Interesting one

[winchesterref]

Good use of existing laws, fair play to the Chiefs for coming up with ways to exploit it. Keeps the game interesting, I'm not buying this change the laws to stifle imagination crap!

 

[ChrisR]

Evolution can be messy. It produces all sorts of dead ends such as the Neanderthals. When we have endless rucks in risk averse rugby we have reached the Neanderthal stage of development.

Now the Cro-Magnons have invaded the pitch and the days of the Neanderthals are numbered unless they cross-breed. That means they have to re-think their tactical approach to contact.

Count the number of Blues that are committed to recycling the ball. What are the chances of doing anything with it, other than setting another ruck, when you are outnumbered 14 to 10?

No need to change the laws right now. The Cro-Magnon coaches will find a way to punish the non-ruck tactic. The pick-'n-trundle will force the opponents to commit to the threat but may ultimately end up in the same scenario just a bit further up the pitch.

I think we may see more off-loads in contact as a team that can put three players over the ball at the tackle can have those three players running hard in support of the BC.

We may also see rolling mauls forming in general play. That will commit defenders to the ball and could be fun to watch.

Meanwhile, if we want the Cro-Magnons to evolve we can't limit them with a Neanderthal whistle.

 

[didds]

I think the lesson here is, when executing this ploy : don't try and stand between the ball and the opposing #9.
-- If you are not going for ball, this is obstruction
-- and you can't go for the ball, as you can't approach the tackle from that direction.

so if you stand between the #9 and the ball you are going to get pinged. As the ref says : stand between the 9 and the 10...

what if the 9 is 5 metres away approaching the ball. A defender can't stand 2 m from the ball, which happens to be between the approaching #9 and the ball?

And what about standing between the #9 and the #15 and/or winger , all of whom (in the field position in the video above) might be clearance kickers? Or between the #9 and a pod of attacking forwards 5m away looking to take a pop pass and drive it up?

didds

 

[didds]

It looks messy because it is messy.

This is the just the next progression of tactics that have developed since the laws were ignored to permit attackers to seal off/protect the ball to such a degree that it becomes pointless in contesting a ruck.

So we go from that to

- wide field trench defense with minimal contest
- jackler only attempts
- no contest at all
- no contest and now this envelopment of the tackle area such that the only option is a #9/acting s/h pick and go, straight into the defenders facing him

If we don't like it, we have to face that modern elite interpretations (filtering down) have had this result.

Of course, if those refs pinged players for holding onto players on the ground, shoulders below hips, and also pinged players that once tackled then wriggle and squirm around whilst holding the ball after being brought to ground, much of the reasons defenders do not compete and so look for other ways to pressure the attacking team would be removed...

didds

 

[ChrisR]

.......and also pinged players that once tackled then wriggle and squirm around whilst holding the ball after being brought to ground......

... instead of pinging the defender who has his knees on the tackled player so he can contest for the bail ....

Then there would be cause to compete.

 

[Browner]

People need to remember, there is a amateur game out there with amateur referees/coaches/players and no ARs to help .....

In the clip it looked like a f#####g netball match , possessionee has 5s to pass, everyone else shadows a player waving their arms !!!! .....

Now JP widens the 1m TZ to "near the fly half" ........ It will remain a goddamn mess ( for referees players and spectators!! ) whilst all the evolutions are factored bedded in, albeit I get marauders analogy.

When this code went professional few envisaged these tactical reinventions of this game, quite frankly it saddens me to see it.

 

[The Fat]

Well, this comment made me scratch my head too.... Jerome Kaino plays for the Blues! I think you mean Liam Messam.

That would be the fella. Doh!!!
Haven't upset too many people with my WTF moment. Only 3 Kiwis on here isn't there?
Thanks Ian

 

[chbg]

Presumably Chiefs have worked out a way to attack against this tactic being used against them, otherwise it is short term gain and a route to boredom when the attackers do nothing with the ball (not a ruck so a 'Use it' call would not be relevant, would it?). That would be interesting. Until then it does not improve the game IMO.

 

[ChrisR]

How much resistance was there to lifting in the line-out? I bet there was some squawking about "ruining the game".I don't know as I was away from rugby during the time when it crept into the game in the guise of 'supporting'. I do know that line-outs are now a thing of beauty compared to what they were.

Would we have lifting in the game if we didn't have profesionals? Maybe not.

So give it some time and see where it goes.

 

[menace]

Good use of existing laws, fair play to the Chiefs for coming up with ways to exploit it. Keeps the game interesting, I'm not buying this change the laws to stifle imagination crap!

Is it? At least one pro ref thinks it isn't a fair play on the laws? (JP did give me the impression he had doubts as the words fell out of his mouth but his reasoning was starting to have some merit about entry into (or being in) the tackle zone.

I'm in a quandary here....many people on this site say 'all good' no PK, while locally many of my colleagues (and those at the higher end) saying JP got it right! Not sure what I'll call when it happens at my level. No doubt whatever it is it will be on the referee coaches sheet as a 'discussion point' or law error!

 

[Ian_Cook]

How much resistance was there to lifting in the line-out? I bet there was some squawking about "ruining the game".I don't know as I was away from rugby during the time when it crept into the game in the guise of 'supporting'. I do know that line-outs are now a thing of beauty compared to what they were.

Would we have lifting in the game if we didn't have profesionals? Maybe not.

So give it some time and see where it goes.

There wasn't much squawking about it from the Saffas; they have been lifting in the line outs since the early 1970's and because they always had hometown harry referees until 1994, they always got away with it.

I don't recall any resistance to lifting, although it didn't really come in into Law until 2009 as a part of the ELVs. Prior to that players could "support" their jumping line-out players but not actually lift them up.

[LAWS]2008 Laws
19.10 OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN A LINEOUT

(g) Lifting. A lineout player must not lift a team mate.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

(h) Support before jumping. A player must not support a team mate before the team mate has jumped.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]2009 LAWS
19.10 OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN A LINEOUT

(f) Lifting and supporting. Players may assist a team-mate in jumping for the ball by lifting and supporting that player providing that the lifting and/or supporting players do not support the jumping team-mate below the shorts from behind or below the thighs from the front.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

Is it? At least one pro ref thinks it isn't a fair play on the laws? (JP did give me the impression he had doubts as the words fell out of his mouth but his reasoning was starting to have some merit about entry into (or being in) the tackle zone.

I'm in a quandary here....many people on this site say 'all good' no PK, while locally many of my colleagues (and those at the higher end) saying JP got it right! Not sure what I'll call when it happens at my level. No doubt whatever it is it will be on the referee coaches sheet as a 'discussion point' or law error!

I intend to raise it at our GMG presentation by the big wigs from NSWRU this weekend.
I don't like the way the Chiefs are doing it but that's just my opinion. Opponents will probably find a way to counter it and hopefully we won't see it used extensively.

 

[crossref]

And it's very easy to counter. If you want a ruck or mauk to form just pick up the ball and keep going up the pitch until it does.

 

[Ian_Cook]

And it's very easy to counter. If you want a ruck or mauk to form just pick up the ball and keep going up the pitch until it does.

Four rounds of Super Rugby have gone. If it was so easy, why haven't four top coaches yet figured out your magic method in 320 minutes of rugby?

I've already explained to you why that will not work. If they can't get a ruck formed at the first tackle, what makes you think they will be able to do so at the next tackle, or the next, or the next?

 

[crossref]

Four rounds of Super Rugby have gone. If it was so easy, why haven't four top coaches yet figured out your magic method in 320 minutes of rugby?

I've already explained to you why that will not work. If they can't get a ruck formed at the first tackle, what makes you think they will be able to do so at the next tackle, or the next, or the next?

but it will work! - it's not really that magical : each tackle gains you a few metres, so if the oppo don't form a ruck or a maul ... then repeat until you reach the try-line !

 

[menace]

I intend to raise it at our GMG presentation by the big wigs from NSWRU this weekend.
I don't like the way the Chiefs are doing it but that's just my opinion. Opponents will probably find a way to counter it and hopefully we won't see it used extensively.

Interested to hear what they say. Just to arm you...my locals think that Messam was 'within 1m' therefore was near to tackle and entering tackle zone incorrectly.p (and obviously materially being a pain in the @ss by being there). My argument was that they looked just as easily outside 1m so was a c & o entry?

 

[talbazar]

I must confess I went through the posts pretty quickly, but nowhere I've seen said that the decision is actually wrong against the law.
The law that defines "the gates" is
[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

None of the Chiefs' player is playing the ball, so "the gate" doesn't apply to them, does it?

My two cents!
Pierre.

 

[Dixie]

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

None of the Chiefs' player is playing the ball, so "the gate" doesn't apply to them, does it?

My two cents!
Pierre.

I've made that point in the past, and got short shrift. The view most commonly held is that whatever the wording of the law actually says, in practice you have to come through the gate, even if you have no intention of playing the ball but merely acting as a potential blocking rucker. As a pedant, I like the argument; as a referee with the best interests of the game at heart, I agree with my detractors.

 

[crossref]

None of the Chiefs' player is playing the ball, so "the gate" doesn't apply to them, does it?

but if they not playing the ball then by standing right there don't we have

[LAWS]10. 1 (d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

also a PK.

So it's a PK either way.

 

[buff]

The Chief's player wasn't blocking an opponent from getting the ball. He was blocking him from potentially passing it to a teammate.