AUSTRALIAN MEDIA NOT HELPING (Including you Scarfman).

[Matto]

A lot of people seem to be winging about the rules/sanctions etc. and I reckon the Media in this country is mostly to blame. For example, the Fox sports commentary team are simply one-eyed and don't know the rules of the game. I would love to see Fox hire Gordon Bray for his unbiased & accurate calls over the last couple of decades.
Scarfman's video analysis of the AB's at the breakdown was based on the misunderstanding of what constitutes the difference between a ruck and a tackle. That lack of understanding flows through to the readers, causing more general confusion.
So, Scarfman, you're not helping!

Law 16 (IRB Laws & Reg's.) states:
"A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended".
Read this rule carefully and you will see why Ritchie McCaw doesn't get penalised that much!
Below is my analysis of your "Video Analysis:The AB's at the breakdown".

You cited about 16 occasions during a game where they supposedly cheated. I will deal with each one and encourage readers to watch the vision again very carefully.

1. Scarfman: "...watch Reid launch himself over the ball..." (WRONG: Reid actually hit a maul (not a ruck) and drove that maul forward>)
2. Scarfman: "...Donnellyhimself is about 2 metres offside in a kind-of guardian osition..." (CORRECT: although he had no impact on any other player.)
3. Scarfman: "...watch the AB's returning, Owen Franks, Kevin Mealamu just hitting a ruck from the Springbok side..." (WRONG: No ruck was formed = general play - no offside.)
4. Scarfman: "...Jerome Kaino taking the ball up, and again you'll see Owen Franks was ... 3 or 4 metres offside..." (WRONG: Tackle, not a ruck - and No. 3 Franks was pulled by the arm by no. 2 Smit.)
5. Scarfman: "...Owen franks comes right around the ruck right in front of Rolland..." (CORRECT)
6. Scarfman: "...Conrad Smith runs around and tackles Kirshner...about to enter the ruck, and tackles Morne Steyn..." (WRONG: Kirshner, Smith, & Ranger arrived at the tackle simultaneosly and caused the ruck (no offside). Morne Steyn engaged Smith from behind and pulled him back.)
7. Scarfman: "...McCaw has to, like, re-enter th ruck from the SBok side which helps win them back the ball..." (WRONG: McCaw is in the ground to the side of the ruck and has no part in any winning of ht eball.)
8. Scarfman: "...here I've got a hat-trick...McCaw flops over the ball..." (WRONG: McCaw hit a maul (not a ruck yet) and drove through without ever losing his feet or flopping over.)
9. Scarfman: "...2nd one is a bit worse... Franks it is again just lying all over the SBok side of the ruck..." (WRONG: Franks is clearly 1-2 metres away from the ruckon the ground in contact with no-one at all.)
10. Scarfman: "...McCaw comes in from the side and falls down in front of the ball..." (WRONG: No.7, McCaw is the first AB to the tackle - not ruck)
11. Scarfman: "...here's one where they dive over the ball, won't let the Bok player release..." (WRONG; Those players "diving over the ball" were tacklers, and Franks's tackle was "slipped" and had no effect on the ruck from the ground, clear.)
12. Scarfman: "...and again here, Franks dives on top of the ball..." (CORRECT)
13. Scarfman: "...McCaw...hands in the ruck on his feet but from the wrong side..." (CORRECT)
14. Scarfman: "...Russouw breaks a tackle, Boks get close so McCaw does that (Rolland says, 'not going through the gate'." (WRONG: McCaw in fact, was the tackler and releases then gets to his feet & contests the ball legally - textbook.)
15. Scarfman: "...McCaw off his feet..." (CORRECT but driven from behind.)
16. Scarfman: "...McCaw dived over the ball, penalty..." (WRONG: McCaw did, in fact, dive over the ball but it was loose after SBok No.7 was tackled with no other Bok over the ball - no ruck.)

11 WRONG
5 CORRECT

This video analysis tells me that Scarfman hasn't read IRB Law 16, McCaw has, and Owen Franks is a very fit & fast prop!

Comments welcome (but watch it again first).

PS. Wallabys will get close this week. They weren't that bad last week, apart from the restarts (fixable) and the dominant tackling (not).

 

[DPK]

Just some housekeeping:

Link to Scarfie's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdr-W775hk4&feature=player_embedded

And the link to Scarfie's original blog article:
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/video-analysis-all-blacks-at-the-breakdown/

 

[Gnostic]

I think you should watch it without the glasses. The points are 100% valid.
1. You cannot hold players back away from the ruck. The ruck takes place over the ball, not 2 to 5 metres off.
2. You cannot enter from the side, that includes pillars sliding around to impede the ball or clutter the back of the ruck and limit the half backs options.
3. Players must not leave their feet at the ruck or impede the ball from being played.

Have a look at the Reds V Hurricanes game this year 1:12 Conrad Smith enters the ruck from the side and grapples with an unbound reds player who he prevents from joining the ruck. Smith is not only offside but is impeding a player without the ball. Just for another example.

Continued denial that these things constitutes illegal play just cements it in the minds of many that the NZ team specifically train to commit these offences with the aim of getting away with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3X3LR-MCs&feature=related

 

[daz]

I have issues with the Fox team but I'm going to put that to one side while I unleash....

For example, the Fox sports commentary team are simply one-eyed and don't know the rules of the game.

One eyed, yes. Don't know the rules? Yep, because Marto and Kafe only played for the Wallabies and Kearns was a mere Wallabies Captain.

I would love to see Fox hire Gordon Bray for his unbiased & accurate calls over the last couple of decades.

How many Tests has GB played again? Do you listen to Clarkie? I like GB but GC calls it like he sees it.
.

So, Scarfman, you're not helping!

Well done! First post and a dig at Scarfy. Welcome aboard, temporarily.....

 

[Brumby Jack]

Thanks Paddy.....

 

[Groucho]

I have issues with the Fox team but I'm going to put that to one side while I unleash....



One eyed, yes. Don't know the rules? Yep, because Marto and Kafe only played for the Wallabies and Kearns was a mere Wallabies Captain.



How many Tests has GB played again? Do you listen to Clarkie? I like GB but GC calls it like he sees it.
.


Well done! First post and a dig at Scarfy. Welcome aboard, temporarily.....

Let's not be precious, otherwise we'll become TheSilverFern! If we want G&GR to become a site for journalism, rather than just a blog with opinions, then the people who post articles and videos to the blog are fair game for robust criticism and we have to wear it. Matto has made points in detail: a very good post, regardless of whether posters here agree with it.

 

[Scarfman]

G'day Matto,

Thanks for the fan mail. You've gone to a lot of trouble but haven't made any sense. If you can get someone on here to SECOND any single point of yours, I'll deal with it in this thread. Until then, this post looks like all the YouTube comments I've been getting from Kiwis. Most of them seem to think you are allowed to tackle whoever you want on the field if it's not a ruck.

You're not banned, Matty, but try to make your next post a bit more friendly.

Cheers.

P.S. Media not helping with what?

 

[cyclopath]

I may disagree with many of your points, Matto, however I applaud your effort in actually composing a thoughtful and detailed argument.
I hope you stick around and post some more.
Welcome, by the way.

 

[Matto]

Daz, thanks for the welcome aboard! On the Fox team: I used to think that the players and ex-players like myself (albeit for the surfers paradise dolphins) were the more informed re. the rules but life experience now tells me otherwise. To me, the Fox Sports commentary highlights that?

And Scarfman, I didn't think that my post was unfriendly, just an opinion. And the media are not helping ease our exasperation with the rulings. In fact I think they are dining out on it most of the time.

G'day Gnostic. On the Conrad Smith incident, I agree that it was a contentious one but highlight the fact that the refs are only paid to apply the rules. I probably would have pinged him (wrongly) but by the same tolken, I wouldn't care if a player is standing offside as Donnelly was at the first ruck.

Judicious application of Law 16 is fundamnetal to the result of a game however, and a good ref. knows what is a ruck and what's not.
You can't be offside at a ruck if it doesn't exist as defined by one or more players from each side on their feet in contact over the ball.

 

[Matto]

Sorry Cyclopath. Thanks for the welcome.

 

[daz]

Let's not be precious.

Did you miss my smiley face?

 

[daz]

Daz, thanks for the welcome aboard! On the Fox team: I used to think that the players and ex-players like myself (albeit for the surfers paradise dolphins) were the more informed re. the rules but life experience now tells me otherwise. To me, the Fox Sports commentary highlights that?

Nice to see you still here Matto!

Just a point on the Fox team, which has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads so I won't dredge it all up here. The guys on Fox may be biased and one-eyed in general, but that doesn't actually mean they don't know the game.

Well, except JP and Marto. They dont know what day it is, let alone contribute anything meaningful to the game.

 

[Newb]

i get the point about there not being a ruck yet formed in some of these cases by the strictest of definitions. but what i would argue is that the AB's are doing all of the things you've pointed out with the goal of forming a ruck. they aren't hitting a "maul" to move it along or gang tackling to bring the player down. they're intentionally gaining position to form the ruck to their advantage and using less than kosher methods to do it. so it may not yet be a ruck but we all know it's headed there (whether opposition are at the time present or not).

calling that mess open play is just as bad as calling it ruck, going by your view. the whole thing moves at such speed in the modern game that there can't help but be a gray area that needs to be interpreted correctly and for what it is. thus the human element is much more important than a paragraph in a book.

 

[Thomond78]

Daz, thanks for the welcome aboard! On the Fox team: I used to think that the players and ex-players like myself (albeit for the surfers paradise dolphins) were the more informed re. the rules but life experience now tells me otherwise. To me, the Fox Sports commentary highlights that?

And Scarfman, I didn't think that my post was unfriendly, just an opinion. And the media are not helping ease our exasperation with the rulings. In fact I think they are dining out on it most of the time.

G'day Gnostic. On the Conrad Smith incident, I agree that it was a contentious one but highlight the fact that the refs are only paid to apply the rules. I probably would have pinged him (wrongly) but by the same tolken, I wouldn't care if a player is standing offside as Donnelly was at the first ruck.

Judicious application of Law 16 is fundamnetal to the result of a game however, and a good ref. knows what is a ruck and what's not.
You can't be offside at a ruck if it doesn't exist as defined by one or more players from each side on their feet in contact over the ball.

Wrong. Very wrong indeed. You can still be offside even if a ruck doesn't exist. For a start, the claim that you can't be offside in general play is wrong. From the definition in Law 11, you're offside if you're ahead of the ball or the last team-mate who played the ball.

http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_11_en.pdf

As to diving on the ball, you can't unless you immediately get up, pass or release. Law 14

http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_14_en.pdf

Also, you're only a tackler if you bring the tackled player to ground while holding him. In any other case, you're not the tackler, there's no tackle, and the general laws apply. You certainly can't prevent the player on the ground releasing, or indeed getting up. And anything you do has to be from onside - i.e. from the side nearest your own goal-line.

http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_15_en.pdf

So, whether there's a tackle, or a ruck, or indeed open play - unless you're the tackler, you have to be onside. End of.

 

[mark_s]

The All Blacks at the ruck are like my 3 year old daughter, a little bit naughty all the time. Like me the refs don't really know how to deal with it. Do you ignore it and hope it goes away? Do you punish them a little bit each time? Or do you make the punishments progessively more severe so that you end up dealing out quite severe punishments for minor indiscretions?

Of course all teams try and do it, but no one is near as effective. Whats more, that avoids the real point as to whether they should be allowed to do it or whether sterner action should be taken earlier?

I don't blame the blacks for trying, in fact I think McCaw's autobiography (They Saw It My Way) will reveal they analysed each ref before each game and then modified their play slightly each time. Its a bit like my 3 year old knowing the things I will let slide are different to what my wife will. This leads to the conspiracy theories but overlooks the work and cleverness of the blacks (on and off the field).

The thing that bugs me most, is that every now and then a ref seems to cotton onto this and gives a clear warning that the next offence will see a card but then fails to deliver when the time comes. (See the boks game in Welly this year and the Tokyo game V wobbs last year). Do the refs forget? OR, like me with my 3 year old daughter, are they just all bark and no bite?

 

[Scarfman]

the media are not helping ease our exasperation with the rulings. In fact I think they are dining out on it most of the time.

Well, is that the media's job to ease our exasperation with the rulings? Over the past 8 years I have become very frustrated with the refs' ability to cope with the ABs. I decided to do something about that, and I hope it has generated some attention to the issue. Who knows - something or nothing may come of it.

Your position - which I have to admit I find very unconvicing - is that they're not doing anything wrong, and therefore the media should be explaining that to us. Well, I'll go as far as saying that I always enjoy it when Kafe says (in response to a Kearns whinge) "that's the law, I've got no problem with that.."

In the end, I think we agree about the media, but disagree about the laws of rugby.

 

[Scorz]

Rugby players at the ruck are like my 3 year old daughter, a little bit naughty all the time.

Fixed. This bullshit call that the AB's are the only ones pushing the boundaries of what the ref is able to figure out in .5 of a second, and getting away with is getting tedious.

 

[Scarfman]

That was never my point, Scorz. My point is that the ABs are systematically getting away with more than other sides. I don't expect you to agree, but don't twist my words, eh? I've got a theory, I've provided evidence, give me some credit.

 

[TheRiddler]

Also, you're only a tackler if you bring the tackled player to ground while holding him.

And you go to ground yourself. You can tackle a player and bring him to ground but if you havent gone to ground yourself, you are not deemed to be a tackler and are therefore not obliged to fulfil the requirements of a tackler at the breakdown. In this situation, there is also no gate through which arriving players from either side must enter.

 

[Scorz]

That was never my point, Scorz. My point is that the ABs are systematically getting away with more than other sides. I don't expect you to agree, but don't twist my words, eh? I've got a theory, I've provided evidence, give me some credit.

Sorry buddy, but if you think that POB and the IRB are making it easier for NZ, you are deluded.

Someone posted this up on http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/...-August-7th-2010-Fifth-Tri-Nations-Test/page6

Raises some good points, but in reality, the All Blacks are not doing things any differently to the way the Springboks and Wallabies are doing them, its just that the compiler of the video has cherry-picked the sequences he wants to show to back up his point. If I could be bothered wasting my time trawling through hours of video and micro-analysing it, I know I would find plenty to back almost any point I want to make.

What is clear, however, is that the compiler/narrator of this video has virtually no knowledge of the Laws of the Game, and little if any understanding of the concept of "materiality". Rugby Union is such a complicated game, that without referees applying materiality constraints, instead of whistling every offence, the game would be nigh on impossible to play.

I will now set about destroying his arguments and pointing out:

► where he makes incorrect assumptions about the Laws
► where his understanding of the concept of materiality is poor.

At 1:15:
Read doesn't launch himself over the ball, he binds correctly and drives Habana away from the tackle area. This is a legitimate part of the game, and you see players from both teams doing exactly that at virtually every tackle/ruck situation.

Law 16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The
bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body
of the player joining the ruck.

The player standing in an offside position is actually not taking part on the game, so he doesn't necessarily have to be penalised.

Law 11 definitions:
At the start of a game all players are onside. As the match progresses players may find themselves in an offside position. Such players are then liable to be penalised until they become onside again.

"Liable to be penalised" means that he "can" be penalised, not that he "must" be penalised. This is the concept I referred to earlier as "materiality", the one which the narrator doesn't understand. A player who is not affecting play is "not having a material effect on play" therefore, most referees will not penalise, they will manage such situations. Talk to any qualified referee, and they will tell you the same thing.

At 1:43:
Owen Franks was entitled to to do what he did because NO tackle had yet been made; McCaw had not been taken to ground...

Law 15 Definitions
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

Nor had any ruck/or maul formed.

Law 16 Definitions:
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

Law 17 Definitions:
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a
goal line. Open play has ended.

Therefore, its General Play, and players can join from any direction.

At 2:16:
Again Owen Franks is perfectly entitled to do what he did. There is no ruck formed (no Springbok players are on their feet in contact with All Black players over the ball), therefore there is no offside. It was a tackle, but there is no offside at the tackle either, and Franks made no attempt to join from there so he cannot be penalised for not entering the tackle through the gate.Same again and 2:21 and 2:41; nothing formed (i.e. no ruck) so no offside. The narrator seems to be bent on continuing to use the term "offside" in situations where there is none.This practice is no different from players running past the catcher at a kick-off to try to intercept the back pass.

At 3:30:
Conrad Smith is perfectly entitled to take out Kirchner. This is called "cleaning out". This practice is enabled by the following Law

Law 15.7 (d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.

Conversely then, if a player IS near the ball, then the opposition ARE entitled to obstruct him. "Cleaning out" is a basic fundamental of the modern game. The only thing I would say is that he could have been pinged for entering at the side.

At 3:53
Same as for 2:16 above. There are NO Springboks on their feet in physical contact with All Blacks, therefore there is no ruck, therefore there is no hindmost foot offside line, therefore there is no offside. What I see here is a bunch of All Black forwards taking advantage of the fact that the Springbok players are;
a: too slow to the breakdown.
b: not committing players on their feet to the breakdown even when the do eventually get there.

It has become pretty clear to me by now that the narrator does not have the foggiest idea what a ruck is, and how the offside lines do not appear until such time as one is formed. Remember Mr Narrator, and burn this into your brain... there is no offside at the tackle, only a requirement for players ARRIVING a the tackle to enter through the gate.

And that mantra pretty much applies to the rest of the video. Mr Narrator even wants to complain when the All Blacks ARE penalised for illegalities.

In summary, the Narrator of this video;

1. Has a poor knowledge of the Laws of the Game.
2. Does not clearly understand the application of the Laws.
3. Does not understand the concept of "materiality".
4. Does not understand what constitutes a "ruck" or how it is formed.
5. Continually uses the term "offside" when there is no offside in Law at the phase he is referring to.

This is a clever piece of editing where all the video that supports his premise is left in, and all the video that would show the Springboks doing the same things is left out. You see very few occasions where the Springboks take the ball into contact and get numbers to the breakdown, and even then, the sequences are not allowed to run so that you can see what the Springboks do. I wonder why that is?

But the most damning indictment of this video, is the sequence that runs from 0:00 to 0:04.