NZ v SA

[didds]

Re: Richie McCaw try or no try ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55a5qjFYtE

looks to me as if the ball has hookers hands before RM has actually put himself in the line of all black players. He certainly is not "in" it when the ball leaves the throwers hands.

As for Reid's early jump... I don;t think it is. His pod start to lift him just before the ball is thrown (like many other lineouts) but it is actually quite marginal - as reid's feet just leave the floor the throwingt action has begun and at the moment the ball leaves thr thrower's hands, the lifter's arms are still no higher than their chest level ie they are no where close to full extension.

IN a poor analogy its rather like throwing what appears to be a longish pass but in fact its just a pop to a supporter running closer.

Looks quite legit to me TBH... All that has happened is that the weight of the throw hasn't made the lifted pod but instead has found RM in a gap.

didds

 

[didds]

Re: Richie McCaw try or no try ?

watching again its likely RM is less than 2m from "the lineout". potential PK.


didds

 

[Crucial]

I understand the concept of materiality but also feel that if anyone was to judge the try scorer's (or jumpers) actions frame by frame looking for fault then perhaps the same level of detail is expected from the defending side as well.
Without the immediate benefit of Ian's video analysis suite, can someone tell me if the SA 'halfback' was also 2 metres back? Possibly more importantly was the SA hooker standing 2m back from LOT and within the tramlines?
It is a drawback to the TMO system that when possible tries get reviewed the emphasis is on the actions of the attacking team and the defending actions are often not looked at.
I'm not a fan of over analysis of possible tries. My personal preference would be for TMO decisions to be made on the ref's experience from realtime views. If TV shows want to pick over the decisions based on millimetres later then tough. All other decisions are made in real time on a clear and obvious basis.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I reject any contention that McCaw was only 1m from the line-out, and that he moved toward the lineout before the ball was thrown, and here is the proof that he was in fact legally positioned

►The line-out (therefore LoT) was on the 5m line
► The line-out players are required to be 0.5m from the LoT therefore McCaw was required to be positioned 2m beyond them, at 2.5m from the LoT


KEY
► the red vertical markers are at 2.5m intervals as measured from the goal line
► the red line parallel to the 5m line is 2.5m from it. McCaw was required to be standing at least this far from the LoT
► the yellow marker is 1.5m from the LoT (1m from the lineout). The BFG et al claim that McCaw was this close.


* These measurements and marks are positionally corrected for perspective distortion.

At the beginning of the throwing action

During the throwing action

Fractionally after the ball has left the thrower's hands

The three images span a time of less than 0.3 of a second!!

McCaw can be seen to be CLEARLY beyond the 2.5m line (and therefore beyond 2m from the line-out). He is certainly not as close as 1.5m from the LoT (1m from the lineout) as TheBFG and others have claimed.

McCaw does move as the ball is thrown, but he is moving parallel to LoT in order to position himself in line with the gap. I see nothing in Law that says the receiver must remain still or cannot move along parallel to the Lot before the ball is thrown so long as he remains between the 5m and 15m lines.

This is pretty conclusive


NOTE: For those who think I have gone to a lot of trouble to prove a point, don't fret. I do this sort of thing for a living. This took me less than 10 minutes to do; it was mere ducksoup (typing the post look longer).

I also do this sort of stuff regularly on skeptics forums, debunking the conspiracy theorist nut-jobs who claim the Apollo moon landings were faked (dual light sources, non-parallel shadows etc). Debunking rabid journalists and blog jockeys is a breeze by comparison.

 

[chrismtl]

Re: Richie McCaw try or no try ?

I watched it a few times, and I feel like he was close enough to being 2m away when the ball left the throwers hands. Here's a screenshot with the ball just out of the throwers hands (possibly a frame or 2 after it leaves his hands) and according to me RM is 2m back based on where the LOT is. To get to the point where he catches the ball, right on the LOT, he takes a medium sized step and then a full running stride length step. In fact, the SA receiver closed the gap at the exact same time as RM, except he isn't in the right spot and gets beat.

 

[Taff]

Re: Richie McCaw try or no try ?

Free Kick offence.

 

[MrQeu]

Re: Richie McCaw try or no try ?

19.8 (i) Where the receiver must stand. If a team uses a receiver, then that player, must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the lineout begins.

Once the lineout has commenced, the receiver may move into the lineout and may perform all actions available to players in the lineout and is liable to related sanctions.

Sanction: Free kick on the 15 metre line along the line of touch

 

[Crucial]

Thanks Ian. If you don't mind may I reproduce that post in another forum as it is rather conclusive?

Who do you think the receiver is for the defending side? Or is there no receiver? The SA player at the front of the lineout looks to be in a bit of an inbetween position. Neither 2.5m back (therefore the receiver) or 0.5 of a metre back (therefore part of the lineout. Maybe it is the angle but he looks to be about 2m back from LOT.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Thanks Ian. If you don't mind may I reproduce that post in another forum as it is rather conclusive?

Who do you think the receiver is for the defending side? Or is there no receiver? The SA player at the front of the lineout looks to be in a bit of an inbetween position. Neither 2.5m back (therefore the receiver) or 0.5 of a metre back (therefore part of the lineout. Maybe it is the angle but he looks to be about 2m back from LOT.

No problem. The image links go straight to my dropbox public folder. Feel free to hotlink


I don't think SA has a receiver

The SA player on the left (A) is the opponent of the thrower (who is incidentally, illegally positioned himself...)

[LAWS]19.8 (j) Player between touch and 5 metres. The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that team’s side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

He's 2m from the LoT but right on the 5m line

The next SA player to the right (B) is No. 1 in the line-out opposite Franks

If you count up the rest of the line-out players NZ has another four and so do SA.

 

[Crucial]

So wouldn't Player B be wrongly positioned as well? 19.8l says two parallel lines, which too me means that if you are a participating player in the lineout you should be in line with your team's other participants. Player B is neither far enough back to be the receiver (they don't have to match numbers) or in parallel with his team mates.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So wouldn't Player B be wrongly positioned as well? 19.8l says two parallel lines, which too me means that if you are a participating player in the lineout you should be in line with your team's other participants. Player B is neither far enough back to be the receiver (they don't have to match numbers) or in parallel with his team mates.

Well if they don't have another player back in a receiver position (and I can't see one) then he's allowed to be where he is.

If they really have made themselves one short in a lineout only 5m from their own line, then that was not a very good decision on their part.

 

[crossref]

It was a great move, a very simple one, but all the best moves are, really, the more elaborate something is, the more likely it will go wrong.

But SA made it easy for them.. NZ form up for a 5m scrum and RM is standing at receiver., and SA didn't mark him, indeed they seemed to ignore him,

they must have decided he was a diversion and they weren't going to fall for it.

 

[FlipFlop]

B is the receiver. If you look closely, it is a 5 man lineout, and all 5 SA players are at the back with the lift (you can see 4 in Ian's shot, but #17 is hidden behind the jumper - see chrismtl's shot), leaving the front man to be defended by the illegal hooker, and the receiver.

 

[didds]

What, you mean like every other line-out in every other game?

and there's the rub... ian's spot on. certainly for anything but the longest throws where the pod may have to wait to get the timining of ythe ball arrival correct.

didds

 

[Graeme]

I reject any contention that McCaw was only 1m from the line-out, and that he moved toward the lineout before the ball was thrown, and here is the proof that he was in fact legally positioned

►The line-out (therefore LoT) was on the 5m line
► The line-out players are required to be 0.5m from the LoT therefore McCaw was required to be positioned 2m beyond them, at 2.5m from the LoT

Ian_Cook -- the law states the "receiver" must be 2m from "his team mates in the line out", not from the "line out" or the LoT. Diagrams on World Rugby's site next to the law in question (Law 19.9 i) show receivers legally being 2m from the LoT and not from their teammates.

Either World Rugby is confused where the receiver must be 2m back from or I'm missing something.

Could you or someone please clarify?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian_Cook -- the law states the "receiver" must be 2m from "his team mates in the line out", not from the "line out" or the LoT. Diagrams on World Rugby's site next to the law in question (Law 19.9 i) show receivers legally being 2m from the LoT and not from their teammates.

Either World Rugby is confused where the receiver must be 2m back from or I'm missing something.

Could you or someone please clarify?

Graeme. Its the same thing and a crappy drawing. The Line of Touch is not the line-out, the line-out players are the line-out.

[LAWS]LAW 19 DEFINITIONS
...
Lineout players. Lineout players are the players who form the two lines that
make a lineout.[/LAWS]

Since Law 19.8 states; "Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch", and Law 19.8 (i) states that the receiver "must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout" then its simple addition (2m + 0.5m = 2.5m) that the receiver has to be 2.5m from the LoT.

 

[Ian_Cook]

B is the receiver. If you look closely, it is a 5 man lineout, and all 5 SA players are at the back with the lift (you can see 4 in Ian's shot, but #17 is hidden behind the jumper - see chrismtl's shot), leaving the front man to be defended by the illegal hooker, and the receiver.

Well spotted. I missed seeing that player.

I also heard tonight someone suggest that Ruan Pienaar (who was defending on the goal-line and therefore was not the receiver) went offside when he attempted to tackle McCaw; overstepped the offside line (i.e. the goal-line) before McCaw had left the lineout with the ball. I cannot confirm this as I haven't looked at the video again (She-WHo-Must-Be-Obeyed has dibs on the TV to watch Indian Summers)

 

[Graeme]

Since Law 19.8 states; "Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch", and Law 19.8 (i) states that the receiver "must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout" then its simple addition (2m + 0.5m = 2.5m) that the receiver has to be 2.5m from the LoT.

Got it.

I didn't read your post with the diagrams carefully and thought you were saying the receiver had to be 2m back from the LoT. Your previous post was quite clear. 2.5m from the LoT. 2m from team mates.

 

[Cobus Crous]

I am no referee and don't envy any referee as it is the most difficult job in sports. People always look for a scape goat when their teams loose and usually it is the poor ref.

In saying this I would like to just ask a few questions as they person who started the tread stated that the try was legal.

1. In the assessment Macaw was deemed to be 2,5 meters away from the line out. However in the rule book it says the following as to where the receiver should stand and I quote:

"[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Where the receiver must stand. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a team uses a receiver, then that player, must be positioned at least 2 meters back from team mates in the line out, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the line out begins."

So here it says he should be 2 meters away from his Team Mates and clearly he was not. but he was 2 meters away from the middle of the line out.

2. If he was deemed to be a member of the line out and not the receiver the law says

"[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Where the lineout players must stand. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]The front of the lineout is not less than 5 metres from the touchline. The back of the lineout is not more than 15 metres from the touchline. All lineout players must stand between these two points."

If he is not part of the line out then he should be behind the receiver.

Therefore in both cases he should have had a free kick against him.

3. Related to him moving before the ball has left the hands of the hooker. - In the footage you can see his is in a forward motion with 1 foot already off the ground in a running stance indicating that he has started moving before the ball has left the hands of the hooker.

In all fairness to the ref this is something that should have been picked up by the Touch Judge and if the question was asked there should have been a referral to the TMO.



[/FONT]

 

[Ian_Cook]

I am no referee and don't envy any referee as it is the most difficult job in sports. People always look for a scape goat when their teams loose and usually it is the poor ref.

In saying this I would like to just ask a few questions as they person who started the tread stated that the try was legal.

1. In the assessment Macaw was deemed to be 2,5 meters away from the line out. However in the rule book it says the following as to where the receiver should stand and I quote:

"[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Where the receiver must stand. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a team uses a receiver, then that player, must be positioned at least 2 meters back from team mates in the line out, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the line out begins."

So here it says he should be 2 meters away from his Team Mates and clearly he was not. but he was 2 meters away from the middle of the line out.

2. If he was deemed to be a member of the line out and not the receiver the law says

"[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Where the lineout players must stand. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]The front of the lineout is not less than 5 metres from the touchline. The back of the lineout is not more than 15 metres from the touchline. All lineout players must stand between these two points."

If he is not part of the line out then he should be behind the receiver.

Therefore in both cases he should have had a free kick against him.

3. Related to him moving before the ball has left the hands of the hooker. - In the footage you can see his is in a forward motion with 1 foot already off the ground in a running stance indicating that he has started moving before the ball has left the hands of the hooker.[/FONT]

Post #64

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19009-NZ-v-SA&p=301373&viewfull=1#post301373