Springbokke vs All Blacks : Soccer Stadium , Soweto

[Thomond78]

Owens was wrong, McCaw didn't come from the side. Have a look at the video again. Big Vic go's for a pick and drive therefore rendering the law of the gate at the ruck useless. The infringment lies in the fact that Victor is tackled by McCaw who does not release and chooses to contests the ball. Whether the Bokke would have scored or not is in the cosmos, but they were a few feet out from the All Black line in the red zone. Yellow card.

Mealamu should have been pinged for offside at the breakown at the very least.

Wrong on at least part of the above.

McCaw is not the tackler. He does not bring the ball-carrier to ground while holding him and going to ground himself. He is therefore not a tackler. He is a player at a tackle (as Matfield is brought to ground/onto other players on the ground). McCaw then has to a) come through the gate b) permit Matfield to place the ball c) release Matfield before attempting to take the ball.

He does none of the above. Yellow card.

I might add, shocking positioning from Owens.

 

[Top Bloke]

Wrong on at least part of the above.

McCaw is not the tackler. He does not bring the ball-carrier to ground while holding him and going to ground himself. He is therefore not a tackler. He is a player at a tackle (as Matfield is brought to ground/onto other players on the ground). McCaw then has to a) come through the gate b) permit Matfield to place the ball c) release Matfield before attempting to take the ball.

He does none of the above. Yellow card.

I might add, shocking positioning from Owens.

What this shows is how difficult the breakdown is to rule on. I could see another 2 PK's at least - Spies on the wrong side making no attempt to roll clear, & entry from the side by bok prop? (cant see the number)
Given that Owens has to make decisions at real time with only 2 eyes he didn't do too bad.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Wrong on at least part of the above.

McCaw is not the tackler. He does not bring the ball-carrier to ground while holding him and going to ground himself. He is therefore not a tackler. He is a player at a tackle (as Matfield is brought to ground/onto other players on the ground). McCaw then has to a) come through the gate b) permit Matfield to place the ball c) release Matfield before attempting to take the ball.

He does none of the above. Yellow card.

I might add, shocking positioning from Owens.

Well he clear as drunken piss came in directly from the back of the ruck, there can be no arguments there.

I do'nt know what the rules are for when a player picks up the ball then simply dives on top of the ruck with it. I'd love to see Matfield try and place the ball though - where is he going to put it, on somebody elses head? And then release him? Your right, McCaw isn't the tackler - but who was? He just dived onto the ruck without anybody touching him! McCaw was the first AB to touch him, so technically is he the tackler? If not, then nobody else is.

As for you YC comment, I'd expect nothing else from you - you can read that as you like.

Top Bloke - your right, it's crazy the amoutn of things going on in there & the various interpretations. I can barely agree with a single thing T78 says, but I'm sure there are plenty out there that do.

 

[PaarlBok]

McAwe was just doing his job and doing it well. The Golden Rule in rugby, play the ref!

Myself was a bit more surprise when he gave Schalk that kind of a face slap when Schalkie prevent the quick throw. For some strange reason Schalkie did not react on that one and hats off to him for soing just that. If it was the otherway round or Schalk did this to a Wallaby I am pretty sure some one would have repeat the eye one for post after post.

They way Pie Eater and Vuurhoutjie arse slap Weepu at half time show there is one huge respect between the two teams and one I do like to see to happen more often within the spirit of rugby specially between this two rugby rivals.

 

[Thomond78]

MR, wind your neck in, FFS.

First off, there was no ruck. There wasn't a player from each side in contact over the ball on the ground, so there was no ruck. End of.

McCaw is not the tackler, and that's clear from the definition in Law 15. He does not come in from straight behind Matfield, as he has to do (and it has to be directly behind - Law 15.6). He binds onto Matfield, which he's not allowed to do. He doesn't immediately get up and away from the ball and the tackled player. He plays the ball and prevents Matfield releasing it or placing it. Penalty on each count, a metre from the line. YC.

Matfield is allowed to try to reach over the bodies to place it over the line (Law 15.5). He didn't. He has to release it, or place it in any direction, immediately, but cannot be prevented from doing so (Law 15.7).

It is debatable if there's a tackle at all, since Matfield isn't properly held. Since the situation doesn't fit the definitions in either Law 14 or Law 15, and isn't open play, I'd read it as being closer to Law 15, and apply that one as opposed to Law 14.2, as you'll get the game moving better quicker. Either way, McCaw is illegal.

 

[Thomond78]

Incidentally, just to make it clear; I agree with Onse Oom. I'd have done the same, and McCaw was right to do it. I'm bagging the ref, not him. Frankly, I don't really give a monkeys about the 3N; I DO care that the refs are fuck-acting around, as that will affect my teams.

 

[Muttonbird]

Better close this thread. It's getting a bit heated.

 

[Hartman]

As far as the laws go it's all a bit hazy and there are many interpretations, certainly too much for a ref to consider in a split second. But in the sense that he is deliberately slowing down ball I think it should have been penalised/YCed.

 

[Scarfman]

A Kiwi is arguing with an Irishman. I don't building the Octagon for us to watch the fight.

 

[PaarlBok]

As far as the laws go it's all a bit hazy and there are many interpretations, certainly too much for a ref to consider in a split second.

Now try and watch the rugby with your green blooded family like myself and try and explain this to them. Its a nightmare to be honest. I just teach my kid to never ever blame the ref specially if he is watching the wrong balls in a rugby match.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

MR, wind your neck in, FFS.

First off, there was no ruck. There wasn't a player from each side in contact over the ball on the ground, so there was no ruck. End of.

McCaw is not the tackler, and that's clear from the definition in Law 15. He does not come in from straight behind Matfield, as he has to do (and it has to be directly behind - Law 15.6). He binds onto Matfield, which he's not allowed to do. He doesn't immediately get up and away from the ball and the tackled player. He plays the ball and prevents Matfield releasing it or placing it. Penalty on each count, a metre from the line. YC.

Matfield is allowed to try to reach over the bodies to place it over the line (Law 15.5). He didn't. He has to release it, or place it in any direction, immediately, but cannot be prevented from doing so (Law 15.7).

It is debatable if there's a tackle at all, since Matfield isn't properly held. Since the situation doesn't fit the definitions in either Law 14 or Law 15, and isn't open play, I'd read it as being closer to Law 15, and apply that one as opposed to Law 14.2, as you'll get the game moving better quicker. Either way, McCaw is illegal.

Basically your saying that it's a tackled ball situation & I can't see why? NOBODY TACKLED HIM. He just dove into the ruck? And after he dove in, RM came in directly in front of him. So I can't see how that can be argued either?

VM picked up the ball and dove on the ruck. Tackled by nobody. What the hell sort of situation is that? As he's done this move, does that mean that now he is completely untouchable by anybody and nobody can contest the ball? If so, have we just found a new potential tactic to achieve nothing on the big scheme of things?

I mean, there's no tackler, but your saying it's not a ruck, it's a tackled situation? So WTF is anybody supposed to do? How can anybody roll away? If you pick u the ball & dive on top of a ruck, why should you once again be entitled to place the ball behind it, why should nobody be able to touch you? If everybody rolled away, he could just put the ball on the line for a try.

I have no doubt that I don't know the laws as thoroughly as you T78, but I also have no doubt you dont' know the laws as thoroughly as the referee, who was pretty bloody well positioned to see everything thats going on.

 

[Top Bloke]

They way Pie Eater and Vuurhoutjie arse slap Weepu at half time show there is one huge respect between the two teams and one I do like to see to happen more often within the spirit of rugby specially between this two rugby rivals.

Seconded - saw that and thought the same

 

[Thomond78]

MR, to repeat;

There is definitely no ruck. As soon as the ball is out, the ruck is over. The ball was out; ruck over. So, no ruck before. And, afterwards, there wasn't a played from each side in contact over the ball on the ground. So, there was no ruck. Bodies, maybe, but no ruck.

Matfield can be brought to ground or stopped. But if you don't bring him to ground while holding him, then under the definition of a tackle in Law 15, there's no tackle. And if you don't go to ground while holding him, you're not a tackler. I'm saying you'd treat it as a tackled situation, because it's outside the definition in Law 14 too, but it's closer to a tackled situation. Matfield is specifically allowed try to reach over to place it immediately. You are specifically allowed to try to stop him. Matfield is also allowed place it back immediately. McCaw can then go for the ball, but can't grapple Matfield before he places it, or prevent him placing it. Nor do people have to get out of his way; they just can't bind onto him. Matfield also can't just keep going once his knee hits the ground or a player sitting on the ground; if he does, he should be done for not releasing.

If it's not a tackle situation, the player on the ground has to pass, release, or get up straight away. However, the tricky thing is, Law 14 states it only applies to a player going down to get the ball; if you're, say, tap-tackled, you're not tackled under Law 15, but it's not Law 14 either, so it's vague what does apply. As I said, you're better off applying Law 15 as it makes some bad sense as opposed to no sense. So, pass or release, and if you want to play it, release before you get up and pick it up.

These are well-known anomalies in the Laws. They crop up time and again, and refs comment on them. They're relatively easy fixes - just put in a clause that if the ball carrier is brought to ground, but is not held, then Law 14 applies, and that's the end of that - and would save a lot of trouble. But, somehow, O'Braindead wants to play silly buggers with things that aren't broken - like hands-in - instead.

 

[Top Bloke]

First off, there was no ruck. There wasn't a player from each side in contact over the ball on the ground, so there was no ruck. End of.

TH78 - Regardless, none of us were out on the field with a whistle. Nigel Owens was - he called Ruck - so that supercedes everything.
law 6A4 (a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.

 

[Thomond78]

TB, two observations on that.

First off, just because he's sole judge doesn't mean he's right.

Secondly, if a decision by the ref ended all discussion, we wouldn't have assessors, or citing commissioners appointed to oversee the decisions of those referees.

 

[Top Bloke]

TB, two observations on that.

First off, just because he's sole judge doesn't mean he's right.

Secondly, if a decision by the ref ended all discussion, we wouldn't have assessors, or citing commissioners appointed to oversee the decisions of those referees.

True but just because you interpretation is different to his doesnt mean that he was wrong either.
As an example you mention that McCaw prevents Matfield from playing the ball after the "tackle" and should have been pinged for not releasing, but my interpretation was that Matfield was able to place the ball - eg he "squeeze balled" it

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

So what do u think he should have done, completely within the laws then?

Let's assume Owens did call ruck and then let's assume he didnt

 

[Thomond78]

True but just because you interpretation is different to his doesnt mean that he was wrong either.
As an example you mention that McCaw prevents Matfield from playing the ball after the "tackle" and should have been pinged for not releasing, but my interpretation was that Matfield was able to place the ball - eg he "squeeze balled" it

Squeeze-ball is placing - albeit one I hate, because it makes the neck vulberable to a Woodcock special, and one I'd happily see banned in a tweak - provided you do it immediately. Again, if you hold onto the guy to prevent him doing so, it's a penalty.

 

[DPK]

Is "squeeze-balling" the same as "laying the egg"?

 

[Thomond78]

Assuming he called ruck (and he was wrong), then Matfield has to release the ball; he can't keep going, as I pointed out above. So, McCaw should stand over him, hands off, for two beats yelling, "Not releasing, hands in, not releasing, ref", then go for the ball from between directly between Matfield and the goal-line (which means he's under him to seal it off, btw).

Assuming he didn't call ruck, Matfield still has to release, pass or get up. So, McCaw should do it as if he were first at a tackle; through the gate, hover over Matfield, hands off visibly, then in, yelling "Not releasing, ref, must release, not releasing". Then listen for the call, and react; you'll have legally slowed it enough to get the fringe defenders in place.

With those, he'd be legal. It's the angle, the bind onto Matfield (for a squeeze-ball, you go over and past him, because then the ref sees he's lying on it and will give you the penalty) and the fact that he's on him to prevent him placing or releasing, that are the keys.