All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Dam0]

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.

Yeah you are right. My post was less some great irrefutable argument about the truth of the matter and more about how silly it is to base an argument on the basis of one game. I guess I should have added a smiley or something to make that clear.

I do wish we would get back to talking about the alleged "taking the space" or "stonewall" penalties we were discussing. I have a bunch of clips to upload, but I rather want to give someone else a chance to get in first.


Ps - How things have changed re: perceptions of referees. even 2 months ago you wouldn't find anyone arguing that Joubert was more technical at the breakdown than Rolland.

 

[Dan54]

Actually Rolland did call the Boks for a couple but advantage was played so never blew. But anyway I am glad that HKT is using the refs figure to prove point (and I thought Rolland was correct with his penalties against ABs), as it backs my argument if teams and individuals are committing as many offences as many of us imagine the refs who actually know the rules would be pinging them!!
On the discussion thread is about I would add that perhaps I am one who has been a coach who is guilty of teaching these styles of play. Whenever I have coached a team, from schoolboys to seniors I always coached them at breakdown to drive PAST the ball, not to it, which perhaps in the context we are talking about is illegal.

 

[Scarfman]

Rolland is a tragic home town ref.

Joubert gives the advantage to the stronger team, which is good, except when that advantage has been gained illegally.

 

[Jay]

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.

Most of the penalties against the AB's yesterday were fair enough, but to be fair the one that garnered the warning from Rolland was a horrible call.y

 

[HKTiger]

Most of the penalties against the AB's yesterday were fair enough, but to be fair the one that garnered the warning from Rolland was a horrible call.y

Do you think ?

I really thought that was justified. McCaw made a meal of rolling across the ruck. It was getting tiresome at that stage. 8 penalties straight at the time. Funny how the penalties slowed.

Joubert pinged Robinson (I think) for the same thing in the Argies game.

Back on topic, in both games yesterday all four teams were guilty of getting players ahead of the ruck stopping defenders. They got pinged if they were off their feet but not if the stayed on their feet. It does create time and space for the 9 and 10.

 

[Scarfman]

Actually Rolland did call the Boks for a couple but advantage was played so never blew. But anyway I am glad that HKT is using the refs figure to prove point (and I thought Rolland was correct with his penalties against ABs), as it backs my argument if teams and individuals are committing as many offences as many of us imagine the refs who actually know the rules would be pinging them!!
On the discussion thread is about I would add that perhaps I am one who has been a coach who is guilty of teaching these styles of play. Whenever I have coached a team, from schoolboys to seniors I always coached them at breakdown to drive PAST the ball, not to it, which perhaps in the context we are talking about is illegal.

Dan, I reckon between you and Dam0 there's a sensible discussion to be had. I do agree that Kiwis are taught this technique more than other teams. Poms, for example, drive past the ball, but to ground. Both can be illegal when executed poorly or lazily.

In my response to Dam0's videos, on page 3 of this thread, I say that I've got no problem with example #4, where the players drive through the ruck as it's forming. But once you are in an offside position, you must get out of the way. Even more important, if you are in an offside position not bound to the ruck, then you must not ever obstruct opposition players wanting to join. That's what Blue is calling a stonewall. You could also call it NFL-style "blocking."

I was surprised to see Dam0's comment that

I don't think there is any obligation for players who have successfully gone through a ruck to suddenly get out of the way and allow anyone to go through the middle of their formation. Anyone wishing to play the ball which is now out of the ruck needs to go around them. I don't think they should expect the successful ruckers to suddenly get out of the way.

Although to be fair, he also said that

It is a balancing test and to be refereed sensibly.

The denial from some people is ludicrous. It is painfully clear that the Kiwis have located a grey area in the laws, have been exploiting it, and it's in the process of being shut down. The iRB sent a refereeing edict around last year to watch for pillars. Who knows, perhaps the reform came because of people pointing it out. I'm disappointed, though, how much of pillars/walls are still being allowed despite the edict. I mean, what part of "last feet" is hard to understand?

 

[Jay]

Do you think ?

I really thought that was justified. McCaw made a meal of rolling across the ruck. It was getting tiresome at that stage. 8 penalties straight at the time. Funny how the penalties slowed.

Joubert pinged Robinson (I think) for the same thing in the Argies game.

Back on topic, in both games yesterday all four teams were guilty of getting players ahead of the ruck stopping defenders. They got pinged if they were off their feet but not if the stayed on their feet. It does create time and space for the 9 and 10.

Nah, the ruck wasn't formed, McCaw was the tackler so doesn't have to come through the gate.

And I'd argue that even if the ruck had been formed, I'm still not sure it's a penalty. He gets to his feet and Bekker scrags him immediately. He doesn't get a chance to play the ball, interfere or get the fuck out of dodge.

If Bekker wasn't there and McCaw had stood up and retreated immediately, would that have been a penalty? Surely not. Now, I'm not claiming that's what McCaw would have done (I'm about 99% sure it's not) but given he didn't actually get a chance to do anything, a penalty seems harsh. It's like Rolland is anticipating an illegal play rather than actually waiting for one.

It's at 1:07.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BCvrYu3nxFY#t=4022s

 

[Dam0]

Most of the penalties against the AB's yesterday were fair enough, but to be fair the one that garnered the warning from Rolland was a horrible call.y

Do you think ?

I really thought that was justified. McCaw made a meal of rolling across the ruck. It was getting tiresome at that stage. 8 penalties straight at the time. Funny how the penalties slowed.

Joubert pinged Robinson (I think) for the same thing in the Argies game.

Back on topic, in both games yesterday all four teams were guilty of getting players ahead of the ruck stopping defenders. They got pinged if they were off their feet but not if the stayed on their feet. It does create time and space for the 9 and 10.

Well, lets take a look, especially since it is directly on point (well directly in a tangential sort of way )

This is exactly what is meant by the phrase "taking the space". The alleged offence by McCaw is that although he was entitled to play the ball from the angle he comes from, instead of playing the ball he gets in the way of the halfback. It is a bugbear of the people at SAReferees. Personally I think its a bit of a stretch in most cases where the phrase is used.


Sticking to this example its a crock because he does begin to bend down to pick up the ball and is cleared out legally by a South African player. The law was working exactly as it was supposed to, but for some reason Rolland found a penalty. It is perfectly clear that no ruck had formed and that McCaw was entitled to go for the ball. He's not entitled to play the halfback but is that really what he has done (or does he have an obligation to get out of the way of the halfback whilst going for the ball).

 

[Dam0]

I should also add that if we are going to get analytical; unquestionably the first offence in that breakdown is green 6(?) who goes straight off his feet and seals the ball off. If you remember way back to the first 3-4 rounds of Super Rugby, refs were getting extremely tough on this but for some reason it was forgotten by about week 6. I know because in my first championship game of the season I must have blown 15 penalties for it, and by the 3rd week or so it was much better.

If only the bloody pro refs had stuck with the program and dealt with a bit of ignorant abuse about the number of penalties, we would have a much better game.

 

[Top Bloke]

Damo - I'd call that as a ruck - 2+ players bound over the ball on the ground at the time the ball carrier hits the deck. In my opinion RMC is pk'd because Rolland woul expect him to roll away from the ruck and in this case I think RMC gets to his feet knowing he is in the way but makes it look like he is trying to get away. Love the SA commentary claiming that McCaw has then gone and "fallen over". Fallen over!! didnt he see Bekker, the biggest guy on the park basically chicken winging him out of the way.

 

[Dam0]

Damo - I'd call that as a ruck - 2+ players bound over the ball on the ground at the time the ball carrier hits the deck. In my opinion RMC is pk'd because Rolland woul expect him to roll away from the ruck and in this case I think RMC gets to his feet knowing he is in the way but makes it look like he is trying to get away. Love the SA commentary claiming that McCaw has then gone and "fallen over". Fallen over!! didnt he see Bekker, the biggest guy on the park basically chicken winging him out of the way.

I'm not going to get into this again, but with respect, go and look up the definition of a ruck (Hint, law 16 definitions and law 16.1(b).)

If you still think that is a ruck then come back and we can debate it.

 

[Top Bloke]

Damo - I take it that because there is only 1 player (arguably) on their feet, that it isn't a ruck? This is probably the biggest area of contention in the whole game, (and the one that posters here disagree about the most imho)

 

[HKTiger]

I'm not going to get into this again, but with respect, go and look up the definition of a ruck (Hint, law 16 definitions and law 16.1(b).)

If you still think that is a ruck then come back and we can debate it.

In this case it doesn't matter what the laws state, it's what the ref has interpreted. Rolland believes it's a ruck. And calls all players and actions from that perspective.

 

[Dam0]

Yeah, it's a misunderstood point all right. I wasn't trying to be a smart-arse or anything, I just get a bit grumpy when people get the phase wrong, and then wonder why the law relating specifically to the phase is not being enforced.

In essence, (a) ball has to be on ground;(b) 1 or more players from each team on their feet;(c) in physical contact over the ball. Arguably as soon as McCaw is grabbed by green 5 we have a ruck, but that's immaterial because from that point McCaw commits no offence even under ruck law.

 

[Dam0]

In this case it doesn't matter what the laws state, it's what the ref has interpreted. Rolland believes it's a ruck. And calls all players and actions from that perspective.

I don't want to be unnecessarily contrarian, but at no point does the word "ruck" emerge from Rolland's lips. I do not think he believes its a ruck, and the offence which he describes is a tackle offence. He says "... you knew exactly what you were doing, when you were standing up you got in the way of the halfback".

With all due respect, ruck ain't got nothin to do with it.

 

[HKTiger]

Nah, the ruck wasn't formed, McCaw was the tackler so doesn't have to come through the gate.

And I'd argue that even if the ruck had been formed, I'm still not sure it's a penalty. He gets to his feet and Bekker scrags him immediately. He doesn't get a chance to play the ball, interfere or get the fuck out of dodge.

If Bekker wasn't there and McCaw had stood up and retreated immediately, would that have been a penalty? Surely not. Now, I'm not claiming that's what McCaw would have done (I'm about 99% sure it's not) but given he didn't actually get a chance to do anything, a penalty seems harsh. It's like Rolland is anticipating an illegal play rather than actually waiting for one.

It's at 1:07.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BCvrYu3nxFY#t=4022s

Fair point. However, I'm betting that Rolland in his mind has determined it's a ruck. (The correctness of that is moot, it's Rolland's view and he is at about 150 degrees to the camera angle so sees the bodies at different angles.) At the time I thought it was a clear McCaw going across the back of the ruck to slow things down. That's what Rolland called at the time. He has to make the call in a snap. I'm OK with it. The replay offers a different perspective, something Allain does not have at his disposal.

I like the way Rolland refs. Whereas Joubert last night (my time) I couldn't make head nor tails of his calls. One time it was not releasing then what looked the same scenario was off your feet. The offside line was, ohh shit there is an off side line moment every 10 minutes or so...).

I like this debate. It probably highlights that we either move to 3 man reffing teams with the AR's being far more involved or we live with the interpretations of a single guy. Rugby, like most sports, is getting faster and far more technical and far more analysed. Coaches analyse the game and look for advantages and that includes reffing interpretations. And yet we still live with a single ref. AFL, Rugby League etc. have all moved on and provided more refs. Maybe something the IRB should look at in more detail. The number of decision points in a game and how many pretty much a single person can manage. If that research exists it's pretty well hidden. (I know it exists for the AFL.) Just some thoughts.

 

[HKTiger]

I don't want to be unnecessarily contrarian, but at no point does the word "ruck" emerge from Rolland's lips. I do not think he believes its a ruck, and the offence which he describes is a tackle offence. He says ". you knew exactly what you were doing, when you were standing up you got in the way of the halfback".

With all due respect, ruck ain't got nothin to do with it.

So a ruck is only formed if the ref says it out loud ??? I would suggest that by acknowledging that the halfback is going to come in and fetch the ball indicates a ruck. But hey that's my view. You disagree. And in reality it's what Allain thought at the time that counts. And that was a penalty and a warning.

 

[Blue]

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?

KS you are completely overreacting. You have every right to disagree. There is a smiley at the end of my original post. Calling each other's countries names is just part of the banter. IF you can't accept that then don't join a rugby forum. I am a member at the Fern and Dear God if I had a dollar every time someone called use Saffers names I'd have made a big dent in the mortgage by now.

I made an observation. No, I was not able to back it up with statistical and forensic evidence. Sorry. If that is what you need from every person you encounter you must have a rather disappointing time online. I noticed something which I perceived as being done repeatedly the AB's and I put it out there. If I had the time I would trawl through every one of the last ten AB games and put it in a spreadsheet and write some macros. Unfortunately my job doesn't afford me the time to do that. So I throw it out there. I know there are enough people (Kiwis included) on the forum who will debate it sensibly.

I suspect you are actually able to make a valued contribution to the thread but have a better chance if you don't see this as some sort of personal vendetta, which I assure you it is not.

 

[Scarfman]

Oh my god Dam0! At 0:14 (replay at 0:47) you say that McCaw is "entitled to play the ball from the angle he comes from" !?!? That sure explains a lot about your posts.

You have read the tackle law, as have we all, and your interpretation has zero real world application. Refs will not allow players to come from the opposition's side in that situation. Have you never played rugby, only read the law book?

You have been trolling me in several threads at once and I have not responded personally to any of it, but you are making a complete arse of yourself here.

 

[Dam0]

Oh my god Dam0! At 0:14 (replay at 0:47) you say that McCaw is "entitled to play the ball from the angle he comes from" !?!? That sure explains a lot about your posts.

You have read the tackle law, as have we all, and your interpretation has zero real world application. Refs will not allow players to come from the opposition's side in that situation. Have you never played rugby, only read the law book?

You have been trolling me in several threads at once and I have not responded personally to any of it, but you are making a complete arse of yourself here.

?????

It happens all the time and at every level of the game. 99% of the time the player gets clobbered out of the way, which of course is exactly what happened here.

And I will leave it for others to determine whether I am making an arse of myself or not, and whether or not your "anyone who disagrees with my 'self-evident' opinion is delusional" attitude is helpful.

I will, however, keep giving my opinions.