RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Every time I watch him play, I'm really quite glad Francis decided to play for Wales.

Given that decision's the only reason he's got some nifty British Lions kit, I'd imagine so's he. I really thought he'd kick on into a good player, but it does look like this is as high as he goes.

Oakboy wrote:White got a load of in-favour hype in the ST but he looks fairly ordinary to me. I think Baxter is splendid but why not push one of his English youngsters at 9?

I've actually been impressed with White (especially since I picked him for the Jerome Schuster) - much better than I expected. Thought Townsend was disappointing today - he would pick up the ball and then have a noticeable pause for thought before making a decision. It killed Exeter's attack cause Wasps could just rush up on the poor sod getting the ball. Not entirely sure why he's taking game-time away from Maunder right now.

Mellsblue wrote:It's good to finally see Watson play fullback.

No-one else seems to have spotted this, so I'll say that I appreciated that one.

Puja

yes to all that, and I should also have congratulated Mells when I saw it

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Every time I watch him play, I'm really quite glad Francis decided to play for Wales.

Given that decision's the only reason he's got some nifty British Lions kit, I'd imagine so's he. I really thought he'd kick on into a good player, but it does look like this is as high as he goes.

Oakboy wrote:White got a load of in-favour hype in the ST but he looks fairly ordinary to me. I think Baxter is splendid but why not push one of his English youngsters at 9?

I've actually been impressed with White (especially since I picked him for the Jerome Schuster) - much better than I expected. Thought Townsend was disappointing today - he would pick up the ball and then have a noticeable pause for thought before making a decision. It killed Exeter's attack cause Wasps could just rush up on the poor sod getting the ball. Not entirely sure why he's taking game-time away from Maunder right now.

Mellsblue wrote:It's good to finally see Watson play fullback.

No-one else seems to have spotted this, so I'll say that I appreciated that one.

Puja

yes to all that, and I should also have congratulated Mells when I saw it

Thank you both. After Diggers deeply hurtful, if truthful, attack on the other thread this has helped my self-confidence no end.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Hughes was OK, Launchbury easily Wasps best player though, but the overall team effort was pretty substandard.

Exe looked very good at times and controlled the game. Slade went well, Armand yet again impressive and I liked the contributions of Skinner and Woodburn.

Nowell too; I still struggle with Woodburn, capable of brilliance, capable of the opposite in the same play!

I think woodburn has come on a lot and that is credit to the coaching staff at exeter.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Hughes was OK, Launchbury easily Wasps best player though, but the overall team effort was pretty substandard.

Exe looked very good at times and controlled the game. Slade went well, Armand yet again impressive and I liked the contributions of Skinner and Woodburn.

Nowell too; I still struggle with Woodburn, capable of brilliance, capable of the opposite in the same play!

It seems like every time I watch Woodburn play against Wasps he's the most annoying awkward-looking yet totally effective unrated pain in the arse, becoming Wasps' nemesis. He's top of my reluctant admiration list. And then you see Wade being ushered into touch every time he touches the ball, instant Exeter lineout. Not bright from Wasps to give him no space but he really doesn't seem to look to do anything about it himself. Can't blame Eddie for not picking him when you watch that happen over and over.

Excellent Exeter performance but what has happened to the improved Wasps line speed that made such a difference in the preseason matches? Saw glimpses of it in the last 15 mins or so, why wait til then? Also I think Gopperth will be looking forward to Lovobalavu returning, de Jonge wasn't offering him any help.

twitchy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Hughes was OK, Launchbury easily Wasps best player though, but the overall team effort was pretty substandard.

Exe looked very good at times and controlled the game. Slade went well, Armand yet again impressive and I liked the contributions of Skinner and Woodburn.

Nowell too; I still struggle with Woodburn, capable of brilliance, capable of the opposite in the same play!

I think woodburn has come on a lot and that is credit to the coaching staff at exeter.

true enough, I'm probably just remembering the sheer volume of brainfarts I've seen him have, and which may have abated. They have also done a good job with Short.

Banquo wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Banquo wrote:[
It looks tidy because the numbers aren't there; I'd prefer a messier breakdown with more numbers....then again, I'd like to force old style rucking with players having to bind on each other rather than scatter rucking, so I'm just old fashioned. But it wouldn't half create space and quick ball.

Not easy to judge a mess.

true, but the game's not all about the ref, and I didnt say 'a mess' I said messier; besides, my proposed reversion would soon tidy it up. Today's situation is like reffing RL in some cases.

It is odd the increasing resemblance to RL but really it's just a passing similarity.

I seem to remember a few years ago someone advocating removing the gate and just requiring players to enter from behind the line of the ball. It seemed reasonable at the time but that proposition would fill me with terror now.
Bruised ribs hurt bad.......I can only imagine how badly broken ones feel.

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Nowell too; I still struggle with Woodburn, capable of brilliance, capable of the opposite in the same play!

I think woodburn has come on a lot and that is credit to the coaching staff at exeter.

true enough, I'm probably just remembering the sheer volume of brainfarts I've seen him have, and which may have abated. They have also done a good job with Short.

TBH, I don't recall Woodburn having any particularly notable brainfarts for Exeter. He seems to be thriving on the coaches confidence in him and looks like a different player.

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

I think woodburn has come on a lot and that is credit to the coaching staff at exeter.

true enough, I'm probably just remembering the sheer volume of brainfarts I've seen him have, and which may have abated. They have also done a good job with Short.

TBH, I don't recall Woodburn having any particularly notable brainfarts for Exeter. He seems to be thriving on the coaches confidence in him and looks like a different player.

How long have you watched him for? For a couple of seasons it was regular when I watched Exeter, and likely why he hasn't been talked of for higher level; as I said, he's seemed more consistent of late.

Exeter really are rather wriggly on the ground post tackle, it's not quite league but they're on the way. Hardly unusual Baxter has his side pushing what's acceptable rather than playing to the rules, but it's interesting. Given how easy it is now to form a ruck, what with there not needing to be any ruck, any forward movement on the floor is going to cause problems for any defence for teams who are good on attack coming around the corner, Waldrom will love what's going on if he comes back and it's still like this.

Of course it's early days with the new ruck in absentia of a ruck, and defences will be better at handing the situation in another 10 games time or so, and defences should only get better after that too. But if I were playing Exeter I'd be very keen to hear the ref say tackle and not allow those extra inches that stop my defence going forwards.

Digby wrote:Exeter really are rather wriggly on the ground post tackle, it's not quite league but they're on the way. Hardly unusual Baxter has his side pushing what's acceptable rather than playing to the rules, but it's interesting. Given how easy it is now to form a ruck, what with there not needing to be any ruck, any forward movement on the floor is going to cause problems for any defence for teams who are good on attack coming around the corner, Waldrom will love what's going on if he comes back and it's still like this.

Of course it's early days with the new ruck in absentia of a ruck, and defences will be better at handing the situation in another 10 games time or so, and defences should only get better after that too. But if I were playing Exeter I'd be very keen to hear the ref say tackle and not allow those extra inches that stop my defence going forwards.

I'm getting annoyed with the fact that you need a notarised affadavit from three pillars of the community before someone's acknowledged as tackled. I remember the days when if you hit the floor at all, you were tackled, whereas now I see players completely and fully tackled, the tackler releases instantly and the tacklee jumps up and carries on, with the ref shouting "Not completed!" as he goes. It's getting to the stage where it's sensible tactics to just cling on as the tackler to make sure it does count as a tackle, and then the ruckers land on top of you and because you didn't roll away instantly, it's a penalty.

I'd be in favour of if you hit the floor, you have to pass or place the ball, even if not held or just tapped. Even banning the whole release-stand-pickup nonsense that's become popular of late. If you hit the floor, you're out of the game and someone else needs to take possession next.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Exeter really are rather wriggly on the ground post tackle, it's not quite league but they're on the way. Hardly unusual Baxter has his side pushing what's acceptable rather than playing to the rules, but it's interesting. Given how easy it is now to form a ruck, what with there not needing to be any ruck, any forward movement on the floor is going to cause problems for any defence for teams who are good on attack coming around the corner, Waldrom will love what's going on if he comes back and it's still like this.

Of course it's early days with the new ruck in absentia of a ruck, and defences will be better at handing the situation in another 10 games time or so, and defences should only get better after that too. But if I were playing Exeter I'd be very keen to hear the ref say tackle and not allow those extra inches that stop my defence going forwards.

I'm getting annoyed with the fact that you need a notarised affadavit from three pillars of the community before someone's acknowledged as tackled. I remember the days when if you hit the floor at all, you were tackled, whereas now I see players completely and fully tackled, the tackler releases instantly and the tacklee jumps up and carries on, with the ref shouting "Not completed!" as he goes. It's getting to the stage where it's sensible tactics to just cling on as the tackler to make sure it does count as a tackle, and then the ruckers land on top of you and because you didn't roll away instantly, it's a penalty.

I'd be in favour of if you hit the floor, you have to pass or place the ball, even if not held or just tapped. Even banning the whole release-stand-pickup nonsense that's become popular of late. If you hit the floor, you're out of the game and someone else needs to take possession next.

Puja

Do you mean a sawn after david?

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Exeter really are rather wriggly on the ground post tackle, it's not quite league but they're on the way. Hardly unusual Baxter has his side pushing what's acceptable rather than playing to the rules, but it's interesting. Given how easy it is now to form a ruck, what with there not needing to be any ruck, any forward movement on the floor is going to cause problems for any defence for teams who are good on attack coming around the corner, Waldrom will love what's going on if he comes back and it's still like this.

Of course it's early days with the new ruck in absentia of a ruck, and defences will be better at handing the situation in another 10 games time or so, and defences should only get better after that too. But if I were playing Exeter I'd be very keen to hear the ref say tackle and not allow those extra inches that stop my defence going forwards.

I'm getting annoyed with the fact that you need a notarised affadavit from three pillars of the community before someone's acknowledged as tackled. I remember the days when if you hit the floor at all, you were tackled, whereas now I see players completely and fully tackled, the tackler releases instantly and the tacklee jumps up and carries on, with the ref shouting "Not completed!" as he goes. It's getting to the stage where it's sensible tactics to just cling on as the tackler to make sure it does count as a tackle, and then the ruckers land on top of you and because you didn't roll away instantly, it's a penalty.

I'd be in favour of if you hit the floor, you have to pass or place the ball, even if not held or just tapped. Even banning the whole release-stand-pickup nonsense that's become popular of late. If you hit the floor, you're out of the game and someone else needs to take possession next.

Puja

Aye. Absolutely hate that.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Exeter really are rather wriggly on the ground post tackle, it's not quite league but they're on the way. Hardly unusual Baxter has his side pushing what's acceptable rather than playing to the rules, but it's interesting. Given how easy it is now to form a ruck, what with there not needing to be any ruck, any forward movement on the floor is going to cause problems for any defence for teams who are good on attack coming around the corner, Waldrom will love what's going on if he comes back and it's still like this.

Of course it's early days with the new ruck in absentia of a ruck, and defences will be better at handing the situation in another 10 games time or so, and defences should only get better after that too. But if I were playing Exeter I'd be very keen to hear the ref say tackle and not allow those extra inches that stop my defence going forwards.

I'm getting annoyed with the fact that you need a notarised affadavit from three pillars of the community before someone's acknowledged as tackled. I remember the days when if you hit the floor at all, you were tackled, whereas now I see players completely and fully tackled, the tackler releases instantly and the tacklee jumps up and carries on, with the ref shouting "Not completed!" as he goes. It's getting to the stage where it's sensible tactics to just cling on as the tackler to make sure it does count as a tackle, and then the ruckers land on top of you and because you didn't roll away instantly, it's a penalty.

I'd be in favour of if you hit the floor, you have to pass or place the ball, even if not held or just tapped. Even banning the whole release-stand-pickup nonsense that's become popular of late. If you hit the floor, you're out of the game and someone else needs to take possession next.

Puja

Do you mean a sawn after david?

Thank you Clippy, but I'll wright my owen let her thanks.

Puja

Puja wrote:I'm getting annoyed with the fact that you need a notarised affadavit from three pillars of the community before someone's acknowledged as tackled. I remember the days when if you hit the floor at all, you were tackled, whereas now I see players completely and fully tackled, the tackler releases instantly and the tacklee jumps up and carries on, with the ref shouting "Not completed!" as he goes. It's getting to the stage where it's sensible tactics to just cling on as the tackler to make sure it does count as a tackle, and then the ruckers land on top of you and because you didn't roll away instantly, it's a penalty.

I'd be in favour of if you hit the floor, you have to pass or place the ball, even if not held or just tapped. Even banning the whole release-stand-pickup nonsense that's become popular of late. If you hit the floor, you're out of the game and someone else needs to take possession next.

Yup - the time allowed between completing the tackle and having to release has shrunk to being infinitesimal; whilst the time allowed between being tackled and letting go of the bloody ball has expanded massively.

I'd add then, once tackled, and the ball has been presented - you have to get your hand off the damned thing; no wriggling forwards, no holding it stable, no popping it up; just leave the thing alone!
If you're on the floor, you're out of the game, so stop trying to influence it.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:I'm getting annoyed with the fact that you need a notarised affadavit from three pillars of the community before someone's acknowledged as tackled. I remember the days when if you hit the floor at all, you were tackled, whereas now I see players completely and fully tackled, the tackler releases instantly and the tacklee jumps up and carries on, with the ref shouting "Not completed!" as he goes. It's getting to the stage where it's sensible tactics to just cling on as the tackler to make sure it does count as a tackle, and then the ruckers land on top of you and because you didn't roll away instantly, it's a penalty.

I'd be in favour of if you hit the floor, you have to pass or place the ball, even if not held or just tapped. Even banning the whole release-stand-pickup nonsense that's become popular of late. If you hit the floor, you're out of the game and someone else needs to take possession next.

Yup - the time allowed between completing the tackle and having to release has shrunk to being infinitesimal; whilst the time allowed between being tackled and letting go of the bloody ball has expanded massively.

I'd add then, one tackled, and the ball has been presented - you have to get your hand off the bloody thing; no wriggling forwards, no holding it stable, no popping it up; just leave the thing alone!
If you're on the floor, you're out of the game, so stop trying to influence it.

Completely agree. Those pops off the floor are really annoying for me.

The pops worry me less than the moving forwards post tackle

Double-movement doesn't seem to be a thing anymore either. I find it infuriating how many times (when going for the try) you see players able to writhe around on the floor trying to place the ball over the line, but if the opposition stop it they're risking a binning for killing the ball.

Is there actually a clear indication in the laws how long the ball has to be held up for, for play to be stopped and it called as held up?

Pops off the floor are fine by me as long as they are instantaneous. It's when they've had the ball 3, 4, 5 seconds and then do it that worries me. The tackled/not tackled is a mess.

Laws favour attack too much I think, or at least put less pressure on them to have numbers and good technique at the ruck. Consequence is no need for ambition in attack, just play keep ball and see what happens as coaching default. Fortunately, not all coaches see it like that.

Law changes often see attack advance, and normally defence works it out within half a season.

Digby wrote:Law changes often see attack advance, and normally defence works it out within half a season.

but the latest ones only favour attack, and interpretations, as per the latest comments in thread stretch that further. You may be right, but the general philosophy seems to be reducing ways to contest, which is the fundamental tenet of Union.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Law changes often see attack advance, and normally defence works it out within half a season.

but the latest ones only favour attack, and interpretations, as per the latest comments in thread stretch that further. You may be right, but the general philosophy seems to be reducing ways to contest, which is the fundamental tenet of Union.

They reduce the chance of a turnover in the ruck, but that should mean more players in the defensive line, making blitzing more possible. Then after the attack stops resourcing rucks so well, drive over turnovers will come back, we've already seen a few of those.

Teams like Exeter and Saints however should do very well, since the changes can certainly benefit sides who favour simple direct rugby to build phases and pressure. Wasps will hope the faster ball in attack will allow the prettier things to still come off, but for that to work, they need the ball to be moved faster than Simpson and Gopperth were managing, everything looked 2 steps behind where it needed to be.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Law changes often see attack advance, and normally defence works it out within half a season.

but the latest ones only favour attack, and interpretations, as per the latest comments in thread stretch that further. You may be right, but the general philosophy seems to be reducing ways to contest, which is the fundamental tenet of Union.

They reduce the chance of a turnover in the ruck, but that should mean more players in the defensive line, making blitzing more possible. Then after the attack stops resourcing rucks so well, drive over turnovers will come back, we've already seen a few of those.

Teams like Exeter and Saints however should do very well, since the changes can certainly benefit sides who favour simple direct rugby to build phases and pressure. Wasps will hope the faster ball in attack will allow the prettier things to still come off, but for that to work, they need the ball to be moved faster than Simpson and Gopperth were managing, everything looked 2 steps behind where it needed to be.

Indeed, and I've commented on that before- suspect its why we are seeing more phases and more head injuries as they get used to it.

It may settle down, but I think they are going the wrong way; more players in breakdowns will lead to better rugby for me. We agree on the consequences, but sounds like we differ on being happy with the outcome.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: but the latest ones only favour attack, and interpretations, as per the latest comments in thread stretch that further. You may be right, but the general philosophy seems to be reducing ways to contest, which is the fundamental tenet of Union.

They reduce the chance of a turnover in the ruck, but that should mean more players in the defensive line, making blitzing more possible. Then after the attack stops resourcing rucks so well, drive over turnovers will come back, we've already seen a few of those.

Teams like Exeter and Saints however should do very well, since the changes can certainly benefit sides who favour simple direct rugby to build phases and pressure. Wasps will hope the faster ball in attack will allow the prettier things to still come off, but for that to work, they need the ball to be moved faster than Simpson and Gopperth were managing, everything looked 2 steps behind where it needed to be.

Indeed, and I've commented on that before- suspect its why we are seeing more phases and more head injuries as they get used to it.

It may settle down, but I think they are going the wrong way; more players in breakdowns will lead to better rugby for me. We agree on the consequences, but sounds like we differ on being happy with the outcome.

Yep. More players at the breakdown will lead to less players and more holes in the defensive line and lead to more turnovers and therefore teams attacking unstructured defences more often. It'll be magnified at present as, as Diggers said, defences are still working on ways to counteract the new laws but I think that even when things settle down we'll be left with an inferior product.

I'm not happy with the thinking or process that's led to where we are right now, but I still think we need to allow defence a little chance to catch up. Defence will catch up, and then we can consider where next on the magical mystery tour