Ignorant commentators

Snickers Man

If a commentator on TV is supposed to do anything it should be to enlighten the casual viewer with his superior knowledge of either the facts of the match, the history of the game or the more obscure laws that govern it.

Lately, I have heard Irish commentators both at the pitch and on the studio panel say that the Super 14 this year is experimenting with new laws that allows a defending team to pull down the maul.

This is false. The Super 14 is indeed playing to experimental laws, but not all of the laws that were originally tested out at Stellenbosch University are being implemented. One of the proposed ones that didn't make it to the Super 14 is that which allows you to pull down a maul.

Good thing too!

There is a determination among certain elements in southern hemisphere rugby to turn our great game into the turgid, one dimensional slug fest that is rugby league. They don't like the arcane arts of the scrum and maul. They would rather watch individuals crashing into each other interminably in the middle of the field and insist that this is better because it features more "ball in hand".

That's true. What it doesn't feature is any space for a small fast man like Shane Williams to show guile and elusiveness.

Just look at how Italy last week and Wales yesterday coped with the French rucking game. France don't like to maul the ball this season. They like to go to ground and ruck it. So the Italians and Welsh with their South African and New Zealand coaches respectively, decided that there was no point contesting a ruck because by definition the ruck cannot advance the ball any further, unlike a maul.

So they simply retreated from it as soon as it was formed. Sound tactics, you might think. And indeed they are. But what they lead to is a game in whcih 15 men are strung out across the pitch like beads on an abacus.

Now the maul is the only remaining facet of continuous play which allows a team with a strong pack to tie up opposing forwards in a small area of the field leaving space outside for fast backs to exploit. If the maul could be countered by simply pulling it down it would disappear because there would be no point to having it. If it does, we are back to the beads on an abacus scenario again.

Happily, even the sunshine boys from down south have decided not to take that step yet. But nobody seems to have told Hooky and the boys.

I have zero sympathy with those who say you cannot counter a rolling maul. You can, if you have big enough forwards and you commit them to the maul. You can stop it in its tracks and push it backwards. Of course, you have to commit numbers to it. Those that don't want to counter it in that way should bog off to places where league is popular (like Wigan) and play that game.

Just don't bugger around with ours.

and maybe it would be nice if our overpaid underworked "expert analysts" acquainted themselves with the reality of the new experimental laws before they pontificate to the rest of us about how they are so good for the game.

Stev_o

Get the footage of the France Italy match where Italy drove back a French maul from there 5 meter line to 10 that was amazing defence. But i do agree there are very few commentators that actually know what is going on thats why Brian Moore comes in handy :P

what say what?

IMO watching a maul gaining ground is one of the highlights of any game of rugby, it is an artform, how the ball is passed backwards while driving forward, the detatching and reattatching of players, the subtle changes of direction, the quick breakaway and sometimes the reward of a try.

It should be revered and admired not desecrated and demonized, because if it is , then the next thing to go is the scrum until finally the days of rugby being a game for all sizes will be a thing of the past and the cyberman style of league will dictate

ok rant over, just leave the maul alone, just abolish the penalty for accidental crossing instead

Goodluck2me

what say what? wrote: »

IMO watching a maul gaining ground is one of the highlights of any game of rugby, it is an artform, how the ball is passed backwards while driving forward, the detatching and reattatching of players, the subtle changes of direction, the quick breakaway and sometimes the reward of a try.

It should be revered and admired not desecrated and demonized, because if it is , then the next thing to go is the scrum until finally the days of rugby being a game for all sizes will be a thing of the past and the cyberman style of league will dictate

ok rant over, just leave the maul alone, just abolish the penalty for accidental crossing instead

got to agree, a maul going 30m is just as exciting often as a 60m run, it really builds excitement at matches and helps the atmosphere.

JWAD

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is false. The Super 14 is indeed playing to experimental laws, but not all of the laws that were originally tested out at Stellenbosch University are being implemented. One of the proposed ones that didn't make it to the Super 14 is that which allows you to pull down a maul.

Good thing too!

There is a determination among certain elements in southern hemisphere rugby to turn our great game into the turgid, one dimensional slug fest that is rugby league. They don't like the arcane arts of the scrum and maul. They would rather watch individuals crashing into each other interminably in the middle of the field and insist that this is better because it features more "ball in hand".

That's true. What it doesn't feature is any space for a small fast man like Shane Williams to show guile and elusiveness.

Just look at how Italy last week and Wales yesterday coped with the French rucking game. France don't like to maul the ball this season. They like to go to ground and ruck it. So the Italians and Welsh with their South African and New Zealand coaches respectively, decided that there was no point contesting a ruck because by definition the ruck cannot advance the ball any further, unlike a maul.

So they simply retreated from it as soon as it was formed. Sound tactics, you might think. And indeed they are. But what they lead to is a game in whcih 15 men are strung out across the pitch like beads on an abacus.

Now the maul is the only remaining facet of continuous play which allows a team with a strong pack to tie up opposing forwards in a small area of the field leaving space outside for fast backs to exploit. If the maul could be countered by simply pulling it down it would disappear because there would be no point to having it. If it does, we are back to the beads on an abacus scenario again.

Happily, even the sunshine boys from down south have decided not to take that step yet. But nobody seems to have told Hooky and the boys.

I have zero sympathy with those who say you cannot counter a rolling maul. You can, if you have big enough forwards and you commit them to the maul. You can stop it in its tracks and push it backwards. Of course, you have to commit numbers to it. Those that don't want to counter it in that way should bog off to places where league is popular (like Wigan) and play that game.

Just don't bugger around with ours.

and maybe it would be nice if our overpaid underworked "expert analysts" acquainted themselves with the reality of the new experimental laws before they pontificate to the rest of us about how they are so good for the game.

Utter tosh.
Firstly, the ELVs are not a Southern Hemisphere 'venture'. They are an IRB move to see how the game can be improved.
The overreaction to the ELVs turning allegedly RU into RL are exactly that: overreactive.
If you're going to mention the "arcane arts" of the scrum for a start, try watching a game which adopts the penalty laws first. You will find the game actually entails MORE scrums than normal. The 22 clearance experiment is also another great element which would encourage teams to actually use the ball instead of the crowds gaining equal possession stats as those onfield.

I'd personally venture that the maul experiment will be dropped with the majority of the rest of the infringements staying punitively as free-kicks. This is great for continuity.
If you want to illustrate a game where the line consists of players strung along like an abacus, look no further than all three of yesterday's 6N games.
Its a pity hemispherical tribalists like yourself or even folks paranoid about the 'other code' dont have a say, eh?

gjim

The problem with all d*cking about with laws is their unforeseen consequences. For years, I've heard demands from idiots that penalties (and drop goals) should be reduced to 2 points so that "games would be decided by tries" and so games would have more tries and so games would have more running rugby and so games would be more entertaining. Every stage of this argument is completely bogus. The first is the most obvious; do you not think that a team are far more likely to kill ruck ball, ignore offside rules, etc. if the worst that can happen is to cough up 2 points especially in the situation where it looks like the oppo might score a try? The actual result of such a change would be MORE penalties and LESS tries.

As for the ELV, some make sense but others are misguided. A team is under presure and the 10 receives the ball just outside his own 22. The 10 is going to think "gee I can't kick straight to touch, I'll start a scintilating counterattacking move from my own half"? Is he f*ck - welcome to an increase in the mindless long kicks into space which characterised the worst games of the world cup.

And yes if you discourage those aspects of the game which suck in forwards (scrums, rucks and mauls), then with modern defensive systems you are going to kill running rugby. If that happens, then the next demand from south of the equator will be to reduce the number of players to recreate space.

Stev_o

gjim wrote: »

The problem with all d*cking about with laws is their unforeseen consequences. For years, I've heard demands from idiots that penalties (and drop goals) should be reduced to 2 points so that "games would be decided by tries" and so games would have more tries and so games would have more running rugby and so games would be more entertaining. Every stage of this argument is completely bogus. The first is the most obvious; do you not think that a team are far more likely to kill ruck ball, ignore offside rules, etc. if the worst that can happen is to cough up 2 points especially in the situation where it looks like the oppo might score a try? The actual result of such a change would be MORE penalties and LESS tries.

As for the ELV, some make sense but others are misguided. A team is under presure and the 10 receives the ball just outside his own 22. The 10 is going to think "gee I can't kick straight to touch, I'll start a scintilating counterattacking move from my own half"? Is he f*ck - welcome to an increase in the mindless long kicks into space which characterised the worst games of the world cup.

And yes if you discourage those aspects of the game which suck in forwards (scrums, rucks and mauls), then with modern defensive systems you are going to kill running rugby. If that happens, then the next demand from south of the equator will be to reduce the number of players to recreate space.

Welcome to this years Super 14 where only the New Zealand teams have the balls to run the ball in hand

JWAD

gjim wrote: »

And yes if you discourage those aspects of the game which suck in forwards (scrums, rucks and mauls), then with modern defensive systems you are going to kill running rugby

Scrums - Increased
Rucks - Increased
Mauls - Bugger all difference.

Whats the fuss? Having to run a bit more instead of standing with hands on hips for a little break? Heaven forbid :eek:

As for the Kiwi teams being allegedly the only teams running the ball, I take it, Stev_O, you've missed the last Tahs, Reds and Force games? No worries, if so. I understand

Stev_o

JWAD wrote: »

Scrums - Increased
Rucks - Increased
Mauls - Bugger all difference.

Whats the fuss? Having to run a bit more instead of standing with hands on hips for a little break? Heaven forbid :eek:

As for the Kiwi teams being allegedly the only teams running the ball, I take it, Stev_O, you've missed the last Tahs, Reds and Force games? No worries, if so. I understand

Sadly Sky Sports dont do great coverage in fact most of the time i have to watch the SA teams play which is torture in itself. I have to make due of rugbydump.com where most of the decent tries have been Nz team tries

Snickers Man

JWAD wrote: »

Utter tosh.
Firstly, the ELVs are not a Southern Hemisphere 'venture'. They are an IRB move to see how the game can be improved.
The overreaction to the ELVs turning allegedly RU into RL are exactly that: overreactive.

Eh, eh, eh, calm down, calm down, calm down.

First, I never said the ELVs were an SH invention. Nor did I say that they were universally embraced down there. But it IS true that demands for changes in the emphasis of the game have come largely from the SH and from Australia in particular.

And my objection to them (the law changes) is that, as another poster has pointed out, they could have unintended consequences similar to those which followed the last great changes in the rules and which led to the awful spectacles we saw yesterday.

JWAD wrote:

If you're going to mention the "arcane arts" of the scrum for a start, try watching a game which adopts the penalty laws first. You will find the game actually entails MORE scrums than normal.

Good! Let's hope it stays that way. But if scrum infringements can only be penalised by the award of another free kick/scrum, then it won't take weak scrummaging sides too long to realise that as long as they keep collapsing, wheeling messing around and generally not competing fairly at that facet of the game they won't suffer at all. It's just a little worry I have.

JWAD wrote:

The 22 clearance experiment is also another great element which would encourage teams to actually use the ball instead of the crowds gaining equal possession stats as those onfield.

Well, I'm not going to get hot under the collar about this change but I think it is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Frequently, teams don't clear the ball directly into touch from the edge of their 22 any more. They would rather bang it back downfield and hope that the opposition either put it into touch so that they can get the put in, or else run it back badly so that they can be nailed in their own territory.

This is especially true when playing against countries like Ireland who have the reputation for a strong line out and a good running attack from set piece play. The opposition just make sure they don't get any lineouts anywhere near the opposition's half.

Look at what Argentina did to Ireland in teh world cup: they tried really hard NEVER to kick the ball to touch. With good reason. Ireland got two line out put ins in the Argentinian half all game and scored tries off both of them.

I don't think that law will make a blind bit of difference to the game as it is played now.

JWAD wrote:

I'd personally venture that the maul experiment will be dropped

My point was that as far as the Super 14 goes, it has been dropped already.

JWAD wrote:

If you want to illustrate a game where the line consists of players strung along like an abacus, look no further than all three of yesterday's 6N games.

I wholeheartedly agree. And that was entirely due to the law changes of the early 1990s which changed the ruck and maul laws to the "use it or lose it" approach. The ultimate conclusion of those laws were reached this season with the complete absence of competition at ruck time, as I pointed out in the OP.