Greyling gets two weeks

[Hugh Jarse]

IMHO it was an AR call. The main camera angle from over the Ref's shoulder kind of obscures the elbow. It is as clear as a very clear thing when viewed from the camera angle similar to what the AR would have seen.

 

[Top Bloke]

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.

Scarf - if everyone is lying all over the ball - it can be a maul - just an unplayable one - ref will blow it up surely.

 

[Bullrush]

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.

I think that ball being on the ground is pretty fundamental to what constitutes a ruck.

 

[Dam0]

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.

I don't think it was a maul either. A maul is defined rather specifically and this situation does not fit it.

In my opinion the ball carrier went to the ground but I see no evidence at all that the ball ever got to ground. I strongly suspect that McCaw got to the ball before the BC was able to place it on the ground. All we have is a tackle and so we are still within the parameters of Law 15.

Not that it makes any difference to whether what Greyling did was appalling or not or whether or not at the point at which he went at him with his elbow McCaw was doing anything wrong.

 

[Scarfman]

By suggesting it's still a tackle (despite the evidence of multiple players driving over the ball), you are implying that it would be OK for McCaw, or any NZL player, to run around onto the RSA "side" and attempt to pick the ball up with their hands. In my opinion, if you tried that you would be very swiftly penalised.

If I had to distill all the "correspondence" I've received from Kiwis about my "All Blacks at the Breakdown" video, it would be "if there's 20% doubt that it's a ruck, then you can be 20% offside." And I'm not being a smartarse - it's exactly by exploiting grey areas that McCaw achieves so much.

Greyling's actions are very poor and deserve a longer ban. But as I say, I share his frustration at that moment. I might have even had a spray at the ref along the lines of "If you won't get him out of there, then I bloody will!"

 

[BPC]

By suggesting it's still a tackle (despite the evidence of multiple players driving over the ball), you are implying that it would be OK for McCaw, or any NZL player, to run around onto the RSA "side" and attempt to pick the ball up with their hands. In my opinion, if you tried that you would be very swiftly penalised.

If I had to distill all the "correspondence" I've received from Kiwis about my "All Blacks at the Breakdown" video, it would be "if there's 20% doubt that it's a ruck, then you can be 20% offside." And I'm not being a smartarse - it's exactly by exploiting grey areas that McCaw achieves so much.

Greyling's actions are very poor and deserve a longer ban. But as I say, I share his frustration at that moment. I might have even had a spray at the ref along the lines of "If you won't get him out of there, then I bloody will!"

I agree McCaw was probably in an illegal position. I agree that the SA players were probably right to be frustrated. But the elbow was a dog act.

Your spray is fine but the ref would rightfully reply with "Fine, but do it legally".

Vermulan was borderline legal with the high shoulder by he did bind rather than just charge-in. McCaw was out of the play when Greyling's two neurones failed to connect and he threw his elbow into the place of a player sitting on his arse and unable to move.

Two months would have be more approrpriate than two weeks.

 

[Top Bloke]

Scarfman - at the time RMC attacks the ball - it is a tackle - then Bekker arrives momentarily after, Ruan is waiting for the ball - not involved in the breakdown. - There are not multiple players driving over the ball, other than Louw on the ground there is Bekker only, but it is either a Maul or a Ruck, Vermeullin then cleaned out RMC, . If RMC had run around the SA side yes he would be PK'd because he would have had to unbind, but in this instance he had already been cleaned out and imho was not interferring at the time he was elbowed. If he was offside or hands on at the ruck or playing the ball off his feet then he would have been PK'd.

 

[Scotty]

By suggesting it's still a tackle (despite the evidence of multiple players driving over the ball), you are implying that it would be OK for McCaw, or any NZL player, to run around onto the RSA "side" and attempt to pick the ball up with their hands. In my opinion, if you tried that you would be very swiftly penalised.

If I had to distill all the "correspondence" I've received from Kiwis about my "All Blacks at the Breakdown" video, it would be "if there's 20% doubt that it's a ruck, then you can be 20% offside." And I'm not being a smartarse - it's exactly by exploiting grey areas that McCaw achieves so much.

Greyling's actions are very poor and deserve a longer ban. But as I say, I share his frustration at that moment. I might have even had a spray at the ref along the lines of "If you won't get him out of there, then I bloody will!"

So how do we fix it? Clearly there needs to be a simplification of the rules, more one rule fits all type thing?

ELV style or something different. Do we allow a free for all or go the other way?

 

[Top Bloke]

Scotty - I think we all know this situation has arisen due to year in year out tinkering - one year the attacking team gets the benefit of a new ruling or focus, the next year the defending team benefits because the games rules committee decide the balance was wrong and so on.
In my view to ensure a ruck is a ruck and a maul is a maul then the clear/clean out should be ruled out. This should lead to more bodies on their feet at the breakdown, less loitering, If players are at the breakdown then they need to bind. Maybe would lead to more players committed - eg the team with more bodies has a better chance of either keeping posssion or by counter-rucking gaining possession. I know this is probably a simplistic view but I do think the clear out is currently a blight on the game.

 

[Swat]

I'd be quite interested to see the reaction of the kiwi crowd every time Greyling gets the ball from now on. I'd wager the booing won't be anywhere near that of Quade Coopers.

 

[ACR]

I'd be quite interested to see the reaction of the kiwi crowd every time Greyling gets the ball from now on. I'd wager the booing won't be anywhere near that of Quade Coopers.

I think people realise Greyling is short a few marbles. Word is, when he does play marbles he yells BINGO when he thinks he's won. Besides, he has form, he is a prop, I think the majority will get over it. It's not too often that you get juicy stuff from a 10 though. And of course at the end of super rugby it looked like Quade might actually be a danger to the AB's so that is one of the main reasons.

If Australians are going to think about complaining though, just don't. NSW fans boo their own team and there have been plenty of Australian rugby crowds (noticeably the Reds) booing all throughout games this year. Kiwi crowds do it all the time and it is a blight, something for the IRB and relevant unions to watch out for because they are the only ones that can positively influence such behaviour. At least we're not as bad as AFL, Football or League just yet.

 

[Swat]

I think the majority will get over it. It's not too often that you get juicy stuff from a 10 though. And of course at the end of super rugby it looked like Quade might actually be a danger to the AB's so that is one of the main reasons.

Thank you, I've been waiting for a kiwi to admit that. Not that it'll do much, just nice to hear some honesty.

 

[Bullrush]

I'd be quite interested to see the reaction of the kiwi crowd every time Greyling gets the ball from now on. I'd wager the booing won't be anywhere near that of Quade Coopers.

Here's why I disliked QC (Quade Cooper).

He didn't do anything at all in terms of grunt work and his tackling was appaling. I don't like cheap shots in general but when they're done by someone who is known for his lack of physicality, as QC (Quade Cooper) was at that point, I find that particularly disgraceful.

If you don't have the heart and mongrel to make make good tackles and get involved in the rough stuff, don't then try to get physical with cheap shots.

In saying that, I think QC (Quade Cooper) has improved since then (from what little Ive seen of him this year) and I hope he continues to get better.

 

[Swat]

Here's why I disliked QC (Quade Cooper).

He didn't do anything at all in terms of grunt work and his tackling was appaling. I don't like cheap shots in general but when they're done by someone who is known for his lack of physicality, as QC (Quade Cooper) was at that point, I find that particularly disgraceful.

If you don't have the heart and mongrel to make make good tackles and get involved in the rough stuff, don't then try to get physical with cheap shots.

Exactly why I dislike him and why a lot of people do. However I think that the majority of the vehemence directed towards him stemmed from his ability to be a game breaker who before the world cup, loomed as the biggest threat towards an AB victory. Couple that with his Kiwi heritage and he becomes an obvious villan.

 

[Jay]

I'd be quite interested to see the reaction of the kiwi crowd every time Greyling gets the ball from now on. I'd wager the booing won't be anywhere near that of Quade Coopers.

I don't think we'll be seeing much of him in the Bok jersey in the future....

 

[Jay]

Thank you, I've been waiting for a kiwi to admit that. Not that it'll do much, just nice to hear some honesty.

It was definitely part of it, but it was also the 'wussy back trying to be hard' factor*. I mean, Beale, O'Connor & Genia were perceived as being big threats too (and in Hong Kong & Brisbane had done more to actually beat the AB's than he did) and they didn't get booed.

*note: I don't actually subscribe to this. I don't think you play test match rugby these days if you're a wuss and his tackling problems were more to do with technique than lack of application, arguably.

 

[Mank]

Scotty - I think we all know this situation has arisen due to year in year out tinkering - one year the attacking team gets the benefit of a new ruling or focus, the next year the defending team benefits because the games rules committee decide the balance was wrong and so on.
In my view to ensure a ruck is a ruck and a maul is a maul then the clear/clean out should be ruled out. This should lead to more bodies on their feet at the breakdown, less loitering, If players are at the breakdown then they need to bind. Maybe would lead to more players committed - eg the team with more bodies has a better chance of either keeping posssion or by counter-rucking gaining possession. I know this is probably a simplistic view but I do think the clear out is currently a blight on the game.

If that's the only change you make, it won't work. Ostrich style fetchers will have an absolute field day if you can't clear them out. They are the reason we see the grab/wrestle clean out that's resulted in a few round the neck twists.

 

[Scoey]

Yep it seemed as though there was more than one Springbok player trying to lose the game for SA but few played their part better than Greyling that night.

 

[Dam0]

I am not trying to be "obtuse" here I promise.

By suggesting it's still a tackle (despite the evidence of multiple players driving over the ball), you are implying that it would be OK for McCaw, or any NZL player, to run around onto the RSA "side" and attempt to pick the ball up with their hands. In my opinion, if you tried that you would be very swiftly penalised.

I'm having a bit of trouble following your line of thought here. I mean even if you don't know the exact wording, surely you are at least dimly aware of Law 15.6(d) which states:


(d) 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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

So no, obviously an NZ player would not be allowed to run around onto the SA side and pick up the ball with his hands. He would be allowed however to come from behind the ball and from behind the tackler closest to the players goal line and play it with his hands. Such a player is liable to get cleaned out by a grumpy South African though, which will likely cause him to release the ball. This is more or less what happened. Some people have questioned the initial cleanout on McCaw, which is a bit borderline, but I don't have a huge problem with it at test level. YMMV


If, on the other hand you question the entry position or you argue that he is "sliding around" or words to that effect; then I am afraid you are going to be constantly disappointed with every game of rugby you watch because that entry here is in line with the standards set by virtually every referee I know and have observed. I am not being a "defend Richie at all costs" guy when I say that (as I have been accused of), its just the reality of the game of rugby. I wonder how many of you have done the exercise at training where you get someone to make a tackle and then everybody freezes and you look at "the gate". It is often a hell of a lot wider than people generally assume.


Now I have read some interesting opinions regarding the nature of the breakdown in this thread. One fundamental thing about rugby is that you have to get the definitions right. One can't just observe that there is a few people on top of the ball and wave one's finger and say "that is a ruck" or "that is a maul" and assume that we have now entered that phase. That is a recipe for disaster and for the game to become even more of a lottery than it already is.

Specifically, if the ball doesn't touch the ground at some point in the breakdown you can never, ever have a ruck. This is why I get somewhat dismayed when someone posts:

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.

I really don't know how one can politely say that if you type something like this you simply don't know what you are talking about.


One guy above pointed out that maybe McCaw grabbed it off the ground after the ruck had formed. Well, maybe; I don't see it that way because it looks like McCaw gets there and grabs it before the ball is placed. The film is too obscured and too grainy to make a decision one way or the other on that and I wouldn't go to war to defend my position on that. At least when we start to discuss that point we are not just waffling in the wind and saying that it must a ruck because there is "evidence of multiple players driving over the ball" which is totally beside the point.

 

[teach]

Exactly why I dislike him and why a lot of people do. However I think that the majority of the vehemence directed towards him stemmed from his ability to be a game breaker who before the world cup, loomed as the biggest threat towards an AB victory. Couple that with his Kiwi heritage and he becomes an obvious villan.

His kiwi heritage wasn't the issue. It was the going on national tv and basically challenging the whole country to bring it on. He wanted to be public enemy number 1 and he got his wish. But it was like booing the pantomine villain. IMHO