All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Scarfman]

Antony, I agree. There are a couple of really good questions that almost got debated fairly: (1) when does the tackle end and the ruck start; and (2) what is the status of the pillar/wall issue that was identified by the iRB as something to crack down on this year.

But each party has to take on the other party's opinion in good faith. In the previous laws thread I tried very hard to give Dam0's viewpoint about tackles vs rucks a fair airing. But he repeatedly failed to engage with the criticisms of his view. A dozen people told him that the situation we were talking about was a ruck, and he just kept telling us that if we read Law 15 we'd change our minds.

He also directed remarks to me personally several times before I finally took the bait.

One of the most important values of G&GR (if I can still speak on that point) is that the place is fair to all nationalities. But that is made very difficult by posters who absolutely refuse to acknowledge any criticism of their national side. I'd go as far as saying that if you can't acknowledge the errors of your own club/province/nation then you are wasting the time of everyone else on this board.

 

[Scorz]

Well played Scarfman. Well played.

Laters.

 

[HKTiger]

I only contributed to this thread because it was a debate and avoided the abuse/vitriol. The vitriol and abuse on other threads has put me off posting. But in a debate you do occassionally have to acknowledge when you're in the minority and potentially wrong.

I am bemused that the actual letter of the law gets pounded rather than how refs and most viewers interpret the actual play. I'll bet that Rolland sees that McCaw infringement as a ruck. You're running up to a tackle/ruck scenario you see 3 or 4 bodied in a suitable arrangement, i.e. SA player bound to an AB (although both off their feet), tackled player trying to place the ball. You think ruck. You're watch so much and then you see Richie come across the back of the ruck. Try seeing it as a ref see's it. Your focus narrows even though you try to keep it wide.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I only contributed to this thread because it was a debate and avoided the abuse/vitriol. The vitriol and abuse on other threads has put me off posting. But in a debate you do occassionally have to acknowledge when you're in the minority and potentially wrong.

I am bemused that the actual letter of the law gets pounded rather than how refs and most viewers interpret the actual play. I'll bet that Rolland sees that McCaw infringement as a ruck. You're running up to a tackle/ruck scenario you see 3 or 4 bodied in a suitable arrangement, i.e. SA player bound to an AB (although both off their feet), tackled player trying to place the ball. You think ruck. You're watch so much and then you see Richie come across the back of the ruck. Try seeing it as a ref see's it. Your focus narrows even though you try to keep it wide.

It would be a big help if he said as much. He did not identify, to my hearing, what the offence was he merely accused McCaw of knowing what he was doing- what was the law he broke - he doesn't have to be right as an objective fact because as you correctly point out it could be thought that there was a ruck but he should identify his take on the infringement.
If you look at Dam0s link to Sarefs, apparently the same offense, the call is taking the space: there's no law with those words in it so what was a ref pinging the guy for?
99.9% of these debates hinge on a question of fact: what actually happened? There's only one bloke who sees it from the refs perspective a d we can never know just what he saw except for 2 possibilities: he tells us or they start wearing cameras which give us the view he got.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Scarfman]

Well played Scarfman. Well played.

Laters.

No, thank you Scorz. Your posts were, at all times, calm, reasonable and added value to the discussion.

I only contributed to this thread because it was a debate and avoided the abuse/vitriol. The vitriol and abuse on other threads has put me off posting. But in a debate you do occassionally have to acknowledge when you're in the minority and potentially wrong.

I am bemused that the actual letter of the law gets pounded rather than how refs and most viewers interpret the actual play. I'll bet that Rolland sees that McCaw infringement as a ruck. You're running up to a tackle/ruck scenario you see 3 or 4 bodied in a suitable arrangement, i.e. SA player bound to an AB (although both off their feet), tackled player trying to place the ball. You think ruck. You're watch so much and then you see Richie come across the back of the ruck. Try seeing it as a ref see's it. Your focus narrows even though you try to keep it wide.

Mate, I'm up for a discussion if you still want to go on. The McCaw case is, as you suggest, a dead one. Fans of rugby who have never opened the law book could tell you that McCaw was flat on the ground to the side of the tackle, then miraculously found himself falling on the green side of the ruck. Rolland, like all of us, had seen that move 1000 times before and pinged him for it.

Perhaps we need footage of France vs England, because any video involving New Zealand causes instant madness.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

No, thank you Scorz. Your posts were, at all times, calm, reasonable and added value to the discussion.




Mate, I'm up for a discussion if you still want to go on. The McCaw case is, as you suggest, a dead one. Fans of rugby who have never opened the law book could tell you that McCaw was flat on the ground to the side of the tackle, then miraculously found himself falling on the green side of the ruck. Rolland, like all of us, had seen that move 1000 times before and pinged him for it.

Perhaps we need footage of France vs England, because any video involving New Zealand causes instant madness.

You need to identify the facts and the laws which make it a ruck when McCaw stands up. Otherwise the debate gets lost in unstated conclusions, usually as to the underlying facts.
I'm not an NZer so you cant fudge it by saying I'm defending my national team.

 

[Jay]

McCaw was flat on the ground to the side of the tackle, then miraculously found himself falling on the green side of the ruck. Rolland, like all of us, had seen that move 1000 times before and pinged him for it.

Yeah, you know that thing you like to accuse NZ fans of - seeing what they want to see? You're doing that. In case you hadn't noticed, the reason McCaw fell on the green side of the ruck is cause a nearly 7 foot Bok pulled him down.

That SA referees link that Dam0 provided noted that Bateman was allowed to stand up - it's what he did next (loitering and preventing the halfback from playing the ball) that was illegal. McCaw didn't do that, he didn't get a chance. I'm not saying he wouldn't have (though he'd probably have played the ball) but he didn't. All he did was stand up - which according to the SA referees is legal.

 

[Dan54]

Scarfman said: ↑

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

​

When did it change from this to this Scarf??​

​

ScarfmanKnitter of the Scarf​

​

​

Scorz said: ↑​

Well played Scarfman. Well played.​

​

Laters.​

No, thank you Scorz. Your posts were, at all times, calm, reasonable and added value to the discussion.

​

And I think this a fair question.​

 

[Top Bloke]

Inside Shoulder - I guess thats the nub of the entire issue - if you analyse that particular breakdown using the laws pendantically, it is not a ruck as there are no players on their feet over the ball. Green 6 goes off his feet initially to seal off, before regaining his footing but he still not supporting his body-weight. That is the first PK in my view. However we have no way of knowing if AR considers it is a ruck or not. We asssume he must have because he PKs RMC for being in the way of the ball coming back. Interestingly in the ruck immediately prior - K Read is in a similar postion and gets cleared out but no reaction from AR, I can't see there is that much difference between the 2 breakdowns and why AR pks the 2nd.

 

[Gagger]

. McCaw didn't do that, he didn't get a chance. I'm not saying he wouldn't have (though he'd probably have played the ball) but he didn't. All he did was stand up - which according to the SA referees is legal.

McCaw had a clear choice which way to lean to get out of that ruck and chose the direction that would slow the Saffas down, which is why he got manhandled out of the way and Rolland pinged him.

Top Bloke - Read comes from the right side of the ruck and is ostensibly counter-rucking rather than relying on a ruck having not been formed despite two saffas on their feet over or around the ball, which is why he didn't get pinged

 

[Jay]

Here's another SA referees clip. It's pretty comparable to the current situation - http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829788/ t - the replay at 31 seconds shows the incident.

Obviously the main difference in this one is that he actually played the ball. But otherwise, it's pretty similar - he makes the tackle, a supporting attacker goes over the ball but doesn't bind onto any defenders (so again, no ruck), tackler gets to feet and plays the ball.

According to the SA refs, there's no ruck and he's entitled to play the ball.

Given that, is anyone prepared to acknowledge that:
a) It wasn't a ruck
b) McCaw was within his rights to get up?

 

[Scarfman]

Jay, given the numbers of times you have directed ad hominem attacks at me, I shouldn't give you the time of day.

In this case, you have a good point. Not about the McCaw issue - better that we leave that one aside - but whether this situation constitutes a ruck or not. Clearly there are two Cheetahs players (not including either the ball carrier or Pretorious) who arrive on the scene, drive over the ball (against no opposition) and hence are present and willing to ruck. In most cases, that's a ruck.

The problem is that Grobellar (the tackler) is on the ground at that point, and only stands up again AFTER the players had driven over the ball. I can see why SARefs call it just a tackle, and the first rucker should have cleared him out. But as I say, he was still on the ground when the rucker drove over.

I'd be interested in other opinions on whether this is a tackle or ruck without having to link it to the McCaw tackle. These SARefs videos are a good place to attempt to stage neutral discussions.

 

[Top Bloke]

Jay - slightly different in that in that SA refs vid there is only the tackler as an oppo player, In the McCaw incident Whitelock is also involved so it "looks" more like a ruck. There is obviously a distinct difference in that as a player you have a feel for the situation you are actually involved in and instinct plays a big part in your judgement, whereas the ref is "viewing" the action. In this case maybe AR thought it "looked" like a ruck whereas McCaw "felt" that it was a tackle. I do wonder how much a Referee is influenced by what he thinks is going to occur as the next phase of play as aopposed to what really happens. We all have seem those TV shows where supposed eye witnesses have wildly differing views on the same incident, And I wonder if there is something of this in how a ref sees the action.
One of the most notable examples of my crazy theory was a couple of years ago ABs v Ireland I think, Nigel Owens PK's McCaw and says to him "Clearly you were NOT the tackler" where as the video clearly shows McCaw WAS the tackler.

 

[Top Bloke]

Scarf - Honest question - why are you assuming these various posts are attacks aimed at you?
In my view both Jays & Dam0s were posts addressing controversial decisions and rulings and not aimed at individuals

 

[Jay]

The problem is that Grobellar (the tackler) is on the ground at that point, and only stands up again AFTER the players had driven over the ball. I can see why SARefs call it just a tackle, and the first rucker should have cleared him out. But as I say, he was still on the ground when the rucker drove over.

That's a grey area and one that makes for a real problem for supporting attacking players. They can't really do anything to the guy while he's on the ground of course, and if they wait for him to get up they're risking other defending players getting over the ball first and setting up an effective counter ruck.

I do think it's become something of a tactic for the tackler to stay on the ground for that half beat to allow an unimpeded go at the ball. Obviously, there's a fair amount of risk on their part as the ref may conclude (rightly or wrongly) that a ruck has been formed.

 

[Scarfman]

Scarf - Honest question - why are you assuming these various posts are attacks aimed at you?
In my view both Jays & Dam0s were posts addressing controversial decisions and rulings and not aimed at individuals

Mate, the only way to answer that would be to gather together a couple of dozen posts from those guys over the past fortnight and show you. I just don't feel like doing that right now. I'd rather talk about neutral ruck situations.

 

[Jay]

Scarf - Honest question - why are you assuming these various posts are attacks aimed at you?
In my view both Jays & Dam0s were posts addressing controversial decisions and rulings and not aimed at individuals

He probably means in other threads - I've been pretty critical of some of his law interpretations in his video. But I'm prepared to put all that to one side if he is.

 

[Top Bloke]

Scarf - fair enough, but just taking the posts in this thread at face value, I felt Dam0 was adding insight to the topic rather than potshots at you.

 

[Top Bloke]

Jay - in my view thats a tackle. But the doubt arises I think because of momentary contact on Liebenberg and the Chettahs #1 by another Lions player (can see number but halfback?). Perhaps it is this action that the ref sees as constituting a ruck.

 

[BPC]

Clearly there are two Cheetahs players (not including either the ball carrier or Pretorious) who arrive on the scene, drive over the ball (against no opposition) and hence are present and willing to ruck. In most cases, that's a ruck.

The problem is that Grobellar (the tackler) is on the ground at that point, and only stands up again AFTER the players had driven over the ball. I can see why SARefs call it just a tackle, and the first rucker should have cleared him out. But as I say, he was still on the ground when the rucker drove over.

I'd be interested in other opinions on whether this is a tackle or ruck without having to link it to the McCaw tackle. These SARefs videos are a good place to attempt to stage neutral discussions.

I am still of the view I expressed above, technically it isn't a ruck because at least one player from each team is not on their feet and bound but I think that it should be a ruck if the arriving players bind to someone off their feet. I think the definition in the laws does reflect the reality of how the game is played (the expectation that players are always on their feet in a ruck) nor how the refs seem to approach the tackle/ruck interface.

That said, I am sure any attempt to amend the law will screw it up even further.