What does everybody think about the law crackdown?
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
- Status
naza
Alan Cameron (40)
Re: Waratahs 2010
That doesn't make any sense. That means if you're ready to pilfer, then a falling ball carrier merely has to touch you for you to ruled out of the contest. That's not what the new interpretation is about. Which is why Waugh is blowing up.
He hasn't tackled, therefore there is no 'releasing' to be done. If he'd tackled the bloke, he'd be on the ground & out of the play.
Mods - can one of you bludgers move this discussion to the 'law crackdown' thread ?
Ash said:
That doesn't make any sense. That means if you're ready to pilfer, then a falling ball carrier merely has to touch you for you to ruled out of the contest. That's not what the new interpretation is about. Which is why Waugh is blowing up.
He hasn't tackled, therefore there is no 'releasing' to be done. If he'd tackled the bloke, he'd be on the ground & out of the play.
Mods - can one of you bludgers move this discussion to the 'law crackdown' thread ?
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
PaarlBok said:
Unbelievable horse shit there PB. Players get stuck into each other when the ref's have no idea? How on earth did you draw those 2 parallels.
The SA commentators didn't seem to have any problems with the ruling for the the Sharks match, and that's good enough for me. But please, keep blaming the ref. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Yeah, agree on that - the Sharks were poor. And they didn't win because of themselves, not the ref. Just the like the Brumbies were overrun by the Bulls. Nothing again to do with the ref.
Players getting stuck into each other is either because it's a niggly game or the ref's man management is poor, not because he is making poor decisions.
In saying that, there's certainly better refs in the comp.
Players getting stuck into each other is either because it's a niggly game or the ref's man management is poor, not because he is making poor decisions.
In saying that, there's certainly better refs in the comp.
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
PaarlBok said:
So it's fair to assume the SA based commentators, who were praising almost all his calls, clearly no very little about the game then too? I actually thought Brown had a good game, was clear and the players seemed to have very little issues with his calls. Of course, he had a couple of mistakes, but who doesn't? Maybe I am to Brown, what chief is to Goddard?
I only saw the last 10 mins of the Stormers/Tahs match so can't comment on that.
Ash - yes agreed on your man management point fully, the more niggle the ref doesn't nip in the bud, the more worked up players are going to be.
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
PaarlBok said:
there's no way I'm going to watch a Tah's match unless I absolutely have to!!
I thought the idea of referee's this year was to crack down on everything? Hence, suffering in the short term but making the spectacle better in the long run? If the Tah's / Stormers choose in infringe then the referee has no choice but to blow the whistle? You need to get away from this spectacle bullshit and concentrate on the rules, which is what the fans, players, admins and coaches have asked for.
And Paarl, to suggest a S14 level referee who went through the NZ refereeing system is worse than SA Varsity referee's is absolutely ridiculous & you backed up this statement referencing the match we both saw, which co-incidentally is the one where the SA commentators couldn't praise him enough.
C
chief
Guest
It pains me to say it, but I think the SA referee system is the best in the world. Well the referees are at least, I pay attention to games like South African Currie Cup matches and Varsity matches, and I do actually on occasion pay attention to the referees. SA have a lot of decent referees, I watched a few U21 Currie Cup matches, and I saw referees like Jason Jaffa (could a SA member correct me on the name) and let's just say, I think he'd be one of the top referees in the world. Yes, it the world, yet I'm unsure about what he is doing right now, maybe he's reitred. (someone enlighten me)
I've made a point to avoid talking about Bryce Lawrence as I regularly get slammed for my repetitive comments about how he shouldn't be there blah blah blah ...... you've all heard it. An obvious flaw in the system is why Keith Brown is on the main referees panel while Walsh is on the "B" panel. Weird hey. Even though Walsh was a very strong performer in the NSW First Grade (watched them on ABC every so often, and has reffed a WC Semi!) Yet Keith Brown was beaten to a Semi Final during the Air NZ Cup by Jonathan White, and to the final by Vinny Munro who is on the "B" S14 Panel.
I think Brown's performance though was okay. Just okay. Not bad not good. It was no Joubert performance, or Dickinson or Walsh performance but it was worthy of S14 level. However why Vinny Munro is not on the "A" panel is weirding me out, as I think he has a lot to offer.
I've made a point to avoid talking about Bryce Lawrence as I regularly get slammed for my repetitive comments about how he shouldn't be there blah blah blah ...... you've all heard it. An obvious flaw in the system is why Keith Brown is on the main referees panel while Walsh is on the "B" panel. Weird hey. Even though Walsh was a very strong performer in the NSW First Grade (watched them on ABC every so often, and has reffed a WC Semi!) Yet Keith Brown was beaten to a Semi Final during the Air NZ Cup by Jonathan White, and to the final by Vinny Munro who is on the "B" S14 Panel.
I think Brown's performance though was okay. Just okay. Not bad not good. It was no Joubert performance, or Dickinson or Walsh performance but it was worthy of S14 level. However why Vinny Munro is not on the "A" panel is weirding me out, as I think he has a lot to offer.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Re: Waratahs 2010
The tackler must release the tackled player immediately - a "tackler" is someone who has gone to ground* in the act of tackling the ball carrier.
The tackled player must release the ball immediately - "tackled player" being a ball carrier who has gone to ground.
Anyone else entering through the gate has rights provided they stay on their feet.
* Going to ground is touching the grass with your knee or higher, or placing your weight on another player on the ground.
Its as simple as that.
I've seen a couple of occasions where someone has assisted in a tackle but not left their feet. They are "in" the gate, and attack the ball. There is no obligation on these players who don't go to ground to release the tackled player - it doesn't say it anywhere in the rules, because they're not the tackler. That bit has NEVER changed, its just that the refs are now shitscared of their rankings for the World Cup 2011 that they'll blow them up too.
Its the players who go to ground and regain their feet, having never released the ball carrier, that we want to target. Guys like McCaw who keep their arm on the ball.
The tackler must release the tackled player immediately - a "tackler" is someone who has gone to ground* in the act of tackling the ball carrier.
The tackled player must release the ball immediately - "tackled player" being a ball carrier who has gone to ground.
Anyone else entering through the gate has rights provided they stay on their feet.
* Going to ground is touching the grass with your knee or higher, or placing your weight on another player on the ground.
Its as simple as that.
I've seen a couple of occasions where someone has assisted in a tackle but not left their feet. They are "in" the gate, and attack the ball. There is no obligation on these players who don't go to ground to release the tackled player - it doesn't say it anywhere in the rules, because they're not the tackler. That bit has NEVER changed, its just that the refs are now shitscared of their rankings for the World Cup 2011 that they'll blow them up too.
Its the players who go to ground and regain their feet, having never released the ball carrier, that we want to target. Guys like McCaw who keep their arm on the ball.
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
Re: Waratahs 2010
When I was watching the Bulls/Brumbies and Stormers/Tahs games, I was thinking that it had swung a little in that direction.
I forget which game it was (it was late!) but there were occasions of the tackled player bridging ove the ball or holding onto the ball with the tackler or another player from the tackling side on his feet and no support players in daylight and no call from the ref. Its one thing to stop all the shenanigans that we had last year but something else all together to protect players who had gotten themselves substantially isolated.
The new rules should give support players a chance to get there, not mean that they are unnecessary.
naza said:
When I was watching the Bulls/Brumbies and Stormers/Tahs games, I was thinking that it had swung a little in that direction.
I forget which game it was (it was late!) but there were occasions of the tackled player bridging ove the ball or holding onto the ball with the tackler or another player from the tackling side on his feet and no support players in daylight and no call from the ref. Its one thing to stop all the shenanigans that we had last year but something else all together to protect players who had gotten themselves substantially isolated.
The new rules should give support players a chance to get there, not mean that they are unnecessary.
Langthorne
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Re: Waratahs 2010
Touching and holding are not the same.
If the defending player is on his feet and holding the tackled player and then releases him, how long is it until he can contest the ball?
If he is touching but not holding, how long until he can contest the ball?
In my opinion, if the defender has to try to strip the ball from the attacker on the ground, then the attacker has taken too long to release the ball. It should be a penalty to the defending team.
Pretty soon someone will suggest that we allow the attacker to get back to his feet to play the ball by rolling it back through his legs.
Ash said:
Touching and holding are not the same.
If the defending player is on his feet and holding the tackled player and then releases him, how long is it until he can contest the ball?
If he is touching but not holding, how long until he can contest the ball?
In my opinion, if the defender has to try to strip the ball from the attacker on the ground, then the attacker has taken too long to release the ball. It should be a penalty to the defending team.
Pretty soon someone will suggest that we allow the attacker to get back to his feet to play the ball by rolling it back through his legs.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Re: Waratahs 2010
My 2007 copy doesn't have that statement Gagger. I stand (sit) corrected.
Therefore the refs are generally right, though I think that is the most fucked wording of the law and directly contravenes the overarching "players must be on their feet" principle. If you are dickhead enough to isolate yourself, sucked in. If you're good enough to stay on your feet, you're punished.
My 2007 copy doesn't have that statement Gagger. I stand (sit) corrected.
Therefore the refs are generally right, though I think that is the most fucked wording of the law and directly contravenes the overarching "players must be on their feet" principle. If you are dickhead enough to isolate yourself, sucked in. If you're good enough to stay on your feet, you're punished.
- Status