Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > ARE YOU BLIND REF.... OR ARE WE WRONG ???
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Rolling mauls.....
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Rolling mauls.....
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Once a monkey View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Pull !!!

Joined: 30 December 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 15041 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Once a monkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 January 2015 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Once a monkey Once a monkey wrote:

Jon, watch their second try from Friday again and see how many offences you spot. I reckon there are guys leaving the line out before its over and also the truck and trailer and the man receiving the ball from the jumper/catcher drives into the back of 3 other forward clearing a path for him within the 5m channel

You know I can't comment on that ... Already had one ban for Social Media comments ! Wink Shocked
My take on it then Wink
 
Even before the lineout catcher passes the ball to the try scorer, the hooker and prop at the front have become an independent two man pod, and are then joined by Muliapolo (?), who I suspect has left the lineout before it is over. The try scorer then moves into the 5 metre channel and runs into the back of the 3 man pod and binds, a 3 man pod who have never previously been in contact with the catcher, the receiver/try scorer or the ball, and who are already advancing upfield even before he comes into contact with them. They then advance to the line and score. 
 
Seriously now!
#George
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
John View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 August 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4949 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 January 2015 at 8:23pm
Some facts from the above conversation:

1. There are far more ways for the attacking side to transgress than the defenders
2. Yet most penalties are given against the defenders
Back to Top
TheOracle View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 07 September 2014
Location: here and there
Status: Offline
Points: 2011 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheOracle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 January 2015 at 8:44pm
I REMEMBER OUR 80M ROLLING MAWL AGAINST ULSTER IN STRADEY....BLOODY AWESOME
Back to Top
Eastern outpost View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 13 March 2012
Location: South Suffolk
Status: Offline
Points: 21281 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eastern outpost Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 January 2015 at 9:06pm
Originally posted by John John wrote:

Some facts from the above conversation:

1. There are far more ways for the attacking side to transgress than the defenders
2. Yet most penalties are given against the defenders

If that's so, the law needs to be rewritten to create balance.
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18468 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 January 2015 at 4:18pm
All of the above reinforces my view that rolling mauls should be banned. It's obvious that even the best refs are unable to spot the many transgressions involved in many tries scored by this method.

It would be quite simple - change the law to state that no ground can be made from a lineout via a maul (for both sides, to make it fair). Teams would then have to pass the ball out and find more imaginative ways to score tries.
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Heol-y-Cyw
Status: Offline
Points: 12299 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 January 2015 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

All of the above reinforces my view that rolling mauls should be banned. It's obvious that even the best refs are unable to spot the many transgressions involved in many tries scored by this method.

It would be quite simple - change the law to state that no ground can be made from a lineout via a maul (for both sides, to make it fair). Teams would then have to pass the ball out and find more imaginative ways to score tries.

The same could be said of Rucks, Scrums & Tackle Area, so do we ban these too ?
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
salmidach View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 15 August 2004
Location: I Love Llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 12722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote salmidach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 January 2015 at 1:52pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

All of the above reinforces my view that rolling mauls should be banned. It's obvious that even the best refs are unable to spot the many transgressions involved in many tries scored by this method.

It would be quite simple - change the law to state that no ground can be made from a lineout via a maul (for both sides, to make it fair). Teams would then have to pass the ball out and find more imaginative ways to score tries.

what about when a maul is formed from open play? the point is most mauls can be defended with correct body positioning and a solid defensive unit. 

The problem is most rugby players are stupid and on the pitch are taught to act like dogs.. where's the ball, where's the ball, let me at the ball, I want the ball. the issue when defending a maul is that it makes it really hard when you have defending players standing up to get at the ball carrier to try and bring them down.

Drive the maul backwards and the offensive team has no option but to get the ball out of the maul and into open play.
Back to Top
PE SA View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 22 July 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12514 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PE SA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 January 2015 at 2:01pm
not a lover...to me, its offside. 

man at the back holding the ball with about 8 players in front of him makes a mockery of the crossing rule...
Back to Top
salmidach View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 15 August 2004
Location: I Love Llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 12722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote salmidach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 January 2015 at 2:05pm
Originally posted by PE SA PE SA wrote:

not a lover...to me, its offside. 

man at the back holding the ball with about 8 players in front of him makes a mockery of the crossing rule...

so technically a scrum is also offside?
Back to Top
Once a monkey View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Pull !!!

Joined: 30 December 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 15041 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Once a monkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 January 2015 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by salmidach salmidach wrote:

Originally posted by PE SA PE SA wrote:

not a lover...to me, its offside. 

man at the back holding the ball with about 8 players in front of him makes a mockery of the crossing rule...

so technically a scrum is also offside?
A scrum is a method of re-starting the game after an infringement/error.
 
A maul occurs from either open play or from a re-start mechanism such as the scrum, lineout or drop out/kick off.
 
Different things
#George
Back to Top
Once a monkey View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Pull !!!

Joined: 30 December 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 15041 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Once a monkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 January 2015 at 3:26pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

All of the above reinforces my view that rolling mauls should be banned. It's obvious that even the best refs are unable to spot the many transgressions involved in many tries scored by this method.

It would be quite simple - change the law to state that no ground can be made from a lineout via a maul (for both sides, to make it fair). Teams would then have to pass the ball out and find more imaginative ways to score tries.

The same could be said of Rucks, Scrums & Tackle Area, so do we ban these too ?
I dont generally have an issue with mauls in open play, as you seldom see the organisation and net gains seen from lineouts. The general problem for me with mauls from lineouts is that there are often so many people moving at any one time, it is often nigh on impossible for refs to see just what is actually happening, and whether the ball carrier has actually joined the back of a flying wedge. It must be a joy to be a fan of a team who excel, as per the Tigers against us, but for the neutral it isn't much of a spectacle.
#George
Back to Top
Eastern outpost View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 13 March 2012
Location: South Suffolk
Status: Offline
Points: 21281 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eastern outpost Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 January 2015 at 9:10pm
Originally posted by Once a monkey Once a monkey wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

All of the above reinforces my view that rolling mauls should be banned. It's obvious that even the best refs are unable to spot the many transgressions involved in many tries scored by this method.

It would be quite simple - change the law to state that no ground can be made from a lineout via a maul (for both sides, to make it fair). Teams would then have to pass the ball out and find more imaginative ways to score tries.



The same could be said of Rucks, Scrums & Tackle Area, so do we ban these too ?

I dont generally have an issue with mauls in open play, as you seldom see the organisation and net gains seen from lineouts. The general problem for me with mauls from lineouts is that there are often so many people moving at any one time, it is often nigh on impossible for refs to see just what is actually happening, and whether the ball carrier has actually joined the back of a flying wedge. It must be a joy to be a fan of a team who excel, as per the Tigers against us, but for the neutral it isn't much of a spectacle.

The IRB need to take account of the neutrals a bit more.
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Heol-y-Cyw
Status: Offline
Points: 12299 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 January 2015 at 12:25pm
Originally posted by PE SA PE SA wrote:

not a lover...to me, its offside. 

man at the back holding the ball with about 8 players in front of him makes a mockery of the crossing rule...

How many times ....

There is NO crossing rule in Rugby Union !

There is an obstruction rule & for Referees to apply it a player from the ball carriers own team must have obstructed or prevented a tackle by running or moving in front of the ball carrier !

This "crossing" malarkey was introduced by a certain pundit that came back to Union from League & we all know that whatever he says the populous believe ! I remember him in the past being (ahem) "dressed down" by the WRU Referees Department over certain comments regarding Law on TV !
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18468 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 January 2015 at 7:50pm
Once again at the weekend, the law was totally ignored (forget which match) - two forwards, including the ball carrier, became detached from the maul - there was the most tenuous arm-length contact between one of them and the maul, after which they re-joined a few yards upfield.

Did the ref penalise this? Did he, F**k!

Just get rid of this abortion... please!
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
PE SA View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 22 July 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12514 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PE SA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2015 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by PE SA PE SA wrote:

not a lover...to me, its offside. 

man at the back holding the ball with about 8 players in front of him makes a mockery of the crossing rule...

How many times ....

There is NO crossing rule in Rugby Union !

There is an obstruction rule & for Referees to apply it a player from the ball carriers own team must have obstructed or prevented a tackle by running or moving in front of the ball carrier !

This "crossing" malarkey was introduced by a certain pundit that came back to Union from League & we all know that whatever he says the populous believe ! I remember him in the past being (ahem) "dressed down" by the WRU Referees Department over certain comments regarding Law on TV !
2012 rule change:

2. Crossing

Rugby has become a very linear game. Running angles and points of contact have straightened over the past ten years – you could map out most professional running lines on an Etch-A-Sketch.

It is for this very reason that penalising the act of crossing is such a travesty. Few teams cross intentionally, it’s usually the by-product of a creative backs move being mistimed, overrun or an innocent miscalculation. There is often little benefit to the attacking team in deliberately crossing, as blocking one defender in the modern game has limited impact, particularly from first phase, where most defensive lines tend to double tackle – why block one tackler when another is a matter of inches away? Yet again, an often positive discretion receives the same sanction as a negative one.

Recommended change:  Free-kick to the defending team.


Read more at http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/blogs/three-law-changes-that-would-improve-rugby-21024#bCULtFJ6HTitjb1A.99

does not matter what word is used...it is the same thing...which for me, happens many a time during a maul which goes "un noticed".




Edited by PE SA - 09 February 2015 at 4:07pm
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Heol-y-Cyw
Status: Offline
Points: 12299 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2015 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by PE SA PE SA wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by PE SA PE SA wrote:

not a lover...to me, its offside. 

man at the back holding the ball with about 8 players in front of him makes a mockery of the crossing rule...

How many times ....

There is NO crossing rule in Rugby Union !

There is an obstruction rule & for Referees to apply it a player from the ball carriers own team must have obstructed or prevented a tackle by running or moving in front of the ball carrier !

This "crossing" malarkey was introduced by a certain pundit that came back to Union from League & we all know that whatever he says the populous believe ! I remember him in the past being (ahem) "dressed down" by the WRU Referees Department over certain comments regarding Law on TV !
2012 rule change:

2. Crossing

Rugby has become a very linear game. Running angles and points of contact have straightened over the past ten years – you could map out most professional running lines on an Etch-A-Sketch.

It is for this very reason that penalising the act of crossing is such a travesty. Few teams cross intentionally, it’s usually the by-product of a creative backs move being mistimed, overrun or an innocent miscalculation. There is often little benefit to the attacking team in deliberately crossing, as blocking one defender in the modern game has limited impact, particularly from first phase, where most defensive lines tend to double tackle – why block one tackler when another is a matter of inches away? Yet again, an often positive discretion receives the same sanction as a negative one.

Recommended change:  Free-kick to the defending team.


Read more at http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/blogs/three-law-changes-that-would-improve-rugby-21024#bCULtFJ6HTitjb1A.99

does not matter what word is used...it is the same thing...which for me, happens many a time during a maul which goes "un noticed".



As far as I am aware, this was a proposal, and never made the IRB Law Book, Law changes always occur in the season following a World Cup !
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.