SuperRugby: Reds v Chiefs. 13/05/2012

[admartian]

Genia is class once again.

Defensive/mental lapses from the Chiefs to lose the game more so than the Reds winning it (though much deserved for them).

If they can rebound and finish the comp with great defense, then i can see them winning this season.

 

[Larksea]

Proof?


You know that the tackler and the tackler assist is suppose to give the tackled person a chance to place the ball first.

Proof?
here it is! *pulls proof from backside*

It's my opinion, people will agree or disagree depending on how they see it. The main thing it comes down to that I don't like is that the way some/most refs are ruling the breakdown the defending team seems to have an advantage and it doesn't make for good rugby and the way I see it a lot of the changes over the last couple of years were supposed to get the attacking team an advantage. It only seems to work for a few weeks then it seems to end up back where we started. Like in the first few weeks players were getting pinged everywhere for going off their feet. Now it seems ok again refs seem to just ignore it... And in the this game what was happening is that often a reds player would win the ball mostly legally but there would be a reds teammate on the ground off their feet ahead of he ball. And in this situation I'd expect it to be a penalty against the defending team.

As for the last point I don't think you under stand what I mean. maybe/likely I did not explain it well. Let me try and draw a picture with words.

Chiefs player gets tackled and tries to release the ball or does release the ball legally.
Reds player legally comes over and grabs the ball as an arriving player through the gate. And takes the ball.
Chiefs player comes in on his feet through the correct area and grabs the Reds player now in possession of the ball. In my view at this point no rules have been broken, the ball is off the ground and the main players as part of the breakdown are on their feet. At this point the original tackled player is stuck on the ground and is well away from the ball.
Ref blows a penalty against the chiefs for holding onto the ball.
Also in this scenario there would be a situation where the reds player would be pulled to ground, would not release the ball yet the reds still get the penalty...

The way I see it in this scenario if the ball doesn't come its with a maul red player took it in so chiefs scrum or maybe ball not coming out team going forward has scrum feed. Or of the reds player who won the ball then goes to ground and doesn't release it they should be penalized.</pulls>

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Again

16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

Pointing out the specific incident will help E.G Time in the match . Bryce was right and refereed the game perfectly within the laws last week so did the referee this week.

You conveniently ignored the part I've bolded.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Proof?
here it is! *pulls proof from backside*

It's my opinion, people will agree or disagree depending on how they see it. The main thing it comes down to that I don't like is that the way some/most refs are ruling the breakdown the defending team seems to have an advantage and it doesn't make for good rugby and the way I see it a lot of the changes over the last couple of years were supposed to get the attacking team an advantage. It only seems to work for a few weeks then it seems to end up back where we started. Like in the first few weeks players were getting pinged everywhere for going off their feet. Now it seems ok again refs seem to just ignore it... And in the this game what was happening is that often a reds player would win the ball mostly legally but there would be a reds teammate on the ground off their feet ahead of he ball. And in this situation I'd expect it to be a penalty against the defending team.

As for the last point I don't think you under stand what I mean. maybe/likely I did not explain it well. Let me try and draw a picture with words.

Chiefs player gets tackled and tries to release the ball or does release the ball legally.
Reds player legally comes over and grabs the ball as an arriving player through the gate. And takes the ball.
Chiefs player comes in on his feet through the correct area and grabs the Reds player now in possession of the ball. In my view at this point no rules have been broken, the ball is off the ground and the main players as part of the breakdown are on their feet. At this point the original tackled player is stuck on the ground and is well away from the ball.
Ref blows a penalty against the chiefs for holding onto the ball.
Also in this scenario there would be a situation where the reds player would be pulled to ground, would not release the ball yet the reds still get the penalty...

The way I see it in this scenario if the ball doesn't come its with a maul red player took it in so chiefs scrum or maybe ball not coming out team going forward has scrum feed. Or of the reds player who won the ball then goes to ground and doesn't release it they should be penalized.

You conveniently ignored the part I've bolded.

First
Is this a ruck?


Then what is wrong here?


Is this through the gates

The way I see it in this scenario if the ball doesn't come its with a maul red player took it in so chiefs scrum or maybe ball not coming out team going forward has scrum feed. Or of the reds player who won the ball then goes to ground and doesn't release it they should be penalized.

As for that

Remember the directive from the IRB referee manager regarding this.

Gents

Over the past two weeks there have been a couple of incidents in matches where a Maul which goes to ground is being incorrectly refereed.

The Law.

Law 17.6 (b) A Maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is awarded.

Law 17.6 (g) If a ball carrier in a Maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.

On several occasions in recent matches when a Maul has gone to ground and the referee has decided that no infringement has occurred, I have heard the referee calling for one of the players in contact with the ball to release and when they haven’t they have been penalised.

If in the above situation the maul has legally gone to ground and the ball does not emerge immediately then it should be a scrum turnover as there is no requirement in law for any one specific player to release.

Please give this matter attention in upcoming matches.

Kind regards

Paddy

Paddy O’Brien
Referee Manager
International Rugby Board

I can not say the referee was wrong without video evidence nor should you because stuff like this happens. Just listen to the commentators. That whole discussion was irrelevant. Can you tell me why?

 

[cyclone101]

I spoke to a Bulls fitness advisor on Sunday, he told me that teams usually have a 9 week peak fitness cycle and then 2 weeks that your body needs to rest. He said that if teams peak too early they will loose their last couple of matches. I wonder if the reds are only peaking now. Was interesting to hear it from his opinion.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Reds had a lot of injury problems. Specially at flyhalf. With Harris back they look a lot better.

 

[Larksea]

funny I look at this video and it's a clear example of what I think is wrong with the way the breakdown is ruled. Though none of those videos have anything to do with my main point.

sure the chiefs 2 came in on an angle but the sharks 14 also clearly came on an angle first actually from what could be called an offside position, yet the penalty goes against the attacking side. As long as refs continue to give away penalties like this you're better off just not having the ball...

actually if you look at the freeze frame of the video the chiefs player came in from a cleaner position than the sharks player.

 

[cyclone101]

If you clean out a player with momentum that is at quite an angle to the "gate", like in the video above, you can almost be sure of a penalty. Refs don't call coming in from the side on players that don't clean out, unless your angle is ridiculous. That is what I have seen in any case, not sure what the rules say about it.

 

[Cave Dweller]

funny I look at this video and it's a clear example of what I think is wrong with the way the breakdown is ruled. Though none of those videos have anything to do with my main point.

sure the chiefs 2 came in on an angle but the sharks 14 also clearly came on an angle first actually from what could be called an offside position, yet the penalty goes against the attacking side. As long as refs continue to give away penalties like this you're better off just not having the ball...

actually if you look at the freeze frame of the video the chiefs player came in from a cleaner position than the sharks player.

It has everything to do with your point. It shows how wrong you are in the interpretation of the laws and how biased your point of view is looking at a situation.

That chiefs player runs in from the side to remove the threat.

It is simple basically.

Law 15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players' goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The 2nd clip Chiefs Augustine Pulu (20). He does not enter through the gates and then he goes beyond the ball and obstruct the Sharks players and prevent them from cleaning out Elliot and remove him as a threat.

Law 15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players' goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Law 15.7 (d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

That should have been the penalty for the Sharks.

The last clip of Read the commentators go on that Read can play from any direction and did so with in the laws. The general public eat that up and run to a internet forum complaining the referee cheat them. But in fact if you go back to the sudden ruck where Beetham was tackled. Read was ahead of the last feet at that ruck, as the referee explained, telling the Crusaders' captain to 'Keep behind the last feet.'

Now this is the mistake you made. You described the play going from a ruck to a maul and can not understand why there is hands in the ruck because it was a maul. But you forget before it was a maul it was a ruck and did it ever cross your mind that there is where the transgression took place first? No advantage he gave the penalty. Exact same mistake those commentators made you made.

Here is the exact point where he yells "Ruck"

Can you see why he yelled it? Cause it was a ruck.

 

[admartian]

Surprise, surprise apperance! :lol: