Wales v New Zealand

[Larksea]

the ref wasn't penalising players for going on off their feet. and this suited the welsh because they were contesting more at tuck time. The AB's dont contest as much but prefer to drive over the ball to win it which is a good tactic under the new rule interpritations. Because if ruled correctly:

The tackler must release the tackled player and allow him to place the ball
Players arriving at the breakdown must remain on their feet and supporting their own weight to attack the ball
And as soon as the ruck is formed all hands should be off, so the wondow for winning a turnover is very small

The welsh were not releasing the tackled player and their players attacking the ball were not staying on their feet but the ref was penalising the AB's for not releasing the ball.

Perfect example was the penality around the 50th min after the AB's had defended a welsh attack and counterd. Conrad smith made a minibreak and went to ground and the first welsh player there (#7 I think) basically did a superman dive off his feet on top of conrad smith and went for the ball and yet Wales got the penalty ref saying Smith did not release. This ruling takes the advantage away from the attacking team - the whole reason the laws were adjusted was to prevent this exact thing from happening.

This is why it worries me: Because the AB's are the best team in the world oposition teams will employ tactics where they deliberately break the rules and hope to get away with it to gain an advantage/win posession/slow the game down... If it doesn't work? Who cares? In Wales case they haven't beaten the AB's in ~50 years & they just got roughed up by a lesser team. What have they got to lose? They take a risk and if it don't pay off - they likely wouldn't have won anyway. But if it works they have a chance! For most teams who can't play 80min on an even footing with the AB's it's the only chance they have to beat them. This IMO is what the AB's have to contend with by being the #1 team in the world by some margin.

Goes with the terratory but come world cup time if the AB's are still such a force then pretty much everyone even top teams will try it on, as france did in 2007.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

the ref wasn't penalising players for going on off their feet. and this suited the welsh because they were contesting more at tuck time. The AB's dont contest as much but prefer to drive over the ball to win it which is a good tactic under the new rule interpritations. Because if ruled correctly:

The tackler must release the tackled player and allow him to place the ball
Players arriving at the breakdown must remain on their feet and supporting their own weight to attack the ball
And as soon as the ruck is formed all hands should be off, so the wondow for winning a turnover is very small

The welsh were not releasing the tackled player and their players attacking the ball were not staying on their feet but the ref was penalising the AB's for not releasing the ball.

Perfect example was the penality around the 50th min after the AB's had defended a welsh attack and counterd. Conrad smith made a minibreak and went to ground and the first welsh player there (#7 I think) basically did a superman dive off his feet on top of conrad smith and went for the ball and yet Wales got the penalty ref saying Smith did not release. This ruling takes the advantage away from the attacking team - the whole reason the laws were adjusted was to prevent this exact thing from happening.

This is why it worries me: Because the AB's are the best team in the world oposition teams will employ tactics where they deliberately break the rules and hope to get away with it to gain an advantage/win posession/slow the game down... If it doesn't work? Who cares? In Wales case they haven't beaten the AB's in ~50 years & they just got roughed up by a lesser team. What have they got to lose? They take a risk and if it don't pay off - they likely wouldn't have won anyway. But if it works they have a chance! For most teams who can't play 80min on an even footing with the AB's it's the only chance they have to beat them. This IMO is what the AB's have to contend with by being the #1 team in the world by some margin.

Goes with the terratory but come world cup time if the AB's are still such a force then pretty much everyone even top teams will try it on, as france did in 2007.

Sorry take the tinted glasses off and actually look at the game, so many times boys dived over the top with their hands touching the ground which is ruled as diving over the top, like it or not its the truth.

 

[dullonien]

Right, just checked the example you gave (happens at 49.16 if I've got the correct one), and you are completely wrong I'm afraid. Warberton get's over the ball and then Braid (#19) comes in from the side (which is what the penalty was awarded for) and takes out Warburton resulting in him falling over. I'm not denying that NZ didn't get wrongly penalised atall, but I really don't think it was any worse than every other game, i.e. human error that comes into every facet of life.

The second part of your complaint is exactly what many others get so anoyed regarding NZ and in particular McCaw, and yet they get told to shut up and accept that this is part of rugby. McCaw lives on the edge, judging the referee and how he will call the game. I have no problem with this, nor do many others. For once, Wales actually outplayed NZ at the ruck area, and I think some here need to juest relise that.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I have to agree, there were moments where both sides had been hard done by with the reffing and other times where both teams got away with things. The scoreline didn't really flatter Wales, Dan's kicking was a bit off, but a couple of times the Irish almost made a telling enough break to perhaps have deserved a try along with their other points. I think 12 points is exactly the difference I would've felt was appropriate for the way the game played out.

Sometimes winning is never enough for some kiwis, having to say that we deserved more is not accurate, nor good winning.

 

[dullonien]

Yeh 12 points was probably about right. The Welsh performance overall probably deserved something much, much closer, but our mistakes, NZ's clinical finishing and our lack of it, meant 12 points was a fair reflection.

 

[Larksea]

Right, just checked the example you gave (happens at 49.16 if I've got the correct one), and you are completely wrong I'm afraid. Warberton get's over the ball and then Braid (#19) comes in from the side (which is what the penalty was awarded for) and takes out Warburton resulting in him falling over. I'm not denying that NZ didn't get wrongly penalised atall, but I really don't think it was any worse than every other game, i.e. human error that comes into every facet of life.

Look at it again and answer me this, Is Warberton supporting his own weight or is his weight on Conrad smith?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Look at it again and answer me this, Is Warberton supporting his own weight or is his weight on Conrad smith?

Knees down hit the ground, so he's supporting his own weight!

 

[TRF_woosaah]

I love watching these threads and seeing how we all watch the same game but everyone sees something different.

For me, there were plenty of calls the ref got right, plenty he got wrong as well, for both sides. But the talk about which call is right/wrong seams to have got away from everyone that it was still a good game to watch. Not a great game, just a good decent game to watch. I really enjoyed it which is what I want every time i watch a game of rugby.

For me it wasnt the result of it that I enjoyed (though that does help, trust me) it was the way the game was played, by both teams (most of the time) It was fought hard and a good contest. Things go your way, sometimes they dont, that is rugby. I only remember a few really bad calls (like the high tackle) that was really worth worrying about, the rest is what the referee sees in the heat of the moment, he only sees it once, he might be blindsided by other players as well, might see it from a different angle, its all perspective in the en.

 

[dullonien]

Look at it again and answer me this, Is Warberton supporting his own weight or is his weight on Conrad smith?

Does it really matter? He was there for less than a second, before getting wiped out by Braid who came on from practically 90 degrees. You are always allowed a second or so before having to move, therefore the first (and most blatant) infringement is by Braid. Warburton's initial body position is very similar to that which you see at every other ruck in every game played. I know technically you should still be standing when all other players are taken away, but this is very rarely the case. He isn't actually leaning on Smith, but he is stretched quite far out, meaning some weight is probably on his hands, however this is because that's where the ball was.

So imo, Warburton was supporting his own weight as far as being in line with every other game of rugby played at the moment. this is getting seriously picky now. If this is the detail you're having to go into to try and proove the ref was biased in any way against NZ at ruck time, you're obviously barking up the wrong tree mate. It would mean that every single game could be nit picked by every supporter pointing out little things missed here and there. Rugby is a complex sport, with the ruck area being a finely tuned mess most of the time. Have a go at the ref all you want about missing that dangerous high tackle, but the ref was no worse, or no better than most of the others out there.

 

[Larksea]

Does it really matter? He was there for less than a second, before getting wiped out by Braid who came on from practically 90 degrees. You are always allowed a second or so before having to move, therefore the first (and most blatant) infringement is by Braid. Warburton's initial body position is very similar to that which you see at every other ruck in every game played. I know technically you should still be standing when all other players are taken away, but this is very rarely the case. He isn't actually leaning on Smith, but he is stretched quite far out, meaning some weight is probably on his hands, however this is because that's where the ball was.

So imo, Warburton was supporting his own weight as far as being in line with every other game of rugby played at the moment. this is getting seriously picky now. If this is the detail you're having to go into to try and proove the ref was biased in any way against NZ at ruck time, you're obviously barking up the wrong tree mate. It would mean that every single game could be nit picked by every supporter pointing out little things missed here and there. Rugby is a complex sport, with the ruck area being a finely tuned mess most of the time. Have a go at the ref all you want about missing that dangerous high tackle, but the ref was no worse, or no better than most of the others out there.

Well I think if you seriously look at it you can't honestly say he's supporting his weight with the angle he's on. I do think I mande the mistake of pointing out this one incident because my point has been lost in it and the point is this is one of many similar incidents in that game where there was a ruck situation and the black player who is "not releasing" and often wasn't given a chance to place the ball has been penalised even though the red player that forced the penalty is clearly off their feet or not supporting their own weight and the end result is that the defending team has the advantage which knocks rugby back a year to when it was almost better not to have the ball than to have it in your own half and most of the time the best thing to do was to kick it away.

 

[coonor]

I think I agree with the Welsh side here. A rucks there are so many infringemnts if we are that picky there would be a penalty every ruck. I can understand that the Welsh were going off their feet andnot releasing the the player but the AB were coming in at the side at numerous rucks. As long as the referee comunicates with players and players of their feet are not interfering with play carry on. I mean there are loads of things that referees llet happen. loads of players go into rucks with their shoulders below their hips and thats illegal. In the match I think the welsh kicked it to far and into the the in goal area. An All Black touched it down in the area for a 22 drop out however he did not pick it up and touch it down he just touched it down. By law that means it should not have been a 22 drop out but do you really expect the referee to make the player pick it up and touch it down?

 

[nickdnz]

I think I agree with the Welsh side here. A rucks there are so many infringemnts if we are that picky there would be a penalty every ruck. I can understand that the Welsh were going off their feet andnot releasing the the player but the AB were coming in at the side at numerous rucks. As long as the referee comunicates with players and players of their feet are not interfering with play carry on. I mean there are loads of things that referees llet happen. loads of players go into rucks with their shoulders below their hips and thats illegal. In the match I think the welsh kicked it to far and into the the in goal area. An All Black touched it down in the area for a 22 drop out however he did not pick it up and touch it down he just touched it down. By law that means it should not have been a 22 drop out but do you really expect the referee to make the player pick it up and touch it down?

Rubbish.

22.5 BALL GROUNDED BY A DEFENDING PLAYER
(a) Touch down. When defending players are first to ground the ball in their in-goal, it results in a touch down
(b) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If defending players are in touch-in-goal, they can make a touch down by grounding the ball in their in-goal provided they are not carrying the ball.
Nothing about lifting it up, to touch it down. A touch down just means downwards pressure, not that you lift it up and touch it down. For example, if you kicked the ball into the oppositions in goal, chased it, and then touched it against the ground, it would be a try.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Is it true that if the defending player carries the ball over the try-line himself before touching it down, it will result in a scrum for the attacking team in stead of a drop-out?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Is it true that if the defending player carries the ball over the try-line himself before touching it down, it will result in a scrum for the attacking team in stead of a drop-out?

Yes

More can be found from page 150 odd onwards in the IRB law book!

 

[dullonien]

Well I think if you seriously look at it you can't honestly say he's supporting his weight with the angle he's on. I do think I mande the mistake of pointing out this one incident because my point has been lost in it and the point is this is one of many similar incidents in that game where there was a ruck situation and the black player who is "not releasing" and often wasn't given a chance to place the ball has been penalised even though the red player that forced the penalty is clearly off their feet or not supporting their own weight and the end result is that the defending team has the advantage which knocks rugby back a year to when it was almost better not to have the ball than to have it in your own half and most of the time the best thing to do was to kick it away.

Again, I honestly don't care wheather he was propperly supporting his weight. You simply CAN NOT deny that Braid came in from the side, which was a clear penalty, and yet you are still aruing about something marginal that happens all the time! I've re-watched the highlights (haven't got time the re-watch the entire game as I've got 4000 words of a dissertation to write by Friday), and the majority of the penalties in that highlights reel appears to go the correct way. You accused the ref of making bad decisions at the ruck, and yet you can't provide one example of it. I don't think it's worth re-watching the entire game just to find one, as coonor said above, you can find numerous infringments at most rucks that happen in every game if you re-watch games to find them.

Every Welsh supporter here has praised the likes of Kaino, Gear and the entire NZ team for being so clinical at finishing every half chance presented to them. However, the same praise should be given to areas of the game where Wales outplayed NZ. Two main areas were the scrum and the breakdown, although this suffered when the startign backrow went off.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Yes

More can be found from page 150 odd onwards in the IRB law book!

Thanks man. Downloaded the law book haha.

 

[nickdnz]

Is it true that if the defending player carries the ball over the try-line himself before touching it down, it will result in a scrum for the attacking team in stead of a drop-out?

22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL

(b) When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball

 

[coonor]

Rubbish.

22.5 BALL GROUNDED BY A DEFENDING PLAYER
(a) Touch down. When defending players are first to ground the ball in their in-goal, it results in a touch down
(b) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If defending players are in touch-in-goal, they can make a touch down by grounding the ball in their in-goal provided they are not carrying the ball.
Nothing about lifting it up, to touch it down. A touch down just means downwards pressure, not that you lift it up and touch it down. For example, if you kicked the ball into the oppositions in goal, chased it, and then touched it against the ground, it would be a try.

Sorry I worded it wrong and it wasn't the match turns out. anyway what I meant to say was when a team kicks it into the in goal area and an opposition player stretches his foot onto the dead ball line he has to pick it up and touch it down for a scrum from where it was kicked, not just touch it down. If he just touches it down then it is a 22 drop out. Law 22.9 (c)

 

[nickdnz]

Sorry I worded it wrong and it wasn't the match turns out. anyway what I meant to say was when a team kicks it into the in goal area and an opposition player stretches his foot onto the dead ball line he has to pick it up and touch it down for a scrum from where it was kicked, not just touch it down. If he just touches it down then it is a 22 drop out. Law 22.9 (c)

That's correct. A player whom has his foot out, may pick up the ball while the ball is still moving in order for a scrum from where it was kicked. If you just touch it down, it is a scrum. When during the match did anyone force the ball for an attacking scrum though?

 

[dullonien]

No, I think he got a bit confused. I'm not a fan of players being able to stretch in order to result in the scrum going back to where the kick was taken. I think a rule should be made to ban it, as it's a little on the stupid side. I can't remember who did it, I think it was Will Harries in a Dragons game, but he actually lay on the ground with his feet over the dead ball line and touched the ball. Because he forgot to pick the ball up, it resulted in just a 5m scrum, but it's a tactic that can be used, meanign even if the ball was going to stop 2m short of the dead ball line, there's still a possibility of a player flauting the rules to secure a scrum back where the ball was kicked.