Wales v Australia, Monday 18 November 3:10am AEDT

[Micheal]

Sorry to pick on you when it wasn't your suggestion to begin with.

Why are we trying to come up with a low percentage trick play in one of the two highest probability try scoring positions possible (5m scrum or lineout)?

The backline can't advance until the ball passes the 15m mark. He can't start running as soon as the hooker throws the ball.

The reason why some teams do this in reverse (the long throw when you have a line out throw 5m out from your line) is because your guy only needs to run 5m and the opposition needs to run 10. The other player just can't arrive in time.

Just returning to this thread to be the biggest pest ever and remind everyone that my idea of a long-throw on on a 5m lineout to Sua'ali'i on the burst was in fact (a) legal and (b) not a horrible idea, despite the reaction it got here, as illustrated by the fact that Scotland scored against us with an almost identical play using Tuipulotu

Imagine how deadly it could be if Sua'ali'i was airborne to receive the ball at the peak of his running jump -- he wouldn't be able to be tackled until he landed, presumably 1-2m out from the line

In your face everyone!

 

[Rob42]

Just returning to this thread to be the biggest pest ever and remind everyone that my idea of a long-throw on on a 5m lineout to Sua'ali'i on the burst was in fact (a) legal and (b) not a horrible idea, despite the reaction it got here, as illustrated by the fact that Scotland scored against us with an almost identical play using Tuipulotu

Imagine how deadly it could be if Sua'ali'i was airborne to receive the ball at the peak of his running jump -- he wouldn't be able to be tackled until he landed, presumably 1-2m out from the line

In your face everyone!

Sure, but next time, the ref may pick up that the attacking runner is well offside at the throw. Or the defenders might attack the throw themselves, since they only need to move 5 m versus the 15 m for the attacker (if the attacker actually started onside).

 

[Strewthcobber]

Sure, but next time, the ref may pick up that the attacking runner is well offside at the throw. Or the defenders might attack the throw themselves, since they only need to move 5 m versus the 15 m for the attacker (if the attacker actually started onside).

Tuipolutu wasn't offside. He's allowed to advance as soon as the ball is thrown (as long as it goes past the 15m line).

It was indeed a horrible defensive read by Kellaway though

 

[Derpus]

It was basically the play everyone was suggesting for JAS haha. Maybe Tuipulotu was reading these forums.

 

[TSR]

Just returning to this thread to be the biggest pest ever and remind everyone that my idea of a long-throw on on a 5m lineout to Sua'ali'i on the burst was in fact (a) legal and (b) not a horrible idea, despite the reaction it got here, as illustrated by the fact that Scotland scored against us with an almost identical play using Tuipulotu

Imagine how deadly it could be if Sua'ali'i was airborne to receive the ball at the peak of his running jump -- he wouldn't be able to be tackled until he landed, presumably 1-2m out from the line

In your face everyone!

But they weren’t on the 5. They were 10
Metres out. There is a material difference as the defence is 10 metres back, not 5.

Given the Wallabies backs didn’t move then I guess you can argue it would still work on the 5 but it’s not the same as what you described.

 

[stillmissit]

Sorry wrong thread

 

[JRugby2]

Tuipolutu wasn't offside. He's allowed to advance as soon as the ball is thrown (as long as it goes past the 15m line).

It was indeed a horrible defensive read by Kellaway though

can't start offside though - which is the contention

 

[Strewthcobber]

can't start offside though - which is the contention

Sure, but the line of touch is at the 10m, at the throw he's standing 2m inside the 22m line.

By my maths that = 10m

 

[JRugby2]

Sure, but the line of touch is at the 10m, at the throw he's standing 2m inside the 22m line.

By my maths that = 10m

Eh - I could be convinced either way. It's not exactly clear from the rear/spider cam angle where Sione starts.

But anyway, that's the argument - that he was never onside to begin with and calling JAS offside midfield pedantically when he has no impact on play, while seemingly letting this go is a touch on the nose.

 

[cyclopath]

Wrong thread, perhaps???
Unless Tuipulotu has switched teams.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Wrong thread, perhaps???
Unless Tuipulotu has switched teams.

Surely given the incredible levels of interest, you can just let us pedantically argue rugby law minutia wherever we want?

 

[John S]

Surely given the incredible levels of interest, you can just let us pedantically argue rugby law minutia wherever we want?

Is that how forii work?

 

[JRugby2]

Surely given the incredible levels of interest, you can just let us pedantically argue rugby law minutia wherever we want?

Nice little "unwatch" button at the top for those uninterested

 

[cyclopath]

Nice little "unwatch" button at the top for those uninterested

I'm not "uninterested" at all, just think stuff posted in threads should be relevant to that thread. It's kind of the point...

 

[Sully]

I'm not "uninterested" at all, just think stuff posted in threads should be relevant to that thread. It's kind of the point...

I'm pretty sick of it myself.

 

[dru]

I'm pretty sick of it myself.

And for fuck goodness sake can we just note that it is not just moderators? Though my thoughts to the moderators - moderate.