New Zealand v Wales - Saturday 26 June 2010 - Hamilton

[Bargoedboy]

I think you are being very harsh on O'Brien. You fall into the trap if seeing his name on something and then blaming him if you don't like it. This is called "shooting the messenger"

O'Brien is the iRB referees manager, but he does not have carte blanche to issue memos outlining "pet hates". He is a member of the iRB Laws Committee and as the Referee manager, he is both their spokesman and the conduit by which their decisions are conveyed to referees world-wide.

The issue of dangerous lifting tackles is not, as you suggest, a "pet hate". It was brought to the fore by three important incidents;

1. The O'Driscoll "tackle" and the subsequent media storm and witch hunt/hanging posse conducted by the British print and television media.

2. Successful application for a ruling (by the IRFU) regarding lifting tackles (you can read the ruling HERE)

3. The decision of a Judiciary hearing against the Cheetahs player Tewis de Bruyn (in May 2009) who was the first player to be suspended for a lifting tackle where the player was dropped, but not "speared". (I have the full transcript of this decision and will post it if you wish. I warn you it is tedious)

The iRB Laws committee incorporated the 2005 Ruling into the Law book in 2009 as Law 10.4 (i)

Law 10.4 (i) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground first is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

In the 2010 Law book, it has become Law 10.4 (j) as another Law on Dangerous charging has displaced it.

good reply in actually reading my post, but some of the points you make illustrate my point , the dangerous tackle was allready in force, why ref did not enforce it during lions match i don`t know , he should have been asked about it during his reveiw of game by refs panel.
Again it was a law made up to cover a law that was not enforced in first place. hence my arguement of o`brien. this is from 2003 "
(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground first is dangerous play.

 

[smartcooky]

good reply in actually reading my post, but some of the points you make illustrate my point , the dangerous tackle was allready in force, why ref did not enforce it during lions match i don`t know , he should have been asked about it during his reveiw of game by refs panel.
Again it was a law made up to cover a law that was not enforced in first place. hence my arguement of o`brien. this is from 2003 "
(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground first is dangerous play.

You are quoting Law 10.4 (j) from the 2010 Laws of the Game. There is no mention in the 2003 Laws of lifting a player and dropping or driving to the ground. That was the whole point of the IRFU's request for a ruling in 2005 (after the BOD incident). They pointed out an anomaly in the Laws that said you couldn't tackle a player in the air - Law 10.4 (h) - yet there appeared to be nothing preventing a tackler from lifting a player into the air. iRB Ruling 2005-5 addressed that issue, and it was subsequently incorporated into Law in 2009 - Law 10.4 (i) - and is now Law 10.4 (j), the exact Law you have quoted. At the time of the BOD incident, it was not illegal in Law to lift a player and drop him.

 

[Bargoedboy]

the way i read this , sorry if i`m wrong but, the law was questioned in 2005, and the reply was yes it was considered dangerous under the laws allready in situ , which covers dangerous tackles.
They have since modified the law to bring in specific words regarding that spear tackle of 2005. But it states the that it came under dangerous play allready covered by laws , which incidently seems to be a penalty not yellow card same as punching.here is your article in full , maybe i am interpreting it wrong, but dangerous play is allready in laws. not sure about all aspects of game regarding foul play but it states if you strike someone or stamp on,kick etc its foul play but if player is allready on ground and you jump in air and belly flop him , i don`t need a law to state belly flops are not allowed i want ref to say foul play or dangerous tackle whatever and deal with it .


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling5-2005
UnionIRFU
Law Reference10
Date30 September '05

This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009
Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play

Current Law prohibits the tackling of a player who is in the air, either in the line out or in open play. The Law is designed to protect players, and to prevent them landing on the ground, on their heads or upper body.

It appears a serious anomaly, therefore, that a player(s) can deliberately lift an opponent off his feet and then may drop (or 'spear') the opponent so that he lands head down or on his upper body.

1. 10 4(e) Foul Play -Dangerous tackling. Does the action of deliberately lifting an opponent off his feet in a tackle so that he may then be dropped (or 'speared') so that he lands on his head or upper body constitute tackling 'dangerously' as defined in this Law.

2. Law 10 -Foul Play. Does the action described in 1 by definition contrary to the letter and spirit of the laws and constitutes, per se, an act of foul play should it occur in general play; e.g. a player, on the fringes of ruck or maul, so lifted.

Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
1. The act of lifting an opponent off his feet in a tackle AND dropping or 'spearing' that player so that his head and/or upper body comes into contact with the ground first, is a dangerous tackle.

2. The dangerous play described in 1. above is considered dangerous play no matter where it occurs in the game.

 

[smartcooky]

smartcooky that video you posted left a massive question even before that incident.

Why was Woodcock not penalized for entering the wrong side of the ruck and clearly clearing the ruck with his shoulder .

To address your first point....

Woodcock came into the picture when Mealamu was tackled, and he was definitely OK to approach the way he did. He entered the tackle zone from between the tackle and his own goal-line.

This picture from the iRB "Rugby Ready" publication, may help you to understand what and where the tackle zone is.

It is NOT, as some people think, just directly behind the ball, it covers the whole width of the tackle area, and includes the extremities of the tacklers, and the tackled player after the tackled player is brought to ground.

Now if we draw the box around where I think the tackle zone is (this may not be exactly where Kaplan would have judged it to be) we can see that Woodcock it definitely entering the tackle zone through the gate and not coming in from the side.

That dismisses your first point.

Your second point is that Woodcock "clears the ruck with his shoulder".

That actually is not an offence and long as it is done correctly and within the Law, so lets check the Law.

Law 10.4 (h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.

I don't think Woodcock could be accused of that. The video shows that he comes almost to a complete stop before making contact with the red player

Law 16.2 JOINING THE RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Binding is defined in the Law as

Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with
the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

Woodcock definitely binds at the same time as he joins. This dismisses your second point.

... THAT merited a yellow card

No it didn't. It wasn't even an offence.

 

[smartcooky]

if you strike someone or stamp on,kick etc its foul play but if player is allready on ground and you jump in air and belly flop him , i don`t need a law to state belly flops are not allowed i want ref to say foul play or dangerous tackle whatever and deal with it .

Actually, there are Laws that attempt to cover "belly flops" onto players on the ground

Law 14.2 PLAYERS ON THEIR FEET
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Law 15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

bargoedboy. The problem with simply saying that something is "dangerous", and not specifying it is that it is left open to individual referees interpretation. The Law is a constantly evolving thing, and it has to change to meet changes in circumstances , and sometimes, a change to the Law has unforeseen consequences. I'll give you an example.

At one time, a mark could be taken anywhere in the field of play, but it had to be taken with both feet planted on the ground. Then in the late 1980's they changed the Law so that a player could mark the ball with his feet off the ground, but a mark could only be taken in a players own 22. Then we started seeing players tackled in the air, with their feet off the ground. This was not illegal, and was not considered dangerous. Prior to the law change, you never even saw players tackled in the air simply because players catching the ball could not claim a mark if their feet weren't planted and therefore, there was no incentive for them to jump. It wasn't until players started getting hurt when they crashed to the ground after being tackled in the air, that the Law needed to be changed. Now we can look back and ask, "how could they not see that coming?". My answer is "Hindsight is always 20/20!"

 

[TRF_Cymro]

To address your first point....

Woodcock came into the picture when Mealamu was tackled, and he was definitely OK to approach the way he did. He entered the tackle zone from between the tackle and his own goal-line.

This picture from the iRB "Rugby Ready" publication, may help you to understand what and where the tackle zone is.

It is NOT, as some people think, just directly behind the ball, it covers the whole width of the tackle area, and includes the extremities of the tacklers, and the tackled player after the tackled player is brought to ground.

Now if we draw the box around where I think the tackle zone is (this may not be exactly where Kaplan would have judged it to be) we can see that Woodcock it definitely entering the tackle zone through the gate and not coming in from the side.

That dismisses your first point.

Your second point is that Woodcock "clears the ruck with his shoulder".

That actually is not an offence and long as it is done correctly and within the Law, so lets check the Law.

Law 10.4 (h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.

I don't think Woodcock could be accused of that. The video shows that he comes almost to a complete stop before making contact with the red player

Law 16.2 JOINING THE RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Binding is defined in the Law as

Binding: Grasping firmly another player's body between the shoulders and the hips with
the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

Woodcock definitely binds at the same time as he joins. This dismisses your second point.

No it didn't. It wasn't even an offence.

Unfortunately you are incorrect there pal.

He did enter the gate from the side from where he bound, he also went off his feet to clear which is another penalty. At the end of the day you can post those pictures up all day long. Fact remains he entered the gate from the side of the ruck. The image you have taken up top is misleading im afraid. He walks around that zone, which he enters the ruck incorrectly at the side. Therefore it is a penalty. We can debate this all day long, which will ruin the thread to be frank.

Another slight point Id like to make also is how terrible the scrum area was officiated. Its a problem Kaplan seems to have, most games I watch when he is officiating he gets the call mostly wrong. Paul James and Adam Jones took apart the NZ front row. When James dominates a prop, you must start to panic. Kaplan, got one or two penalties against Wales incorrectly also. Tialata on one occasion pushed his legs bags to collapse a scrum, now if my memory serves me correctly it was when Wales was fairly close to the All Blacks try line, Tialata pushed his legs backwards, ensuring the scrum would collapse. Kaplan incorrectly penalizes Adam Jones, yet Tialata went straight to ground, under the laws that is a penalty. Any other ref would probably have shown a card to Tialata for consistent infringement at the scrum area. Dangerous play no doubt. However no doubt smartcooky will come in will his law book and once again :lol:.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually you are wrong. Once a player has entered the tackle zone they are free to bind on an opponent if they wish. The term "coming in at the side refers to entering the tackle area, NOT where they bind.

Its not the same as a ruck, where there is an offside line and the player must bind alongside the players who's foot is hindmost on his side of the ruck.

You are correct to say that he went off his feet, but the referee will not penalise that unless it has a material effect on play, and since Mealamu had already pushed the ball back for Tialata to pick up, the material effect of Woodcock going off his feet was zero.

However no doubt smartcooky will come in will his law book and once again

Some people actually welcome my input, but that kind of rude comment reminds me why I stopped posting here in the first place. If that is the general gist of the members' attitudes here, then it makes this forum no better than Planet Rugby.

I spent fifteen years as a Level 2 referee, and more recently some years as a Referee Advisor. My intention is merely to educate, as I believe that an understanding of the Laws helps fans to enjoy the game more.

If this is typical of the kind of BS I'll have to put up with on this forum, then I can't be bothered wasting my time posting here. I'll just go with my original view that its not worth the effort.

 

[Thingimubob]

All this law posting is a little bit tedious though...
Cymro has a point about Tialata in the scrums too, it is annoying that it seems that some referees just guess when it comes to the scrum, and it's just a lottery who gets the penalty. It is very odd that it was Paul James doing the dominating :huh: since when was Paul James good enough to dominate anyone, let alone an All Black?!

Also, after the South Africa game, a lot of people were questioning Ryan Jones's role as captain, and possibly even his place in the team (though he was pretty much the only fit no.8 we have atm), anyone still feel the same? I thought he was impressive in the 1st test, not sure how he did in the 2nd test though (haven't got round to watching all of S4C's extended highlights yet) but I think he definitely deserves to keep the captaincy for now. We'll have to see how he does in the Autumn Internationals I guess. Wales do need another option though, and I reckon Gethin Jenkins should be given at least a joint-captaincy with ***o at the Blues, since he's been given it for quite a few big Blues games.

 

[nickdnz]

Oh come on, this is getting poor. People make accusations about players infringing, and say this and that, with no evidence to back it up. When a member takes the time to post the rules in which the ref is officiating, and then shows evidence with pictures and footage to demonstrate his point, how is this not regarded a clever and well thought out arguing?

Yes, it's very easy just to claim someone is wrong, and so-and-so is a cheat, but when a members goes out of his way to provide solid evidence for his points of view, why is this seen as tedious? The petty guess work that goes on in this forum, without much backing it up does make it very frustrating for any member to win a clever argument without it turning into "you're wrong, so there" and more recently, with a load of new members, "**** off you prick".

Keep posting smartcookie, it is appreciated by some members.

 

[smartcooky]

nick

It is well known that evidence is the enemy of the deceitful and the ignorant.

Some people don't like it when their opinions are challenged with facts.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

All this law posting is a little bit tedious though...
Cymro has a point about Tialata in the scrums too, it is annoying that it seems that some referees just guess when it comes to the scrum, and it's just a lottery who gets the penalty. It is very odd that it was Paul James doing the dominating :huh: since when was Paul James good enough to dominate anyone, let alone an All Black?!

Also, after the South Africa game, a lot of people were questioning Ryan Jones's role as captain, and possibly even his place in the team (though he was pretty much the only fit no.8 we have atm), anyone still feel the same? I thought he was impressive in the 1st test, not sure how he did in the 2nd test though (haven't got round to watching all of S4C's extended highlights yet) but I think he definitely deserves to keep the captaincy for now. We'll have to see how he does in the Autumn Internationals I guess. Wales do need another option though, and I reckon Gethin Jenkins should be given at least a joint-captaincy with ***o at the Blues, since he's been given it for quite a few big Blues games.

Have to admit Jon Thomas looked a better player when he was given the captaincy.

I still believe that Ryan Jones is playing not to his potential purely for the fact he knows he is the captain and guaranteed a game and there is also no one currently available to push him out of his position so he is just for me taking it somewhat easy. Now I only hope that Hugo Ellis is all he is built up to be and hopefully he has a stormer for the Dragons and might get a look in at the AI or 6 Nations. Maybe then Jones will apply himself!

 

[Feicarsinn]

nick

It is well known that evidence is the enemy of the deceitful and the ignorant.

Some people don't like it when their opinions are challenged with facts.

I haven't weighed in on the issue yet and I don't really intend to as I didn't see the game. It looks like you may well have been right but this post right here stinks of arrogance and a high and mighty attitude. You can win an arguement with facts and then lose it by acting like a tosser you know.

 

[smartcooky]

I haven't weighed in on the issue yet and I don't really intend to as I didn't see the game. It looks like you may well have been right but this post right here stinks of arrogance and a high and mighty attitude. You can win an arguement with facts and then lose it by acting like a tosser you know.

I'm sorry if you think I come across as "high and mighty". I prefer to think of it dispassionate.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I'm sorry if you think I come across as "high and mighty". I prefer to think of it dispassionate.

The whole 'some people' thing sounded a bit condescending is all. It wasn't aimed at me anyway so I don't mind in the slightest really. Don't even know why I pointed it out.

 

[Bargoedboy]

First of all , this is a forum and it should be about opinions not just right or wrong.The problem with analysing rugby by still pictures is down to interpretation, and where you are from ie southern or northern hemisphere will have a bearing as you will be used to your own hemisphere`s refs interpretations.
Now in the south, some regulations seem to be paid lip service only as you want to see tries at all costs, not a northern boring penalty ridden game as obviously we have different veiws on what rugby is about.
Game in question is classic with a sh ref pretty much giving up on scrum laws or at least making it a lottery who did wrong.
again very easy to say from our sofa`s.
As far as Smartcooky goes, i welcome his view even if it differs from mine, as he did it in a constructive informative way without resorting to personal attacks. well done.
I know what its like to be attacked from all angles with petty name calling from ignorant posters, because my view is not the same as some.
I do value constructive opinions wherever they are from, as this is the whole point of the forum.
Back to the Topic at hand though.
I stand by what i have said regarding paddy obrien and his meddling ways, and the proof is in the edicts being bandied about by the refs panel. I did not like paddy obriens officiatting before he was appointed to the top, as some of you down south would not have liked clive norling or dare i say it wayne barnes
the original remarks were about yellow cards , some of which i thought right some wrong and some missed due to inconsistencies of poor reffing.
I think none of us welsh can really complain about Byrnes card as he lifted playerand allowed upper body to hit floor
first.
A dangerous tackle is a dangerous tackle regardless of whether it be a stiff swinging arm as seemed to be the norm from some pacific islanders and RL players a few years back, or whether its a no arms shoulder charge like Jonathan thomas did on saturday, i dont think a ref needs to have it in writing the variations on dangerous moves. Getiing more and more like H+S gone mad. i don`t need someone to tell me don`t pick up a soldering iron by tip as i might get burnt,its common sense, which is being taken away from refs by paddy o brien.
as for coming in at sides we all do it as long as we can get away with it, its just some seem able to get away with it more than others.B)

 

[GunnerAsh]

I've not seen our schedule for the Autumn Internationals yet, but does anyone know if NZ are coming over for a rematch? Would love to get to the Millenium for that one!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yup, they're playing Australia, South Africa, Fiji then New Zealand (with new zealand being played on 28th Nov)

 

[GunnerAsh]

Ah nice, cheers mate

 

[Draggs]

It will be a tough fall, but who knows how it will go if we keep our players healthy and injury free.
Should be good WC preparation.

 

[dullonien]

Much improved performance from Wales, but still not good enough. What has happened to our dicipline, it was apalling yet again in this game. I didn't think Byrne's tackle deserved a yellow at the time, but the stills posted by SmartCooky make it look worse than I thought! Jon Thomas was lucky to get away with that shoulder charge, definite yellow in my view, Kaplan probably pussied out because we were already down to 14!

As for the players performances, I thought Roberts, Halfpenny and McCusker were the standouts. I thought Roberts was immense throughout. He musy have forced at least 4 turnovers with some massive hits going in. He also showed what he can do when given ball and space late on in the second half.

Here's my player rating:

01 Paul James - 7 - One of his better games. Dominated scrum time, but didn't show up much in the loose.
02 Mathew Rees - 7 - Good lineout throwing, but not as prominent as usual in the loose.
03 Adam Jones - 8 - Back close to his best here, contributed to a dominant scrum and put in some good tackles.
04 Bradley Davies - 6 - Not as good as his other performances, but still worked hard.
05 Alun-Wyn Jones - 6 - Nothing special, but again solid performance.
06 Jon Thomas - 7 - Much better from him, did well at 8. Lucky not to see yellow though.
07 Gavin Thomas - 5 - Barely saw the man.
08 Ryan Jones - Not really enough time on the field. Started well.

09 Mike Phillips - 5 - Aweful game. Slow and ponderous. A couple of good tackles is all he did!
10 Dan Biggar - 6 - Hit and miss. Kicking from hand was generally good, but missed a couple of tackles and missed a kickable shot at goal.
11 Tom Prydie - 6 - Did little wrong, but wasn't willing to run with the ball.
12 Jame Roberts - 9 - Excellent throughout. Excellent defense, looked good with ball in hand and scored a try.
13 Jon Davies - 6 - Mixed bag, looked ok throughout but should have passed with two over on the right.
14 Leigh Halfpenny - 8 - Did all he could, looked dangerous with ball, but had little space to work with.
15 Lee Byrne - 6 - Better kicking from him, but spent 10 mins in the bin, and stillisn't hitting the line like he used to.

Just want to mention two replacements.

McCusker - 8 - Excellent after coming on, could become a great player.
Will Harries - 8 - Popped up everywhere and was willing to give it a go. Should have started.