Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Well it won't be in a green jersey, that's for sure.
Greyling gets two weeks
- Thread starter Mank
- Start date
- Status
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Dam0 - I'm not even going to google the laws, I'm going to do this just using my brain, OK?
Two blokes are running around on a rugby pitch. One has the ball, the other one doesn't. The one who doesn't grabs the bloke who does.
Now we get into some logic.
(1) If they fall to the ground it's a tackle and the bloke with the ball must release it, and if other blokes join, then it becomes a ruck.
(2) If they don't fall to the ground and are joined by anyone else then it's a maul.
Pick one.
The period of tackle laws lasts about 1 second before giving way to ruck and maul laws. But in that brief interval, you and Richie should read the one about not playing the ball off their feet.
And that's about all I have to say on the matter, mate.
Two blokes are running around on a rugby pitch. One has the ball, the other one doesn't. The one who doesn't grabs the bloke who does.
Now we get into some logic.
(1) If they fall to the ground it's a tackle and the bloke with the ball must release it, and if other blokes join, then it becomes a ruck.
(2) If they don't fall to the ground and are joined by anyone else then it's a maul.
Pick one.
The period of tackle laws lasts about 1 second before giving way to ruck and maul laws. But in that brief interval, you and Richie should read the one about not playing the ball off their feet.
And that's about all I have to say on the matter, mate.
Top Bloke
Ward Prentice (10)
I dont have a problem with the fetchers having a field day in that situation, I think you'd end up seeing better support and better pillars at the tackle / breakdown and maybe more numbers also, thus opening up the defensive lines a bit. .... maybe? maybe not?
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
If that is your attitude and you don't care whether what you think is correct or not then I can have no quarrel with you. There is nothing wrong with being the sort of fan who just watches the TV glibly and enjoys the spectacle.
Unless and until you start telling someone who does care that they are wrong.
I must say that it is refreshing to hear your honesty and I will bear it in mind whenever you make comments about any aspect pertaining to the manner in which the game is played.
Mank
Ted Thorn (20)
So, just for the record, are you saying it wasn't a tackle, but a maul?
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I think he is saying that it is a 'breakdown' that messy situation that is not quite a ruck and not quite a maul. Hence the opportunity for endless friendly banter over the application of the laws to the situation.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Good point BPC, but it's more that that.
Personally, I think you'd have to rate this collection of bodies as 100% ruck, but Dam0's argumentation raises the issue that the breakdown area is almost like a breakdown of the laws of rugby. The contact zone is the confusion zone. At what bloody point does a tackle become a ruck? How long does a tackle need to stay in the air to be declared a maul? This is horrible stuff and it encourages the cynical approach of McCaw. More than any other player, he uses the uncertainty at the breakdown as an opportunity. In the end, it proves what we all know, that rugby really hasn't regathered itself since anti-rucking laws were introduced.
Personally, I think you'd have to rate this collection of bodies as 100% ruck, but Dam0's argumentation raises the issue that the breakdown area is almost like a breakdown of the laws of rugby. The contact zone is the confusion zone. At what bloody point does a tackle become a ruck? How long does a tackle need to stay in the air to be declared a maul? This is horrible stuff and it encourages the cynical approach of McCaw. More than any other player, he uses the uncertainty at the breakdown as an opportunity. In the end, it proves what we all know, that rugby really hasn't regathered itself since anti-rucking laws were introduced.
Top Bloke
Ward Prentice (10)
BPC , Scarf et all - Actually in relation to the point of offside etc , it doesnt matter whether its a ruck or a maul, IF RMC had played the ball at that point it became either he would have and should have been PK'd. (We all know this anyway)
My opinion (and I think Damo's) is that while RMC was first playing at the ball it was still a tackle and he is on his feet, Bekker joins 1 second later - its now a maul or ruck - RMC still on his feet and going at the ball, at this point he is obliged to release - but 1 second later he is cleaned out anyway and does not play at the ball again. IMHO any Ref looking at this is not going to PK RMC because in the time it takes for the ref to decide whether he's illegal the next action has happened and that pk decision is now passed anyway. (hope that makes sense). And let's be pragmatic here - Scarfman calls RMC's approach cynical, but I firmly believe its is exactly the same approach as G-Smith, Waugh, Pocock et all, In fact the same can be said for every #9 who cynically feeds the scrum crooked, or every prop who cynically binds on teh arm rather than the long bind required in law, or every defensive player who never fully is behind the last mans foot. Its just a cynical game.
My opinion (and I think Damo's) is that while RMC was first playing at the ball it was still a tackle and he is on his feet, Bekker joins 1 second later - its now a maul or ruck - RMC still on his feet and going at the ball, at this point he is obliged to release - but 1 second later he is cleaned out anyway and does not play at the ball again. IMHO any Ref looking at this is not going to PK RMC because in the time it takes for the ref to decide whether he's illegal the next action has happened and that pk decision is now passed anyway. (hope that makes sense). And let's be pragmatic here - Scarfman calls RMC's approach cynical, but I firmly believe its is exactly the same approach as G-Smith, Waugh, Pocock et all, In fact the same can be said for every #9 who cynically feeds the scrum crooked, or every prop who cynically binds on teh arm rather than the long bind required in law, or every defensive player who never fully is behind the last mans foot. Its just a cynical game.
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I think its call a breakdown because the play is broken and the ball has to be recycled to continue, but you are right that it is a breakdown of the laws as well. I think that most refs would treat it as a ruck situation but, if Damo is correct and I haven't looked at a replay that closely, the ball wasn't on the ground so it couldn't be a ruck. And yet, who would realistically call that situation a maul or collapsed maul? The refs wouldn't . For example, if the ball didn't come out I am sure SA would have got the scrum feed. So it is probably a ruck although the laws are ambiguous.
If it was a ruck then McCaw may not have had the right to play at the ball. He was the tackler and watching a grainy replay on Youtube he doesn't appear to clearly release before going after the ball. Even if he did release, he shouldn't have slid around the side to better grasp the ball. That justifies Vermulan cleaning him out but not Greyling's stupidity.
Top Bloke
Ward Prentice (10)
BPC - sorry to harp on about this - but McCaw was not the tackler so he doesnt have to release the ball carrier. (that is until it becomes a ruck/maul) Brodie Retallick was the tackler. McCaw was first man in after - have a look at the youtube vid on pg 1 of this thread
Further to the Pile-up of bodies = a ruck argument: At the very end of the Aus vs Arg game there was a pile up of bodies - most lying on the ground - ball was somewhere up - ref Barnes must have called this a Maul because he signalled a turnover - ball taken in & held up. see it here
Further to the Pile-up of bodies = a ruck argument: At the very end of the Aus vs Arg game there was a pile up of bodies - most lying on the ground - ball was somewhere up - ref Barnes must have called this a Maul because he signalled a turnover - ball taken in & held up. see it here
L
Linebacker_41
Guest
I cant believe that there is 7pages dedicated to this.
Richie was on the ground interferring with the play.
The Ref didnt penalise him.
Greyling took matters into his own hands (or should I say forearm).
He got carded and subsequently suspended.
Richie got what was coming to him
Greyling got what was coming to him too.
Play on I say.
Richie was on the ground interferring with the play.
The Ref didnt penalise him.
Greyling took matters into his own hands (or should I say forearm).
He got carded and subsequently suspended.
Richie got what was coming to him
Greyling got what was coming to him too.
Play on I say.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
How many pages did we get up to in the "Byrnes gets 10 weeks" thread?
This one may just be getting started.
thierry dusautoir
Alan Cameron (40)
Sometimes with peole like Richie the mantra my father passed on to me should apply.......'if you see a hand in the ruck, stamp on it. If its someone from your own team.......stamp on it twice'
L
Linebacker_41
Guest
Are you a long lost brother that I didnt know about??
J
Jiggles
Guest
Exactly! No one is condoning what Greyling did but rational people can understand his frustration and how opposition players can snap like that. Richie likes to play with fire and sometimes he is going to get burnt. that's just the nature of what he does.
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
It okay, I am happy to wang on about this. We haven't even got to a double figure page count.
McCaw was a tackler. There can be more than one tackler (Law 15 Definitions: A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.)
Brought to ground is defined as the ball carrier having one or more knees on the ground (Law 15.3(a))
If you watch the video, McCaw grabs the SA player with the ball just before the player is brought to the groun. McCaw is therefore a tackler and bound by Law 15.4(b): The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once. McCaw never releases before playing at the ball.
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
My wife winds me up like you wouldn't farking believe.
I was thinking about giving her a flying elbow to the face, but then I thought rational people might think this a little excessive. It appears I am wrong.
- Status