All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Scarfman]

I think it's 3 times now that you have produced the "it's only a tackle" defence. On each occasion, everyone has disagreed with you. There's a difference between self-evident, and "evident to everyone except you."

If this was a ruck, you'd be pinged for taking the space.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Actually Rolland did call the Boks for a couple but advantage was played so never blew. But anyway I am glad that HKT is using the refs figure to prove point (and I thought Rolland was correct with his penalties against ABs), as it backs my argument if teams and individuals are committing as many offences as many of us imagine the refs who actually know the rules would be pinging them!!
On the discussion thread is about I would add that perhaps I am one who has been a coach who is guilty of teaching these styles of play. Whenever I have coached a team, from schoolboys to seniors I always coached them at breakdown to drive PAST the ball, not to it, which perhaps in the context we are talking about is illegal.

You're right he did - I even thought to myself "someones had a word".
The issue here is a bit more than driving past the ball so dont beat yourself up.

Ps - How things have changed re: perceptions of referees. even 2 months ago you wouldn't find anyone arguing that Joubert was more technical at the breakdown than Rolland.

Really, Joubert has always struck me as technical - but that may be a partisan view because he was a big punisher of our scrum.

 

[Dam0]

Whether this is a ruck or not is totally irrelevant because he was penalised for getting in the way of the halfback, which is, at least if you agree with the SAReferees blog, an offence at a tackle (it is also an offence at a ruck).

I should think that all would agree that if black 7 got up and shoved the halfback (green 5) out of the way, its a clear penalty. If he had picked the ball up without getting in the way of anyone, most, (but not Scarfman) think he would have been all right. What we have here is a situation that is right in the middle.

Hence we are discussing it and it is controversial. I would hope that in the spirit of this thread that would continue.

Did black 7 deliberately get in the way? Was he just getting to his feet, perhaps thinking about having a go at the ball? I submit that these are questions that are worth asking.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

he was penalised for getting in the way of the halfback, which is, at least if you agree with the SAReferees blog, an offence at a tackle (it is also an offence at a ruck).

Why is that?
If he is the tackler and gets to his feet and the act of getting to his feet interferes with the half on what basis is that a penalty?

 

[Dam0]

Why is that?
If he is the tackler and gets to his feet and the act of getting to his feet interferes with the half on what basis is that a penalty?

Well I am not entirely sold on the idea myself. I posted the link earlier but I guess people missed it.

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829674/

Note that they are explicit in describing this an offence at a tackle.. I think in that example you can see what they are going for because the Hurricane player really does just try to obstruct the arriving player and is not either just trying to get up or go for the ball.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

This problem we are witnessing is well known in legal circles: if you start using short hand phrases to describe statutory provisions pretty soon the shorthand phrases come to determine the outcome and they seldom reflect all of the meaning in the full provision.

The SARefs even extract the law in question:

Law 15.4 THE TACKLER
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

If, instead of worrying about "taking the space", they reminded themselves of the words actually used in the law they w(sh)ould realise there is a problem with awarding this penalty.

The tackler does not, as the referee is heard to say, have to roll to the side. he is not required to move in any direction in particular: he is required to get up or move away, albeit "at once". (immediately and at once seem to express the same requirement).

Therefore "getting up" cannot in and of itself constitute an offense, under this law, whatever are the practical consequences for the half back's ability to access the ball and even if it occupies space between the ball and the team in possession of the ball. The law does not prohibit standing up in that space and it gives the tackler a choice between standing up or rolling.

To ref it the way the SArefs want it reffed the law needs changing: it probably should be changed because the aim should be to remove areas open to interpretation and it is plain that this law is being interpreted in a way which is inconsistent with its plain words.

 

[Top Bloke]

I think McCaw did know what he doing (as Rolland suggested), in this case getting to his feet instead of rolling out - I guess he was pushing the envelope. In this test Rolland seemed quick to treat any breakdown as being in post tackle phase and pinged accordingly - eg Dagg's YC - which one could argue was a harsh call.

 

[Scarfman]

This is a ploy used a lot by New Zealand teams

You have these moments of being reasonable, then completely ignore the obvious. Why don't you write to SAReferees and tell them that they asserting this as self-evident.

And in this situation, it occurs in the tackle, before other players have arrived. So, it's a tackle. You're using that ruling to talk about situations that everyone on here is calling a ruck. You need to move on from Law 15 and finally to Law 16. It makes it abundantly clear that as soon as you have two players on their feet you have ruck.

The bigger question is why am I still arguing with you??

 

[Dam0]

You're using that ruling to talk about situations that everyone on here is calling a ruck.

As far as I can tell, nobody is positively asserting it is a ruck except you.

 

[Top Bloke]

Scarfman - "The bigger question is why am I still arguing with you??"
Because the laws of the game are both ambiguous and conradictory.
15.4
b - The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once
c- The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction

In the SA-Refs clip Damo shows - Tim Bateman obviously considered he was complying with c - ref thought he didn't comply with b.

 

[Scarfman]

As far as I can tell, nobody is positively asserting it is a ruck except you.

Then you need to read the thread again. Everybody in this thread, aside from you, is treating these multiple situations as rucks. And yet you keep asserting that it's just me that thinks this.

Second, no comment on SARefs opinion of New Zealand play? Still just me that asserts that Kiwis are innovators in this area?

Frankly, I'm disappointed that the mods have allowed you to continue with this drivel for so long. The only course of action is for me to "ignore" you.

 

[FrankLind]

Good thread, fucked up by Scorz. I'm out.

But now you're back?? Reasonable question?

 

[BPC]

This problem we are witnessing is well known in legal circles: if you start using short hand phrases to describe statutory provisions pretty soon the shorthand phrases come to determine the outcome and they seldom reflect all of the meaning in the full provision.

The SARefs even extract the law in question:

Law 15.4 THE TACKLER
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

If, instead of worrying about "taking the space", they reminded themselves of the words actually used in the law they w(sh)ould realise there is a problem with awarding this penalty.

The tackler does not, as the referee is heard to say, have to roll to the side. he is not required to move in any direction in particular: he is required to get up or move away, albeit "at once". (immediately and at once seem to express the same requirement).

Therefore "getting up" cannot in and of itself constitute an offense, under this law, whatever are the practical consequences for the half back's ability to access the ball and even if it occupies space between the ball and the team in possession of the ball. The law does not prohibit standing up in that space and it gives the tackler a choice between standing up or rolling.

To ref it the way the SArefs want it reffed the law needs changing: it probably should be changed because the aim should be to remove areas open to interpretation and it is plain that this law is being interpreted in a way which is inconsistent with its plain words.

You are quite correct that shorthand phrases are dangerous, particularly as different people will use the shorthand in different ways leading to internet arguments (as improbable as that sounds given the level of civility and rationality seen on the net).

"Through the gate" is a pet hate of mine.

 

[Dam0]

Jay started the topic by saying: "Nah, the ruck wasn't formed, McCaw was the tackler so doesn't have to come through the gate."
HKTiger is hedging "in reality it's what Allain thought at the time that counts."
I don't know what IS thinks, but we have had a rational discussion referencing the SAR video which is clearly analogous and explicitly refers to the tackle law. I have viewed on other forums where this same discussion has been had, not NZ ones by the way, and the general consensus that it was not a ruck.

None of which means in itself that the penalty was wrong. Which you would have noticed had you bothered to read anything I have written.

As for the SAR assertion, it is fair enough, the Hurricanes player clearly moves to obstruct the arriving player and this is something that we have done consistently. Considering I brought up the clip and cited it on page 1 of this thread, I should think that I should be cut some slack.

I think it is pretty obvious that the vast majority of the people in this thread are interesting in undertaking a rational discussion about an aspect of the law that is not consistently applied well. You, on the other hand are interested in squabbling and making sweeping assertions and accusing people of being delusional and arses if ever they disagree with anything you say.

Rational debate has proven possible with virtually everyone else in this thread.

 

[BPC]

Well, lets take a look, especially since it is directly on point (well directly in a tangential sort of way )

This is exactly what is meant by the phrase "taking the space". The alleged offence by McCaw is that although he was entitled to play the ball from the angle he comes from, instead of playing the ball he gets in the way of the halfback. It is a bugbear of the people at SAReferees. Personally I think its a bit of a stretch in most cases where the phrase is used.

Sticking to this example its a crock because he does begin to bend down to pick up the ball and is cleared out legally by a South African player. The law was working exactly as it was supposed to, but for some reason Rolland found a penalty. It is perfectly clear that no ruck had formed and that McCaw was entitled to go for the ball. He's not entitled to play the halfback but is that really what he has done (or does he have an obligation to get out of the way of the halfback whilst going for the ball).

I agree that the penalty appears wrong in principle. Technically no ruck had formed and McCaw was entitled to play the ball in accordance with Law 15.4(c).

I think the problem is that most people would think that with the number 6 binding onto the players on the ground (setting aside the issue of whether he kept his feet or not and whether the other AB player failed to move away from the tackled player) that a ruck had formed. That seems to be Rolland's view and many people may agree but it is not what the rules say.

My personal view is that when the SA player not involved in the tackle bound onto the AB players, it should be considered to be a ruck even if the AB players were not on their feet. Before the SA player bound, I think McCaw would have been justified to play the ball but not after. If others agree with my view then the definition of ruck needs to be changed in the laws to reflect that.

Also, I am not sure why the immediate penalty was necesary when McCaw was cleaned out well away from the ball. Rolland is not much of a referree for playing the advantage.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think McCaw did know what he doing (as Rolland suggested), in this case getting to his feet instead of rolling out - I guess he was pushing the envelope. In this test Rolland seemed quick to treat any breakdown as being in post tackle phase and pinged accordingly - eg Dagg's YC - which one could argue was a harsh call.

But he can do either as long as it immediate or at once.
I think we all think we know what he was "doing" and that it was calculated etc.
But it discredits the game that as pinged it so unclear: if Roland was saying it isnt immediate - fine but he should say so because "knowing what youre doing" is not prohibited by the law.

 

[Dam0]

Obviously my position as a contributor here has become untenable.

Good luck to everybody, I have enjoyed my time here for the most part and have appreciated the discourse, despite the fact that we have not always agreed. I have been known to post on other forums, including rugby ones, generally under the same name and no doubt this will continue.

See you in cyberspace.

 

[cyclopath]

Obviously my position as a contributor here has become untenable.

Good luck to everybody, I have enjoyed my time here for the most part and have appreciated the discourse, despite the fact that we have not always agreed. I have been known to post on other forums, including rugby ones, generally under the same name and no doubt this will continue.

See you in cyberspace.

Rational debate has proven possible with virtually everyone else in this thread.

A little at odds. I don't think so at all.
For the most part, discussion in this thread has been fine.
People should avoid personalising it into swipes against other posters, or generalising it to encompass all aspects of one nation's play.

 

[Scarfman]

For pity's sake, cyclo, let the bloke throw in the towel. I've been pounding him for 10 rounds, there's blood coming out of his ears, he's lost short-term memory and the ability to read. His handlers in the black corner keep telling him he's doing great but they're going to get him killed out there.

 

[Antony]

Obviously my position as a contributor here has become untenable.

Good luck to everybody, I have enjoyed my time here for the most part and have appreciated the discourse, despite the fact that we have not always agreed. I have been known to post on other forums, including rugby ones, generally under the same name and no doubt this will continue.

See you in cyberspace.

This is a really disappointing outcome from a good thread.