Cheats

[waratahjesus]

Well, you've not bothered to respond when someone points out fairly obvious errors in your video.

If you were just looking to troll with the video, mission accomplished. But if you were trying a proper objective analysis it's a failure as:

1) You've made errors of fact and law, which undercuts any credibility.
2) You've ignored multiple Bok indiscretions - which seeing as your stated aim was to see if the AB's 'are untouchable' is kind of relevant.

i really dont think your understanding scarfies point, he has stated it several times, in several different threads including this one.
the video highlights the all blacks play, its not about being fair or even handed, its about the all blacks and an aspect of there play.

if you cant understand that or how there illegal play gives them an advantage thus making it cheating then just walk away. If you would like to blame other teams for things, provide evidence, if you dont have video skill, name games and instances and im sure someone will look them up for you.

 

[Muttonbird]

Well even though this is a video, there's that saying that a picture is worth a thousand words; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJQwQpsq5Ek

McCaw got pinged for detaching his scrummaging shoulder last night. Don't know when and I don't have time to find out and package the evidence in a clip but it happened. Sometimes players get penalised, sometimes they don't and everyone is just going to have to get over it.

 

[Jay]

Your memory is wrong.

Law 20.3 - Binding.

Definitions - When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.

 

[Stickybeak]

By this much?

I think this is a self inflicted, fatal wound: either ball is out or McCaw has completely detached from the scrum before it is out. At least Elsom is maintaining a passing relationship with the scrum. You can hardly blame Elsom for taking up this position given where McCaw is - if you do blame him it would be for (a) not detaching further and sooner and (b) not telling O'Connor he's got it covered.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Completely agree with the OP. Show us the evidence as we will believe you. How hard is it to sit in front of a game and write down the time of every particular "offside pillar" infringement.

Or you can go one better and make a video like someone did with NZ last year.

I definitely agree all teams use this ploy to an extent. But NZ seem to do it systematically. I'd be gladly proven wrong if there are any teams who perform the trick even more than them.

 

[Ignoto]

Your memory is wrong.

Law 20.3 - Binding.

Definitions - When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.

Great, thanks for clearing that up.

So from that photo, we have a completely detached McCaw and a partial attached Elsom and as a result you can't blame Elsom for re-acting to the position of McCaw can you?

 

[Stickybeak]

McCaw got pinged for detaching his scrummaging shoulder last night. Don't know when and I don't have time to find out and package the evidence in a clip but it happened. Sometimes players get penalised, sometimes they don't and everyone is just going to have to get over it.

So he did but that was in a scrum which the Boks had won - subject to the collapse - which is a different issue. So far no one has put forward the view that the refs are weak on early detachment in defence.

 

[Jay]

i really dont think your understanding scarfies point, he has stated it several times, in several different threads including this one.
the video highlights the all blacks play, its not about being fair or even handed, its about the all blacks and an aspect of there play.

if you cant understand that or how there illegal play gives them an advantage thus making it cheating then just walk away. If you would like to blame other teams for things, provide evidence, if you dont have video skill, name games and instances and im sure someone will look them up for you.

The very first thing he says in the vid is that he's doing it in response to a quote from Victor Matfield that the AB's are untouchable. So to merely highlight what the AB's get away with* and ignoring the fact that the Boks ALSO got away with a lot isn't actually examining whether Matfield was correct.


*excepting that some of what he thinks they got away with is actually legal)

 

[Muttonbird]

So he did but that was in a scrum which the Boks had won - subject to the collapse - which is a different issue. So far no one has put forward the view that the refs are weak on early detachment in defence.

Not really relating it to the Sydney scrum, more to the all-pervasive idea that refs go easy/don't see what McCaw is doing. This is plainly horseshit.

 

[Jay]

Great, thanks for clearing that up.

So from that photo, we have a completely detached McCaw and a partial attached Elsom and as a result you can't blame Elsom for re-acting to the position of McCaw can you?

And from the video (and the earlier one) you can see that:

A) Rocky unbound early both times.
B) Rocky unbound early on the second one before McCaw completely detached.

Also, from watching rugby for about 5 minutes you'd note that detaching early is completely endemic at the top level.

 

[Stickybeak]

The very first thing he says in the vid is that he's doing it in response to a quote from Victor Matfield that the AB's are untouchable. So to merely highlight what the AB's get away with* and ignoring the fact that the Boks ALSO got away with a lot isn't actually examining whether Matfield was correct.

The logic is painful. Whether or not the ABs are untouchable is not related to how many offences the Boks committed. The logic involved is: examined the evidence; are the ABs getting away with things?
*excepting that some of what he thinks they got away with is actually legal)

 

[Stickybeak]

Not really relating it to the Sydney scrum, more to the all-pervasive idea that refs go easy/don't see what McCaw is doing. This is plainly horseshit.

Which part of its horseshit? Just take 1 small aspect of the video: McCaw was warned, then he was "officially warned" and then he was penalised. Technically he should have been yellow carded and when he did it the third time red carded.

 

[Stickybeak]

And from the video (and the earlier one) you can see that:

A) Rocky unbound early both times.
B) Rocky unbound early on the second one before McCaw completely detached.

Also, from watching rugby for about 5 minutes you'd note that detaching early is completely endemic at the top level.

Lets assume you're right: no try because McCaw was not bound shoulder to hand.

 

[Jay]

Stickybeak - if someone says "They're untouchable" it means they're getting away with things. Logically, it would follow that they mean 'They're getting away with things that we are not", so surely the fact that the Boks ARE getting away with a considerable amount would tend to undercut Matfield's assertion?

 

[Jay]

Lets assume you're right: no try because McCaw was not bound shoulder to hand.

Correct. Penalty to the AB's for James O'Connor's offside.

 

[Bullrush]

Well, Rocky is still technically bound? From memory a flanker doesn't have to have a shoulder bound, just an arm? The difference is, Rocky is still attached to the scrum whilst McCaw is a foot away

LOL.....your memory does you a dis-service sir

 

[Jay]

Which part of its horseshit? Just take 1 small aspect of the video: McCaw was warned, then he was "officially warned" and then he was penalised. Technically he should have been yellow carded and when he did it the third time red carded.

He was warned, then issued a team warning (when Dan Carter was penalised, the commentators simply got that wrong), then was penalised. It could well have been a yellow card, but it was actually something like 35 minutes after he'd been warned initially and it's hardly unknown for refs to ignore previous warnings if a team or player hasn't been penalised for a substantial time after the warning.

 

[Stickybeak]

Correct. Penalty to the AB's for James O'Connor's offside.

Well that would be the way it played out if there was no try, which would be incorrect. O'connor's infringement is a response to the blatantly illegal, pre-planned manouvre of detaching from the scrum before the ball comes out.

The other thing here, just from a practical point of view, its quite difficult to determine, in real time, whether a players is offside (particularly when one of his opponents is conducting himself on the basis that the ball has left the scrum) whereas it is not difficult to see McCaw detach before the ball has left the scrum.

And to pick up the original point of the thread: this isnt actually about whether Australian or other players ever get offside without being penalised, the thread is about whether the Abs have a systematic approach to cheating. No one has adduced any evidence to refute the assertion that they do. Even allowing that the Wallabies cheat, or that they cheat systematically, does not refute the proposition being discussed in this thread.

 

[Anyaussiesidewilldo]

I don't want to add to the discussions of the video evidence for fear of unintentional trolling as it is hard to not be biased. What I do want to discuss is the view of some that it is ok for a player/team to test the referee's to see what they can get away with.

If a law is broken, it is broken weather the offender is penalised or not. To practise breaking a law is unsportsman like in my opinion. The referee has a very hard job to do and players/teams should not be adding to the difficulties by exploiting thier weakness. If I knew the Wob's were doing it, I would not feel great about a win. The object of sport is to exploit the weakness of the opposing player/team, not the officiator's.

 

[Jay]

Well that would be the way it played out if there was no try, which would be incorrect. O'connor's infringement is a response to the blatantly illegal, pre-planned manouvre of detaching from the scrum before the ball comes out.

The other thing here, just from a practical point of view, its quite difficult to determine, in real time, whether a players is offside (particularly when one of his opponents is conducting himself on the basis that the ball has left the scrum) whereas it is not difficult to see McCaw detach before the ball has left the scrum.

And to pick up the original point of the thread: this isnt actually about whether Australian or other players ever get offside without being penalised, the thread is about whether the Abs have a systematic approach to cheating. No one has adduced any evidence to refute the assertion that they do. Even allowing that the Wallabies cheat, or that they cheat systematically, does not refute the proposition being discussed in this thread.

O'Connor was offside before McCaw detached. It's not hard at all in this case - it's a 5m scrum and he has to be back 5m. Therefore he's gotta be behind the goal-line - that's both feet behind the goal line - which he's not from about the time the ball is fed. He takes an extra step when McCaw disengages, but he was already offside well before that.

I don't deny the AB's cheat. They're rugby players, therefore they cheat.