Comments on: Laws 15, 16: how do All Blacks get away with it?

By: Photon

Photon — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:18:20 +0000

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!

By: ThelmaWrites

ThelmaWrites — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:14:11 +0000

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.

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:26:49 +0000

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).

By: AndyS

AndyS — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:10:36 +0000

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.

By: ThelmaWrites

ThelmaWrites — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:42:05 +0000

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.

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:35:43 +0000

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..

By: ThelmaWrites

ThelmaWrites — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:57:45 +0000

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)?

By: AndyS

AndyS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:39:15 +0000

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.

By: Ben C

Ben C — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:21:46 +0000

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?

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:42:12 +0000

It became too much like AFL

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:44:14 +0000

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??

By: Jerry

Jerry — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:20:28 +0000

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’.

By: AndyS

AndyS — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:18:29 +0000

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!

By: katzilla

katzilla — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:27:27 +0000

Ignorant comments made intentionally to wind others up.

By: David

David — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:21:23 +0000

excuse my ignorance, but what’s trolling?

By: Ziggy

Ziggy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:46:51 +0000

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.

By: Ziggy

Ziggy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:42:33 +0000

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.

By: Dean Pantio

Dean Pantio — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:53:18 +0000

Trolling noted.

By: Pippinu

Pippinu — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:37:02 +0000

I believe the answer is at least partly related to the reason why Carter was allowed to decapitate a Welsh player with impunity.

By: Republican

Republican — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:30:32 +0000

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?

By: ThelmaWrites

ThelmaWrites — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:01:31 +0000

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.

By: Dean Pantio

Dean Pantio — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:43:47 +0000

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…

By: warrenexpatnz

warrenexpatnz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:58:24 +0000

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.

By: warrenexpatnz

warrenexpatnz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:54:45 +0000

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?

By: warrenexpatnz

warrenexpatnz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:40:46 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:37:09 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:32:23 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:10:34 +0000

+1. Bring back the rucking

By: ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:40:55 +0000

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.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:24:26 +0000

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.