Super Rugby Rnd 3: Jaguares v Reds - Buenos Aires Sunday Feb 16 10:00am AEDT

[Strewthcobber]

What I don't understand is why every team doesn't focus on developing an unstoppable, unfair maul. Why is it only unstoppable for a few teams?

 

[emuarse]

thats why SANZAAR should get independent referees for matches like this

Sanzaar argues that it costs too much to supply neutral refs rather than local ones.
So maybe the officials at Sanzaar should cut down on their junket trips, business class flights, their staying at 5 star hotels, expense account meals at master chef restaurants etc.
If they stick with local refs, they're only going to lose costs saved, because of the walking away of fan bases of the teams caned with penalties, along with the earnings those fans provide.
So, whats it to be, Sanzaar?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Discipline really poor from the Reds.

No answer to the rolling maul. Try getting more players in there, or try that not engaging trick, they tried neither.

What is with Thorne not subbing his front row. Tupou and Mafi played 80mins. Why? Sub your front row for fresh legs.

Red really bad at the breakdown too. I feel if they played the Highlanders this week they would lose 90% of their ball at the breakdown. Brumbies are probably the best at the breakdown (thanks Laurie) in the Aus teams but NZ teams are still a level above, they just go hard and compete for everything slowing our ball down.

On the positive, those tries in the first half were beautiful. I thought Tate and JOC (James O'Connor) were good in the first half. JOC (James O'Connor) had a balanced performance at 10. Maybe Robbie Deans was onto something. Scrum is still good too.

The 13 was great too. Petaia was no loss.

Defending a rolling maul is difficult for any team, even when the maul is executed legally (as the Brumbies do ). But when the backs are allowed to enter the maul in front of the ball carrier just 1 or 2 metres from the tryline, it would be near on impossible. That was precisely what I saw happening with the Argies rolling maul on occasions.

 

[streetguy]

Alot of whinging about Refs...

Whilst Reds were very good in 1st half, it was more about ineptitude of Jaguares

Once Argies got their stuff together, Reds got blown away Refs doesn't account for 31-3 points scored in favour of Jaguares, nor for Reds captain getting YC a MINUTE after receiving a team warning for ill discipline How dumb can you be

Reds were as I expected: better in attack but a 40-60 min team who play small in big moments Soft between the ears

Normally 0/3 start would mean season over in Super Rugby, but Reds are still alive: 1. AUS Conf is garbage atm Best AUS team loses at home to worst NZ team, Tahs are bin juice with Rebels not much better 2. Reds schedule is very good goign forward

Favourites to win every remaining games except for Canes (a), Crusaders (h) & maybe Sharks (h)

Win 8 of these remaining 13 games with 7-9 BPs = 40 pts & Reds should make Top 8

 

[emuarse]

Moving on.

The ref was bad. But the reds still would have lost. Really poor second half. Absolutely no answer to the maul.

Which is shame, cos their first half was great rugby. Those tries are great on the highlight reel.

Maybe....maybe not.
the Reds had very little possession in the second half, owing in no small part to the lop sided penalty count.
If the ref had penalised the Jags for a few of their indiscretions, the momentum in the game might have changed... maybe, maybe not.

 

[Zero_Cool]

I do actually agree the lineout - maul has gotten too powerful, I think if the referees were perfect this might not be the case, but the fact is they aren't and in fact the refs are awful especially at scum and maul time. I'm not sure how you reduce the power of the maul without completely removing it form the game. I think the fundamental issue is it's too hard to defend without infringing.
Perhaps you eliminate the ball being handed back so it's more of a risk you score or you lose the ball?
I'm not sure what are some of the options to de-power the lineout - maul without completely neutering it?

 

[Wilson]

To be fair Ullrich, generally on here noone minds mauls when the Brumbies are scoring from them against overseas teams, it's really only when they are scored by other teams!! Same as how quick players come into lineout, Kafe doesn't make comment when Brumbies or prehaps local teams here do it, so most don't comment!
Personally I not a fan of them because I personally think if you can't get at ball carrier , you should be able to move anyone in your way, but that's just me, and I can also see how well some teams can set them up etc!! (just wish you could sack them)

Personally I like mauls, but in the last 5 years or so they have become a protected species and I feel the refereeing needs to change. This was clear a while back when teams started using the "No Defense" maul defense and world rugby issued directives making this less effective.

If you look at just this game enforcing the existing rules would have fixed many of the issues - The Jaguares backs often joined the maul before it had moved and 'ended' the lineout, effectively being offside. This is the sort of offense that should never be missed by the AR/TMO if they're looking, but because there doesn't seem to be a focus on it it gets missed.

The other enforcement change I'd love to see is the one Rebels3 mentions above - be really tight on the maul stopping or moving backward, I think the current 5 seconds is either too long or just not enforced strictly enough, particularly on sideways movement.

 

[Pfitzy]

If you look at just this game enforcing the existing rules would have fixed many of the issues - The Jaguares backs often joined the maul before it had moved and 'ended' the lineout, effectively being offside. This is the sort of offense that should never be missed by the AR/TMO if they're looking, but because there doesn't seem to be a focus on it it gets missed.

Didn't even think of that one! But you're right - must have all feet move off the line of touch.

There was another incident (around the time of the yellow card) where the Jags maul stopped, basically went to deck, but Anselmi called nothing and they stood up and went again. Should have been scrum reds.

The other one that seems to have been completely ignoring is attacking players joining and swimming ahead of the ball.

The other enforcement change I'd love to see is the one Rebels3 mentions above - be really tight on the maul stopping or moving backward, I think the current 5 seconds is either too long or just not enforced strictly enough, particularly on sideways movement.

The 5 second rule for restarting was implemented to try and get mauling back in the game. Now that we've got it back, we no longer need the 5 second rule.

It was notable that a couple of times the Brumbies were called for going backwards, but on no occasion did this happen to the Jaguares.

That and the scrum refereeing. Holy shit.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The other side of the coin is true to though with the lineout/maul offside - nearly every single member of the defensive line is also offside. They all advance way before the lineout is officially over

 

[Wilson]

Didn't even think of that one! But you're right - must have all feet move off the line of touch.

I'd forgotten it myself until someone mentioned it in the commentary and I started paying attention. It was particularly blatant here because the jags so often brought their backs in when the maul couldn't generate that initial momentum. In reality it's a pretty cynical offense and is the sort of thing that should escalate to a yellow pretty quickly but instead it just gets ignored. So bloody frustrating to see.

 

[Wilson]

The other side of the coin is true to though with the lineout/maul offside - nearly every single member of the defensive line is also offside. They all advance way before the lineout is officially over

Maybe, but not to anywhere near the effect of joining a maul. But I'm all for better enforcing of offside, particularly in situations as clear and obvious as a lineout.

 

[Pfitzy]

Maybe, but not to anywhere near the effect of joining a maul. But I'm all for better enforcing of offside, particularly in situations as clear and obvious as a lineout.

Several rucks in the first 20 minutes the Jags were creeping offside, and the hometown touchies said nada. But at that point the Reds were getting in behind them so it kind of worked.

Anselmi isn't biased; just incompetent.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Maybe, but not to anywhere near the effect of joining a maul. But I'm all for better enforcing of offside, particularly in situations as clear and obvious as a lineout.

Where it becomes material is if you can stop the maul. The defensive line should be on the heels on the try line, but invariably they are 4m further up at the back feet

 

[Wilson]

Where it becomes material is if you can stop the maul. The defensive line should be on the heels on the try line, but invariably they are 4m further up at the back feet

And that should be penalised too, ideally the ref is calling "lineout over" in these situations and that is clearly defining the offside line. The way defenses are focusing on line speed these days I feel like stricter enforcement of offside can only be a good thing.

 

[PhilClinton]

Defending a rolling maul is difficult for any team, even when the maul is executed legally (as the Brumbies do ). But when the backs are allowed to enter the maul in front of the ball carrier just 1 or 2 metres from the tryline, it would be near on impossible. That was precisely what I saw happening with the Argies rolling maul on occasions.

Yes this. Essentially the way mauls are policed, the attacking team has open slather to direct and manipulate the maul as they please, as long as their momentum is going forward. When the backs join the maul in that manner they end up creating a much wider front end of the maul, thus making it harder for the defensive team to direct their efforts to drive straight through to the ball. The Jags and other teams who have strong mauls know this isn't an area policed strongly, as the refs are more focused on defensive indiscretions and loss of momentum.

If a defensive team employed a similar tactic they would be penalized without hesitation for joining the maul illegally.

Seems like a lot of whinging on here from Reds supporters re mauls (and yes its true) but I guess this forum has been used as a good sounding board for the issues it has highlighted, I think it has all been constructive.

 

[Dan54]

Personally I like mauls, but in the last 5 years or so they have become a protected species and I feel the refereeing needs to change. This was clear a while back when teams started using the "No Defense" maul defense and world rugby issued directives making this less effective.

If you look at just this game enforcing the existing rules would have fixed many of the issues - The Jaguares backs often joined the maul before it had moved and 'ended' the lineout, effectively being offside. This is the sort of offense that should never be missed by the AR/TMO if they're looking, but because there doesn't seem to be a focus on it it gets missed.

The other enforcement change I'd love to see is the one Rebels3 mentions above - be really tight on the maul stopping or moving backward, I think the current 5 seconds is either too long or just not enforced strictly enough, particularly on sideways movement.

Yep Wilson,I agree with what you say, though I do tend to think if you watch almost any teams that bring in backs I never convinced they have to wait long enough whever they from. It not something that is new, just a lot of people heard Kafe say it so it's become the in thing, I would be interested to see if both sets of backs were still back 10m when the lineout was legally over, and I think we all obviously looking at it through rose coloured glasses somewhat.

 

[Wilson]

Yep Wilson,I agree with what you say, though I do tend to think if you watch almost any teams that bring in backs I never convinced they have to wait long enough whever they from. It not something that is new, just a lot of people heard Kafe say it so it's become the in thing, I would be interested to see if both sets of backs were still back 10m when the lineout was legally over, and I think we all obviously looking at it through rose coloured glasses somewhat.

Absolutely, it's gone unpoliced for so long I think most of us had forgotten it, for it to then be particularly heinous here. It's usually not my biggest bug bear around mauls but it is a good example of how it's not necessarily the laws that are the issue, rather it's the governing bodies attitude to how they are enforced that's causing problems. For all the various crackdowns we go through (intentional knockdown, high tackles, straight feed at scrums, etc) there hasn't been a really good focus on policing the attacking team at the maul for quite a while.

 

[Bobby Sands]

I don’t think that true on either count Dan. Plenty of guys here consistently express their dislike of mauls generally and the Brumbies cop plenty of criticism for theirs - both I general terms (ie that they are boring) and for the legalities.

Personally I don’t have a problem with them - but the refs do need to penalise breaches of the rules. And often they do - even on the Brumbies.

The mauls didn’t really annoy me as long as they were legal, but the constant one armed piggybacks time get to mauls infuriated me.

How long did we go without a penalty? How did the Jaguars manage to play an entire match and only make three infringements - that is incredible.

The scrum penalty shifted the match in my opinion. That should have been our ball, attacking the line with a 5m scrum. Instead it was a line out on halfway on their throw - which lead to a ruck penalty at some point - which led to the ball in the corner - which led to maul try.

 

[Derpus]

How long did we go without a penalty? How did the Jaguars manage to play an entire match and only make three infringements - that is incredible.

Don't the Jaguares typically have horrendous discipline themselves? seems pretty implausible to me.

 

[Silverado]

Don't the Jaguares typically have horrendous discipline themselves? seems pretty implausible to me.

No. According to the stats they are one of the most disciplined teams in the comp, but agree that they had the hometown advantage in this game