Pavlova? With that glowing top it's almost more night light than pav. Based on the attire of the fans and the comms, it's much warmer than the old days at Lancaster Park and the last stadium
Crusaders
Match thread
Waratahs
@Mr-Fish said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
You can certainly make a case whether there should've been a penalty or not in the first place, but the yellow card was spot on. Miles Amatosero tackles the Crusaders player who takes the quick tap without retreating back 10 metres - pretty blatant.
Amatosero gets bumped in the back by Brewis which makes the contact look worse than it may have been.
@MiketheSnow tackler takes him to ground, second player dives on the now ruck from the side?
(A guess, dunno)
@MiketheSnow said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
Not just me confused then
There's nothing confusing about it.
In this snapshot (forgive the instagram play button) you can clearly see the transfer has taken place, the Tahs player is attempting a tackle but everyone's on their feet so it's a maul. Meaning 4 & 5 from the Tahs are now offside. 4 retreats but five joins the maul from an offside position,
Rugbypass and rugbymavericks are clearly run by bait merchants or retards. Possibly both.
I thought you couldn't start a maul with players in front of the ball?
Or did we change that interpretation too, too make mauls even more OP
@mariner4life nothing in the law says that starting a maul players have to be in certain positions. Just once a maul is formed.
If your lifters get in front of your receiver its a penalty.
There are pre-binding laws in play.
I still can't see how this is legal given the Crusaders transferred the ball before anyone touched them.
If the receiver kept the ball the could have walked all the way to.the try line
@mariner4life said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
If your lifters get in front of your receiver its a penalty
Is that maybe only if they actually obstruct the opposition? If the opposition don't engage then play on?
@mariner4life said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
If your lifters get in front of your receiver its a penalty.
There are pre-binding laws in play.
I'd be happy to see it ruled as a flying wedge - to reduce the ridiculous overpower of the maul. So that mauls actually happened organically. In much the same way I want to see every ruck penalised where players go off their feet. But that will never happen.
I still can't see how this is legal given the Crusaders transferred the ball before anyone touched them.
Because the Tahs tackler targeted the person who was transferred the ball. Had he tried to come from the front after the transfer that would be obstruction.
I have been waiting for players in other teams to do that instead of just standing there, especially if their team doesn't get an opportunity to do one.
