- Joined
- Saturday January 15, 2011
- Location
- Norfolk, England
UKRob said:I don't see it that way Chris - the fact is that England had so many line breaks and good scoring opportunities that they should have buried the Scots. It was their lack of composure and using their support runners that cost them tries - hardly anything to do with Scottish pressure.
UKRob said:I don't profess to understand the nuances of rugby...
UKRob said:...but my overall impression of this seasons tournament so far is a complete lack of standards and interpretation when it comes to referees. Scrums appear to be a lottery in terms of who is penalised - and as for rolling away at the breakdown, they might just as well flip a coin to decide whether a penalty is warranted or not.
UKRob said:One rule change I'd like to see is the truck and trailer outlawed - it just seems to be contrary to the rules that someone at the back of a maul with only the slightest connection can carry the ball and have team-mates legally protect him. Might as well be playing American football.
Bechet45 said:UKRob said:One rule change I'd like to see is the truck and trailer outlawed - it just seems to be contrary to the rules that someone at the back of a maul with only the slightest connection can carry the ball and have team-mates legally protect him. Might as well be playing American football.
Where would you have the ball held in a maul, Rob? And it can't be banned because it is Tigers stock in trade, perfected by the all time great No. 7 - Neil Back.
Isn't a truck and trailer just two guys and is outlawed?
UKRob said:Bechet45 said:UKRob said:One rule change I'd like to see is the truck and trailer outlawed - it just seems to be contrary to the rules that someone at the back of a maul with only the slightest connection can carry the ball and have team-mates legally protect him. Might as well be playing American football.
Where would you have the ball held in a maul, Rob? And it can't be banned because it is Tigers stock in trade, perfected by the all time great No. 7 - Neil Back.
Isn't a truck and trailer just two guys and is outlawed?
Maybe it's not just the nuances I don't get then Carl - but we are referring to the same thing I think. To me, having men in front of the ball whose sole intention is to stop the opposition getting at the ball carrier is obstruction. So to answer your question, the ball carrier would have to be at the front of the maul.
Incidentally, why is the rule different if, as you say, just two men is deemed an offence?
UKRob said:Where would you have the ball held in a maul, Rob?
mbnu54 said:The maul is a legitamate way to gain ground, and is a part of the on field battle between two packs. If a teams pack is significantly stronger than their opponents then they can use this to great advantage throughout the game. It is also a tool to let your team regroup and your backs to reset thier line. The following I think is a fairly clear introduction to the rules on mauling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/4204094.stm
UKRob said:mbnu54 said:The maul is a legitamate way to gain ground, and is a part of the on field battle between two packs. If a teams pack is significantly stronger than their opponents then they can use this to great advantage throughout the game. It is also a tool to let your team regroup and your backs to reset thier line. The following I think is a fairly clear introduction to the rules on mauling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/4204094.stm
That's a useful link - and does seem to cover exactly what I was complaining of:
''One of the infringements referees have clamped down on in the past few years has been obstruction in the maul, or "truck and trailer" as it has been called.
This is when a player acts as a screen, blocking tacklers from reaching the ball carrier.
However players can circumvent this law if two or more team-mates bind around the ball together and move forwards.''
So it seems to me that that part of the law is not being penalised often enough because all teams are using the tactic of using a carrier loosely attached at the back - the opposition can't get at him unless they come in at the side - but would then be penalised.
There certainly seems to be scope to look at it again.
chrisbell said:Is it possibly the case that the players in front of the ball carrier are deemed to be binding around the ball and moving forwards as per the Law quoted above?
UKRob said:chrisbell said:Is it possibly the case that the players in front of the ball carrier are deemed to be binding around the ball and moving forwards as per the Law quoted above?
I don't think so Chris - you see too many examples of the ball carrier attaching one hand to a shirt or whatever - but the player has his back to the carrier so I don't see that it's binding.
However, as I started off by saying - I don't know the rules top a great extent, so maybe it's all legal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?