New Zealand v Ireland

[The Fat]

Did NO have a chat to D'Arcy? If not, then from NO's position on the field, it is reasonable to say that he must have determined that D'Arcy didn't obstruct RMC. Don't really see what the big deal is here.

 

[L'irlandais]

...Tell me who (and what) was Kevin McLaughlin targeting in the 6th minute of the first half!

That's entirely my point, there's no place in the game for such carry on.:norc: We agree, targeting key players is not what the sport is about. (Jumping knees first into the back of an opponent is also unacceptable in my opinion. :nono

Although the NZ press appears to have glossed over the comment ; Fairfax NZ News did have this to say :

The Irish were refusing to rise to All Black Steve Hansen's bait yesterday, claiming they have more improvement in them ahead of the third test in Hamilton on Saturday.

A 'pat on the back' to the Irish, could be taken as being condescending, especially in the context of what was a cracking test match. :shrug: (80 minutes of Rugby left to play, that counts for more than the "war of words".)

 

[Ian_Cook]

A 'pat on the back' to the Irish, could be taken as being condescending, especially in the context of what was a cracking test match. :shrug: (80 minutes of Rugby left to play, that counts for more than the "war of words".)

A pat on the back is NOT a condescending gesture or comment in THIS country. Steven Hansen is KIWI and the comment was in answer a question by a KIWI journalist on a NEW ZEALAND television station.

This simply reinforces my assertion that journalists from the NH will just about do or say anything to make copy and sell papers; deliberately misconstrue comments and gestures, take words and phrases out of context, tell outright lies, set traps for rugby players and other sportsmen, hound celebrities to death (literally) and even stoop so low as to hack into the mobile phones of celebrities, politicians and murdered children!

Disgraceful pricks!!!

 

[Toby Warren]

Err it's a KIWI paper saying that there is bait to rise to???

(Don't think however you'll get many people defending some of the activities that journalists get \ got up to).

I for one however buy my paper every day and just apply the relevant 'bullcrud' filters depending which paper I'm reading.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Err it's a KIWI paper saying that there is bait to rise to???

(Don't think however you'll get many people defending some of the activities that journalists get \ got up to).

I for one however buy my paper every day and just apply the relevant 'bullcrud' filters depending which paper I'm reading.

And I don't buy papers at all, for reasons that become obvious when you understand my attitude to them.... not even the local rag.

The trouble is Toby, unless you actually see a full interview in person, you often can't even tell when to apply the "bullcrud" filter, or even if its required.

This is one thing I will give Television New Zealand credit for. Even if they only show part of an interview during the broadcast (perhaps due to time constraints), they always make the full interview available on their website, and give you the URL to it during the broadcast.

There is no trying to hide or suppress any parts of the interview that don't necessarily fit with whatever angle they are taking.

 

[OB..]

There is no trying to hide or suppress any parts of the interview that don't necessarily fit with whatever angle they are taking.

As far as you know ... :smile::smile:epper:

 

[Chogan]

Anyway...

Could someone please point me to where the law covers whip wheeling in the scrum?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just to lighten the mood, here is one of my favourite video clips

Its a very funny clip in its own right, but what is even funnier, is that it contains more than a mere modicom of Truth!!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

As far as you know ... :smile::smile:epper:

I regard myself as both intelligent and observant enough to detect when an interview has been edited.

 

[Robert Burns]

It's like the comments about books on their back cover:

Critic says:

"This book was a pile of rubbish and was far from being the best book I have ever read".

Cover on back of book says "...the best book I have ever read."

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's like the comments about books on their back cover:

Critic says:

"This book was a pile of rubbish and was far from being the best book I have ever read".

Cover on back of book says "...the best book I have ever read."

Critics can be b'stards actually.

One of the "best" critiques of a movie I have read was one by NZ Listener Film Critic Anne Thomas back in the early 1980's. It was also one of the shortest...

Piranha II - R13 running time 94 minutes
If you missed seeing Piranha, here is your chance to miss the sequel!

 

[Taff]

Anyway... Could someone please point me to where the law covers whip wheeling in the scrum?

For me, 20.2(a) covers the FR players pulling instead of pushing, ie a FK offence. As I understand it, this doesn't prevent a controlled wheel, as the FR players legs are still in a position to make a forward shove. Note - it doesn't say you have to shove forward.

20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS
(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick

And in my book (some will no doubt say I've got the wrong book) 20.8(g) covers the "whip wheel". I accept it does not mention the term "Whip Wheel" but if pulling a prop round at speed when he's expecting and braced for a push isn't "likely to collapse the scrum" I don't know what does. And in this case, the sanction is a PK not a FK.

20.8(g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.
Sanction: Penalty kick

And as Phil E mentioned way back in Post 26, ""walking round" and "whip wheeling" aren't the same thing.

In my own mind it's pretty clear.

• If a THP is pulling an opponent instead of pushing him, and the scrum walks round gently - it's a FK offence
• If a THP whips the scrum round violently (no doubt aided and abetted by team mates behnd him) - it's a PK offence

 

[didds]

whip wheeling doesn't generally use the THP pulling AIUI - it uses the LHP pushing upwards and outwards, while the back row run around pulling their own pack with them and the THP basically stays on the spot.

I thought it was also under 20.2 but I can only find requirements for the FR players to be in a pushing position. Presumably this lack of requirement on other scrummagers (has this changed "recently") presumably a flanker could pull a loose head who himself is in a pushing position, to help a TH wheel "normally) and no one has broken a law? Aside from possibly it being read as dangerous play or likely to collapse a scrum (20.8) ... but at a slow rate used to put the oppo back row out of position that's hardly the case?.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

For me, 20.2(a) covers the FR players pulling instead of pushing, ie a FK offence. As I understand it, this doesn't prevent a controlled wheel, as the FR players legs are still in a position to make a forward shove. Note - it doesn't say you have to shove forward.

20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS
(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick

And in my book (some will no doubt say I've got the wrong book) 20.8(g) covers the "whip wheel". I accept it does not mention the term "Whip Wheel" but if pulling a prop round at speed when he's expecting and braced for a push isn't "likely to collapse the scrum" I don't know what does. And in this case, the sanction is a PK not a FK.

20.8(g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.
Sanction: Penalty kick

And as Phil E mentioned way back in Post 26, ""walking round" and "whip wheeling" aren't the same thing.

In my own mind it's pretty clear.

• If a THP is pulling an opponent instead of pushing him, and the scrum walks round gently - it's a FK offence
• If a THP whips the scrum round violently (no doubt aided and abetted by team mates behnd him) - it's a PK offence

Thats a pretty good description Taff.

And "whip wheel" is not mentioned in the LotG; nor is "side-entry", "gate", "tackle assist" or "daylight", but what all know what they mean.

 

[damo]

I'm not sure who Neil Francis is, and why he is writing a column about rugby, rather than say knitting, but this piece from him is embarrassing.

He went off his left and tried a right-footed drop goal, which went wide. The ball had been called "touched in flight" as it had indeed been touched by Seán O'Brien. This is where Owens erred. As soon as Ali Williams and Adam Thompson saw that O'Brien had touched the ball -- even though they were in front of Carter -- they rushed into the in-goal area where Eoin Reddan was scampering back to try and take possession of the ball. He gained possession two metres from his deadball line and was immediately tackled by the two All Black forwards over that line. If you look at the IRB rulebook in relation to offside under the 10-metre law -- rule 11.4 (f) -- the 10-metre law does not apply when a player kicks the ball and an opponent charges down the kick and a team-mate of the kicker who is in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not 'waiting to play the ball' and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down. I think that Owens assumed the ball had gone dead. Maybe not.

Either way, Reddan was tackled out of play by two players who were offside. Reddan never got a chance to play the ball and kick it down field and he would have had a good opportunity to do so because all of the other All Blacks were so far away from him he would have had a good opportunity to get good distance. He was prevented from doing so by two offside players and Owens awarded a five-metre scrum to the right of the posts.

The full article can be found here http://www.independent.ie/sport/rug...ef-but-this-is-one-that-got-away-3140506.html

His mistake seems to be in thinking that the touch on the irishman's fingers as he was charging down the ball was not a chargedown. What chance have we got if paid rugby columnists don't know the most basic rules.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I'm not sure who Neil Francis is, and why he is writing a column about rugby, rather than say knitting, but this piece from him is embarrassing.

Neil Francis (assuming it is he) played 2nd row and #8 for Ireland in the 80s/90s.

He was once told off by the blazers for cutting the sleeves off his long sleeved match shirts!

Listening to Murray Mexted you'll all be used to ex #8s who talk sh!te!:biggrin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm not sure who Neil Francis is, and why he is writing a column about rugby, rather than say knitting, but this piece from him is embarrassing. The full article can be found here http://www.independent.ie/sport/rug...ef-but-this-is-one-that-got-away-3140506.html His mistake seems to be in thinking that the touch on the irishman's fingers as he was charging down the ball was not a chargedown. What chance have we got if paid rugby columnists don't know the most basic rules.

How embarrassing for him and for his newspaper, not have run his (incorrect) understanding of the Law 11 past someone like Alan Rolland or George Clancy before putting this utter tripe to print and making a complete ass of himself. As a former player of some standing, he ought to have known better.

 

[Dixie]

As a former player of some standing, he ought to have known better.

Interesting expectation. I believe both Murray Mexted and Stewart Barnes played a bit in their younger days.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Interesting expectation. I believe both Murray Mexted and Stewart Barnes played a bit in their younger days.

Yes, but unlike Mexted and Barnes, who appear not to know the Laws and don't seem to be bothered trying to find out what is right, he has looked it up, quoted it straight from the LotG, and STILL not understood it.

 

[Phil E]

What chance have we got if paid rugby columnists don't know the most basic rules.

What chance have we got if a referee doesn't know the difference between rules and laws :biggrin: epper: