Waratahs vs Crusaders - 2011R03

[Brumbies Guy]

Time to play stats world, shit the Tahs missed a lot of tackles


Attempted - 267
Ineffective - 35
Missed - 41
TACKLES MADE 191 (72%)

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match4360.html

According to that link Sonny Bill Williams had basically as many offloads as the Tahs did combined, and only played 66 minutes. Does anyone know what the record for offloads in a game is?

 

[Bruce Ross]

Bruce, You are going to have to desist with this technical stuff from the old days. Everyone knows that Gen Y or Z or whatever alphabet number we are in, can't be told anything because they already know it all (ref. Brumbies backline). Ergo, if it appears that 8's are dicking around at the back then its really a very smart strategy to include the opposition half in the play. Everyone knows that we need to be more inclusive. Last week it was very inclusive. Just about every Crusader in the pack got the chance to pick up the ball from our scrum.

I am suitably chastened, Hawko, and impressed by your erudition. Now that you have explained the logic of the "dicking around" strategy I have seen the light. Togetherness with our Kiwi cousins. Even I can remember how sociable and friendly Kiwi teams always were on the field - although thinking again perhaps it wasn't the Kiwis.

While on the subject of intermingling, I must admit I was one of those who were appalled when the group hug first made its way into our sport. Now they group hug in the sheds; they group hug out on the field; they group hug when they win; they group hug when they lose; they even group hug when someone needs to have a late Shirley Bliss before the game. Thus far I have not seen it performed when someone wants to do an Edgar, but I'm mentally prepared for it.

I think it's time for old codgers like me to get with the times. Wouldn't it be rather special and kind of nice if both teams were to group hug together, ideally alternating players from the two teams all around the circle? Bugger hand shaking; let's squeeze other blokes as if we really mean it. Obviously I'm not talking about the Gallic squeeze; let's keep everything above the waist.

 

[Torn Hammy]

The rucks won is an interesting stat. Crusaders 108 and Waratahs 70.

That's a huge difference but I'm not sure I know what is going on. I just get the feeling that while we play by the rules, the NZ forwards cheat in such a frenetic manner and in such numbers that the ref has no idea what is happening and they get away with it.

Then again they could simply be better than us at the breakdown.

 

[cyclopath]

The rucks won is an interesting stat. Crusaders 108 and Waratahs 70.

That's a huge difference but I'm not sure I know what is going on. I just get the feeling that while we play by the rules, the NZ forwards cheat in such a frenetic manner and in such numbers that the ref has no idea what is happening and they get away with it.

Then again they could simply be better than us at the breakdown.

I would favour the latter theory, from what I saw in the match.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

The rucks won is an interesting stat. Crusaders 108 and Waratahs 70.

That's a huge difference but I'm not sure I know what is going on. I just get the feeling that while we play by the rules, the NZ forwards cheat in such a frenetic manner and in such numbers that the ref has no idea what is happening and they get away with it.

Then again they could simply be better than us at the breakdown.

I have no doubt that it's a little bit of both. NZ rugby IS the breakdown. When our backrow isn't the worlds best or there/thereabouts - we drop a long way down the rankings (well for us anyway).

Nobody dominates the breakdown without bending the rules.

 

[Torn Hammy]

While on this topic. I was surprised that there was no action by the ref on the crusaders cleaning out of rucks. Often their 120kg props would sprint 10 metres and shoulder charge the unsuspecting loosies in the ribs. If they missed the ruck they would attack whoever was standing behind the ruck just for the sake of it.

I thought shoulder charges were a yellow card offence.

 

[qwerty51]

While on this topic. I was surprised that there was no action by the ref on the crusaders cleaning out of rucks. Often their 120kg props would sprint 10 metres and shoulder charge the unsuspecting loosies in the ribs. If they missed the ruck they would attack whoever was standing behind the ruck just for the sake of it.

I thought shoulder charges were a yellow card offence.

Yep. IMO, the Kiwi teams are the biggest culprits in diving off their feet at rucks. I don't think it should be a law personally, but there's no consistency there.

 

[Gagger]

Waugh - 7 tackles and 4 missed
Dennis - 19 tackles (highest in game) and 4 missed

Waugh clearly not right - how could you be with one arm?

Saders did a great job of picking apart the Tahs rush defence, especially once Taf - who polices the fringes - was off. Ran it through the fringes and then got it wide to the corner where they exploited tight forwards like Douglas. Smart stuff well done

 

[Gnostic]

Waugh - 7 tackles and 4 missed
Dennis - 19 tackles (highest in game) and 4 missed

Waugh clearly not right - how could you be with one arm?

Saders did a great job of picking apart the Tahs rush defence, especially once Taf - who polices the fringes - was off. Ran it through the fringes and then got it wide to the corner where they exploited tight forwards like Douglas. Smart stuff well done

Don't forget that without Horne at 13 all we had Cross and who wouldn't run at him and who could be concerned by his running if he actually managed not to drop the pill.

 

[qwerty51]

When your 3 best defenders go off the field, Horne, Barnes, TPN (impact defence) it's hard to contain the most potent attacking team in the game.

 

[DPK]

When your 3 best defenders go off the field, Horne, Barnes, TPN (impact defence) it's hard to contain the most potent attacking team in the game.

I thought that was us!

 

[Scotty]

Was you. For two weeks.

 

[MrMouse]

Was you. For two weeks.

:'(

 

[Bullrush]

Yep. IMO, the Kiwi teams are the biggest culprits in diving off their feet at rucks. I don't think it should be a law personally, but there's no consistency there.

Here's why I think the Kiwi teams don't get as penalised as much as you guys think they should. (Get ready for the enlightenment......lol)

Put simply, it's the pure aggression that the Kiwis put into the tackle and breakdown that makes it hard to call against. It's hard to say that guys are blatantly trying to play off-side etc when it looks like they just came in so hard and fast there wasn't really anywhere else to fall. I think that's what refs see....and so long as they tackler is making an effort to move away etc then they are less inclined to blow the whistle.

The refs (and the public) want to see genuine contest for the ball and I think NZ forwards and packs will make more of an effort on 50/50 balls or half-chances that they think they can over-turn. They win some, they don't win some and they get penalised some but I don't think much of it is cynical or dirty play - I just think we're more physical.

 

[Lindommer]

Here's why I think the Kiwi teams don't get as penalised as much as you guys think they should. (Get ready for the enlightenment......lol) Put simply, it's the pure aggression that the Kiwis put into the tackle and breakdown that makes it hard to call against. It's hard to say that guys are blatantly trying to play off-side etc when it looks like they just came in so hard and fast there wasn't really anywhere else to fall. I think that's what refs see... I just think we're more physical.

Couldn't agree more, Bullrush. As I've spouted endlessly, "competition at the breakdown defines new Zealand rugby". (I'm thinking of getting a rubber stamp of that made up). The Saders counter-rucking against the Tahs was lovely to watch for a rugby purist but agony for a Tahs' supporter.

From a referees' point of view it's a very fine line. I, for one, hate endlessy pointless whistling and avoid it whenever I can. Players going off their feet at the breakdown presents a multitude of problems, though. In his commentating days Simon Poidevin used to lambast refs for pinging a player falling over at the ruck because there was nowhere else to go, or being knocked over by a team-mate driving up his clacker. There's an element of truth here, as there is in your observation Kiwis drive through at the contact better than others and often end up off their feet. For me the defining point whether to go the whistle is the opportunity for the defending side to compete for the pill or is the attacking side sealing it off. Many argue McCaw oversteps the mark here.

Now, pillars at the side of rucks and mauls, that's another matter. Young Franks wouldn't want to be on the field if I was the whistler, carding him for persistent offside's being too officious but he'd garner his fair share of penalties. The thing to do is jump on this (or any other silly practice) early in the game and then hurt him badly if he does it again.

 

[Linus]

I don't think that it's just the physicality at the breakdown, it's the decision making.

You watch from now and see if you can see a pattern, I've noticed that the position of the tackler is the key to whether they commit. As soon as the NZ sides have a tackler on the wrong side they pile in, which does two things, disguises the tackler not releasing/rolling away (there are usually bodies everywhere), and gives them a much improved chances at turn over ball, as the ball can't be placed at the back of the ruck and is now a 50/50.

It's smart play, not necessarily within the laws, as in most cases (the majority at least) you could penalise the tackler but not the players coming into the ruck. And the reading of how the ref is playing the ruck and the decision making of the forwards is the key. If the ref hesitates with the tackler not rolling away it's a tough decision to then come back after the ball is turned over and penalise the side that has clearly won the breakdown.