New Zealand Vs Australia

[Woldog]

But every rugby player is a cheat.... why else would EA include cheating in the game if it wasn't an integral factor in the way the game plays out, it's just some players are better cheats than the others.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jul 21 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

He was not the tackler. The tackler was Nonu. McCaw came flying from an angle on the side of the ruck (penalty), the went off his feet (penalty) in the ruck. That's 2 ruck offenses in 2 seconds.[/b]

I must be thinking of a different incident. Can you give me the clock time on the one you are talking about?

PS: Charles, does your last name begin with a "J"?

 

[candybum]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jul 21 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was not the tackler. The tackler was Nonu. McCaw came flying from an angle on the side of the ruck (penalty), the went off his feet (penalty) in the ruck. That's 2 ruck offenses in 2 seconds.[/b]

I must be thinking of a different incident. Can you give me the clock time on the one you are talking about?

PS: Charles, does your last name begin with a "J"?
[/b][/quote]

Can't remember the exact time but it was a kick return from Ashley-Cooper who tried to run around Nonu but Nonu said "no..." and tackled him. Nonu got up to contest the ball but got cleaned out thats when McCaw came through the unguarded 'gate' of the ruck and stole the ball!... i think

 

[InsaneAsylum]

i'd like to bring up the al baxter thing again. smartcooky has explained the technicalities behind the decision made by joubert. I do find it difficult to figure out why joubert picked last saturday to start enforcing this rule. al baxter has played 66 test and it's definetly not the first test he's played that has been adjudicated by joubert. if you guys claims that baxter has been doing it for a long long time, and he's finally been bought to justice, then why wasn't he bought to justice a long long time ago?

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 04:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jul 21 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was not the tackler. The tackler was Nonu. McCaw came flying from an angle on the side of the ruck (penalty), the went off his feet (penalty) in the ruck. That's 2 ruck offenses in 2 seconds.[/b]

I must be thinking of a different incident. Can you give me the clock time on the one you are talking about?

PS: Charles, does your last name begin with a "J"?
[/b][/quote]

It was around the 31 minute. Yes, my name begins with a J. You know me already Cooky

 

[smartcooky]

InsaneAsylum

You might notice that I have been a member of this forum for over two years, but I have only posted about 100 times. Thats because I became ****** off with all the stupid idiot comments from posters whose command of language appeared limited to text speak (or should I say "txt spk") and who seemed more interested in rudely slagging each other off than having a decent rugby discussion. I decided that if I wanted to discuss ******** with wankers, I could always go to PlanetRugby where the tosser population is well represented.

In the end, I collaborated with another rugby fan and we created our own forum, based on the old defunct IRB forums, and invited former members to join. The discussion there tend to be a little more "scholarly" than on most other rugby forums.

Incidentally, I am also a member of RugbyRefs.com, a referees discussion forum, where I have been a member since 2005. You have to be a referee or a retired referee to get access to the Referees only areas.

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

InsaneAsylum

You might notice that I have been a member of this forum for over two years, but I have only posted about 100 times. Thats because I became ****** off with all the stupid idiot comments from posters whose command of language appeared limited to text speak (or should I say "txt spk") and who seemed more interested in rudely slagging each other off than having a decent rugby discussion. I decided that if I wanted to discuss ******** with wankers, I could always go to PlanetRugby where the tosser population is well represented.

In the end, I collaborated with another rugby fan and we created our own forum, based on the old defunct IRB forums, and invited former members to join. The discussion there tend to be a little more "scholarly" than on most other rugby forums.

Incidentally, I am also a member of RugbyRefs.com, a referees discussion forum, where I have been a member since 2005. You have to be a referee or a retired referee to get access to the Referees only areas.[/b]

Well after that post, I'm really not sure if that's only applying to the likes of Insane Asylum and a handful of others, or if your having a broader go at the forum. I'm hoping it's the former. No forum is perfect, neither is any individual, but as long as a mutual respect is somewhat present, that's all you can ask.

 

[smartcooky]

No. Sorry mate. I wasn't having a go at the forum. I think this forum is very good, but as with life, there is a proportion of the population that are total tossers. so any in forum that has a large membership, there will be proportionally more tossers.

I look forward to participating more here than I have in the past, as I think I have plenty of experience in Rugby, both as a former player and a retired referee, to bring to the table.

InsaneAsylum flicked me a PM so I have replied. I think we're all good now.

Someone mention that its hard to get meaning across on the net, so I have learned to use plenty of these things

:mellow: :huh: :bravo:

when I am kidding or having a dig

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

No. Sorry mate. I wasn't having a go at the forum. I think this forum is very good, but as with life, there is a proportion of the population that are total tossers. so any in forum that has a large membership, there will be proportionally more tossers.

I look forward to participating more here than I have in the past, as I think I have plenty of experience in Rugby, both as a former player and a retired referee, to bring to the table.

InsaneAsylum flicked me a PM so I have replied. I think we're all good now.

Someone mention that its hard to get meaning across on the net, so I have learned to use plenty of these things

:mellow: :huh: :bravo:

when I am kidding or having a dig

[/b]

Great to hear, Smartcooky. It's been my experience also, that theres always a few "difficult" people in every large group. I got the impression that Insane Asylums not that bad a guy, but has just charged in rather than thought things through on the odd occasion.

Anyhow, have found your knowledge and experience invaluable in clearing up some confusing issues of late and certainly looking forward to more of that. :bravo:

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 21 2009, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Sorry mate. I wasn't having a go at the forum. I think this forum is very good, but as with life, there is a proportion of the population that are total tossers. so any in forum that has a large membership, there will be proportionally more tossers.

I look forward to participating more here than I have in the past, as I think I have plenty of experience in Rugby, both as a former player and a retired referee, to bring to the table.

InsaneAsylum flicked me a PM so I have replied. I think we're all good now.

Someone mention that its hard to get meaning across on the net, so I have learned to use plenty of these things

:mellow: :huh: :bravo:

when I am kidding or having a dig

[/b]

Great to hear, Smartcooky. It's been my experience also, that theres always a few "difficult" people in every large group. I got the impression that Insane Asylums not that bad a guy, but has just charged in rather than thought things through on the odd occasion.

Anyhow, have found your knowledge and experience invaluable in clearing up some confusing issues of late and certainly looking forward to more of that. :bravo:
[/b][/quote]

Suck-up :bleh!: :lol:

 

[Nickdnz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 21 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

look to be honest, it's got nothing to with what's happened recently, especially not with the cricket. speaking purely about rugby, I have been becoming a lot more jaded over the last 5 years and some of my comments on here are out of pure frustration. rule changes and negative styles of play aren't good for the game as a whole.

you might want to ignore me, but at least i'll give you a different point of view to what you read in the dominion or the dicussions you'll have with your kiwi mates.

i payed $90 for my ticket to the bledisloe this year, i'm just hoping i get my money's worth. if i wanted to see a lot of kicking, i'd go watch AFL. I can watch 2 games of AFL for $90 so it's not such a bad deal.[/b]

Hmm, would you be as frustrated and the feeling that you got ripped of if Australia had won the match by 6 points? Regardless I can see what you mean, there isn't the same excitment imho as there was in the mid 90's to about 2000.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jul 21 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

He was not the tackler. The tackler was Nonu. McCaw came flying from an angle on the side of the ruck (penalty), the went off his feet (penalty) in the ruck. That's 2 ruck offenses in 2 seconds.[/b]

OK Charles, I have found it. 31 minutes, right where you said. It wasn't the piece I was looking at.

First let me explain what "coming at the side" actually means. There is no offence called "coming in at the side" the Laws, its just a convenient phrase to explain what part of the offside Law at the ruck is being applied.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

LAW 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
© Players joining or rejoining the ruck. All players joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If the player joins the ruck from the opponents' side, or from in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team's offside line[/b]

Have a look at the picture below to see how this Law applies

Keep in mind this important fact.
THERE IS NO "GATE" AT A RUCK! The term "gate" only applies to the tackle/post tackle. When the tackle becomes a ruck, the gate disappears, and the hindmost foot offside lines appear. Consequently, a player joining the ruck does not have to do so from directly behind the ball.

Now lets examine what McCaw did.

"All players joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck." McCaw did exactly that, joining from several meters behind the hindmost foot.

"A player may join alongside this hindmost player." Again, this is exactly what McCaw did. The hindmost player was Conrad Smith. McCaw joined next to him on his right.

Having now established that McCaw's entry to the ruck is legal, he is now entitled to drive players out of the ruck. He does so by binding onto Gold 11 and driving him backwards. Gold 11 is unable to keep his feet resulting in them both going down. There is no offence here, because neither player went off their feet voluntarily.

This leaves McCaw LEGALLY on the Australian side of the ruck when ruck ends (i.e. when the ball comes out) Since McCaw came onto the ruck from an onside position, he is entitled to pick up the ball as the ruck has ended at it is general play.

Far from being an example of "cheating" by McCaw, this is in fact a textbook example of exactly how an openside flankers/fetchers ought to play.

That little piece of action is a 10 second coaching video on exactly how its done.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

nickdnz - i probably wouldn't have been as frustrated if i was watching the game with different people, regardless of the result. i do really miss rugby of the late 90's and early 2000 but that's a different matter

smartcooky - thanks for your explanation and this may be a little off topic, but in your picture look at blue 6 and 4. lets say red wins the ball and passed to the red backs, can blue 6 and 4 tackle any red player with the ball or should they be called for offside?

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 11:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jul 21 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was not the tackler. The tackler was Nonu. McCaw came flying from an angle on the side of the ruck (penalty), the went off his feet (penalty) in the ruck. That's 2 ruck offenses in 2 seconds.[/b]

OK Charles, I have found it. 31 minutes, right where you said. It wasn't the piece I was looking at.

First let me explain what "coming at the side" actually means. There is no offence called "coming in at the side" the Laws, its just a convenient phrase to explain what part of the offside Law at the ruck is being applied.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

LAW 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
© Players joining or rejoining the ruck. All players joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If the player joins the ruck from the opponents' side, or from in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team's offside line[/b]

Have a look at the picture below to see how this Law applies

Keep in mind this important fact.
THERE IS NO "GATE" AT A RUCK! The term "gate" only applies to the tackle/post tackle. When the tackle becomes a ruck, the gate disappears, and the hindmost foot offside lines appear. Consequently, a player joining the ruck does not have to do so from directly behind the ball.

Now lets examine what McCaw did.

"All players joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck." McCaw did exactly that, joining from several meters behind the hindmost foot.

"A player may join alongside this hindmost player." Again, this is exactly what McCaw did. The hindmost player was Conrad Smith. McCaw joined next to him on his right.

Having now established that McCaw's entry to the ruck is legal, he is now entitled to drive players out of the ruck. He does so by binding onto Gold 11 and driving him backwards. Gold 11 is unable to keep his feet resulting in them both going down. There is no offence here, because neither player went off their feet voluntarily.

This leaves McCaw LEGALLY on the Australian side of the ruck when ruck ends (i.e. when the ball comes out) Since McCaw came onto the ruck from an onside position, he is entitled to pick up the ball as the ruck has ended at it is general play.

Far from being an example of "cheating" by McCaw, this is in fact a textbook example of exactly how an openside flankers/fetchers ought to play.

That little piece of action is a 10 second coaching video on exactly how its done.
[/b][/quote]

I understand what you mean but it's not that crystal clear either. Does that mean that you can come flying on an angle if you were behind the last feet when you ran ? Say number 6 retreats 1 step and then goes with in the ruck with the same direction. Would that be legit ? Also what is then preventing the #6 player to hit the red player directly knowing he comes from behind the last foot ?


Looking forward to have more<strike> nitpicking</strike> debate with you about rules and everything.

Btw, I can tell you if a french player would do this he'd get pinged instantly...(except if it's in a RWC against NZ :lol: ).

 

[candybum]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jul 21 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was not the tackler. The tackler was Nonu. McCaw came flying from an angle on the side of the ruck (penalty), the went off his feet (penalty) in the ruck. That's 2 ruck offenses in 2 seconds.[/b]

OK Charles, I have found it. 31 minutes, right where you said. It wasn't the piece I was looking at.

First let me explain what "coming at the side" actually means. There is no offence called "coming in at the side" the Laws, its just a convenient phrase to explain what part of the offside Law at the ruck is being applied.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

LAW 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
© Players joining or rejoining the ruck. All players joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If the player joins the ruck from the opponents' side, or from in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team's offside line[/b]

Have a look at the picture below to see how this Law applies

Keep in mind this important fact.
THERE IS NO "GATE" AT A RUCK! The term "gate" only applies to the tackle/post tackle. When the tackle becomes a ruck, the gate disappears, and the hindmost foot offside lines appear. Consequently, a player joining the ruck does not have to do so from directly behind the ball.

Now lets examine what McCaw did.

"All players joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck." McCaw did exactly that, joining from several meters behind the hindmost foot.

"A player may join alongside this hindmost player." Again, this is exactly what McCaw did. The hindmost player was Conrad Smith. McCaw joined next to him on his right.

Having now established that McCaw's entry to the ruck is legal, he is now entitled to drive players out of the ruck. He does so by binding onto Gold 11 and driving him backwards. Gold 11 is unable to keep his feet resulting in them both going down. There is no offence here, because neither player went off their feet voluntarily.

This leaves McCaw LEGALLY on the Australian side of the ruck when ruck ends (i.e. when the ball comes out) Since McCaw came onto the ruck from an onside position, he is entitled to pick up the ball as the ruck has ended at it is general play.

Far from being an example of "cheating" by McCaw, this is in fact a textbook example of exactly how an openside flankers/fetchers ought to play.

That little piece of action is a 10 second coaching video on exactly how its done.
[/b][/quote]

Ahh atleast i knew McCaw wasn't in the wrong! that's very technical. Coming in from the side actually means coming in from an offside position? its pretty confusing tbh. Great info none the less, Smartcooky

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 21 2009, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

nickdnz - i probably wouldn't have been as frustrated if i was watching the game with different people, regardless of the result. i do really miss rugby of the late 90's and early 2000 but that's a different matter

smartcooky - thanks for your explanation and this may be a little off topic, but in your picture look at blue 6 and 4. lets say red wins the ball and passed to the red backs, can blue 6 and 4 tackle any red player with the ball or should they be called for offside?[/b]

6 and 4 are both offside. However, lots of referees do not police this anywhere near strictly enough.

 

[smartcooky]

Originally posted by Charles
Does that mean that you can come flying on an angle if you were behind the last feet when you ran ? Say number 6 retreats 1 step and then goes with in the ruck with the same direction. Would that be legit ? Also what is then preventing the #6 player to hit the red player directly knowing he comes from behind the last foot ?

As long as he joins next to his own player, no problem. However Blue 6 and 4 cannot run past Blue 7 and join ahead of that player. For example, if there was another Red player behind the existing red player in the ruck, he cannot join by binding on him. because even though he comes from behind the offside line, he is still going to breach Law 16.5 by joining ahead of his own player. If there is another red player NEXT to the existing red player, then any player joining the ruck can join to him.

The Blue 6 and 4 can retire behind the offside line then join the ruck just like any other player. Similarly, a player already bound to the ruck can leave the ruck, retire behind the hindmost foot, and rejoin. These are all common occurrences in and around a ruck

 

[Jer1cho]

Schalk Burger has way less regard for his body. Not because he is better at breakdowns. But because he is just a dumb-ass. He is too stupid to asses anything.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Originally posted by Charles
Does that mean that you can come flying on an angle if you were behind the last feet when you ran ? Say number 6 retreats 1 step and then goes with in the ruck with the same direction. Would that be legit ? Also what is then preventing the #6 player to hit the red player directly knowing he comes from behind the last foot ?

As long as he joins next to his own player, no problem. However Blue 6 and 4 cannot run past Blue 7 and join ahead of that player. For example, if there was another Red player behind the existing red player in the ruck, he cannot join by binding on him. because even though he comes from behind the offside line, he is still going to breach Law 16.5 by joining ahead of his own player. If there is another red player NEXT to the existing red player, then any player joining the ruck can join to him.

The Blue 6 and 4 can retire behind the offside line then join the ruck just like any other player. Similarly, a player already bound to the ruck can leave the ruck, retire behind the hindmost foot, and rejoin. These are all common occurrences in and around a ruck
[/b]

Ok. How many referees would NOT whistle this ? Do you reckon any at all ?

 

[smartcooky]

Any referee who whistles this has got it wrong. Watch next time you see a "coming in at the side" call, and see where the player comes from and where he joins the ruck.