The Wallabies Thread

[MonkeyBoy]

There's no reason you can't do this, but I can't see a clear advantage in the current rule set.

• Firstly, there must be a dummy half at the lineout. So, someone's got to be there anyway. You used to be able to do an insert lineout, but rules changes and now for every man that steps in, one must step out.
• Secondly, there's SO many unique facets of the game the 9 must manage. It'd be a huge ask to add another for no reason.
• Thirdly, much like in basketball shooting and passing are different skillsets because of different factors and movement mechanics. Why do we presume 9s would be a better throwers than 2s off no evidence?

It's shitty slow ball. It's literally this simple - if you hit a jumper 5m further back, your backline gets that 5m of extra time and space.

If you want to hit the edge first phase, that 5m is HUGE. The difference between getting off an easy, easy-breezy pass and getting man/ball at the same time.

Hitting 1 or 2 also allows defenders at the tail of the line out to clog up the 9-10 channel.

There is no requirement to have a receiver, the 9 can throw drift through and receive the ball and pass on free another forward in the backline I kind of like it for a novelty play

 

[amirite]

There is no requirement to have a receiver, the 9 can throw drift through and receive the ball and pass on free another forward in the backline I kind of like it for a novelty play

There is a requirement to have somebody set in the half position, though he is not required to receive the ball.

What you're doing if you did this play is wasting an attacking player, increasing the moving pieces and margin of error for the lineout, and not really challenging the defenses with anything they have to react to.

There's just no point.

 

[Rebels3]

It's shitty slow ball. It's literally this simple - if you hit a jumper 5m further back, your backline gets that 5m of extra time and space.

If you want to hit the edge first phase, that 5m is HUGE. The difference between getting off an easy, easy-breezy pass and getting man/ball at the same time.

Hitting 1 or 2 also allows defenders at the tail of the line out to clog up the 9-10 channel.

But it adds variety, obviously it doesn't generate front foot ball but it plants the feet of 1-3 within the opposition because they know it's a possibility to be given. It wouldn't harm doing it once every 8/9 throws for this exact reason.

 

[amirite]

But it adds variety, obviously it doesn't generate front foot ball but it plants the feet of 1-3 within the opposition because they know it's a possibility to be given. It wouldn't harm doing it once every 8/9 throws for this exact reason.

I think you'd find they do it around that much (1/8-9 throws), and TBH the 1-3 in the line out are the least threatening defenders anyway, their input isn't needed for at least 2-3 phases.

If you want more reasons, it's also easiest to defend front ball in the line out (it's just a race off the deck really).

Basically, you're just producing low quality, contestable ball. Unless you've got some kind of movement, dummy, or cancel to really open up the space, I would never go to 2 at an elite level.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd say the biggest reason why you wouldn't have the 9 as the regular lineout thrower is practicality around training.

If your 9 needs to be involved in all the lineout practice it is going to interrupt training for the backs.

It does seem like more teams are mixing things up in the lineouts though with some trick plays. We've even seen backs taking the ball in the lineout this season.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

There is a requirement to have somebody set in the half position, though he is not required to receive the ball.

What you're doing if you did this play is wasting an attacking player, increasing the moving pieces and margin of error for the lineout, and not really challenging the defenses with anything they have to react to.

There's just no point.

There is no requirement to have anyone there, the only requirement other than the numbers if for the non-throwing player standing in the Hookers at 2 and 2. No requirement for a receiver:
19.8.i Where the receiver must stand. If a team uses a receiver, then that player, must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the lineout begins.

Once the lineout has commenced, the receiver may move into the lineout and may perform all actions available to players in the lineout and is liable to related sanctions.
The key word is "If"

 

[amirite]

There is no requirement to have anyone there, the only requirement other than the numbers if for the non-throwing player standing in the Hookers at 2 and 2. No requirement for a receiver:
19.8.i Where the receiver must stand. If a team uses a receiver, then that player, must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the lineout begins.

Once the lineout has commenced, the receiver may move into the lineout and may perform all actions available to players in the lineout and is liable to related sanctions.
The key word is "If"

Interesting, you are correct. I've had this reffed differently and never seen a team without a nominated receiver.

Still, my point re: moving pieces and timing of catch/transfer stand.

 

[KOB1987]

Whoa back, can I just add something. Whilst I'm all for being innovative and creative, what's the proposed use for the regular thrower (usually the hooker) during this process?? It's fine if he used to be an outside centre and you can insert him in the backline as a crash baller. Failing that his best use at the lineout is to throw the ball into it.

 

[fatprop]

In my day the winger through in (well early age - faark that ages me)

 

[Micheal]

Whoa back, can I just add something. Whilst I'm all for being innovative and creative, what's the proposed use for the regular thrower (usually the hooker) during this process?? It's fine if he used to be an outside centre and you can insert him in the backline as a crash baller. Failing that his best use at the lineout is to throw the ball into it.

Didn't expect to generate this much conversation.

It depends who the hooker is and the makeup of the rest of the pack.

For the Wallabies could you get Stephen Moore lifting someone and Kepu (a strong ball runner with a bit of pace) in the backline threatening to barrel over some pipsqueak 10?

It'd be largely situational and different from team to team though.

 

[upthereds#!]

I am not sure what we can read into it, but the Fox Sports Podcast talked of chieka having both Timani and Higgers penciled in and competing for the 8 role; and they suggested Hanigan is likely to be 6.

I don't see it myself

I like the idea of Hanigan being developed as an oldschool 6...but as a player in general he didn't outplay Fardy, I think was on par with RHP, only get a shot coz dempsey got injured, absolutely isn't outplaying Higs in any facet, and in a the test arena, is still a skinny developing barely non-teenager.

I see the best of this squad having Higs AND Timani at 6/8 with hoops, then give a young fella a shot off the bench, any of the other 3.

If you start Hanigan @ 6 with either Timani or Higs then you HAVE to have Higs or Timani on the bench otherwise you could finish the game with a Hanigan/Hardwick/Hooper combo which is extremely lightweight, with neither hanigan or hardwick being real ball runners, and just not YET test standard

 

[fatprop]

I like the idea of Hanigan being developed as an oldschool 6.but as a player in general he didn't outplay Fardy, I think was on par with RHP, only get a shot coz dempsey got injured, absolutely isn't outplaying Higs in any facet, and in a the test arena, is still a skinny developing barely non-teenager.

I see the best of this squad having Higs AND Timani at 6/8 with hoops, then give a young fella a shot off the bench, any of the other 3.

If you start Hanigan @ 6 with either Timani or Higs then you HAVE to have Higs or Timani on the bench otherwise you could finish the game with a Hanigan/Hardwick/Hooper combo which is extremely lightweight, with neither hanigan or hardwick being real ball runners, and just not YET test standard

It is who I expect for Scotland, Hanigan off the bench

 

[upthereds#!]

It is who I expect for Scotland, Hanigan off the bench

I'm thinking perhaps the more versatile and experienced Dempsey on the bench for that one, looking for a Mcmahon style impact.

 

[fatprop]

Possibly, Hanigan (or Tua) are additional 6/lock cover (an upgrade on Mumm), Dempsey (or Hardwick) are additional 6/7 cover. (a downgrade on McMahon

I would be be budgeting for Hooper to play 80 every time and our tight five in need of support

Coleman
Arnold
Timani
Hooper
Higgers

Carter & Hanigan on the bench

Timani and Arnold would be the planned replacements

 

[RebelYell]

Fardy, Skelton, Morahan, Horne are all likely to be in TRC squad simply to prevent them securing early releases, I would suggest.

If they are not in the initial squad, it's pretty hard to turn down early release requests.

 

[upthereds#!]

Fardy and Skelton I get....but Horne and Morohan? They reallllly are not required. Contracts run up until Dec 31st. I'd rather grant them a release and put the money elsewhere.

 

[Forcefield]

Make the teams they are going to pay for the releases.

 

[fatprop]

Fardy and Skelton I get..but Horne and Morohan? They reallllly are not required. Contracts run up until Dec 31st. I'd rather grant them a release and put the money elsewhere.

We already have wounded Kerevi, I would guess Horne would be near the next as 13 cover, he can play out his contract

 

[RebelYell]

I'd love to see Hodge cover 13 as a bench utliity and Meakes called in for Kerevi, if he's out.

Otherwise, Rona as a straight 13 cover if Cheika isn't going to pick Horne?

 

[fatprop]

I'd love to see Hodge cover 13 as a bench utliity and Meakes called in for Kerevi, if he's out.

Otherwise, Rona as a straight 13 cover if Cheika isn't going to pick Horne?

All possible and interesting options, but if both Kerevi & Kuridrani went down would you like that scenario for the Bled?