|
Quins vs Sarries match was beautiful. Farrel gurning at its best.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
gently caress I think o just watched bath play well! Toulon were lucky to beat them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Just watched Saints/Tigers...BOOOO-URNS Still a great fightback from Saints, and again a game passes without a Hartley sighting (or citing I suppose).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Wondering if one of you NH types can explain this poo poo to me.http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/england-rugby/six-nations-2016-eddie-jones-to-name-seven-new-faces-in-first-england-squad-20160113-gm4quk.html posted:...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the England coach basically announces the Elite Player Squad, made up of around 30-something players, who are ostensibly the England national team for the season. Jones at current time is restricted to changing 11 of them, although I don't think mid-season call-ups forced by injury counted towards that number. I suppose it's a way for the clubs to anticipate and prepare for the unavailability of certain players, removing the anxiety that may come with squad-naming day. France also named their squad for the year recently, so it's probably a thing where domestic rugby is made up of privately owned clubs rather than the SANZAR nations where it's basically provincial rugby. Oh, and now the SARU has announced they will head-hunt the next Springboks coach rather than advertise it. It is believed Jake White would have applied had that been the case. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jan 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Jake White's already done it, though, why would he want to do it again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
The theory of hereditary rugby is strong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Jake White's already done it, though, why would he want to do it again? He probably feels that there's still more he would be able to do. If he were to apply, there's basically very little, if any, reason the SARU could turn his application down, and he would be very much a stand-out candidate over the other likely applicants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Yeah, the England coach basically announces the Elite Player Squad, made up of around 30-something players, who are ostensibly the England national team for the season. Jones at current time is restricted to changing 11 of them, although I don't think mid-season call-ups forced by injury counted towards that number. I suppose it's a way for the clubs to anticipate and prepare for the unavailability of certain players, removing the anxiety that may come with squad-naming day. So basically he has 30+ players available for selection each game and he can only change a third of that pool every year, barring injury? That's hosed up. Even in football the clubs don't have as much power over the national team and many of those are billion dollar businesses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
The clubs have previously refused to let players go on international tours, and still sometimes refuse to release them to train with the national side. They don't want their expensive purchases disappearing for months to come back smashed up and burned out. It's a compromise that makes the coaches miserable.. Premiership football sides do it all the loving time tbh. Not worth risking their star in a useless friendly when they've got a key match the week after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
goatface posted:The clubs have previously refused to let players go on international tours, and still sometimes refuse to release them to train with the national side. They don't want their expensive purchases disappearing for months to come back smashed up and burned out. It's a compromise that makes the coaches miserable.. Sure, for friendlies, but
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Sure, for friendlies, but At this point, the FFR and RFU need access to a time travelling device of some sort and a one-armed man to say "and that's why you immediately take control of the contracts of the players registered to you when the game is moving towards professionalism" to them. It just goes to show how loving on the money the SANZAR unions were in 1995.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:At this point, the FFR and RFU need access to a time travelling device of some sort and a one-armed man to say "and that's why you immediately take control of the contracts of the players registered to you when the game is moving towards professionalism" to them. Aye, the French and English setups are hosed as far as the international game is concerned. Ireland have got their poo poo together and were well set up for the professional game, Wales are getting there with central contracts and Scotland have just remembered that the game has been professional for 20 years and are just starting to sort things out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Just wondering, how does the club game compare to the national game in people's minds over there? I know in football, many people care way more about the club than about the national team. Here, in Australian Rugby, the club game is very much secondary to the national game in peoples' minds. The discussion after every round is almost always centred around player X, playing for club Y, is better than player W playing for another club and should be in the Wallabies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Just wondering, how does the club game compare to the national game in people's minds over there? I know in football, many people care way more about the club than about the national team. Here, in Australian Rugby, the club game is very much secondary to the national game in peoples' minds. The discussion after every round is almost always centred around player X, playing for club Y, is better than player W playing for another club and should be in the Wallabies. Personally, while I really enjoy watching club rugby and going to see Edinburgh play (okay, enjoy can be a strong word for Edinburgh games at times) but the national game is when the serious business happens and is/should be the end goal for the players and the clubs. I understand it's tough for clubs to lose so many players to call up at times but that's more of an issue with the rugby schedule and how congested it gets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
The most important point is that soccer is terrible and full of wimps who can't take a loving hit. Also USA number one our soccer team beat the poo poo out of Japan last year gently caress all y'all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
I don't watch soccer at all despite it being the numer one sport here. Scottish rugby is bad enough at times without subjecting myself to the dumpster fire that is Scottish football.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Scottish football is so much worse than American soccer it's amazing. Also you beat Australia in the RWC, too. From what I remember anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Scottish football is so much worse than American soccer it's amazing. It's hilarious how loving terrible it is and equally depressing how much money is invested in it here. If rugby had half the fanbase and money football has here we'd be far better than we are now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Just wondering, how does the club game compare to the national game in people's minds over there? In Wales, the club game is something that only people who specifically identify as 'serious' Rugby fans will follow. There's a huge split between people who embrace professional rugby, and traditionalists who will devotedly watch their amateur and semi-pro games, but shun the regional teams. There's almost no crossover whatsoever. The National game is Wales' equivalent of Military Service. Even if you can't name a single current player, someone in your family will make sure that it's your duty to watch the match.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
When's Superugby start again? I'm starting to get the itch. Also: http://theeastterrace.typepad.com/my_weblog/2016/01/90-of-top-refs-dont-recall-richie-mccaw-playing-for-all-blacks.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
George Fraud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
butros posted:When's Superugby start again? I'm starting to get the itch. End of February.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Ffs, Glasgow dominating away against Saints. but losing because we can't defend a driving maul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Driving mauls, as currently refereed, are dumb and anti rugby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
It honestly feels highly inconsistent to allow driving mauls, when all other forms of obstruction are basically illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:It honestly feels highly inconsistent to allow driving mauls, when all other forms of obstruction are basically illegal. Exactly, it's just not rugby. Contest for the ball is the heart of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Ah now, mauls are great. Driving mauls aren't the problem, indisciplined packs being unable to defend against them are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Swan Curry posted:Ah now, mauls are great. Driving mauls aren't the problem, indisciplined packs being unable to defend against them are. If mauls are done properly. However, the modern maul means passing the ball back quickly then going truck and trailer. Though the scrum is a much bigger blight on the game, and the focus should be on sorting that out. Hey, referees! Penalise squint feeds, will ya?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Watching a game, you'd never know that one hand touching a player in the maul doesn't constitute binding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
HappyCamperGL posted:Ffs, Glasgow dominating away against Saints. but losing because we can't defend a driving maul. lovely mauling rugby wins games sadly because the modern maul are impossible to defend against. Saints looked loving terrible in anything that wasn't their maul and Glasgow couldn't kick penalties in the first half at all so terrible NH rugby wins. edit: Swinson is also a moron and I hope the stupid prick gets cited for his punch then benched forever for basically costing Glasgow that game. Vaders Jester fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Swan Curry posted:Ah now, mauls are great. Driving mauls aren't the problem, indisciplined packs being unable to defend against them are. The Maul does break the obstruction rule. To fix it the solution is simple (IMO): Throw out the current rules around mauls and replace it with one that says the maul is legal as long as the player holding the ball remains at the front. This would conform with the other rules of the game while still allowing the for a maul to be formed and retaining the contest for the ball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
ElectroMagneticJosh posted:The Maul does break the obstruction rule. That's how I would change it roughly, I would go for the maul cannot make forwards progress whilst the ball is not at the front. Right now the best way to defend a maul is to collapse it and hope the ref doesn't punish you, which is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
So disallow the ball to be moved through the maul? The player with it when it forms is the player with it at the end, and he shouldn't magically appear with it at the back because that's not how good binding works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
How would it ever get out of the maul then if you can't pass it back? They are a source of frustration at the minute but you have to give credit to the teams that do it well at the same time. If it was simple everyone would be scoring push over tries all the time, it takes a lot of technique and power to do it consistently but it definitely needs some cleaning up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Yeah Glasgow are just particularly poo poo at maul defence ATM. Which is why we've already conceded six or seven tries from them since the turn of the year. We used to just stand off and not tackle so no maul would form. But if that doesn't work we really are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
The big problem I tend to see is that the front of the maul gets sacked at the start but the back 4 guys that are carrying the ball just sheer off and form a new maul, making it impossible to defend against because of the pile of players in front of them and refs rarely call them out on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Can someone please tell me Chris Ashton's citing is bollocks and he is going to play in the new look England team? I haven't seen any footage of the incident and need some hope!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
thegasman2000 posted:Can someone please tell me Chris Ashton's citing is bollocks and he is going to play in the new look England team? I haven't seen any footage of the incident and need some hope! See for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ounwaeeDU Ridiculous call by Garces not to penalise that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
MyChemicalImbalance posted:How would it ever get out of the maul then if you can't pass it back? They are a source of frustration at the minute but you have to give credit to the teams that do it well at the same time. If it was simple everyone would be scoring push over tries all the time, it takes a lot of technique and power to do it consistently but it definitely needs some cleaning up. I suppose it would end when the ballcarrier chooses to drop it because it's stationary. Easier to just make the fuckers bind properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:59
|
|