One hell of a whinge from our Kiwi compadres

[daz]

what constitutes a legal entry in your book?

Flowers, dinner and most importantly, her permission.

 

[JJJ]

Penalizing Richie? If Stuey doesn't watch himself he won't be allowed to ref at the world cup.

 

[qwerty51]

Penalizing Richie? If Stuey doesn't watch himself he won't be allowed to ref at the world cup.

Already not refereeing at the WC.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Already not refereeing at the WC.

Indeed....nor is anyone else who has penalised McCaw over the years!!

 

[Top Bloke]

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.

Thanks Jay - many people think the "Gate" exists at the ruck, including a fair number of commentators.

LAW 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. A player may join alongside this hindmost player.

 

[spectator]

Flowers, dinner and most importantly, her permission.

Pay that....

 

[Top Bloke]

This diagram is helpful re what is offside etc at the ruck.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/RuckOffside.jpg

It debunks some the coming in at the side argument

 

[Reido]

"The Rugby World Cup, thankfully, has already made the call that he’s not up to that level. But Dickinson’s rough justice comes at a price. It could cost the Crusaders and New Zealand rugby hundreds of thousands of dollars. And maybe even a title. It is on these games that home playoff matches and the like swing. Championship outcomes can be heavily influenced.

The Crusaders have had it tough enough this year, what with the devastating repercussions of the earthquake, and now they face a man-made force of nature that’s also conspiring against them. You have to feel for this perennially classy outfit."

Did he really say that?! How the hell can this guy compare Dickheadson to the Christchurch earthquake? He's off his head.

Also if Dickheadson and this loss to the Reds is the reason the Crusaders don't win the Super 15 title and lose "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in the process then they should have played harder in the finals. What a knob.

StonerJack, get off the weed mate.

 

[Tiger]

Jay & Topbloke, thanks for posting that. I hadn't realised the rules made that distinction.

I suppose where it gets difficult is that in that diagram Top Bloke posted, if there is any time where 5 has one foot over the offside line but has not yet joined the ruck then he will be offside? That would happen almost invariably I would think if you join the ruck "from the side". The proper offence in that case though would be that he was "offside", rather than "joining the ruck from the side".

 

[Top Bloke]

Jay & Topbloke, thanks for posting that. I hadn't realised the rules made that distinction.

I suppose where it gets difficult is that in that diagram Top Bloke posted, if there is any time where 5 has one foot over the offside line but has not yet joined the ruck then he will be offside? That would happen almost invariably I would think if you join the ruck "from the side". The proper offence in that case though would be that he was "offside", rather than "joining the ruck from the side".

Doubtful that a ref would PK that offence as he would hopefully apply "Materiality"

 

[rugbysmartarse]

true Tiger- and it gets more difficult when the ruck is moving towards the blue team, and the 5 is trying to get back over the offside line to run in from onside. Did the ref see him get both feet accross the offside line? Was it a ruck then, or still a tackle? And what about the 4 who is doing the same from the other side. Is the ref watching them both? or is he watching for hands in the ruck. or not rolling fast enough. or releasing (either player or ball)

who'd be a ref?

 

[Tiger]

Doubtful that a ref would PK that offence as he would hopefully apply "Materiality"

How so? If you're in an offside position and get involved in the play then I would have thought the ref is really bound to call it.

If you join the ruck from the back you can never be in an offside position.

I suppose what I'm saying is that although there is no offence for joining the ruck from the side, when that is called what is really being called is a penalty for offside but it's much simpler to explain and understand if you describe it as joining from the side.

I agree though - who would be a ref!

 

[Jay]

Jay & Topbloke, thanks for posting that. I hadn't realised the rules made that distinction.

I suppose where it gets difficult is that in that diagram Top Bloke posted, if there is any time where 5 has one foot over the offside line but has not yet joined the ruck then he will be offside? That would happen almost invariably I would think if you join the ruck "from the side". The proper offence in that case though would be that he was "offside", rather than "joining the ruck from the side".

"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. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team- mate, the player is offside. A player may bind onto an opposition player providing the player is not otherwise offside."

They are offside, 'joining from the side' is just a short-hand to clarify what specifically happened, like "truck and trailer" or "shepherding".

 

[saulih]

Thats the big misconception there VRF. I thought we were too, and then I moved to England & bumped into European Football fans. In my time in England, I also met lots of people from Victoria - and then I discovered AFL fans.

I've met very very few NZ rugby fans who display as much passion as these guys. We care, we love it & we are fans - but I can't help but feel we are more or less ambivalent beside other sporting codes.......

Yeah, the day we start rioting in the streets and setting the stands on fire and crushing people to death on protective fence and ...

...then we need to take a closer look at ourselves. Until then I think it is okay to bitch and moan a little.

Actually... I don't have anything to b&M about... GO THE REDS!

 

[Bullrush]

Yeah, the day we start rioting in the streets and setting the stands on fire and crushing people to death on protective fence and ...

...then we need to take a closer look at ourselves. Until then I think it is okay to bitch and moan a little.

Actually... I don't have anything to b&M about... GO THE REDS!

Was just talking with some mates today about the Columbian guy who scored an own goal ina soccer World Cup who ended being shot when he got home about a week later.....you know someone's priorities are f**kd up then....

 

[StonerJack]

StonerJack, get off the weed mate.

Are you kidding? That'd be like asking a normal person to stop breathing...

 

[saulih]

......The Crusaders have had it tough enough this year, what with the devastating repercussions of the earthquake, and now they face a man-made force of nature that’s also conspiring against them. You have to feel for this perennially classy outfit."

Did he really say that?! How the hell can this guy compare Dickheadson to the Christchurch earthquake?

In some way he did... Don't you all know that it was the destiny of the Saders to rise out of adversity and be given... no strike that.. be victorious, to show signs of hope to those struggling wi...

Yeah whatever. The Saders have a phenom team, we all feel the pain of those in their hometown who lost everything... but the team has no manifest destiny to win the title. They can earn it just like any other team. The failure of the Saders was shown by the fact that Richie et al, failed to adjust to the ref. They should have play the cards dealt to them.

 

[Jay]

Was just talking with some mates today about the Columbian guy who scored an own goal ina soccer World Cup who ended being shot when he got home about a week later.....you know someone's priorities are f**kd up then....

There's a good doco on that incident - The Two Escobars.

http://30for30.espn.com/film/the-two-escobars.html

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

[video=youtube;_T3IvGmcW6U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T3IvGmcW6U[/video]

So much whining.

 

[RedsHappy]

So much whining.

Gee, I complain about rugby journalism in general, but what an unbiased, credit where it's due, applaud the strengths of both sides, look at a balanced set of ref errors that helped either team, video piece that is. It should be studied for objectivity and expert sports analysis in every media school.