And btw, I quoted mark_s.
- Status
DPK
Peter Sullivan (51)
A lot of people say this, but dont have the nads to do it (probably fearing a reaction to their video like Scarfie has recieved). Someone should walk that walk instead of just saying it. Reminds me of people who watch games and say "I could do that...'.
I've actually been waiting for someone like CombatBok on youtube to do it, but I haven't seen any counter analysis.
disco
Chilla Wilson (44)
Or back it up with your own footage, including slow mo's, arrows, highlighted situations etc.
Matto, I think you raise some valid issues, and some invalid ones. In the spirit of free debate, I will have a crack at the ones I think you got wrong.
But they are in front of the ball. As Thomond points out, you still can be offside in general play if you are ahead of the ball carrier. This is the main problem with a few of your points- the tackle is not a lawless zone where people can do whatever they want, there still are rules regarding offside, staying on feet etc.
Again, he is in front of the ball in general play and thus offside. It comes back to Law 11: “In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.” Franks is offside and shouldn’t be touching anyone.
Two points here. Firstly Smith comes in from the side. Secondly he clears Kirchner 2-3 metres past the ruck, to the point where I would consider it obstruction. He effectively took him out of the next phase of play.
But they do impede the Springboks access to the ruck. Again a subtle tactic. They can’t get up any speed to hit the ruck, because they have to hurdle Franks and Woodcock to get there. And as they are in front of the ball, they are offside and are very slow to roll away.
Law 15.6d “At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.”
McCaw comes in from the side. Penalty.
Doesn’t matter who they are, they are still off their feet at the ruck. Mils is the main culprit here, at least Franks tries to roll away. He has a HUGE effect on the ruck at the ground, as the Springboks can’t drive through their side of the ruck because Mils is lying there like a piece of lumber.
McCaw is not the tackler. Law 15 states “Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and bring that player to ground, and who also go to ground, are known as tacklers”. McCaw did not go to ground, he keeps his feet the whole time. Penalty.
There are still players over the ball when Richie goes off his feet. He knocks one of them over actually. As there was still contact over the ball, it is still a ruck. Penalty.
Hope this wasn’t too long, but my basic point is the tackle is not a lawless zone where you can’t be offside. I hope I made some sense in my making of this point.
But they are in front of the ball. As Thomond points out, you still can be offside in general play if you are ahead of the ball carrier. This is the main problem with a few of your points- the tackle is not a lawless zone where people can do whatever they want, there still are rules regarding offside, staying on feet etc.
Again, he is in front of the ball in general play and thus offside. It comes back to Law 11: “In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.” Franks is offside and shouldn’t be touching anyone.
Two points here. Firstly Smith comes in from the side. Secondly he clears Kirchner 2-3 metres past the ruck, to the point where I would consider it obstruction. He effectively took him out of the next phase of play.
But they do impede the Springboks access to the ruck. Again a subtle tactic. They can’t get up any speed to hit the ruck, because they have to hurdle Franks and Woodcock to get there. And as they are in front of the ball, they are offside and are very slow to roll away.
Law 15.6d “At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.”
McCaw comes in from the side. Penalty.
Doesn’t matter who they are, they are still off their feet at the ruck. Mils is the main culprit here, at least Franks tries to roll away. He has a HUGE effect on the ruck at the ground, as the Springboks can’t drive through their side of the ruck because Mils is lying there like a piece of lumber.
McCaw is not the tackler. Law 15 states “Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and bring that player to ground, and who also go to ground, are known as tacklers”. McCaw did not go to ground, he keeps his feet the whole time. Penalty.
There are still players over the ball when Richie goes off his feet. He knocks one of them over actually. As there was still contact over the ball, it is still a ruck. Penalty.
Hope this wasn’t too long, but my basic point is the tackle is not a lawless zone where you can’t be offside. I hope I made some sense in my making of this point.
I see no problem with opinions and responses, as it how you learn.
The challenge is that both responses are partly correct.
The ABs are better at cleaning out wider from the ball and tackle, it is on the edge of the law. Having players 5m past the ball wrestling with defenders creates opportunities in the line for attackers (that is why they are doing it consistently).
Driving past the ball and going off your feet slows down attacking ball (that is why they are doing it consistently). They try not to do it on their ball but appear far more "clumsy" defending, funny that.
Each country does this, but the ABs are just better at it
The challenge is that both responses are partly correct.
The ABs are better at cleaning out wider from the ball and tackle, it is on the edge of the law. Having players 5m past the ball wrestling with defenders creates opportunities in the line for attackers (that is why they are doing it consistently).
Driving past the ball and going off your feet slows down attacking ball (that is why they are doing it consistently). They try not to do it on their ball but appear far more "clumsy" defending, funny that.
Each country does this, but the ABs are just better at it
M
Matto
Guest
Cheers Newb, good point you make. I agree - and this timing issue is precisely why player like McCaw & Pocock et. al. are so good. They are quick to see that a situation is not necessarily a ruck - yet. And, yes, the human element is vital to a good ref performance. Scorz quotes this as materialism in reply #20.
But if you are retiring you must put yourself well out of the way of the play. In the first example, Franks and Mealamu choose to retire right next to the formation of the ruck, and thus impede a few SA players. As Joubert stated numerous times on Saturday 'You shouldn't put yourself in that position'
If the ball doesn't hit you you're not in the way of play. You can't have players retiring and zig-zagging willy-nilly on the way back - and the Aussies actually invented Lazy Running so you'll see where I'm coming from.
Actually where McCaw takes the ball, and Scarfman alleges Owen Franks and Mealamu "hit the ruck from the Springbok side", Owen Franks falls over, takes no part in the ruck apart from meat debris impersonation, and spends the rest of the time extracting himself. Mealamu is body checked by Smit whilst scrambling back before getting back on side and standing at the edge of the ruck.
In the next part, Owen Franks over runs, spins and then begins to watch the ball which has left the ruck, waiting for the line to advance. Nothing wrong there.
Following that, he is accused of coming around the ruck and then jogging on straight ahead. The camera angle is no help to anyone there, as it appears to me, that Owen has lined up a bok who then backs out of the ruck. Franks has momentum and the two play patta-cake before nothing comes of it.
In the next part, Owen Franks over runs, spins and then begins to watch the ball which has left the ruck, waiting for the line to advance. Nothing wrong there.
Following that, he is accused of coming around the ruck and then jogging on straight ahead. The camera angle is no help to anyone there, as it appears to me, that Owen has lined up a bok who then backs out of the ruck. Franks has momentum and the two play patta-cake before nothing comes of it.
That isn't true at all. Often a halfback doesn't throw a pass because there is a lazy runner in the way. Still offside, still a penalty, despite the fact the ball doesnt touch him. And you can have players zig-zagging if that's what it takes to stay out of the play, which should be done at all costs. Anything less is lazy, hence the term.
Nah ref's regularly don't blow unless it hits the retiring player. In essence it's offside, yes, and I wish it was blown - but it ain't. Zig-zagging players would cause MORE balls hitting players because of the erratic lines they would run, impossible for a passing plaer to anticipate.
"All of that's illegal three in a row". :lol:
As McCaw drives through the ruck from within the gate before he drives the player toward the touchline, rolls once and gets up to return to the line.
In the next play, players are driven over the ball but there are no Bok forwards left standing, the AB players fall over but by that stage the ball has been held on to by the Bok player anyway, Rolland blows correctly for the penalty for holding on as per the directive from the IRB.
As McCaw drives through the ruck from within the gate before he drives the player toward the touchline, rolls once and gets up to return to the line.
In the next play, players are driven over the ball but there are no Bok forwards left standing, the AB players fall over but by that stage the ball has been held on to by the Bok player anyway, Rolland blows correctly for the penalty for holding on as per the directive from the IRB.
- Status