[2015 RWC] Warm Up Match: New Zealand vs Australia (15/08/2015)

[smartcooky]

This is the point which is confusing: so as long as a player has his hands on the ball before the ruck is formed and is on his feet (I.e. He is supporting his own body weight - not leaning with any part of his body on a player on the ground or the ground itself) he can then go off his feet once he has the ball. Is that right? Because Sam is definitely leaning with his left knee on the player on the ground in the footage immediately after the screenshots you've posted.

Yes, that is right. So long as he gains possession while on his feet unsupported.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 16.4 (b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

If he gains possession legally and then leans on another player in order to prise the ball free, then the player on the ground holding the ball (usually the tackled ball carrier) is not releasing and should be penalised

As a general rule;
1. If the jackler goes to ground holding the ball and the tackled player has not yet released, then the tackled player will be pinged for "not releasing".
2. If the jackler goes to ground in sole possession of the ball, he has to act in the same way that he would if he was tackled; i.e. place, pass, push or release.
3. If the jackler is able to remain on this feet (which you don't see very often) the he can simply hand or pass the ball back or leave the ruck.

No 2 is the most common thing you see, and the usual action is to roll and feed the ball back.

Just a point. It is illegal to go off your feet grabbing the ball as you do so, all in one action. That is regarded as going off your feet at the tackle.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 15.7 (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[/TEXTAREA]

- - - Updated - - -

What's your point?

 

[goodNumber10]

What's your point?

My point is that it's almost impossible to engage with you on anything that criticises NZ rugby, and that dismissing a whole analysis piece, and the analyst, because you disagree with one sentence is ludicrous.

each to their own though.

 

[smartcooky]

GN10 - Here is what I mean about Scrummaging 101.

Anyone who claims to know about scrummaging to the degree that they call themselves a scrum analyst ought to know that there is a tendency for any scrum to naturally wheel clockwise due to the left lateral offset of the engaged players.

This happens even if no-one does anything illegal.

When a scrum does wheel, it is not necessarily anything that the front rows do that makes it happen. For example, if the two front rows are pretty much matched but the second rows of one team are significantly dominant, then the major impetus for the wheel could come from the second row, particularly if either or both of the loose-head locks (no 4s) are stronger.

Referring to the diagram above,, this effect can be particularly exacerbated if, for example, the No 6 Grey is considerably stronger than the No 6 Blue team when the scrum is on Grey's left side of the field (the blindside flanker on the left side of the scrum)... same for No 7s when the scrum is on the right side of the field. This is why you sometimes see a greater prevalence for scrum wheeling on one side of the field than the other.

 

[goodNumber10]

he's not talking about wheeling, he's talking about lateral movement from touch line to touch line...

 

[smartcooky]

My point is that it's almost impossible to engage with you on anything that criticises NZ rugby, and that dismissing a whole analysis piece, and the analyst, because you disagree with one sentence is ludicrous.

each to their own though.

But that sentence shows a clear lack of understanding of the fundamentals of scrummaging. It goes to his credibility

 

[goodNumber10]

But that sentence shows a clear lack of understanding of the fundamentals of scrummaging. It goes to his credibility

It might if he was talking about wheeling. He's talking about a scrum crabbing sideways, across the pitch. If everyone is scrummaging square it's highly unlikely the scrum will walk sideways.

Wheeling is a different issue and he touches on it later on.

As for his credibility his previous scrum articles have been very well received by pro's and analysts a like, it's just a difference of opinion no need to dismiss his whole point because you disagree with one small sentence.

don't really want this to descend into an argument so will bow out now, i found the article interesting, his previous ones have also been good.

 

[smartcooky]

he's not talking about wheeling, he's talking about lateral movement from touch line to touch line...

Really?

[TEXTAREA]The net result of Woodcock driving in such a direction is that rather than moving from tryline to tryline, like a normal scrum would, this scrum moves from touchline to touchline, with the All Blacks eventually wheeling the scrum on its spot.[/TEXTAREA]

[TEXTAREA]The reason this wheel was so pronounced, was that as Woodcock drove in at an angle, the New Zealand backrow started to push out at the opposite angle, effectively rotating the scrum, without moving forward.[/TEXTAREA]


Looks like he's talking about wheeling to me

 

[goodNumber10]

Really?

[TEXTAREA]The net result of Woodcock driving in such a direction is that rather than moving from tryline to tryline, like a normal scrum would, this scrum moves from touchline to touchline, with the All Blacks eventually wheeling the scrum on its spot.[/TEXTAREA]

[TEXTAREA]The reason this wheel was so pronounced, was that as Woodcock drove in at an angle, the New Zealand backrow started to push out at the opposite angle, effectively rotating the scrum, without moving forward.[/TEXTAREA]


Looks like he's talking about wheeling to me

The key words are "eventually wheeling" indicating other stuff happened first. He's 100% talking about lateral movement when he talks about a scrum moving "sideways", caused by what he thinks is Woodcock driving across.

Otherwise he'd say around as he does later on (your second sentance).

If you want to dismiss the whole article on a semantic point then fine, or you could address the issues he's flagging up and whether or not you agree Woodcock is at fault in the examples.

or not.

 

[TobesHodges]

I'm able to type and fall asleep at the same time :lol:

 

[TommiG88]

This is excellent.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Welcome back to my balcony!!!

Ha ha ha
Nice one tony, touche'.

 

[austingtir]

The key words are "eventually wheeling" indicating other stuff happened first. He's 100% talking about lateral movement when he talks about a scrum moving "sideways", caused by what he thinks is Woodcock driving across.

Otherwise he'd say around as he does later on (your second sentance).

If you want to dismiss the whole article on a semantic point then fine, or you could address the issues he's flagging up and whether or not you agree Woodcock is at fault in the examples.

or not.

GN10 seriously, you really come off as a bit of a know it all cockhead TBH but everytime you post something like this your are basically blowing your own self inflated ego to pieces. (but I dont think you even realise that).

Just thought I would give you a heads up....

 

[InsaneAsylum]

GN10 seriously, you really come off as a bit of a know it all cockhead TBH but everytime you post something like this your are basically blowing your own self inflated ego to pieces. (but I dont think you even realise that).

Just thought I would give you a heads up....

Mate, you can disagree with someone, but you can't call them a "cockhead". Even though you may be thinking that, you are abusing another member of the forum.

Just thought I would give you a heads up....

 

[austingtir]

Mate, you can disagree with someone, but you can't call them a "cockhead". Even though you may be thinking that, you are abusing another member of the forum.

Just thought I would give you a heads up....

I was surprised it even showed up TBH.... The sensoring in this forum is beyond ridiculous. I swear its run by Seventh Day Adventists.

 

[Mcfadden]

Has anybody read the latest article on the All Blacks win over Australia? I think we can all agree that the ABs were the better side by far, but some of the officiating was again questionable. Mark Reason (who I know isn't the all encompassing omnipotent source of rugby knowledge) highlights some key factors which aided the All Blacks, including the performance of Nigel Owens at times.

The third influence was Nigel Owens. Australia have every right to complain about his performance. Twice in the opening half an hour Conrad Smith played the catcher when he was in the air. The absence of a yellow card beggared belief.

On Saturday Retallick and Woodcock assaulted players with cheap shots. In the lead-up to the turnover that led to the All Blacks opening try, Read pulled Will Skelton down and out of a driving maul on one side and Richie McCaw lifted Wycliff Palu's leg on the other side, the same offence for which Romain Poite yellow carded Rob Simmons a few months ago. Not even a penalty.

Regretfully I have to accuse Owens of unintentional bias. When McCaw asked for clarification of a decision, Owens said, "I'll have a look at the next one, okay." When Moore asked, he was told, "Back you go." Aaron Smith queried a decision and Owens apologised that there was nothing he could do about it. Moments later Moore wondered and was again told, "Off you go." Tone.

The All Blacks are quite good enough without the ref. Saturday's performance was encouraging but far from definitive. It will take much more to win three big matches away from home in a World Cup.

Even if you don't agree with what he writes (I don't really agree with a yellow card for Conrad) it does highlight inconsistencies among referees. Also, one of the main whinges (among many) after the Sydney loss was the way Wayne Barnes talked to the players and at times it was inappropriate. Is it not right that Moore should at least be given an explanation to his query? Yet this was never brought up, and I have to admit, it isn't something I picked up on initially. I also think if anyone did point out a referee who was bias in favor of the All Blacks, they'd swiftly be yelled down and bullied. Particularly by a couple of members specifically.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...f-work-to-do-ahead-of-rugby-world-cup-defence

 

[nickdnz]

Mark Reason is simply one of the worst journalists in New Zealand. Nothing but uninformed click bait - don't think he has ever written anything positive about the All Blacks.

 

[Mcfadden]

I know he is bad, but are none of his points within that quote valid?

 

[Kiwi_]

Chris Rattue from the NZ Herald is the worst journalist in NZ, then Mike Hoskins, if you can call him one.

 

[smartcooky]

Has anybody read the latest article on the All Blacks win over Australia? I think we can all agree that the ABs were the better side by far, but some of the officiating was again questionable. Mark Reason (who I know isn't the all encompassing omnipotent source of rugby knowledge) highlights some key factors which aided the All Blacks, including the performance of Nigel Owens at times.



Even if you don't agree with what he writes (I don't really agree with a yellow card for Conrad) it does highlight inconsistencies among referees. Also, one of the main whinges (among many) after the Sydney loss was the way Wayne Barnes talked to the players and at times it was inappropriate. Is it not right that Moore should at least be given an explanation to his query? Yet this was never brought up, and I have to admit, it isn't something I picked up on initially. I also think if anyone did point out a referee who was bias in favor of the All Blacks, they'd swiftly be yelled down and bullied. Particularly by a couple of members specifically.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...f-work-to-do-ahead-of-rugby-world-cup-defence

McFadden. I take no notice of anything Reason says. He's is little more than a NZ hating arsehole (just like his Father) and a sycophant for whoever NZ play against; this week for Australia, next week for whoever.

Reason is a younger version of Stephen Jones, except that he lacks Jones' singular wit.

 

[nickdnz]

Well I'm upset at you McFadden for making me read something from either of Rattue or Reason. But I'll try and answer:

I don't think Nigel Owen's was bias at all (nor did I accuse Barnes of it last week). The Woodcock/Retallick cheap shots just seem made up. Conrad Smith did grab a player too early in one challenge - and was penalised for it. Other times players were legitimately going for the ball and contesting up and unders.

Moore did nothing but hassle referees in both tests. McCaw talked to the referee while making it to the next phase of play, Moore was preventing the next phase of play from continuing.

Like anything Reason writes - it's not an attempt to offer balanced journalism - it's a constant antagonism of readership to get a reaction. He's clearly bored of his 'ban the haka' articles.