Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Flankers

      
  1. #11

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,018
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    109
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Flankers

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebra1922 View Post
    Why do you think the rationale is pathetic? There have been several law changes to try and create space, some in response to players being faster and stronger, but all with the aim of promoting attacking play. Seems like a good idea to make the game more exciting to me.
    I find changing a law to produce an outcome intellectually and tactically lazy. Improving skills and team game plan within the 15 v 15 structure is difficult. This law provides a moment of 6 versus 3 in many cases. A distinct advantage to the offensive team granted by a law change and not human activity. 6 attackers v 3 defenders occurs as a result of 3 deep defenders covering kicks

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    I agree. Keeping the forwards out of the backs is an emminently sensible idea.
    just remove players 6, 7 , 8 from the field would accomplish that also. This law is just a temporary removal from the game.

  2. #12
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    02 Nov 18
    Posts
    380
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    35

    Default Re: Flankers

    TBH, I think the rationale is sound, as it does create space. If it had the opposite effect then fair enough but I think it has given the space to the attacking team to create more attacks. Therefore was successful in what it was intending. I get that it creates an overload on the side of the offence but that's the idea, to promote scoring opportunities.

  3. #13

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,018
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    109
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Flankers

    Quote Originally Posted by Arabcheif View Post
    TBH, I think the rationale is sound, as it does create space. If it had the opposite effect then fair enough but I think it has given the space to the attacking team to create more attacks. Therefore was successful in what it was intending. I get that it creates an overload on the side of the offence but that's the idea, to promote scoring opportunities.
    Yep, what you r saying is correct. My problem is that is the law that created space, not the play or tactics of rugby. this law limits freedom of play to achieve an outcome. An outcome that should have been achieved by creative minds and skillful play.

    For example, when wing forwards unbind and retreat to offside line as before stay bound law, a weakness in the defense has occurred elsewhere. Most obviously in strength of scrum defense. The counter to unbound wing forwards is a driving scrum.

  4. #14

    Referees in Scotland


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    20 Dec 17
    Posts
    428
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    93

    Default Re: Flankers

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Kurt Weaver View Post
    I find changing a law to produce an outcome intellectually and tactically lazy. Improving skills and team game plan within the 15 v 15 structure is difficult. This law provides a moment of 6 versus 3 in many cases. A distinct advantage to the offensive team granted by a law change and not human activity. 6 attackers v 3 defenders occurs as a result of 3 deep defenders covering kicks



    just remove players 6, 7 , 8 from the field would accomplish that also. This law is just a temporary removal from the game.
    I don't agree it is 6 vs 3 as the 3 who may (or may not) be deep are still defenders available, just not aligned. But let's say you were correct why do we not have hundreds of tries scored from the scrum? I'd say because it's not really 6 v 3 but what's your rationale?

  5. #15

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,300
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1277

    Default Re: Flankers

    there's a safety element too. A continuous 8 on 8 scrum will be more stable than an 8 on 8 scrum that suddenly turns into an 8 on 5 scrum
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  6. #16

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,018
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    109
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Flankers

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    there's a safety element too. A continuous 8 on 8 scrum will be more stable than an 8 on 8 scrum that suddenly turns into an 8 on 5 scrum
    yep, that is how they sold it. No self respecting prop will tell you a flanker does a damn thing

  7. #17

    Referees in Scotland


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    20 Dec 17
    Posts
    428
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    93

    Default Re: Flankers

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Kurt Weaver View Post
    yep, that is how they sold it. No self respecting prop will tell you a flanker does a damn thing
    ]

    I dunno, on the few occasions I played flanker my prop made sure I was in the right place to support him in the scrum and keep him in position, so I must have been needed for something in the scrum (not sure I did what was needed, but he clearly expected something from his flanker!)

  8. #18
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cambridge and St Neots
    Grade
    I am a Fan
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Posts
    1,332
    Thanks (Received)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    206

    Default Re: Flankers

    Yes, but they will not admit it in public

  9. #19

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,018
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    109
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Flankers

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebra1922 View Post
    ]

    I dunno, on the few occasions I played flanker my prop made sure I was in the right place to support him in the scrum and keep him in position, so I must have been needed for something in the scrum (not sure I did what was needed, but he clearly expected something from his flanker!)
    He needed an excuse for getting his arse beat by opposite

  10. #20

    ELRA/Club Referee


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    08 Nov 18
    Posts
    102
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    30

    Default Re: Flankers

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    there's a safety element too. A continuous 8 on 8 scrum will be more stable than an 8 on 8 scrum that suddenly turns into an 8 on 5 scrum
    You'd certainly think so however in my memory scrum stability was never any sort of issue. At a defensive scrum, if we lost the ball (which wasn't preordained as we still believed in the great god named - one against the head) our flankers unbound (not the No 8 though) and retreated behind the backfoot to bolster the defence. Consequently as a 10 I almost never made a tackle which was how it was supposed to be until the great Jonny Wilkinson turned up and insisted he was as hard as the forwards. Life became considerably more painful after that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •