All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Scorz]

To point out what's wrong with the theory -

Say for a moment you've uncovered some sort of secret weapon: are you going to recommend rugby law demands that forwards push only a certain distance past the ball and then stop, or be penalised? "You've gone too far forward over the ball - Penalty!" That goes against the whole idea of rugby.

Perhaps the other team is at fault - are they not committing enough players to the ruck - shall there be a minimum introduced in order to ensure the other team can see this arbitrary line? Imagine the penalties from that! "Commitment issues - Penalty!"

And lastly - the amount of effort to devise this "tactic" would be disproportionate to the gain. An average Super non-game day is something like; gym, recovery, training, individual coaching, group coaching, team coaching, squad activities and downtime/recovery, sleep.
I doubt the Test environment is much different. Time is very limited.

It would only take one penalty to nullify all the preparation, and demand a complete strategic change among the forwards. "Get a message to the whole forward pack - our entire ruck strategy needs to change to Plan B!" Big risk, small return.

 

[Gagger]

I'm not insulting anyone personally, I'm playing the ball not the man.

I didn't say that was the problem - your sum contribution in your post was that one half of the argument on this thread was "whining shit". If you know a forum there that's going to lead to a constructive conversation then take it there.

 

[Scorz]

And I have subsequently gone back to that post and edited it. I also apologised.

 

[Kangaroo Sausage]

Clearly you did not read the initial post properly nor the rest of the follow up.

I am suggesting the All Blacks employ this tactic more frequently and with more purpose than other teams. Until proven wrong that is what I believe.

There is no need to be defensive. Nowhere did I or anyone else in this thread suggest that other teams don't do this.

Welcome to the forum. Take in some of the scenery, get a feel for the tone, and hopefully make some meaningful contributions.

Everyone is welcome. Look, even rabid one-eyed late-charging tip-tackling head-butting boers like me.

Didnt suggest it? Only if you mean outright stated it. Do "an all new tactic from the blicks" and "As soon as a black player is tackled" ring a bell? You've deliberately goaded the kiwis here (again: "Black Bastards'" "Cheating Kiwi bastards", direct quotes from you) into a scrap over something that you have not been able to offer a single corroborating incident for and that no one is even sure is actually illegal and yet when someone dares to disagree you accuse them of getting defensive and try to bully them with seniority?

This thread has only had any legs due to the willingness of some to grab onto any suggestion that the ABs might be bending the rules and Damo's bending over backwards to try and appear impartial and find some evidence for you (unsuccessfully). As Scorz suggests, even if there were something illegal going on here any effort to eradicate it would make the game a farce.

 

[Scarfman]

Scorz and KS, I don't think you get the idea of a sports discussion forum.

It's like you're saying: "Rugby - it's OK to watch as long as you don't talk about it."

The All Blacks get singled out because (1) they're the best team in the world and we're all pissed off about that, and (2) they push the ruck rules more than other teams. When the Wallabies were at their peak, every coach used to whinge about our use of dummy/obstruction runners. When the Saffers won the RWC, everyone else was frustrated by their style of play and begged for rule changes to discourage it.

This is what happens here at G&GR, you should get used to that fact or leave.

 

[Dam0]

Personally I think KS makes some good points. This thread has been high on rhetoric and low on examples.

As for Scarfman's theory that the All Blacks push the law more than other teams, most, if not all of that impression comes from the fact that people are adept at spotting the offences of the other team and ignoring the ones of their own.

There's plenty of literature about studies showing supporters of opposing teams the same footage and getting dramatically different opinions. As an informal example, just look at that ridiculous 30 second clip I presented of the Wallabies in Auckland; I noticed that clip at one of Scott Allen's excellent videos which I am sure all of you watched. How many of you could say that you noticed all the infringements before I pointed some of them out?

 

[Kangaroo Sausage]

You'll have to forgive my ignorance and explain to me the concept of a sports discussion forum, because i thought it was someone states an opinion, someone else disagrees with it, discussion ensues. I am not trying to stop anyone from posting whtever they like but surely you wont stop me from disagreeing? If i think its rubbish and can state my case lucidly, am i not entitled to have an opinion too?

As for your second point, im not sure i understand this. Are you saying that the ABs get picked on wrongfuly due to being the best and if we cant accept it without arguing the other side we should leave? No anti-anti-all black opinions allowed?

 

[Scarfman]

See what's happened? A perfectly reasonable discussion is turning into a slang fest. Dam0 - why does every coach/commnetator/fan highlight the ABs ruck work, esp McCaw?

C'mon man, they push the ruck laws more than other teams. It is one of their many innovations.

If your thesis were true, then why don't people whinge about the Boks tactics at the ruck? Or the ABs boring playing style. Are we really all too blinded by fandom to be able to discriminate different teams' style of play? There's plenty of direct evidence of Blue's assertion in my YouTube video. I'm not going to revisit it.

 

[Scorz]

Scorz and KS, I don't think you get the idea of a sports discussion forum.

It's like you're saying: "Rugby - it's OK to watch as long as you don't talk about it."

The All Blacks get singled out because (1) they're the best team in the world and we're all pissed off about that, and (2) they push the ruck rules more than other teams. When the Wallabies were at their peak, every coach used to whinge about our use of dummy/obstruction runners. When the Saffers won the RWC, everyone else was frustrated by their style of play and begged for rule changes to discourage it.

This is what happens here at G&GR, you should get used to that fact or leave.

Too easy ignore the post above giving simple and clear reasons why the OP theory is bung, and go off topic again eh.

 

[Dam0]

If your thesis were true, then why don't people whinge about the Boks tactics at the ruck? Or the ABs boring playing style. Are we really all too blinded by fandom to be able to discriminate different teams' style of play? There's plenty of direct evidence of Blue's assertion in my YouTube video. I'm not going to revisit it.

Because we win a lot.

An illegal tactic is not going to be spotted by anyone if it is wholly ineffective. Our illegal tactics are effective because we generally win the battle for the collisions. When we don't win the collisions and/or the game we whinge about illegal tactics of the opposition just as much as the next guy. As for other examples, have you forgotten already the articles written during the Welsh series about the illegal tactics of Pocock? or in the aftermath of the Q-F win?

Anyways, Blue has said he will be looking for examples from last nights game and pointing out examples. I genuinely look forward to hearing what he has to say.

 

[Scorz]

See what's happened? A perfectly reasonable discussion is turning into a slang fest.

If your thesis were true, then why don't people whinge about the Boks tactics at the ruck? Or the ABs boring playing style. Are we really all too blinded by fandom to be able to discriminate different teams' style of play? There's plenty of direct evidence of Blue's assertion in my YouTube video. I'm not going to revisit it.

They do. There was a yellow card recently and a suspension followed; Not much to complain about after that, although I was rubbished for suggesting the initial flying shoulder off the ball was thuggery.
AB's style boring? Really? This is new. Tries off moves, counterattacks and pressure is boring now?
Is every contrary view to "must be bending the rules" being blind?
I'll refer again to my post above for reasons why training a team to transgress is counter-productive. Training a team to play to the letter of the law would also carry some risk. Training a team to play more accurately within the laws is what goes on at most rugby trainings I have attended.

 

[FrankLind]

C'mon man, they push the ruck laws more than other teams. It is one of their many innovations.
.

Self-evident to you isn't it.

I don't know the truth because no one has bothered to put the SA or Aussie teams under the microscope in the last few years by spending hours making YouTube videos pointing out their illegalities.

GOAT

 

[Scarfman]

I can't believe you guys. I really can't. Your for-real-actual opinion is that the ABs don't push the ruck laws any more than any other top ranked team. I find that simply incredible.

If the tables were turned, you wouldn't find me in such a state of total denial. I'm always ready to admit when the Tahs or Wobs are breaking the laws of rugby. Ask me my opinion of Ben Alexander sometime.

Good thread, fucked up by Scorz. I'm out.

 

[Dam0]

I can't believe you guys. I really can't. Your for-real-actual opinion is that the ABs don't push the ruck laws any more than any other top ranked team. I find that simply incredible.

If the tables were turned, you wouldn't find me in such a state of total denial. I'm always ready to admit when the Tahs or Wobs are breaking the laws of rugby. Ask me my opinion of Ben Alexander sometime.

Good thread, fucked up by Scorz. I'm out.

Don't be so quick to leave it. We are having a frank exchange of ideas, truth will out. I am always skeptical of "self-evident" propositions. If they are self-evident then they can bear some scrutiny.

In any case like I said before, Blue has promised to collect some clips from last nights game and we will look to see if there is anything to this "stonewall" concept.

 

[FrankLind]

I can't believe you guys. I really can't. Your for-real-actual opinion is that the ABs don't push the ruck laws any more than any other top ranked team. I find that simply incredible.

How many videos have you done focusing on the AB methods vs those of other nations?

 

[Scorz]

I can't believe you guys. I really can't. Your for-real-actual opinion is that the ABs don't push the ruck laws any more than any other top ranked team. I find that simply incredible.

If the tables were turned, you wouldn't find me in such a state of total denial. I'm always ready to admit when the Tahs or Wobs are breaking the laws of rugby. Ask me my opinion of Ben Alexander sometime.

Good thread, fucked up by Scorz. I'm out.

Actually my opinion is that the AB's play to the limit of the laws more accurately than most teams. Occasionally the Bokke do it, or the French (usually against the AB's). Sometimes your team gets outplayed, that's sport.

I've outlined why I disagree that there is something for an AB's fan to "admit" in this case. Your interpretation is different. That's rugby, it's governed by interpretive laws, and each ref interprets it differently.

I'll ask you this about Ben Alexander - do you think he trains to break the laws? And does that add up when you consider the time and effort he and his trainers put in to his game?

Makes no sense does it.

 

[HKTiger]

......

As for Scarfman's theory that the All Blacks push the law more than other teams, most, if not all of that impression comes from the fact that people are adept at spotting the offences of the other team and ignoring the ones of their own.

......

Well Allain Rolland agreed with Scarfman yesterday.

 

[Dam0]

Well Allain Rolland agreed with Scarfman yesterday.

That is a very interesting point. It is interesting that Australia conceded 15 penalties v Argentina; whilst the All Blacks conceded 12 v South Africa and this somehow confirms Scarfman's theory????


In fact, it is just further evidence that:

"people are adept at spotting the offences of the other team and ignoring the ones of their own."

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That is a very interesting point. It is interesting that Australia conceded 15 penalties v Argentina; whilst the All Blacks conceded 12 v South Africa and this somehow confirms Scarfman's theory????


In fact, it is just further evidence that:

"people are adept at spotting the offences of the other team and ignoring the ones of their own."

Dam0 to make good the proposition that there is a tale told by the number of penalties you'd have to see what they were for.
Without having done so I'd be prepared to put money on Australia's penalties lacking any sort of pattern consistent with a preconceived plan to push the laws.
We give away mindless penalties and scrum penalties and other types of penalties the ABs dont - and FFS we had Joubert who actually polices the breakdown unlike Roland whose approach is "a little more liberal" in that area.
But this thread is actually about the penalties that aren't given and should be - I thought.

 

[HKTiger]

That is a very interesting point. It is interesting that Australia conceded 15 penalties v Argentina; whilst the All Blacks conceded 12 v South Africa and this somehow confirms Scarfman's theory????


In fact, it is just further evidence that:

"people are adept at spotting the offences of the other team and ignoring the ones of their own."

Given what Rolland called them for and the number (9 to 0) at one stage along with accompanying warnings does allow for some judgement.

But hey I get it the AB's are innocent.