Cheats

[#1 Tah]

Anyone remember the good old days when G&GR was troll free, there were no deleted posts or threads and the only argument was weather youre a Tahs or Reds fan?

All was good in the world.......

 

[Stickybeak]

I agree with a lot of the analysis with that video with a caveat. Offside pillars are a blight, and a long-term bugbear of mine. So too the random players flying through (often round the side) of a tackle / developing ruck then ending up on the wrong side interfering with defenders. A clean out is fine, but it has to come from on-side, and once you are unbound beyond the ball / last feet, you are offside. End of story.
The caveat? It is endemic among top teams. Scarfy's video showed some egregious examples of the ABs doing things. Of course Aus, SA, English, French etc... players do it. It never gets discussed rationally because too may Aussies keep repeating the "cheat" mantra, and too many Kiwis hyper-ventilate and go on about everyone doing it, and the impending canonisation of Richie McCaw. It doesn't matter if everyone does it, if you think it is marring the contest, which I think it does.
I think the Kiwis are at the forefront in innovation, and I mean this in a complimentary way. They do this better than anyone, and it shows. And I think the fact that they are very consistent in the way they play allows them to "get away with it" more than other teams who do it less well, and less consistently. It's less obvious. It reflects good coaching, and smart playing. Ian Jones made a good point last night that if you get players over the top of the ball, or beyond it, you are more likely to win the battle of the ref (and that the ABs do that well), conceding that the breakdown near the AB line when Rallepelle was tackled was some pretty cynical stuff. It is up to the refs to sort this stuff out. They are the villains, not the ABs, or anyone else.

I agree with most of this: if an Aussie can be bothered to create the video he gets to choose the content. I invite any nationality to compile their preferred tape and bring it to the table for discussion - even if its the wallabies or the Reds (god knows it wont be the Tahs!). If we all agree its a blight whoever is doing it and if Scarfman's right and SA refs have watched his tape there's a chance the game might be improved. In some ways the officials need to know they will be supported: the problem is that the game when they decide to crackdown will look like a 1970s 5 nations penalty kick-a-thon (no offence to the northern hemisphere).

 

[Stickybeak]

But that's what I think too. I think I clearly said I dislike those things too. The refs should fix it. I say "innovation" because they work out what they can do, and do it well, better than anyone. That is good coaching, and clever playing. I don't subscribe to the theory from some that the ABs get a free armchair ride knowingly from officials. I do, however, think Paddy O'Brien was a complete waste of space as refs boss.

I reckon this is player derived and driven: if you've ever watched Henry as coach of the Lions in Oz you will see he is not a particularly technical or smart coach. They are all so committed to it as a way of playing that i reckon it cam from them. Obviously I could be wrong.

 

[Jay]

I agree with most of this: if an Aussie can be bothered to create the video he gets to choose the content. I invite any nationality to compile their preferred tape and bring it to the table for discussion - even if its the wallabies or the Reds (god knows it wont be the Tahs!). If we all agree its a blight whoever is doing it and if Scarfman's right and SA refs have watched his tape there's a chance the game might be improved. In some ways the officials need to know they will be supported: the problem is that the game when they decide to crackdown will look like a 1970s 5 nations penalty kick-a-thon (no offence to the northern hemisphere).

Of course they get to choose the content, but equally the content open to criticism & discussion.

Incidentally, Mark Lawrence HAS viewed that video.

Here's what he had to say:

"Name: Mike Biagio

Question: Hi there,

The play by the All Blacks lately has made me very concerned, in that they are running obstructively (i.e. in front of the tackle) on defence and on attack. The means that on defence, the Boks cannot get to the tackle to compete, and the All Blacks get quick ball. On attack, the obstructive running slows our cleaners from getting to the tackle at all. This is clearly not within the laws of the game. See the you tube video "All Blacks at the breakdown" as an example.

This is very blatant and has a massive effect on the game, however, the refs don't pick it up because they are focussed on the ball and competition for it. What are the refs going to do about it? Perhaps the linesmen could be tasked with looking for it, as well as offside play?

Mark Lawrence: Hello Mike,

Thanks for you question. I watched the eight-minute video but couldn't quite finish it, as nothing the All Blacks did, was any different to what any other team does when they carry the ball into a ruck. This is a long standing problem of attacking teams, whose arriving players don't enter through the gate. They often then overrun the tackle if the defenders don't contest the tackle, and end up as “pillars” on the defenders' side of the tackle/ruck.

As referees, we are pretty good at penalising the defenders for incorrect entry, but not so the attackers. The problem for referees is to be able to watch the defenders and attackers at the same time . We naturally watch the defenders first and then the attackers. However, the IRB and SANZAR are continually working with, not only the refs but the coaches too, in an effort to get the defenders and the attackers to be refereed equally at the breakdown.

I guess the order of the day for the referees is “to look and kyk, gelyk” for our English readers it translates to look, watch and see everything simultaneously. Just sounds more impossible in Afrikaans.

Don't fear, Mike, the playing fields are level for all the teams.

Keep well.

Regards, Mark"

 

[Stickybeak]

Of course they get to choose the content, but equally the content open to criticism & discussion.

Incidentally, Mark Lawrence HAS viewed that video.

Here's what he had to say:

"Name: Mike Biagio

Question: Hi there,

The play by the All Blacks lately has made me very concerned, in that they are running obstructively (i.e. in front of the tackle) on defence and on attack. The means that on defence, the Boks cannot get to the tackle to compete, and the All Blacks get quick ball. On attack, the obstructive running slows our cleaners from getting to the tackle at all. This is clearly not within the laws of the game. See the you tube video "All Blacks at the breakdown" as an example.

This is very blatant and has a massive effect on the game, however, the refs don't pick it up because they are focussed on the ball and competition for it. What are the refs going to do about it? Perhaps the linesmen could be tasked with looking for it, as well as offside play?

Mark Lawrence: Hello Mike,

Thanks for you question. I watched the eight-minute video but couldn't quite finish it, as nothing the All Blacks did, was any different to what any other team does when they carry the ball into a ruck. This is a long standing problem of attacking teams, whose arriving players don't enter through the gate. They often then overrun the tackle if the defenders don't contest the tackle, and end up as “pillars” on the defenders' side of the tackle/ruck.

As referees, we are pretty good at penalising the defenders for incorrect entry, but not so the attackers. The problem for referees is to be able to watch the defenders and attackers at the same time . We naturally watch the defenders first and then the attackers. However, the IRB and SANZAR are continually working with, not only the refs but the coaches too, in an effort to get the defenders and the attackers to be refereed equally at the breakdown.

I guess the order of the day for the referees is “to look and kyk, gelyk” for our English readers it translates to look, watch and see everything simultaneously. Just sounds more impossible in Afrikaans.

Don't fear, Mike, the playing fields are level for all the teams.

Keep well.

Regards, Mark"

Seems to me he wasn't asked the right question or that he chose not to respond to the right question and that he chose to observe how difficult the refs job is - about which there is no doubt - rather than criticise a fellow whistle blower, for which he is not to be condemned. Criticising and discussing is what we are doing.

 

[qwerty51]

So an IRB ref watched the video and said he didn't see anything illegal in it. What was he suppose to say? Yes the ref has blatantly missed all those infringements and we are all so incompetent.

 

[Ignoto]

Would somebody like to define cheat?

Well even though this is a video, there's that saying that a picture is worth a thousand words; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJQwQpsq5Ek

 

[Stickybeak]

Well even though this is a video, there's that saying that a picture is worth a thousand words; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJQwQpsq5Ek

You don't need to worry about the call of "black hand" what about the fact that McCaw had detached from the scrum before the ball was out. This is an absolutely fundamental one, he does it all the time, and it is verboten. In the same mould is the one where he detaches in front of the no8 and offers a shield to the ball carrying no 8.
This move, which is clearly planned and practiced, shouldn't be allowed to get off the drawing board as far as the coaches are concerned because it can only work if the laws are breached.

Now, the fact that it is not kaiboshed at training as involving a breach of the laws tells me that they all the players and coaches know that Lawrence (and all refs) wont have the courage to call back a try on a technicality that has not aparently impeded the defensive team in the particular way in which the move has been implemented on the night.

What this overlooks is the insidiousness of the law breaching - it begins as a trickle and finishes as a raging torrent: like league where half the laws are not enforced because they bear no relationship to the way the public think the game is played (2nd row feeds etc).

Golden rule for refs: if you are in front of the ball you're going to be penalised unless you actively avoid taking part in or affecting the play (Vickerman in UNi v Nths game, for instance) unless you are bound to a scrum, ruck or maul. Bound means from the shoulder.

 

[Jay]

You don't need to worry about the call of "black hand" what about the fact that McCaw had detached from the scrum before the ball was out. This is an absolutely fundamental one, he does it all the time, and it is verboten. In the same mould is the one where he detaches in front of the no8 and offers a shield to the ball carrying no 8.
This move, which is clearly planned and practiced, shouldn't be allowed to get off the drawing board as far as the coaches are concerned because it can only work if the laws are breached.

Now, the fact that it is not kaiboshed at training as involving a breach of the laws tells me that they all the players and coaches know that Lawrence (and all refs) wont have the courage to call back a try on a technicality that has not aparently impeded the defensive team in the particular way in which the move has been implemented on the night.

What this overlooks is the insidiousness of the law breaching - it begins as a trickle and finishes as a raging torrent: like league where half the laws are not enforced because they bear no relationship to the way the public think the game is played (2nd row feeds etc).

Golden rule for refs: if you are in front of the ball you're going to be penalised unless you actively avoid taking part in or affecting the play (Vickerman in UNi v Nths game, for instance) unless you are bound to a scrum, ruck or maul. Bound means from the shoulder.

Just like the AB's at the Breakdown video, that video is notable as much for what it ignores. Both Elsom & McAlman also unbinding early in the first scrum for instance. Elsom doing it again in the second one (before McCaw I note). James O'Connor creeping offside (over the tryline before the ball is out). Illegal play from NZ, sure. But not in anyway exclusively.

 

[Stickybeak]

Marginal on both calls.
The preferred historical solution to Woodcock is for Rocky to stamp on his hand........these days yellow card

 

[Jay]

Marginal on both calls.
The preferred historical solution to Woodcock is for Rocky to stamp on his hand........these days yellow card

Marginal? How so?

In that first scrum there's absolutely no question that McCaw, Elsom & McAlman are unbound with the ball still in. The only question is who did it first (I reckon McCaw a split second before Rocky).

In the second one, McCaw definitely unbinds first. O'Connor is offside pretty much from the get go - he's got one foot completely over the tryline (& most of the other one) as the ball is hooked. He then takes an extra step when McCaw detaches (before the ball is out).

 

[Bullrush]

Here's another video of the McCaw try. How attached does Rocky look again?

[video=youtube;PNcw9cM3JPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNcw9cM3JPs&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[Scarfman]

[video=youtube;pdr-W775hk4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdr-W775hk4[/video]

 

[Scarfman]

I reckon I've done everything I can to keep the discussion reasonable and on-point. The only thing to do against me is to somehow show that either (1) the ABs do not make offside and pillars part of their breakdown strategy (good luck with that); or (2) that all other teams do it just as much. I invite someone to spend a coupe of hours taking up the second option.

 

[Gnostic]

At least he is still in contact with the scrum, MCaw is further fro the scrum than the half back is allowed to be before the ball is cleared. I am very old fashioned but to cheat in such a blatant manner without even the defence of an honest "I thought the ball was out sir" just shows IMO that McCaw is a dishonourable cheating SOB and not worth feeding.

Thats alright the ABs have a long history of playing dirty cheats in their test team starting with Meads and Low.

 

[Gnostic]

I reckon I've done everything I can to keep the discussion reasonable and on-point. The only thing to do against me is to somehow show that either (1) the ABs do not make offside and pillars part of their breakdown strategy (good luck with that); or (2) that all other teams do it just as much. I invite someone to spend a coupe of hours taking up the second option.

They won't Scarfy because apart from the usual; 50:50 calls around the ruck the only the Wallabies in particular do continuously that should be penalised is leaving the feet and sealing off (there you go make a video of that). They rarely use the offensive pillars and then only on attacking ball, though with the Deans defensive structure that has dropped away as fewer are committed to each breakdown in general. As for the scrum many here have at length discussed the short comings of a number of players and their inherent technical faults. What sticks in the craw so to speak is the ongoing targetting of the Wallabies and ignorance of offences from the opposition. Hence the videos which I thank you for.

 

[Ignoto]

Here's another video of the McCaw try. How attached does Rocky look again?

By this much?

 

[Jay]

I reckon I've done everything I can to keep the discussion reasonable and on-point. The only thing to do against me is to somehow show that either (1) the ABs do not make offside and pillars part of their breakdown strategy (good luck with that); or (2) that all other teams do it just as much. I invite someone to spend a coupe of hours taking up the second option.

Well, you've not bothered to respond when someone points out fairly obvious errors in your video.

If you were just looking to troll with the video, mission accomplished. But if you were trying a proper objective analysis it's a failure as:

1) You've made errors of fact and law, which undercuts any credibility.
2) You've ignored multiple Bok indiscretions - which seeing as your stated aim was to see if the AB's 'are untouchable' is kind of relevant.

 

[Jay]

By this much?

So....not at all, then.

 

[Ignoto]

So....not at all, then.

Well, Rocky is still technically bound? From memory a flanker doesn't have to have a shoulder bound, just an arm? The difference is, Rocky is still attached to the scrum whilst McCaw is a foot away