• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

One hell of a whinge from our Kiwi compadres

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jay

Guest
All this moaning about the ref is inevitable. What I find amusing though is that the penalty awarded to the Crusaders from the scrum next to the posts has been lost in all this. THAT penalty was far more bewildering than the latter. Would anyone be able to clarify what it was for because I sure as hell don't have a clue ... and i suspect most of us would feel the same way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhvMJBTvBSQ

Watch it again at 7:23. You can actually see the Reds hooker pulls his head out of the scrum (doesn't stand up completely, but pops his head out) at 7:25. That's about the only thing I can think the penalty could have been for.
 
J

Jay

Guest
Digby is still standing at the ruck, bound

Oh, another point - weren't you the guy that made that "All Blacks at the Breakdown" video last year? Cause I seem to recall a few instances of pointing out the 'guard dog' position in that.

Well, Digby is never really bound in any way. He just places a hand on Horwill, which specifically is stated as not being sufficient in the laws.

Apologies if that wasn't you, but the point stands that Ioane still being there is irrelevant when he's actually offside from the get go.
 

Top Bloke

Ward Prentice (10)
Are you watching the same video because it is clearly the Crusaders' hooker whose head pops up first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47OilYALzs

This video is slightly better quality - the Reds hooker comes up momentarily at 2:51 before Flynns comes up at 2:53, however I think SD could have also PK'd Red 1 for deliberately pushing past 90 and that seems to precipitate his decision. Sd thought the grey scrum was dominant in that play so pk'd Red
 
R

Rev Spooner

Guest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47OilYALzs

This video is slightly better quality - the Reds hooker comes up momentarily at 2:51 before Flynns comes up at 2:53, however I think SD could have also PK'd Red 1 for deliberately pushing past 90 and that seems to precipitate his decision. Sd thought the grey scrum was dominant in that play so pk'd Red
thanks - still don't see it though - and pushing past the 90 degrees hardly seems fair. Looked to me that though the Crusaders were clearly dominant early the Reds pack put on a big shove which they didn't expect.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
I side with Kiwis.

Dominant, aggressive breakdown work should be favoured. It's positive rugby.

Dominant and aggressive is fine. But if it means breaking the laws of the game all it leads to is more stoppages; which I think we all can agree is negative rugby.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Dominant and aggressive is fine. But if it means breaking the laws of the game all it leads to is more stoppages; which I think we all can agree is negative rugby.

Dont agree with you. You cant say breaking the law, the rucks is grey like hell with all the laws these days. Should be easier if they allow proper rucks liike in the old days. We knew if we lie on the wrong side we are going to get stamp on and we never had this shite we have these days. Rucks was never an issue like today. To many laws these days, thats the exact problem.

Use to put the detailed s15 stats but its a bloody disgrace to see the stop start stop start nature of the modern game.

Here is the latest from round 14:
Stoppages per Match

Blues vs Crusaders: 61
Brumbies vs Chiefs: 71
Hurricanes vs Highlanders: 75
Lions vs Bulls: 64
Rebels vs Waratahs: 91
Reds vs Force: 70
Sharks vs Cheetahs: 76

Highlanders vs Chiefs: 56
Rebels vs Brumbies: 61
Waratahs vs Reds: 77
Bulls vs Cheetahs: 53
Stormers vs Lions: 76
Sharks vs Blues: 71

Bulls vs Highlanders: 65
Chiefs vs Rebels: 82
Crusaders vs Waratahs: 70
Stormers vs Cheetahs: 73
Lions vs Blues: 56
Force vs Sharks: 73
Brumbies' vs Reds: 68

Crusaders vs Brumbies: 72
Rebels vs Sharks: 76
Stormers vs Highlanders: 73
Hurricanes vs Chiefs: 47
Force vs Blues: 65
Cheetahs vs Lions: 63

Chiefs vs Sharks, 72
Reds vs Rebels, 81
Highlanders vs Crusaders, 67
Blues vs Hurricanes, 58
Waratahs vs Cheetahs, 72
Lions vs Force, 71
Bulls vs Stormers, 71

Stormers vs Force, 72
Rebels vs Hurricanes, 65
Brumbies vs Waratahs, 50
Reds vs Cheetahs, 73
Crusaders vs Sharks, 47
Chiefs + Blues, 77
Bulls vs Lions, 69

Highlanders vs Brumbies, 70
Waratahs vs Chiefs, 66
Blues vs Cheetahs, 69
Hurricanes vs Bulls, 66
Force vs Rebels, 55
Lions vs Reds, 68
Sharks vs Stormers, 57

Highlanders vs Cheetahs, 89
Crusaders vs Bulls, 71
Brumbies vs Hurricanes, 65
Force vs Waratahs, 65
Stormers vs Reds, 82
Sharks vs Lions, 72

Chiefs vs Crusaders, 60
Rebels vs Highlanders, 73
Blues vs Waratahs, 54
Reds vs Bulls, 56
Lions vs Stormers, 57
Cheetahs vs Hurricanes, 56
Brumbies vs Force, 70

Blues vs Rebels, 57
Crusaders vs Highlanders, 65
Reds vs Waratahs, 69
Force vs Bulls, 62
Sharks vs Hurricanes, 59
Lions vs Chiefs, 62

Highlanders vs Blues, 71
Cheetahs vs Brumbies, 62
Hurricanes vs Reds, 69
Waratahs vs Rebels, 70
Force vs Crusaders, 50
Bulls vs Chiefs, 56
Stormers vs Sharks, 72

Hurricanes vs Blues, 65
Rebels vs Reds, 72
Lions vs Cheetahs, 60
Chiefs vs Highlanders, 70
Waratahs vs Force, 64
Stormers vs Crusaders, 71
Sharks vs Brumbies, 54

Highlanders vs Hurricanes, 78
Reds vs Blues, 58
Chiefs vs Stormers, 66
Brumbies vs Lions, 56
Bulls vs Rebels, 80
Cheetahs vs Crusaders, 59

Blues vs Stormers, 58
Crusaders vs Chiefs, 67
Waratahs vs Lions, 68
Force vs Brumbies, 77
Cheetahs vs Rebels, 64
Sharks vs Bulls, 79

Ball in Play Time

Jan Taljaard has again provided these meticulous statistics.

The average playing time for such matches is just over 33 minutes. The Sharks-Bulls match, which had 30 penalties, is well below average.

Blues v Stormers (Brown):
14 minutes 54 seconds + 16 minutes 51 seconds = 31 minutes 45 seconds

Crusaders v Chiefs (Dickinson):
19 minutes 12 seconds + 12 minutes 54 seconds = 32 minutes 06 seconds

Waratahs v Lions (Jonker):
16 minutes 26 seconds + 20 minutes 25 seconds = 36 minutes 51 seconds

Western Force v Brumbies (Smith):
15 minutes 49 seconds + 18 minutes 58 seconds = 34 minutes 47 seconds

Cheetahs v Rebels (Legoete):
17 minutes 24 seconds + 14 minutes 50 seconds = 32 minutes 14 seconds

Sharks v Bulls (Bryce Lawrence):
15 minutes 19 seconds + 15 minutes 45 seconds = 31 minutes 4 seconds

Sanctionary Cards per team

Blues: Y, Y
Brumbies: C, Y
Bulls: Y
Cheetahs: Y, Y, Y, R, C
Chiefs: Y, Y, Y, Y
Crusaders: Y, Y, Y
Force: Y, R, Y, C, Y, Y, Y, Y
Highlanders: Y, Y, Y, Y, Y
Hurricanes: Y, Y, C, Y, Y, Y, C
Lions: Y, C, Y, Y, Y
Rebels: Y, Y, Y, Y, Y
Reds: Y, Y, Y, Y, Y
Sharks: Y, C
Stormers: Y, Y, Y, Y, Y, Y, Y
Waratahs: Y, Y

Y = yellow card; R = red card; C = cited and suspended.


33 minutes 80 minutes these days. The amount of laws screwed the game up. Rugby winning cycle is suppose to start at the fatty department. The way they chop and change the rules these days look like changing it. Most Aussie posters up here forgot to watch actually rugby, they watch the ref to look for mistakes. Thats the problem with the modern game.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Dominant and aggressive is fine. But if it means breaking the laws of the game all it leads to is more stoppages; which I think we all can agree is negative rugby.

The problem is that 'dominant and aggressive' will envariably lead to laws being broken at times. When you are attacking or making dominant tackles, there are times where it is impossible to not leave your feet or get trapped on the wrong side. I'd hate to watch rugby get to a stage where teams and players are too wary of being 'dominant and aggressive' as they may inadvertently break a law and cost their team 3 points.

I think that's why ref aren't keen to yellow card guys like McCaw beacuse he is genuinely contesting for the ball as opposed to blatantly cheating. I disagreed with the penalty at the Reds/Saders game because in effect, it penalised the Crusaders for effectively clearing out the ruck and giving McCaw an easy contest for the ball. It rewarded the Reds for basically not having enough guys at the breakdown to protect their posession. Yes, Stu may have called 'hands out' but I ask....why?? The only guy the Reds had to protect the ball had been blown over so if McCaw couldn't pick the ball up then, when could he?

The Crusaders had defended a number of phases leading up to that point, waiting for the right opportunity to win back possesion. If your defense is able to hold out the attack long enough to wait for the attack to be in a weak position, then a penalty like that is a real deterent to 'dominant and aggressive' rugby IMO.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Should be easier if they allow proper rucks liike in the old days. We knew if we lie on the wrong side we are going to get stamp on and we never had this shite we have these days. Rucks was never an issue like today. To many laws these days, thats the exact problem.

Amen. I think bringing back rucking would fix alot. And I agree there are to many little laws around the ruck that contradict other ones.

33 minutes 80 minutes these days. The amount of laws screwed the game up. Rugby winning cycle is suppose to start at the fatty department. The way they chop and change the rules these days look like changing it. Most Aussie posters up here forgot to watch actually rugby, they watch the ref to look for mistakes. Thats the problem with the modern game.

Thats actually pretty astute. I know I am guilty of doing just that.

33 minutes in play is what I think is holding rugby back in australia. It might not make such a difference overseas where there are not alternatives, but domestically in the other code the ball is in play for pretty much the whole game. And when mungos watch rugby it often their first criticism.
 

disco

Chilla Wilson (44)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47OilYALzs

This video is slightly better quality - the Reds hooker comes up momentarily at 2:51 before Flynns comes up at 2:53, however I think SD could have also PK'd Red 1 for deliberately pushing past 90 and that seems to precipitate his decision. Sd thought the grey scrum was dominant in that play so pk'd Red

That wasn't Flynn for the saders & I see what you're saying about the Reds hooker but his head never popped out of the scrum it moved slightly up but never out.

I'm still not sold on McCaw's entry anyway as he definitely came from a wider position than where Ioane was standing.
 

biggsy

Chilla Wilson (44)
Richie came from the side after the 1st clean out attempt on the last penalty...
Any ways we won, i think there still bitter after week 13 when they went down to the cheetahs 33-20
 
J

Jay

Guest
All those people saying "McCaw came in from the side" - what constitutes a legal entry in your book?
 

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
Any ways we won, i think there still bitter after week 13 when they went down to the cheetahs 33-20

Where on earth did you pull this from??

Anyway Saders fans aren't bitter from the Cheetahs loss, the Brumbies final loss in 2004 on the other hand.... :)
 
J

Jay

Guest
I think most people's book is pretty similar to the iRB Law Book.

Great! So, the people who reckon he enters illegally are all full of shit.

"16.5 (c) Players joining or rejoining the ruck. A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck."

Note the difference between the wording of 15.6 (d) which is related to players entering the tackle "(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."

The presence of the word "directly" is what creates the gate people refer to. It's only relevant at a tackle - not a maul or a ruck.

Does McCaw join from behind Franks? Note - he doesn't have to be DIRECTLY behind Franks, just has to have his feet closer to his own tryline than Franks' feet before he enters the ruck. He doesn't have to be running parallel to the touchlines, he just can't be in front of the hindmost foot.
 

disco

Chilla Wilson (44)
Jay I'm actually more confused now, didn't Mccaw argue it wasn't a ruck & that's why he picked the ball up? So if it was a ruck then Dickenson was spot on if it was still a tackle contest as McCaw perceived then what is the ruling on McCaw's entry?

Honest question.
 
J

Jay

Guest
Jay I'm actually more confused now, didn't Mccaw argue it wasn't a ruck & that's why he picked the ball up? So if it was a ruck then Dickenson was spot on if it was still a tackle contest as McCaw perceived then what is the ruling on McCaw's entry?

Honest question.

If it's not a ruck, his entry is irrelevant.

If it was a ruck, and he was effectively being the halfback - which is what I think actually happened - he still has to come from an onside position before clearing the ball. Which he did.

If it was a ruck, he entered correctly but wasn't allowed to pick the ball up.

Regardless, his entry is not really in question unless people are mis-reading the rules or somehow not seeing what actually happens in the video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top