Greyling gets two weeks

[What2040]

well deserved - lucky only 2 weeks

 

[aeneas]

Can the AB's appeal that?

Doesnt seem anywhere near long enough.

 

[Blue]

Can the AB's appeal that?

Doesnt seem anywhere near long enough.

No and no.

 

[Blue]

He is the most impartial for sure. He still says some dumb things though, and on reflection this was one of them. At the time, Marshall probably thought that McCaw was up to some scullduggery, but it is clear on the replay that he was not. Some people seem to think that if a commentator has said it, it must be true.

I will give Marshall credit for at least trying to get it right though. I have heard that he is the only Sky commentator that is in contact with a referee who points out all his errors of law.

So even Kiwis are starting to assume McCaw + breakdown = some kind of infringement. It's not jsut the rest of us.

Marshall is a blessing out of New Zealand because the rest of your mob are in the Kearns / Marto camp of migraine inducing blabber.

 

[Blue]

Jeez Greyling had a positive impact on the game from a Bok perspective! So happy that Meyer picked him on the bench and then decided to take Beast (who was having a decent game) off at the 50 minute mark.

Agree though, when Richie got to that rebound off the crossbar my immediate thoughts were: "Why the hell didn't any of the Boks dive onto the ball?!" and then."how the hell did Richie get there?! He had to be (please let him be!!) offside!" and then. "oh no.."

Thank God Coenie is back.

 

[Brisbok]

So even Kiwis are starting to assume McCaw + breakdown = some kind of infringement. It's not jsut the rest of us.

Marshall is a blessing out of New Zealand because the rest of your mob are in the Kearns / Marto camp of migraine inducing blabber.

I also find TJ to be impartial and informative. Why can't he be given a run instead of Nisbo or Smithy?!

 

[H...]

I'd like a commentary team of Marshall, Kafe and Horan.

I don't need a play by play guy as I have reasonable vision through my eyeballs.

 

[Dam0]

So even Kiwis are starting to assume McCaw + breakdown = some kind of infringement. It's not jsut the rest of us.

Marshall is a blessing out of New Zealand because the rest of your mob are in the Kearns / Marto camp of migraine inducing blabber.

I don't think you would find any serious rugby fan from NZ who would dispute that McCaw sometimes transgresses the law. However it is nowhere near as often as some people think, and he is no worse than several other players.

As another example, if you remember the last cheap shot on McCaw in the second test v Ireland where he had his face raked in a maul. On here and in other forums a good many people said that he deserved it because he was offside. In fact he had gone straight through the middle of the maul and was entirely legal - it was a textbook example of maul infiltration. Such inconvenient facts did not stop ignoramuses from maintaining their prejudice - and I fully expect the same to continue with this incident.

 

[H...]

I don't think GAGGER purports to be a venue of impartial discussion.

 

[Dam0]

I don't think GAGGER purports to be a venue of impartial discussion.

/rant/

No, but I suspect that the people who post the nonsense statements on here are the same ones that turn up to the games I ref and yell out "The tackler has to release" when a maul collapses or "we were going forward" when I award the scrum to the team who didn't take it in, or (my favourite )who yell out "$%^% you ref, he was offside" when a guy makes an intercept after a tackle when no ruck had formed.

It pisses me off then and it pisses me off now that people who claim to be followers of the sport have virtually no knowledge of what the laws say, and yet feel qualified to tell everyone about it.

/end rant/

 

[Scarfman]

Dam0, the Laws are written in black and white, but it doesn't help because everyone has their own interpretation of them. If you watch a local derby in NZ, SA and AUS, you'll see very different styles of play. I love to watch NZ derbies because the rugby is so fluid and the speed of the game is intense. BUT - they cheat like fucking crazy. Every ruck. There's a different culture of the breakdown over the ditch, and it involves a very high % of illegal activity.

In this case, it is clearly a ruck, and Richie is in on the side playing with his hands. It doesn't make Greyling's actions right but I have very very deep sympathies with him.

 

[cyclopath]

When does "infringe" become "cheat"? Is it only when the opposition do it?

 

[H...]

When does "infringe" become "cheat"? Is it only when the opposition do it?

When you know you're doing it, for mine.

 

[cyclopath]

When you know you're doing it, for mine.

It seems to me that it's more "When you know they're doing it".

 

[H...]

I meant in the player's mind.

 

[cyclopath]

I meant in the player's mind.

I know.
I was having a bit of fun at Scarfie's expense.
I think the "cheat" word is overused.

 

[Dam0]

Dam0, the Laws are written in black and white, but it doesn't help because everyone has their own interpretation of them. If you watch a local derby in NZ, SA and AUS, you'll see very different styles of play. I love to watch NZ derbies because the rugby is so fluid and the speed of the game is intense. BUT - they cheat like fucking crazy. Every ruck. There's a different culture of the breakdown over the ditch, and it involves a very high % of illegal activity.

That is a very general statement. Whether it is true or not, I'm not so sure; I think there is a lot of natural cognitive dissonance that goes on whereby we notice the offences of other teams but ignore those of our own. If what you are saying is true I would expect to see massive penalty counts against the NZ teams and the All Blacks whenever an overseas referee does the match. Looking at the stats for the last 4 tri-nations at least there does not seem to be such a discrepancy. http://www.irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/gameanalysis/Tri_nations_Analysis_2011.pdf (last page of the PDF has the penalty stats). Even where an exacting ref like Alain Rolland took the Bledisloe Cup game in Sydney the penalty count was only 13-14 - and if there is any ref who calls it exactly like the book it's him.

But in any case, the issue I am raising is the comments by some on this thread who are alleging that in this particular breakdown McCaw is acting illegally. I say that anyone who persists in claiming this is completely ignorant of the laws of the game and that they are fair game for such criticism.

 

[Dam0]

In this case, it is clearly a ruck, and Richie is in on the side playing with his hands. It doesn't make Greyling's actions right but I have very very deep sympathies with him.

How can it be a ruck if the ball is up off the floor?

16.1 FORMING A RUCK

(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.


Furthermore at 0:20 seconds in the clip you can see McCaw clearly coming thru the gate to play at the ball. Since there is no ruck formed there is no question of hands in the ruck and he is entitled to play the ball so long as he remains on his feet.

Once he is cleared out (a bit roughly perhaps but whatever) he ends up sitting on his side with his hands nowhere near the ball (which is still in the air) seemingly a bit dazed from the previous clearout. At which point he gets elbowed in the face.

And your "very very deep sympathies are with [Greyling]"

All I can say is that I hope I never play with you or play in a game that is officiated by you.

 

[Da Munch]

How can it be a ruck if the ball is up off the floor?

Because Richie pulled the ball off the ground. Which was just after he formed the ruck, because he was on his feet and in contact with an opposition player who had placed/dropped the ball on the ground.

 

[Dam0]

Because Richie pulled the ball off the ground. Which was just after he formed the ruck, because he was on his feet and in contact with an opposition player who had placed/dropped the ball on the ground.

You reckon? I doubt it. The Green 6 gets the ball in such bad body position that he never gets the ball to ground. I never see the ball anywhere near the ground and I think it gets caught up in the legs. Looking at it closely I don't think McCaw touches the ball at all.