• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Reds vs Crusaders Super Rugby Rd11 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

emuarse

Desmond Connor (43)
Vinnie Munro was worse than Bryce. I thought he missed some really obvious stuff. The Saders lineout in the secon half where they threw to two and was nowhere near straight. It was right in front of his blody eyes. The scrum before half time was his mistake also. Bryce was on the other side and needed his assistant watching the blind. Vinnie completely missed another obvious infringment. Refs have a tough job and they will make mistakes given all they have to observe. Assistants have nowhere that workload but they constantly stuff it up. It is time they are held to account. These decisions had no bearing on the final score but that is not the point. They are proffesionals doing their bloody jobs like amatures.

Put simply, Vinnie Munroe should be retired. I have seen him in other games when he has been assistant referee never make a call to the ref for the most obvious of infringements in front of him that the ref was unable to see.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I didn't think that a prop putting their hand on the ground was necessarily an offence all the time now? Seem to remember something changed?

I don't have an issue with the hand on the ground if it is used to stabilise, but in this case franks appeared to use it to get an advantage. Hand on ground, stabilise, then push off and drive up through the reds front row.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
I didn't think that a prop putting their hand on the ground was necessarily an offence all the time now? Seem to remember something changed?

I don't have an issue with the hand on the ground if it is used to stabilise, but in this case franks appeared to use it to get an advantage. Hand on ground, stabilise, then push off and drive up through the reds front row.

I thought it was always banned.

It's illegal scrummaging, and exactly that technique is why.

Sheridan invented it, you go down with the hit (illegal), stop yourself with your hand (illegal), then when your opponent is off balance you push up and across (illegal) and get a roaring cheer from the british commentators and crowd.

There's no reason for putting your hand down if the engagement is straight and fair. I wouldn't mind betting a few props have figured out which refs can't understand.
 
C

Cave Dweller

Guest
I can comment to some of the queries but some replays of the incident is need. Will not comment on handling errors and some scrum penalties as I cannot remember the incident or did not see it.

2. 5:20 – scrum penalty against reds. Black 3’s head popped up and penalty went against the reds.
Yes. Nothing wrong standing up as it is a safety mechanism for a prop under pressure. So there will not be a rule nor any time will there be a rule as they will penalize a prop who try to avoid serious injury. Also another match between the Brumbies and the Cheetahs the last scrum after it wheeled a the Brumbies prop head popped upped. That is why the Cheetahs were penalized for but the referee made the mistake of letting a scrum that wheeled to go on. A referee will penalize the cause not the result. Lets look at what the cause is. First off all the ball-feeding team wants a stable scrum, the defenders want to create an unstable scrum and spoil. Before hand teams could get away with scrumming tactics that is illegal to milk penalties but referees has been coached thoroughly by ex front rowers and been told what the causes are of certain symptoms and what to look out for. The loosehead will walk around the tighthead, the tighthead will have to break his bind and bring his arm to his chest to protect his ribs. That also cause for him to stand up. They penalise the cause (loosehead) not the symptom (tighthead).

4. 6:32 – Red 5 penalised for not rolling away. Once he had made the tackle, the ball was out no more than a second later so he obviously moved quick enough. Was one of the crusaders fastest breakdowns in the match. – 3 points to black as a result
Does not matter how quick the ball came out. A infringement is still a infringement and in rugby a second is a lot. Anyways he was acting according to the law.

15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(e) Danger may arise if a tackled player fails to release the ball or move away from it
immediately, or if that player is prevented from so doing. If either of these happens the
referee awards a penalty kick immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

5. 12:37 – penalty against red 11 for holding on. He couldn’t have place it any quicker.
Refer to above

9. Scrum penalty against reds. Black 3’s head popped up first. Red 1 was penalised for bad angle. Ball was already out before red 1 bored in. Scrum was over – 3 point resulted
They penalise the cause (loosehead) not the symptom (tighthead).

10. 23:08 –penalty against red 4 for obstruction. He had no influence on the tackle, and the tackle was made.
Law 15.6 (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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Law 15.7 (d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Obstructing the arriving players

12. 31:06 – black 15 knocked on but should have been a penalty to reds (instead of a scrum) for accidental offside by black 10 for picking up the ball.
You can can have different reasons/situations here.

11.6 (b) When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is
offside. Unless the receiver is considered to be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty
kick is awarded), the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the
opposing team throwing in the ball.

11.7 When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

11.1 (a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal

8.5 (a)When there is more than one infringement by the same team:
• If advantage cannot be applied to the second offence the referee applies the appropriate
sanction to the first offence.

Obviously the referee felt that he was not obstructing or was offside on purpose. In which case accidental. Scrum. But in general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball. Debated disputed but looks more like a penalty than accidental.

14. 32:22 : black 9 infront of the ball at scrum. No penalty given to the reds. Ball was still in scrum and Ellis was behind red 8.
Can't remember that incident but if it is like describe then failure on referees part

Law 20.12 (c) When a team has won the ball in a scrum, the scrumhalf of the opposing team is offside if that scrumhalf steps in front of the ball with either foot while the ball is still in the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick

16. 35:09 – black 8 at the back of ruck making no attempt to roll away. No penalty awarded to reds.
At the back of the ruck. Was he interfering with play?

17. 39:53 – black one with hand on ground during scrum. No penalty given to reds. Actually penalty gone the other way.
For what did he nail them? Cause not symptom

19. 45:05 – red 5 penalised for offside. His feet were behind the try line. Direct result 3 points to black.
effort.jpg

See that guy sitting on side of the ruck on his knees? He is offside. Not bound to the ruck nor make any intention to join the ruck or move away. The Reds guy closest to you standing by the ruck is also offside. He is standing in that offside position because if that ball came out there now they are in trouble so 3 points rather than 7 is the reason why he is there

Offside.jpg

Still offside

Offside2.jpg

Here he sticks he's hand out you can see he is still offside

Offside4.jpg

Still offside. All those Reds players behind him also offside.

So he was correct. No one has made a effort to get onside. Clear as daylight there

20. 47:15 – forward pass by red. No scrum awarded to crusaders.
Show me a pass in rugby that is not actually forward. 90 percent of them are forward if not more. Watch the following video below


21. 47:31 – reds penalised for being offside. They were all behind the last feet. (refer to tv at 47:27 to see all players onside.
At which stage? I can remember Ellis hauled down a metre or so from the line.

22. 49:10 – black awarded a penalty. No reason given by Bryce Lawrencethat I heard but I could not see one infringement from any reds player.
I believe it is the same incident as above


23. 50:37 – scrum penalty awarded to the crusaders. Black 2 popped his head up before red. Also in the replay showing other side of the scrum, black 1 with hand on ground. Penalty went wrong way.
Again they penalise the cause (loosehead) not the symptom (tighthead).

25. 52:19 – black 19 changing running angle to interfere red 7 from defending. Not penalised. IS an intentional professional foul and can be awarded a yellow card also.
Was he infront of the ball carrier? If not no obstruction. Play on SANZAR's orders.


26. 52:56 – Scrum awarded to black for red 2 not throwing in strait at lineout. It was strait. Refer to lineout at 65:32 and 68:39 being judged strait. Was more crooked by black 2 but judged to be strait.
Think the referee and linesman standing inline has a better view than a tv angle. Do not know until we see a replay.

27. 57:20 – penalty awarded to reds for black not releaseing, but red 12 was not supporting his own body weight as he pilfered. Penalty should have gone the other way.
(e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must
release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on
their feet if
Sanction: Penalty kick

no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Who/What was supporting his body weight?

28. 58:39 – penalty against reds. Red 12 was in fact the tackler and was within his rights.
What rights?

15.4 (a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must
immediately release the tackled player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the
ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any
direction.
Sanction: Penalty kick

30. 55:25 – lineout awarded to black for reds taking it into touch. He did not go out as my slow motion replay showed me.
So you had to use the slow motion replay to see if it was correct or wrong. Referees do not have that

31. 55:59 – black forward pass missed right in front of referee.
Refer to 20

32. 61:64: blatant knock on in front of referee by black 19 now given. His explaination is that the ball comes off the knee. Would be inconsequential if it came of his knee if he dropped the ball. Not sure why he used that as an excuse as it holds no bearing to the fact he dropped it.
When he dropped it did it go straight down or straight to knee or straight forward then hit a knee? a drop does not equal a automatic knock on. They don't encourage referees to blow misfields and fumbles, which are not knocks ons in terms of law.

33. 62:22 – reds dominant at scrum. Front row for black crumbling and not taking the weight. No penalty awarded to reds.
Dominant scrum does not mean you got to have a penalty. If there was not a offense then no penalty could be given. Referees will reward the dominant scrum as long as the dominance has been achieved legally.

64:43 – black 19 not supporting his weight when he pilfers the ball. No penalty awarded to the reds.
Refer to 28

34. Free kick awarded to black for too slow at lineout time. From the point of a lineout being formed, there were two occasions where black took longer to throw in and no free kick was awarded to reds. Refer to lineout at 5:50 and 55:56
Cannot remember the incident but the reds had some problems at the lineouts. Did someone stepped in the line out right before the ball was thrown in maybe?

35. 69:09 – Black 19 not releasing when tackled. Red 7 trying to pilfer. No penalty given to reds.
Higginbotham was lying on the wrong side at ruck

36. Textbook pilfer executed by red 7. Red 7 supporting own weight, was the tackler so was allowed to be standing where he was. Ruck was not formed prior to Gill getting his hands on the ball, player not releasing. Penalty awarder to black. Should have been awarded to red. 3 points resulting from the decision and the match and 4 competition points.
Gill having his hands in the ruck.

Gill1.jpg
Gill2.jpg

First one is Gill making the tackle. 2nd one he is on his feet trying to play the ball. Correct no ruck. SO

Law 16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

Law 16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Sanction: Free Kick
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet.

Law 15.6 (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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

But Gill was the tackler so lets look at that law

Law 15.4 THE TACKLER
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Law 15 Tackle: Ball-carrier Brought to Ground
DEFINITIONS
Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.

Law 15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

So correct decision again. Gill although on his feet did not give the ball carrier the chance to place the ball. You must do so. He did not. If he waited a split second later to get the ball he would have gotten the penalty for not releasing. But not at one stage did he release the tackler and gave him time to place it. So that is also the correct call. Both instances cost the Reds 3 points
 
W

What2040

Guest
Reds played well enough to win it but
1. Ref was poor, particularly not penalising Franks for putting hand on grtound several times
2. Saaia's non throw crucial
3. Harris's kicking quite poor
4. McCaw brilliant - saw him engage Gilly once just to put the kid back a second or two
5. Davies decision making very poor.
6. Morahan played his best game
7. Slipper scrummed very well, Holmes penalised heaps for boring in
8. Lucas lucky to still have an ear
9. Gilly definitely a future Wallaby
10. Horwill, a captains knock

Reds seem to be of an upward curve - hope its not too late
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Excellent post CD...

There were also numerous rucks where the Reds went off their feet and didn't get penalised... so they can't complain that Bryce was unfair towards them...
 

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
So my Australian friends, how does it feel to be taken roughly from behind by a little Kiwi man with a whistle?

Welcome to the very exclusive "Reamed by Bryce" club. The beer's warm, aircon doesn't work and the place smells bad.

Let's be honest, it's not that exclusive......the only southern hemisphere nation not a member is Argentina, and i'm sure their application for membership will be reviewed favourably by the end of the 4N.
 
L

Linebacker_41

Guest
Let's be honest, it's not that exclusive......the only southern hemisphere nation not a member is Argentina, and i'm sure their application for membership will be reviewed favourably by the end of the 4N.

Surely BL's days of officiating at Test level are over. If not it is a sad indication at the lack of development conducted by many of Unions governing bodies around the world for not producing better officials (I include assistant referees too as they should be doing more of the work - particularly on the opposite side of the scrum as, from memory, Franks mainly put his hand down when BL was on the other side).
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Herll Cave Dweller, you got a lot of patience to read through all those points, I started realised it was written by someone who obviously has a lot of time to find reasons for team losing without realising they just lost. As soon as I realised they were all t5hings Crusaders did wrong, and Reds obviously hadn't put a foot wrong all night I put it down as rubbish, you can actually do things like that at almost any game with any team. Probably with more accuracy too;)
 
C

Cave Dweller

Guest
Herll Cave Dweller, you got a lot of patience to read through all those points, I started realised it was written by someone who obviously has a lot of time to find reasons for team losing without realising they just lost. As soon as I realised they were all t5hings Crusaders did wrong, and Reds obviously hadn't put a foot wrong all night I put it down as rubbish, you can actually do things like that at almost any game with any team. Probably with more accuracy too;)
Not a problem. Took me about 10 minutes to answer some of it. There was questions what the Crusaders were penalized for that they thought was wrong in there as well. The problem these days are commentators that make comments on matters concerning the laws where they themselves are not certain about it. That does not help at all spreading wrong information to a public already finding the laws difficult.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Staff member
I wrote earlier in the thread that the Reds could win this game because the Saders were no great shakes in Sydney the week before - by their standards. I didn't think they were much chop against the Reds either and their skipper agreed after the match. They couldn't apply pressure: not only because the Reds wouldn't allow it, but also because many of their turnovers (close to double that of the Reds) were unforced.

Everybody is talking about the referee and for once I think they are right: he had a nutty and whimsical game - and I would have written that even if the Reds had won.

The Crusaders got the rub of the green in this match but they tend to even out over a season and one always hopes that they get rubbed the right way when it matters, and the wrong way when it doesn't. The hopes of the Crusaders were met.

Lawrence is not improving his performances. The deterioration came to notice internationally on the Lions tour of South Africa. I won't argue the merits of the contention that the Lions were dudded in the scrums in the test match he refereed, but he apologised to Vickery at the airport afterwards - this, according to Vickery.

Then when he had a chance as Assistant Referee in another Lions test to recommend to referee Burdos that Burger should be red carded for eye gouging, he bottled it and said "At least a yellow card." His explanation afterwards was disingenuous.

Then in the 2011 RWC Quarter Final he must have seen the same Mr. Burger, still using his fingers near the eye area of opponents, this time Pocock three times in a few seconds; yet he didn't even penalise him.

[South Africans bleated about the illegalities of Pocock with his hands in the ruck in that match. They didn't mention the Burger incident. I looked at the game forensically back in the day. They were right on a few occasions but in not as many as they thought.

Like a lot of fetchers Pocock gets his hands on the ball in a tackle then a ruck forms a split second later. The bleaters say he should take his hands off then, but he doesn't have to, as explained in the 2009 Clarification. If he beats the ruck he can keep his hands in.]

But I digress from the point that Lawrence is not improving. I will talk about the unpinged transgressions of Mr. McCaw, and the egregious Gill decision, in the non-set pieces thread later on, as this is too long already.
.
 
C

Cave Dweller

Guest
Fetcher also love to do a thing call "The Jackal". That is where those questions of not supporting body weight comes in but its basically another term for playing the ball while you are not on your feet. Fetchers use to use the technique to go in as low as possible so the attacking team cannot clear them out.
 
T

tranquility

Guest
Ha ha, yes we are quite fond of the jackal in Australian rugby circles. There is actually a fairly decent merchant of the dark-art coming up through the ranks at the moment, some would even say there is two.
 
C

Cave Dweller

Guest
Ha ha, yes we are quite fond of the jackal in Australian rugby circles. There is actually a fairly decent merchant of the dark-art coming up through the ranks at the moment, some would even say there is two.
The other terms would be pillars and the reload.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
Did anyone else notice the obstruction of defenders that was going on? I've only been able to watch the highlights, but it's a deliberate tactic, and one used by the All Blacks in the world cup as well.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Did anyone else notice the obstruction of defenders that was going on? I've only been able to watch the highlights, but it's a deliberate tactic, and one used by the All Blacks in the world cup as well.

The Reds do this too though... It's not unique to NZ teams...
 
A

andyq

Guest
Yeah, plenty of teams take up space on the other side of the ruck when they are attacking the fringes as well.

While pulling everything up is unlikely, you just want to see some of the more blatant blocking pinged in a consistant manner.

I mean, one shepard unnoticed is not usually going to decide the outcome of a match, but teams continually infringing might
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top