Waratahs v Brumbies - Round 8, 2016

[TSR]

I agree Reg. There really was some well executed plays by both teams. Good to see the Tahs offloading in traffic.

For all the concerns around the disparity between the Australian and New Zealand super rugby sides, most of the Australian's top 23 are in good form and there were some very strong performances last night.

 

[Pfitzy]

Managed to catch minutes 20-40 on the Ten replay. Some good touches by the Tahs, given they scored nearly all their points in that period.

And some utter shite in terms of handling, though it looked slippery.

Holloway continues his rising form, which is good to see.

Meh, another pedestrian and uninspiring aussie derby. Bush donkeys deserved to win, they were less worse than the Tah's. I guess we learnt a few things, Kellaway isn't a Super rugby player yet, actually I cant think of much else we learnt!

I think you're just saying that because we lost.

 

[A mutterer]

Two sides to this, he had played near the full 80 and was still putting his hand up to truck it up. That means he was putting in the effort to be available when other, fresher players weren't

true, but he has form in this area.

 

[fatprop]

Meh, another pedestrian and uninspiring aussie derby. Bush donkeys deserved to win, they were less worse than the Tah's. I guess we learnt a few things, Kellaway isn't a Super rugby player yet, actually I cant think of much else we learnt!

why?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I didn't see where the ball was, but if it was at the back then the ref made the correct call as written in the laws. If not then I understand the issues.


.

That's as may be depending on whether the ball was at the No 8's feet or not. But that's not the issue I had. Does the scrum subsequently moving forward constitute "using it" or not? There is no argument that the scrum started to move forward within the time frame of 3-5 seconds from the ref's direction, but is that sufficient to negate that direction?

 

[barbarian]

Does the scrum subsequently moving forward constitute "using it" or not? There is no argument that the scrum started to move forward within the time frame of 3-5 seconds from the ref's direction, but is that sufficient to negate that direction?

No. Same as a maul - 'use it' means get it out.

FWIW I just watched it now and the call was wrong- the ball was not at Butler's feet, rather it was in the second row. It got to the 8 in the end, but they have cause to be aggrieved with the decision.
.

 

[Brumby Runner]

No. Same as a maul - 'use it' means get it out.

FWIW I just watched it now and the call was wrong- the ball was not at Butler's feet, rather it was in the second row. It got to the 8 in the end, but they have cause to be aggrieved with the decision.
.

I accept your explanation (until and unless someone might post a differing description that has been verified by SANZAAR), and look forward to such situations being adjudicated consistently by all refs (as if). But I fail to see how a scrum that could well have resulted in a push-over try could be said in all conscience to be not using the ball. Maybe the interpretation needs to be looked at. Although, I do take your view on the interpretation of the direction at a maul. It would not be sensible for a maul that has been stopped to be allowed to continue again after the direction.

 

[fatprop]

I accept your explanation (until and unless someone might post a differing description that has been verified by SANZAAR), and look forward to such situations being adjudicated consistently by all refs (as if). But I fail to see how a scrum that could well have resulted in a push-over try could be said in all conscience to be not using the ball. Maybe the interpretation needs to be looked at. Although, I do take your view on the interpretation of the direction at a maul. It would not be sensible for a maul that has been stopped to be allowed to continue again after the direction.

I think the interpretation is that once the second call of "use it" you have to clear it; and at that second call it was a static scrum.

And knowing that interpretation you could also extrapolate that the defending scrum could have relaxed as they knew it was to be cleared; and only then was there any go forward

 

[fatprop]

No. Same as a maul - 'use it' means get it out.

FWIW I just watched it now and the call was wrong- the ball was not at Butler's feet, rather it was in the second row. It got to the 8 in the end, but they have cause to be aggrieved with the decision.
.

It was at the same position the Tahs were dragging it out for most of the match

 

[Froggy]

Looking at the match purely from a Tahs point of view for a moment, while still not good enough that was a huge improvement on the Rebels game. The handling was better (with plenty more room to improve), the scrum nearly gained parity (with Paddy Ryan and 2 kids against a Wallaby front row) and the kicking was better.

Looking at positive indivudual performances, Beale was outstanding, Foley grows in maturity and control, Robertson, Holloway and Kellaway are great prospects (although Kellaway missed two crucial tackles). On the negative side, Hooper seems to have lost efffectiveness at the breakdown and in attack, while still being a beast in defence, Skelton provides less impact than Lousi, Mumm and Palu have passed their 'use by' date.

Well done the Brumbies, particularly without Pocock, hopefully the Chiefs game was an abberation and they will carry the flag for Aus rugby in the Super comp this year.

 

[Quick Hands]

Wow. I think I disagree with everything you said. Except that the brumbies deserved to win. They did.

Thought it was a really enjoyable game with some very good rugby. Thought Kellaway showed some real class too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, enojoyable game of rugby to watch. Both sides showed positive intent with the ball and plenty of intensity at the breakdown and in the defensive line.

I thought that the Brumbies were the better team on the night (just), but we could have stolen it at the end.

I thought the referee did a good job last night. The game flowed well and he was always in control. As with all referees, he probably missed a couple of things, but that's sport.

Notwithstanding some scrums where we dug in and held, the scrum continues to be the achilles heel for the Waratahs. Hard to see us progressing without at least scrum parity.

As it was the Waratah fan night, there was some autograph signing for the kids after the game.

Special mention to Nick Phipps, who not only went up and down the line twice, but greeted every kid with a "how you going" and a smile and a "thanks for coming along". Honourable mentions also to Israel Folau and Andrew Kellaway who also spent plenty of time signing and spoke with the supporters.

Jack Dempsey could learn a thing from his team mates:- he went robotically to halfway down the line, no eye contact, no real effort to engage. When he got halfway down, he'd obviously had enough, turned on his heel and walked away.

 

[Froggy]

By the way, on the controversial scrum penatly, I agree with another poster. The penalty was wrong, but the Brumbies were dumb not to use having been called to do so three times.

 

[Quick Hands]

By the way, on the controversial scrum penatly, I agree with another poster. The penalty was wrong, but the Brumbies were dumb not to use having been called to do so three times.

Although it wasn't a penalty, just a scrum reset with us having the feed.

 

[barbarian]

It was at the same position the Tahs were dragging it out for most of the match

True, but the law itself says the ball has to be 'at the number 8s feet'.

Butler may well have been able to grab it, but it wasn't like he was sitting on it while the scrum was going nowhere.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it is reasonably agreed that the call to use it was made too early because the ball wasn't at the number 8s feet. Once the call was made though there's no turning back and it has to come out.

Based on the initial call of use it, the following call to award a scrum to the Waratahs was the correct one.

It's exactly the same as with a maul.

 

[Scotty]

Hooper seems to have become a liability at ruck time at the moment and having no great positive impact to offset it. I wonder if this has come from having less focus on this area from playing with Pocock. (Or not needing this focus).

 

[Brumbieman]

Anyone know of a replay of this game? Wasn't able to see it live

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Quite a good game.
Don't think Issy did his reputation as a utility back much good.
Kellaway was solid but his kicking is a bit underwhelming.
Scrum was better when robinson went off - his days must be numbered.
Palu's days should be numbered, and the number should be 0.
I would have liked to see the contest between Hooper and Pocock to see vindication of Dwyer's recent pronouncements.
The starting Wallaby 7 should be Gill if Pocock is 8.

 

[the sabanator]

Anyone know of a replay of this game? Wasn't able to see it live

Fox Sports usually have full match replays. Not sure if an account is needed though.

 

[Brumbieman]

Yeah you have to pay and subscribe.