referees use (those top referees are doing this and that so we will do this and that, even allow the ball to be put into the scrum skew.)
Brumby Ball was marginalised by opponents finding ways to kill the ball - tackling and sliding down the opponents side of the tackle, tackling and not releasing yet standing up and fishing for the ball all in one motion, never releasing - (and we had to listen to commentators say "what a great player"). The laws to stop that were there but the referees wanted the game to flow and they let it go more and more each year until we have what we have today.
It was also marginalised by a law variation allowing the tackler to stay on the opponents side of the tackle. That was a killer of Brumby Ball. I was never a great fan of Brumby Ball but now we are at the other extreme, whereby retention is too risky and the ping pong prevails.
If this new tactic of the SANZAR refs - to enforce the law whereby tacklers have to let go of the ball and the tackled player as the first item in the tackle transaction, perhaps teams will not be as concerned as they are now about losing the ball on contact.
Maybe then the ping pong will stop; maybe then teams will find that there is a dividend from holding onto and using the ball and not hoisting it for the other team to stuff up.
Yes it is another variable - but it should never have become one: the law requiring hands away first was there all the time, and only sad Don Quixote characters like yours truly questioned the convention of ignoring it. They saw the escalation and tilted at the windmill and nobody noticed.
We should beware of laws and their precursors, ELVs, because they have unexpected consequences. But hardly anybody mentions the consequences of referees ignoring the laws, or of interpreting them in a way they feel is better for the game.
After watching rugby for more decades than I care to remember I reckon that such referees hardly ever improved the game at all.
In the sense that on the one hand a team keeps the ball phase after phase - and on the other hand another team kicks a lot of their possession away to get good field position and feed off mistakes - yeah, they are the extremes as far as use of possession is concerned.
It is not as simple as that we know: the Brumbies did a lot more than recycle the ball, and we know that the Bulls and Boks do more than just hoist and chase and pounce. They were/are just team signatures, but they are signatures written on a tapestry created by laws and the interpretation of them, plus the conventions that referees use (those top referees are doing this and that so we will do this and that, even allow the ball to be put into the scrum skew.)
Brumby Ball was marginalised by opponents finding ways to kill the ball - tackling and sliding down the opponents side of the tackle, tackling and not releasing yet standing up and fishing for the ball all in one motion, never releasing - (and we had to listen to commentators say "what a great player"). The laws to stop that were there but the referees wanted the game to flow and they let it go more and more each year until we have what we have today.
It was also marginalised by a law variation allowing the tackler to stay on the opponents side of the tackle. That was a killer of Brumby Ball. I was never a great fan of Brumby Ball but now we are at the other extreme, whereby retention is too risky and the ping pong prevails.
If this new tactic of the SANZAR refs - to enforce the law whereby tacklers have to let go of the ball and the tackled player as the first item in the tackle transaction, perhaps teams will not be as concerned as they are now about losing the ball on contact.
Maybe then the ping pong will stop; maybe then teams will find that there is a dividend from holding onto and using the ball and not hoisting it for the other team to stuff up.
Yes it is another variable - but it should never have become one: the law requiring hands away first was there all the time, and only sad Don Quixote characters like yours truly questioned the convention of ignoring it. They saw the escalation and tilted at the windmill and nobody noticed.
We should beware of laws and their precursors, ELVs, because they have unexpected consequences. But hardly anybody mentions the consequences of referees ignoring the laws, or of interpreting them in a way they feel is better for the game.
After watching rugby for more decades than I care to remember I reckon that such referees hardly ever improved the game at all.
- Status