Wales vs wallabies - CJs influence.

[menace]

I have a few queries about son of CJs decions, no doubt at the risk of being accused and lambasted of merely being a biased wallabies fan. Some I genuinely don't understand and some I'm trying to figure if perhaps I apply a wrong interpretation at grassroots level.

All these times are on the game clock. I don't have a link to any quality footage (the full game on youboob is not HD).

1) 50 seconds. 1st PK. I thought the ruck had formed before Wales jackler got his hands on the ball. He was then knocked off the ball and went back for a second grab at the ball. One could argue that he was given the PK as reward for the initial hand on the ball and gold #2 not releasing. That I could live with but for the appearance that the initial contact over the ball was a ruck.

Now the speed of it could give the appearance that it was simultaneous ruck forming and hands on the ball by jackler. As such it was not clear and obvious the ruck had formed first. But equally it could be argued that it was not clear and obvious the jackler had the hands on before the ruck.

Is it standard practice to give the jackler the reward in these situations? If so why? Why isn't the attacking side forming the ruck, a basis of rugby, given equal reward?
Personally I would probably have initially played on, but once the Wales player went back on the ball I would PK him for hands in the ruck.
(A few phases later Wales score)

2) 40 min, why was gold PK for side entry? The gold player was right behind the Wales player that was on the side of the ruck (though not bound) when he counter rucked and knocked over the Wales player that had poor body height and position, the Wales player then fell on his own SH. I can't under stand how that was not through the gate and if anything the Wales player not bound was off side. Again why was this not play on?

3) 45 min. Wales player tackled and squeeze balls, but ball pops out the side. The Wales player while off his feet scoops it up and 'squeezes' it again! I thought you couldn't play the ball while off your feet? It's the fundamentals of rugby? If I saw that in my games I would PK it? Would I be wrong? Why would CJ just let that play on?

4) 51:20 min. Would anyone PK (and/or YC) red #11 for the lifting of legs of gold #7 in that ruck (gold #7 entered from the side)? It looked dangerous to me.

5) now for the series of scrums leading up to the PT. I can't understand why it was a PT when the sequence was: PK (wheeling), reset (collapse), reset (collapse), PT? Was it really time for a PT? Was it fair after only one prior PK?

Firstly at 62min PK to Wales for oz wheeling scrum? Can anyone tell me why that was an illegal wheel? It looked clearly that Wales took a few steps forward and then wheeled it - not oz? Yes oz were under pressure but it didn't look like oz wheeled it. Can someone point me to the key thing to look at to blame oz for the wheel as I can't see it? (I'm not saying CJ was wrong).

The PT on wheeling when Wales going forward was also a bit unusual for me. Yes Wales had the pressure on but red #8 kicks ball the into oz side and Wales have lost control of the ball when the scrum disintegrates. So how is that a PT for a 'probable try'? I also have an issue that the scrum was never square to the goal line and CJ should have reset it and not allow the SH to feed it? At that angle of setup it was always going to turn and again Wales went forward before the turn came on...so why is that an illegal wheel by oz?

6) did anyone else think CJs advantage was inconsistent in this game? The obvious one for me was74min. PK Adv to Wales. Play goes laterally across field but only 10m forward when he calls adv over? .oz then gets a turnover PK for holding on. I wouldn't call that advantage over, it didn't look tactical as Wales were under pressure all the way across field, and it certainly wasn't territorial! Does anyone think that was sufficient advantage?


(Sits back and awaits for the howels of accusations of a 'typical wallabies biased post' :shrug

 

[Ian_Cook]

No worries menace, nobody is obsessed with you!

 

[L'irlandais]

...
(Sits back and awaits for the howels of accusations of a 'typical wallabies biased post' :shrug

I thought the Wallabies won that match?

 

[The Fat]

Firstly at 62min PK to Wales for oz wheeling scrum? Can anyone tell me why that was an illegal wheel? It looked clearly that Wales took a few steps forward and then wheeled it - not oz? Yes oz were under pressure but it didn't look like oz wheeled it. Can someone point me to the key thing to look at to blame oz for the wheel as I can't see it? (I'm not saying CJ was wrong).

The PT on wheeling when Wales going forward was also a bit unusual for me. Yes Wales had the pressure on but red #8 kicks ball the into oz side and Wales have lost control of the ball when the scrum disintegrates. So how is that a PT for a 'probable try'? I also have an issue that the scrum was never square to the goal line and CJ should have reset it and not allow the SH to feed it? At that angle of setup it was always going to turn and again Wales went forward before the turn came on...so why is that an illegal wheel by oz?

6) did anyone else think CJs advantage was inconsistent in this game? The obvious one for me was74min. PK Adv to Wales. Play goes laterally across field but only 10m forward when he calls adv over? .oz then gets a turnover PK for holding on. I wouldn't call that advantage over, it didn't look tactical as Wales were under pressure all the way across field, and it certainly wasn't territorial! Does anyone think that was sufficient advantage?

I agree with these sentiments especially the not square scrum prior to feed.

If I was Welsh, I'd be a bit pissed off at the "advantage" that never was.

 

[Browner]

I have a few queries about son of CJs decions, no doubt at the risk of being accused and lambasted of merely being a biased wallabies fan. Some I genuinely don't understand and some I'm trying to figure if perhaps I apply a wrong interpretation at grassroots level.

All these times are on the game clock. I don't have a link to any quality footage (the full game on youboob is not HD).

1) 50 seconds. 1st PK. I thought the ruck had formed before Wales jackler got his hands on the ball. He was then knocked off the ball and went back for a second grab at the ball. One could argue that he was given the PK as reward for the initial hand on the ball and gold #2 not releasing. That I could live with but for the appearance that the initial contact over the ball was a ruck.

Now the speed of it could give the appearance that it was simultaneous ruck forming and hands on the ball by jackler. As such it was not clear and obvious the ruck had formed first. But equally it could be argued that it was not clear and obvious the jackler had the hands on before the ruck.

Is it standard practice to give the jackler the reward in these situations? If so why? Why isn't the attacking side forming the ruck, a basis of rugby, given equal reward?

It is for me.
I enjoy the fact that our code has possession turnovers (it breaks up the yawn fest of structured ,nay dour orchestrated possessions) , remove these and we have 'that code' :nono:

So in this aspect of play all simultaneous advantage goes to the jackaller and trumps my normal 'BoDoubt to the attacking side' ethos.

Or maybe I have a sympathy with this hitherto 'back row' skill set:shrug:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its all very well to support the idea of a contest for possession at a breakdown, but you can have too much of a good thing, and you need to be careful what you wish for.

If the breakdown were to have, say, typically a 50% turnover rate, then why would you want to take the ball into contact in your own 22m and have a 50% chance of losing it, when you can boot the ball 50m downfield and have that contact in better field position? Coaches will simply tell their players to avoid taking the ball into contact in their own half of the field, and instead, exercise the only other option; kick the ball away. You now have a kick-fest.

When the high turnover rates were taking place in 2006-2009, before SANZAR addressed the issue of priorities at the breakdown (and the NH followed suit) teams were kicking the ball aimlessly up and down the field, often over 100 times every match, and sometimes up to 150 times (once every 32 seconds). The 2007 RWC final had 92 kicks in play; one every 52 seconds, and the vast majority of them were aimlessly belted up and down the middle of the field.

Is this really what we want our game to look like?




NOTE: In the weekend's internationals , the kicks from hand stats read like this

ENG 26 - NZL 25
WAL 18 - AUS 12
IRE 27 - SAF 18
SCO 18 - ARG 14
FRA 20 - FIJ 19
ITA 16 - SAM 11

 

[The Fat]

IRE 27 - SAF 18

I wonder what Jake White would think about that?

 

[ChrisR]

"before SANZAR addressed the issue of priorities at the breakdown"

Ian, exactly how did they do this? Seems I should know this but didn't get the memo.

 

[Browner]

Menace ,
You asked a question regarding "similtaneous"

My answer was to prioritise Simultaneous into a weighted decision ( as you cant dual decide) in doing so, its not going to revert us to the kick fest as simultaneous rarely happens.

Looked like CJ did likewise, and 'luckily' still retained a low ' kick from hand count' in this match.

 

[Dickie E]

1) 50 seconds. 1st PK. I thought the ruck had formed before Wales jackler got his hands on the ball. He was then knocked off the ball and went back for a second grab at the ball. One could argue that he was given the PK as reward for the initial hand on the ball and gold #2 not releasing. That I could live with but for the appearance that the initial contact over the ball was a ruck.

Now the speed of it could give the appearance that it was simultaneous ruck forming and hands on the ball by jackler. As such it was not clear and obvious the ruck had formed first. But equally it could be argued that it was not clear and obvious the jackler had the hands on before the ruck.

Is it standard practice to give the jackler the reward in these situations? If so why? Why isn't the attacking side forming the ruck, a basis of rugby, given equal reward?
Personally I would probably have initially played on, but once the Wales player went back on the ball I would PK him for hands in the ruck.
(A few phases later Wales score)

This was a tricky call and could have gone either way. I think the tipping point was that it was a squeezeball and unless Gold #2 gets it back very quickly then he is always going to be penalised for not making the ball available.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"before SANZAR addressed the issue of priorities at the breakdown"

Ian, exactly how did they do this? Seems I should know this but didn't get the memo.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...s-under-new-breakdown-laws-20100123-mrk9.html


http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...917901697?nk=1c31ff3263aeb1b1395d0b3d7ef72e7f

The NH were asked to follow suit

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10623769

and it seems they did because by the next season, NH referees on this forum were talking about implementing the new priorities at the breakdown.

 

[L'irlandais]

I wonder what Jake White would think about that?

Perhaps Jake White would think "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

Ireland played an intelligent kicking game, putting the Boks under pressure (away from scrum & line-out time) & backed it up with stout defence. We certainly managed to feed off their mistakes, à la Sharks. :ireland: = Boks defending way too flat on occasions, and their full-back getting caught out of position more than once.
South Africa then made some poor kicking (& poor positioning) choices. As it turned out, snubbing kickable penalties, without turning it into points, helped grow Ireland's confidence.

Bet Ireland have a very different game plan for the Aussies in 2 weeks time.