Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
Also, have an issue (and have for a long time) with two lines of offense when the pass goes behind the first line and they keep running into the defensive line.
Perhaps a rant for a whole new thread, but maybe there's a need for a law amendment such that if the ball goes/is behind you you can't keep moving forward. Need to think that one through further ...Jeez are you going to tell Supercoach Foster or you want me to do it?
Let's remember he's still using the AB playbook from 2013 which basically has this as a core principle.
There is always this in 'playing the rules' but there is also carrying it to extremes. Dummy runners (thank you Brumbie-ball) have been used for decades to manipulate the thinking of the defence. Where it becomes blatant is when you have a system that sends players 1,2,3 and 4 into the field area of the defending team with the sole intent to block the runner lines of repositioning players. Refs and assistants are never looking at this and the laws make it difficult to call obstruction as it is far away from play. It doesn't obstruct players making a tackle or competing for the ball but it does obstruct them deliberately in repositioning.
TBH I don't notice the ABs doing it much. We tend to obstruct with chasing/ retreating running lines rather than using the allowance of offside runners to place them as 'blockers'@Crucial said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@NTA said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
Also, have an issue (and have for a long time) with two lines of offense when the pass goes behind the first line and they keep running into the defensive line.
Perhaps a rant for a whole new thread, but maybe there's a need for a law amendment such that if the ball goes/is behind you you can't keep moving forward. Need to think that one through further ...Jeez are you going to tell Supercoach Foster or you want me to do it?
Let's remember he's still using the AB playbook from 2013 which basically has this as a core principle.
There is always this in 'playing the rules' but there is also carrying it to extremes. Dummy runners (thank you Brumbie-ball) have been used for decades to manipulate the thinking of the defence. Where it becomes blatant is when you have a system that sends players 1,2,3 and 4 into the field area of the defending team with the sole intent to block the runner lines of repositioning players. Refs and assistants are never looking at this and the laws make it difficult to call obstruction as it is far away from play. It doesn't obstruct players making a tackle or competing for the ball but it does obstruct them deliberately in repositioning.
TBH I don't notice the ABs doing it much. We tend to obstruct with chasing/ retreating running lines rather than using the allowance of offside runners to place them as 'blockers'Yep a dummy runner really has to stop before he gets to the opposition's defensive line. The problem with England's approach is that their guys are running directly into the opposition's defensive line and obstructing guys from drifting across.
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@NTA said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
Also, have an issue (and have for a long time) with two lines of offense when the pass goes behind the first line and they keep running into the defensive line.
Perhaps a rant for a whole new thread, but maybe there's a need for a law amendment such that if the ball goes/is behind you you can't keep moving forward. Need to think that one through further ...Jeez are you going to tell Supercoach Foster or you want me to do it?
Let's remember he's still using the AB playbook from 2013 which basically has this as a core principle.
There is always this in 'playing the rules' but there is also carrying it to extremes. Dummy runners (thank you Brumbie-ball) have been used for decades to manipulate the thinking of the defence. Where it becomes blatant is when you have a system that sends players 1,2,3 and 4 into the field area of the defending team with the sole intent to block the runner lines of repositioning players. Refs and assistants are never looking at this and the laws make it difficult to call obstruction as it is far away from play. It doesn't obstruct players making a tackle or competing for the ball but it does obstruct them deliberately in repositioning.
TBH I don't notice the ABs doing it much. We tend to obstruct with chasing/ retreating running lines rather than using the allowance of offside runners to place them as 'blockers'Yep a dummy runner really has to stop before he gets to the opposition's defensive line. The problem with England's approach is that their guys are running directly into the opposition's defensive line and obstructing guys from drifting across.
@junior said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@NTA said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
Also, have an issue (and have for a long time) with two lines of offense when the pass goes behind the first line and they keep running into the defensive line.
Perhaps a rant for a whole new thread, but maybe there's a need for a law amendment such that if the ball goes/is behind you you can't keep moving forward. Need to think that one through further ...Jeez are you going to tell Supercoach Foster or you want me to do it?
Let's remember he's still using the AB playbook from 2013 which basically has this as a core principle.
There is always this in 'playing the rules' but there is also carrying it to extremes. Dummy runners (thank you Brumbie-ball) have been used for decades to manipulate the thinking of the defence. Where it becomes blatant is when you have a system that sends players 1,2,3 and 4 into the field area of the defending team with the sole intent to block the runner lines of repositioning players. Refs and assistants are never looking at this and the laws make it difficult to call obstruction as it is far away from play. It doesn't obstruct players making a tackle or competing for the ball but it does obstruct them deliberately in repositioning.
TBH I don't notice the ABs doing it much. We tend to obstruct with chasing/ retreating running lines rather than using the allowance of offside runners to place them as 'blockers'Yep a dummy runner really has to stop before he gets to the opposition's defensive line. The problem with
EnglandAustralia's approach is that their guys are running directly into the opposition's defensive line and obstructing guys from drifting across.FIFY
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@NTA said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
Also, have an issue (and have for a long time) with two lines of offense when the pass goes behind the first line and they keep running into the defensive line.
Perhaps a rant for a whole new thread, but maybe there's a need for a law amendment such that if the ball goes/is behind you you can't keep moving forward. Need to think that one through further ...Jeez are you going to tell Supercoach Foster or you want me to do it?
Let's remember he's still using the AB playbook from 2013 which basically has this as a core principle.
There is always this in 'playing the rules' but there is also carrying it to extremes. Dummy runners (thank you Brumbie-ball) have been used for decades to manipulate the thinking of the defence. Where it becomes blatant is when you have a system that sends players 1,2,3 and 4 into the field area of the defending team with the sole intent to block the runner lines of repositioning players. Refs and assistants are never looking at this and the laws make it difficult to call obstruction as it is far away from play. It doesn't obstruct players making a tackle or competing for the ball but it does obstruct them deliberately in repositioning.
TBH I don't notice the ABs doing it much. We tend to obstruct with chasing/ retreating running lines rather than using the allowance of offside runners to place them as 'blockers'Yep a dummy runner really has to stop before he gets to the opposition's defensive line. The problem with England's approach is that their guys are running directly into the opposition's defensive line and obstructing guys from drifting across.
@junior @booboo everyone does it -- it's just how blatent. It's rugby.
Ultimately, if the ref lets it go, we should be doing it too. Like mauling - if we think there is an advantage, don't bitch, just do exploit it until it gets out of the game. Like jumping to catch a pass (Looking at you, Lions 2)
-
@junior @booboo everyone does it -- it's just how blatent. It's rugby.
Ultimately, if the ref lets it go, we should be doing it too. Like mauling - if we think there is an advantage, don't bitch, just do exploit it until it gets out of the game. Like jumping to catch a pass (Looking at you, Lions 2)
-
@junior @booboo everyone does it -- it's just how blatent. It's rugby.
Ultimately, if the ref lets it go, we should be doing it too. Like mauling - if we think there is an advantage, don't bitch, just do exploit it until it gets out of the game. Like jumping to catch a pass (Looking at you, Lions 2)
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@junior @booboo everyone does it -- it's just how blatent. It's rugby.
Ultimately, if the ref lets it go, we should be doing it too. Like mauling - if we think there is an advantage, don't bitch, just do exploit it until it gets out of the game. Like jumping to catch a pass (Looking at you, Lions 2)
- Yes
- We probably are, I just haven't noticed it. I did notice Australia
- What's wrong with mauling?
-
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@junior @booboo everyone does it -- it's just how blatent. It's rugby.
Ultimately, if the ref lets it go, we should be doing it too. Like mauling - if we think there is an advantage, don't bitch, just do exploit it until it gets out of the game. Like jumping to catch a pass (Looking at you, Lions 2)
- Yes
- We probably are, I just haven't noticed it. I did notice Australia
- What's wrong with mauling?
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
- What's wrong with mauling?
A number of people (me included) think that modern mauls (with the 'two bites at the cherry') are refereed terribly and advantage the attacking team.
I think the answer to this is to exploit the loophole, not just bitch about it. We shoudl be raising it, but also showing people that laws aren't working well
Edit: Nothing wrong with mauling!
-
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
- What's wrong with mauling?
A number of people (me included) think that modern mauls (with the 'two bites at the cherry') are refereed terribly and advantage the attacking team.
I think the answer to this is to exploit the loophole, not just bitch about it. We shoudl be raising it, but also showing people that laws aren't working well
Edit: Nothing wrong with mauling!
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
- What's wrong with mauling?
A number of people (me included) think that modern mauls (with the 'two bites at the cherry') are refereed terribly and advantage the attacking team.
I think the answer to this is to exploit the loophole, not just bitch about it. We shoudl be raising it, but also showing people that laws aren't working well
Edit: Nothing wrong with mauling!
All good. You had me worried you were one of those rugby-denying anti-maulers
-
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
- What's wrong with mauling?
A number of people (me included) think that modern mauls (with the 'two bites at the cherry') are refereed terribly and advantage the attacking team.
I think the answer to this is to exploit the loophole, not just bitch about it. We shoudl be raising it, but also showing people that laws aren't working well
Edit: Nothing wrong with mauling!
All good. You had me worried you were one of those rugby-denying anti-maulers
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
- What's wrong with mauling?
A number of people (me included) think that modern mauls (with the 'two bites at the cherry') are refereed terribly and advantage the attacking team.
I think the answer to this is to exploit the loophole, not just bitch about it. We shoudl be raising it, but also showing people that laws aren't working well
Edit: Nothing wrong with mauling!
All good. You had me worried you were one of those rugby-denying anti-maulers
I don't think those fans exist (Australians maybe?) but there's lots of us who have issues with how they're refereed - even those of us whose teams use them to great effect.
-
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@booboo said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
- What's wrong with mauling?
A number of people (me included) think that modern mauls (with the 'two bites at the cherry') are refereed terribly and advantage the attacking team.
I think the answer to this is to exploit the loophole, not just bitch about it. We shoudl be raising it, but also showing people that laws aren't working well
Edit: Nothing wrong with mauling!
All good. You had me worried you were one of those rugby-denying anti-maulers
I don't think those fans exist (Australians maybe?) but there's lots of us who have issues with how they're refereed - even those of us whose teams use them to great effect.
-
@Nepia said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
I don't think those fans exist (Australians maybe?)
Only as good as your last 2 Tests, boys.
@NTA said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
@Nepia said in Bledisloe Four: Brisbane, 7 November:
I don't think those fans exist (Australians maybe?)
Only as good as your last 2 Tests, boys.
We've got the Foster * that we can lay on the table through this dark, dark time.
