Breaking down the breakdown

[Lee Grant]

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

Tell me it ain't true.

To be fair to some younger posters: they have seen professional rugby for nearly 15 years and think that what players have done in that time is actually according to the law how it is written - more or less. Any deviation from what they see on their TVs is an interpretation which they give opinions on, little knowing that it is an attempt by the ref bosses to return to the law itself.

As I said - it's the world turned upside down.

About 5 years ago I was bagging a relative, who is a rugby league tragic about their rules - the scrum rules came up and discussion on the scrum feed transpired. He said the rules/laws were similar in how they were observed - league and rugby scrummies were supposed to put the ball in straight but didn't and ......

I had no answer to him about the scrum feed because he honestly thought that union scrummies could put the ball into the scrum like his league guys could. He wasn't being a smart-arse, just being matter of fact.

Perhaps after making sure that releasing the tackled player happens we can work on other things in the law one at at time.

Get 4 or 5 of those right and we won't be complaining about aerial ping pong pervading our game. Who knows, perhaps the same referees who are able to ensure that a 15M throw to a lineout is straight, can actually get a 1M throw to the scrum down the middle.

No, I'm serious - it can be done; I've seen it.

 

[PaarlBok]

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.

Baywatch Grobler plays now a few seasons Super Rugby. The real fact is that Jake White never wants a specialist fetcher in his teams. He qouted to rather have his son fetch him some beer then playing one. Think thats where you get confused.

 

[Jethro Tah]

But LG, I think it is implementing an interpretation of the law. Extreme example - US Constitution "right to keep and bare arms", now all humans (vast majority anyway) have got arms but some rednecks like to interpret "arms" as guns.

As per Chief, how the IRB interprets the rules in any given year has more sway than any literal translation of the written law. Also influential are those players (McCaw please step forward) and coaches (the names Henry & de Villiers immediately spring to mind) who bend the ear of the ref to sway his interpretation.

To be fair to some younger posters: they have seen professional rugby for nearly 15 years and think that what players have done in that time is actually according to the law how it is written - more or less. Any deviation from what they see on their TVs is an interpretation which they give opinions on, little knowing that it is an attempt by the ref bosses to return to the law itself.

Me thinks that the majority of refs currently running around fall into the younger posters of the past 15 years category.

Some may say that all the mucking about with the rules will turn fans away from the game. But for me, it is what makes it all so interesting. As long as they don't change the rules to be "tackler/s must release the ball and player to allow him to gain his feet to play it back to another attacker", now that would be a big step down to mungo world.

 

[Biffo]

US Constitution "right to keep and bare arms", now all humans (vast majority anyway) have got arms but some rednecks like to interpret "arms" as guns.

Anti-pedants, shut up for a minute

I would never, ever deny half of the population (the female half) the right to bare arms. It should be compulsory. Moreover, that half of the population should be bound by the constitutions of all countries to "bare" a bloody lot more than arms.

 

[Lee Grant]

FFS let's not talk about bloody gun laws.

But LG, I think it is implementing an interpretation of the law.

It's not an interpretation, it is the law itself. The law says:

15.4 (a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player. Penalty: Penalty Kick Clear as crystal - "must release" - not "player may hold onto tackled player to lever himself up with rotary momentum that would otherwise have him rolling metres away."


No interpretation is needed - just observance. No if that, or but this, or maybes, or gun laws or parking tickets.

Nothing more to say. To me it is clear. Good night and good luck.

 

[Lindommer]

I would never, ever deny half of the population (the female half) the right to bare arms. It should be compulsory.

Well, Michelle Obama has taken her "right to bare arms" quite literally. And often. : : :

 

[Blue]

Whilst the semantics could result in a heated debate, as it seems to be, we can at least agree that the application of the law, as it is supposed to be enforced, will still be open to the ref's interpretation in that split second of bodies flying.

Only difference is now we all know he will use a big stick. I don't think anyone can deny the need for this.

I am just not convinced that we not are swapping one confusing fuckup for another and am concerned that we are placing too much hope in this interpretation, whoops, renewed vigour to apply the law, as a holy grail that will bring us tries and bums in seats.

By all means bring on penalties and cards. Provided something good comes out of it and right now I reserve the right to be a sceptic. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[chief]

Yes, first challenge goes to Steve Walsh tonight, from his style of refereeing it should be very interesting to see how he adapts to it.

Obviously this now means that the Assistant Referees will actually have to do their job. In helping managing offside lines, and foul play and even the ruck on occassions because the referee should sure as hell be busy come ruck time.

 

[Lee Grant]

Whilst the semantics could result in a heated debate, as it seems to be

I don't think anybody who has read the law that I quoted would be concerned about semantics any more: it's like "the dog jumped over the fence." Let's get that out of the way and agree that there is no interpretation of the words needed.

The two points that are are unclear are:

a. Will the referees notice that the tackler has not released the tackled player in the Holah rotation tackle and other tackle situations. They have refereed for so long allowing such things, they seem not to notice what I see on the TV (which is most often better than watching at the ground for spotting tackle/ruck infringements) in every match. They may need experience of actually looking for it - as strange as that sounds.

b. If they do notice it, will they follow instructions by SANZAR to implement the plain and simple law?

I am just not convinced that we not are swapping one confusing fuckup for another and am concerned that we are placing too much hope in this interpretation, whoops, renewed vigour to apply the law, as a holy grail that will bring us tries and bums in seats.

By all means bring on penalties and cards. Provided something good comes out of it and right now I reserve the right to be a sceptic. I hope I'm wrong.

No I am not convinced that the way referees handle this will improve things either. Don't forget that these are the same fellows who wag their heads in disapproval and cluck their tongues when the hooker does a 15M throw to the lineout to the chest instead of the inside shoulder yet allows a 1M throw to the scrum 20 degrees skew. Who knows what they will do?

I don't think that one thing is the holy grail to make rugby a better game nor that anybody said it was. I think everybody is a sceptic as you and I are.

We've seen it all before - just one of those crackdowns similar to what the IRB have ordered in the past and mostly failed without a whimper and little comment. At least this one is from the SANZAR ref bosses and they are more hands on, or at least: I trust they are.

As for : renewed vigour to apply the law - there hasn't been any vigour to renew.

I don't blame players for not observing the written law when the referees let them do it 90% of the time. I blame the refs for not observing the written law. If the refs don't follow instructions they should be made accountable and sanctioned in some way.

If the refs are brought to account the players will follow.

That's why I think this intervention by SANZAR is worth a try.

 

[Biffo]

The Laws are perfectly clear. No interpretation. No "crackdowns". Apply them.

That is all.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

The problem with regard to the tackle has come about simply by the genetical development of play as one particular law is not policed sufficiently.
The law say release the player BUT - how many times do we see a legit tckle, the tackler releases and instantaneously the ball carrier jumps to his (or her) feet still in posession of the ball and a further gain in ground is achieved throug this ploy.
Therefore hence the tacklers soon realize that they must hang on to the slippery sucker until a tackle is legitimised by tthe formation of the ruck/maul.

If and when the referees police the first infringement the ensuing infringements should disappear. This is drummed into us at referee assessments and meetings - there is a reason why secondary offences occur and that is usually because the referee is so slow to the tackle that he misses the first infringement and invariably rules on one of the subsequent ones.
Get it right first up and we will all be happy.

Unfortinately for the poor referees they will have to get a bit fitter and in some cases actually learn to comprehend what is actually happeneing at a tackle/breakdown.

 

[Lee Grant]

If and when the referees police the first infringement the ensuing infringements should disappear.

They should, we can't be sure, but one thing is certain, we have to ensure that the first transaction takes place (releasing the tackled player).

When that happens a lot of the time - it will never be perfect - we can examine the next step - is the tackled player releasing? Right now the tackled player is getting pinged more for holding on than the tackler for not releasing him. Both laws are in the book but one is invoked more.

That's a good point about the tackled player getting to his feet. He is specifically allowed to get up with the ball (he isn't held if the tackler releases) when he is on the ground. But I would rather see the tackler disadvantaged for a while just to see what happens - referees have given him the rub of the green for a while now. Let's see how the tackler goes with the boot on the other foot.

And let's hear the defence oriented coaches howl like mad dogs.

Yeah I pity the amateur refs of our game not being fit and as you say: some actually learning to comprehend what is going on. Our game would be lost without their giving up their time.

It's the fit professional refs who change the game by implementing some laws and not others - and thus changing the game we knew - that get up my nose. The sad thing is that I'm sure that they all think they are doing a good job.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Agree Lee - just try and raise some dissenting comment regarding refs at a refs meeting.
i tried once, was told to shut up and thereafter stopped participating.

 

[Biffo]

Agree Lee - just try and raise some dissenting comment regarding refs at a refs meeting.
i tried once, was told to shut up and thereafter stopped participating.

If that comment was to the Laws and refereeing as Tom Carter is to playing rugby, why would anyone be surprised?

 

[Lee Grant]

I'm not going there unless Bruce is out of town.

 

[Lee Grant]

First game under the new law regime.

The Kiwi commentators couldn't help saying "new interpretation" but at least somebody mentioned it wasn't really, it was a new application of the law as it was. "Application" is the better word.

Dickinson did pretty well with it too (a B mark), but not relevant to the crackdown he missed a few knock ons and awarded a free kick to Weepu when he dropped the pill. But that is neither here nor there. Maybe he should have awarded a yellow card earlier than when Toeava got one, but it was a good first step.

What I didn't realise is that the refs are cracking down on the defensive and attacking pillars loitering in front of last feet. That activity formed an important part of Kees Meuws' CV; so he must be shaking his head.

It was good also to see the offside law after kicks enforced. Let's hope this prevails. Sometimes last year I thought I was watching rugby league.

That's just one game - let's not get too excited that rugby may break out in the Super14. Let's see it in the 2nd month. If the law as it is written is still being observed by the referees, I'll warrant that there won't be so many penalties in the tackle/ruck area.

Why? The players will be following the lead of the referees because their coaches will instruct them to do so.

The best predictions are true when you make them.