TRC 2016: Matches not involving Australia

[waiopehu oldboy]

Rudy Page failed his concussion test so presumably won't play this week, other injured players from Wobs match are Habana (hip), Jesse Kriel (groin) & du Toit (also hip). No word on injuries from the AB camp but you'd think there'll be some sore bodies after what was a fairly physical contest.

Kaino is reportedly fit so you'd expect him to come back into the XV along with Whitelock with Squire & Tuipulotu dropping to the bench. I think they'll reinstate A Smith, not sure about Fekitoa after Lienert-Brown went so well & it wouldn't surprise me if they gave Naholo a run, probably at the expense of Dagg (which is wrong IMO, we're a much better side with two fullbacks than with two big bopper wingers, esp if the kickbot plays 10 for the Bokke which I'm assuming he will).

EDIT: according to the all-knowing Google the distance between Buenos Aires & Durban is 8,127km. How is that a 23 hour flight? Seems really, really odd that you have to go via Brazil (Jo'burg I get, I think pretty much all inbound long-haul flights go there).

 

[Brumby Runner]

How was Read not offside at that lineout?

Not that it matters because The Darkness stack on 3 meat pies in no time at all.

Hard to see Los Pumas come back from this.

Oranges. NZL lots ARG 3

Had to be off side. No way can a player in the lineout reverse faster than the ball is thrown, and as I understand, he shouldn't have left the lineout before the ball crossed the 15m line. Is this correct?

It was important, but not decisive, as it set the scene for further ignoring of ABs' infractions throughout the game.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^ and yet Creevy who (a) threw the ball in & (b) is the captain doesn't blow up at Peyper. This suggests to me that either (a) he's quite happy to concede the try without questioning whether Read was onside or (b) he know Read's OK & it's his fucked up throw and/ or someone's fucked up call that are to blame........

 

[Quick Hands]

Had to be off side. No way can a player in the lineout reverse faster than the ball is thrown, and as I understand, he shouldn't have left the lineout before the ball crossed the 15m line. Is this correct?

It was important, but not decisive, as it set the scene for further ignoring of ABs' infractions throughout the game.

Read was ok.

f)​

Long throw-in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-metre line, a player taking part in the lineout may run infield beyond the 15-metre line as soon as the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing in.​

If this happens, an opponent may also run infield. If a player runs infield to take a long throw in, and the ball is not thrown beyond the 15-metre line, this player is offside and must be penalised.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^^^ and yet Creevy who (a) threw the ball in & (b) is the captain doesn't blow up at Peyper. This suggests to me that either (a) he's quite happy to concede the try without questioning whether Read was onside or (b) he know Read's OK & it's his fucked up throw and/ or someone's fucked up call that are to blame....

I'd like to think that the captain of an international side wouldn't blow up at the referee. (I ass assume by "blow up" you mean; yell, abuse, argue with, etc.)

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^ I don't think Creevy "does" abusing officials, he's clever enough to know it doesn't work & is in fact counter-productive, often leading to your being ignored/ dismissed in future matches....... hmmmm, that sounds like a certain Wobs captain of current vintage

So by "blow up" I mean doing what 90% of captains & plenty of players (too many IMO but that's another issue) do these days when a try is scored against them, complain about offside or whatever & hope to put enough doubt in the ref's mind that he goes to the TMO. In this instance neither Creevy nor any other Puma says or does (e.g. "drawing the square") anything. You'd at least expect the guy who sprinted off his line to tackle Read to have something to say if he thought Read was offside, but nope, doesn't say a word or make any gesture, just accepts that the try has been scored & gets on with it.

 

[Grant NZ]

Read was ok.


f)
Long throw-in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-metre line, a player taking part in the lineout may run infield beyond the 15-metre line as soon as the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing in.

If this happens, an opponent may also run infield. If a player runs infield to take a long throw in, and the ball is not thrown beyond the 15-metre line, this player is offside and must be penalised.

That is another example of how badly worded rugby laws are -

Ie, is the 'If this' bit in the second sentence referrring to the ball being thrown long or a player running infield? I suspect it's the former due to the bit after the comma.

 

[zer0]

That is another example of how badly worded rugby laws are -

Ie, is the 'If this' bit in the second sentence referrring to the ball being thrown long or a player running infield? I suspect it's the former due to the bit after the comma.

That second if statement does seem a bit superfluous as the original paragraph doesn't differentiate between attacking/defending players. Removing it would certainly remove any confusion:

"Long throw-in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-metre line, a player taking part in the lineout may run infield beyond the 15-metre line as soon as the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing in.

If a player runs infield to take a long throw in, and the ball is not thrown beyond the 15-metre line, this player is offside and must be penalised."

 

[Brumby Runner]

It certainly is ambiguous in its present form. The phrase, "an opponent may also run infield" implies that the opponent can only run infield if one of the throwing side has done so beforehand. And there is some logic for that, in that presumably the opponent wouldn't know the intention of the thrower to throw long until he either sees the trajectory or more likely sees one of the throwing side start to run.

I believe a case can be made to say that Read was off side.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^ or that he was, in fact & as adjudged by the ref, onside.....

BTW, do you also forensically analyse every try the Wobs, Bokke etc score, or just NZ?

 

[Quick Hands]

I think that the intent of the law is to provide for players from either side advancing beyond the 15m line in order to anticipate a long throw. The intent of the second part is that if you get it wrong and move outside the 15 and the ball doesn't make it that far, then you are to be penalised for offside.

The first sentence of the second paragraph seems superfluous and confusing as the first paragraph refers to "a player taking part in the lineout" (which obviously includes players from both teams.). As zero has noted, removing that sentence makes it easier to read. (Possibly the first paragraph was amended at some point and no-one thought to amend the second paragraph?)

Nevertheless, a common sense reading of the law indicates that Read was fine. He was smart enough to either decipher the call (¿Habla él español?) or he simply correctly deduced that it's a common Puma tactic at a 5m defending lineout. Either way, he deserves credit for rugby smarts.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Anyhoo, the winning streak is now 16, fourth-equal best by a Tier 1 nation:

17. New Zealand 1965-69
17. South Africa 1997-98
17. NZ 2013-14
16. NZ 2011-12
16. NZ 2015-
15. SA 1994-96
15. NZ 2005-06
15. NZ 2009-10
14. England 2002-03
13. SA 2007-08

Australia's best is 10 in 1991-92.

Record for any country is 24, Cyprus 2008-14.

Full table here:

http://stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/records/team/most_consecutive_wins.html?id=1;type=class

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

South Africa v New Zealand
Growthpoint Kings Park, Durban
Kickoff at 2:05AM AEDT (1:05AM Qld)

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 1: Johnny Lacey (Ireland)
Assistant 2: George Clancy (Ireland)
TMO: Jim Yuille (Scotland)

Garces, Lacey & Clancy: could they choose three more pedantic officials? I'm already expecting a scrum-fest with multiple run-ons from the AR's to report the utterly irrelevant & if they allow SA to slow the game down by faking injuries (Garces has form for that) the Bokke to be way more competitive than last time.

 

[Dan54]

I can understand that law quite easily, and I certainly no Einstein, how can anyone be confused? You can cross the 15m line after the ball has left throwers hands. If the ball doesn't cross the 15m line you offside.
It really quite simple, lets not try and confuse the simple things!!

 

[Bullrush]

I can understand that law quite easily, and I certainly no Einstein, how can anyone be confused? You can cross the 15m line after the ball has left throwers hands. If the ball doesn't cross the 15m line you offside.
It really quite simple, lets not try and confuse the simple things!!

Yah but then Read wouldn't be offside. Not so simple now huh

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^^^^^^^ or that he was, in fact & as adjudged by the ref, onside...

BTW, do you also forensically analyse every try the Wobs, Bokke etc score, or just NZ?

Nothing particularly forensic about questioning Read being directly under a long throw unopposed and whether there might have been some off side play in it. The try was awarded and stands in the record books. But it looks so wrong that just maybe the ref could have made a little mistake?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Piet van Zyl comes into the Bokke squad for Paige plus de Allende & Marx rejoin it. Habana & Kriel being monitored & no mention of du Toit so presumably he's OK.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/springboks-call-up-van-zyl/

 

[Ulrich]

EDIT: according to the all-knowing Google the distance between Buenos Aires & Durban is 8,127km. How is that a 23 hour flight? Seems really, really odd that you have to go via Brazil (Jo'burg I get, I think pretty much all inbound long-haul flights go there).

Flown there many times, it's about a 10 hour flight. Malaysian airlines used to fly directly from Buenos Aires back in the days. You could also fly VARIG from Sao Paolo to JHB.

Not sure what it's like lately.

 

[Ulrich]

South Africa v New Zealand
Growthpoint Kings Park, Durban
Kickoff at 2:05AM AEDT (1:05AM Qld)

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 1: Johnny Lacey (Ireland)
Assistant 2: George Clancy (Ireland)
TMO: Jim Yuille (Scotland)

Garces, Lacey & Clancy: could they choose three more pedantic officials? I'm already expecting a scrum-fest with multiple run-ons from the AR's to report the utterly irrelevant & if they allow SA to slow the game down by faking injuries (Garces has form for that) the Bokke to be way more competitive than last time.

French refs really suck because half the time you can't make out what they're saying. Also tend to be very card-happy folk.

 

[Hawko]

French refs really suck because half the time you can't make out what they're saying. Also tend to be very card-happy folk.

The one thing I do like about French refs (amongst a lot I don't) is that they don't mind handing out cards. The supposed best refs in world rugby (Joubert, Owens, Gardner, Barnes, Peyper etc.) all require about 20 infringements in the red zone before they issue a card and then another 20 before they'll issue a second one.

The result is all teams regularly infringe when defending inside the 22 and the game is poorer for it.

PS. And I thought Garces was one of the top 3 refs at the RWC.