Banning the Bok tactics of last week

I responded to this under Flash’s news section, which is now an excellent daily source of rugby news. But I see the responses are not flagged in any way. So here are my thoughts on this. You can treat it as a bit of lightheartedness, humor in the serious business of test rugby….Rassie teasing the suits. But if it’s a serious tactic it becomes more contentious:

’Is the intent of the current rules that mauls should be formed in the middle of the field while the ball is in your possession?

Is the intent of the laws that teams would kick off the ball short enough to recover it to force a scrum.

Is the intent of the law that the coach should be allowed to come onto the field and allowed to interact with his players ….disguised as a water boy.

Obviously not, these are cases where the laws don’t cover every contingency, but no other team has thought of or exploited these loopholes. It’s not customary. The unexpected underarm ball in cricket or serve in tennis are in the same area code.

So we have a choice….play the game the way it was intended….or exploit the legal loopholes for as long as they are open. And if you want to do that and actually get an advantage, why not save the tactic for the AB matches when they might be an advantage rather than wasting them on Italy.

Juvenile stuff that tarnishes the Springbok brand.’

’

Yeah it's a pity that the news sections don't show up for discussion in the regular forum.

Nigel Owens is of the opinion that the kickoff thing should have been a penalty to Italy since it can be classed as a deliberate infringement. I can't say I'm impressed with the tactic and it ended up backfiring anyway. What's next, deliberate knockons or forward passes to get a scrum? Imagine if they do it at every kickoff, will it become a problem then?

I am not a law expert, especially when it comes to mauls, but I've seen discussion online where people say that the midfield "lineout" maul can be countered by simply not joining it. It needs at least one opposition player to bind to the ball carrier to become a maul, otherwise it remains open play. So I'm pretty sure a smart team can counter that move quite easily once they're wise to it, which everyone is now.

I guess it adds a little something to the game but yeah, not sure why you'd want to blow it wide open against the likes of Italy. I am less bothered by the "lineout" than I am by the deliberately botched kickoff.

"Juvenile stuff that tarnishes the Springbok brand.’

Horse manure!...your childish petulant opposition to anything Rassie is getting rather tiresome if not pathetic....sies, what happened to your sensibility?

You’re entitled to your opinion….I’m entitled to mine. This isn’t innovation it’s simply bending the rules and designed to keep Dr Lucky in the limelight.

The bomb squad was a genuine innovation.

The rush defense was a genuine innovation.

Sexton’s loop around running is an innovation.

And there is a lot of executional innovation in the lineouts and scrums.

The stuff we saw on Saturday was showboating.

It’s actually just weird and not innovative but tricks….

Erasmiss should play the game as intended without the tricks.

Is it going to far saying that it feels a bit like cheating??

Draad I’m with you 100% I love all these Rassie innovations - the man is literally a rugby genius - always one step ahead of the pack

Witnessing these deviations from the norm are refreshing and bring a smile to my face

Keep it up Rassie you fucking beaut

I like all of Rassie's innovations, except for the new one last week, where they deliberately conceded a scrum by kicking short. What made it worse was that Esterhuizen was offside and caught the ball.

If a player slaps a ball into touch on purpose, it is a penalty. If a team keeps giving away penalties, the referee may be more inclined to give away more yellow cards.

The lineout in the middle of the field is a fantastic idea for a team like the Boks with a very strong rolling maul. The move was called twice, and both times the Boks scored by driving over the line with a rolling maul. Additionally, both times the referee was playing advantage, and the Boks would have won a penalty in front of the poles if the maul had not converted into tries each time.

It's an easy catch for the lock and gives the players plenty of time to bind around him to initiate the maul. Unlike a lineout, where the catch is more contestable, and it is forwards against forwards.

A player like Esterhuizen can join the maul and just overpower the opposition.

Didnt we do the mid field maul back in 2019

Yes, Duane Vermuelen did, and it did work, but the Boks need to work on improving it. It works better giving it to a number 5 lock that jumps high, and players are used to supporting the midline out jumper. It is illegal to tackle a player in the air, so this gives plenty of time for support players to be organised.

The Boks have the best maul in the world, and most teams struggle to stop it without conceding a penalty.

If this is allowed there is even less incentive to pass the ball to the backs. I never understood the need for the maul protection rules, legal obstruction

Posted from my dentist’s chair

.

.

Yes, Duane Vermuelen did, and it did work, but the Boks need to work on improving it. It works better giving it to a number 5 lock that jumps high, and players are used to supporting the midline out jumper. It is illegal to tackle a player in the air, so this gives plenty of time for support players to be organised.

Only it's not a maul until the opposition binds to the carrier. If they don't, it's just a static melee with no offside lines.

"Yes, Duane Vermuelen did, and it did work, but the Boks need to work on improving it."

No, what the Boks need to work is actually trying to run the ball against opposition like the ABs, England and France.

Not necessarily headless chicken Stormers type stuff, but if they couldn't least be on par with sides like England in terms of blurring the ball though the back's hands, that would be nice.

Thee innovations are one-of and relatively inconsequential stuff. What is consequential is balancing play between backs and forwards as that is 90% of the game.

Ah so the 5 tries scored from structured play last weekend is not good enough for you then?

Actually the zero tries in the WC final is more to the point….gimmicks against minnows are hardly persuasive

According to 365, World Rugby has officially said that the Boks should have been penalized for that kickoff.

Listening to Dr Lucky on that tape I thought the Parrot in the background was more articulate.

Indeed. How many of those mauls are we gonna see against the ABs.

I'll put money on a big fat zero.

So what's it all for?

Minnow flexing.

There ere nothing wrong with tactics - but on Satirday it failed becaue of shot execution is what is wrong. With playes like Libbok and Esterhuizen nothing will work out. .

Uncle all I can see is that you have a obsession with Esterhuisen and apparently now Libbok to??

Dr. Lucky got his Doctors Degree, out of a Lucky Packet:)

The other teams like the AB will prepare themselves for these tricks, so I don’t think the Boks can use that tactic to much…

"There ere nothing wrong with tactics - but on Satirday it failed becaue of shot execution is what is wrong. With playes like Libbok and Esterhuizen nothing will work out."

Both of the midfield mauls result in tries, Mike.

For the kick-off trick, AE did his part, but the Italians got a free kick from the scrum.

I'm not sure why I'm still replying to this stuff.

Reply…don’t reply….a week from now the Oom will make the same claim again.

Mozart

When you are talking shit somebody should realize it and maybe response to it,

First of all the kick-in - it entails dribbling the ball in to go over the 10 meter line to where the forwards have been a tacctc used by both profesional and amateur ru gby players for more than a century. There is bu=gger-all to be banned on that one, What happened on Saturday was sheer abuse of a system by two idiot players, Fact is for Esterhuizen to be where he was meant that he was off-side and the kick was BS as well.

There is no prescription on how driving mauls are started provided there is no off-side play, Are you proposing that all driving mauls should be band? Erasmus used that technique successfuly when he coached Munster and was also used as a surprize move by the Springboks in the WC Final. If you ban that in rugby the question is should all driving mauls being banned.

This was BS you dreamed up beause Erasmus - your pet hate - did try it, Trust Libbok and Esterhuizen to fuck up everything they are involved in.anyway, Owens is right - Esterhuizen had to be in frnt of the kicker when the kick-in happen - so he should have been penalized. However, why people response to shit like you cooked up above is really amazing .

World Rugby stop Erasmus for being a water carrier years ago while he was being under a ban, So whaat makes you come up with this shit?

"So whaat makes you come up with this shit?"

...you finish me, Mike.

It's like you're freewheeling down a hill on a miniature tricycle, trying to play the national anthem on a trumpet sticking out of your butt, while asking other people why they do crazy things.

Mozart

If this is allowed there is even less incentive to pass the ball to the backs. I never understood the need for the maul protection rules, legal obstruction

Another piece of utter BS coming from Mozart, Driving mauls have rules thata re penalized - but nobody ever objected to it as a method to attack opponents - and the same ruels applied to scrums. So do you want to ah ve iot abolished, In the example where it happened in 2019 the ball was passed to the strongest ball carrier in the Springboks backline De Allende from a lineout who forced the English to concentrate on the attck of the Spring bok backline and the backline was invovled in protection of the ball when De Allende was stopped while the structure of the ball was formed and the abll was passed to Vermeulen with the maul going forward and the only thing the English could do was to stop the maul and they brought it down ilegally and was penalized, While the maul was going forward the backline lined up and when the English stopped the ball it went back to the backline to attack and it led to a neck high tackle on Kolbe. The orginal penalty was near the middle of the field and the original penalty was taken and converted by Pollard,

So the backlinme did a double job in that case and was in fact used as two methods of attacking rugby. The whole story is serious BS from Mozart who either knows nothing about rugby as a match and see only what he wanted to see in matches or making an utter fool of himself.

. .

Plum

You re using your only method of response w en spreading shot on site and whenmever ST Esterhuizen did somet hing stupid like he is inclined to do - using personal attacks.

Owens said Etseruizen was in front of the kicker when he emssed up the ball and he indeed was. The referee treated it as him being in frnmt of the kicker when he kicked in and awarded a scrum. In any event the kick like that only worked when it rolls along the ground and the ten meter rule is not applicabe if an oposing player touched or handled the ball..

In fact it was BS execution by both Libbok and Esterhuizen and that is the end of the story. It could work well if the ball is aimed correctly and rolled along the ground casing a handling roblem for especially the tight 5 forwards, But in teh case of the event on Saturday a variety in kick-ins were turned intos sit by the named two players, We know Estehuizen is a thinking dud player and it was proved again on Saturday anyway.

.