By ThelmaWrites
November 7th 2009 @ 3:43am
Loading ...Related coverage
Laws 15, 16: how do All Blacks get away with it?
Australian Adam Ashleigh Cooper (centre) is tackled by New Zealand's Jimmy Cowan (right) and Ali Williams (left) during the Tri Nations final between the Australian Wallabies and New Zealand All Blacks at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. The All Blacks beat the Wallabies 28-24. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
The rugby in this site is crawling with current referees, ex-referees, friends of referees, and their ilk. So why would I, just your normal rugby enthusiast, attempt to go where angels fear to tread?
Especially since infringements in the ruck as evidenced at the Tokyo Blesdisloe is all the talk?
Blame it on the Northern Hemisphere (in jest)!
While watching the Leinster v London Irish match in October, I noticed that while the Leinster half-back was trying to clear the ball at the back of the ruck, one Leinster player got up and placed his arm on an adjoining player.
Later, in a Leicester v Ospreys match, the Ospreys (I think it was the Ospreys) had a novel (to me) method at the ruck: as the opposition almost makes contact, the Osprey ball-carrier would go to ground, turn, and present the ball. Meantime, two Osprey players would run and stand on either side of the player on the ground.
Leicester would not contest the ball. Sometimes this would go through several phases.
How strange, I thought!
Never seen this before in the Southern Hemisphere, where the norm would be all players on the deck bar the half-back. So off I went to Kinokuniya at KLCC (Kuala Lumpur City Centre) and found The RFU Rugby Union Referees Manual, by Richard Greenstead, second edition 2004. (I looked up the IRB website to check that the laws hadn’t since changed.)
There it was on page 40: “2.1 Ruck…Law 16 defines a ruck as follows: A ruck is a phase of play where the ball is on the ground and one or more players from each team who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground.”
But it was the instructions covering Law 15 that intrigued me.
“Essentially, therefore, Law 15 deals with the situation where the ball carrier or the ball goes to ground, and the major underlying principle of the Law is that players can only participate if they are on their feet … If they (the arriving players) are rushing in with bent backs and heads down they are likely to fall over, and can be penalised as they are making no effort to stay on their feet … They must remain on their feet and not dive on the grounded player. It is imperative that arriving players must not voluntarily fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them – a shout of “Stay up!” is a good reminder for these players.”
Then how do the All Blacks get away with it?
In the Tokyo Bledisloe, from the second minute, ruck after ruck, the All Blacks were lying in the ruck, slowing the ball. At the 27th minute, Gordon Bray said that there must have been 8 (?) instances of ruck infringement, and surely a yellow card was called for.
Despite the general outcry, this happens time and time again, and is fodder for much discussion here in The Roar.
It is such a mystery!
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(71)
Jerry said | November 7th 2009 @ 4:25am | Report comment
Well if Gordon Bray said it….
Seriously, do you people not actually watch what your team does?
Dean Pantio said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Of course not. All Blacks beat my team therefore they are cheating. Makes perfect sense as Thelma’s team are by definition pure as the driven snow, playing rugby as god intended.
Rob said | November 7th 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
Thelma,
Interesting because I’ve been pondering similar things for a while and don’t know the answer.
There are 3 “tackle” situations:
* a tackled player brought to the ground whereby the tackler or presumably another provided he is on his feet can challenge for the ball with his hands
* a ruck where players must be on their feet with the ball on the ground and no hands are allowed
* a maul
If a player is brought to the ground as in scenario 1 , places the ball back towards his goal line about 1/2 a metre away and other players from both sides join the breakdown, is this still a tackled player brought to the ground (allowing hands) or is it a ruck (not allowing hands) ?
ThelmaWrites said | November 8th 2009 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
Law 16’s definition is quite specific: “A ruck is a phase of play where the ball is on the ground and one or more players from each team who are on their feet, in physcial contact, close around the ball on the ground.” Furthermore, Greensted’s Manual says: “Remember that, according to the definition, players on the ground do not qualify as participants in a ruck: therefore, if the ball, the tackler and the tackled player are on the ground with no-one else there, it is not a ruck.
If there is no ruck, it is open play, and anyone can play the ball, or so I understand it. But recently, the more I researched hands-in-the-ruck (as well as feet), the more I have become confused. I always thought anyone in the ruck who is on his feet can handle the ball. There was an article in The Roar by Sledge&Hammer on 5 April 2009 “Hands in the Ruck, Rugby’s solution”, which I came across while googling rugby hands in the ruck.
hammer said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Surely time to change the record – you would think poor little Australia are angels or something
Lee said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Every single team does it at International level and Super 14 level, not just the ABs. Which makes it all the more ridiculous when a ref pings a team for “going off their feet” when it happens every.single.ruck.
When I attended one of my first ever refing courses(in Christchurch), I asked the question of a fairly high level ref and he said that in order to maintain the “spectacle” of the professional games, refs were encouraged to turna blind eye to this as it had become so predominate and if you were to ping it everytme it would disrupt all continuity – not much point blowing a team for off their feet when they were going to win possession anyway.
However, this is usually policed quite strictly at club level – just one of those things I guess.
stillmissit said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Guys this is not about who does it and why they do it. It is a fundamental part of the game that is not working.
The problem comes from the international refs and the solution can only come from them. They are under pressure to make the game more appealing and one way they think they can achieve this is to stop penalising players at the breakdown and other basically stupid ideas.
Players driving into a ruck can fall over but the emphasis should be on them getting out of the way or get penalised. Handle the ball in the ruck(off feet) get penalised, not releasing the tackled player and rolling away get penalised, slow the ball down get penalised etc etc.
This is what the experimental rules were supposed to fix. Since they dumped this it is just worse.
There was a time in my day where forwards would police this stuff, if you were holding onto the ball in the ruck, well you wouldn’t do it twice.
Pippinu said | November 7th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
“So why would I, just your normal rugby enthusiast, attempt to go where angels fear to tread? ”
Refs are treated with far too much respect in the rugby world – and that is bordering on unAustralian!!
Everyone needs to be brougnt back a peg or two every now and then – you have my full support.
Rob said | November 7th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Stillmissit, it sounds as if I am of your vintage and I think the worst decision was to stop rucking. But given that it is unlikely that rucking will be allowed back in, why not just a blanket rule of no hands. Let the ball carrier have some time to place the ball back in the tackle and that’s it. If a player dives over the ball carrier, is not on his feet and touches the ball with any part of his body except for his feet then he is deemed to have dived over the ball to stop the ball being released and penalised accordingly.
Dean Pantio said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
No, the ball carrier can not “have some time”. The game is a contest for possession. The law (15.5) is clear on this matter. If tackled players didn’t hold onto the ball illegally you’d see a faster, more flowing game.
Jerry said | November 7th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
If there’s no rucking and no hands allowed in the ruck, how is the ball supposed to get out? At the moment, refs essentially decide which team has won the ruck and allow that team to use hands to get it out. I’m not sure I agree with this, but realistically if the ball has to clear two or three people to get to the halfback, how is it supposed to get there without the use of either hands or feet?
Paul said | November 8th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
+1. Bring back the rucking
stillmissit said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
If I had a clear and simple answer Rob I would have proposed it. As Dean says it is a contest for possession and as such there is always going to be some form of a bun fight.
Hands in the ruck have always been illegal except if you are onside and on your feet. This is supposed to apply to both sides but most refs allow the attacking side (or the side in possession) to hand it out to the scrum half even if they are off their feet. I wonder if it wouldn’t be clearer if they stuck to the original laws and nobody on the ground or offside can touch the ball.
I think that it is another area where refs have got themselves into a heap of trouble by trying to be all wonderful and all knowing! They do the same thing at scrum time when most of them haven’t a clue what is going on.
The rules are there to be pushed by the players and policed by the whistle. This battle should continue in a pure form and ref’s should keep there collective noses out of stuff they don’t understand.
Treating players as mates on the piitch should be rewarded with a return to 4th grade. Making decisions on a whim or a supposition should likewise be a demotion offence. Ref’s are supposed to act on fact of law not random thoughts and constant whispering from an opposition captain.
I too reff’d for a fair while.
bennalong said | November 7th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Your question remains hovering in the air.
If the refs are being encouraged to allow infringements then they are part of the commercial operation of the professional game and they should be challenged openly with video footage, on TV. Pay them well, but scrutinise their performances
The All Blacks are the best cheats at the breakdown and no amount of “you do it too” alters the fact that the Wallabies’ gameplan is about speed. We have a relatively small pack which is supposed to be mobile and achieve quick recycling.
When it works, as it did against South Africa, we do well. When it doesn’t, (and it can’t if the breakdown is a pile of bodies,) we cannot compete.
I believe the problem rests principally with the SH refs and I believe the ELV’s failed (apart from not been given anywhere near sufficient time) because the SH refs let too many key rules go unpoliced. They simply let the game run in a circumstance where the new rules needed strict and universal application if they were to be fairly assessed
KO rightly pointed out that the running game still existed in the NH despite the oppressive long arms. I believe this was because in the NH the rucks were fiercely policed.
It’s no accident that our hopes for a Wallaby revival first bore fruit on tour. If the breakdown is policed I believe we’ll see it happen again. And I believe the All Blacks will do well even if they are forced to play within the rules
ThelmaWrites said | November 7th 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
Let me give you my impressions of the GP and HC matches that I watched in the period mid-August to mid-September. These involved Bath, Leicester, Harlequins, Leinster, London Irish, Cardiff Blues, and Ospreys.
There was less diving (one in the Leinster v London Irish match); most of the penalties were for not releasing the ball. There was that one hands-in-the-ruck that cost Leinster the match. In the Leicester v Ospreys game, the referee would blow the whistle when the ball would not come out of the ruck and awarded the scrum to the team going forward.
The games were free-flowing and eminently watchable. There was “plenty of endeavour in this game”, according to the commentator in the Bath v Harlequins match. In fact, this match went a full 6 minutes past regulation time, during which ruck after ruck followed as Harlequins pressed their attack near the Bath try-line. Harlequins won 13-11.
My impression was that in adhering to Laws 15 and 16, the game was actually better viewing than some of the 3Nations tests.
allblackfan said | November 7th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
here we go, again!
why is it that wallaby fans seem to think that the ABs cheat at the breakdowns. Because we keep beating you?
(You want to talk about illegal play at the breakdown? Watch the Springboks!! They are so far off their feet at ruck time you can see the soles of their boots!! Green, by the way).
Couple of rejoinders for Wallaby fans.
1. The breakdown is a contest for possession. Players involved in the breakdown are allowed to contest for the ball provided they entered the breakdown legally and are on their feet. This can frequently result in play at the breakdown slowing down; nothing wrong there as long as the defenders got there legally!
2. Jersey pulling is illegal. In the Tokyo test, Wycliff Palu’s almost try in the first half stemmed from the fact that David Pocock was pulling on McCaw’s jersey when they detached from the scrum. Palu would not have gotten as close as he did if McCaw had not been impeded.
3. Continuing with the cleanout long past the breakdown is illegal (in the old days this was known as illegally taking the man out without the ball). Clean someout at the ruck, fine! Continue to clean that person out by driving them 5m past the ruck and holding on as long as they can — not so fine!! This point should be drilled on the Wallaby forwards, especially those from NSW.
4. Lying all over the ball at the back of the opposition side at the breakdown is illegal hence the calls for the return of rucking. Guaranteed James O’Connor would be a much wiser player by now if rucking had been allowed in the Tokyo test!
Ben said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Pot – meet kettle. How can one defend McCaw? The man infringes almost every contest of every game!
allblackfan said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Amazing how everyone but the refs seem to think so!
The man’s a genius. I’ll defend him with every breath (or keystroke, at the very least)!!
Jerry said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Shock horror, an openside infringes.
This whole “McCaw cheats” thing is ludicrously naive.
Here’s a news flash for you.
Every forward cheats. Yes, every single one.
That applies double for loose forwards and quadruple for opensides. It’s their job to push the laws to the limit, so of course sometimes they’re gonna overstep and of course sometimes the ref is gonna miss it.
I don’t have a problem with people claiming McCaw cheats, but if you wanna talk “Pot, meet kettle” anyone who supports the Wallabies for whom George Smith has racked up 100 tests in the last decade is gonna find that moral high ground a tad shaky.
stillmissit said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Jerry is totally correct in this one. If the captain points out an opposition player who is offside and his team is doing the same no ref is going to act…..
Bruiser said | November 7th 2009 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Re. No. 1 – that’s the point isn’t it ‘entering the breakdown legally and are on their feet’. They certainly weren’t on their feet the other night…that much. But i agree that all teams do it, i just think the AB’s are better at it for some reason, Ritchie included. If the Wallabies or any other team aren’t going to police it when it happens, if the Refs aren’t, then why wouldn’t they. You think the W’s don’t get belted if they are on the wrong side or deliberately slowing the ball down? This is the current problem with the forwards is that they look to the Ref far too much without having the ability to impose themselves on the opposition in this situation. I was hoping we had moved on from that with Big Al having finished up. Seems not, but on the bright side maybe Rocky will be able to instil some of this in the team over time.
sheek said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I thought the question was about consistency, or lack of, re the rugby laws, & therefore deserving of more considered responses than some of the rubbish offered so far.
I also would like someone with a refereeing background, or superior knowledge of the laws, to offer suitable answers to Thelma’s thoughtful questions.
stillmissit said | November 7th 2009 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
Sheek, as I suspect you know, the answer to Thelma’s question is a simple one. Enforce the law as it stands. Her quote is not the law but an interpretation of the law but the principle is the same.
THE GAME IS TO BE PLAYED ON YOUR FEET………. the rest is ref’s bull and pressure for a spectacle.
stillmissit said | November 7th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
To add a footnote:
If you see any early photo’s or drawings of a ruck they were guys on their feet generally trying to kick the ball out of it or pick it up. The ruck was always a dangerous place to be and over the years has become less so, therefore to ‘cheat’, as you pure as driven snow ex players have called it, involves far less physical danger and the swing has moved from the players (read backs) being scared to be there to the ref to patrol the breakdown.
Can you imagine being outside a pub at closing time and a fight breaks out and, as a sideline observer, you try to enforce Marquess of Queensbury rules, well this is how I feel about refereeing the ruck.
Good luck to McCaw, Smith and any other number 7, they wouldn’t have got away with it, with just the occasional penalty, in my day.
Daniel J said | November 7th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
It is true, regardless of any allegiances or cries of cheating, both teams are guilty of it, All Blacks are just better at it is all. One method to prevent this from happening is the reintroduction of rucking players on the ball, simple really.
Damo said | November 7th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Team from New Zealand Fan – Regarding Pocock holding back McCaw You forgot to mention or failed to see that McCaw had broken early from that scrum and should have been penalised first. Surprise, surprise he wasn’t.
Of course everyone cheats..
Ultimately though, the Wallabies will start winning and Kiwis will start whingeing about poor refereeing decisions as many have to me when the Wallabies were beating them.
The issue though is the game. We need to find a law structure that allows consistency in refereeing that stops the current slide into a cheat fest . No-one enjoys the oval ball equivalent of soccer cynicism. Australians care more than others about the game because we have the most code competitive football market in the world.
We are not just whingeing about losses though triumphalistic fans of the team from New Zealand might like to paint us that way. We are trying to ensure thatt there is real rugby competitiveness from this side of the Tasman. And we need public support for that. Poor laws with poor refereeing kills rugby as a spectacle for the swinging voters.
Anyone who thinks that the team from New Zealand is not cynically exploiting problems in referee detection is probably not completely impartial .
katzilla said | November 7th 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
No one here is saying that the Kiwis don’t cheat, we all know they do.
‘We are trying to ensure thatt there is real rugby competitiveness from this side of the Tasman’
You know that has nought to do with the All Blacks or the referees, that ball is entirely in the court of the Wallabies.
The Referees nor the All Blacks can be expected to molly coddle the game in Australia.
The ingredients for success are there as plain as day, analysing how another team gets away with it means nothing unless you learn a lesson from it. Its obvious the Wallabies haven’t.
Dean Pantio said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
“We are not just whingeing about losses” Au contraire, quack, quack, quack.
There appears to be very few Wallaby supporters watching matches with both eyes open. Even fewer commenting here.
Harry said | November 7th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Just another area (infringing at the breakdown) where NZ rugby has, by and large, been 10% at least better than most other rugby nations, including Aus.
Have to laugh at the Kiwi poster getting all indignant about a Wallaby hanging onto McCaw’s jersey. Ritchie is himself is actually a master of this tactic and I’ve seen him do it heaps of times, so if it happened to him then thats the first step in evening up the ledger … by there’s a long way to go.
Darwin hammer said | November 7th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
That’s the thing Harry – there were 2 teams out there on Sat night – so why single 1 out – as the headline suggests – all AB fan is doing is pointing out Wallaby infringements – it is too simplistic to concentrate on 1 team and then point at the ref and say but for him we could have won – which was basically Dean’s latest excuse and the media’s hype from HK last year
warrenexpatnz said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
I will say one thing hammer that Deans has been strangely quiet up until the Japan game and it would make for a fascinating interview with him discussing the topic we have being going over. I think he does now have a different view of what other international teams are up against it when playing the All Blacks now being the Wallaby coach.
Deans strikes me as a very honest an open man who calls it only if the facts present themselves so for him to speak up in Japan does give an insight into this and many others opinions of whether you not only play the All Blacks as a team on the day but the history and mana of the past as well. Bloody daunting anyhow knowing that either you play to 100% of your ability and hope like hell the ABs play at least 10% below theirs which then makes it an equal contest, eh?
Hammer said | November 7th 2009 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
I think most of you miss the point completely. Is is NOT the Refs fault! I’m not a ref either….
The way we play the game at ALL levels of rugby is directly related to the way the players are coached. In this instance players are coached to go to ground immediately in contact and try and lay the ball back for quick, quality recycle and continuity. We have lost the ability to Ruck effectively (i know, I know you can still ruck but you know thats not what we are talking about) We would do much better id coaches could couch players to contact correctly, stay on their feet longer and only going to ground when there is enough support to retain possession. The breakdown is still a simple process but we now have almost a generation of players that never rucked, can’t stay on their feet, have no balance in contact and worst of all have no likely hood of learning these skills in the future.
Get rid of the gate.. make the the ball the off side and allow players to attack possession from anywhere onside. Coach players to stay on their feet and continue the drive until they are required to go to ground… make them fight as hard to stay on their feet to maintain possession.
Unfortunately our great game is no longer a game of high skilled collisions and and harrowing forward play, its a softy lame corruption of cynical half arsed coaches and administrators and can’t se anyway back.
Oh and the AB cheat yep they cheat better than most, they are amazing cheats in fact they cheat so much the are the professors of cheating, cheating masters… but they are also the best rugby players in the world
bozo said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
As `anyone who watched the Canterbury / Wellington game today or the Leicester / South Africa game over night would have seen, referees (Vinie Munro and Stuart Dickinson) can assist create a very exciting and keenly contested game by having a sensible approach to the way they apply the interpretations. Unfortunately, the S14 and Tri Nations games had the blight of the influence of pedantic South African referees setting the referees’ benchmark.
Ziggy said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
It’s not their job to ‘create’ exciting games. It’s their job to enforce the laws. That is a major reason why it’s such a mess. Most of them – apart from the top SA refs – couldn’t interpret their own names, let alone what to do about creating ‘excitiong’ games.
ThelmaWrites said | November 7th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
First of all, gentlemen, I had a bland, non-inflammatory title to the article, but….!
I’ll answer individual points later, but let me make several proposals, assuming we all want the situation cleaned up.
1) The “Pollyana Entente” – Very optimistic, hence “Pollyana”. The rugby governing bodies of the ZANSAR nations will issue a communique that they are going to produce a Memorandum of Agreement that all senior levels of rugby in their respective countries are exhorted to follow Laws 15 and 16 faithfully. It might take as long as the Treaty of Versailles but let’s hope it won’t be futile.
2) The Somewhat Doable Suggestion – The said bodies to put out a Manual (commit to writing) along the lines of Richard Greensted’s efforts addressed to their referees.
3) The Very Doable Suggestion – The said bodies through the appropriate board(s) to instruct their referees that at beginning of every match at senior level, that the referees call the captains of the two teams and tell them that he is going to heavily police the breakdown and infractions against Laws 15 and 16 will be dealt with severely. That when he yells “Stay on your feet!”, he means it.
The point about making the game flow and minimise stoppages, I will reply to later.
Dean Pantio said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
It’s not just about staying on your feet – it’s about ensuring the tackled player releases the ball immediately and the tackler releases the tackled player and moves away immediately. Merely penalising a team for going off their feet is ludicrous if they were in fact going to win the ruck anyway.
ohtani's jacket said | November 8th 2009 @ 12:16am | Report comment
The Aussies are soft. End of story.
warrenexpatnz said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Soft as in baby fat at the moment but looking forward to the muscle that is developing, be nice to win a third RWC and head towards a 2013 Lions Series as world champs, yes I am having a boring Sunday but dreams? are free.
warrenexpatinnz said | November 8th 2009 @ 6:21am | Report comment
Yes every sevn cheats, yes every side cheats or more correctly pushes the greyness of the laws to the fullest and rely on a referees personality to decide.
However the All Blacks are seemingly exempt from bad calls and it isn’t until they, the All Blacks and to a lesser extent Aussie and the Boks play at a RWC they are penalised for fairly blatant ruck infringements.
The All Blacks do crash over illegally in rucks, not binding, slowing or killing the ball and it is done through speed creating the illusional of correctness on their behalf. Unforyunately for Australia and Wales, the game I just watched this morning are placed under extra pressure where the All Blacks are allowed to continue this ruck infringing. It cost the wallabies twice on their try line in Tokoyo and the Welsh once this morning and when you play rugby at this level one missed try through a non call by the ref is crucial.
I guess what summed it up for me over the past two weeks and should glaringly highlight to the IRB the protectionism of the ABss where;
1: Sivivatu given a yellow for a red card offence
2: Thompson infringes three times in the ruck in fifteen minutes yet stays on the park and Mccaw is warned twice and penalised once
3: Dan Carter head highs during the Welsh game with a swinging arm yet no call, this was a yellow card offence right out in front
To sign off the only joy I can take from this softly approach from the referees with the Abs is that karma will see them at the 2011 RWC as for some strange reason everyone, excluding the Pacific sides are treated equally by the referees and the All Blacks lose perhaps the most potent weapon which is the winning of the breakdown.
Dean Pantio said | November 8th 2009 @ 6:33am | Report comment
Give it a rest.
Did Giteau get a red card for his “tackle” on Fourie du Preez? “softly approach” Here’s a clue for the delusional like warren; you’re just not as good. That’s why you lose.
warrenexpatinnz said | November 8th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I’m sorry Dean that some AB supporters (I assume you are one) like you take exception to being called anything but the worlds best all the time yet the RWC still eludes you.
The main point I was trying to make is that come 2011 RWC the playing field will be even as all teams will face the same laws from nuetral referees. The best sides receive favourtism in any sport and the All Blacks are no different.
I get sour when I see teams penalised against the All Blacks for infringements for which the All Blacks in the same circumstance don’t.
I don’t need to produce research on this as it has been done many a time before and occurs against all sides. Now don’t get me wrong the Wallabies and the Spring Boks aren’t angels either and yes the All Blacks get some shocking calls as well but if you look at infringements during a game and look at the years in between world cups you will see the ABs strangely low on the yellow cards and penalties against. McCaw V Smith is the prime example of what I mean.
My Karma comment, tounge in cheek and a hopeful thought is more that come the world cup the All Blacks have the unreal expectation that they are working within the laws and understand the referees around them yet from 1999 through to 2007 we saw an All Black side miss the rub of the green, get penalised were they normaly wouldn’t and sides playing against them weren’t penalised no where as much as they would of been outside the RWC and playing against the ABs.
80% of the time the ABs will win because of their skill but I do not believe they exempt from the laws of the game just because they wear the famous black jumper.
Cheers, remember its only an opinion of one?
johno said | November 8th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Ag boet you should have seen old Stuey Dickheadson spoil a good match on friday night by allowing exactly what you are now accusing the AB’s of. But don’t let that spoil your religious fervor. The problem with the game is the unscrupulous actions of referees. And Stuey is the main culprit when it comes to this. He had no regard for entry to the rucks, allowed players to fall over the ball, allowed a player to openly pull another player’s hair way off the ball, oh but he probably didn’t see it, just like the Brad Thorne, John Smith incident. So maybe this is karma catching up with you’s. Your refs are blatantly cheating, so suck it up my boy!
Dean Pantio said | November 8th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
What I take exception to warren is ignorant warbling, straw man arguments masquerading as informed commentary.
This may come as a shock to you, but the laws of rugby are the same now, for all countries.
I get sour when I see the All Blacks penalised or infringements for which other teams in the same circumstance don’t.
I don’t need to produce research on this as it has been done many a time before and occurs against all sides. Now don’t get me wrong the All Blacks aren’t angels either…
Darwin hammer said | November 8th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Here’s a thought Warren – try watching the game with both eyes open – instead of concentrating on trying to spot as many infringements of 1 team as possible – that way you’ll see that it’s actually not as one sided as you want it to be
warrenexpatinnz said | November 8th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
I do try to watch with both eyes open and for the most I am pretty fair minded but yes can slip into a one sided view point but my thoughts presently could mirror the hatred and raving from the majority of Kiwi fans after 2007 against the referees.
I like watching a good contest where both sides are given the same treatment and one only needs to look at the injustice against Fiji by Paddy Obrien to understand the better sides get the better calls nearly all the time. Remember Hong Kong?
Suprisingly it is not that hard to spot the infringements not called against the All Blacks, the Wallabies and the Spring Boks as they are pretty obvious, even to a one eyed man! One poor call can cost a test match, hence the non call of a head high tackle by Carter right out in front of the Welsh goal was a clanger and possibly changed the course and the outcome of the match.
How do we get a fair contest by giving accurate calls? Two refs, greater video ref power? Who knows but wouldn’t it be nice to walk away from a game saying the ABs, Wallabies or Boks won because they were the better side and not because some referees personality and perception of right or wrong decided the game.
Darwin hammer said | November 8th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Fine – note the tackle – but why not then make comment on the 3 separate cynical infringements by the welsh when NZ was camped on their tryline – penalty given each time yet no hint of any further action – as I say Warren open both eyes – it’s swings and roundabouts out there
Paul said | November 8th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
and Warren – what of the disallowed trys in the Wales game last night. NZ would have won in a canter. U sir are upset with the Wallabies performances but instead of pointing out their lack of depth, passion to the game and physical ability, you insist on blaming the referees rulings for the Aussies 1 in 4 record against NZ. The All Blacks play the Wallabies with different referees every year and they for the last 7 games have been the better team – (yes I was there in Hong Kong) Open your eyes and cop it sweet – the Wallabies simply are not good enough yet.
warrenexpatnz said | November 8th 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Just caught the replay and lifted my eye patch for just a little bit, yes I see your point. I guess I was a tad blinkered to some of the Welsh infringing though I still stand by the fact that the very best sides are treated differently by referees and can get away with much more and generaly they also get the rub of the green.
Sometimes It may only be one decision in a match which favours the All Blacks but when playing close matches were only a try seperate the teams at the end isn’t it important that all sides are treated equally when it comes to infringements which stifle a teams attacking play?
I mentioned in a previous post about McCaw versus Smith, perhaps the two most watched players at the breakdown and who are the best at what they do yet Smith has had the pleasure of the sin bin 2:1 of McCaw and is penalised at 3:1.
Now before my head is bitten off I will re research these stats and do a head to head as well so that the facts are undeniable.
Now as I put my eye patch back on a thought just jumped into my head, maybe, just maybe I noticed the All Blacks infringing more than the Welsh because they were the All Blacks, the side your generally watch and focus on as they are perceived to be much better at the breakdown than anyone else?
To all the afronted AB supporters thinking I hate the All Blacks, shock horror I actually enjoy them beating the home nations but deep down I harbour that upset victory which will take them down that peg or two.
Jerry said | November 8th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Sivivatu got a yellow – were you complaining when Rocky didn’t even get that for the exact same offence in the Auckland Bledisloe test?
And again – watch both sides. I don’t see how anyone can watch the way Martin Williams played last night and complain about the AB tactics at the breakdown.
ohtani's jacket said | November 8th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Exactly, no-one adheres to Law 15 and 16 when they play us, but you never hear us All Black supporters complaining about it because we just want the forwards to clear them the fruck out.
OldManEmu said | November 8th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
What I do not understand is why the Kiwi supporteers on this site do not ignore the supposed one eyed drivel, if that what it be, comfortable in their own knowledge that their team does not cheat, that Richie McCaw is the greatest, and that their nation is without question the finest Rugby playing in the world.
Paul said | November 8th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
We enjoy poking fun at the Wallabies. The Roar needs traffic on their site and advertising pays the bills. So what better way than to drum up the ire of the most passionate Rugby supporters in the world than accuse their brilliant team of cheating without the same opportunities being offered to the Wannabies.
Republican said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
I believe the point here is not that all teams do it BUT that NZ do it and are NOT pinged.
Why is that I wonder other than that they are a far more consummate side at cheating?
Pippinu said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I believe the answer is at least partly related to the reason why Carter was allowed to decapitate a Welsh player with impunity.
Dean Pantio said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Trolling noted.
Ziggy said | November 9th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
If there was a truly objective ref who actually enforced the laws then the ABs would be down to about 10 players after 20 mins. The Boks down to about 11. This would suit us Wobblies except that we would then get in each others way and not score anyway.
David said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
excuse my ignorance, but what’s trolling?
katzilla said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Ignorant comments made intentionally to wind others up.
AndyS said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
For mine, the point isn’t who cheats or not (although I would note that the “everyone does it” defence is peurile even when used by a six year old). I would have said it is more a question as to the point of laws that aren’t enforced. If the law is there, it should be enforced impartially to the best of a ref’s ability (and it just needs to be accepted that there will inevitably be things missed). But if there are laws that are being ignored in favour of flow, then fine – remove them from the law book as they are just a distraction and potentially contentious.
It surely isn’t that hard a concept – establish the law, administer it consistently without fear or favour, and if it turns out to need changes then do it. It should be the motto of the IRB!
Jerry said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
Andy – the ‘everyone does it’ argument isn’t an excuse, it’s more a case of ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.
Brett McKay said | November 9th 2009 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
If we may return to one of the original topics in this piece for a moment, and gents please leave your national allegiances at the door, to those of us that saw the full ELVs in play, what did we make of hands in the ruck being allowed?? What were our thoughts about speed or cleaniness of the rucks with this rule in play??
I can only base my comment on the ARC and the Sydney club comp that preceded it, but in my mind the breakdown was a lot cleaner, the ball came out much faster, and the rugby was good to watch as a result.
Is this a common recollection, and is there merit in this LV being brought in??
Jimmy said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
It became too much like AFL
AndyS said | November 10th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
I didn’t like it particularly and thought it a bit messy, but I am not sure it was given enough trial. It was noticable that the LV allowing the maul to be pulled down initially meant no mauls, but they made a reappearance the following year (and were a damn sight better organised too). I have occassionally wondered whether the “hands” variation could have ultimately proved beneficial had it been persisted with into a second year and players become more adept at securing the ball and refs at spotting illegal hands.
It was one of the problems with the disjointed and half-arsed approach taken to the trials – things were tested briefly and/or in isolation, and at the end of it a yes/no decision was made without examining causes, effects or potential tweaks. It was either perfect first time, or just wrong.
Brett McKay said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
Andy, I think from memory that the hands LV was among the few that were cut instantly, and so never even saw the light of day in the 2008 Super14. So you’re right, it may well have proved beneficial, but we’ll never know..
ThelmaWrites said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
Brett McKay and AndyS
I would be grateful if you would clarify 1) what was the hands-in-the ruck-ELV; 2) what was the practice before this; 3) what did the ELV intend to do? I’m utterly confused. The more I research hands-in-the ruck, the more confused I become. I know that Sledge&Hammer had an article in The Roar, “Hands in the Ruck, Rugby’s Solution” on 5 April 2009. It left me more puzzled than ever.
Many thanks.
AndyS said | November 11th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
1. Basically just as it says – anyone on their feet could compete for the ball with their hands with the only penalty offences at the breakdown being not releasing, offside for not coming through the gate, and offside for defending ahead of the offside line. It was trialled in the ARC, but then dropped from all further trials.
2. Prior practice was as per 16.4(b) “Players must not handle the ball in a ruck”. Same applies now, except that a recent ruling allows a player to play the ball provided they legitimately got their hands on it before the ruck has formed.
3. Intent was to simplify the job of the referee at the breakdown, one of the primary objectives of the entire ELV exercise. A secondary effect was expected to be the requirement to commit more players to the breakdown, opening space and challenging defensive lines. In practice what happened was that the breakdown got messy and unpredictable, contributing to teams tending to kick rather than go into contact. Whether that would have continued as teams adapted and got better at securing their own ball, we will probably never know. It would arguably push the game back towards its roots of continually contesting the ball, but the relatively secure ball and multiple phases possible once the ruck becomes predictable probably makes for better television.
Brett McKay said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Thelma, my apologies, I’ve only just come back to this now. Andy looks to have it well covered. My recollection from the ARC was that once teams got used to all the ELVs, the hands in the ruck worked well for getting quick ball, and continued phases, but there was a lot of attempted killing of the ball due to another ELV that said if the ball didn’t come out of the ruck, the free kick/scrum feed went to the defending team (for some reason).
ThelmaWrites said | November 11th 2009 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
AndyS and Brett McKay
Thank you for the answers. I’ll save them.
I agree, if the laws are flagrantly flouted by the referees on the instigation of others, they should remove the laws, or amend them to suit the desired practice.
The situation as it stands is scandalous, and can potentially give the game a bad reputation.
Many thanks once again.
Ben C said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
1. Every team flops on the attacking side to secure (attack) or slow (defence) the ball.
2. It would be nice if referees enforced this better. It would be nice if referees got evreything right. It would be nice if we all had a cool million in our bank accounts and summer houses in the south of France. I am afraid I found out about Santa some time ago.
3. The AB’s, Boks and many other teams solve the problems by aggressively driving into rucks to clear people out of the way and get to the ball.
4. The Wallabies send a couple of forwards in to hover over the players and look up at the ref expectantly in the hope of a penalty. The look is fleeting as they are driven backward by forwards from the opposition committed to clearing out the breakdown so their halfback can get to the ball.
5. Why are we surprised that 3 works better than 4?
ThelmaWrites said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
1) I seem to remember that in the 90s, there were many instances when the referee would blow the play dead when the ball did not come out of the ruck. The impression is growing in me that nowadays, there are fewer such instances. Maybe three in an entire match. Is this scripted to make the game less non-stop and hence better viewing?
2) My other impression is that refs police Law 15 rather vigilantly at the beginning of the match (bar the Tokyo Bledisloe), but in the second half, perhaps due to fatigue or the increased tempo of the game, they become less vigilant (Eden Park Bledisloe 2008, Austrlia v Wales 2008)?
Photon said | November 11th 2009 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
Articles which accuse certain sides especially highly successful sides of being cheats are usually naïve, simply because in any sporting contest with a neutral referee the better team is likely to get the rub of the green more often than not and more importantly when they do get the rub of the green they’re likely to make you pay. For example, no one notices when the ref gives a fifty fifty call against the All Blacks because the All Blacks are so good that it is not usually terminal i.e. the opposition are usually to inept to make the most their good fortune. The All Blacks though almost always invariably make the most of a half chance. Luck is what happens when opportunity meets preparation, the All Blacks don’t win and on occasion destroy sides caus they are better cheats, they do so because 90% of the time man for man pound for pound they’re just the better side, they’re as skilled at rugby, as the Brazilians are at football, if it all clicks the opposition is FU CK ED, if it doesn’t the opposition have a even chance, this is not my opinion, just fact cause if you look at their past they have a positive win loss ratio of over 60% against all nations bar one, and fellas that’s at home and away, so if you take your country’s last 10 matches at home to the Blacks, you’ll find that they have one atleast 6 and if you look at the fixtures away from home it’s even more( Fu ck, that’s actually better than the record Brazil have). The rest of us are just not as good as they are YET!