• 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.

RC - Wallabies vs Springboks, Gold Coast Sunday 12 September 8:05 PM

Hawko

Geoff Shaw (53)
I thought the English ref had a pretty good game. Very clear communication, authoritative. A nice change from the usual faces.
I agree with that but with one caveat. He penalised Australia a number of times when the Bok front row just pancaked. Those penalties should have gone the other way. But, he was light years in front of anyone who has reffed us this year. The New Zealanders would have hated him because he would not have allowed their ruck tactics from the start.
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
I don't see how you apt explanation of the balancing required in the tight 5 ....

Gotta say, your ability to completely miss the point - over multiple posts - is exceptional. Maybe I used too many syllables?

EDIT however I consider myself a generous person, so have some free education in this:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dru

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
We have Australia's best maul coach with a great track record right there in our coaching team.
Why aren't we much better at Test level?
 

Peter Toohey

Jim Clark (26)
Gotta say, your ability to completely miss the point - over multiple posts - is exceptional. Maybe I used too many syllables?

EDIT however I consider myself a generous person, so have some free education in this:

What part did I miss that answered my questions? where did you address how Valentini and Isi or Wilson together forces Hooper to do more work or how it changes the Tight V dynamic? it definitely feels like I am missing something since, re-reading your previous post didn't illuminate answers to either of those questions. You claim the issue with Valentini and Isi both being in the backrow is because they don't complement Hooper due to offering the same thing and throws the backrow out of balance, but didn't provide an example of how Swinton does suit playing with Valentini at 8 since he's not any quicker or mobile, not any better over the ball, and not any more accurate at hitting rucks. You seem to be a bit aggravated by this whole debate based on your snarkiness, so I apologise for causing such frustration.
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
Remember seeing Pearce refereeing a couple of years back in England. Thought he was so far ahead of pretty much everyone on the International panel in terms of fitness, temperament, and communication I was wondering why he didn't have a Test gig for Tier One at the time. Any questions I've got over his decisions are just quibbles ;)
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
All of the above.

They're two very different beasts, IMHO - defending mauls is more difficult than executing them under the current interpretations, but both take a lot of skill to do right.

It is interesting we didn't really maul that much but suspect it was deliberate, in order to run the Boks around and probe their defence a bit in different channels. Besides an initial maul in the first few minutes - midfield - we didn't really attempt it.

But you see a bit more of the game plan when you look at our try - lineout 40m out, bit of first-phase subtletly near the tram tracks, then wide left, couple of hitups in centre field, before going back to the right and getting a man overlap. Kerevi slips a rush defence and hits Kellaway wide

At that point, all the Bok forwards are standing between the 15m line and the middle of the park. Three of our forwards are within 5m of Kellaway as support. They'd been suckered into defending the midfield after three phases, consolidated on the fourth, and nowhere right after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Eyes and Ears

John Solomon (38)
Sorry Dan54, I wasn't suggesting it was exclusively used by sides without attacking options, everyone attempts it, however I am suggesting those are the sides that would strongly oppose its' removal.
I think taking down the player at the front may be dangerous, my thoughts are simply that if the player with the ball is moving towards the opposing tryline, there must be no-one in front of him obstructing the defender.

How would get it from the middle to the back to win the ball and not infringe the law?

Can solve the current maul imbalance with one simple change: use-it-or-lose-it happens once. As soon as it stops after "maul" is called, ball must emerge in 5 seconds, no further motion allowed.

Sanction: FK to the team who did not carry the ball in.

I agree with this but I also think that the referee interpretation on what constitutes a maul, that is no longer moving, has a significant impact. There were mauls last night that I would have said stopped 3 or 4 times whereas Pearce had a different interpretation. If I had a strong maul, I would be keen to have Pearce as the referee.
 

dru

Phil Kearns (64)
I just want to say, with what is sometimes some bitching about the refereeing, the Luke Pearce was the most effective Ref that I have seen in a while. It didn't all go our way and we had some 50/50 calls, I particularly found some scrum penalties frustrating. BUT his officiating of the ruck pushed this game into "get stuck in and play".

I like it. Hope we get him again. Many times.
 

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
One takeaway for the Wallabies is that the box kicking and roosts from Banks etc. at the back need to be shallower. Unless you’re facing off against Folau, you have about a 50/50 chance of recovering those contestable kicks into traffic. They worked so well in that Wellington test last year, surprised it we’ve gone away from them.
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Re the maul, i like it and if i had to choose between neutering it or keeping it as is, id choose the latter. That said, i think the laws could use some tweaking..as others have said i think the attacking side should be given much less leeway if the maul becomes stationary even momentarily
 
Top