• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

RWC: WAL v URU (Millenium) Pool D

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardiffblue

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
the plastic paddy said:
Which combination of Orc locks would you be happiest to see, CB? For me it would be Launchbury and Lawes that AWJ and Charteris can best out intellect. The most dangerous Orc combination would be Parling and Launchbury but I can't see him leaving out Lawes. I hope Lee is fit because I would love to see him hand Marler or the fat c'nt Vunipola their Arse. It looks like bandy legs is going to be ok and there are doubts over Joseph for them.
Click to expand...
Spot on. We've gotta go for charteris. My only teeensey weensey worry is the beef on their bench. Don't want a repeat of 6n
 
Omar Comin'

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Not sure what the ref was penalising Uruguay for there. Seemed 100% legitimate to me and a great tactic to counter a dominant maul. Last I heard you were allowed to tackle someone around the legs. As they stood back a maul had not been formed.

Teams like Uruguay should do this every single time.
 
mxyzptlk

mxyzptlk

Colin Windon (37)
Dewald Nel said:
Springboks got pinged for exactly that by Garces, even though we made contact as well - and rightly so. Why was the above let go?
Click to expand...

I don't think Wales makes any contact until they start rolling forward, and then one Uruguayan hand touches the shoulder of Wales 21, then the Uruguayan backs off. As I understand it, if there's no contact made, the maul can't go forward (because it's not a maul), so I have no idea why Uruguay was penalized there.
 
Dewald Nel

Dewald Nel

Cyril Towers (30)
mxyzptlk said:
I don't think Wales makes any contact until they start rolling forward, and then one Uruguayan hand touches the shoulder of Wales 21, then the Uruguayan backs off. As I understand it, if there's no contact made, the maul can't go forward (because it's not a maul), so I have no idea why Uruguay was penalized there.
Click to expand...


I mean we got pinged for the ball carrier not being at the front - we actually made contact! It looked exactly like that.
 
Dewald Nel

Dewald Nel

Cyril Towers (30)
ChargerWA said:
Oh god Dewald, don't get bent out of shape over inconsistent maul rulings. You'll go insane.
Click to expand...


I won't, and I got over it pretty quickly by looking at the scoreboard(i.e. way worse things to worry about).

Most laws are a farce really, and solely dependent on what the refs feel is the most wrong.

I.e. tackled player being "fetched" by a player who isn't supporting his own body weight, yet said tackled player is holding onto the ball on the ground. Why should the guy not supporting his own bodyweight be punished over the guy who's doing essentially the same thing, at a worse level?
 
ChargerWA

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
Dewald Nel said:
I won't, and I got over it pretty quickly by looking at the scoreboard(i.e. way worse things to worry about).

Most laws are a farce really, and solely dependent on what the refs feel is the most wrong.

I.e. tackled player being "fetched" by a player who isn't supporting his own body weight, yet said tackled player is holding onto the ball on the ground. Why should the guy not supporting his own bodyweight be punished over the guy who's doing essentially the same thing, at a worse level?
Click to expand...
Agreed. My biggest problem with mauls is the truck and trailer. A defensive team gets a good stop, so the attacking team peels off leaving stopped players behind.

That is in effect no different from the defensive team swimming around the outside.

I think the maul should be like at the ruck. Once the ball is available it must be played within 5 seconds. So if the defensive team stops forward progress, the ref calls "5 seconds" and the attacking team must get it out of the maul within 5 seconds. Even if they start moving forward again.

Like most things wrong in Rugby, it could be cleaned up by better officiating without necessarily requiring rule changes.
 
Dewald Nel

Dewald Nel

Cyril Towers (30)
ChargerWA said:
Agreed. My biggest problem with mauls is the truck and trailer. A defensive team gets a good stop, so the attacking team peels off leaving stopped players behind.

That is in effect no different from the defensive team swimming around the outside.

I think the maul should be like at the ruck. Once the ball is available it must be played within 5 seconds. So if the defensive team stops forward progress, the ref calls "5 seconds" and the attacking team must get it out of the maul within 5 seconds. Even if they start moving forward again.

Like most things wrong in Rugby, it could be cleaned up by better officiating without necessarily requiring rule changes.
Click to expand...


Also agreed. This is essentially changing lanes. Should not be allowed.

Something they could also do, is if a phase was started with a maul, or if the try was scored from a maul, that try does not count towards bonus points, i.e. scoring 5 tries but 2 were from mauls, no bonus points. Bonus points were created to promote entertaining rugby, but it's boring to watch because you know what's inevitably gonna happen except if the attacking side fucks it up badly.

Another thing to implement possibly, is making it illegal to form rucks like the above before opponents touch you, i.e. if your own players bind to you before a tackle was attempted, it's a penalty against you.

For me it makes SA players and coaches stupid and uncreative - somehow we've made this a trademark of ours and are seemingly stuck in that groove.

Wasn't there a mention of the rules changing after the world cup regarding mauls though?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top