Discussion:
Coaching conference
(too old to reply)
Mike Gooding
2004-01-23 10:44:14 UTC
Permalink
As far as I can see, these are the main areas of discussion:

CW gets agreement for tighter refereeing of decoy runners. He wants
any decoy runner to be onside, which seems fair, as it will make it
easier for refs to police by removing grey areas of accidental
obstruction - if you're in front of the carrier you're obstructing.

EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the 22
from a set piece. What if it goes from SH to IC and then back ?

Penalties to be restricted to foul play; free kick for technical
offences. Also a Good Thing, as the initiative is still with the
fouled team. I can see lots of count backs proving that either the
ABs or Wales really won the RWC. Maybe we should reduce the number of
points awarded for tries scored from crosskicks too, as they're
obviously very boring.

No action on reducing points for dropkicks. Good.

EJ also wants rolling subs, and I don't know what the upshot of that
was - vanished I hope, as it would be a disaster. Games would end up
taking 3 hours with players trotting on and off.

All in all, not too bad, although I'd like to have seen some
discussion of lean-to scrummaging and the general NZAR desire for
show-pony rugby.

Mike Gooding
------------
Alan Luchetti
2004-01-23 12:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Gooding
CW gets agreement for tighter refereeing of decoy runners. He wants
any decoy runner to be onside, which seems fair, as it will make it
easier for refs to police by removing grey areas of accidental
obstruction - if you're in front of the carrier you're obstructing.
If you obstruct, deliberately or otherwise.
As for what amounts to obstruction ...
Phil Cook
2004-01-23 13:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Gooding
CW gets agreement for tighter refereeing of decoy runners. He wants
any decoy runner to be onside, which seems fair, as it will make it
easier for refs to police by removing grey areas of accidental
obstruction - if you're in front of the carrier you're obstructing.
EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the 22
from a set piece. What if it goes from SH to IC and then back ?
A simple tweak of the laws to make them say if the team takes the ball back into
their 22 then any subsequent touch kick must go into touch on the bounce seems
pretty sensible to me.
Post by Mike Gooding
Penalties to be restricted to foul play; free kick for technical
offences. Also a Good Thing, as the initiative is still with the
fouled team. I can see lots of count backs proving that either the
ABs or Wales really won the RWC. Maybe we should reduce the number of
points awarded for tries scored from crosskicks too, as they're
obviously very boring.
You missed out the :-) at the end and the penalty to be retained for repeated
technical offences.
Post by Mike Gooding
No action on reducing points for dropkicks. Good.
EJ also wants rolling subs, and I don't know what the upshot of that
was - vanished I hope, as it would be a disaster. Games would end up
taking 3 hours with players trotting on and off.
Quite true, it's bad enough with blood replacements.
Post by Mike Gooding
All in all, not too bad, although I'd like to have seen some
discussion of lean-to scrummaging
Pardon my ignorance but what does that mean?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Mike Gooding
2004-01-26 13:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Cook
Post by Mike Gooding
All in all, not too bad, although I'd like to have seen some
discussion of lean-to scrummaging
Pardon my ignorance but what does that mean?
I just made it up to describe the preferred S12 method of scrummaging,
in which two sets of forwards nominally pack down against each other
while the scrum half feeds the ball into his second row.

Well, I say it's the preferred S12 method - maybe it'll start changing
now as some countries, and hopefully refs, give some power back to the
scrum. Then again, Os du Randt might fly.

Mike Gooding
------------
Phil Cook
2004-01-26 13:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Gooding
Post by Phil Cook
Post by Mike Gooding
All in all, not too bad, although I'd like to have seen some
discussion of lean-to scrummaging
Pardon my ignorance but what does that mean?
I just made it up to describe the preferred S12 method of scrummaging,
in which two sets of forwards nominally pack down against each other
while the scrum half feeds the ball into his second row.
Ah, like in RL then.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
David Covey
2004-01-23 15:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the 22
from a set piece. What if it goes from SH to IC and then back ?
This is a bit daft really. Your point sums it up - it won't change
anything will it?

I have a mental block. Who is "EJ"? I just can't think...

UD
Sean Byrne
2004-01-23 15:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Covey
I have a mental block. Who is "EJ"? I just can't think...
Eddie Jones.

Later,
Sean
Post by David Covey
UD
The Green Phantom
2004-01-23 16:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Byrne
Post by David Covey
I have a mental block. Who is "EJ"? I just can't think...
Eddie Jones.
Later,
Sean
Post by David Covey
UD
I think you may find that the classic rsru 'whoosh' just shot by ;o)

regards

TGP
--
I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
-- Judge Harold T. Stone
didgerman
2004-01-23 16:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Covey
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the 22
from a set piece. What if it goes from SH to IC and then back ?
This is a bit daft really. Your point sums it up - it won't change
anything will it?
I have a mental block. Who is "EJ"? I just can't think...
UD
Eddie Jones: Oz coach and former bad guy from Thunderbirds spin-off,
Stingray.
Chris
2004-01-23 19:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Covey
Post by David Covey
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the
22
Post by David Covey
Post by Mike Gooding
from a set piece. What if it goes from SH to IC and then back ?
This is a bit daft really. Your point sums it up - it won't
change
Post by David Covey
anything will it?
I have a mental block. Who is "EJ"? I just can't think...
UD
Eddie Jones: Oz coach and former bad guy from Thunderbirds spin-off,
Stingray.
My dear sir, one must take issue with your appalling lack of
knowledge. Surely everyone knows Stringray wasn't a Thunderbirds
spin-off. The series predated Thunderbirds and followed Fireball XL5
in the Andersen stable. Before that was Supercar and Four Feather
Falls (we'll ignore Twizzle). Personally I always thought the
skillful animation of the Tracy family members in Thunderbirds was
reminiscent of an attacking AB back line in recent years.
didgerman
2004-01-23 21:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by David Covey
Post by David Covey
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the
22
Post by David Covey
Post by Mike Gooding
from a set piece. What if it goes from SH to IC and then back ?
This is a bit daft really. Your point sums it up - it won't
change
Post by David Covey
anything will it?
I have a mental block. Who is "EJ"? I just can't think...
UD
Eddie Jones: Oz coach and former bad guy from Thunderbirds
spin-off,
Post by Chris
Post by David Covey
Stingray.
My dear sir, one must take issue with your appalling lack of
knowledge. Surely everyone knows Stringray wasn't a Thunderbirds
spin-off. The series predated Thunderbirds and followed Fireball XL5
in the Andersen stable. Before that was Supercar and Four Feather
Falls (we'll ignore Twizzle). Personally I always thought the
skillful animation of the Tracy family members in Thunderbirds was
reminiscent of an attacking AB back line in recent years.
Ooooh, you're so right. But he has got big bulging eyes, for seeing
underwater and generally looking up mermaid's skirts, if they had
any.....
Bulldog
2004-01-23 16:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Gooding
Penalties to be restricted to foul play; free kick for technical
offences. Also a Good Thing, as the initiative is still with the
fouled team. I can see lots of count backs proving that either the
ABs or Wales really won the RWC. Maybe we should reduce the number of
points awarded for tries scored from crosskicks too, as they're
obviously very boring.
I hope that the technical offence becoming a free kick goes hand in
hand with refs carding people for persistent offence..or the likes of
Ritche McCaw will continue to give away free kicks willy nilly.
John Hill
2004-01-25 16:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bulldog
Post by Mike Gooding
Penalties to be restricted to foul play; free kick for technical
offences. Also a Good Thing, as the initiative is still with the
fouled team. I can see lots of count backs proving that either the
ABs or Wales really won the RWC. Maybe we should reduce the number of
points awarded for tries scored from crosskicks too, as they're
obviously very boring.
I hope that the technical offence becoming a free kick goes hand in
hand with refs carding people for persistent offence..or the likes of
Ritche McCaw will continue to give away free kicks willy nilly.
Stupidity and horse trading by the sounds of it. So what they've come
up with is a cheats charter. Do they really expect players aren't
going to risk a hand in the ruck or a little bit of offside.

If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.

JH
Brent
2004-01-25 22:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
In what possible do way do you think that the game played pre-92 exceeds
that played today in terms of 'running rugby'? Without the use it or lose
rule, there is no incentive for strong packs to shift the ball - they'll
just maul it the whole day, scrum sides into the ground etc.

If they _really_ want to introduce 'running rugby', they'll go back to
refereeing the breakdown as they did in 96-97 - i.e. bridging, excessive
holding onto the ball etc.

Cheers

Brent
John Hill
2004-01-26 08:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
In what possible do way do you think that the game played pre-92 exceeds
that played today in terms of 'running rugby'? Without the use it or lose
rule, there is no incentive for strong packs to shift the ball - they'll
just maul it the whole day, scrum sides into the ground etc.
The use it or lose it law may have been appropriate in 1992 AFAIK it
was railroaded through the IRB to suit a perception by NZ and Au that
a all continuity game was entertaining. That would have also suited
NZs virtually professional set up too.

The net impact has beeen to create a game where forwards hang around
cluttering up the field and reducing space. It is UIOLI that forced
the League style defences we have today.

And I may enjoy a good maul. And am just as much a spectator to be
wooed as the next man.
Post by Brent
If they _really_ want to introduce 'running rugby', they'll go back to
refereeing the breakdown as they did in 96-97 - i.e. bridging, excessive
holding onto the ball etc.
After they had tinkered with the laws to correct the damage done by
UIOLI :)

JH
Post by Brent
Cheers
Brent
Alan Luchetti
2004-01-26 10:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
In what possible do way do you think that the game played pre-92 exceeds
that played today in terms of 'running rugby'? Without the use it or lose
rule, there is no incentive for strong packs to shift the ball - they'll
just maul it the whole day, scrum sides into the ground etc.
The use it or lose it law may have been appropriate in 1992 AFAIK it
was railroaded through the IRB to suit a perception by NZ and Au that
a all continuity game was entertaining. That would have also suited
NZs virtually professional set up too.
AFAIR Bob Dwyer was bitterly opposd to UIOLI. I'd welcome some
knowledgable input here.
Post by John Hill
The net impact has beeen to create a game where forwards hang around
cluttering up the field and reducing space. It is UIOLI that forced
the League style defences we have today.
And I may enjoy a good maul. And am just as much a spectator to be
wooed as the next man.
Agree there. Mauls must ever remain part of the rich mix that is RU.
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
If they _really_ want to introduce 'running rugby', they'll go back to
refereeing the breakdown as they did in 96-97 - i.e. bridging, excessive
holding onto the ball etc.
After they had tinkered with the laws to correct the damage done by
UIOLI :)
A less gentlemanlike attitude to defence is more to blame for the
post-amateur RL-style fanning out from ruck and tackle (but not maul).
Especially as quick ruck/tackle ball is more likely to find unready
defences than slow maul ball. I value the maul more as a thing in
itself than a promoter of running rugby.

In the mid to late 80s, England's & Auckland's mauling became incessant
and interminable and, maul ball being slow ball, this suited a kicking
10 more than a passing/running 10. UIOLI was a justifiable, if not
ideal, reaction to a very static and punctuated game.
John Hill
2004-01-26 12:24:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:56:38 +1100, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by John Hill
The use it or lose it law may have been appropriate in 1992 AFAIK it
Post by John Hill
was railroaded through the IRB to suit a perception by NZ and Au that
a all continuity game was entertaining. That would have also suited
NZs virtually professional set up too.
AFAIR Bob Dwyer was bitterly opposd to UIOLI. I'd welcome some
knowledgable input here.
My fairly good sources were that it was almost totally manipulated by
NZ - eventually with Aus support. Dwyer was right, as usual.
Post by John Hill
Post by John Hill
The net impact has beeen to create a game where forwards hang around
cluttering up the field and reducing space. It is UIOLI that forced
the League style defences we have today.
And I may enjoy a good maul. And am just as much a spectator to be
wooed as the next man.
Agree there. Mauls must ever remain part of the rich mix that is RU.
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
If they _really_ want to introduce 'running rugby', they'll go back
to
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
refereeing the breakdown as they did in 96-97 - i.e. bridging,
excessive
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
holding onto the ball etc.
After they had tinkered with the laws to correct the damage done by
UIOLI :)
A less gentlemanlike attitude to defence is more to blame for the
post-amateur RL-style fanning out from ruck and tackle (but not maul).
Especially as quick ruck/tackle ball is more likely to find unready
defences than slow maul ball. I value the maul more as a thing in
itself than a promoter of running rugby.
As do I. But it was largely emasculated by UIOLI, it has now returned
Post by John Hill
In the mid to late 80s, England's & Auckland's mauling became incessant
and interminable and, maul ball being slow ball, this suited a kicking
10 more than a passing/running 10. UIOLI was a justifiable, if not
ideal, reaction to a very static and punctuated game.
It was a reaction. A more appropriate one might have been to wait for
the coaches to work out a solution, as they invariably do

JH
Brent
2004-01-26 23:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
In what possible do way do you think that the game played pre-92 exceeds
that played today in terms of 'running rugby'? Without the use it or lose
rule, there is no incentive for strong packs to shift the ball - they'll
just maul it the whole day, scrum sides into the ground etc.
The use it or lose it law may have been appropriate in 1992 AFAIK it
was railroaded through the IRB to suit a perception by NZ and Au that
a all continuity game was entertaining. That would have also suited
NZs virtually professional set up too.
Certainly there was a move in NZ to encourage the ball being in play more
often - this in light of statistics reported at the time that the ball was
in play for perhaps one-third of an 80 minute game.

Personally, I suspect that continuity was encouraged more by the change in
laws (or interpretation) to allow lifting at lineouts, and to make kicking
the ball away a less attractive option.
Post by John Hill
The net impact has beeen to create a game where forwards hang around
cluttering up the field and reducing space. It is UIOLI that forced
the League style defences we have today.
As Alan has pointed out, this is a common refrain, but ignores the
professional changes in the game which encouraged cross-pollenation of RL
ideas - particularly both defensive techniques and patterns.
Post by John Hill
And I may enjoy a good maul. And am just as much a spectator to be
wooed as the next man.
Nothing wrong with a good maul. Which doesn't change the fact that it's not
particularly conducive to running rugby. While the theory of sucking
players in is all very well, why take the risk if you can just remorselessly
shove your way up the field?
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
If they _really_ want to introduce 'running rugby', they'll go back to
refereeing the breakdown as they did in 96-97 - i.e. bridging, excessive
holding onto the ball etc.
After they had tinkered with the laws to correct the damage done by
UIOLI :)
Did they really tinker with the laws at the breakdown that much between
92-97?

Cheers

Brent
John Hill
2004-01-27 08:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Certainly there was a move in NZ to encourage the ball being in play more
often - this in light of statistics reported at the time that the ball was
in play for perhaps one-third of an 80 minute game.
Personally, I suspect that continuity was encouraged more by the change in
laws (or interpretation) to allow lifting at lineouts, and to make kicking
the ball away a less attractive option.
Except that wasn't introduced until around 95. The great increase in
playing time (up from 27 minutes ) was in 92/93
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
The net impact has beeen to create a game where forwards hang around
cluttering up the field and reducing space. It is UIOLI that forced
the League style defences we have today.
As Alan has pointed out, this is a common refrain, but ignores the
professional changes in the game which encouraged cross-pollenation of RL
ideas - particularly both defensive techniques and patterns.
Again post 95
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
And I may enjoy a good maul. And am just as much a spectator to be
wooed as the next man.
Nothing wrong with a good maul. Which doesn't change the fact that it's not
particularly conducive to running rugby. While the theory of sucking
players in is all very well, why take the risk if you can just remorselessly
shove your way up the field?
And who wants running rugby, what is so special about that. SAome of
the best games I've seen consisted of half breaks. And pre UIOLI the
ball went to the side going forward which, And going forward is of
course is a "good thing" if you want the backline attacking.
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
If they _really_ want to introduce 'running rugby', they'll go back to
refereeing the breakdown as they did in 96-97 - i.e. bridging, excessive
holding onto the ball etc.
After they had tinkered with the laws to correct the damage done by
UIOLI :)
Did they really tinker with the laws at the breakdown that much between
92-97?
Absolutely, lots of fiddling with the tackle law in particular - which
now makes it ridiculously complicated.

JH
Post by Brent
Cheers
Brent
Brent
2004-01-27 15:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Certainly there was a move in NZ to encourage the ball being in play more
often - this in light of statistics reported at the time that the ball was
in play for perhaps one-third of an 80 minute game.
Personally, I suspect that continuity was encouraged more by the change in
laws (or interpretation) to allow lifting at lineouts, and to make kicking
the ball away a less attractive option.
Except that wasn't introduced until around 95. The great increase in
playing time (up from 27 minutes ) was in 92/93
I appreciate that lifting wasn't introduced until 1995 or so (leaving
aside SA referees). But I also recall that the use it or lose it law
didn't have an immediate major impact on time in play when introduced.

(Obviously scoring increased, but part of that was simply the
introduction of the 5 point try).
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
The net impact has beeen to create a game where forwards hang around
cluttering up the field and reducing space. It is UIOLI that forced
the League style defences we have today.
As Alan has pointed out, this is a common refrain, but ignores the
professional changes in the game which encouraged cross-pollenation of RL
ideas - particularly both defensive techniques and patterns.
Again post 95
Matter of personal recollection, but I do not recall the basketball
rugby refrain in 1992-94, nor defensive lines fanning to the extent
that they do today. It was a while ago, though.
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Nothing wrong with a good maul. Which doesn't change the fact that it's not
particularly conducive to running rugby. While the theory of sucking
players in is all very well, why take the risk if you can just remorselessly
shove your way up the field?
And who wants running rugby, what is so special about that. SAome of
the best games I've seen consisted of half breaks. And pre UIOLI the
ball went to the side going forward which, And going forward is of
course is a "good thing" if you want the backline attacking.
Well, your original point was that the running game was inhibited by
the use it or lose it law, and that mauling would increase running
rugby. This is clearly wrong IMO. Whether the maul is a good thing
is another issue

Personally, I enjoy rugby played at pace and a high skill level. Low
scoring games can be both - but in my experience they are more often
dreary mistake-filled kickfests.
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Did they really tinker with the laws at the breakdown that much between
92-97?
Absolutely, lots of fiddling with the tackle law in particular - which
now makes it ridiculously complicated.
It has _always_ been ridiculously complicated - at least that I can
recall.

Cheers

Brent
John Hill
2004-01-28 14:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
And who wants running rugby, what is so special about that. SAome of
Post by John Hill
the best games I've seen consisted of half breaks. And pre UIOLI the
ball went to the side going forward which, And going forward is of
course is a "good thing" if you want the backline attacking.
Well, your original point was that the running game was inhibited by
the use it or lose it law, and that mauling would increase running
rugby. This is clearly wrong IMO. Whether the maul is a good thing
is another issue
My original point was that repealing UIOLI would force forwards to
contest the breakdown and stop cluttering up the field, thereby
producing more space / less defence for the runners to run into
Post by John Hill
Personally, I enjoy rugby played at pace and a high skill level. Low
scoring games can be both - but in my experience they are more often
dreary mistake-filled kickfests.
And that is worse than a dreary, monotonous try fest like some of the
world cup games?

JH
Brent
2004-01-28 18:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Post by John Hill
And who wants running rugby, what is so special about that. SAome of
Post by John Hill
the best games I've seen consisted of half breaks. And pre UIOLI the
ball went to the side going forward which, And going forward is of
course is a "good thing" if you want the backline attacking.
Well, your original point was that the running game was inhibited by
the use it or lose it law, and that mauling would increase running
rugby. This is clearly wrong IMO. Whether the maul is a good thing
is another issue
My original point was that repealing UIOLI would force forwards to
contest the breakdown and stop cluttering up the field, thereby
producing more space / less defence for the runners to run into
Which brings me back to my point - while there might theoretically be
more space, maul ball is relatively slow, relatively static
(particularly in that it does not shift the point of attack), and not
the best for running off. Pre use it or lose it, many teams used the
maul like WWI trench warfare - i.e. slow and grudging advance up the
field, with the knowledge that you would retain possession as long as
you moved forward.

Why do you think it would be different now?
Post by John Hill
Post by John Hill
Personally, I enjoy rugby played at pace and a high skill level. Low
scoring games can be both - but in my experience they are more often
dreary mistake-filled kickfests.
And that is worse than a dreary, monotonous try fest like some of the
world cup games?
Yes.

Although not by much. There is at least an exhibition of skill and
ability from one side to be admired.

Cheers

Brent
John Hill
2004-01-29 10:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
My original point was that repealing UIOLI would force forwards to
contest the breakdown and stop cluttering up the field, thereby
producing more space / less defence for the runners to run into
Which brings me back to my point - while there might theoretically be
more space, maul ball is relatively slow, relatively static
(particularly in that it does not shift the point of attack), and not
the best for running off. Pre use it or lose it, many teams used the
maul like WWI trench warfare - i.e. slow and grudging advance up the
field, with the knowledge that you would retain possession as long as
you moved forward.
Ah the old slow maul ball one . A good hoary and not neccesarily true
chestnut. Good mauling does shift the point of attack, it is an area
of enormous skill and if the ball is going to be slow anyway - as it
often is from rucks due to slowing down by defence (and this will get
worse if the devaluation of the penalty goes ahead). Quick maul ball
is both possible and desirable. But I need that whiteboard to explain
it.
Post by Brent
Why do you think it would be different now?
Players are more athletic, more committed to continuity, different in
so many ways.
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Personally, I enjoy rugby played at pace and a high skill level. Low
scoring games can be both - but in my experience they are more often
dreary mistake-filled kickfests.
And that is worse than a dreary, monotonous try fest like some of the
world cup games?
Yes.
Although not by much. There is at least an exhibition of skill and
ability from one side to be admired.
Not just a boring series of showboaters scoring tries

JH
Post by Brent
Cheers
Brent
2004-01-30 07:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Which brings me back to my point - while there might theoretically be
more space, maul ball is relatively slow, relatively static
(particularly in that it does not shift the point of attack), and not
the best for running off. Pre use it or lose it, many teams used the
maul like WWI trench warfare - i.e. slow and grudging advance up the
field, with the knowledge that you would retain possession as long as
you moved forward.
Ah the old slow maul ball one . A good hoary and not neccesarily true
chestnut.
Speaking in general terms, I would think maul ball is more often slow than
not.
Post by John Hill
Good mauling does shift the point of attack, it is an area
of enormous skill and if the ball is going to be slow anyway - as it
often is from rucks due to slowing down by defence (and this will get
worse if the devaluation of the penalty goes ahead). Quick maul ball
is both possible and desirable. But I need that whiteboard to explain
it.
I would agree that it's possible, and I can see your point about shifting
the point of attack, but in my view it would not be as consistently
effective at either as ruck ball - although obviously ruck ball can be slow
as well.
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Why do you think it would be different now?
Players are more athletic, more committed to continuity, different in
so many ways.
In the short term, you are probably right. In the long term, just as
coaches would tease out the weaknesses of a 'no penalties for technical
infringements' game, I believe they would coach a reversion to the old style
of mauling. Coaches are generally risk averse, and mauling is a risk averse
strategy.
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Personally, I enjoy rugby played at pace and a high skill level. Low
scoring games can be both - but in my experience they are more often
dreary mistake-filled kickfests.
And that is worse than a dreary, monotonous try fest like some of the
world cup games?
Yes.
Although not by much. There is at least an exhibition of skill and
ability from one side to be admired.
Not just a boring series of showboaters scoring tries
I agree.

Although I suspect that is not what you meant.

Cheers

Brent
John Hill
2004-01-30 09:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
Ah the old slow maul ball one . A good hoary and not neccesarily true
Post by John Hill
chestnut.
Speaking in general terms, I would think maul ball is more often slow than
not.
As is a lot of ruck ball nowadays
Post by John Hill
Post by John Hill
Good mauling does shift the point of attack, it is an area
of enormous skill and if the ball is going to be slow anyway - as it
often is from rucks due to slowing down by defence (and this will get
worse if the devaluation of the penalty goes ahead). Quick maul ball
is both possible and desirable. But I need that whiteboard to explain
it.
I would agree that it's possible, and I can see your point about shifting
the point of attack, but in my view it would not be as consistently
effective at either as ruck ball - although obviously ruck ball can be slow
as well.
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Why do you think it would be different now?
Players are more athletic, more committed to continuity, different in
so many ways.
In the short term, you are probably right. In the long term, just as
coaches would tease out the weaknesses of a 'no penalties for technical
infringements' game, I believe they would coach a reversion to the old style
of mauling. Coaches are generally risk averse, and mauling is a risk averse
strategy.
Well the no penalties would take them about 10 seconds to tease out :)

But there is already a benefit to the old style mauling - watch
Leicester and to an extent England. IMO one of the great positives to
emerge over the last 2/3 years is the use of the driving maul as an
attacking weapon.

JH
Post by John Hill
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Post by John Hill
Post by Brent
Personally, I enjoy rugby played at pace and a high skill level. Low
scoring games can be both - but in my experience they are more often
dreary mistake-filled kickfests.
And that is worse than a dreary, monotonous try fest like some of the
world cup games?
Yes.
Although not by much. There is at least an exhibition of skill and
ability from one side to be admired.
Not just a boring series of showboaters scoring tries
I agree.
Although I suspect that is not what you meant.
Cheers
Brent
Alan Luchetti
2004-01-30 02:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
As noted by Brent & me elsewhere in this thread, mauls do NOT make for
running & flowing rugby -- they make for static & punctuated rugby.

from the IRB press release after the coaching conference ...

"Key recommendations

Among the key recommendations, which will be taken forward for further
discussion and consideration at the Annual Meeting of the IRB in April,
are: -

Research into the maul to include injury surveillance, management, defence,
binding and obstruction. "

After the IRB research, I expect we'll see a maul regime less loaded in
favour of the team with the ball, not more. Referees will become as alive
to binding and obstruction offences by the attack as they have been to
collapsing and offside offences by the defence.
Fitz
2004-01-30 07:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
As noted by Brent & me elsewhere in this thread, mauls do NOT make for
running & flowing rugby -- they make for static & punctuated rugby.
Whooaa! No disrespect to yourself and Brent but just because you say it's so
does not necessarily make it so! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of
the revelations from the recent conference that (surprisingly, to me at
least), a large majority of tries scored in international rugby come
directly from first phase possession? What a well executed maul does is
create a pseudo first phase situation i.e. all the forwards are tied in
defending the maul. Admiittedly the ball is slow and the defending side has
plenty of time to re-align their backline - however as I said this seems to
be the best way for the attacking side to score!
Post by Alan Luchetti
from the IRB press release after the coaching conference ...
"Key recommendations
Among the key recommendations, which will be taken forward for further
discussion and consideration at the Annual Meeting of the IRB in April,
are: -
Research into the maul to include injury surveillance, management, defence,
binding and obstruction. "
After the IRB research, I expect we'll see a maul regime less loaded in
favour of the team with the ball, not more. Referees will become as alive
to binding and obstruction offences by the attack as they have been to
collapsing and offside offences by the defence.
Why would you expect to see that? Various things get discussed at
conferences in all walks of sport/business. People go to these meetings with
their own personal agendas first and foremost and just because someone talks
loudly and gets something recommended for further discussion does not mean
something is going to happen about it.

Having said that the IRB have a poor record for tinkering with the rules of
the game over the last 15 years (probably longer but I cannot comment on
that). Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying whether I agree/disagree with any
of the rule changes - just if it ain't broken don't fix it. I would prefer
that the game continued with the existing rules (whether or not I agree with
them) especially since popularity seems to be on the up at the moment - at
least in this neck of the woods (ok I admit I'm English!).

As for comment on the exact subject matter wrt to mauls I must say I fall
between the stools. Some of the Leicester style mauling resulting in the
inevitable Back try seemed to be stretching the laws to the limit (OK
blatantly offending). But they don't seem to be able to do this any more so
either there is obviously a way of defending against it or maybe the refs
have got smarter. Either way no rule change required.

The other side of the coin is THAT maul in the EvA game last June. What a
thing of beauty!!! (I've already admitted to being English). Only saw it
live - slow-mo replay will probably show countless offside offences by the
England pack as the maul progressed. But if the ref was happy with the maul
progress how could he be happy with the way it ended?

My guess is that he maul will follow a similar path to lineouts. Lineouts
became so difficult to police that they now basically (if still not quite in
the rules) allow carte blanche lifting. I think (unfortunatley) that the
maul has got too hard too police that they will try to find some way of
discouraging it.

Sorry for my drunken ramblings
--
Fitz
Brent
2004-01-30 08:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fitz
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
As noted by Brent & me elsewhere in this thread, mauls do NOT make for
running & flowing rugby -- they make for static & punctuated rugby.
Whooaa! No disrespect to yourself and Brent but just because you say it's so
does not necessarily make it so! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of
the revelations from the recent conference that (surprisingly, to me at
least), a large majority of tries scored in international rugby come
directly from first phase possession? What a well executed maul does is
create a pseudo first phase situation i.e. all the forwards are tied in
defending the maul. Admiittedly the ball is slow and the defending side has
plenty of time to re-align their backline - however as I said this seems to
be the best way for the attacking side to score!
I would be interested to see how many tries were scored from lineouts vs
scrums.

Lineouts are a unique animal, what with the ten metre offside line, and the
ability to set a structured maul off clean ball - i.e. every player knows
where they should be going, and you get 6-8 men committed, as opposed to
off-the-cuff mauls which form in general play.
Post by Fitz
Having said that the IRB have a poor record for tinkering with the rules of
the game over the last 15 years (probably longer but I cannot comment on
that). Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying whether I agree/disagree with any
of the rule changes - just if it ain't broken don't fix it. I would prefer
that the game continued with the existing rules (whether or not I agree with
them) especially since popularity seems to be on the up at the moment - at
least in this neck of the woods (ok I admit I'm English!).
Clearly, there was a perception that things were broken (or at least could
be improved), therefore they endeavoured to fix them.

Despite what others have said, rugby is by no means alone in its attempt to
continuously improve the game by rule changes (e.g, rugby league in its
conversion to the 10 metre rule, 40-20 kicks, elimination of the ability to
strike at the play-the ball etc). Soccer is an exception to this rule.
Post by Fitz
Sorry for my drunken ramblings
Don't bother apologising - no one else does.

Cheers

Brent
Groundhog
2004-01-30 10:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Despite what others have said, rugby is by no means alone in its attempt to
continuously improve the game by rule changes (e.g, rugby league in its
conversion to the 10 metre rule, 40-20 kicks, elimination of the ability to
strike at the play-the ball etc). Soccer is an exception to this rule.
Soccer is basically a far more simple game - fewer complicated set-pieces
and a less "territory-driven" structure. Figure out what the lines on the
pitch mean and the offside rule and that's about it.

They have had some rule-changes though... Back-pass to goalkeeper ? Steps
with ball in hand ?
John Hill
2004-01-30 09:06:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:27:57 +1100, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
As noted by Brent & me elsewhere in this thread, mauls do NOT make for
running & flowing rugby -- they make for static & punctuated rugby.
As noted by Dave Covey - so where does it say that the aim is running
flowing rugby. There was plenty of that in some of the RWC games. I
went and did something else.

The joy of sport is, surely the tense tight closely fought contest
where attack and defense are evenly matched.
Post by Alan Luchetti
from the IRB press release after the coaching conference ...
"Key recommendations
Among the key recommendations, which will be taken forward for further
discussion and consideration at the Annual Meeting of the IRB in April,
are: -
Research into the maul to include injury surveillance, management, defence,
binding and obstruction. "
Translated as we can't find a way to defend against the maul so lets
depower it
Post by Alan Luchetti
After the IRB research, I expect we'll see a maul regime less loaded in
favour of the team with the ball, not more. Referees will become as alive
to binding and obstruction offences by the attack as they have been to
collapsing and offside offences by the defence.
Ah back to Rugby League then

JH
Alan Luchetti
2004-01-30 11:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:27:57 +1100, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by John Hill
If they really want a running game go back to the daft introduction of
UIOLI and repael the bloody thing, tie the forwards in and run the
ball around FFS.
As noted by Brent & me elsewhere in this thread, mauls do NOT make for
running & flowing rugby -- they make for static & punctuated rugby.
As noted by Dave Covey - so where does it say that the aim is running
flowing rugby. There was plenty of that in some of the RWC games. I
went and did something else.
The joy of sport is, surely the tense tight closely fought contest
where attack and defense are evenly matched.
It's both and a maul can be as stirring as anything wider out.

You gripe about UIOLI but that was a reaction to the maul having become
less of a contest for possession
than a modern lineout. It became that way because binding becoame ever
more policed for safety reasons. Since UIOLI came in, we have seen it
relaxed to allow a second effort and we have seen a further increased
emphasis on safety.
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
from the IRB press release after the coaching conference ...
"Key recommendations
Among the key recommendations, which will be taken forward for further
discussion and consideration at the Annual Meeting of the IRB in April,
are: -
Research into the maul to include injury surveillance, management, defence,
binding and obstruction. "
Translated as we can't find a way to defend against the maul so lets
depower it
Take it straight. "Injury surveillance" must remain the overriding
concern, so binding will be enfored. There goes contest-for-possession.
"Management" acknowledges that you can police a maul about half as well
as you could have policed a 1970s lineout. "Defence" - if the RWC's
decided lack of long-distance mauls is an indication, there are ways to
arrest a maul. The minnows defended almost as well as the big boys.
Something to do with enforcement of "binding and obstruction" laws
perhaps?
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
After the IRB research, I expect we'll see a maul regime less loaded in
favour of the team with the ball, not more. Referees will become as alive
to binding and obstruction offences by the attack as they have been to
collapsing and offside offences by the defence.
Ah back to Rugby League then
Hardly. Unless you get your wishes which apparently include the maul
being as much of a contest for possession as the RL play-the-ball and
nearly as ibiquitous.
John Hill
2004-01-31 10:10:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:59:38 +1100, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
After the IRB research, I expect we'll see a maul regime less loaded
in
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
favour of the team with the ball, not more. Referees will become as
alive
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
to binding and obstruction offences by the attack as they have been
to
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
collapsing and offside offences by the defence.
Ah back to Rugby League then
Hardly. Unless you get your wishes which apparently include the maul
being as much of a contest for possession as the RL play-the-ball and
nearly as ibiquitous.
Alan you, unusuall,y make little sense here. Maybe you've been
listening top Jones and Eales a bit too much ?

JH

Angus
2004-01-23 17:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Gooding
CW gets agreement for tighter refereeing of decoy runners. He wants
any decoy runner to be onside, which seems fair, as it will make it
easier for refs to police by removing grey areas of accidental
obstruction - if you're in front of the carrier you're obstructing.
Like this one. Now we just have to see if it gets inforced.
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the 22
from a set piece. What if it goes from SH to IC and then back ?
There was a more threatening change at one point of having no kicks
direct to touch at all. I surprised my self as I usually hate the
tinkering that I liked this idea.
Post by Mike Gooding
Penalties to be restricted to foul play; free kick for technical
offences. Also a Good Thing, as the initiative is still with the
fouled team. I can see lots of count backs proving that either the
ABs or Wales really won the RWC. Maybe we should reduce the number of
points awarded for tries scored from crosskicks too, as they're
obviously very boring.
Think this could be a really bad idea (though not implemented it's a
surgestion). The yellow card would then be the only reasonable
deterant to killing the ball and we have all seen how baddly it has
been applied.
There is a good case for reducing some of the scrum penaltys though.
Post by Mike Gooding
No action on reducing points for dropkicks. Good.
EJ also wants rolling subs, and I don't know what the upshot of that
was - vanished I hope, as it would be a disaster. Games would end up
taking 3 hours with players trotting on and off.
Exactly the oppersite is the plan. Nowerdays when ever a team is
getting low on puff a prop goes down "injered" before a scrum forcing
a breather. With this plan the play would simply go on with the
replaced prop. A big effort would have to be made to have the subs on
and subbed player off quick smart though or it could be a interminable
bore.
Post by Mike Gooding
All in all, not too bad, although I'd like to have seen some
discussion of lean-to scrummaging and the general NZAR desire for
show-pony rugby.
Mike Gooding
------------
Mike Gooding
2004-01-26 10:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ also wants rolling subs, and I don't know what the upshot of that
was - vanished I hope, as it would be a disaster. Games would end up
taking 3 hours with players trotting on and off.
Exactly the oppersite is the plan. Nowerdays when ever a team is
getting low on puff a prop goes down "injered" before a scrum forcing
a breather. With this plan the play would simply go on with the
replaced prop. A big effort would have to be made to have the subs on
and subbed player off quick smart though or it could be a interminable
bore.
It wouldn't be long before we had specialist kickers who would be
subbed on for penalties then immediately subbed off again. The side
with the put-in would bring on their offensive pack and the other side
their defensive pack; the defensive forwards would be bigger, of
course, which means bigger tackles, so probably some kind of armour
would have to be introduced. Just add a ref brought up on S12
principle of never mind the forward pass, let the game flow, and we've
got mini-gridiron.

Mike Gooding
-------------
Ian Diddams
2004-01-28 19:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ wants to ban kick out on the full from a ball passed into the 22
from a set piece.
Hmmmm... mind drifts... amusing thoughts of team having a lineout
inches outside their own 22 deliberately trying to "move" it slightly
inside 22 in order to ensure kick can go to touch directly :-)

Being serious, I don't really have a problem with it... I can see
their being "problems" with the sort of scenario I mentioned above
though e.g. a lineout just outside a 22.
Post by Mike Gooding
Penalties to be restricted to foul play; free kick for technical
offences.
err... offside only a FK? Oh dear... lots of centres up offside all
the time then methinks (yellow cards notwithstanding).
Post by Mike Gooding
Also a Good Thing, as the initiative is still with the
fouled team. I can see lots of count backs proving that either the
ABs or Wales really won the RWC.
Countbacks via various law changes over the ages would see very
different results. Its meaningless. NZ once beat England 4 penalties
to 5 tries or somesuch... it was a victory under the laws of the
time. Today it would be a hammering the other way around. So what?
Post by Mike Gooding
Maybe we should reduce the number of points awarded for tries scored from
crosskicks too, as they're obviously very boring.
I'm constantly staggered by the one dimensional viewpoint of the
majority of this newsgroup. FFS, look beyond the single action...
think about its consoequences as well as its direct result!

Essay Question : "Discuss the potential threat of the crossfield kick
as it pertains to the organisation of a defence. Further investigate
how the attack can thus utilise this tactic to create exploitable
space for the inside backs and back row to exploit".
Post by Mike Gooding
EJ also wants rolling subs, and I don't know what the upshot of that
was - vanished I hope, as it would be a disaster. Games would end up
taking 3 hours with players trotting on and off.
Oh god. Rugby once was a game where one's fitness and stamina were
issues that were pertinent in a game. Tactical subs are bad enough in
this regard... rolling subs would just kill that concept stone dead.

didds
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...