Tri Nations: Wallabies - All Blacks @ Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane (27-8-2011, 10:05GMT)

[Sam Owen]

Every country has a cheat, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand they all have players who squeeze in some form of cheating to get an advantage for their team. If you put one foot off-side to get that extra advantage to be able to rush up and make that tackle and then you get away with it, good work.

Cheating is cheating there is no type 1 or type 2. If you cheat in some way or the other than thats just it, you cheated.


In Rugby, every team has someone that will cheat and everyone remembers the cheater from the other team, never the cheater from their own team. My proof is these posts above.

 

[JW.]

I think there's a difference between diving/faking and just being offside etc. ones part of being a good openside the other is just stupid, unsportive and cowardly.

 

[Sam Owen]

I think there's a difference between diving/faking and just being offside etc. ones part of being a good openside the other is just stupid, unsportive and cowardly.

Cheating is cheating, there is no type 1 or type 2, stupid, unsportive or cowardly and thats fact.

If you cheat then you cheat and EVERY country is guilty of it at some stage in Rugby games.

 

[Shaggy]

Cheating is cheating, there is no type 1 or type 2, stupid, unsportive or cowardly and thats fact.

If you cheat then you cheat and EVERY country is guilty of it at some stage in Rugby games.

I agree that every side cheats, players are always going to test referees out at the rucks, mauls, and offside in general play ... but there definitely is different types of cheating ... penalty offenses/yellow card/red card or infringement offenses/cynical play/foul play/dangerous play

... I guess in my book, pushing the boundaries of the rules in penalisable offenses is okay, but foul play/dangerous play is not ... but, either way, if you choose to bend the rules/cheat, don't complain if you get caught.

 

[Sam91]

The main point to the article was, that NZ cheat sometimes (who doesn't), so if they happen to go out of the world cup due to a decision resonating from a situation similar to the ones pointed out, then they don't exactly have a leg to stand on. One thing I was always told in rugby was just to play to the whistle, Richie does this excellently, so good on him, Refs obviously can't be everywhere so it's always going to happen, so, deal with it.

 

[Shaggy]

The main point to the article was, that NZ cheat sometimes (who doesn't), so if they happen to go out of the world cup due to a decision resonating from a situation similar to the ones pointed out, then they don't exactly have a leg to stand on. One thing I was always told in rugby was just to play to the whistle, Richie does this excellently, so good on him, Refs obviously can't be everywhere so it's always going to happen, so, deal with it.

Yes, get your point, but I think the MAIN POINT as far as Mr Reason was concerned, was to sell his article/have his article circulated to more papers - otherwise he might have noticed that all teams do the same thing ... i'm not going to complain about New Zealand exiting due to a bad refereeing decision if it happens ... that's a decision that i've made, but I can't see a lot of difference between someone doing that, and someone writing an article whinging about New Zealand cheating ... either way it's whinging

 

[Seaton]

I'm trying to rack my brains for a first choice Scottish player that gets penalized/ cheats.

Barclay is supposed to be our main fetcher, but in reality we don't have any really good fetchers that are often competing for the ball like McCaw/ Pocock/ Warburton/ Brussouw.

Maybe Ross Ford, cause he can't throw straight?

Our players are too scared to get penalized at times...

 

[Sam Owen]

I'm trying to rack my brains for a first choice Scottish player that gets penalized/ cheats.

Barclay is supposed to be our main fetcher, but in reality we don't have any really good fetchers that are often competing for the ball like McCaw/ Pocock/ Warburton/ Brussouw.

Maybe Ross Ford, cause he can't throw straight?

Our players are too scared to get penalized at times...

Well no wonder they lose lol. They need a cheater.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Every country has a cheat, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand they all have players who squeeze in some form of cheating to get an advantage for their team. If you put one foot off-side to get that extra advantage to be able to rush up and make that tackle and then you get away with it, good work.

Cheating is cheating there is no type 1 or type 2. If you cheat in some way or the other than thats just it, you cheated.


In Rugby, every team has someone that will cheat and everyone remembers the cheater from the other team, never the cheater from their own team. My proof is these posts above.

Fair enough.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I watched the highlights of this game again this morning, and for once i think NZ was a little hard done by. let me explain:

firstly the aussies were on attack and nearly scored with Adam Ashley-cooper if it wasn't for brilliant goal line defence from Weepu and Muliana. THEN, the ref asked the TMO to check and the TMO called for a 5m scrum attacking ball to AUS, but Why???

Weepu was in goal when he made the tackle, even AAC was over the goal line, and when Muliana came in he slid in, with more than half his body over the goal line, grabbed the ball and dotted it down. Surely that must be a 22m drop out. it wasn't a knock on, the ball was ripped off AAC, it can't be a scrum cos the ball wasn't held up, and it can't be a try because AAC had no control over the ball.

the attacking scrum then led to Genia's try next to the posts.

oh well i guess that's how the cookie crumbles...

 

[Black Heart]

I watched the highlights of this game again this morning, and for once i think NZ was a little hard done by. let me explain:

firstly the aussies were on attack and nearly scored with Adam Ashley-cooper if it wasn't for brilliant goal line defence from Weepu and Muliana. THEN, the ref asked the TMO to check and the TMO called for a 5m scrum attacking ball to AUS, but Why???

Weepu was in goal when he made the tackle, even AAC was over the goal line, and when Muliana came in he slid in, with more than half his body over the goal line, grabbed the ball and dotted it down. Surely that must be a 22m drop out. it wasn't a knock on, the ball was ripped off AAC, it can't be a scrum cos the ball wasn't held up, and it can't be a try because AAC had no control over the ball.

the attacking scrum then led to Genia's try next to the posts.

oh well i guess that's how the cookie crumbles...

I think everyone agrees this was an extremly poor TMO call.... from an Aussie official (surprise surprise). Irrespect, the All Blacks only deserved to win the 3rd quarter of that match.

 

[nush]

well its like mr rod kafer said during the game when ali williams tripped sombody, its smart play its only dumb if you get caught doing it

 

[JW.]

I don't call that smart, but cheap and I was really suprised to hear the commentator say that.

 

[Black Heart]

"Rugby is a game of organised cheating"

Someone said that to me once and I've never forgotten it. In terms of technical cheating (i.e. offsides) you're only in the wrong if you're caught, that's what makes Richie McCaw so good. He pushes the limits of what a player should be able to do and for the most part he doesn't cheat because he isn't caught cheating:/

However, when it comes to cheap shots and like attributes that apply to twits like Bakkies Botha, I agree with JW. Anyone can go out onto a rugby field to illegally smash guys and start fights for the sake of it but if that's all they're interested in (Botha) they should not be given a licence to play rugby.
You wouldn't have a boxer step into a ring and dropkick his opponent in the head.

 

[TRF_heineken]

mr rod kafer

Can't help but smile everytime i see his surname! he would've had it tough in SA as a child!

 

[smartcooky]

I think everyone agrees this was an extremly poor TMO call.... from an Aussie official (surprise surprise). Irrespect, the All Blacks only deserved to win the 3rd quarter of that match.

Actually, I will go against the general trend here. I now think the TMO's call was a good one, especially in light of what he said.

Listen to what the TMO says.... "the grounding is inconclusive"

[TEXTAREA]LAW 22.15 DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING
If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal, play is re-started by a 5-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/TEXTAREA]

AAC initially had possession of the ball, but Weepu got his hands on the ball too. Even though AAC took the ball over the goal-line, if the TMO was unsure which of the two players had clear possession of the ball, or if he thought they both had it, then a 5m scrum with attacking ball is the correct decision.

 

[Black Heart]

Actually, I will go against the general trend here. I now think the TMO's call was a good one, especially in light of what he said.

Listen to what the TMO says.... "the grounding is inconclusive"

[TEXTAREA]LAW 22.15 DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING
If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in the in-goal, play is re-started by a 5-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/TEXTAREA]

AAC initially had possession of the ball, but Weepu got his hands on the ball too. Even though AAC took the ball over the goal-line, if the TMO was unsure which of the two players had clear possession of the ball, or if he thought they both had it, then a 5m scrum with attacking ball is the correct decision.

I've had another look at the video and only the one angles shows us anything.

Weepu certainly had no hand on the ball (Kurtley Beale was actually closer) so Weepu's contribution can be dismissed.

The way I see it, (and I'm strictly trying to stay neutral) Ashley-Cooper had the ball stripped by Muliaina. You can clearly see how Weepu's action in pulling AAC backwards allows Mils to take full posession right before it hits the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCIfOOS7B0&feature=related

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

"Rugby is a game of organised cheating"

Someone said that to me once and I've never forgotten it. In terms of technical cheating (i.e. offsides) you're only in the wrong if you're caught, that's what makes Richie McCaw so good. He pushes the limits of what a player should be able to do and for the most part he doesn't cheat because he isn't caught cheating:/

However, when it comes to cheap shots and like attributes that apply to twits like Bakkies Botha, I agree with JW. Anyone can go out onto a rugby field to illegally smash guys and start fights for the sake of it but that's all they're interested in (Botha) they should not be given a licence to play rugby.
You wouldn't have a boxer step into a ring and dropkick his opponent in the head.

So in your opinion going out with the intention of cheating is not against the spirit of the game and fair play. Right. got that.

 

[smartcooky]

The rules of rugby are such that the line between cunning play and cheating is a very thin one. It is impossible for a referee to lay down each and every law to the letter all at once; a good player will therefore work out how best to play to the referee's interpretations. Calling McCaw a cheat because he is good at this is unfair.

To my mind, a cheat is someone who deceives the referee at the expense of another individual, for example divers in football.
A thug is someone who commits cheap-shots.

For me, citing is for the above two because they contradict the ethics of sport. Penalising by the referee is for other, more usual infringements, because they are part and parcel of sport. Here, I'm talking of a striker straying offside and getting away with it/ a flanker slowing down the ball... These are law boundaries that must always be tested, the citable ones are wholly unnecessary and dishonest.

For me, there's a difference.

There is a great example I'd like to show to give an idea of just how fine the line is between great play and cheating. It happened in a NZ v England match in 2008... apologies for the poor quality of the video...



In replay, it is absolutely clear that the referee Nigel Owen has got this wrong. McCaw clearly WAS a tackler, and was therefore entitled to play the ball from any direction, i.e. without going around through the gate. In fact, it is a brilliant piece of play. McCaw and Carter tackle Narraway, and McCaw holds on all the way to the ground. He then lets go, drops his hands to the ground and pushes himself back to his feet, all on one smooth continuous motion.

Unfortunately, Nigel Owens is not observant enough to see that BOTH McCaw and Carter executed the tackle and he pings McCaw for not going through the gate.

However, the difference between Owens being right (McCaw infringing) and Owens being wrong (great play by McCaw) is a matter of a few milliseconds. Had McCaw let go of Narraway just a fraction of a second earlier, and stayed on his feet instead of going to ground, then he would have been infringing Law 15.6, and Owens would have been right.

 

[smartcooky]

I've had another look at the video and only the one angles shows us anything.

Weepu certainly had no hand on the ball (Kurtley Beale was actually closer) so Weepu's contribution can be dismissed.

The way I see it, (and I'm strictly trying to stay neutral) Ashley-Cooper had the ball stripped by Muliaina. You can clearly see how Weepu's action in pulling AAC backwards allows Mils to take full posession right before it hits the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCIfOOS7B0&feature=related

I understand why the TMO made this call..He can only rule on what he sees.

IMO, he could be sufficiently in doubt as to whether AAC still had a hand on the ball. I see no evidence in the video to DEFINITELY conclude that AAC lost possession so completely that he no longer had a hand on the ball.

As soon as there is doubt, Law 22.15 kicks in, and then who took the ball over the line becomes irrelevant.