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
IRB and Unions sanction global Law trials
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="dullonien" data-source="post: 502298" data-attributes="member: 13739"><p>I give up. There is no maul and that's the end of it. There is nothing to say that they must form a maul, just that they must join an existing maul or retire. I don't understand what the confusion is over this. It's a tactic open to every team, but it's a tactic the opposition can exploit as well by gaining a quick and easy 5m before then forming the maul.</p><p></p><p>Also 'get away' to where? They are already behind the offside line, and even step back to make doubly sure. Where else do you want them to go?</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>No, but you were a little patronising with your comment of 'do you know what a slingshot is'.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Players know when they're meant to engage, but just like sprinters who anticipate the gun, they attempt to second guess the ref in order to get the jump on the opposition. Plenty of props including one of the best tighthead scrummagers in the game, Adam Jones, has stated that the "hit" is all important. Loose that, and you're on the backfoot and struggling. Props will then prefer to take the scrum down and re-set to try and get a better "hit" on the next scrum.</p><p></p><p>All myself and others are suggesting is to bring in a law that requires the front row to bind before the rest of both packs, removing the "hit". This seems to be in line with what you said in the final paragraph, so are we in agreement?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dullonien, post: 502298, member: 13739"] I give up. There is no maul and that's the end of it. There is nothing to say that they must form a maul, just that they must join an existing maul or retire. I don't understand what the confusion is over this. It's a tactic open to every team, but it's a tactic the opposition can exploit as well by gaining a quick and easy 5m before then forming the maul. Also 'get away' to where? They are already behind the offside line, and even step back to make doubly sure. Where else do you want them to go? No, but you were a little patronising with your comment of 'do you know what a slingshot is'. Players know when they're meant to engage, but just like sprinters who anticipate the gun, they attempt to second guess the ref in order to get the jump on the opposition. Plenty of props including one of the best tighthead scrummagers in the game, Adam Jones, has stated that the "hit" is all important. Loose that, and you're on the backfoot and struggling. Props will then prefer to take the scrum down and re-set to try and get a better "hit" on the next scrum. All myself and others are suggesting is to bring in a law that requires the front row to bind before the rest of both packs, removing the "hit". This seems to be in line with what you said in the final paragraph, so are we in agreement? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
IRB and Unions sanction global Law trials
Top