Ireland
- Thread starter Andy P
- Start date
I suspect what's happening is that 3 Irish players smother a ball carrier and do their best to hold him up ie preventing it becoming a ruck. So if they prop up the ball carrier like a tripod, one Irish player will be on the "wrong" side before the maul even forms. If they can't win the ball in this maul, at least they get the put in at the scrum if / when stays stationary for 5 seconds, unplayable etc ie unsuccesful end to a maul.
Ireland have used this tactic for years, but I did notice that France benefitted from the same tactic at least twice in yesterdays game.
Ireland have used this tactic for years, but I did notice that France benefitted from the same tactic at least twice in yesterdays game.
Last edited:
The umpire
Referees in England
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 870
- Post Likes
- 29
A slightly diferent question.
erm, first offence, DP thought that a PK was sufficient?
1- manage
2- penalise
3 - sanction
didn't need to get beyond point 2 at that stage?
The lazy runner need to make real effort to stay out of the way - in this case that is the opposite of what he did.
A YC is not simply for repeat offences - in this case he should have been binned, no doubt about it in my mind.
Not only was he in the way he was exactly in the place where he would cause greatest impact. Cynical deliberate and a YC all the way.
He even raised his hands in the classic signal - "hey, Ref! Look at me - I'm being a bad boy!"
A YC is not simply for repeat offences - in this case he should have been binned, no doubt about it in my mind.
Not only was he in the way he was exactly in the place where he would cause greatest impact. Cynical deliberate and a YC all the way.
He even raised his hands in the classic signal - "hey, Ref! Look at me - I'm being a bad boy!"
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
It is a coached technique in Ireland - the international and provincial sides use it a lot. Thinking is that is
1. disruptive
2. higher chance of holding the ball up / in maul
3. higher chance of turnover
We were told this at a recent Society meeting by someone with extensive International experience.
Like Brian Moore, I was astonished that he did not get a card.
so despite being a first offence, straight to a card as far as you're concerned? I'm worried about managing a game to be honest without being too card-happy.
It wasn't even in the redzone, but agree it was cynical. Are there guidelines out there that should be applied?
I'm genuinely in 2 minds on this issue, not trying to argumentative or stick up for an Irish player!
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
at this Elite level of play, I would have expected to see a YC for deliberate "lazy running" that removed an attacking opportunity (too few & far between in the modern defence orientated we now have).
At Level 5 it would have been a discussion point in my post match de-brief.
At Level 5 it would have been a discussion point in my post match de-brief.
YCs are NOT a tool just for repeat offences. They are for cynical professional fouls - and in this case it was so well premeditated that you almost see the plan in diagram form flutter in his pocket.
It's not a case of card happy - it's about using your tools to prevent cynical play that wrecks a perfectly good attacking move - which brings me to the "Red Zone" - if it was truly a try scoring probability close to the line then it would also have earned a PT, as well as a card. But we don't restrict YCs to try scoring opportunities that are foiled by foul play.
But nothing illegal about it. Prior to the maul forming, one of the "not a tackler but a disrupter" irish players shifts round to put his body between his opponent and the oncoming support players. Maul formed by first contact of a ball-carriers teammate and (hopefully) you've got an irishman in a very disruptive but legal position.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
Exactly Irishref - I didn't say it was illegal, and applaud Irish high quality coaching law analysis.
however in the pre RWC2011 warm up games, both france and scotland neutralised it handily. If you can prevent the maul ending unsuccessfully you've got a stretched defence!
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,103
- Post Likes
- 2,364
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
No such place.
Adam
Referees in England
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,489
- Post Likes
- 35
I vote that we rebrand it as the 'cynical area' or something like that.
First offence is irrelevant when it is that blatant. I have no doubt whatever it was deliberate cheating. He made no effort at all to avoid running into an opponent from behind.
Account Deleted
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,089
- Post Likes
- 1
There's your answer. cynical actions deserve a card not the mythical "red-zone".
More to the point, why are the Irish allowed to hold up these mauls by wrapping an arm around the player's neck? Surely it is dangerous play.