Greyling gets two weeks

[Hugh Jarse]

Been a while since we had our last "McCaw is a cheat" hijack of a thread. Surprised it took so many posts to get to that point with this one.

IMHO, I concur with previous posters observations that Greyling should consider himself rather lucky compared to Etsebeth.

His actions came right at the wrong time for his team. In international footy 14 seldom beats 15, even if it is only for 10 minutes that 14 are playing 15.

In the lead up to 2003 RWC the Soap Dodgers set a target of less than 10 penalties per game. Any more than that and they considered that they had gifted too great an advantage to the opposition. Perhaps more teams should set a similar target for similar reasons.

 

[Bullrush]

I don't know if the 2 weeks is long enough but I'm glad it was and has been penalised.

On a slightly different tangent.....McCaw just seemingly keeps going and going and going. The man is a legend and, at this rate, may take the mantle of being the best All Black ever......

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, those saying he is a spent force were a bit premature, he's been great.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ash]

Firstly, two weeks a joke. Should have been way longer.

Secondly, I have several issues with that ruck, although it's hard to see zoomed out so much.

Firstly, as soon as McCaw and the first Bok there (18?), it becomes a ruck and players must enter through the gate. The first issue is that McCaw steps around the side of the Bok player to avoid being clearly cleaned out. McCaw effectively changed the point of impact, avoiding the clear out. Clever play, and why I love McCaw, but not strictly legal at all as he has stepped around the correct entry of the gate. Stepping around the side of rucks is one McCaw trick that I am amazed more players haven't learnt, although it is illegal play.

Then, McCaw doesn't appear to support his own body weight. He's leaning over the Bok player that he avoided the clear out from, and he's got his hands on the ball. Another penalty.

But none of it deserves an elbow (or should, for that matter) to the head. There were three penalties to my mind in the that. The first was from McCaw. The cleanout on McCaw (prior to Greyling) was disturbing, as he seemed to just charge into McCaw, and I agree that had the potential to be dangerous, and should have been penalised. The final, the elbow from Greyling, should have been a stright red, no doubt.

BTW, I was very impressed with McCaw's game as well. The guy's a champion and he never says die - for instance, the chase of the kick that hit the post was inspiring. I also think that McCaw has one of the biggest engines I've ever seen in a player, and that's especially impressive as McCaw is the wrong side of 30 and is not a small guy at all. He's also one of the smartest guys I've seen, just the way he reads refs and can be so influential at the ruck.

 

[SaderCheif]

Here's a montage of cheapshots on McCaw

 

[FrankLind]

I think bans in general should be based on number of matches, not number of weeks. This takes byes and the variations in the international calendar out of the equation.

So, if for example, in the last game of the international season a player would be banned for his country's next two international matches, whenever they may be.

 

[BPC]

Here's a montage of cheapshots on McCaw

And yet no mention of the fact that it is not just other countries who get frustrated with McCaw sometimes: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/334524

"in 2006 tempers again flared when Neemia Tialata pinned Richie McCaw to the bottom of a ruck with one paw around his throat. Later a frustrated Collins threw the ball at McCaw's head."

 

[FrankLind]

Here's a montage of cheapshots on McCaw

He'd be loved by Aussies if were an Aussie.

 

[Dam0]

And yet no mention of the fact that it is not just other countries who get frustrated with McCaw sometimes: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/334524

"in 2006 tempers again flared when Neemia Tialata pinned Richie McCaw to the bottom of a ruck with one paw around his throat. Later a frustrated Collins threw the ball at McCaw's head."

I think he only chose test match incidents to make the video. To that you could also add Ali Williams treating McCaw's head as a stairmaster in 2005.

 

[qwerty51]

And yet no mention of the fact that it is not just other countries who get frustrated with McCaw sometimes: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/334524

"in 2006 tempers again flared when Neemia Tialata pinned Richie McCaw to the bottom of a ruck with one paw around his throat. Later a frustrated Collins threw the ball at McCaw's head."

Rugby's greatest moment:

 

[Mank]

The cleanout on McCaw (prior to Greyling) was disturbing, as he seemed to just charge into McCaw, and I agree that had the potential to be dangerous, and should have been penalised.

You're correct in terms of the laws, but I actually have no problem with this type of clean out. If someone is pissing about in the ruck disrupting good ball he should be cleaned out as hard as possible. Happens regularly, and so it should.

The final, the elbow from Greyling, should have been a stright red, no doubt.

Yup, red, and 2 months ban.

 

[Scarfman]

Dam0 - not a ruck? You've got a hide mate, telling other people they don't know the laws of the game.

 

[thierry dusautoir]

Firstly i am one of the biggest macaw bashes around ( mostly because he is one of the key reasons we lose) he definately bends the rules but I think the thing about Richie is he has the biggest ticker in the game. His attitude is that Opponents will have to kill him before he stops trying and he is enthusiastic at the breakdown and he does slow the ball but on the other hand he does make shit load of good steals and nice counter rucks.

What grayling did was wrong however I am not going to lie to you, I did chuckle to myself when It happened but I am only mere aussie mortal who has suffered greatly under the iron grip of sir Richie.

The vermulaen clean out definite accident, if not? Who gives a shit it's rugby and if you have played it you know your not there for green tea and tim tams. Besides Richie breaks a lot more people than break him (physically and mentally(

 

[Hugh Jarse]

In slow motion from the right camera angle, the Greyling elbow was similar to the Richard Loe thuggery on Paul Carroza's nose. Richard Loe went on to perform plenty of other loe life acts including the most reprehensible of acts, eye gauging.

Hopefully Greyling will learn from this, and not follow the example set by Loe.

 

[Gagger]

Damo, try reading harder before flying off. Also try rule 10.

Everyone else take a chill pill as well.

Mods will dish out more points in this thread from now on

 

[Knuckles]

if that deliberate elbow happened in Sydney club rugby, he would have got 6-8 weeks. 2 weeks is an absolute joke. It was intentional and malicious. How on earth was it not graded as top end?

 

[Scotty]

Damo, try reading harder before flying off. Also try rule 10.

Everyone else take a chill pill as well.

Mods will dish out more points in this thread from now on

It might also be considered consistent to delete another insightful post above?

 

[Paddysboy]

The Greyling hit was a definite red card. However on a brighter note, I was wearing my newly arrived 'McCaw Offside' t-shirt so though I know it was wrong, in an odd way I felt ok.............

 

[Top Bloke]

This is a perfect example of why the game is so difficult for many people to understand. Some insist it was a ruck others say it was a maul.
From the "available" evidence - eg a low res video, My view is : RMC joins the breakdown legally as 1st man in on his feet after Retallick has made the tackle on Louw, Retallick releases & rolls out - At this stage - no ruck no maul - its a tackle. Bekker then joins, assuming the ball is on the ground - its a ruck - if ball is up - its a maul. RMC is already bound and legal - he is then cleaned out legally by Vermeullin and put on his arse, from what I see RMC is not playing at the ball at this point, This clearout also seems to roll the whole "mess" forward and the ball then appears to be up on Louws legs. This suggests to me it WAS initially a ruck but looks like a maul. - Greyling then launches himself at RMC. not sure if this is an AR call or whether Clancy sees it himself. Note: the entire thing happens in about 5 seconds. Would appreciate any rational critique on my view or correction on my assumptions of the law. Thanks

 

[Scarfman]

Guys, if people are lying all over the ball, it's not a maul. Even if the ball is resting on someone's leg, it's a ruck not a maul. If you want to say it's a maul, then it's a collapsed maul and not maul.

The laws of the game are complex, but let's make them more so by taking deliberately obtuse readings of them.