Waratahs v Reds Rnd 1 2016
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
- Status
One more. Ref says the Reds weren't going forward therefore weren't entitled to a penalty try, again take note of where the Swisse sponsorship is between the first scrum and the last:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In 4.5 minutes, that's about 0.03 m/s.
Gardiner was right, grass grows faster!
T
TOCC
Guest
Those last scrums aren't the best examples... But these below from earlier in the match show the Tahs LHP attempting to angle in but splintering every time.
A lot of the Tahs problems are through the LHP and Mumm, they aren't to bad on THP side with Skelton keeping the bind strong, but LHP was pretty rubbish whether it was Tilse, Robinson or Ryan.
S'UP
Bill Watson (15)
Good he was a waste of space.
tragic
John Solomon (38)
That's 3cm/sec right??In 4.5 minutes, that's about 0.03 m/s.
Gardiner was right, grass grows faster!
Geez I'm glad I'm not mowing your lawn.
It rains a lot here.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
TOCC - your analysis misses the frame where Holmes lets go. Regardless of where the Reds are, Tilse wasn't responsible for that scrum collapsing.
The main issue for the Tahs angle is the position of Tilse's bind. He should be right up under the hooker's arm pit, and far tighter through the hips. The THP owns the long bind to the waist so he can stay straighter and turn out.
Why Jezebel is still in the Tahs' squad is a mystery. Is it a Sydney Uni thing? His Dad know someone?
The main issue for the Tahs angle is the position of Tilse's bind. He should be right up under the hooker's arm pit, and far tighter through the hips. The THP owns the long bind to the waist so he can stay straighter and turn out.
Why Jezebel is still in the Tahs' squad is a mystery. Is it a Sydney Uni thing? His Dad know someone?
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Forgive my ignorance as I have limited understanding of the dark-arts but if can some one clarify what the Ref meant with the above statement.
To me I interpreted it to mean something like "woot woot - remember as long as we can stop the bastards moving forward (anyway we can!!!
) we have penalty try immunity!" Ok, so back to reset #14......
Intruder
Dave Cowper (27)
The reason he is binded like that is because the Tahs scrum relies on TPN. It has for the past 4-5 seasons. The aim for the Tahs is to bury TPN through his hooker to pierce straight through the middle of the scrum. If you watch the set up, TPN is the head of what looks like a spearhead..
That only works if your THP is strong and square (Kepu > Taavao) and your LHP catches the THP on that angle.
The second bit comes from the back 5. These angles only work if your back 5 are all buying into 'scrummaging'. The Reds just have a greater technical coach in Stiles who continues to show his worth, pity it's not shown anywhere else other than set piece.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
He's bound to be binded like that.
T
TOCC
Guest
It's irrelevant because this happened in the 5th scrum where Tilse infringed first, Tilse was Yellow Carded for breaking his bind and additionally binding on Holmes pants, both of those are illegal. They are illegal because they destabilise the scrum when he breaks his bind and binding on the opposition props pants provides unfair leverage, if Holmes slipped his bind after that it's because Tilse had an advantage..
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
That would make sense if the Tahs even looked like attacking in those last few scrums. Instead, they tried to sink, KNOWING it was not going to come out straight away, and let the Reds have the momentum.
You can't fix the technical issue unless you're also going to address the tactical issue.
That issue is going back to first principles on binding, getting it tight, and then going for the push.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Sorry. Sometimes my venting organ's sphincter malfunctions. I'll try harder. Or maybe you can prescribe something?Any more NBN shit gets nixed. Take it to Whirlpool!
Footy, folks.
One thing to note here is that I don't think the penalty against Holloway is whistled at the centre of the scrum and therefore had the next scrum at the same point.
Much of the movement from the first scrum to the later scrums was purely that first penalty being on a different mark.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Lots of good technical reasoning above from the Posters.
Fact still remains: Gardiner a sub standard referee who should be back at Prems
Fact still remains: Gardiner a sub standard referee who should be back at Prems
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I would say he was consistent and took advice from his assistants for many of the decisions, as we should support. Unless you can show objectively that his calls were manifestly wrong at law this is an unreasonable assertion.
Indeed the calls that have been whinged and wined about on this thread are 50:50 calls or better.
1)The scrums do not support a penalty try as at no point was a try certain to be scored and whilst that point is debatable that in itself mean that Gardiner is justified in not awarding it.
2)The Simmons offside - if you consider the new interpretation of offside this year that the whole body including hands and arms must be behind the last feet in the ruck (as explained and described during the Blues V Highlands match) then most of the defensive line in the shots posted were offside with Simmons behind earlier offenders, but he is caught out by moving up quicker. This call was from the assistant ref.
3) Phipps off feet/Beale not releasing-how many rucks have 50:50 contestable outcomes? This is simply a feature of Rugby as the ball is highly contestable and judgement calls have to be made in real time. Is the first offence Phipps off feet, I would suggest that Beale is to the side and has rolled away and doesn't feature in the moments a decision is formed. Next question is should the Reds second rower (Neville?) be penalised for diving over the ruck as he rushed in and missed the cleanout altogether?
I don't see any other real areas of contention from his performance and these calls can be explained and reasoned so it is IMO a very unreasonable assertion to say Gardiner is a poor referee on the basis of this game.
After watching it again last night, my take is that Phipps' only offence is not supporting his body weight for a brief time. This takes place after CFS has already not released so realistically it should still be a penalty for the Waratahs.
Phipps is not a tackler nor does he assist in bringing CFS to the ground. CFS is already tackled by the time he arrives and as such he is allowed to play the ball immediately. The fact that CFS is still moving due to momentum doesn't seem relevant to me. He is on the ground and is held in a tackle and Phipps has rights to compete for the ball.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
I agree with you in respect of Point 2.
Disagree until my cows come home re Points 1 and 3
I also totally agree that Gardiner was consistent - No question at all in my mind - Consistently sub standard.
- Status