Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
And now it begins...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BokMagic" data-source="post: 93816"><p>Most scrum-related injuries doesn`t even happen at the "hit" anyway- it happens as a result of the collapse. The IRB should have rather looked at this aspect, and as I said elsewhere, also the "cleaning out" that occurs, legally, at rucks.</p><p></p><p>By the way, I personally suspect that Syd Millar is contemplating a move to Australia- why else all these rule changes which are to the benefit of the Aussies? Consider the following:</p><p>- As already stated here, the Aussie scrum is basically porridge- trying to bring the scrum closer to the diet rugby version would clearly favour Oz more than anyone else.</p><p></p><p>- Proposal for allowing the collapsing of mauls for safety reasons- utter shite one this- aptly described as a death-trap in another thread. Now, we all know that Oz can`t get a rolling maul going against even the likes of Italy, as for stopping one legally, well they have a snowball`s chance in hell of that.</p><p></p><p>- Proposal for hands in the ruck- the Aussies must be sick of the sight of one Richard McCaw- sure, us Saffas also have our annual drubbing at the hands of mr McCaw and co. over in NZ, but at least we seem to be able to neutralise him in SA. The Aussies also have to face him in the Bledisloe Cup, so if Tuquiri and Elsom can`t take the guy out with spear tackles, why not neutralise him by changing the rules?</p><p></p><p>-Proposal to have off-side line 5m behind the scrum- in the 2004 Tri-Nations, Oz kicked the least, rucked the most, passed the most and had the most possession- and ended stone last. Same story again in 2005, and in 2006, well the stats were exactly the same, a lucky win in Sydney kept them from the wooden spoon. So now, who do you reckon will benefit most from this rule? Methinks the team that kicks the least, passes the most, rucks the most and retains possession the most.</p><p></p><p>-Proposal to do away with the corner flags- Clyde Rathbone has an excellent strike-rate in international rugby, but he also gets bundled out quite regularly into, yup you guessed it, the corner flag!</p><p></p><p>So there <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> you have it folks, the reasons for the new rule changes, all of course with tongue firmly in cheek.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BokMagic, post: 93816"] Most scrum-related injuries doesn`t even happen at the "hit" anyway- it happens as a result of the collapse. The IRB should have rather looked at this aspect, and as I said elsewhere, also the "cleaning out" that occurs, legally, at rucks. By the way, I personally suspect that Syd Millar is contemplating a move to Australia- why else all these rule changes which are to the benefit of the Aussies? Consider the following: - As already stated here, the Aussie scrum is basically porridge- trying to bring the scrum closer to the diet rugby version would clearly favour Oz more than anyone else. - Proposal for allowing the collapsing of mauls for safety reasons- utter shite one this- aptly described as a death-trap in another thread. Now, we all know that Oz can`t get a rolling maul going against even the likes of Italy, as for stopping one legally, well they have a snowball`s chance in hell of that. - Proposal for hands in the ruck- the Aussies must be sick of the sight of one Richard McCaw- sure, us Saffas also have our annual drubbing at the hands of mr McCaw and co. over in NZ, but at least we seem to be able to neutralise him in SA. The Aussies also have to face him in the Bledisloe Cup, so if Tuquiri and Elsom can`t take the guy out with spear tackles, why not neutralise him by changing the rules? -Proposal to have off-side line 5m behind the scrum- in the 2004 Tri-Nations, Oz kicked the least, rucked the most, passed the most and had the most possession- and ended stone last. Same story again in 2005, and in 2006, well the stats were exactly the same, a lucky win in Sydney kept them from the wooden spoon. So now, who do you reckon will benefit most from this rule? Methinks the team that kicks the least, passes the most, rucks the most and retains possession the most. -Proposal to do away with the corner flags- Clyde Rathbone has an excellent strike-rate in international rugby, but he also gets bundled out quite regularly into, yup you guessed it, the corner flag! So there :P you have it folks, the reasons for the new rule changes, all of course with tongue firmly in cheek. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
And now it begins...
Top