SA v AUS

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

What I found most disappointing about JG's scrum management was that despite being S&S all 4 props were still binding on chests and arms (LH and TH respectively) and that continued when Steenkamp and Robinson replaced Mtawariwa and Slipper respectively. As a result numerous scrums hit the deck. It've only seen the first hour - does it get better?

The hit's gone but the (s)hit's still here!! How does Alexander manage to get completely prone?

CBSY9 is/was a real chance to make it better and on this evidence the cheating is alive and well.

Some of Genia's put ins looked no better than CTPE days.

 

[winchesterref]

BA seems to start very long with his feet too far back at a few scrums. He can get an advantage by pulling the loose head round, but unfortunately for him I don't think he is strong enough to do it (especially against the Boks) and so he can't keep himself up under the pressure

 

[Taff]

What I found most disappointing about JG's scrum management was that despite being S&S all 4 props were still binding on chests and arms (LH and TH respectively) .... As a result numerous scrums hit the deck. It've only seen the first hour - does it get better? The hit's gone but the (s)hit's still here!! How does Alexander manage to get completely prone?

Sorry, but is Alexander the Australian THP? It seemed to me that he was deliberately collapsing the scrum several times - but got away with it. At least 4 or 5 times he just seemed to lie flat on the ground.

Did it get better? Well, the Australian THP was eventually PKd for it and was immediately substituted. The sub seemed to make a better fist of it.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Sorry, but is Alexander the Australian THP? It seemed to me that he was deliberately collapsing the scrum several times - but got away with it. At least 4 or 5 times he just seemed to lie flat on the ground.

He is indeed.

Jerome Garces would have been well advised to have Jacques Cousteau as an AR.

 

[menace]

Sorry, but is Alexander the Australian THP? It seemed to me that he was deliberately collapsing the scrum several times - but got away with it. At least 4 or 5 times he just seemed to lie flat on the ground.

Did it get better? Well, the Australian THP was eventually PKd for it and was immediately substituted. The sub seemed to make a better fist of it.

No denying the Oz scrum is crap but I'm not so sure it was all BAs fault...on quite a number of replays it showed both SA props binding just past the arm and after engaging they would shift their bind onto the arm or behind the arm pit...they would then pull the Oz prop down.

I got the feeling Garces on any collapse simply awarded the PK the feeding side as he didn't really know who or why it collapsed.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

No denying the Oz scrum is crap but I'm not so sure it was all BAs fault...on quite a number of replays it showed both SA props binding just past the arm and after engaging they would shift their bind onto the arm or behind the arm pit...they would then pull the Oz prop down.

I got the feeling Garces on any collapse simply awarded the PK the feeding side as he didn't really know who or why it collapsed.

That's true. Steenkamp had about a foot of BA's jersey pulled downwards from his chest at every scrum (I could see) from the time he came on.

That said, BA is his own worst enemy. His shoulders are never above his hips - until he pops out of the scrum of course.:biggrin:

 

[winchesterref]

I got the feeling Garces on any collapse simply awarded the PK the feeding side as he didn't really know who or why it collapsed.

That is often the case with scrummaging it seems! I wonder how continuous resets would go one game. No scrum penalties, if you dick about all we will do is scrum scrum scrum. I wonder if the front row would eventually decide to do it properly!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

.. we'll have scrum scrum scrum....

..the ultimate sanction being the taking away of the T-Bird?:bday:

 

[winchesterref]

Well if we spent 70 minutes scrummaging every week then clubs would lose spectators/players/money and might start to think "hang on, why don't we just play within the laws"... Well probably not anyway, but in an ideal world and all that!

 

[Robert Burns]

Amazing how good Jaco looked in comparison in the Arg v NZ game. Which I though was a good physical game.

 

[Robert Burns]

VdM Banned for 1 week.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8949494,00.html

So it was a red card offence (as most agreed) but very low end because it wasn't intentional (apparently).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Some Saffas are playing the "woe is me" victim card, especially as it was a NZ QC who handed down the suspension.

Bloody conspiracy theorists!

 

[Dixie]

OK - we're on page 4 and no-one has challenged Ian's view that punching (and presumably biting, gouging, ball-squeezing and kicking) your own team mate is perfectly within the laws.

We know that these laws aren't brilliantly written. We know from historical improvements that some make assumptions that aren't warranted. That being the case, is it really too outrageous to suggest that when the laws say you can't punch or strike an opponent, but fail to say you can't punch or strike your team mate, they didn't intend to condone striking your team mate - they just didn't imagine that you'd want to. (Which may be because none of them played with Jerry Guscott or Gavin Henson).

As a matter of interest, Ian, I have found nowhere in the laws that says you can't take a shotgun from a spectator (the game IS played in the USA, remember) and shoot an opponent. Would you take the view that this, too, is not even a PK offence?

 

[damo]

As a matter of interest, Ian, I have found nowhere in the laws that says you can't take a shotgun from a spectator (the game IS played in the USA, remember) and shoot an opponent. Would you take the view that this, too, is not even a PK offence?

I can't speak for Ian, but I am pretty sure that I wouldn't penalise a player with a shotgun who had just shot an opponent.

 

[OB..]

I can't speak for Ian, but I am pretty sure that I wouldn't penalise a player with a shotgun who had just shot an opponent.

However I am sure he would be cited, and get rather a long ban.

 

[KML1]

Im with you, Dixie ,on this one. Think Law 10.4 m: is a good catch all for me.

(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure. Sanction: Penalty kick

I too havent yet caught up with the game so havent seen the incidents involved.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If you had a Lee Bowyer v Kieron Dyer episode in a Rugby Match I think you'd have to go with 10.4(m) - but 2 red cards????

I think so but not before I shouted "Go on Kieron give him one from me"

 

[Phil E]

Trades descriptions act.............

 

[Ian_Cook]

As a matter of interest, Ian, I have found nowhere in the laws that says you can't take a shotgun from a spectator (the game IS played in the USA, remember) and shoot an opponent. Would you take the view that this, too, is not even a PK offence?

Although not specifically banned in Law 4, I think you'd be hard pressed to justify passing a 12 gauge as an item of clothing.

I'm not arguing that it should be "not an offence" to do something dangerous to a team-mate, I'm arguing that it is not addressed in Law

If a line-out jumper's supporters drop him, would you PK the supporters for dangerous play?

If a player accidentally gets in the way of a team-mate trying to tackle an opponent, would you PK him for obstruction?

If a player throws a team-mate a hospital pass, should you penalise the passer for Dangerous Play?

The whole tenet of Dangerous Play is that the player does something that is dangerous to the opponent. While I agree that it should not be that way, the facts are that it is!

I would love to see the wording of all of these...

[LAWS]10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) Tripping. A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

...changed to reflect that doing any of these thing to any player, not just an opponent, is an offence!

And while we're at it, maybe there IS an out for this under the Laws (not just the catch-all of 10.4 (m)

Law 10.4 (e) ...
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Why does THIS particular law say "player" where every other instance says "opponent"?

 

[KML1]

Strange to believe that even with TMO looking at multiple replays that he didn't recommend RC? Back to U12s for the TMO!

Will all due respect menace, what clips did you see which showed the TMO recommending anything? On the footage I just saw, which appears to be the TV footage including all communication between the two, the TMO reported what he'd seen to the referee who then made his own decision on what sanction required.

Had Jerome asked a question, and then Graham Hughes (the TMO) has replied, then perhaps you may have grounds for criticizing an official who fulfilled his obligations exactly as required and set out in the Protocol.