Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76

Thread: Trans Tasman Comp - Non Force games

  1. #16
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,465
    vCash
    7400800
    I think we might be a chance against the canes, if they can let two in from the rebels we should be good for at least.....2 .....ish.....maybe

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  2. #17
    Champion
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bullcreek
    Posts
    1,134
    vCash
    5622000
    Gees watching the Chiefs destroy the Brumbies makes me think we played a very good game last week 😳

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  3. #18
    Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    412
    vCash
    5380000
    Good to see some sensible refereeing about the high tackle, in contrast to last night's farce.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #19
    Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    412
    vCash
    5380000
    Isaak Fines is playing well since he came on, but it appears that Banks ran out of vaseline before the game.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #20
    Immortal Book Maker
    Contributor
    Moderator
    travelling_gerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    18,424
    vCash
    176000
    Who will be the leading Aussie team by the end of the round.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #21
    Champion
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bullcreek
    Posts
    1,134
    vCash
    5622000
    Oh dear! I think the Force had the best game of the round!

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  7. #22
    Champion Contributor todd4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,255
    vCash
    2666000
    We'll be just outside the top 5 !

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #23
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    20,761
    vCash
    326000
    Quote Originally Posted by todd4 View Post
    We'll be just outside the top 5 !
    2 games out isn't really just outside the Top 5 in a 5 game comp.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #24
    Veteran chibi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chinatown, Roe St
    Posts
    2,814
    vCash
    5280000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jules View Post
    Oh dear! I think the Force had the best game of the round!
    And I still think we can improve.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!


    Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!

    Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?

  10. #25
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    14,317
    vCash
    5546000
    I just noticed this quote on The Roar....... "Thorn himself has to wear some of the blame for his teamís inept performance last night. The Saders in attack consistently used decoy runners to setup their backline yet not a one Reds defender had the nous to use the decoy as interference preventing him from tackling the ball carrier, which the ref would then have been forced to acknowledge."

    What do some of you, particularly our resident visually challenged friend, think of this? I think it is being coached as all NZ teams do it very well. I don't believe these are genuine decoys and should not mean that defenders need to take a dive to gain the referee's attention. I mentioned it here way back when we were last in SR.

    This is a genuine question and I'd be happy to be enlightened if I'm seeing things wrong. Been watching both codes for a very long time and I think I know what an obstruction looks like. Cheika even refers to this as a "screen" which describes what I'm seeing perfectly. I have no problem with decoy runners, so long as they don't impede defenders. To be a genuine decoy runner I'd assume you need to be running from behind the ball carrier rather than loitering in front of the first receiver to run interference for him. It often involves changing direction and running at a defender, with a side step at the last second to avoid contact. I believe this is covered, without reference to actually making contact, in Law 10.....

    DEFINITION

    Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.

    (b) Running in front of a ball Ė carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball, thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.

    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    (c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  11. #26
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,465
    vCash
    7400800
    OK, I'm not a referee, so my comments must be read with an acknowledgement of that fact.

    it is possible to run a line where you are behind the ball carrier but in front of the intended recipient, it's the bread and butter of the basic second man play, one bloke runs early and hard at an inside shoulder, while another one delays the run a second and goes for the outside shoulder. In this situation, it was my understanding that, as long as the pass went in front of, or wider than the first player, it was unlikely to be an obstruction. Obviously the onus is then on the leading runner to keep reasonably clear of the tackler, but this becomes harder when the passer is looking to delay the pass as long as possible in the hope that the tackler makes a decision who to go for and then the ball gets thrown to the other runner. I guess the difficulty comes in the timing. If the tackler commits to the inside runner, begins the motion of tackling THEN the pass is thrown, is it obstruction? I would say no, defender made a choice and the passer was good enough to respond.

    It's a lot more common though these days to see both runners running at the same gap, which obviously means the decoy hits the gap first and the ball carrier follows through. Regardless of when or where the pass was thrown, it's fair to say this is obstruction.

    The other one that usually comes from this tactic is the forward pass to the first runner when the tackler holds off making a decision until the first runner has overrun the ball a la Lolesio's try against the Force in Round 1

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  12. #27
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    14,317
    vCash
    5546000
    Your second example is what I'm talking about.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  13. #28
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,465
    vCash
    7400800
    Quote Originally Posted by shasta View Post
    Your second example is what I'm talking about.
    Fair, but who's to say how it is interpreted, does the ball passed behind the back and fractionally outside the first runner absolve them of the obstruction call?

    It's a bit of a loaded dice, like the high tackle protocol, there seems to be a bit of "attackers can do what they like, defenders have to deal with it" at the moment, not sure whether that's designed to attract the Rugby League crowd or whether it's just lawmakers not thinking

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  14. #29
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    14,317
    vCash
    5546000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    not sure whether that's designed to attract the Rugby League crowd or whether it's just lawmakers not thinking
    I know you don't watch it, but the NRL recognized the problem quite a while ago and came up with a few boxes to tick in judging obstruction along similar to what you talked about. It's not a complete solution as quite a few tries are disallowed (wrongly IMO) when defenders take a dive as it is quite definitive. Secondly, it mostly only gets a run if a try is scored.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  15. #30
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,465
    vCash
    7400800
    Quote Originally Posted by shasta View Post
    I know you don't watch it, but the NRL recognized the problem quite a while ago and came up with a few boxes to tick in judging obstruction along similar to what you talked about. It's not a complete solution as quite a few tries are disallowed (wrongly IMO) when defenders take a dive as it is quite definitive. Secondly, it mostly only gets a run if a try is scored.
    I was wondering if you were going to take that as a dig against league, it wasn't intended that way, but whenever anybody in rugby seems to have the great idea that we need to compete with league for eyeballs, they always seem to think that unfettered attack is what will do it.

    Perhaps we should consider that, rather than trying to steal eyeballs from league, maybe we should be generating a unique product that doesn't need to fight with a (currently) more established and committed code

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Front of Jersey Sponsor for Trans-Tasman Comp
    By volvo in forum Western Force
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 17-05-21, 09:38
  2. Trans-Tasman speculation
    By Ham105 in forum Rugby
    Replies: 267
    Last Post: 14-05-21, 13:52
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-19, 10:00
  4. Trans-Tasman war looms over lamb
    By KenyaQuin in forum Public Bar
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-01-08, 11:24
  5. Trans-Tasman feud continues despite resignation
    By NewsBot in forum News Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-05, 14:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •