Reds 2016

[Highlander35]

From an impartial onlooker's viewpoint - the Wallabies went to a RWC with two hookers only on the assumption a prop (Sc ott Sio) could fill in at Hooker if one went down. Is it too much to ask a hooker (either TPN or Latu) to pack down at prop when the others were unavailable. I seem to remember Latu playing prop exclusively in the NRC and some times in Shute Shield last year.

IRB/World Rugby Regulations are funny. I believe that since the switch to the 2 prop bench, you can't even force the reserve loosehead to play tighthead even if the two tightheads are injured, as each position is considered specialist.

Now, most teams choose to do so, given you can't swap out a non-front rower for a prop, and most of them have played the other side at club level, or age grade or even under the 3 prop bench so it's not dangerous. But why would you bring back on a cold player (TPN) when you don't have to.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Frisby sucks . Holds on too long and drifts with a lot of lateral movement before he picks up a runner . This and McIntyre's sideways movement and not squaring to the line are going to torpedo Samu Kerevi's season

I was most disappointed in how slow he often was to the breakdown, sometimes not making it at all. Then the ball either sat at the back of the ruck for the Tahs to pinch, or put a lot of pressure on the player picking it up. If NF is in line for Wallabies' selection, we are in more trouble than we should be.

 

[Sully]

 

[Sully]

Question. Shouldn't the sinbinned prop be able to come back on for scrums as a replacement for someone else?

 

[BDA]

Who is the genius that is responsible for the Reds attacking structure?

That game last night was so frustrating. We had plenty of decent ball, but our attack would best be described as impotent. McIntyre and Frisby are certainly to blame for ensuring our backline consistently received the ball about 45 metres behind the gainline, but the coaches are just as responsible.

If Richard Graham is still there by round 5 I'll eat my hat.

 

[Strewthcobber]

IRB/World Rugby Regulations are funny. I believe that since the switch to the 2 prop bench, you can't even force the reserve loosehead to play tighthead even if the two tightheads are injured, as each position is considered specialist.

Now, most teams choose to do so, given you can't swap out a non-front rower for a prop, and most of them have played the other side at club level, or age grade or even under the 3 prop bench so it's not dangerous. But why would you bring back on a cold player (TPN) when you don't have to.

Think the teams have to nominate which position each front rower is suitably trained for on the team sheet beforehand (including having enough trained players for each position)

They can then only play in those positions that they have been nominated for.

So in this case, if they didn't nominate one of the hookers beforehand, they can't play there, no matter how experienced they are

All came about as a result of that SA v NZ debacle recently.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Question. Shouldn't the sinbinned prop be able to come back on for scrums as a replacement for someone else?

I see your point, but it seems to defeat the purpose of the sin bin at senior level - i.e. for the player to sit out for ten minutes with no coaching.

 

[Sully]

I see your point, but it seems to defeat the purpose of the sin bin at senior level - i.e. for the player to sit out for ten minutes with no coaching.

I was thinking you could still have contested scrums and the opposition would still be a player down.

 

[gel]

@Gel why did the uncontested scrums "smell funny"? 10-15 minutes before the scrum penalties on the Tahs line Fatcat went off to the blood/head bin on the second attempt to patch up the bleeder. He didn't come back in the blood window of 10 minutes (IIRC that is the required time frame) or was ruled concussed. Ta'avao was replaced for broken nose and failed concussion test I thought was the call and Tilse came on to replace him as Ryan had previously been replaced by Fatcat. When Fatcat went Ryan came back on, so one would have to think as a Captain, "hey didn't Ryan get subbed, he's back so the other two must be broken. No more props, but lets waste a penalty opportunity and have uncontested scrums which will allow a backrow which has caused us grief all night to have a flying start at us by not having to push in a scrum."

I don't see how the uncontested scrums "smells", I don't see anything untoward, or if there is Gibson is unbelievably good at setting up the situation, so good I wouldn't think the Tahs would have gone to sleep after scoring three tries.

i don't think fat cat was seriously injured - there was no real need to put him back on and risk injury after his cut had been cleaned up. The Tahs were handily in front and why risk him? He even looked miffed that he was being taken off.

Gibson didn't contrive the circumstances - Rob Simmons decisions orchestrated the opportunity and the Tahs merely obliged.

It was an obvious option to take and the Tahs took it.

Why smelly? I don't know for sure Benn wasn't injured. Didn't appear that he was to me and the way he acted when coming off, but then I'm not a doctor. He might have been.

Therefore the event smelt a bit to me. Doesn't mean it wasn't legit (otherwise I wouldn't use the term "smell" and would use something more definitive).

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I was thinking you could still have contested scrums and the opposition would still be a player down.

I thought so, and can see merit in the argument, but I think the rationale is to penalise and remove the responsible player. Which is why U/19 sin bins used to be a 'sub off', rather than creating a mismatch.

For the most part, a prop that is giving away repeated penalties probably needs to be hooked anyway, and the sin bin just forces the coach's hand.

 

[Gnostic]

From an impartial onlooker's viewpoint - the Wallabies went to a RWC with two hookers only on the assumption a prop (Sc ott Sio) could fill in at Hooker if one went down. Is it too much to ask a hooker (either TPN or Latu) to pack down at prop when the others were unavailable. I seem to remember Latu playing prop exclusively in the NRC and some times in Shute Shield last year.

Playing at club level and the case of Sio are different things. Sio was it can be assumed trained to play at Hooker. It is another thing altogether to demand a hooker play THP and something that would not fit the rule about suitably trained and experienced in the position. I doubt if any Super side would return their Hooker to the field to move the reserve hooker to THP in such a situation.

My point was simply that it is a bit hard to infer that there was some conspiracy or corruption in Tahs process to allow them to go uncontested because they were getting owned in the scrum when the injuries happened 15 minutes before the fateful yellow card.

 

[cyclopath]

i don't think fat cat was seriously injured - there was no real need to put him back on and risk injury after his cut had been cleaned up. The Tahs were handily in front and why risk him? He even looked miffed that he was being taken off.

Gibson didn't contrive the circumstances - Rob Simmons decisions orchestrated the opportunity and the Tahs merely obliged.

It was an obvious option to take and the Tahs took it.

Why smelly? I don't know for sure Benn wasn't injured. Didn't appear that he was to me and the way he acted when coming off, but then I'm not a doctor. He might have been.

Therefore the event smelt a bit to me. Doesn't mean it wasn't legit (otherwise I wouldn't use the term "smell" and would use something more definitive).

He has a broken nose and was subjected to a concussion test. It wasn't nothing. But I don't how serious he really was.

 

[Gnostic]

i don't think fat cat was seriously injured - there was no real need to put him back on and risk injury after his cut had been cleaned up. The Tahs were handily in front and why risk him? He even looked miffed that he was being taken off.



Gibson didn't contrive the circumstances - Rob Simmons decisions orchestrated the opportunity and the Tahs merely obliged.



It was an obvious option to take and the Tahs took it.



Why smelly? I don't know for sure Benn wasn't injured. Didn't appear that he was to me and the way he acted when coming off, but then I'm not a doctor. He might have been.



Therefore the event smelt a bit to me. Doesn't mean it wasn't legit (otherwise I wouldn't use the term "smell" and would use something more definitive).

Fair enough. I would not be surprised if the match official called Robinson off for the head check or blood because the vaso didn't stop the flow. In any event he didn't make it back in the 10 minute window and I assume this means he failed the concussion test as the cut seemed to be an easy stitch up job. However I find it a long stretch to say he was kept off to keep him safe as I feel he has slipped down the pecking order of props. I think the telling factor was that Ryan was picked at LHP in front of him in what I think was an obvious effort to try and sure up a shakey scrum. Front row and lineout work remain very glaring weaknesses in the Tahs.

 

[Dumbledore]

Frisby sucks . Holds on too long and drifts with a lot of lateral movement before he picks up a runner.

I actually quite like Frisby. He's very different to an Aaron Smith/Nick Phipps type of guy, much more in the French/Saffa playmaking mould. Not sure he's what we need for Australia, but he's good enough at this level.

McIntyre though, I don't see it at all. He's the classic 'just a guy.' I thought watching the NRC that he was being dragged along by the rest of his team, and have no reason to doubt that suspicion now. He's obviously still very young and inexperienced, but the game seems too big for him. Looked overwhelmed and short of ideas. A good coaching team might be able to get something out of him, but Greene looks to be comfortably the better prospect.[/quote]

 

[RugbyReg]

So moving forward to the Force game, any changes?

I would.

I'd be looking at something like:

15 Goromaru
14 Nabuli
13 Hunt
12 Kerevi
11 Kuridrani (although I'd seriously like to give Gibbon a run)
10 McIntyre (flatter)
9 Frisby
8 Schatz
7 Gunn
6 Tui
5 Neville
4 Simmons
3 Holmes
2 Fainga'a
1 Daley

16 Ready
17 Fa'agase
18 Talakai
19 Matwijow
20 Browning
21 Gale
22 Greene
23 CFS

Team changes won't do it alone though.

 

[upthereds#!]

RG blames losing Taefu as a major problem to our attacking structures....well that is absolutely ridiculous because that means the entire team depends on a rookie IC, an average nrc player, as a keystone player. Shouldnt everyone be aware of the patterns and plan? Shouldnt you have more then 1 option? shouldnt hunt have been training at 12 also with EVERYONE, even RG, knowing that Goromaru was arriving. Isn't kerevi just as experienced at 12 as he is 13? couldnt sautia played 13 as easily also? How should the loss of the most inexperienced player in the team have apparently impacted the Reds play so much?....wtf. stupid comment from RG that highlights a serious team mentality issue.

 

[TOCC]

The one team change that the Reds really need to make won't happen in the next 7 days.

I thought Paia'aua offered more at 12 during the trial matches, perhaps shift him into 12.

 

[I like to watch]

Only a small percentage of 10's can play flat.
If you want your 10 to play flat,then change your 10.

 

[liquor box]

IRB/World Rugby Regulations are funny. I believe that since the switch to the 2 prop bench, you can't even force the reserve loosehead to play tighthead even if the two tightheads are injured, as each position is considered specialist.

Now, most teams choose to do so, given you can't swap out a non-front rower for a prop, and most of them have played the other side at club level, or age grade or even under the 3 prop bench so it's not dangerous. But why would you bring back on a cold player (TPN) when you don't have to.

TPN played prop under Robbie Deans for the Barbarians. he got injured so possibly not the best example but it shows that there was a player who had played prop against a test side on the bench.

 

[liquor box]

I don't understand a fair few rules of the game but could the Reds have played 8 backs in the uncontested scrum and formed a unit of forwards one pass from the scrum.

If this is possible, could this forward unit then essentially form a rolling maul equivalent to winning a line out without the risk of losing the throw and then try to score?