Rugby Championship: Australia - New Zealand (18/08/2012)

[Tony Manx]

Nope. Remember that we are talking about a tackle, as defined in Law 15, not the "act of tackling", i.e. grasping an opponent.

A Law 15 tackle takes place when when the ball carrier is grasped by an opponent and brought to ground. It is not a Law 15 tackle until the ball carrier is brought to ground. The tackler, who must also go to ground (if he doesn't go to ground, then he is not a tackler) must release, and either roll away or get up and move away. The ball carrier must also release and roll away or get up and move away.

However, when the ball carrier is grasped, and is not brought to ground, then a team-mate of the ball carrier binds on, we now have a maul (Law 17), and if that group subsequently goes to ground, it is NOT a tackle, its a collapsed maul. No-one has to get up or roll away.

Succinct and informative................Thx!

 

[Tony Manx]

It was for not releasing according to the commentators.......................yes I know, bit like the Daily Mail....never believe and all that!!

 

[Dizzy]

I don't know, I can't speak on why that is. Heck SBW gets nearly as much praise for less body of work and people don't seem to have a problem with that.

All I know is, BOD has been consistently solid throughout his career, at all levels, and is a stand-up ambassador of the game.

Have you just been skimming my posts bro?.. I've had a problem with that for quite some time hahaha

I agree with your BOD comment.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I have to disagree with that. The Heineken cup is great because teams rise to a certain standard, despite there being quite a gulf in quality between a lot of them (four separate tiers of quality, arguably). I can't say I agree that games of the top international sides always reach such their highest standards. Games involving the Wallabies and the All-Blacks always have quality to them, but no other team - even South Africa or France - is an assurance of a quality game. New Zealand were top class against Ireland in the 3rd test but it wasn't a great game because Ireland spent most of it on their arses having been left for dead by the all-blacks. The six nations - and this is old news - can be pretty low in quality, albeit high in excitement. Romania vs Georgia is as likely to be a great game as England Ireland six nations is. It's not a question of the out and out quality of the sides.

I wasn't attempting to invite this debate, simply say that you can't judge BOD on the basis of appearances of these tours aginst superior opposition, especially if you don't watch heineken cup rugby! (not @you DD, but some of the above)

Yeah fair enough, I've watched a lot of H cup games and a fair amount of them are boring without much quality too, as I said I've seen ITM cup games with more quality play on display. By the same token I've also seen some H cup games of the highest quality, but to imply that accross the board they're as good as a test match atmosphere is a bit off. They may well reach that sort of level every now and again but they aren't like that consistently.

 

[smartcooky]

It was for not releasing according to the commentators.......................yes I know, bit like the Daily Mail....never believe and all that!!

The commentators get a lot wrong (see my earlier post about the ball being carried back)

This is especially so of Justin Marshal. For a former international player, his Law knowledge is appalling. He gets stuff wrong that a 1st year rookie ref would know.

Tony Johnson's Law knowledge on the other hand is very good. I have heard him correct both Marshal and Nisbo quite often, and I have noticed he rarely makes mistakes when the subject of Laws comes up in a commentary.

 

[nickdnz]

The commentators get a lot wrong (see my earlier post about the ball being carried back)

This is especially so of Justin Marshall. For a former international player, his Law knowledge is appalling. He gets stuff wrong that a 1st year rookie ref would know.

Tony Johnson's Law knowledge on the other hand is very good. I have heard him correct both Marshal and Nisbo quite often, and I have noticed he rarely makes mistakes when the subject of Laws comes up in a commentary.

Yep, he's shocking. Genuinely makes me want to listen to the opposition's commentators. Also agree regarding Tj, usually a very solid understanding of the laws.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

cheers guys, hypothetically if it was for not realeasing, it would have been an incorrect call?

 

[smartcooky]

cheers guys, hypothetically if it was for not realeasing, it would have been an incorrect call?

Not necessarily. I'm going to talk briefly about the tackle Law now, because its important to understand that the "Law 15" tackle is a special case.

At the tackle, referees are told that the tackler must release the tackled player to allow him to release, place, push or pass the ball. Tacklers are no longer allowed to do what Richie McCaw, George Smith, Heinrich Brussouw and other fetchers used to do; tackle the ball carrier then get to their feet still holding him or the ball. They now have to completely let go of both. Other players who bring the ball carrier to ground while remaining on their feet must release the tackled player and re-enter through the gate. Even if they are already standing in the gate, they still must release the tackled player. You often hear referees tell players that they want to see "daylight"; a clear release of the tackled player.

However, these restrictions do not apply outside of the tackle. Any player on the ground, holding the ball, must release the ball to a player on his feet.

In the Law 14 situation, the ball is on the ground and a player goes to ground to take possession. There has been no tackle, and therefore there is no gate. Players can come from any direction. Players who are not on their feet are not allowed to do anything that prevents the players who are on their feet from taking the ball. If an opponent grabs the ball, the player on the ground must release it immediately. If he doesn't, its a penalty for "not releasing"

At a collapsed maul, while there is no requirement to roll away, if the player who was in possession at the time of the collapse has gone to ground, and an onside opponent on his feet tries to take the ball off him, the player on the ground must release it. If he doesn't, its a penalty for "not releasing"

Rugby 101; the man on his feet is King!

 

[TNT88]

Great summary SC. They should add that guide into the lawbook.

double post....=======

For anyone interested. Analysis of NZ's set piece try on the weekend. Such perfection:

 

[TPenn]

Great summary SC. They should add that guide into the lawbook.

double post....=======

For anyone interested. Analysis of NZ's set piece try on the weekend. Such perfection:

Brilliant thing about that try is the amount of options available to Carter during the move. Left or right, inside or outside there are at least four different ways that try could have been scored. Brilliant analysis.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

That fake crossing between DC and SBW drew in Fainga'a, Genia, Dennis and Higginbotham. Higginbotham (and Pocock, though he was a bit far away) should have run straight to the wing.
Or, alternatively, Genia should have stood five metres behind, like Barnes on the other side.
The play was very good, and brilliantly executed, but no tier I side should ever concede a first phase try. It was just poor defence.

 

[Icemn]

Brilliant thing about that try is the amount of options available to Carter during the move. Left or right, inside or outside there are at least four different ways that try could have been scored. Brilliant analysis.

Hansen has got a bag of tricks up his sleeve... in the RWC final 2011, just after the set move try of woodcock, the camera shifted to the AB coaches booth and Henry patted Hansen on the back as to say "well done your move worked"... but then again i could be wrong...as always lol

 

[smartcooky]

Brilliant thing about that try is the amount of options available to Carter during the move. Left or right, inside or outside there are at least four different ways that try could have been scored. Brilliant analysis.

Even more amazing is the fact that Gagger has managed to publish an analysis of a piece of All Blacks play without claiming it was illegal, unfair or suspect! This is truly astonishing give the usual "All Blacks = evil, Wallabies = saints" theme that runs through most of his analyses.

Hansen has got a bag of tricks up his sleeve... in the RWC final 2011, just after the set move try of woodcock, the camera shifted to the AB coaches booth and Henry patted Hansen on the back as to say "well done your move worked"... but then again i could be wrong...as always lol

Yep, it was "his" move alright, but this one was Ian Foster's plan; and they executed it perfectly. It illustrates the danger of closely marking one player to exclusion of others. They have shown clearly that the scrum can be a potent strike weapon, something that the Chiefs have been showing us all season.

 

[big ginger 8]

My team suddenly started a move that's exactly the same today except from a ruck. Wonder what inspired the coaches...

 

[Muzzy]

I think australia need to take Barnes out of the starting line up, he offers nothing on attack other than a kicking game, his defence isn't that great either, I can't believe they actually put him at 12 for this game. I like McCabe and Fainga more, but if he wanted a 12 with a kicking game why not try Mike Harris who unlike Barnes has been in good form this year, and last year.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Ideal Oz backline from my point of view would be:
Genia, Cooper, Ioane, O'Connor, AAC, Mitchell, Beale

Barnes can be on the bench, maybe. You could possibly shuffle the team around a bit with Ioane at centre (though I don't know if he has any distribution skill) and put O'Connor on the wing.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Mitchell is finished after last weekend. the Wallabies need to bring shipperley or Tomane into the mix. we need to blood a young winger who has the genuine characteristics of a winger, and digby wont be around forever.

that's part of the problem with the wallabies, reliance on utility backs to fill/fit into positions on a week to week basis. rewind a few years, we had gregan, larkham, tuqiri, flatley, mortlock, sailor, latham. some of these guys weren't amazing rugby players but the point is they were picked in the position that they specialise in. then you had the likes of utility backs like mat rogers on the bench to cover most of those back positions.

 

[welshglory]

It really doesn't matter who's playing in the backline guys when your forwards aren't winning any ball, especially against SA and Argentina. I would be more worried about that.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

True, there a many factors to the wallabies

 

[madflyhalf]

Actually I didn't see in Arg - SA match so accurate defence... instead many errors from both teams even in 1 on 1 situation, at this momento ABs are defending well against poor Wallaby attacking side.
But Wallabies defended pretty well in this weekend match... given the ABs side they were trying to match!

I'm much more worried about the total absence of attacking patterns and structures, with poor decision took by playmakers.
You have 3 playmakers on the field and you weren't able to score a single point?!

What happened to 2010 Wallabies? They were losing matches as today, but played definetly much more better! At those days they had a future, sadly not now.