Going off feet at a ruck.

[OB..]

I certainly do not believe that a player who brings the ball carrier to ground should be regarded as a tackler if they only go down onto their knees. That will only serve to encourage players to "throw" the ball carrier (martial arts style) onto the ground.

I have seen it done a lot, and have never had any concerns about it.

 

[Pinky]

I have seen it too and it is coached here for players who are tacklers to get a knee on the ground so they can play the ball from any direction (once they get up). I agree that may give them an advantage, but they also have to release (we've all seen the clapping to prove this) but it is part of the game. If this is nto the case, then I think some law changes would be required to persuade me to see it as Ian does

 

[Toby Warren]

I think the kiwis rendered themselves liable for PK by going to ground, however as others have said I thought that there were 2 clear and obvious PK that the Kiwis should have been awarded before this.

 

[TheBFG]

Have you lot not learnt yet? in the view of any NZ fan (especially the ones on here) any PK against NZ is wrong :wink:

FWIW, i think the fiirst one was correct (but why is AR signalling a FK :chin

The second one is very harsh,

 

[woody]

NZ #10 (Carter) wasn't anywhere near AUS #15 (Beale). Its AUS #14 (Ashley-Cooper) he pulls down... this is called a tackle!!

In any case none of those three players had anything to do with the PK. It was awarded against NZ #6 (Messam) for going to ground in the wrong side of the ball. AR even told him.

In fact, ball was in front of Messam. Clearly an incorrect call.

Yes, the tackle was fine. I was describing the events after the tackle when #10 pulls #15 on top of him and I suspect also is part of the reason the others end up on the ground as well.

 

[TNT88]

Why? It does.

If a player drops to his knee during a tackle. It is not the same as a player dropping to his knee at the completion of a tackle. In this case, I think DC drops to a knee before a tackle has been completed. (ie: when opposition players clearly hold a ball carrier on the ground). The guide I use is; "if the tacklers let go now, would I call "tackle", or "not held, play on". I struggle to call it a tackle in this instance. (partly due to momentum)

But as I say before, the material effect was very small. Looking at the big picture, play on or even a penalty to NZ could have been the correct call.

 

[Guyseep]

This may be way out there, but in the first penalty shouldn't the call have been a penalty against the AB's for hands in a ruck?

If you look closely the tackle happens, a bunch of ABs clear out the Wallabies forwards and push them a few meters behind the ball(then everyone falls over), but Wallabies #10 Barnes is still over the ball, when ABs # 4 picks up the ball and dives for the line. Shouldn't AB #4 have to engaged Barnes over the ball and clear him out too?

 

[didds]

I have seen it too and it is coached here for players who are tacklers to get a knee on the ground so they can play the ball from any direction (once they get up). I agree that may give them an advantage, but they also have to release (we've all seen the clapping to prove this) but it is part of the game. If this is nto the case, then I think some law changes would be required to persuade me to see it as Ian does

and until such time as the laws include a definition of what constitutes a tackler with unequivocal definition, then its open season for interpretation.

winner. as in michael.

didds

 

[Womble]

I have seen it too and it is coached here for players who are tacklers to get a knee on the ground so they can play the ball from any direction (once they get up). I agree that may give them an advantage, but they also have to release (we've all seen the clapping to prove this) but it is part of the game. If this is nto the case, then I think some law changes would be required to persuade me to see it as Ian does

Gents!n this law has been in the game for 5 years now! it happens , it's coached , I think you have missed the boatepper:epper:

 

[damo]

This may be way out there, but in the first penalty shouldn't the call have been a penalty against the AB's for hands in a ruck?

If you look closely the tackle happens, a bunch of ABs clear out the Wallabies forwards and push them a few meters behind the ball(then everyone falls over), but Wallabies #10 Barnes is still over the ball, when ABs # 4 picks up the ball and dives for the line. Shouldn't AB #4 have to engaged Barnes over the ball and clear him out too?

You are right. I acknowledged this earlier:

I do accept that #4 who picks the ball up was involved in a ruck and should have used his feet to ruck to back rather than his hands, but that wasn't what the penalty was for. Rolland has already blown his whistle and says to Messam "I have an issue with 4 or 5 players ending up on the ground on the wrong side". From this (and the next penalty) I get the impression that Rolland thinks that if players ever lose their feet on the wrong side they are liable to penalty.

Nobody took any issue with this so I think it was accepted. Rolland was adamant however, that the penalty was for losing feet, rather than for hands in the ruck, and this is the point I was focussing on.

 

[damo]

Here is another one I noticed from the second Bledisloe Cup game. Certainly if the same standard as last week was applied it should have been a penalty to NZ, but I am happy enough with the play by the Wallabies here, given that they collapse quite far past the ball. Crockett should have been penalised for playing the ball on the ground.

What does everyone think about this one?

 

[Dickie E]

Here is another one I noticed from the second Bledisloe Cup game. Certainly if the same standard as last week was applied it should have been a penalty to NZ, but I am happy enough with the play by the Wallabies here, given that they collapse quite far past the ball. Crockett should have been penalised for playing the ball on the ground.

What does everyone think about this one?

Agree. Should be PK to Aust.

What made it more galling is Genia got his card just after this

 

[damo]

Agree. Should be PK to Aust.

What made it more galling is Genia got his card just after this

True, that is a good point, but if we go down that track, then it really should have been a penalty to NZ at the ruck before when Sharp and/or his mate accidentally on purpose kick at the ball knocking it free whereupon Moore comes through from an offside position. So lets put it down to one of those unfortunate things that can happen.


Back on the subject though.
If we allow this type of drive from the Wallabies (and I believe we do) can the next arriving Black players come around and pick the ball up. I.e, assuming that Crockett leaves the ball alone, would Mealamu have been liable to penalty if he'd carried on and picked the ball up. In other words, at 0:16 in the clip, is the ruck over so that anyone can pick it up provided they initially came from an onside position?

 

[Dickie E]

True, that is a good point, but if we go down that track, then it really should have been a penalty to NZ at the ruck before when Sharp and/or his mate accidentally on purpose kick at the ball knocking it free whereupon Moore comes through from an offside position. So lets put it down to one of those unfortunate things that can happen.

Kicking the ball accidentally on purpose is OK in a ruck. Moore is at no time offside.

 

[Guyseep]

Back on the subject though.
If we allow this type of drive from the Wallabies (and I believe we do) can the next arriving Black players come around and pick the ball up. I.e, assuming that Crockett leaves the ball alone, would Mealamu have been liable to penalty if he'd carried on and picked the ball up. In other words, at 0:16 in the clip, is the ruck over so that anyone can pick it up provided they initially came from an onside position?

I would say Mealamu was in his rights to pick the ball up at that point. The Wallabies had driven back the ABs in the ruck a few meters and out of the tackle zone. Basically a ruck happened and they drove to far so the ball was out the back of the ruck.

There may be some debate as to whether or not Crocket on the ground, after the Wallabies drive past him, still constitutes a tackle situation, and therefore Mealamu would have entered through the gate.

 

[The Fat]

I would say Mealamu was in his rights to pick the ball up at that point. The Wallabies had driven back the ABs in the ruck a few meters and out of the tackle zone. Basically a ruck happened and they drove to far so the ball was out the back of the ruck.

There may be some debate as to whether or not Crocket on the ground, after the Wallabies drive past him, still constitutes a tackle situation, and therefore Mealamu would have entered through the gate.

1. There was a tackle
2. Ruck formed (tackle phase is over) and gold ruck through and past the ball.
3. Ball is clear of bodies so ruck is over.
4. Black player on ground pops the pass to support (playing the ball on the ground)
5. Should be PK to gold.

Last week (Bledisloe 1), should have been 2 x PKs to ABs.

In the first tackle of that clip, would nobody here have considered penalising Williams for not releasing the ball?

 

[damo]

In the first tackle of that clip, would nobody here have considered penalising Williams for not releasing the ball?

Possibly, although it is hard to see that the ball is actually being held by Williams there. The Aussie player certainly arrives on his feet and goes for the ball in very good position but the ball emerges towards the back of the breakdown very quickly. SBW might have placed the quite long and away from where the Aussie pilferer was going for it. You might be right but it is so fast that its far from a clear and obvious penalty.

 

[Guyseep]

1. There was a tackle
2. Ruck formed (tackle phase is over) and gold ruck through and past the ball.
3. Ball is clear of bodies so ruck is over.
4. Black player on ground pops the pass to support (playing the ball on the ground)
5. Should be PK to gold.

Last week (Bledisloe 1), should have been 2 x PKs to ABs.

In the first tackle of that clip, would nobody here have considered penalising Williams for not releasing the ball?

Agreed on the penalty to Gold, but if you read damo's question he said "assuming that Crockett leaves the ball alone, would Mealamu have been liable to penalty if he'd carried on and picked the ball up. In other words, at 0:16 in the clip, is the ruck over so that anyone can pick it up provided they initially came from an onside position? "

In that case, yes Mealamu can pick up the ball.

 

[Dickie E]

Agreed on the penalty to Gold, but if you read damo's question he said "assuming that Crockett leaves the ball alone, would Mealamu have been liable to penalty if he'd carried on and picked the ball up. In other words, at 0:16 in the clip, is the ruck over so that anyone can pick it up provided they initially came from an onside position? "

In that case, yes Mealamu can pick up the ball.

And provided he was 1+ metres from the ball when the ruck ended, can he can come from any direction or through gate only?

 

[Guyseep]

I would say as long as he was onside when the ruck started, and stayed onside until the wallabies push so far that the ball is now out of the ruck, then he can enter or go after the ball from any direction. There is no tackle anymore so there is no gate.