I'm just finishing up my collection of notes for the French test and was reminded of two mauls of interest. The first was from the Bok lineout at 02:00. Steph is the jumper and initiates the maul. Our maul was shoved effortlessly back and to ground. Our first serious maul of the game was at 53:45 . Mostert takes the ball at the back and we drive forward.
No that is total BS as per normal/ The throw-in at minute 02:00 was with 5 players in the line-out and could never be regarded as a rolling maul. This man AO is looney when he calls that a rolling maul. There was no forming of a maul and the ball was thrown at the front of the line-out - where Du Toit was forced to jump at the front of the line-out since Snyman is unreliable.
The same happened at minute 53. Do you really know what a rolling maul is AO. Obviously not. It can only become once when the other three players joined the maul - which did not happen in either case.
I told you I always check your statements and what you wrote here is as expected utter BS.
The lineout at 02:00 had six players. The ball was thrown to Steph and the maul was stuffed immediately by the French. Formation: 1-4--7--5-8-3. Kolisi was outside the lineout, next to Duane. Snyman wasn't on the field yet. Not until later in the second half.
The lineout at 53:45 had five players. The ball was thrown to Mostert, and the Boks were moving forward. Formation: 1-19-5--7-3.
Five players was involved in the line-out with the hooker throwing in the ball. The hooker would join up in the resultant maul - but it still never was a rolling maul. That is total BS as per normal from AO. You obviously do not know what a rolling maul is - otherwise you would not make the claims \under this thread,
Sorry Du Toit did play at 4 against the French - but I got mixed up - he often performed the same role in line-outs against the Scots when Snyman started.
Who was the jumper for the final lineout of the game?
It was Mostert - but the maul went about two meters back and Mostert got lifted up with both feet off the ground and consequently played no role in the co-ordination of the maul. That role was taken over by Du Toit joined by Vermeulen and they engineered the forward movement of the maul, which is the normal function of the ball catcher.
Please note that in that line-out all forwards were involved in the line-out - not only five - joined by the hooker and even some backline players when the maul started to move forward.
Incorrect, Mostert re-engaged and was on the side of the maul that Bongi broke around to score. He was a key player in the movement.
Admit it, Mostert was the more useful player in the maul, all game long.
No BSter he has reconnected after the maul moved forward - same as some backline players did.
You cannot make out while he was with feet in the air incapable to organize and engineer the forward movement in the maul. That together with the nonsense that rolling mauls starts with only five players actually in the line-out, shows that you know zero about what rolling mauls represents and how it functions.
Ignorance and dishonesty is bliss insofar a you are concerned - too funny for words. LMAO
There was another maul earlier in the game where Steph was up off his feet. In the RC, there was a game where Steph was off his feet hanging horizontally. This couldn't be more hilariously contrary to everything you've said. A little research, or attention to detail, it makes all the difference.
No Sir
Anything you write on site has to be double-checked to make sure it is not falsified or total crap. Tell us when that Du Toit incident happened so it can be properly checked to see whether it did happen and how it happened.
What you wrote above was total BS and one must be careful to believe what you write is not of the same BS standard .
The same happened at minute 53. Do you really know what a rolling maul is AO.
So if 53:45 isn't a "rolling" maul, Mike, then what is it? I count 7 forwards in there for the Boks. How many is enough for you?
With his feet of the ground he organized the maul. This is the most laughable comment made by Mozart. He lost the plot completely in this case. Started off with BS and now has together with his equally foolish partner AO justify it.
How can a person who lost his footing organize and co-ordinate a driving maul. That even the Angel Gabrielle would find it impossible to explain. Bit the fools tried and ot nowhere with their li es.
How does a manager organise and coordinate workers ?
Step1: Place feet on the ground? LOL
The trooth fairy is as ignorant as the two other fools on site,
What a joke - funny in the extreme.
This thread man!
Help if I am wrong on this because I know I am bias towards PSdT, but this is how I just now saw that maul again. PeterS(PS) was giving direction to the front of the maul with Mostert behind him and 4 French players following PS and mauling to the back. Arriving at the back PS moved slightly backwards opening a gap for Bonambi to get through and score. Well done PS.
To begin the maul, Steph is a lifter. Mostert comes to ground, and Steph binds onto him. Initially the Boks lose a little ground, then they shove the French and move forward. Steph is getting pushed up by a Frog, which pushes Mostert back and up. This is how he ended up being off his feet. At this point Mostert directs the forwards at the back where to direct their force and the maul moves towards the area Steph was receiving pressure. They break up the French as Steph is rotated all the way around the maul. Mostert and Steph are both no longer primary maul participants, but Mostert is still connected. As Steph is moved out of the maul completely, Mostert attaches onto the maul and pulls it towards the vacant space for a try. Steph latches onto the hip of Mostert after momentum is achieved. The maul continues moving towards that open space as the maul participants begin rotating, which leaves Bongi with a nice clean peel for a try.
Balls - he went off his feet while the maul is going backwards and the force of the back-up players is too much for Mostert physically. That description is the biggest load of BS ever dreamed up by AO and their has been huge loads thus far.
So Du Toit is to blame for Mostert going off his feet - LMAO - but then this was to be expected from a fool who knows zero about rolling mauls.
And that photo was a farce as well - can you village idiot explain why Du Toit was on the other side of where you claim he was -oy was in fact Snyman whom he indicated as Du Toit - when the maul went over the tryline and how Mostert recover from being with his back to the maul when he went up off his feet after the maul commenced and somehow turn around in the air when the maul proceeded? One of the historic pieces of utter BS writing imaginable.
The description is, as always, accurate. You called it wrong because you had a preconception you wouldn't relinquish. If you followed the description you'd have the answers to your questions. Ende.
I had eyes and can see when you write BS. I always check your contributions, since they are totally false in the main. Very funny how you manage to twist things around and ignore facts.
Watch the final stage of the maul and you will see where Du Toit really was - and that is definitely not where your claim he was.
But turning around in the air in a maul while he was in the air - is an amazing claim - is your BS endless?
I'm not sure why we can't just all agree that the maul was a fine team effort. This nitpicking about certain players' contribution or lack thereof when none of us were there to know what the communication or plan of attack was is sort of silly.
Way I see it, we first started gaining traction and forward momentum to the right. France committed two heavies there to stop us, which weakened their defense on the left and made them vulnerable to a rotation towards that weak area due to the pressure they put in that direction to stop our progress the other way. The rotation happened, we peeled into the poorly defended space and then our momentum was unstoppable. If that was planned, it was a smart piece of mauling to which everyone contributed.
Pakie
I described what happened initially and what happened subsequently. I think the turnaround in forward movement was caused by Du Toit and Vermeulen - as Mostert was incapable to do it with both feet in the air.
When the move started going forward a number of people again got involved - also some backline players - and Mostert recovered to become part of the forward movement.
My problem was a falsified initial description by Mozart and co with what actually happened. However, what you wrote is fair and I accept your version.
Pakie
I described what happened initially and what happened subsequently. I think the turnaround in forward movement was caused by Du Toit and Vermeulen - as Mostert was incapable to do it with both feet in the air.
When the move started going forward a number of people again got involved - also some backline players - and Mostert recovered to become part of the forward movement.
My problem was a falsified initial description by Mozart and co with what actually happened. However, what you wrote is fair and I accept your version.
This was an issue entirely created by Mike. A shoddy narrative to detract from the value of Mostert, as well as Matfield. If we use all of Mike's criteria we are left with only one conclusion: We have a maul problem with Steph. Mike, in trying to slander Mostert, has thoughtlessly pulled the rug from under Steph.
No it was an issue created by Mozart and you. I looked at the maul repeatedly and it was clear that you two gave an entirely false description as to what happened. An it remains total BS on your part. The rug was pulled under Mozart and you - as the BS was exposed and both you and Mozart persisted with your unbelievable myth. You two are always good for a laugh - especially when exposed and then trying to wiggle yourself out of the hole you created for yourself.
No it was an issue created by Mozart and you. I looked at the maul repeatedly and it was clear that you two gave an entirely false description as to what happened. An it remains total BS on your part. The rug was pulled under Mozart and you - as the BS was exposed and both you and Mozart persisted with your unbelievable myth. You two are always good for a laugh - especially when exposed and then trying to wiggle yourself out of the hole you created for yourself.
Incorrect. I have never raised the maul as an issue. Ever. When I spoke of Victor, you raised it then. Just as you did with Mostert. You were wrong on all counts. Down to the detail. You never fail to meet my expectations.
I am delighted to fail in meeting your expectations - I would rather not be a rugby illiterate fool like you.
You keep playing the same card, too bad about that.
So you are a joker - you have to be because otherwise you will be considered as a moron,
