The new dawn

StN · 2nd June 2010, 22:10

Not a bad looking jersey - better than that bloody Waratahs thing!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/n...get-new-jersey

PhX · 2nd June 2010, 22:16

wow, that is well preddy

fixed_truth · 3rd June 2010, 09:57

Very Maori looking

Saladin · 3rd June 2010, 10:17

Reminds me of the Warriors heritage jersery from this season, but I like this one better

Ab · 3rd June 2010, 12:00

That is fucking sweet. The NZ Maori kit always looks better than the All Blacks gear.

a-tech · 3rd June 2010, 13:33

Pretty over these off colour patterns on shirts tbh.

It is a lot better than 99% of the football world cup ones though.

ZoSo · 19th June 2010, 11:09

Stupid fucking numbers all came off last night :/ That's pretty shocking really.
Still, good win for the Maori!

mr selfdestruct · 20th June 2010, 03:02

The design isn't obvious enough when they're on the field though

_Incubus_ · 20th June 2010, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZoSo

Stupid fucking numbers all came off last night :/ That's pretty shocking really.
Still, good win for the Maori!

Yes, fucking piss poor that the number fell off, it may have been a ploy though..hard to penalize the big brown guy that was punching someone with no numbers to give it away..

Deadmeat · 23rd June 2010, 21:17

Rolling mauls are the stupidest thing in rugby, how can having 5+ players offside be legal.

herp · 23rd June 2010, 23:33

Completely disagree about rolling mauls. Playing in the forwards and getting a good roll on his fucking tops.

Deadmeat · 23rd June 2010, 23:50

Players aren't allowed to block attackers from a kickoff, you can't run around behind your team mate to block defenders, to me rolling mauls don't stack up.

I'll agree that forwards look bloody impressive when they get a roll on, but i'd rather see them get some pick and go, bouncing backs in tackles or ripping it up at the breakdown (i'm sad Hore is missing from the ABs for the sole reason i love watching him do this).

xor · 24th June 2010, 00:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

Rolling mauls are the stupidest thing in rugby, how can having 5+ players offside be legal.

wat

Deadmeat · 24th June 2010, 00:18

Do they speak english in wat?

herp · 24th June 2010, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmeat

Players aren't allowed to block attackers from a kickoff, you can't run around behind your team mate to block defenders, to me rolling mauls don't stack up.

So we'll get rid of Scrums then as well, because that doesn't stack up either right? If you do that you then have to get rid of rucks too because you can't block the ball with a body in front of it.

Deadmeat · 24th June 2010, 00:44

In both those cases the ball is on the ground and to a degree directly contestable. A rolling maul is the only time you can use your own players to block access to the ball carrier in 'running' play, what about it makes it ok and the two examples I gave not ok?

herp · 24th June 2010, 00:59

Only difference between a rolling maul and a scrum going forward is that one player controls it with his feet whilst another controls it with his hands. A no.8 controlling the ball with his feet at the back of the scrum is not directly contestable, just the same as a player holding the ball out for his halfback on the ground with 5 forwards infront of him is not directly contestable.

Regardless, I don't think you understand how a rolling maul works. It is not like the NFL where he has blockers before he goes in for the tackle. Hence why your 'can't block when taking the ball off the kickoff' argument rings false. The player with the ball goes in for the tackle and is the first point of impact with the opposition. If he is held up (or he takes the lineout) then players who join the maul can strip the ball of him and keep it in the maul as it moves.

As the maul rolls and *breaks* it is the ball carrier who intiates contact with the opposition and tries to set up the maul again by turning and presenting the ball to his teammates who then strip it and move it towards the back.

Deadmeat · 24th June 2010, 01:31

The Maori won ball from English scrums a couple of times tonight, doing so got them a try, seems pretty contestable. Turnovers from driven over rucks happen all the time. The difference is if a maul comes under threat the ball carrier just runs away (unless he's really stupid and gets caught) so there is no chance for a contest.

I understand how rolling mauls work, I just don't like them.

Phrack · 24th June 2010, 05:56

If you're defending a maul, and you manage to tie the ball up, you win the ball if they can't recycle it. If you stop the maul moving twice, and they don't use it, you win it. You drive the maul out or play, you win the ball.

If the player breaks off, then generally the rest of the forwards don't realise and he is left isolated, so some decent defense would mean a turnover is likely.

Seems pretty contestable to me. Rolling mauls are just not seen often now since the new ELV's allow you to pull most mauls down in the first instance.

If the other team can setup and keep a rolling maul going, then good on them. There is a much higher chance of it breaking down and costing the attacking team.

2nd June 2010, 22:10	#1
StN I have detailed files	The new dawn Not a bad looking jersey - better than that bloody Waratahs thing! http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/n...get-new-jersey

20th June 2010, 03:02	#8
mr selfdestruct The Deliverator	The design isn't obvious enough when they're on the field though __________________ My real signature is not nearly as legible as this one.

2nd June 2010, 22:16	#2
PhX	wow, that is well preddy __________________ xyf

3rd June 2010, 09:57	#3
fixed_truth	Very Maori looking __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

3rd June 2010, 10:17	#4
Saladin Nothing to See Here!	Reminds me of the Warriors heritage jersery from this season, but I like this one better

3rd June 2010, 12:00	#5
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	That is fucking sweet. The NZ Maori kit always looks better than the All Blacks gear.

3rd June 2010, 13:33	#6
a-tech	Pretty over these off colour patterns on shirts tbh. It is a lot better than 99% of the football world cup ones though. __________________ NZ Breakbeat Culture - Bassdrop.co.nz

19th June 2010, 11:09	#7
ZoSo	Stupid fucking numbers all came off last night :/ That's pretty shocking really. Still, good win for the Maori!

23rd June 2010, 21:17	#10
Deadmeat	Rolling mauls are the stupidest thing in rugby, how can having 5+ players offside be legal.

23rd June 2010, 23:33	#11
herp	Completely disagree about rolling mauls. Playing in the forwards and getting a good roll on his fucking tops.

23rd June 2010, 23:50	#12
Deadmeat	Players aren't allowed to block attackers from a kickoff, you can't run around behind your team mate to block defenders, to me rolling mauls don't stack up. I'll agree that forwards look bloody impressive when they get a roll on, but i'd rather see them get some pick and go, bouncing backs in tackles or ripping it up at the breakdown (i'm sad Hore is missing from the ABs for the sole reason i love watching him do this).

24th June 2010, 00:18	#14
Deadmeat	Do they speak english in wat?

24th June 2010, 00:44	#16
Deadmeat	In both those cases the ball is on the ground and to a degree directly contestable. A rolling maul is the only time you can use your own players to block access to the ball carrier in 'running' play, what about it makes it ok and the two examples I gave not ok?

24th June 2010, 00:59	#17
herp	Only difference between a rolling maul and a scrum going forward is that one player controls it with his feet whilst another controls it with his hands. A no.8 controlling the ball with his feet at the back of the scrum is not directly contestable, just the same as a player holding the ball out for his halfback on the ground with 5 forwards infront of him is not directly contestable. Regardless, I don't think you understand how a rolling maul works. It is not like the NFL where he has blockers before he goes in for the tackle. Hence why your 'can't block when taking the ball off the kickoff' argument rings false. The player with the ball goes in for the tackle and is the first point of impact with the opposition. If he is held up (or he takes the lineout) then players who join the maul can strip the ball of him and keep it in the maul as it moves. As the maul rolls and breaks it is the ball carrier who intiates contact with the opposition and tries to set up the maul again by turning and presenting the ball to his teammates who then strip it and move it towards the back.

24th June 2010, 01:31	#18
Deadmeat	The Maori won ball from English scrums a couple of times tonight, doing so got them a try, seems pretty contestable. Turnovers from driven over rucks happen all the time. The difference is if a maul comes under threat the ball carrier just runs away (unless he's really stupid and gets caught) so there is no chance for a contest. I understand how rolling mauls work, I just don't like them.

24th June 2010, 05:56	#19
Phrack	If you're defending a maul, and you manage to tie the ball up, you win the ball if they can't recycle it. If you stop the maul moving twice, and they don't use it, you win it. You drive the maul out or play, you win the ball. If the player breaks off, then generally the rest of the forwards don't realise and he is left isolated, so some decent defense would mean a turnover is likely. Seems pretty contestable to me. Rolling mauls are just not seen often now since the new ELV's allow you to pull most mauls down in the first instance. If the other team can setup and keep a rolling maul going, then good on them. There is a much higher chance of it breaking down and costing the attacking team. __________________ ....... Last edited by Phrack : 24th June 2010 at 05:58.