The Dew Drop Inn Virtual Rugby Pub

First topic message reminder :

Welcome to the virtual rugby pub - a place where you can come in for a sly beverage and discuss whatever's on your mind, or just eavesdrop on the regulars if you fancy a break from all the rugby chat.

The only rule in this pub is one of mutual respect for everyone in it, oh and no defacing the Tommy Bowe photo on the bar. That's a banning offence

So pull up a chair....what'll it be?

Also, if you read comments from some Welsh posters on the old 606, you'd be forgiven for thinking we had a full back called Lee Bryne. It was hardly ever spelt correctly.

roddersm wrote:Whats this "gang tackle" tactic and in what way is it legal/illegal?

One player grasps the ball carrier and instead of knocking him, holds him upright. This then makes him/the ball an easier target for the second tackler.

Lucky, "Kia kaha" is a Maori encouragement phrase. It literally translates as"be strong", though "get stuck in" and "keep going" are also appropriate English equivalents.

Mickado wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Mickado wrote:I just have one point to add to the provincial conversation from last night, and for a change I’m going to contradict Sin E.

The “gang tackle” that Laurie Fisher invented was actually added to the Irish canon by Les Kiss. He’s been talking about it for years, it was one of the weapons that made our defense so solid the year we won the GS.

Just going on what Paul O'Connell said after the Perpignam game (Dec '09) when asked about it. The commentators didn't seem to have noticed it during the GS 6N! In fact they haven't noticed Ireland doing it until the England game this 6Ns.

I wouldn’t just wait for the commentators to mention it. It’s pretty clear that it’s a tactic we’ve been using for a while.

And it was only noticed by the commentators in the England game because it worked, and it only worked because Kidney had a chat with the referee’s and pointed out that it’s not an illegal tactic, we were blown off the pitch for it in all of the games leading up to that England match.

The Perp. v Munster game was Dec '09. The England game was Mar '11. And why would Paul O'Connell credit Laurie Fisher with it?

SinE, to me the Perpginan v Munster game was a once off. We set a bar that we haven't lived upto since.

red_stag wrote:

roddersm wrote:Whats this "gang tackle" tactic and in what way is it legal/illegal?

One player grasps the ball carrier and instead of knocking him, holds him upright. This then makes him/the ball an easier target for the second tackler.

roddersm, I'm not sure why refs found it illegal? It tends to lead to emphasise mauls rather than rucks

red_stag wrote:SinE, to me the Perpginan v Munster game was a once off. We set a bar that we haven't lived upto since.

I wouldn't disagree with you there that it was a one-off (though with a settle team with a scrum that win pariety at least, we might pick up there again). Facts are though that Laurie Fisher was the one who coached that particular tactic which everyone was lauding him for at the time.

red_stag wrote:

roddersm wrote:Whats this "gang tackle" tactic and in what way is it legal/illegal?

One player grasps the ball carrier and instead of knocking him, holds him upright. This then makes him/the ball an easier target for the second tackler.

So why the controversy around this? This has been done in RL for years to slow down the play the ball.

Surely it makes sense at times to keep the player on his feet to create a maul and thus a turnover? If the attacking team wants quick ball it's the attacking players responsibility to get the ball on the deck quickly? Thats what the old "knee, hip, shoulder" technique when taking the tackle that you learn when you're a kid is about.

It was just a bit different. People are wary about new things. There was some talk that sometimes people were grappling the neck and head but to be honest I never saw the problem.

red_stag wrote:It was just a bit different. People are wary about new things. There was some talk that sometimes people were grappling the neck and head but to be honest I never saw the problem.

I don't see why? It's just a clever tactic in light of the new law interpretations. Obviously grapping the player above the shoulders shoud be a penalty but forcing the maul by keeping the ball carrier off the deck is neither new or illegal. If a team is getting repeadly caught with this then they need to look at their contact skills IMO.

Hobo wrote:Can I get a little help please guys - a couple of questions for Victor Ubogu have the words "tge" in them:

Glas a du wrote:

Should young players be signed up to professional clubs before they play for tge first team in a competitive match?

Can someone tell me what it means before I send it to him?

It's my Flip tiny phone and sausage fingers. It's supposed to be 'the'. I was typing in a hurry.

Asbo - its Notch's fault you can't read?

Mickado - isn't Lleyton Hewitt Irish?

Cari - are you looking a gift voucher in the perforations?

Dreamer - if you're being pedantic, isn't it "the Cardiff Blues" not "Cardiff" or "the Blues"?

:run1: :run2:

P.S. ditto Kiwi and all that, yeah?

Thanks Kiwi, I thought it was something along those lines

We were getting penalised quite a lot for it because it was being interpreted as a ruck not a maul, and the holding up was being interpreted as holding on.

It's something I've seen Leinster do a good bit too, thanks Laurie!

Morning all.

hope everyone is well.

one for the wall

https://www.606v2.com/t6977-international-teams-playing-in-domestic-cups#177634

It's not illegal to hold somebody up Stag, but you would penalise anybody who did so by putting their arm under their opponents neck for dangerous play, surely?

Mickado wrote:We were getting penalised quite a lot for it because it was being interpreted as a ruck not a maul, and the holding up was being interpreted as holding on.

It's something I've seen Leinster do a good bit too, thanks Laurie!

If the ball is in the air then it's maul. I always thought it was up to the attacking team to get the ball on the deck and it's not the responsibility of the defence to let them.

I thought we were getting pinged because the assister was not rolling away and because the tacklers and assisters were not clearly letting the tackled player go before competing for the ball?

Anyway, really am off to do some work now. I would say I'm snowed under but given the weather here over the past few days, I don't want to tempt fate.

:run1::run2:

roddersm wrote:
If the ball is in the air then it's maul. I always thought it was up to the attacking team to get the ball on the deck and it's not the responsibility of the defence to let them.

I thought we were getting pinged because the assister was not rolling away and because the tacklers and assisters were not clearly letting the tackled player go before competing for the ball?

Sort of but if the guy gets to his knees it becomes a tackle and WE get pinged for not releasing him. Previously he would get pinged.

Thats the crux of our confusion.

Stag I thought that the tackle wasn't complete until the ball carrying arm is on the ground (or is that just league?)? Surely a player being on his knees doesn't signal a ruck?

roddersm wrote:Stag I thought that the tackle wasn't complete until the ball carrying arm is on the ground (or is that just league?)? Surely a player being on his knees doesn't signal a ruck?

Thats just league. You are off your feet when you are on your knees.

OK fair enough.

Also if you are standing on your feet and using your elbows as support you are off your feet.

Morning all, finally managed to get a 5min break from working, looks like another stupidly busy week for me!!

Gym induction tonight....what's the point in all gym's insisting on that? Most of my inductions last 10mins because they realise they're just talking to someone who knows how to use everything!!

Probably health and safety Prop. For insurance reasons they probably have to be shown to give proper instructions to every member regardless of how much experience they have.

Makes sense really. You'll get people who will say they don't want induction and sue gym when they injured

red_stag wrote:You are off your feet when you are on your knees.

Stag, as that's the case, can you explain why you get players passing the ball sometimes seconds after they go to ground?

Gym inductions are a pain in the backside. I want to join the JJB gym across from my house but can't bring myself to go through that stupid induction with some muppet trying to explain how to use a treadmill or lift a dumbbell.

You can't even push your self hard in some of these gyms they're so afraid of you hurting yourself.

I remember back in the day we used to go along to the local bodybuilder type gym and do all sorts. We were 14 or 15 and no one cared what we did. My mate nearly squashed his head on the bench press because we were yapping instead of spotting. No inductions in those days.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

red_stag wrote:You are off your feet when you are on your knees.

Stag, as that's the case, can you explain why you get players passing the ball sometimes seconds after they go to ground?

Yes, materiality. You can't ping everything.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

red_stag wrote:You are off your feet when you are on your knees.

Stag, as that's the case, can you explain why you get players passing the ball sometimes seconds after they go to ground?

The player is allowed to pass or place the ball as long as it is immediate. I hope so anyway or SBW will be in trouble.

roddersm wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

red_stag wrote:You are off your feet when you are on your knees.

Stag, as that's the case, can you explain why you get players passing the ball sometimes seconds after they go to ground?

The player is allowed to pass or place the ball as long as it is immediate. I hope so anyway or SBW will be in trouble.

Correct!!

So it's down to the referee's interpretation of 'immediately?'

luckless_pedestrian wrote:So it's down to the referee's interpretation of 'immediately?'

Yup.

(Sorry, can't resist)

Stag, how do you explain the England or Munster* pack not getting pinged when 4 or 5 of them lie over the ball in a synchronised manner? None of them are supporting their own weight and are all off their feet. It seems that the more players that do it at any given time the less likely they are to be pinged, despite it having a greater effect on slowing the other side's ball or stopping them challenging for it.

(*or enter team of choice)

Glas a du wrote:(Sorry, can't resist)

Stag, how do you explain the England or Munster* pack not getting pinged when 4 or 5 of them lie over the ball in a synchronised manner? None of them are supporting their own weight and are all off their feet. It seems that the more players that do it at any given time the less likely they are to be pinged, despite it having a greater effect on slowing the other side's ball or stopping them challenging for it.

(*or enter team of choice)

They should. I see Musnter get away with it a lot using the safety in numbers approach. Leinster do the same thing with offside.

They should. I see Musnter get away with it a lot using the safety in numbers approach. Leinster do the same thing with offside.

You can't prove it.. you take that back.

One for the wall:

https://www.606v2.com/t6986-misguided-gatland

Phew, I thought I had the Risca/Rava/Nottins being ignored disease for a minute then.

mickyt wrote:

They should. I see Musnter get away with it a lot using the safety in numbers approach. Leinster do the same thing with offside.

You can't prove it.. you take that back.

The great Jonathan Davies was asked how he dealt with defending Tuigamala in league said, "its simple, I just lived offside"

Plus ca change.

I'm not sure davies ever managed to tackle tuigimala though!

No, possibly not, but he may have slowed him down just enough for somebody else to which was sufficient.

Its the way O'Gara tackles. People run straight at him and he slows them down enough. A human roadblock.

Davies had a propensity in those circumstances (in his first stint in Union anyway) to go high. He only got away with it because he hadn't bulked up at that point and I'm sure refs took it easy on him.

Speedbump is the word your looking for

Stag - that's the same as Regan King. He very rarely used to complete a proper tackle when he was with the Scarlets, but he'd do enough to either stop or slow them down enough until a team mate could come and help him.

And afternoon all, I actually managed to get a proper lunch break today which I didn't think I would, so am actually able to have a bit of proper time in here

Stag, when Rheon James came on into the centre for Wales u20's on Friday, both centres were my third cousins on different sides of my dad's family...



...Priestland is a third.

Wahey got feedback from interview last week. I passed interview. Now if my language is all they have to test. If I show them I can speak German to a good enough standard the job is mine

Nice one stag!

I've got so unmotivated at work here since deciding to leave

Well done and good luck with the German part of your interview then Stag!

I know what you mean about being unmotivated at work, same thing happened to me in the new year when I was applying for other jobs. It's just difficult to keep your head in the job when mentally you've already decided to be elsewhere, if you follow me.

No pressure on the language test then, Stag! Viel gluck!

Glas, one of Wales's centres - Lewis Robling - went to the same comprehensive school as me. He must be the first of us to have got anywhere in the game!