I think this is what Dwyer is making a reference to. Don't get to excited Cooky it is not a Saffa making this video, listen to the commentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdr-W775hk4
Anyway, just to make it clear I think the All Blacks are playing some really good rugby at the moment and are definatley setting the benchmark this year.
Raises some good points, but in reality, the All Blacks are not doing things any differently to the way the Springboks and Wallabies are doing them, its just that the compiler of the video has cherry-picked the sequences he wants to show to back up his point. If I could be bothered wasting my time trawling through hours of video and micro-analysing it, I know I would find plenty to back almost any point I want to make.
What is clear, however, is that the compiler/narrator of this video has virtually no knowledge of the Laws of the Game, and little if any understanding of the concept of "materiality". Rugby Union is such a complicated game, that without referees applying materiality constraints, instead of whistling every offence, the game would be nigh on impossible to play.
I will now set about destroying his arguments and pointing out:
► where he makes incorrect assumptions about the Laws
► where his understanding of the concept of materiality is poor.
At 1:15:
Read doesn't launch himself over the ball, he binds
correctly and drives Habana away from the tackle area. This is a legitimate part of the game, and you see players from both teams doing exactly that at virtually every tackle/ruck situation.
Law 16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The
bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body
of the player joining the ruck.
The player standing in an offside position is actually not taking part on the game, so he doesn't necessarily have to be penalised.
Law 11 definitions:
At the start of a game all players are onside. As the match progresses players may find themselves in an offside position. Such players are then liable to be penalised until they become onside again.
"Liable to be penalised" means that he "can" be penalised, not that he "must" be penalised. This is the concept I referred to earlier as "materiality", the one which the narrator doesn't understand. A player who is not affecting play is "not having a material effect on play" therefore, most referees will not penalise, they will manage such situations. Talk to any qualified referee, and they will tell you the same thing.
At 1:43:
Owen Franks was entitled to to do what he did because NO tackle had yet been made; McCaw had not been taken to ground...
Law 15 Definitions
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.
Nor had any ruck/or maul formed.
Law 16 Definitions:
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.
Law 17 Definitions:
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier's team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a
goal line. Open play has ended.
Therefore, its General Play, and players can join from any direction.
At 2:16:
Again Owen Franks is perfectly entitled to do what he did. There is no ruck formed (no Springbok players are on their feet in contact with All Black players over the ball), therefore there is no offside. It was a tackle, but there is no offside at the tackle either, and Franks made no attempt to join from there so he cannot be penalised for not entering the tackle through the gate.Same again and 2:21 and 2:41; nothing formed (i.e. no ruck) so no offside. The narrator seems to be bent on continuing to use the term "offside" in situations where there is none.This practice is no different from players running past the catcher at a kick-off to try to intercept the back pass.
At 3:30:
Conrad Smith is perfectly entitled to take out Kirchner. This is called "cleaning out". This practice is enabled by the following Law
Law 15.7 (d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.
Conversely then, if a player IS near the ball, then the opposition ARE entitled to obstruct him. "Cleaning out" is a basic fundamental of the modern game. The only thing I would say is that he could have been pinged for entering at the side.
At 3:53
Same as for 2:16 above. There are NO Springboks on their feet in physical contact with All Blacks, therefore there is no ruck, therefore there is no hindmost foot offside line, therefore there is no offside. What I see here is a bunch of All Black forwards taking advantage of the fact that the Springbok players are;
a: too slow to the breakdown.
b: not committing players on their feet to the breakdown even when the do eventually get there.
It has become pretty clear to me by now that the narrator does not have the foggiest idea what a ruck is, and how the offside lines do not appear until such time as one is formed. Remember Mr Narrator, and burn this into your brain...
there is no offside at the tackle, only a requirement for players ARRIVING a the tackle to enter through the gate.
And that mantra pretty much applies to the rest of the video. Mr Narrator even wants to complain when the All Blacks ARE penalised for illegalities.
In summary, the Narrator of this video;
1. Has a poor knowledge of the Laws of the Game.
2. Does not clearly understand the application of the Laws.
3. Does not understand the concept of "materiality".
4. Does not understand what constitutes a "ruck" or how it is formed.
5. Continually uses the term "offside" when there is no offside in Law at the phase he is referring to.
This is a clever piece of editing where all the video that supports his premise is left in, and all the video that would show the Springboks doing the same things is left out. You see very few occasions where the Springboks take the ball into contact and get numbers to the breakdown, and even then, the sequences are not allowed to run so that you can see what the Springboks do. I wonder why that is?
But the most damning indictment of this video, is the sequence that runs from 0:00 to 0:04.
