RWC: All Blacks - France (24-09-2011, 15:30)

[TRF_Cymro]

[TEXTAREA]Law 10.4 (i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or
feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

The Law uses the the word "tackle"which is an intentional action. There has to be an intent to tackle or its not a penalty. The referee will usually judge this by where he thinks the player is looking. Usually, if he's looking at the player then he's in trouble, if he's looking at the ball, he's not. Its a rule of thumb, but not hard and fast one.

In this case, both players are looking at the ball, and they collide in mid air. The fact that Jane then puts his hands on is irrelevant; more than likely a natural reaction to being up in the air and falling. But the important thing is that there is no attempt by Jane to bring the French player down.

Maybe but that is your interpretation of the law?

Don't get me wrong but I am sure a different set of referees would interpret the law differently from yourself and therefore some would have penalised Jane for taking the man in the air regardless I feel.

Saying that the right team won today and rightfully.

 

[cardassian]

Don't think it worries the All Blacks if others challenge the haka, think that's pc ******** by others.
As someone who has done a lot of haka (as a lot of kiwi's will have) it never worried me.
Also notice that NZ often break the 10m rule so can't see them having any problems with others doing this.
Think it's cause there is a perceived problem due to a lot of people in the media complaining about haka etc... and boards react to this problem, whereas the players themselves have no problem at all.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

[TEXTAREA]Law 10.4 (i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or
feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

The Law uses the the word "tackle"which is an intentional action. There has to be an intent to tackle or its not a penalty. The referee will usually judge this by where he thinks the player is looking. Usually, if he's looking at the player then he's in trouble, if he's looking at the ball, he's not. Its a rule of thumb, but not hard and fast one.

In this case, both players are looking at the ball, and they collide in mid air. The fact that Jane then puts his hands on is irrelevant; more than likely a natural reaction to being up in the air and falling. But the important thing is that there is no attempt by Jane to bring the French player down.

Fair enough!
I had an inkling that was the rule, it was just that the way Jane grabbed on it looked like a tackle - however he definitely didn't jump up intending on taking Traille out, so it's all good

 

[Rusty]

You're right about the new haka. It was created for SA because they often stood up to the haka and walked towards them - not at all infringing on the 'performance' itself, just closing the distance. France have also walked towards it, I seem to remember Chabal doing it... anyway, the IRB have made a 10m rule - nobody is allowed within 10m of the song and dance!

I can imagine someone at Nz rugby union writing to their mates at the IRB like the parents of spoilt school children writing to their school, complaining that their little darlings had to do cross country in the drizzle and now they have the sniffles.

So if we want to be rugby supporters I guess we have to humour the kiwis, let them win 'their' world cup so they don't throw their toys out of the pram again. If SA have the 'honour and the privilege' of being NZ's opposition at 'their world cup' I hope they walk towards it. If they are impudent enough to go on and beat the All Blacks, no doubt the haka encroachment will go down with the food poisoning and Jauzion forward pass yarns the kiwis like to wheel out!

Does that make you feel better? It just the same typical BS over and over with you guys, it really is pathetic. Find something that matters to moan about. NZ doesn't make the rules, i'm sure the IRB can make their own decisions based on their own opinions.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

You're right about the new haka. It was created for SA because they often stood up to the haka and walked towards them - not at all infringing on the 'performance' itself, just closing the distance. France have also walked towards it, I seem to remember Chabal doing it... anyway, the IRB have made a 10m rule - nobody is allowed within 10m of the song and dance!

I can imagine someone at Nz rugby union writing to their mates at the IRB like the parents of spoilt school children writing to their school, complaining that their little darlings had to do cross country in the drizzle and now they have the sniffles.

So if we want to be rugby supporters I guess we have to humour the kiwis, let them win 'their' world cup so they don't throw their toys out of the pram again. If SA have the 'honour and the privilege' of being NZ's opposition at 'their world cup' I hope they walk towards it. If they are impudent enough to go on and beat the All Blacks, no doubt the haka encroachment will go down with the food poisoning and Jauzion forward pass yarns the kiwis like to wheel out!

You are a stuck record, mate.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't understand why, as the Kapa o Congo is accepted (with the dirty cutting throat motion), opposition is now not allowed to give answer. A team can launch a challenge but the other must stay quietly away...

If NZ want his tradition to be respected, wich is fully understandable, it must make it respectable (If I remember well, Kapa O Pongo was created after traditional Haka had been whistled by SA supporters in Tri Nations)

Before you post bullshit about which you obviously know NOTHING, perhaps you ought to do some research.

Kapa O Pango (note the correct spelling!!) was about making Haka more inclusive of the many races, creeds and colour that make up our country. It had nothing to do with any South African whistling.

And before you, a Frenchman, criticise the so-called throat slitting gesture (it actually isn't that, but trying to explain it to a kūare would be a waste of time), you might want to take a close reading of the words of your own national anthem...

Drive on sacred patriotism
Support our avenging arms
Liberty, cherished liberty
Join the struggle with your defenders
Under our flags, let victory
Hurry to your manly tone
So that in death your enemies
See your triumph and our glory!

A clear invocation to all those who sing it to murder their opponents....

Now it may not mean what appears to, but that is the danger of commenting on a foreign culture and making criticisms based on YOUR perception of what their words and actions mean.

You're right about the new haka. It was created for SA because they often stood up to the haka and walked towards them - not at all infringing on the 'performance' itself, just closing the distance.

Just the contemptible words of a racist, white South African.

You're probably a paid up member of the AWB, but I'll cut you some slack, because you're probably still mourning the death of Eugène Terre'Blanche, your beloved Fuhrer.

BTW, what you said never happened. It was the IRISH who advanced on the haka; and if you understood anything about Haka, you would understand that it is a challenge, and you are EXPECTED to stand up and face it down.. we love it when an opponent does this... any Maori elder will tell you that, but you are just too ignorant to understand.

When Wales and the All Blacks had their staring match a few years back, Maori here loved it, Wales showing a display of determination, it was only the British media that made a big deal about it, again from a position of sheer ignorance.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

The Law uses the the word "tackle"which is an intentional action. There has to be an intent to tackle or its not a penalty. The referee will usually judge this by where he thinks the player is looking. Usually, if he's looking at the player then he's in trouble, if he's looking at the ball, he's not. Its a rule of thumb, but not hard and fast one.

In this case, both players are looking at the ball, and they collide in mid air. The fact that Jane then puts his hands on is irrelevant; more than likely a natural reaction to being up in the air and falling. But the important thing is that there is no attempt by Jane to bring the French player down.

Watch again please
For sure Jane was initially looking at the ball until, while in the air, he realized he'd lost the battle and catched Traille with both arms around his waistline, there are absolutely no doubts about that. A penalty or a yellow depending on the judge appreciation.

 

[Groundhog]

You're right about the new haka. It was created for SA because they often stood up to the haka and walked towards them - not at all infringing on the 'performance' itself, just closing the distance. France have also walked towards it, I seem to remember Chabal doing it... anyway, the IRB have made a 10m rule - nobody is allowed within 10m of the song and dance!

I can imagine someone at Nz rugby union writing to their mates at the IRB like the parents of spoilt school children writing to their school, complaining that their little darlings had to do cross country in the drizzle and now they have the sniffles.

So if we want to be rugby supporters I guess we have to humour the kiwis, let them win 'their' world cup so they don't throw their toys out of the pram again. If SA have the 'honour and the privilege' of being NZ's opposition at 'their world cup' I hope they walk towards it. If they are impudent enough to go on and beat the All Blacks, no doubt the haka encroachment will go down with the food poisoning and Jauzion forward pass yarns the kiwis like to wheel out!

yes i mean thats the most likely explanation alright
good job sport

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Please guys, drop the racial-cards... It's not necessary

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

Before you post bullshit about which you obviously know NOTHING, perhaps you ought to do some research.

Kapa O Pango (note the correct spelling!!) was about making Haka more inclusive of the many races, creeds and colour that make up our country. It had nothing to do with any South African whistling.

And before you, a Frenchman, criticise the so-called throat slitting gesture (it actually isn't that, but trying to explain it to a kūare would be a waste of time), you might want to take a close reading of the words of your own national anthem...

A clear invocation to all those who sing it to murder their opponents....

Now it may not mean what appears to, but that is the danger of commenting on a foreign culture and making criticisms based on YOUR perception of what their words and actions mean.

Firstly, words and language are multiple, but don't make me laught with the action. Body language, as music is universal. So you can tell everything you want but making people believe that this sweet little gesture is an invitation to wear a "bienvenue" string of pearls...
National Anthems have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, you didn't correctly get my words: All blacks or every team can show any Haka they want from the moment their opponent can answer at the graduate level. Or maybe do we have to accept next time that we'll have to stay at attention ???

 

[smartcooky]

Watch again please
For sure Jane was initially looking at the ball until, while in the air, he realized he's lost the battle and catched Traille with both arms around his waistline, there are absolutely no doubts about that. A penalty or a yellow depending on the judge appreciation.

I have watched it several times from various angles, and I have not changed my opinion.

Traille was already knocked off balance by the collision and is already falling to the ground when Jane puts his hands on.

I could actually argue that Jane putting his hands on Traille actually mitigated his fall; which may have been a lot worse; he could have rotated right over and landed on his head. This argument is no more or less valid that the argument that Jane's actions caused the fall. Its a 50/50 call, and the referee decided not to rule a penalty. Clancy was only a couple of metres away looking straight at it, and he didn't call it in.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

So what can make you tell that even unbalanced in the air, Traille wouldn't have been unable to fall on is feet (or fall a stand up immediately, or make a pass to the support,...) ?
He was in the air when caught and maintained that's it.

 

[smartcooky]

So what can make you tell that even unbalanced in the air, Traille wouldn't have been unable to fall on is feet (or fall a stand up immediately, or make a pass to the support,...) ?
He was in the air when caught that's it

Because he was already rotating, and without anything to "push" against, he would continue to rotate. Jane's hands going on stops the rotation.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

There are numerous example of players misbalanced in the air and able to recover and play/run/pass the ball after landing, that's called skills.

 

[kovana]

Are the precious kiwis still whinging over the 2nd french try..
Get over it.
The way the ref didnt penalize the ABs in the first half for:
1. Deliberate obstruction after a chip kick by the french.
2. Tackling a player in the air.
The ABs get away with far too much..
Did anyone see how Conrad Smith was completely offside when he made a tackle, and for some reason the French were penalized?
Anyways, karma will get ya in the end.
Also, Conrad smith is a real douche bag.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Are the precious kiwis still whinging over the 2nd french try..
Get over it.
The way the ref didnt penalize the ABs in the first half for:
1. Deliberate obstruction after a chip kick by the french.
2. Tackling a player in the air.
The ABs get away with far too much..
Did anyone see how Conrad Smith was completely offside when he made a tackle, and for some reason the French were penalized?
Anyways, karma will get ya in the end.
Also, Conrad smith is a real douche bag.

Talking about the Traille incident in the first 10 mins. Check in before checking out.

 

[Surefire]

Did not think the ref changed the outcome of the game. The scoreline was bad, but even so it was generous to France. New Zealand were awesome, and my opinion is that Nonu was the most important piece. He caused mayhem and drew so much attention he really changed the game. Overall, this will sound silly, but I do not think France played horribly. I was encouraged by their willingness to run the ball, I guess you have to when you are down big, and I appreciated the movement in the backline. French defense was bad, but my opinion is you would be hard pressed to find a team that could have stopped the ABs last night.
Hope to see the ABs again in the Final, but France has a lot of work to do if they are going to make it.

 

[kovana]

New Zealand were awesome,

Also helps when the Ref seems to be blind to all illegal tactics by the Kiwis.

However.. He did start getting smart at the scrum area later. Woodcock is over rated.

 

[Sam Owen]

Did not think the ref changed the outcome of the game. The scoreline was bad, but even so it was generous to France. New Zealand were awesome, and my opinion is that Nonu was the most important piece. He caused mayhem and drew so much attention he really changed the game. Overall, this will sound silly, but I do not think France played horribly. I was encouraged by their willingness to run the ball, I guess you have to when you are down big, and I appreciated the movement in the backline. French defense was bad, but my opinion is you would be hard pressed to find a team that could have stopped the ABs last night.
Hope to see the ABs again in the Final, but France has a lot of work to do if they are going to make it.

You are right on the money, the ABs are hard to beat at home ask the Wallabies and the Springboks or any rugby nation, they'll tell you that. France put up a good game but IMO they were never going to beat the All Blacks at home, the French have done it but that was ages ago, to be honest I dont remember seeing or hearing too many nations (outside of the tri-nations) teams beating the All Blacks at home, its hard enough just beating them anywhere.

France has a got a decent route to the final, I think. France and Wales of the NH teams have gotten themselves a good hitout, especially Wales who played very well against the 'Boks. France just needs to recover well from their loss and stayed focused on that cup.

 

[ACT1NUP]

You're right about the new haka. It was created for SA because they often stood up to the haka and walked towards them - not at all infringing on the 'performance' itself, just closing the distance. France have also walked towards it, I seem to remember Chabal doing it... anyway, the IRB have made a 10m rule - nobody is allowed within 10m of the song and dance!

I can imagine someone at Nz rugby union writing to their mates at the IRB like the parents of spoilt school children writing to their school, complaining that their little darlings had to do cross country in the drizzle and now they have the sniffles.

So if we want to be rugby supporters I guess we have to humour the kiwis, let them win 'their' world cup so they don't throw their toys out of the pram again. If SA have the 'honour and the privilege' of being NZ's opposition at 'their world cup' I hope they walk towards it. If they are impudent enough to go on and beat the All Blacks, no doubt the haka encroachment will go down with the food poisoning and Jauzion forward pass yarns the kiwis like to wheel out!

My understanding is that the new haka was created to amp us up in the way the boks seem to amp up with Nelson Mandela present. New haka was devised and now used in special occasions as a way to inspire great performances. And I'm pretty sure the ABs don't give a damn if teams want to face up to the haka nose to nose, pretty common occurance all throughout NZ rugby really. IRB are the ones who are precious and bring it stupid things like the 10m rule. I love it when people want to get in our faces during the haka, doesn't happen enough.