Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

12467…14

Comments

  • #152
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    I think this is the right thread as opposed to the laws thread.

    Fiji have just been penalised in a maul against Uruguay for changing binds in the maul.

    Can someone explain what that means please?


  • #153
    .ak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Stheno wrote: »
    I think this is the right thread as opposed to the laws thread.

    Fiji have just been penalised in a maul against Uruguay for changing binds in the maul.

    Can someone explain what that means please?

    You can't unbind from your original position and move up the maul to get into a better position. Some refs call it swimming up also.


  • #154
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    .ak wrote: »
    You can't unbind from your original position and move up the maul to get into a better position. Some refs call it swimming up also.

    Thank you.

    I think I just saw Fiji do it again, their number five was at the front of a Uruguay maul in that he was closest to the Uruguaian (sp?) players, and he was nearly climbing over them to get forward?

    Is it ok for the attacking team to change bindings?


  • #155
    .ak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Stheno wrote: »
    Thank you.

    I think I just saw Fiji do it again, their number five was at the front of a Uruguay maul in that he was closest to the Uruguaian (sp?) players, and he was nearly climbing over them to get forward?

    Is it ok for the attacking team to change bindings?

    No, the attacking players if they lose their bind must rebind onto the carrier.

    Basically if your defending a maul the only way through tackle the carrier is by going through the originally bound players... It's near impossible unless you were in a good position when the maul started.

    It's hard to police tho, hence why sometimes players will chance their arm and swim up the side of the maul and latch on to the carrier.


  • #156
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    .ak wrote: »
    No, the attacking players if they lose their bind must rebind onto the carrier.

    Basically if your defending a maul the only way through tackle the carrier is by going through the originally bound players... It's near impossible unless you were in a good position when the maul started.

    It's hard to police tho, hence why sometimes players will chance their arm and swim up the side of the maul and latch on to the carrier.

    Ah ok, thanks again, you're being very patient.

    So in terms of attacking players, when I see players attacking who "unbind" from the maul running back and joining the back of the maul that makes sense.

    I'm not really getting what you are saying about the defense, sorry, is it almost the equivalent of coming into a ruck from the side?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    .ak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Stheno wrote: »
    Ah ok, thanks again, you're being very patient.

    So in terms of attacking players, when I see players attacking who "unbind" from the maul running back and joining the back of the maul that makes sense.

    I'm not really getting what you are saying about the defense, sorry, is it almost the equivalent of coming into a ruck from the side?

    Yep, pretty much. The offside line is created between the first carrier and the first tackler if that makes sense. If you think of an Irish maul often Toner is the receiver, gets to deck, let's himself get tackled, then transfers the ball back once everyone has bound on. From then on the offside line is set by toner and the tackler. So any defending players must join that maul behind that line, once they lose their bind.


  • #158
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Stheno wrote: »
    I think this is the right thread as opposed to the laws thread.

    Fiji have just been penalised in a maul against Uruguay for changing binds in the maul.

    Can someone explain what that means please?
    You cannot change your bind to disadvantage the opposition. You must join the maul at the hindmost foot and must stay in that position..
    Stheno wrote: »
    Ah ok, thanks again, you're being very patient.

    So in terms of attacking players, when I see players attacking who "unbind" from the maul running back and joining the back of the maul that makes sense.

    I'm not really getting what you are saying about the defense, sorry, is it almost the equivalent of coming into a ruck from the side?
    to defend a maul you must go through the players in front of you and drive through them to get at the ball carrier.


  • #159
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    .ak wrote: »
    Yep, pretty much. The offside line is created between the first carrier and the first tackler if that makes sense. If you think of an Irish maul often Toner is the receiver, gets to deck, let's himself get tackled, then transfers the ball back once everyone has bound on. From then on the offside line is set by toner and the tackler. So any defending players must join that maul behind that line, once they lose their bind.

    Makes perfect sense thank you.

    I used often see Toner almost floating in the middle of a maul if that makes sense as the maul moves as he is the receiver and gets trapped for want of a better word.

    Thanks again, sorry if it was a stupid question. I've known in the past why things were intrinsically wrong, but didn't have the ability to articulate them, and since my OH (and his son when he is with us)has started getting interested in rugby and asking questions, I've gotten more interested in the technicalities of the game.

    Thanks again :)


  • #160
    .ak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    No worries! That's what this thread is for. I'm sure someone who's played more in the pack can explain it better, but that's my understanding of it.

    That's generally why locks are referred to as the "engine room" of the pack, quite often they're the power driving the maul. Guys like toner and POC are masters of it, toner being 20st and guaranteed his feet will get purchase on the ground makes him ideal for it.


  • #161
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    .ak wrote: »
    No worries! That's what this thread is for. I'm sure someone who's played more in the pack can explain it better, but that's my understanding of it.

    That's generally why locks are referred to as the "engine room" of the pack, quite often they're the power driving the maul. Guys like toner and POC are masters of it, toner being 20st and guaranteed his feet will get purchase on the ground makes him ideal for it.

    I used play at lock with Blackrock (as a sub) in the early nineties when womens rugby was in it's infancy, and that was exactly what we were used for, sheer power behind the guys in the front row to bully the opposition in scrums, not so much mauls as we didn't have many tbh, so that's where I'm behind.

    Again, appreciate the patience, I know my Oh as a newb interested in the game enjoys learning what things mean, and I appreciate being able to tell him :)


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    What's the whole story with line outs. If a defender is kicking from inside his own 22 is it something like : if it bounces before going out over sideline , does his team have the throw in, if it does not bounce before going out over sideline does the other team have the scrum ? Or vice versa or totally wrong.

    Then is there a different rule when kicking from outside your own 22 ?


  • #163
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    What's the whole story with line outs. If a defender is kicking from inside his own 22 is it something like : if it bounces before going out over sideline , does his team have the throw in, if it does not bounce before going out over sideline does the other team have the scrum ? Or vice versa or totally wrong.

    Then is there a different rule when kicking from outside your own 22 ?

    From inside your 22 you can kick directly out of play.
    When out side your 22 and you kick the ball, it must bounce before going out of play, otherwise the line out is back where you kicked the ball.

    In both circumstances the other team gain possession.

    The only time you retain possession from a kick is when its a penalty, and the ball can be kicked directly out from anywhere on the pitch from a penalty


  • #164
    .ak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    What's the whole story with line outs. If a defender is kicking from inside his own 22 is it something like : if it bounces before going out over sideline , does his team have the throw in, if it does not bounce before going out over sideline does the other team have the scrum ? Or vice versa or totally wrong.

    Then is there a different rule when kicking from outside your own 22 ?

    If you kick from within your 22 (the play must start there, you can't just carry it back there) the ball is allowed to go out on the full - the other team get the line out, but if happens where the ball went out.

    If you kick from outside your 22 the ball must bounce infield first for the same to happen, if it goes out in the full the line out will happen from where you kicked the ball. The risk being you're giving away possession and a load of territory.

    The only time you get the line out if you kick the ball is if it's a penalty, or if the opposition touch the ball before it goes out.


  • #165
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    Thanks. Tricky enough.

    If inside your own 22 is there any advantage to the ball bouncing first versus going out on the full ?


  • #166
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    Thanks. Tricky enough.

    If inside your own 22 is there any advantage to the ball bouncing first versus going out on the full ?
    If kicking from inside your 22 there is no difference between the ball bouncing and then going into touch and the ball going straight out on the full


  • #167
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    .ak wrote: »
    If you kick from within your 22 (the play must start there, you can't just carry it back there) the ball is allowed to go out on the full - the other team get the line out, but if happens where the ball went out.

    If you kick from outside your 22 the ball must bounce infield first for the same to happen, if it goes out in the full the line out will happen from where you kicked the ball. The risk being you're giving away possession and a load of territory.

    To add, should you bring the ball into the 22 from outside of it or if you receive it from a pass that comes from outside of the 22 then the kick is considered as being taken outside.

    For a player to be able to kick directly into touch without the loss of ground then one of four things needs to happen. Either a tackle or ruck or maul need to have taken place or an opposition player needs to have played the ball.


  • #168
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    To add, should you bring the ball into the 22 from outside of it or if you receive it from a pass that comes from outside of the 22 then the kick is considered as being taken outside.

    For a player to be able to kick directly into touch without the loss of ground then one of four things needs to happen. Either a tackle or ruck or maul need to have taken place or an opposition player needs to have played the ball.

    Just on your last paragraph, I'm confused.

    So let's say the attacking team is in the half way line, a maul has just taken place and the ball is passed back to number 10 - who kicks it up inside the oppositions 22 and goes over the side line.

    Who gets the throw in here ? (because of directly coming from maul situation)


  • #169
    Narcissus
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Narcissus


    Why does a ref say use it once at the start of a maul and then use it now ?
    Does it have to do with the motion of the maul? If it's stopped moving?

    Also, when a team has advantage and then kick the ball advantage is over but that's not the case when someone does a cross field kick for a try inside the opponents 22, why is that?


  • #170
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    Just on your last paragraph, I'm confused.

    So let's say the attacking team is in the half way line, a maul has just taken place and the ball is passed back to number 10 - who kicks it up inside the oppositions 22 and goes over the side line.

    Who gets the throw in here ? (because of directly coming from maul situation)

    What I said applies in the 22 only; apologies if it's confused you. It prevents a player from gaining possess outside the 22, retreating into it and then kicking the ball to gain ground. It doesn't apply anywhere else within the field of play.


  • #171
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Narcissus wrote: »
    Why does a ref say use it once at the start of a maul and then use it now ?
    Does it have to do with the motion of the maul? If it's stopped moving?

    Also, when a team has advantage and then kick the ball advantage is over but that's not the case when someone does a cross field kick for a try inside the opponents 22, why is that?

    On your first point; maul can and does become stationary, either naturally or through the efforts of the defending team. The team in possession has a chance to get it moving a second time, hence the "once" call. The "use it" call is their final chance to make use of the ball; it also comes up at a ruck and scrum. The ref calls it to give them forewarning to do something with the ball.

    On your second point; advantage may be either territorial or by way of possession so it varies as to how it may be of benefit to you depending on whats going on. The advantage at a penalty or free kick will offer more scope than at a knock forward; similarly if you are looking like you may score score a try then the ref will give it more time to develop than if you were defending a try. When you mention the cross field kick, well that's an advances situation where you can have a risk knowing that you'll get a penalty regardless.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Howjoe1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,666 ✭✭✭Howjoe1


    TV3 ad break. should have time to make the dinner before it comes back on.


  • #173
    degsie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,749 ✭✭✭degsie


    Howjoe1 wrote: »
    TV3 ad break. should have time to make the dinner before it comes back on.

    Wrong thread?


  • #174
    locum-motion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    Narcissus wrote: »
    ...

    Also, when a team has advantage and then kick the ball advantage is over but that's not the case when someone does a cross field kick for a try inside the opponents 22, why is that?


    When Team A commits an offense, the referee allows play to develop to see if Team B will gain a "territorial or tactical" advantage; that is to see if continuing play will allow Team B to achieve a better position or situation than they might achieve through the ref blowing the whistle and sanctioning the offense.
    Therefore, the amount of leeway the ref allows will depend on whether the offense was a scrum, free-kick or penalty offense.

    I was (briefly) a referee; I was at a referee's meeting years ago where the main speaker was the then world's top ref, Andre Watson. His advice was that, if it's a penalty advantage in a kickable position, the team hasn't achieved an advantage until there's points on the board.


  • #175
    philstar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭philstar


    was it the right call??? anybody clue'ed up want to clarify...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSiYF793wUg


  • #176
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    philstar wrote: »
    was it the right call??? anybody clue'ed up want to clarify...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSiYF793wUg
    Decision was a penalty for deliberate action to play the ball while offside but it could probably have been a scrum to Australia for accidental offside but I don't.
    Referee clearly thought it was clear and obvious infringement for deliberate action to play the ball while offside which is a penalty


  • #177
    Speranza81
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Speranza81


    I thought I'd break my posting duck to thank you all for this thread. I've watched rugby since I've been 18 but I didn't have anything more than the most basic understanding of the rules and strategy. In fact, France vs Italy at Twickenham was my first live game - I hail from Derry so rugby is almost non-existent! This has been a great help so cheers!

    I'm putting my lurking behind me as I've a few question which have niggled at me all tournament.

    Who are the coaches speaking to when they are nattering into their mics? I presume their instructions are passed onto the water carriers who pass them to the players, is that right?

    What is the rule with the tap and go? I think I recall a ref disallowing a tap and go effort in one game because the team had tried it a few minutes before? That seems like an arbitrary way to police the restart. I was at the game yesterday and I'm certainly not going to be watching it again so can someone tell me why Madigan's tap and go was disallowed? Was it a case of going before the ref was ready?

    Thanks in advance!


  • #178
    Speranza81
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Speranza81


    I thought I'd break my posting duck to thank you all for this thread. I've watched rugby since I've been 18 but I didn't have anything more than the most basic understanding of the rules and strategy. In fact, France vs Italy at Twickenham was my first live game - I hail from Derry so rugby is almost non-existent! This has been a great help so cheers!

    I'm putting my lurking behind me as I've a few questions which have niggled at me all tournament.

    Who are the coaches speaking to when they are nattering into their mics? I presume their instructions are passed onto the water carriers who pass them to the players, is that right?

    What is the rule with the tap and go? I think I recall a ref disallowing a tap and go effort in one game because the team had tried it a few minutes before? That seems like an arbitrary way to police the restart. I was at the game yesterday and I'm certainly not going to be watching it again so can someone tell me why Madigan's tap and go was disallowed? Was it a case of going before the ref was ready?

    Thanks in advance!


  • #179
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Speranza81 wrote: »
    I thought I'd break my posting duck to thank you all for this thread. I've watched rugby since I've been 18 but I didn't have anything more than the most basic understanding of the rules and strategy. In fact, France vs Italy at Twickenham was my first live game - I hail from Derry so rugby is almost non-existent! This has been a great help so cheers!

    I'm putting my lurking behind me as I've a few question which have niggled at me all tournament.

    Who are the coaches speaking to when they are nattering into their mics? I presume their instructions are passed onto the water carriers who pass them to the players, is that right?

    What is the rule with the tap and go? I think I recall a ref disallowing a tap and go effort in one game because the team had tried it a few minutes before? That seems like an arbitrary way to police the restart. I was at the game yesterday and I'm certainly not going to be watching it again so can someone tell me why Madigan's tap and go was disallowed? Was it a case of going before the ref was ready?

    Thanks in advance!
    Coaches at professional level cannot go onto or near the pitch. They will be speaking to the water carriers to pass messages.,
    A quick penalty('tap and go') must be taken from the mark where the infringement was/penalty was awarded. It will depend on referee stopping play to possibly talk to the opposition and warn them about future conduct or waiting for a sub to come on or simply going before the referee is ready.


  • #180
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    might be a good time to bring up the "cant take a second quick tap ref" myth.....


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    JF100
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭JF100


    Thanks to Speranza & Lost Sheep.
    However I am still confused.

    1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

    2. Oz v Scot:does anybody know whether Joubert was correct in awarding the penalty at the end?
    There seems to be talk today that he was in fact incorrect to award the penalty.
    (I do not know enough to know whether he was technically correct or not?)


  • #182
    Pudsy33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,795 ✭✭✭✭Pudsy33


    JF100 wrote: »
    Thanks to Speranza & Lost Sheep.
    However I am still confused.

    1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

    2. Oz v Scot:does anybody know whether Joubert was correct in awarding the penalty at the end?
    There seems to be talk today that he was in fact incorrect to award the penalty.
    (I do not know enough to know whether he was technically correct or not?)

    1. He was talking to the Argentina captain at the time and Madigan was in the wrong spot.

    2. It was probably incorrect as in slow motion it appears to have hit an Aussie before the Scottish caught it. However it was a tough call either way so he doesn't deserve vilification for it .


  • #183
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    JF100 wrote: »
    Thanks to Speranza & Lost Sheep.
    However I am still confused.

    1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

    2. Oz v Scot:does anybody know whether Joubert was correct in awarding the penalty at the end?
    There seems to be talk today that he was in fact incorrect to award the penalty.
    (I do not know enough to know whether he was technically correct or not?)
    Madigan didn't take the penalty from the correct position
    On 2 I don't think he was correct but when everyone is looking at it from all different angles, slo mo replays its easier....


  • #184
    PJ Maybe
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭PJ Maybe


    JF100 wrote: »
    1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

    I put the ref-mic on to find that out. He said something like "I'd given permission for him to speak".


  • #185
    phog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,352 ✭✭✭✭phog


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Madigan didn't take the penalty from the correct position
    On 2 I don't think he was correct but when everyone is looking at it from all different angles, slo mo replays its easier....

    After the ref disallowed the pen, did he say that Healy was offside so couldn't allow the tap&go? Or was I hearing things?


  • #186
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Decision was a penalty for deliberate action to play the ball while offside but it could probably have been a scrum to Australia for accidental offside but I don't.
    Referee clearly thought it was clear and obvious infringement for deliberate action to play the ball while offside which is a penalty


    This page makes for an interesting read on the call.

    http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-the-final-scottish-nail/2830520/


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    At RWC 15 does the ref keep an official record of why penalties were given and against whom? Is that made public?


  • #188
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,687 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    There was an incident in one of the semis at the weekend where a kick went over the touch line and the full back leaped in the air caught the ball and then passed it backwards back into the pitch before his feet had actually landed in touch. The ref still gave a line out but the replays clearly showed he released the ball before feet were in touch. Was this a wrong call by the ref?


  • #189
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    At RWC 15 does the ref keep an official record of why penalties were given and against whom? Is that made public?

    Referees don't but there are people at games who keep stats, both official and otherwise. World Rugby should have some figures on their website if you are interested in same.


  • #190
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    There was an incident in one of the semis at the weekend where a kick went over the touch line and the full back leaped in the air caught the ball and then passed it backwards back into the pitch before his feet had actually landed in touch. The ref still gave a line out but the replays clearly showed he released the ball before feet were in touch. Was this a wrong call by the ref?

    I discussed this in the Laws thread; hopefully this will sort you out.


  • #191
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,687 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    do you have a link to your post, that thread is huge!


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Flipper22
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭Flipper22


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    There was an incident in one of the semis at the weekend where a kick went over the touch line and the full back leaped in the air caught the ball and then passed it backwards back into the pitch before his feet had actually landed in touch. The ref still gave a line out but the replays clearly showed he released the ball before feet were in touch. Was this a wrong call by the ref?

    If it's the same one I'm thinking of, he jumped from beyond the touchline so the call was right. The only way to keep the ball in in that scenario is to jump from inside the touchline and bat the ball back when in the air. If you jump when already in touch the ball is out as soon as you touch it.


  • #193
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    do you have a link to your post, that thread is huge!

    Here you go :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97507823&postcount=2488


  • #194
    alchemist33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    The pack is divided into the front row (3 players), 2nd row (2) and back row (3). Yet when I saw some aerial shots of scrums during the WC, the front rows had three players but the second row had four, with a single player at the back. What gives with the nomenclature?


  • #195
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    The pack is divided into the front row (3 players), 2nd row (2) and back row (3). Yet when I saw some aerial shots of scrums during the WC, the front rows had three players but the second row had four, with a single player at the back. What gives with the nomenclature?

    the 2 flankers bind onto the second rows, but their shoulders are on the arses of the props to help push them

    so it looks like theres 4 across the second row from an aerial point of view.

    they are still called the "back row" however because they have the ability to play 'heads up' and break quickly where the other "tight" five dont


  • #196
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    So, wrt collapsing the scrum. are there guidelines to help refs decide whether a team has deliberately collapsed the scrum? Did Oz get away lightly against Arg in this regard or was the ref on the button?


  • #197
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    So, wrt collapsing the scrum. are there guidelines to help refs decide whether a team has deliberately collapsed the scrum? Did Oz get away lightly against Arg in this regard or was the ref on the button?

    Top level referees will be coached on what's what and this includes the scrums. That said, most referees never played in the pack so the inner secrets of the front row will never be divulged to them. And of those refs who scrummed, well we won't be giving it away too easily :pac:


  • #198
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    So it's me again, prompted by the OH.

    We were at the Leinster game yesterday and he announced at one point that he doesn't understand the point of scrums being awarded.

    I tried to explain it as follows:

    1. When a minor offence has occured the scrum is awarded to the offended attacking team and they do not lose territory.
    2. When a more serious offence has been awarded, the attacking team has two choices if they are close to scoring, either take a kick to the corner to increase possession/territory and chance a lineout, or take a penalty to score points.

    Does that make sense?

    He also doesn't seem the point of scrums as a way of restarting, and I compared it to a lineout where the defending team have a chance of winning back the ball, but need to compete for it.

    Is that too simplistic an understanding?


  • #199
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Stheno wrote: »
    So it's me again, prompted by the OH.

    We were at the Leinster game yesterday and he announced at one point that he doesn't understand the point of scrums being awarded.

    I tried to explain it as follows:

    1. When a minor offence has occured the scrum is awarded to the offended attacking team and they do not lose territory.
    2. When a more serious offence has been awarded, the attacking team has two choices if they are close to scoring, either take a kick to the corner to increase possession/territory and chance a lineout, or take a penalty to score points.

    Does that make sense?

    He also doesn't seem the point of scrums as a way of restarting, and I compared it to a lineout where the defending team have a chance of winning back the ball, but need to compete for it.

    Is that too simplistic an understanding?
    Scrums are a method to restart the game. Your explanations are not exactly correct and scrums take place to restart a game following knock ons etc
    When a "more serious offence" occurs a team has more than 2 choices and that is regardless if they are close to scoring or not. The non infringing team can choose to take a shot at goal, Kick the ball to touch and have the throw in at the lineout, they can have a scrum at the place of infringement or they can run the ball(tap and go)
    Scrums as a method of restarting create more space to attack.


  • #200
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Scrums are a method to restart the game. Your explanations are not exactly correct and scrums take place to restart a game following knock ons etc
    When a "more serious offence" occurs a team has more than 2 choices and that is regardless if they are close to scoring or not. The non infringing team can choose to take a shot at goal, Kick the ball to touch and have the throw in at the lineout, they can have a scrum at the place of infringement or they can run the ball(tap and go)
    Scrums as a method of restarting create more space to attack.
    Thank you, that's a good explanation, I did explain that they are a method of restarting the game, but was unsure outside of the minor penalties as to why they would be used.

    Your explanation that they give more space to attack makes sense, especially for a team with quick ball out of the scrum.


  • #201
    connemara man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,773 ✭✭✭connemara man


    How long after a try can a ref call back a TMO? Just saw Dan Biggar get stopped during his run up for a conversion. That seems far too late.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement