• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Brumbies 2024

Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Alex Sharpe said:
How good to start the year with an away BP win!
Still a lot of room for growth as well.
Click to expand...

A lot of positives…

Away bonus point win.

No tries conceded, Rebels kept to 3 points.

Impressive starts from Cale and Reimer - going to cause some good selection headaches with what to do with Hooper - potential full time return to lock? Or maybe the Brumbies go through some rotation through the year to keep players fresh.

One negative - Van Nek had a very disappointing game, and wouldn’t be surprised if he gets pushed to the bench next week.
 
Tomikin

Tomikin

Simon Poidevin (60)
Slim 293 said:
A lot of positives…

Away bonus point win.

No tries conceded, Rebels kept to 3 points.

Impressive starts from Cale and Reimer - going to cause some good selection headaches with what to do with Hooper - potential full time return to lock? Or maybe the Brumbies go through some rotation through the year to keep players fresh.

One negative - Van Nek had a very disappointing game, and wouldn’t be surprised if he gets pushed to the bench next week.
Click to expand...
Yeah was a good first hitout with van Nek being one of the low lights.
 
TSR

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
Slim 293 said:
A lot of positives…

Away bonus point win.

No tries conceded, Rebels kept to 3 points.

Impressive starts from Cale and Reimer - going to cause some good selection headaches with what to do with Hooper - potential full time return to lock? Or maybe the Brumbies go through some rotation through the year to keep players fresh.

One negative - Van Nek had a very disappointing game, and wouldn’t be surprised if he gets pushed to the bench next week.
Click to expand...
Not a big fan of ditching players after 1 week (even just back to the bench). Keep faith with him. You know he can scrummage and he normally contributes around the field. Rebels struggled but they did put an experienced scrum on the park that should be able to give most teams grief. Gibbon is a good operator.

Cale & Reimer both excellent. Backrow balance still looks very good.
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
TSR said:
Not a big fan of ditching players after 1 week (even just back to the bench). Keep faith with him. You know he can scrummage and he normally contributes around the field. Rebels struggled but they did put an experienced scrum on the park that should be able to give most teams grief. Gibbon is a good operator.

Cale & Reimer both excellent. Backrow balance still looks very good.
Click to expand...
Rebels scrum is one of the better ones in the Aus sides I believe, but I was bemused by some of the rulings by Gardner on Friday. In one early scrum the Rebels were advancing but were pinged for not pushing straight, or boring in, while two later scrums the Brumbies were dominant and advancing but were penalised on both occasions for what looked like the same reason.

In my view, on each occasion it looked like the dominant scrum was pushing straight, ie had not stepped to the side to gain advantage, but that one side was being effectively blocked by good scrumming by the opposite prop. It just seemed to me that in these three scrums there was a clearly dominant side, the front rows remained bound and they were the sides penalised by Angus G. It also looked to me that the Brumbies scrum decided not to push for an advantage in subsequent scrums but allowed the ball to go the way of the feed.

Did anybody else see it like this? Or am I again seeing what I want to see?
 
Wilson

Wilson

David Codey (61)
Brumby Runner said:
Rebels scrum is one of the better ones in the Aus sides I believe, but I was bemused by some of the rulings by Gardner on Friday. In one early scrum the Rebels were advancing but were pinged for not pushing straight, or boring in, while two later scrums the Brumbies were dominant and advancing but were penalised on both occasions for what looked like the same reason.

In my view, on each occasion it looked like the dominant scrum was pushing straight, ie had not stepped to the side to gain advantage, but that one side was being effectively blocked by good scrumming by the opposite prop. It just seemed to me that in these three scrums there was a clearly dominant side, the front rows remained bound and they were the sides penalised by Angus G. It also looked to me that the Brumbies scrum decided not to push for an advantage in subsequent scrums but allowed the ball to go the way of the feed.

Did anybody else see it like this? Or am I again seeing what I want to see?
Click to expand...
I believe they mentioned a new interpretation this year where both sides have to be advancing for you to get the pay off, so the situation where only one side advances you much more at risk of being picked up for angling in, wheeling, etc. Not sure of the specifics or if I like it yet, but I do think the idea of judging the scrum as unit and reducing the ability of a single dominant scrummager to control the contest has merit. It should be much easier for that dominant scrummager to adjust and avoid the pnealty than in the past where a weaker prop gets penalised off the park for things somewhat beyond their control, ruining the contest.
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Wilson said:
I believe they mentioned a new interpretation this year where both sides have to be advancing for you to get the pay off, so the situation where only one side advances you much more at risk of being picked up for angling in, wheeling, etc. Not sure of the specifics or if I like it yet, but I do think the idea of judging the scrum as unit and reducing the ability of a single dominant scrummager to control the contest has merit. It should be much easier for that dominant scrummager to adjust and avoid the pnealty than in the past where a weaker prop gets penalised off the park for things somewhat beyond their control, ruining the contest.
Click to expand...
Thanks Wilson, I hadn't heard about that change. If it is so, then there is still a problem. In effect, the scrum which is dominant on one side gets penalised while the other scrum which is presumably passive or equal at best on the stationary side is rewarded. Just makes no sense at all and is counter to the idea of the game being a contest at all times.
 
TSR

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
It’s not a new rule - was in place last year (and prior to that I thought). To get rewarded the dominant scrum must be going forward, not twisting. It’s not perfect, but it takes away the incentive to try to wheel the scrum.
 
Wilson

Wilson

David Codey (61)
Brumby Runner said:
Thanks Wilson, I hadn't heard about that change. If it is so, then there is still a problem. In effect, the scrum which is dominant on one side gets penalised while the other scrum which is presumably passive or equal at best on the stationary side is rewarded. Just makes no sense at all and is counter to the idea of the game being a contest at all times.
Click to expand...
That dominant scrum still has control of the situation though, otherwise they wouldn't be dominant. It's all about the scrum needing to win as a unit to be rewarded with penalties, not just in a one v one battle between two props.
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Wilson said:
That dominant scrum still has control of the situation though, otherwise they wouldn't be dominant. It's all about the scrum needing to win as a unit to be rewarded with penalties, not just in a one v one battle between two props.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree with this, and it's exactly what the Brumbies did after having two penalties go against them. From that point, they held their ground rather than trying to push the Rebels back. Again, I think it is just rewarding the inferior scrum, though.

And note, that I also highlighted that the same penalty went against the Rebels in an early scrum where they had go forward dominance.
 
F

Filipo Daugunu

Peter Burge (5)
Kautai will probably start this week, did a very good job in the QF against the Canes last year at 3. Van Nek will be on bench probably.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Some very positive tidbits in there...

The increase in female players was even more impressive, with participation rising by 18 per cent to 1471.
Click to expand...

Leseberg and his team have spent the summer mapping out a plan to build on the solid platform.

The plan involves a junior rugby overhaul, with the under sevens competition now a Get Into Rugby program. Under the changes, Try Time and Walla Hubs sessions will be held at four grounds across the city, including a dedicated girls hub.

Get Into Rugby will commence on May 10 and be held on 14 Friday nights from 5pm-6pm. Brumbies players are set to make regular appearances at the sessions.

ACT officials worked with Rugby Australia to design the initiative and it is set to spread around the country. The changes come on the back of a pilot program last season, with feedback overwhelmingly positive.

Rather than thrust young kids straight into competitions, parents expressed a desire for their children to spend time learning basic skills before competitions commence in under eights.
Click to expand...


Bernie had recently emphasised the need for the Brumbies to be more involved in the community and there seems to be a lot more engagement over the past year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top