Sorry for startin a new thread lads but I can't find a better home for it.
I'm a distant admirer of the egg chasing fraternity...I was up like everyone else roaring the hoors on this morning...but....some of the rules and the way the game is played baffles me. Can any of you experts out there give us an oul fool's guide to some of the more mysterious elements of the game...btw...they are tough fcukin men :-\
Specifically..
What's a ruck and what's a maul?
Why does the full back/out half/scrum half kick the fcukin thing up in the air instead of keeping possession?
Why do players not go block a kick the way we do???? Hands tight over the kickers foot.
Offside??? wtf.
Thats only the start. Thanks in advance.
Alternatively I could ask the Wobbler but he has his hands full these days... :-\ :-\
Additionally is a try scored if the ball is set against the base of the post, (the big cushion thing)?
Quote from: trileacman on October 08, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Additionally is a try scored if the ball is set against the base of the post, (the big cushion thing)?
It happened in the Ireland/Russia game - yes it counts
Quote from: 5 Sams on October 08, 2011, 08:49:38 PM
Sorry for startin a new thread lads but I can't find a better home for it.
I'm a distant admirer of the egg chasing fraternity...I was up like everyone else roaring the hoors on this morning...but....some of the rules and the way the game is played baffles me. Can any of you experts out there give us an oul fool's guide to some of the more mysterious elements of the game...btw...they are tough fcukin men :-\
Specifically..
What's a ruck and what's a maul?
Why does the full back/out half/scrum half kick the fcukin thing up in the air instead of keeping possession?
Why do players not go block a kick the way we do???? Hands tight over the kickers foot.
Offside??? wtf.
Thats only the start. Thanks in advance.
Alternatively I could ask the Wobbler but he has his hands full these days... :-\ :-\
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/rugby_union/rules/newsid_3434000/3434821.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/rugby_union/rules/newsid_3434000/3434821.stm)
Quote from: trileacman on October 08, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Additionally is a try scored if the ball is set against the base of the post, (the big cushion thing)?
yes
Quote from: sans pessimism on October 08, 2011, 09:57:04 PM
Quote from: trileacman on October 08, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Additionally is a try scored if the ball is set against the base of the post, (the big cushion thing)?
yes
sorry Gabriel,just seen yer post
A ruck is a contest for the ball on the ground. A maul is when the players usually forwards come together and bind around the ball and push the other team back like an informal scrum with the ball in hand inside the maul.
I am not sure why teams kick the ball up in the air so much especially when they do it badly. If it is a high hanging kick that makes a lot of ground ut causes problems for defenses. The thing is there are too many badly applied garyowens and box kicks from scrum halves especially.
It can be difficult to block the outhalf in rugby, hard to get there and potentially painful. I do see what you are talking about though players running up and throwing their hands up in the air as if to block. It never works. You have to look at the out half stance and like you said get your hands over his foot.
The offside line is the ball you can't be ahead of it except in broken play.
o
Quote from: 5 Sams on October 08, 2011, 08:49:38 PM
Sorry for startin a new thread lads but I can't find a better home for it.
I'm a distant admirer of the egg chasing fraternity...I was up like everyone else roaring the hoors on this morning...but....some of the rules and the way the game is played baffles me. Can any of you experts out there give us an oul fool's guide to some of the more mysterious elements of the game...btw...they are tough fcukin men :-\
Specifically..
What's a ruck and what's a maul?
Why does the full back/out half/scrum half kick the fcukin thing up in the air instead of keeping possession?
Why do players not go block a kick the way we do???? Hands tight over the kickers foot.
Offside??? wtf.
Thats only the start. Thanks in advance.
Alternatively I could ask the Wobbler but he has his hands full these days... :-\ :-\
Can someone explain in plain mans language what the difference between loose head and tight head is?
And when we're at it what makes someone a specialist loose head and a specialist tight head?
And whats the story with the scrums when like leinster a few seasons ago, fella went off injured so it went to uncontested scrums
Quote from: The Subbie on October 08, 2011, 10:47:34 PM
Can someone explain in plain mans language what the difference between loose head and tight head is?
And when we're at it what makes someone a specialist loose head and a specialist tight head?
And whats the story with the scrums when like leinster a few seasons ago, fella went off injured so it went to uncontested scrums
In the scrum the tighthead slots his head in between two opposing players. The loosehead will be on the leftside of the scrum and hasnt got two opposing players to get tight against. My take anyway!
I there was no off-side in rugby, opposition players could stand anywhere on the field and wait for a ball passed backwards to be thrown into their hands and then carry on up the field. It would be a total mess if not part of the game.
Tight on the right, is the rule. A tighthead prop, No.3. has two opposition players either side of him. The prop-forwards' job in the scrum is to keep the scrum upright.
In yesterday's game, it appeared the ref called a mark and gave the Welsh a free kick out of their defence in the first half. However the man was airborne with both feet OFF the ground when he caught the ball. When I played, BOTH feet had to be firrmly on the ground to take a mark.
Right I now understand what a tight & loose head is.
Now what REALLY happens when the two scrubs lock, do both hookers get the heads boxed offa them? Does much nasty stuff go on?
What's the crack with the line out codes when really there is only three places it can go, front middle or back
Quote from: Take Your Points on October 08, 2011, 10:15:04 PM
Quote from: 5 Sams on October 08, 2011, 08:49:38 PM
some of the rules and the way the game is played baffles me.
Sorry 5 Sams, not really being pedantic, but the brethren who really follow/know/play rugby get very annoyed if anyone refer to "rules" of the game, it is the "laws" of the game in rugby. Not sure if this is just snobbery over soccer which has rules and regulations.
It's the laws of the game in football as well though so why don't football fans get as an annoyed?
Quote from: The Subbie on October 09, 2011, 10:36:25 AM
Right I now understand what a tight & loose head is.
Now what REALLY happens when the two scrubs lock, do both hookers get the heads boxed offa them? Does much nasty stuff go on?
What's the crack with the line out codes when really there is only three places it can go, front middle or back
NOBODY knows what goes on in there-ESPECIALLY not refs
Quote from: The Subbie on October 09, 2011, 10:36:25 AM
Right I now understand what a tight & loose head is.
Now what REALLY happens when the two scrubs lock, do both hookers get the heads boxed offa them? Does much nasty stuff go on?
What's the crack with the line out codes when really there is only three places it can go, front middle or back
1. The old rugger lads, george hook and the like, could tell you story of back in the day. He told recently that the most anticipated battle in old rugby was how many blows to the face the two hookers could sustain/make/get away with.
2. for the lineout codes you can go front, middle or back. You can also go forward a step, back a step, or straight jump in any one of these positions. So for example you can go to the front and step forward, step back or straight up.
On top of that there is calls for a maul, calls for a ball thrown of the top, calls for a takedown and pass. Also there is the seldom used tactic of sending the ball of the top and onto a winger. Tried once every twenty years I think. :D
A lad I worked with had half an ear, I asked him how it happened, He was tight head in the scrum and his front row collapsed, unfortunately his opposite number had turned his head and took a bite of his ear, their front row stayed up.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 09, 2011, 06:00:06 PM
A lad I worked with had half an ear, I asked him how it happened, He was tight head in the scrum and his front row collapsed, unfortunately his opposite number had turned his head and took a bite of his ear, their front row stayed up.
Hard for his coach to give him an earful
I posted this for the closet rugby fan Billys Boots before
Laws in rugby provide a framework for the game, rules imho tend to be more black and white and not open to interpretation. To say a referee does not know the laws (rules) is wrong, you will find he has his own interpration of many laws and like in any sport on the field of play he is right even when wrong. Take for example, a ruck, in a ruck you can only enter the ruck through 'A Gate', now this gate doesn't exist physically, as a rule of thumb it's considered the width of the tackled persons body position but only the referee can for definite say what this is - some referees allow a wide gate some a narrow. It's up to the players to figure out if the referee is allowing a wider gate (hence screams he's in from the side as the referee waves play on) or a narrow gate (hence screams he came from behind ref, he was on-side as the referee indicates a penalty).
I'll try to keep this simple 5 Sams. I'm sure a proper rugger-bugger could apply more science to the below, but I'm trying to keep it in a GAA folk's perspective.
Three main reasons I can think of for the ball being kicked "away".
Territory. This can be equally as important as possession in rugby. This has always been the case, but these days when most professional kickers are expected to convert every opportunity inside 50 metres, it's particularly so. Think about how often teams with the ball cough up a penalty for holding on too long – it's just not something you want to risk doing in your own half.
Variance / Keeping the opposition on the back foot. The key to breaking through a defensive line is to create a bit of space and exploit it. If your team never shows a willingness to kick the ball, then the opposition's back 3 (full back and 2 wingers) can step up and reinforce the defensive line instead of holding back and covering off kicks, which obviously makes it more difficult to break that line. Australia were a classic case of this problem against Ireland; their fly-half and full-back ran at Ireland every time they got the ball. Ireland just stepped up and made a big flat line for Oz to run through, which they never did.
Opportunity. A well-positioned kick will tend to meet an isolated opponent (normally the full back), and should be a difficult take. At best this gives your team's more aggressive runners the opportunity to bury the said full-back and either turnover the ball (with significant territorial advantage) or force a penalty from holding on. Normally it involves the opposition full-back sh1tting bricks and kicking the ball always hurriedly, giving you a line-out with territorial advantage. Sometimes it just ends up in a ping-pong battle between kickers.
Offside is quite simple. In an attacking sense, as all passes in rugby go backwards, your teammates should never be ahead of you. If they are ahead of you, then receive the ball, they are offside. In a defensive sense, it's pretty much the opposite. You should never be ahead of the ball, and therefore you should never tackle from anywhere but behind the ball. There is more complexity to it involving imaginary lines of scrimmage and active/inactive, but by and large, you always want to be behind the ball.
Rugby blocking is a bit different in that as defenders are coming from behind the offside line, they are normally going at full tilt to take the kicker out. The kicker reacts to this by getting the kick away as early as he can, so the defenders rarely have little option other than to fling themselves towards the space where the kicked ball is about to enter. In football, blocks tend to come from the side, or when players have been slowed down to a stop by the defender, hence you can target the foot.
Rucks and mauls are more difficult to explain. I'll probably make a mess but here goes.
Rucks. One of the problems with rugby's basic framework as a game is that by nature, everything comes to a crashing halt every few seconds i.e. a big man is dragged to the ground by another big man. At this stage, the ball should normally have been presented by the tackled player for his team to restart their attack, but the reality is that oftentimes without some sort of contrived restart mechanism, the 10 or so big lumps who've come over to protect/fight for the ball, would just swamp the ball as it's becoming active again, and more and more of them would join in until all 30 players are lying in a heap around it. Which wouldn't be much of a spectacle.
Rugby League went for a rule where everybody gets out of the way, and the tackled player shoos it back into play. Union's interpretation of things is a bit more freeflowing, but once a ruck is formed, a handful of rules (including offside) help keep everyone from piling in every time they catch sight of leather, and help ensure that play can be restarted. How strictly referees interpret the rules around a ruck seems to be one of the more contentious elements of the sport. As an attacking tool, rucks should be the platform to big things. Your better ball-carriers tend to take more than one opponent to stop them, and the more opposing players you can commit to a ruck, the more room there should be outside of it. Also, "quick ball from the ruck" is what analysts always drone on about. If your attacking team needs to commit lots of bodies to the ruck, it's because they can't get the ball suitably well protected to move it out of the ruck. Thus when the ball is spun out from it, there is normally fewer bodies for your team to string together a move, plus they tend to be facing up to an organised defensive pattern.
Mauls. You've probably seen "crossing" a few times i.e. when two attacking players collide (or touch) during a move. This is considered an illegal advantage in that player 1 could act as a shield for player 2. Mauls (to me) are like organised, legal crossing. They're a set play in that the referee recognises that normal rugby rules about never being ahead of the ball, are temporarily thrown out the window, as each of the players in the Maul is bound together working as one unit. Which makes it like a scrum.
What happens is a player carrying the ball is joined by a teammate (or more) and that teammate then locks horns with him and they "charge together". More and more players join them, and the players involved tend to move the ball backwards until the last person in the Maul is the ball-carrier, and everyone else involved is part of the battering ram. A Maul comes to an end when momentum is removed from the attack. At that point, the referee advises them that they need to break up and go back to the normal offside rules of rugby. At which point most of them (they're always forward) tend to lie down, go "inactive" and have a breather.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 10, 2011, 09:55:41 AM
I posted this for the closet rugby fan Billys Boots before
Laws in rugby provide a framework for the game, rules imho tend to be more black and white and not open to interpretation. To say a referee does not know the laws (rules) is wrong, you will find he has his own interpration of many laws and like in any sport on the field of play he is right even when wrong. Take for example, a ruck, in a ruck you can only enter the ruck through 'A Gate', now this gate doesn't exist physically, as a rule of thumb it's considered the width of the tackled persons body position but only the referee can for definite say what this is - some referees allow a wide gate some a narrow. It's up to the players to figure out if the referee is allowing a wider gate (hence screams he's in from the side as the referee waves play on) or a narrow gate (hence screams he came from behind ref, he was on-side as the referee indicates a penalty).
That couldn't have been for me, as I don't know what it's about. I've read it three times and it still makes no sense.
Why the interest in rugby recently - I thought it started in January?
Quote from: thewobbler on October 10, 2011, 10:21:06 AM
I'll try to keep this simple 5 Sams. I'm sure a proper rugger-bugger could apply more science to the below, but I'm trying to keep it in a GAA folk's perspective.
Three main reasons I can think of for the ball being kicked "away".
Territory. This can be equally as important as possession in rugby. This has always been the case, but these days when most professional kickers are expected to convert every opportunity inside 50 metres, it's particularly so. Think about how often teams with the ball cough up a penalty for holding on too long – it's just not something you want to risk doing in your own half.
Variance / Keeping the opposition on the back foot. The key to breaking through a defensive line is to create a bit of space and exploit it. If your team never shows a willingness to kick the ball, then the opposition's back 3 (full back and 2 wingers) can step up and reinforce the defensive line instead of holding back and covering off kicks, which obviously makes it more difficult to break that line. Australia were a classic case of this problem against Ireland; their fly-half and full-back ran at Ireland every time they got the ball. Ireland just stepped up and made a big flat line for Oz to run through, which they never did.
Opportunity. A well-positioned kick will tend to meet an isolated opponent (normally the full back), and should be a difficult take. At best this gives your team's more aggressive runners the opportunity to bury the said full-back and either turnover the ball (with significant territorial advantage) or force a penalty from holding on. Normally it involves the opposition full-back sh1tting bricks and kicking the ball always hurriedly, giving you a line-out with territorial advantage. Sometimes it just ends up in a ping-pong battle between kickers.
Offside is quite simple. In an attacking sense, as all passes in rugby go backwards, your teammates should never be ahead of you. If they are ahead of you, then receive the ball, they are offside. In a defensive sense, it's pretty much the opposite. You should never be ahead of the ball, and therefore you should never tackle from anywhere but behind the ball. There is more complexity to it involving imaginary lines of scrimmage and active/inactive, but by and large, you always want to be behind the ball.
Rugby blocking is a bit different in that as defenders are coming from behind the offside line, they are normally going at full tilt to take the kicker out. The kicker reacts to this by getting the kick away as early as he can, so the defenders rarely have little option other than to fling themselves towards the space where the kicked ball is about to enter. In football, blocks tend to come from the side, or when players have been slowed down to a stop by the defender, hence you can target the foot.
Rucks and mauls are more difficult to explain. I'll probably make a mess but here goes.
Rucks. One of the problems with rugby's basic framework as a game is that by nature, everything comes to a crashing halt every few seconds i.e. a big man is dragged to the ground by another big man. At this stage, the ball should normally have been presented by the tackled player for his team to restart their attack, but the reality is that oftentimes without some sort of contrived restart mechanism, the 10 or so big lumps who've come over to protect/fight for the ball, would just swamp the ball as it's becoming active again, and more and more of them would join in until all 30 players are lying in a heap around it. Which wouldn't be much of a spectacle.
Rugby League went for a rule where everybody gets out of the way, and the tackled player shoos it back into play. Union's interpretation of things is a bit more freeflowing, but once a ruck is formed, a handful of rules (including offside) help keep everyone from piling in every time they catch sight of leather, and help ensure that play can be restarted. How strictly referees interpret the rules around a ruck seems to be one of the more contentious elements of the sport. As an attacking tool, rucks should be the platform to big things. Your better ball-carriers tend to take more than one opponent to stop them, and the more opposing players you can commit to a ruck, the more room there should be outside of it. Also, "quick ball from the ruck" is what analysts always drone on about. If your attacking team needs to commit lots of bodies to the ruck, it's because they can't get the ball suitably well protected to move it out of the ruck. Thus when the ball is spun out from it, there is normally fewer bodies for your team to string together a move, plus they tend to be facing up to an organised defensive pattern.
Mauls. You've probably seen "crossing" a few times i.e. when two attacking players collide (or touch) during a move. This is considered an illegal advantage in that player 1 could act as a shield for player 2. Mauls (to me) are like organised, legal crossing. They're a set play in that the referee recognises that normal rugby rules about never being ahead of the ball, are temporarily thrown out the window, as each of the players in the Maul is bound together working as one unit. Which makes it like a scrum.
What happens is a player carrying the ball is joined by a teammate (or more) and that teammate then locks horns with him and they "charge together". More and more players join them, and the players involved tend to move the ball backwards until the last person in the Maul is the ball-carrier, and everyone else involved is part of the battering ram. A Maul comes to an end when momentum is removed from the attack. At that point, the referee advises them that they need to break up and go back to the normal offside rules of rugby. At which point most of them (they're always forward) tend to lie down, go "inactive" and have a breather.
Thank God you didn't go into detail Wob!!
Quote from: Billys Boots on October 10, 2011, 10:56:17 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 10, 2011, 09:55:41 AM
I posted this for the closet rugby fan Billys Boots before
Laws in rugby provide a framework for the game, rules imho tend to be more black and white and not open to interpretation. To say a referee does not know the laws (rules) is wrong, you will find he has his own interpration of many laws and like in any sport on the field of play he is right even when wrong. Take for example, a ruck, in a ruck you can only enter the ruck through 'A Gate', now this gate doesn't exist physically, as a rule of thumb it's considered the width of the tackled persons body position but only the referee can for definite say what this is - some referees allow a wide gate some a narrow. It's up to the players to figure out if the referee is allowing a wider gate (hence screams he's in from the side as the referee waves play on) or a narrow gate (hence screams he came from behind ref, he was on-side as the referee indicates a penalty).
That couldn't have been for me, as I don't know what it's about. I've read it three times and it still makes no sense.
Why the interest in rugby recently - I thought it started in January?
It was from a debate we were having on the champions league semi-final thread
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19019.msg955112#msg955112 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19019.msg955112#msg955112)
Apologies Dinny, I'd apparently lost interest at that stage.
Quote from: Billys Boots on October 10, 2011, 12:42:15 PM
Apologies Dinny, I'd apparently lost interest at that stage.
:D
They should go back to the no lifting in the lineout law. It would make for better games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyiPumPBHVQ
Surely if the opposing team just lifted a lad at the front of the line out he'd intercept every time? ???
In that case you would just throw a low ball to the lock/front row who is standing by himself at the front of the line out. Besides, how long do you think any man could hold 18st of Paul O'Connell upright for?
I mean, I know there are obvioulsy good reasons for it or it would be done, but I suppose yuo could put a man on the gound at the front to contest low throws, and then only lift the lad when the ball is thrown...
Haranguerer, the technique you are talking about is actually employed quite often in that the guy standing at no.2 in the lineout is thrown up in the air as a shield. But to do this normally commits your best 2 lifters to that jumper, and if he's not up early enough, the other team have a huge advantage at the middle and back of the lineout.
In what instance does the attacking team have the throw in at the line out when they're the ones who kicked the ball out?
And what's the rule for bringing the ball back to where it was kicked from for a line out? Is it because the ball hasn't travelled a certain distance? In what situation is this rule applied?
Quote from: take_yer_points on October 10, 2011, 02:08:54 PM
In what instance does the attacking team have the throw in at the line out when they're the ones who kicked the ball out?
And what's the rule for bringing the ball back to where it was kicked from for a line out? Is it because the ball hasn't travelled a certain distance? In what situation is this rule applied?
In the first one it is when they are awarded a penalty and kick for touch...I think the second one is when it is kicked out on the full when the kicker is outside the 22....I think.....
Quote from: thewobbler on October 10, 2011, 01:53:26 PM
Haranguerer, the technique you are talking about is actually employed quite often in that the guy standing at no.2 in the lineout is thrown up in the air as a shield. But to do this normally commits your best 2 lifters to that jumper, and if he's not up early enough, the other team have a huge advantage at the middle and back of the lineout.
Cheers wobbler.
Why do some fouls give a team a 'free kick' (to either solo and run, go for the posts, or kick for the corner, while others are a scrum?
One other thing that confuses me, altho its tactical rather than abou the laws - going for drop goals. When a team is in that position, they're likely to get the three points from a penalty or indeed get a try, as they are to score a drop goal , it seems to me anyway. I've seen (I think) teams turn down a kick at the posts to go for a try, then end up going for a drop goal, which is usually appluaded by the commentators, with never any mention of the fact that no benefit has been gained, in that they could have had the 3 points from a set piece moments ago.
It just seems to my ignorant eyes drop goals are a lottery rarely worth entering.
Usually drop goals are attempted if the attacking team feel that the defense is holding firm, and doing a good job of keeping their discipline as well. It becomes a sort of 'well we might as well get something out of it'. Drop goals are actually a pretty easy skill when you factor in that they are normally in the middle of the pitch, and if it is being engineered by a skillful drive, normally within 30 yards or so.
The other scenario is the last minute attack a lá Ireland's grand slam. In that situation, you are up against a solid defense, and are running out of time. You need a score, and the longer you bring the ball into contact, the more chance of a turnover or knock on. Therefore, you consciously try to set up the high percentage shot. You can't force the defense to give away a penalty.