Breaking down the breakdown

[MajorlyRagerly]

If Brussow is history then so is McCaw, Smith, Pocock et al. Nonsense. These guys are first and foremost great footballers and they will adapt and keep doing crazy things.

yes, that is exactly it. Regardless of the rules, these blokes would be considered fantastic players. Rule changes don't make average players great and great players average.

 

[Joey Johns]

I think a better tactic with these new interpretations is to instead of the tackler trying to immediately pilfer, he should instead regain his feet and try to move past the ball (and the tackled player), thus getting in the way of the ball carrier and his support. Such a tactic would give the 3rd man in another half second to a second to steal the ball, whilst also making way for the defensive teams support to easily come in behind last mans feet and win the contest.

Thoughts?

 

[PaarlBok]

A point of interest, apparently the sharks are telling the tackler to release and clap to prove he has released before going for the ball.

Was it the Stormers or Sharks?

I seem to recall reading that the were getting blown off the park in one of the trials and came up with the idea at half time and apparently the pnalty count dropped.

I am just worried that there are so many fine lines and well know what that means. Different interpretations.

Think it was the Stormers. The bolded bit will happen , no doubt about it and the important one like Brussouwtjie qouted, play the ref.

Myself think this new rule change will fit very well into Schalk Burgers pocket. He do a lot of tackling and with a player like Brussouw in his shadow they should do a lot of damage. Think this ruling will fit the Stormers quite well. Already have my box tickets for round 2 and cant wait to see Waugh vs the Stormers trio.

 

[en_force_er]

With this new ruling I would almost consider switching my pilferer to no8 on defensive scrums. Get my no8 to make 1st contract off the flank then the pilferer (Pocock/Mcaw style no.7) to get in there and steal the ball, or at least apply pressure.

Any thoughts? Obviously this ruling probably wont end up being as bigger deal as it sounds.

 

[Jethro Tah]

There is going to be a need for a more co-ordinated approach to defending with tacklers hunting in packs of 2s and 3s, i.e. 1 or 2 tacklers and the third to pilfer. Defenders/forwards will have to increase their speed, mobility and communication getting to the tackle and get more help from the more willing and able backs in multiphase play. Maybe even an increased effort to keep the ball carrier on his feet and rip the ball from him without having to release him. Brussow, Smith, the Cheat, et al will still be standouts but will need more help from team mates to secure turnovers.

It's going to get worse before it gets better with regards to interpretations and consistency of ruling the tackle by both players and refs. In the long term, the game will be the better for it.

 

[Lee Grant]

Until I see proof that the Super14 referees will make sure the tackler releases the tackled player as the 1st transaction after both players go to ground, I'm not getting involved in nice theories. I don't trust a bunch of guys that stuffed up the Free Kick sanctions ELV by not using yellow cards for persistent team infringements.

Ensuring the release of tackled players by tacklers clapping their hands, picking the noses, or saluting the flag sounds easy but so did ensuring that balls were fed into the scum straight when directives came out for that to happen.

Let's see what happens, but don't go jumping up and down with joy if it works in Rd. 1 or Rd 2. Let's see if it lasts a month. The well publicised crackdown on players not staying on feet nearly 10 years ago lasted 3 weeks.

Brussow? Anybody who thinks he isn't a fine footy player who could deal with any interpretation regime has another thing coming. He's here to stay.

 

[en_force_er]

Brussow? Anybody who thinks he isn't a fine footy player who could deal with any interpretation regime has another thing coming. He's here to stay.

I think he is an awesome player, but I don't think he is as good as his press.

He is a genuinely good 7 and had a huge effect on the Saffa's success but this is more due to the fact they needed a genuine pilfering 7 then Brussow's skill in itself. He was a right man at the right time, there are at least 4 or 7 opensides in a similar mold of his skill or better roaming around world rugby.

Basically, Saffas needed a man like him to play expansively. God knows why it took them so long to work this out.

 

[PaarlBok]

The bit I saw over the last two weeks (cc warm ups & Varsity Cup on mondays) the refs penalise the defenders for not letting the attacker time to release. The best way the defensive sides can to is to counter shaft. He can place the ball but they simply counter over him in numbers. Meaning less fattys in the backline. Sound pretty good to me but I still think its a kak unnecessary new rule. You'll get now a lot of wise backs throwing a tanty , holding pon to claim 3 ppoint penalties and even more reaso to kick ball away iso running like we had with the short arms.

 

[Lee Grant]

I still think its a kak unnecessary new rule.

It's not a new rule - it's a law that has been on the books for some time. But it is one of those laws which referees, through habit, and copying what the best paid referees do, ignore.

It's like throwing the ball into the scrum straight: it is a law, but one that has no effect unless the great arbiters of our game: the referees, decide that it is worthy of their attention.

 

[Jethro Tah]

The bit I saw over the last two weeks (cc warm ups & Varsity Cup on mondays) the refs penalise the defenders for not letting the attacker time to release.

PB - did the refs use the yellow card again repeat offenders?

 

[Lee Grant]

The bit I saw over the last two weeks (cc warm ups & Varsity Cup on mondays) the refs penalise the defenders for not letting the attacker time to release.

PB - did the refs use the yellow card again repeat offenders?

An interesting concept. They should put that one in the laws. It'll work, I tells ya.

 

[PaarlBok]

The bit I saw over the last two weeks (cc warm ups & Varsity Cup on mondays) the refs penalise the defenders for not letting the attacker time to release.

PB - did the refs use the yellow card again repeat offenders?

Plenty, some teams had two per game.

 

[Blue]

Brussow? Anybody who thinks he isn't a fine footy player who could deal with any interpretation regime has another thing coming. He's here to stay.

I think he is an awesome player, but I don't think he is as good as his press.

He is a genuinely good 7 and had a huge effect on the Saffa's success but this is more due to the fact they needed a genuine pilfering 7 then Brussow's skill in itself. He was a right man at the right time, there are at least 4 or 7 opensides in a similar mold of his skill or better roaming around world rugby.

Basically, Saffas needed a man like him to play expansively. God knows why it took them so long to work this out.

Utter bullshit. Brussow does way more that steal a few balls. To suggest he is a success due to circumstance is as ill-informed a statement as I have ever seen on this board.

Name the 7.

Few players have made such an impact on the game as he has in the last year and please don't tell me laws make players.

The bolded bit shows just how little you paid attention last year. SA did not play expansively. Everything but.

 

[chief]

This isn't a law change, it is an interpretation. For referees this will be one of the hardest aspects to now 'enforce'. I think it could make the break down a kind of penalty fest, which is ultimately what they have tried to steer clear from (well obviously not, with the ELV's rejection.) To get the players to start obliging to these interpretations during the first few weeks of the Super 14 could very well ensure a penalty fest could be on the cards, with probably a few yellow cards shown to get the message early. However I think the message that they are sending is incorrect particularly with what Adam Freier had to say the other day with his article about the breakdown contest being the beauty of our game. Correct he is, the likes of David Pocock, George Smith, Richie McCaw and the other #7's coming in and making the tackle and stealing the ball could now become non existent, because I think a lot of referees will rule incorrectly on the defender releasing the tackled player. It can be a release for half a second, and a referee might be managing the offside line, and sees the steal, he pings the team to ensure his consistent approach and that player will be forced to lay off the ball from there on, because of the risk of the yellow card (It's usually 3 penalties against you and your binned??).

This brings me to my second thought, the referees allowing the attacking team more leniency is concerning. The interpretation on releasing the tackled player will now allow the attacking team to hold on for that extra amount of time. Which is a great concern because the contest could very well be down the drain much like the ELV's.

 

[PaarlBok]

This brings me to my second thought, the referees allowing the attacking team more leniency is concerning. The interpretation on releasing the tackled player will now allow the attacking team to hold on for that extra amount of time. Which is a great concern because the contest could very well be down the drain much like the ELV's.

Watch the swearing of the refs on this very board once the S14 starts. You heard it first right here...............

 

[Blue]

Chief you summed my fears perfectly.

I sincerely hope we are wrong.

 

[Lee Grant]

This isn't a law change, it is an interpretation. It's not an interpretation - and it doesn't matter who said it was an interpretation. For crying out loud - it will be - hopefully - the implementation of the law as it is written in the book. The divergence from that law by current referees and their fathers, was the abominable interpretation and it is one of the interpretations that have corrupted our game. They allowed generations, in rugby terms, of tacklers, to not release the tackled player as the law said they had to do.

Now some folks are piously stating that they are concerned about the consequences of the law being observed how the law makers intended. This is the world turned upside down.

Please get this point.


To get the players to start obliging to these interpretations during the first few weeks of the Super 14 could very well ensure a penalty fest could be on the cards, with probably a few yellow cards shown to get the message early. Hoo-fucking-ray (more tea Vicar?). Please believe this: it is the only way that the referees will be able to enforce the law as it is written in the book.

Professional players are not always the sharpest tools in the shed but they understand certain things with great clarity. One is that getting yellow cards will make their coaches unhappy and make selectors view them as trouble. This affects their future income and they are crystal clear about what that means. Perhaps yellow cards will make them observe the law as it was intended.

It can be a release for half a second, and a referee might be managing the offside line, and sees the steal, he pings the team to ensure his consistent approach and that player will be forced to lay off the ball from there on, because of the risk of the yellow card. Too bad, too bad. The risk of a yellow card? What a concept. The tacklers have gotten away with the illegality of hanging onto the ball, or the player, or both, for so long some folks are used to it - some actually think it's what the law intended and they make posts to rugby forums to express their concerns that the status quo may be changed. Let's have these players, so used to using illegalities that it is part of the their CVS, get a bit of a culture shock and maybe getting the wrong end of the deal for about 10 years. Then start feeling sorry for them.

This brings me to my second thought, the referees allowing the attacking team more leniency is concerning. The interpretation law on releasing the tackled player will now allow the attacking team to hold on for that extra amount of time. Maybe not - maybe because he doesn't have somebody clinging to him, he can actually present the ball as the law intended he should. An interesting concept - but if he's isolated and doesn't present - ping the bastard as the law says.

But let's see first that he gets an opportunity to get rid of the pill. After that he's on his own.

 

[Biffo]

Terrific stuff, Lee.

May I make a generalization that those who write and talk of "interpretations" of law have usually not read - certainly have not understood - them?

 

[chief]

I'll bold and underline with my Point of View

This isn't a law change, it is an interpretation. It's not an interpretation - and it doesn't matter who said it was an interpretation. For crying out loud - it will be - hopefully - the implementation of the law as it is written in the book. The divergence from that law by current referees and their fathers, was the abominable interpretation and it is one of the interpretations that have corrupted our game. They allowed generations, in rugby terms, of tacklers, to not release the tackled player as the law said they had to do. Correct you are, just has not been enforced in recent times/ they have not been told to have it enforced, interesting to see what the IRB will make of this

Now some folks are piously stating that they are concerned about the consequences of the law being observed how the law makers intended. This is the world turned upside down.

Please get this point.


To get the players to start obliging to these interpretations during the first few weeks of the Super 14 could very well ensure a penalty fest could be on the cards, with probably a few yellow cards shown to get the message early. Hoo-fucking-ray (more tea Vicar?). Please believe this: it is the only way that the referees will be able to enforce the law as it is written in the book.

Professional players are not always the sharpest tools in the shed but they understand certain things with great clarity. One is that getting yellow cards will make their coaches unhappy and make selectors view them as trouble. This affects their future income and they are crystal clear about what that means. Perhaps yellow cards will make them observe the law as it was intended. It also comes down to performance as well, being a loose forward, you are expected to play right on the law. As I said cards will come out, and wrongly as well like every other year. Some players will back off under the risk of a yellow card. Like what you saw at Twickenham last year when Australia were playing England, teams may back off therefore ensuring less contest for the ball.

It can be a release for half a second, and a referee might be managing the offside line, and sees the steal, he pings the team to ensure his consistent approach and that player will be forced to lay off the ball from there on, because of the risk of the yellow card. Too bad, too bad. The risk of a yellow card? What a concept.a true concept nonetheless The tacklers have gotten away with the illegality of hanging onto the ball, or the player, or both, for so long some folks are used to it - some actually think it's what the law intended and they make posts to rugby forums to express their concerns that the status quo may be changed. Let's have these players, so used to using illegalities that it is part of the their CVS, get a bit of a culture shock and maybe getting the wrong end of the deal for about 10 years. Then start feeling sorry for them.

This brings me to my second thought, the referees allowing the attacking team more leniency is concerning. The interpretation law on releasing the tackled player will now allow the attacking team to hold on for that extra amount of time. Maybe not - maybe because he doesn't have somebody clinging to him, he can actually present the ball as the law intended he should. An interesting concept - but if he's isolated and doesn't present - ping the bastard as the law says.

But let's see first that he gets an opportunity to get rid of the pill. After that he's on his own. Law says so, but Lyndon Bray says maybe. Lyndon holds more power then the law book. As you said earlier about players being judged, the referees need a source of income, poor Steve Walsh doesn't want to go back to being a courier, he prefers refereeing. ( http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/local-sport/3313836/Steve-Walsh-blows-whistle-on-booze )

 

[en_force_er]

Utter bullshit. Brussow does way more that steal a few balls. To suggest he is a success due to circumstance is as ill-informed a statement as I have ever seen on this board.

Name the 7.

Few players have made such an impact on the game as he has in the last year and please don't tell me laws make players.

The bolded bit shows just how little you paid attention last year. SA did not play expansively. Everything but.

I never suggested all he did was steal balls, however I do consider him to be the first pilfering specialist opensider to come out of SA whilst I've been supporting the game. There are a few types of 7s around, there are Waugh-types, Mcaw-types and Burger-types. Brussow certainly falls into the Mcaw/Pilferer type in my eyes.

Like I said, he did have a huge impact on the game, because he was needed. There aren't enough of him in SA. I never said the rules would impact his game. I don't think I even mentioned the rules, which perhaps I should of seeing as it is the thread topic.

SA certainly played more expansively than in 2008. Maybe not in the spring tour but that isn't the business end of the international season.

Perhaps you quite like Brussow and I struck a nerve. I wasn't taking anything away from the great man.
Still, you made too many assumptions for my liking.