Super Rugby play-offs: Crusaders - Bulls in Christchurch (21/07/2012)

[Shovenose]

From the website of the IRB:



And I found this:

Yes I see. "Throw forward" not forward pass and you missed a important part there.

EXCEPTION
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the
ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw forward.

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Ehm, I actually mentioned that point in one of my previous messages. By hitting a player, it has to be an opposing player though, otherwise it's lost forward or, if the ball-carrying player walks into his teammate, it's accidental offside.

[Shovenose]

Ehm, I actually mentioned that point in one of my previous messages. By hitting a player, it has to be an opposing player though, otherwise it's lost forward or, if the ball-carrying player walks into his teammate, it's accidental offside.

Nope.

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Note there is nothing that states opposing player. Any player. If you pass the ball it hits the ground and then go forward its not forward. If you hit your own team mate or he heads it forward its not forward. If it hits his chest its not forward. To throw it at your own team mate and to apply the accidental offside rule a person must be close to playing grid iron which will mean its a intentional throw forward.

[TRF_nickdnz]

Nope.


Note there is nothing that states opposing player. Any player. If you pass the ball it hits the ground and then go forward its not forward. If you hit your own team mate or he heads it forward its not forward. If it hits his chest its not forward. To throw it at your own team mate and to apply the accidental offside rule a person must be close to playing grid iron which will mean its a intentional throw forward.

I can think of many times when this has applied. For example when there is a kick off and a player knocks it forward for a player infront to then catch/pick it up.

[Shovenose]

I can think of many times when this has applied. For example when there is a kick off and a player knocks it forward for a player infront to then catch/pick it up.

That is with a knock on not a throw forward. This is accidental offside

(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying
it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play
continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing
team throwing in the ball.
(b) When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is
offside. Unless the receiver is considered to be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty
kick is awarded), the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the
opposing team throwing in the ball.

But if you prevent the opposition from gaining a advantage its a penalty and not accidental.

11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Tell me what your point is for starting this whole debate....

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

[Shovenose]

Tell me what your point is for starting this whole debate....

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

Its a debate?

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Discussion... Same thing....

[Shovenose]

Discussion... Same thing....

Discussion seems fit. If you want a good explenation over rules and some disreputable decisions check out www.Sareferees.com and visit the video section. Its updated weekly with very good explenations.

Found this interesting article about the Saders.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion...y-conning-refs

Any thoughts?

[Sam91]

Discussion seems fit. If you want a good explenation over rules and some disreputable decisions check out www.Sareferees.com and visit the video section. Its updated weekly with very good explenations.

Found this interesting article about the Saders.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion...y-conning-refs

Any thoughts?

Biased referess...? Nooooo theres definitely no such thing... ha.

[TRF_nickdnz]

Discussion seems fit. If you want a good explenation over rules and some disreputable decisions check out www.Sareferees.com and visit the video section. Its updated weekly with very good explenations.

Found this interesting article about the Saders.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion...y-conning-refs

Any thoughts?

Yeah, it's not worth reading or posting.

A captain talking to a referee to try and get his team the rub of the green? That's exactly what a captain is supposed to do. He's not disrespectful to a referee like Rocky Elsom so often was, he just talks to them to try and get them to see it from his teams perspective, what many great captains including Martin Johnson, George Gregan, Tana Umaga and let's not forget John Smit, often did.

It's written by an idiot, who makes stupid and inflamitory statements with no statistical basis, to cause debate and get people to read. Up there with idiots like Mark Reason.

[heineken]

Yeah, it's not worth reading or posting.

A captain talking to a referee to try and get his team the rub of the green? That's exactly what a captain is supposed to do. He's not disrespectful to a referee like Rocky Elsom so often was, he just talks to them to try and get them to see it from his teams perspective, what many great captains including Martin Johnson, George Gregan, Tana Umaga and let's not forget John Smit, often did.

It's written by an idiot, who makes stupid and inflamitory statements with no statistical basis, to cause debate and get people to read. Up there with idiots like Mark Reason.

When I saw it was under the opinion page, I already knew that this was going to be some BS! a blog by an angry rugby supporter is never interesting, nor worth reading.

It serves no purpose

[TRF_Darwin]

Crusaders team named:

Israel Dagg, Adam Whitelock, Robbie Fruean, Ryan Crotty, Zac Guildford, Dan Carter (vc), Andy Ellis, Richie McCaw (c), Matt Todd, George Whitelock, Samuel Whitelock, Luke Romano, Owen Franks, Corey Flynn, Wyatt Crockett.
Reserves: Quentin MacDonald, Ben Franks, Tom Donnelly, Luke Whitelock, Willi Heinz, Tom Taylor, Sean Maitland.

Kieran Read has been ruled out, which is bad news for the Crusaders, as the team looks so much better with him at number 8. Crockett has been preferred over Ben Franks at LH prop, and (as expected) Adam Whitelock has been moved back to the wing to accommodate Robbie Fruean, with Maitland dropping to the bench.

Bulls named too:

Zane Kirchner, Akona Ndungane, JJ Engelbrecht, Wynand Olivier, Bjorn Basson, Morne Steyn, Francois Hougaard, Pierre Spies (capt), Dewald Potgieter, Jacques Potgieter Juandre Kruger, Flip van der Merwe, Werner Kruger, Chiliboy Ralepelle, Dean Greyling.
Reserves: Willie Wepener, Frik Kirsten, Wilhelm Steenkamp, Deon Stegmann, Jano Vermaak, Louis Fouche, Francois Venter.

van der Merwe back for the Bulls, with Steenkamp dropping to the bench. Surprised to see CJ Stander miss out altogether, as I thought he was an ideal impact player from the bench....

[stormer2010]

Both teams have named close to full strength line-ups. Very good teams on paper and I suppose any team can win on the day though I give the Crusaders a head start for this one.

Man, I just hope just one of Vermeulen or Koster is fit for our match against the winner of this fixture next week. Burger has been ruled out but Vermeulen might still make it.

Good news for the Stormers is that Kolisi and Aplon are fine after having taken knocks in the last game against the Rebels and that Etzebeth is fit and will feature in the semi's so we are coming right RWT injuries at the business end of the tournament.

[heineken]

I for one am not surprized to see CJ miss out. He's the most inexperienced player in that squad, along with Fouche. and in playoff games you need the experienced guys to keep a cool head. and Stegmann is a fetcher, so he could come in later in the game to disrupt the crusaders a bit more after the other guys had some bashes at them...

[TRF_Darwin]

I for one am not surprized to see CJ miss out. He's the most inexperienced player in that squad, along with Fouche. and in playoff games you need the experienced guys to keep a cool head. and Stegmann is a fetcher, so he could come in later in the game to disrupt the crusaders a bit more after the other guys had some bashes at them...

Having an experienced player can be a big advantage in playoff rugby, but I don't know whether I'd consider Stegmann a 'cool head'. He seems to get himself penalized a lot, which could be very costly in a tight game. In addition he hasn't really played much rugby this year - he started the 2 games at the start of the season, but after that he has only played 2 games (both off the bench) - I just wonder whether he will be match-fit? I'm sure the Bulls coaches know a lot more about their team than me though!

[heineken]

Having an experienced player can be a big advantage in playoff rugby, but I don't know whether I'd consider Stegmann a 'cool head'. He seems to get himself penalized a lot, which could be very costly in a tight game. In addition he hasn't really played much rugby this year - he started the 2 games at the start of the season, but after that he has only played 2 games (both off the bench) - I just wonder whether he will be match-fit? I'm sure the Bulls coaches know a lot more about their team than me though!

Yeah, Stegmann isn't a cool head, but he's not tired as the other guys, so he could be instrumental. but it could also backfire. I just think Ludeke has a plan that could swing in the Bulls favour with this specific selection at flanker.

[Sam91]

Yeah, it's not worth reading or posting.

A captain talking to a referee to try and get his team the rub of the green? That's exactly what a captain is supposed to do. He's not disrespectful to a referee like Rocky Elsom so often was, he just talks to them to try and get them to see it from his teams perspective, what many great captains including Martin Johnson, George Gregan, Tana Umaga and let's not forget John Smit, often did.

It's written by an idiot, who makes stupid and inflamitory statements with no statistical basis, to cause debate and get people to read. Up there with idiots like Mark Reason.

Haha it's written by mark reason which would explain at lot.

[Shovenose]

Yeah, it's not worth reading or posting.

A captain talking to a referee to try and get his team the rub of the green? That's exactly what a captain is supposed to do. He's not disrespectful to a referee like Rocky Elsom so often was, he just talks to them to try and get them to see it from his teams perspective, what many great captains including Martin Johnson, George Gregan, Tana Umaga and let's not forget John Smit, often did.

It's written by an idiot, who makes stupid and inflamitory statements with no statistical basis, to cause debate and get people to read. Up there with idiots like Mark Reason.

Mark Reason have a blog at the Rugbysite as well. But you do not agree that McCaw has been lucky with all the things he gets away with? Even if he himself said so?

“I made a few mistakes. I think the important thing is to know what you will get away with. But I undoubtedly made mistakes,” said McCaw.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/TriNa...ating-20100728

And its ok if they call the French "filthy"
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/al...-1226215161862

But its not ok if they are accused of not playing to the spirit of the game and should not be pointed out?

[Gena_ZA]

Glad Stander is not playing, he is deserting the Bulls and should not even have gone on tour <- my opinion

[Shovenose]

The Crusaders will be targeting that Bulls scrum. They played second fiddle to the Sharks and the Lions in their last two games and the Bulls have been conceding a lot of penalties from the scrum platform as well.

[William18]

Mark Reason have a blog at the Rugbysite as well. But you do not agree that McCaw has been lucky with all the things he gets away with? Even if he himself said so?

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/TriNa...ating-20100728

And its ok if they call the French "filthy"
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/al...-1226215161862

But its not ok if they are accused of not playing to the spirit of the game and should not be pointed out?

I think you need a good education about what a number 7 in rugby is meant to do. They are meant to get in there and try and win the ball. If you go into the breakdown you are likely to offend and give away penalties. If you can offend and get away with it then that is good for you. What do you think someone like Schalk Burger doesn't try to do the same thing? He just isn't as good at it. It's not like say the referee isn't looking and Burger is in the breakdown he would be above entering the side of the ruck. Do you think a player is only playing in the spirit of the game if they don't give away penalties? Where do you draw the line?

And you are honestly sick if you can't see the difference between an eye gouge and using hands in the ruck and getting away with it. Do you not think eye gouging is filthy? You think losing your vision is a bit of fun or something?

Notice now that Pocock is beginning to rival McCaw they know have moved on and have started calling him a cheat http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...emi-final.html. Pocock should be absolutely thrilled at such praise! "Cheat" is the term given to the best number 7 in the world. So I'm telling you watch out with your ridiculous accusations. The next time the best number 7 in the world is a South Africa, he will be labeled a cheat too.

[TRF_nickdnz]

Mark Reason have a blog at the Rugbysite as well. But you do not agree that McCaw has been lucky with all the things he gets away with? Even if he himself said so?

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/TriNa...ating-20100728

And its ok if they call the French "filthy"
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/al...-1226215161862

But its not ok if they are accused of not playing to the spirit of the game and should not be pointed out?

Ugh, I don't know why I'm replying to this.

Although it is funny that Mark Reason wrote this, a person known for being the biggest joke in sports journalism; and I can't help but draw conclusions about you that you seem to think there is weight to this.

No. He's not a cheat in the sense that I've never seen him do a late tackle, throw a punch, eye gouge, spear tackle etc (although he's certainly had his fair share and more done to him). What he does do is what every number seven in the world ought to do and that is play to the referees interpretation of the breakdown laws (which is what that quote is from). David Pocock did it when he f*cked up South Africa as Henrich Brussow did it during the 2009 Lions tour. If you're not trying to slow down, disrupt and turnover opposition call than you're probably not a very good openside at any level.

You can try and stir things up with inflamitory arguments if you like, but it comes off as bitter and pathetic.

[Shovenose]

I think you need a good education about what a number 7 in rugby is meant to do. They are meant to get in there and try and win the ball. If you go into the breakdown you are likely to offend and give away penalties. If you can offend and get away with it then that is good for you. What do you think someone like Schalk Burger doesn't try to do the same thing? He just isn't as good at it. It's not like say the referee isn't looking and Burger is in the breakdown he would be above entering the side of the ruck. Do you think a player is only playing in the spirit of the game if they don't give away penalties? Where do you draw the line?

And you are honestly sick if you can't see the difference between an eye gouge and using hands in the ruck and getting away with it. Do you not think eye gouging is filthy? You think losing your vision is a bit of fun or something?

Notice now that Pocock is beginning to rival McCaw they know have moved on and have started calling him a cheat http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...emi-final.html. Pocock should be absolutely thrilled at such praise! "Cheat" is the term given to the best number 7 in the world. So I'm telling you watch out with your ridiculous accusations. The next time the best number 7 in the world is a South Africa, he will be labeled a cheat too.

Ugh, I don't know why I'm replying to this.

Although it is funny that Mark Reason wrote this, a person known for being the biggest joke in sports journalism; and I can't help but draw conclusions about you that you seem to think there is weight to this.

No. He's not a cheat in the sense that I've never seen him do a late tackle, throw a punch, eye gouge, spear tackle etc (although he's certainly had his fair share and more done to him). What he does do is what every number seven in the world ought to do and that is play to the referees interpretation of the breakdown laws (which is what that quote is from). David Pocock did it when he f*cked up South Africa as Henrich Brussow did it during the 2009 Lions tour. If you're not trying to slow down, disrupt and turnover opposition call than you're probably not a very good openside at any level.

You can try and stir things up with inflamitory arguments if you like, but it comes off as bitter and pathetic.

I think you are making the wrong assumptions and do not understand what he really is saying. Maybe calling someone a cheat no one will really look at from anything other than a inflammatory point of view as it is such a ugly word in sport. But basically he is right when he says the Crusaders are masters at manupilating the ref. Or let me go one further and say NZ are masters at it. Maybe because your a Kiwi and are use to it you do not notice it but others do. To show you what I mean Wayne Smith said it the best

The top half backs are world class diplomats. They get the ref onside, even when some of their teammates may not be. Ellis did that for the All Blacks.

There were times in that brutal final 30 minutes when a pedantic referee might have picked up one of our forwards for being off his feet or for placing a foot in an offside position. But Andy was able to get our players backs onside and at the same time establish a relationship with referee Craig Joubert. He let the ref know that we were a disciplined side and, as halfback, he would do everything to keep his teammates within the laws. It was a huge part of our win.

http://www.therugbysite.com/blog_pos...by-wayne-smith

What a number 7 does is irrelevant. They still need to abide by the laws and breaking the rules and see if you can get away with it is not in the spirit of the game. I am not talking about McCaw specifically there but all those you mentioned as well. And slowing the ball down close to your try line and get pinged for it surely constitutes as a professional foul. Why can some get away with it where others get sin binned for it? If you look at the YC per penalty ratio you will note that SA and Australia avg 6 penalties per YC in the Tri Nations and a team like NZ around 40 per YC. That is a massive difference and from a team who concedes the most penalties in a game at avg in it. If that figures were reversed surely you would have scratched your head and asked some questions as well. But if it favors you you will dismiss anything around it or anything someone mention about it.

[TRF_nickdnz]

I think you are making the wrong assumptions and do not understand what he really is saying. Maybe calling someone a cheat no one will really look at from anything other than a inflammatory point of view as it is such a ugly word in sport. But basically he is right when he says the Crusaders are masters at manupilating the ref. Or let me go one further and say NZ are masters at it. Maybe because your a Kiwi and are use to it you do not notice it but others do. To show you what I mean Wayne Smith said it the best


http://www.therugbysite.com/blog_pos...by-wayne-smith

What a number 7 does is irrelevant. They still need to abide by the laws and breaking the rules and see if you can get away with it is not in the spirit of the game. I am not talking about McCaw specifically there but all those you mentioned as well. And slowing the ball down close to your try line and get pinged for it surely constitutes as a professional foul. Why can some get away with it where others get sin binned for it? If you look at the YC per penalty ratio you will note that SA and Australia avg 6 penalties per YC in the Tri Nations and a team like NZ around 40 per YC. That is a massive difference and from a team who concedes the most penalties in a game at avg in it. If that figures were reversed surely you would have scratched your head and asked some questions as well. But if it favors you you will dismiss anything around it or anything someone mention about it.

I'd first like to see where you get that statistic from.

[heineken]

I think you are making the wrong assumptions and do not understand what he really is saying. Maybe calling someone a cheat no one will really look at from anything other than a inflammatory point of view as it is such a ugly word in sport. But basically he is right when he says the Crusaders are masters at manupilating the ref. Or let me go one further and say NZ are masters at it. Maybe because your a Kiwi and are use to it you do not notice it but others do. To show you what I mean Wayne Smith said it the best


http://www.therugbysite.com/blog_pos...by-wayne-smith

What a number 7 does is irrelevant. They still need to abide by the laws and breaking the rules and see if you can get away with it is not in the spirit of the game. I am not talking about McCaw specifically there but all those you mentioned as well. And slowing the ball down close to your try line and get pinged for it surely constitutes as a professional foul. Why can some get away with it where others get sin binned for it? If you look at the YC per penalty ratio you will note that SA and Australia avg 6 penalties per YC in the Tri Nations and a team like NZ around 40 per YC. That is a massive difference and from a team who concedes the most penalties in a game at avg in it. If that figures were reversed surely you would have scratched your head and asked some questions as well. But if it favors you you will dismiss anything around it or anything someone mention about it.

Uhm NO!! it is relevant, and the ref is the judge that rules on the laws... if the ref doesn't see anything wrong, then it's not! we can disagree and so on... but at that time, during that game, with the ref, TMO, assistant refs, other team, coaches, blah blah blah, if he wasn't penalised, it wasn't wrong, or cheating as you would like to say...

[Shovenose]

I'd first like to see where you get that statistic from.

What is funny about that is the side who conceded the least amount of penalties is the one who conceded the most tries. The ones who scores a lot of tries and are pinned the most times are the ones who had the least amount of tries scored against them.

So is there a attitude of saying we are going to stop you from scoring any ways necessary as we can score them and conceding 3 is better than 7?

While we at it how about SA kicking game?


Just want to add that Mr. Reason is not the first guy to say that and Bob Dwyer and others said it ages ago because over this


He did not once get pinged for any of those offences.

All statements asking if he is a serial infringer
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news...ectid=10736593
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news...ectid=10659716
http://www.news.com.au/picture-proof...-1225763969697

Uhm NO!! it is relevant, and the ref is the judge that rules on the laws... if the ref doesn't see anything wrong, then it's not! we can disagree and so on... but at that time, during that game, with the ref, TMO, assistant refs, other team, coaches, blah blah blah, if he wasn't penalised, it wasn't wrong, or cheating as you would like to say...

Well he got pinged what 4 times by Mr. Rolland for slowing the ball down or did you miss that one?

[TRF_nickdnz]

What is funny about that is the side who conceded the least amount of penalties is the one who conceded the most tries. The ones who scores a lot of tries and are pinned the most times are the ones who had the least amount of tries scored against them.

So is there a attitude of saying we are going to stop you from scoring any ways necessary as we can score them and conceding 3 is better than 7?

While we at it how about SA kicking game?


Just want to add that Mr. Reason is not the first guy to say that and Bob Dwyer and others said it ages ago because over this


He did not once get pinged for any of those offences.

All statements asking if he is a serial infringer
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news...ectid=10736593
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news...ectid=10659716
http://www.news.com.au/picture-proof...-1225763969697

Sorry, for all of that I don't see where you get the statistic that:

If you look at the YC per penalty ratio you will note that SA and Australia avg 6 penalties per YC in the Tri Nations and a team like NZ around 40 per YC

Have I missed something.

Also I'm not disputing that there are people other than Mark Reason out there whom think McCaw is a cheat (for your great research into the world of tabloid journalism, when the NZ Herald is your reputable source...), any more than I'm disputing that there are people out there that are ignorent. For your nice pictures which show a player seemingly offside (although it's still difficult to extrapolate any kind of context from the pictures) I could if I was bothered (and I'm clearly not), go over just about any game and select a player and make him out to be a cheat. Richie McCaw gets the fine comb over his performances because he's from the most successful teams and is the best in his position. To highlight offside offences against McCaw do more to discredit referees than McCaw as a player, however most of those pictures don't show any context of whom was the tackler, where the gate was etc. You could also highlight mulipile players in those rucks whom are well and truly off their feet, not supporting their body weights and making no effort to roll away and lable every single one of them cheats (but no one would care, because they aren't the best openside in the world).

As others have mentioned, it would go the other way if South Africa had the best openside and were extremely successful. It comes down to people looking for an exscuse to blame another teams players when their own aren't able to make the same impact. As others have mentioned, people are now labeling Pocock a cheat, which is essentially shorthand for "better than our openside flanker".

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I got it now. Here's Shovenose's way of winning an argument:


1. Say someone is wrong
2. Try to prove your point by throwing a lot of if's and maybe's
3. Slowly but surely move the focus away from the initial debate
4. Come up with 5 or 6 other theories combined with statistics
5. Repeat steps 2, 3 and 4
6. The other person doesn't follow the whole debate anymore and quits
7. Shovenose thinks he is right

[psychic duck]

Sorry, for all of that I don't see where you get the statistic that:

There was an article on Green and Gold rugby about the penalties to yellow cards ratio after the 2010 Tri Nations. I think this is what Shovenose refers to.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/untouchables/

However of course, if one team concedes five penalties in the middle of the pitch they would unlikely get sin binned, whilst another team could concede one penalty for stamping on somebody's head and get sin binned. So the stats do not necessarily mean that the All Blacks deserved more yellow cards.