New Zealand Vs Australia

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 19 2009, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I also liked Palu's "attempt" at a tap kick being called. If it'd been McCaw or Kaino I'd of felt the same about it. It's a dumb tactic aimed at speeding up a play that any good player could do properly.[/b]

Yep. That's league stuff. They're allowed to do that, we're not. The ball must be kicked a visible distance out of the hand. The idea is that you must control the tap kick. Hurrying it means you are more likely to botch it.

Did you hear Joubert's explanation when Palu complained?

"It gives you too much unfair advantage!".

Overall, I thought Joubert had a good game (though I expect the Aussies wont think so). He still misses a lot of the "dynamic" parts of the game though... forward passes (he missed three obvious ones last night) and offsides, especially at ruck and maul. The Donald kick that almost led to a Wallaby try was charged down by a player who was a LONG way offside, perhaps as much as three metres. Both he and the nearside AR, Marius Jonker missed it.

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 19 2009, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also liked Palu's "attempt" at a tap kick being called. If it'd been McCaw or Kaino I'd of felt the same about it. It's a dumb tactic aimed at speeding up a play that any good player could do properly.[/b]

Yep. That's league stuff. They're allowed to do that, we're not. The ball must be kicked a visible distance out of the hand. The idea is that you must control the tap kick. Hurrying it means you are more likely to botch it.

Did you hear Joubert's explanation when Palu complained?

"It gives you too much unfair advantage!".

Overall, I thought Joubert had a good game (though I expect the Aussies wont think so). He still misses a lot of the "dynamic" parts of the game though... forward passes (he missed three obvious ones last night) and offsides, especially at ruck and maul. The Donald kick that almost led to a Wallaby try was charged down by a player who was a LONG way offside, perhaps as much as three metres. Both he and the nearside AR, Marius Jonker missed it.
[/b][/quote]

Yeah I saw those three forward passes too, this isn't in order, but one was marginal, one slightly more than marginal (was surprised it was missed) and one that was obviously forward (fairly shocked it was missed). Never thought about the offside part of the Donald chargedown, but there has been a lax attitude at times from nearly all international refs and I'd love to see that tightened up. Even if it's against our guys. It's choking some games.

As for Woldog's post earlier, I'm not sure how often Baxter offended, but it was only shown from a good angle once on television. No-one can catagorically say that he didn't do it more often. Also, regarding Palu's tap kick. A ref has to work with the laws, they can't cherry pick which rules to ignore when they see something. This on-going bogus tap kick has been an annoyance for me for a while. One of the last times I saw an Australian do it properly against NZ, which was last season, he knocked it on. That's your advantage right there. Telling the ref to go back to under 8's. Yeah, you know better right. I find those kind of comments immature and reflective of an exaggerative nature. Saying he should go down a level of international maybe, if thats how you feel, but really if you want to be taken seriously, act seriously.

One thing I'll give ya. He missed a bad throw of ours. He also got many of them right and we were overall nailed in the lineouts by a better australian effort.

 

[Woldog]

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

I find those kind of comments immature and reflective of an exaggerative nature[/b]

I would have preferred Captain Johnathan "Stop Start" Kaplan, how's that for exaggeration.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Overall, I thought Joubert had a good game (though I expect the Aussies wont think so). He still misses a lot of the "dynamic" parts of the game though... forward passes (he missed three obvious ones last night) and offsides, especially at ruck and maul.[/b]

Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ!

Anyway, we have a struggle between good and evil in international union: on one side teams that want to run, on the other side the kick and hope crowd. Balance would be good, but evil is winning.

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 19 2009, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Overall, I thought Joubert had a good game (though I expect the Aussies wont think so). He still misses a lot of the "dynamic" parts of the game though... forward passes (he missed three obvious ones last night) and offsides, especially at ruck and maul.[/b]

Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ!

Anyway, we have a struggle between good and evil in international union: on one side teams that want to run, on the other side the kick and hope crowd. Balance would be good, but evil is winning.
[/b][/quote]

Anyone who think running rugby is still just the domain of Southern Hemisphere rugby has an eye-patch on I think. Over the last 10 years I've seen more running creeping into NH rugby and more kick and hope bombs and other assorted junk from teams like ours. We put up four mid-field bombs last night, the All Blacks used to never do that.

 

[QLD]

I feel asleep with 20-25 to go so it sounds like I missed the good part of the game. There were a ridiculous amount of penalty attempts at goal, have they changed most of the rules like hands in the ruck and holding on to full arm now? Stupid if they have.

 

[candybum]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 19 2009, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Overall, I thought Joubert had a good game (though I expect the Aussies wont think so). He still misses a lot of the "dynamic" parts of the game though... forward passes (he missed three obvious ones last night) and offsides, especially at ruck and maul.[/b]

Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ!

Anyway, we have a struggle between good and evil in international union: on one side teams that want to run, on the other side the kick and hope crowd. Balance would be good, but evil is winning.
[/b][/quote]

Because he was the tackler! oh no he wasn't but he came through the 'gate' of the ruck and no one stopped him as i remember.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 19 2009, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ![/b]

Yes, and whats more, if its the occasion I am thinking of, the referee was absolutely right. That's because McCaw was the tackler. The peculiarity about the tackled ball Law is that the tackler (and ONLY the tackler) does NOT have to go through the gate. He must release the player, stand up and then he is allowed to play the ball from any direction.

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

Law 15.4
© The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.[/b]

Another thing to keep in mind is the new Law ruling (2009 Ruling 4) with regard to the first player to the breakdown, whether he a player arriving or the tackler getting to his feet. Once that player gets his hands on the ball he does NOT have to let go when a ruck forms. He is effectively allowed to continue to try to pick up the ball.

In the case you are referring to, McCaw made the tackle, got to his feet and grabbed the ball. A ruck was then formed, and McCaw ended up legitimately on the Wallaby side of the ruck; legitimately because Ruling 4 says he is allowed to to that. The penalty was against the tackled Wallaby player, for not releasing the ball

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 02:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 19 2009, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ![/b]

Yes, and whats more, if its the occasion I am thinking of, the referee was absolutely right. That's because McCaw was the tackler. The peculiarity about the tackled ball Law is that the tackler (and ONLY the tackler) does NOT have to go through the gate. He must release the player, stand up and then he is allowed to play the ball from any direction.

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

Law 15.4
© The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.[/b]

Another thing to keep in mind is the new Law ruling (2009 Ruling 4) with regard to the first player to the breakdown, whether he a player arriving or the tackler getting to his feet. Once that player gets his hands on the ball he does NOT have to let go when a ruck forms. He is effectively allowed to continue to try to pick up the ball.

In the case you are referring to, McCaw made the tackle, got to his feet and grabbed the ball. A ruck was then formed, and McCaw ended up legitimately on the Wallaby side of the ruck; legitimately because Ruling 4 says he is allowed to to that. The penalty was against the tackled Wallaby player, for not releasing the ball
[/b][/quote]


I love that we have someone here who can spoil the fun of the guys who want to scream "McCaw cheats", when they really just don't want to have to say "McCaw is the best loose forward in the world". I was pretty sure he was the tackler, just had no idea how it worked out. You've made it very clear that the ref was indeed correct in this instance.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 19 2009, 04:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 02:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 19 2009, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ![/b]

Yes, and whats more, if its the occasion I am thinking of, the referee was absolutely right. That's because McCaw was the tackler. The peculiarity about the tackled ball Law is that the tackler (and ONLY the tackler) does NOT have to go through the gate. He must release the player, stand up and then he is allowed to play the ball from any direction.

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

Law 15.4
© The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.[/b]

Another thing to keep in mind is the new Law ruling (2009 Ruling 4) with regard to the first player to the breakdown, whether he a player arriving or the tackler getting to his feet. Once that player gets his hands on the ball he does NOT have to let go when a ruck forms. He is effectively allowed to continue to try to pick up the ball.

In the case you are referring to, McCaw made the tackle, got to his feet and grabbed the ball. A ruck was then formed, and McCaw ended up legitimately on the Wallaby side of the ruck; legitimately because Ruling 4 says he is allowed to to that. The penalty was against the tackled Wallaby player, for not releasing the ball
[/b][/quote]


I love that we have someone here who can spoil the fun of the guys who want to scream "McCaw cheats", when they really just don't want to have to say "McCaw is the best loose forward in the world". I was pretty sure he was the tackler, just had no idea how it worked out. You've made it very clear that the ref was indeed correct in this instance.
[/b][/quote]

Fair enough in this case but I think he got pinged at least 3 times for various ruck infrigements. So he DOES infringe a lot in the rucks.

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Jul 19 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 19 2009, 04:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 02:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 19 2009, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ![/b]

Yes, and whats more, if its the occasion I am thinking of, the referee was absolutely right. That's because McCaw was the tackler. The peculiarity about the tackled ball Law is that the tackler (and ONLY the tackler) does NOT have to go through the gate. He must release the player, stand up and then he is allowed to play the ball from any direction.

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

Law 15.4
© The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.[/b]

Another thing to keep in mind is the new Law ruling (2009 Ruling 4) with regard to the first player to the breakdown, whether he a player arriving or the tackler getting to his feet. Once that player gets his hands on the ball he does NOT have to let go when a ruck forms. He is effectively allowed to continue to try to pick up the ball.

In the case you are referring to, McCaw made the tackle, got to his feet and grabbed the ball. A ruck was then formed, and McCaw ended up legitimately on the Wallaby side of the ruck; legitimately because Ruling 4 says he is allowed to to that. The penalty was against the tackled Wallaby player, for not releasing the ball
[/b][/quote]


I love that we have someone here who can spoil the fun of the guys who want to scream "McCaw cheats", when they really just don't want to have to say "McCaw is the best loose forward in the world". I was pretty sure he was the tackler, just had no idea how it worked out. You've made it very clear that the ref was indeed correct in this instance.
[/b][/quote]

Fair enough in this case but I think he got pinged at least 3 times for various ruck infrigements. So he DOES infringe a lot in the rucks.
[/b][/quote]

I don't remember those "at least three times", maybe they happened, but it's very easy for someone to say that. Anyhow, heaps of players infringe during rucks. It's the biggest problem in rugby, no one player is guilty. I think we really need to get over the McCaw thing. The refs obviously know what they are doing and show up people in most cases where they are blamed and they get to explain themselves.

 

[smartcooky]

McCaw doesn't infringe any more than any other fetcher. George Smith spent a significant number of his 80 minutes offside. He also infringed at lot at the breakdown, and I honestly could not quantify whether he infringed more or less than McCaw. One thing is for sure is that George Smith should have gone to the bin for his deliberate knock on when the AB's were in a scoring position.

The iRB has set up the Laws of the game in such a way that openside flankers and other fetchers have to play to the very edge of legality. IMO the elimination of real rucking has led to the situation we have now, a situation that if often a shambles.

Fortunately, the new law ruling, which I believe most posters here probably have no understanding of, means that fetchers no longer have to second guess EXACTLY WHEN the referee will decide that the Tackle has become a Ruck. Too often in the past, differences in interpretation between referees has mean that players like McCaw, Smith, and Waugh have had to "relearn" the boundaries of what they are and are not allowed to do, every time they go on the park.

NH referees tend to call ruck earlier than their SH counterparts. This isn't "wrong" its just a different interpretation, but now with the Law Ruling, the fetcher doesn't have to worry about when "ruck" is called, because that call does not apply to him. Consequently, the uninitiated can see what they think is a player infringing, when in fact no infringement is taking place.

 

[nik]

The most pleasing aspect has to be the fact that this All Blacks line up that is playing togather for the first time this year was able to beat a settled Wallabies line up.
This game showed the depth still left in NZ rugby as some people (mostly the worldwide rugby media) are suggesting that there is no longer any depth in NZ rugby. It was the quality players that came off the bench for NZ that sealed the game. McCaw made a difference but this victory was more a team effort.

Both teams have young players and I am sure this NZ team will improve from last night.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

mccaw is a f***ing cheat.

end of argument

 

[Flux]

McCaw was pinged a few times last night, but that's all part of being a loose forward. Usually everyone's complaining that he doesn't get pinged enough. Seems to me the guy can't win.

 

[nik]

When Jerome Kaino charged the kick down and after a couple of rucks the referee penalised George Smith for infringing at the ruck right in front of the goal posts as the ABs were hot on attack. I though the ref is going to yellow card him. I have seen plenty of times a yellow card given in those situations near the goal line in the Super 14.

 

[Nickdnz]

Yeah, smart cooky, thanks for explainig the rules clearly, it makes people who have no idea sound even dumber when they call McCaw a cheat

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 07:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

McCaw doesn't infringe any more than any other fetcher. George Smith spent a significant number of his 80 minutes offside. He also infringed at lot at the breakdown, and I honestly could not quantify whether he infringed more or less than McCaw. One thing is for sure is that George Smith should have gone to the bin for his deliberate knock on when the AB's were in a scoring position.

The iRB has set up the Laws of the game in such a way that openside flankers and other fetchers have to play to the very edge of legality. IMO the elimination of real rucking has led to the situation we have now, a situation that if often a shambles.

Fortunately, the new law ruling, which I believe most posters here probably have no understanding of, means that fetchers no longer have to second guess EXACTLY WHEN the referee will decide that the Tackle has become a Ruck. Too often in the past, differences in interpretation between referees has mean that players like McCaw, Smith, and Waugh have had to "relearn" the boundaries of what they are and are not allowed to do, every time they go on the park.

NH referees tend to call ruck earlier than their SH counterparts. This isn't "wrong" its just a different interpretation, but now with the Law Ruling, the fetcher doesn't have to worry about when "ruck" is called, because that call does not apply to him. Consequently, the uninitiated can see what they think is a player infringing, when in fact no infringement is taking place.[/b]

This new ruling, while sensible in many ways may indeed have a negative effect on the style of rugby that is played, at least in competitive championships (Top14 GP) because once again it advantages defense over attack. We will see...

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 19 2009, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

mccaw is a f***ing cheat.

end of argument[/b]

Lol, eloquent as ever. Now we must believe you, seeing as you've proved it.

 

[Wally]

Does Tahu have any pace left in his legs? He used to be an awesome finisher in league, surely he would be better use then Turner and Mitchell.