Missing ... Mid-field Magician, Mayerhofler Misses Major Match.

Missing ... Mid-field Magician, Mayerhofler Misses Major Match.

Post by Paul Swaffor » Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:00:00


What happened to Canterbury's D .. well I think they showed a week off,
but more importantly for the NZ selectors it showed just how good a
player Mayerhofler is.
When he is there his 12 or so tackles a game make a world of difference.
Yesterday a standin was found wanting. When you end up with both 2/5 and
center not able to tackle then the poor loosies have to do so much more
work.... no chance v a VERY good Otago backline. Well played Otago.

Now on a different topic.
I thought the games this weekend have been poorly controlled.
This "post-tackle" rule is a cop out.... when the ref can't decide
whether its a maul ... or a ruck. Now a maul is when Three players (any
combination) are involved in a tackle where the BALL is off the ground.
If one of them is on the ground then they release or get penalised. I
think they should get rid of the "you didn't allow him to release"
penalty... especially if the tackler has retained their feet. How fast
does a maul form? .. well according to some ref's interpretations not
until both forward packs arrive!

The other thing is allowing advantage when clearly none will come. Such
as defending team has penalty advantage on defence, inside own 22...,
ref allows advantage .. oposition ends up with the ball. I would like to
see some clearer guidelines for advantage play, inside own 22, penalty
... end of story. Between both 22s  advantage to attacking team. Inside
opposition 22 always advantage.

Anyway for my money the younger of the Steve Walshes is the best ref in
the country, by quite a long way at present, Paddy and Hawk ebtter lift
their game because we expect better from professionals.

 
 
 

Missing ... Mid-field Magician, Mayerhofler Misses Major Match.

Post by Meredydd Smar » Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> <snip>
> The other thing is allowing advantage when clearly none will come. Such
> as defending team has penalty advantage on defence, inside own 22...,
> ref allows advantage .. oposition ends up with the ball. I would like to
> see some clearer guidelines for advantage play, inside own 22, penalty
> ... end of story. Between both 22s  advantage to attacking team. Inside
> opposition 22 always advantage.
> <snip>

Sorry Paul but these are daft suggestions - it's up to the ref to tell
whether advantage has accrued or not.  So if he plays on in the
defending sides twenty-two and they loose the ball soon after he has to
decide where they better served by the advantage than if they'd been
able to kick the penalty too touch; if he decides they weren't he blows
his whistle and calls them back.
Such situations are a real bonus for good defensive and
counter-attacking sides; suddenly you've got the ball when the oppostion
didn't expect it (say from a knock-on by them), they're not defensively
aligned and there's likely to be space to exploit by running or chipping
over the top.  For an example of this look at NZ's try in the World Cup
semi against England where they turned over the ball in their 22, Bunce
(I think) beat Guscott and they went all the way to score at the other
end.
Imagine being called back from that cause refs weren't supposed to play
advantage in this situation.
But refs do have to be sensible about what constitutes advantage;
definite advantage should accrue but also it's not an insurance policy
agianst you making mistakes - if you run from behind your 22 in
advantage, then get intercepted on halfway for a try  - tough, it maybe
you had your advantage in this case by making halfway, the rest was
normal play and your fault.
It's a great law as it stands, not always easy for refs and too many
players do seem to see it as insurance when the ref waves play on but it
should be left alone.
--
Cheers,
Meredydd.
(Please remove anti-spam. from my address)