Viewing comments for breakaway
Here's what the law says, word for word: "The receiver must stand at least 2 metres towards that player's goal line from that player's team mates… etc". Note the "at least"… that means that he must be no closer than 2 metres, but he can be more. Everybody else seems to understand this. So if he is 2 1/2 metres away as you insist, and many other analysts agree with you, then he is definitely onside. You really should check out the link to rugbyrefs.com in Roadpig's post, where all this is explained very clearly. It also shows how at least two of the SA players are in fact standing in illegal positions if the laws were strictly enforced in the way you suggest.
Others have also pointed out that the lift timing is very marginal and that many SA lineouts (and some NZ) included much more blatant early lifting. There is a photo here:
…that shows a SA forward already held high in the air before the hooker has even brought the ball forward over his head to throw it in. If teams have been allowed clean attacking ball all day from lineouts like that, why should this particular, very marginal example be penalised? The answer is, it shouldn't be.
9 Months, 4 Weeks ago
I've watched the last try several times too Larry. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the laws of the game regarding passing the ball, and the way they are interpreted by every referee in international rugby. I can't help you any further.
As for dredging up all these old "missed calls" from decades ago, NZ have been on the wrong end of plenty of them and they continue to be, because every team has bad calls go against them. Knock-ons from 1967! You don't have to go back that far, Ireland probably scored from one in 2013.
I had to laugh at your suggestion that trying to milk penalties is somehow a NZ invention. I played for many years and I've watched for many more… I mean, you've got to be kidding.
It's nonsense to suggest that there has been some conspiracy in world rugby for 50 or 60 years to make sure NZ wins. You're sounding a bit paranoid, Larry, you need to move on, you might enjoy your rugby a little more.
9 Months, 4 Weeks ago
… "that's been fairly obvious" for 110 years. :)
10 Months, 2 Days ago
OK, I'll take the bait. You say that McCaw was at least 2m from the lineout, and the law in fact says that he must be 2m away… so no problem there. The timing thing is very marginal and lineouts cannot be, and never are refereed within such fractional margins. I have no doubt that if SA had scored, then the try would also have been awarded and correctly so, in my opinion.
As for your historical grievances going back 40 years or more, let's get it straight. Haden did not win a penalty for his dive, the referee himself has said that he penalised the player jumping off Oliver's shoulder at the front of the lineout. Nobody denies that Haden tried to draw the penalty, but if you seriously think that only NZ amongst all teams tried to draw penalties in this and similar ways during those years, or even now… you are being absurdly naive. And the refs in both those ancient examples were English. I would be very interested to read any theories about how English officials have favoured NZ rugby down through the decades… I like a bit of fantasy fiction
There are no clear forward passes in the final NZ try against the Irish, according to the current interpretation of the laws. And I see every team at international level being judged exactly the same on this aspect. However, in the first Irish try the assistant ref asked for the TMO because he thought the ball had been dropped over the line. At least one of the replays seemed to confirm this, and yet the same TMO that you say favoured the All Blacks, gave the try to Ireland.
The fact is that despite what you say, the ABs are on the wrong end of plenty of 50/50 or dodgy decisions but they still tend to go on and win, so nobody makes a big deal of them.
Now let's talk about that NZ try disallowed in 1905 when even Welsh try-scorer Teddy Morgan agreed that Deans was pulled back over the line after he'd scored. Wales won 3–0, demonstrating a bias on the part of referees against NZ "that's been fairly obvious" for 110 ye
10 Months, 2 Days ago
"I thought he got about as much of the line as Kuridrani got last week."
Can't really go along with that Eddie. Even the low-level shot seemed to show the line was not broken. The other angle I've seen confirms that the ball had not reached the line at all. If a try had been awarded to NZ on that evidence, I have no doubt that sites like this would be in an uproar, and rightly so.
In the Kuridrani case, the low shot showed the ball grazing the grass for a moment, which is all that's needed, and the overhead showed the ball was actually well over the line at the time. That's quite a different scenario. The only problem I had with the Kuridrani was whether the extra movement took too long, but it's hard to not give it when you see it in real time.
10 Months, 3 Days ago
The RD video is down at the moment, but it's up elsewhere. It's clear that McCaw is the required distance from the lineout; 2m is not far, just slightly more than his own height. And, according to law 19.9, the lineout begins as soon as the ball leaves the thrower's hand. I see no clear evidence that McCaw jumps the gun. I'm glad you're not a TMO, Steve.
10 Months, 4 Days ago
Well that's strange. RD have changed the video since I posted and the new one doesn't even show the second Pumas try. So my time reference means nothing. But whiteafrican's YouTube link tells the story.
10 Months, 1 Week ago
I have no problem with the first Pumas' try or McCaw's try, they were assisted by players bound at the side or behind them; but the second Pumas' try is a different matter. At 12:19 a Puma forward is running in front of the ball carrier without being bound, and continues to do so until the player behind him grounds the ball over the line. Even if accidental it amounts running interference and I've seen this penalised plenty of times in the past.
10 Months, 1 Week ago
I played fifteen seasons of rugby in central Auckland and the Waikato and I've seen plenty of tough footballers. I agree with stroudos and DrG. The tackle was tough but the followup was just trying to look tough, and failing. I've had a few coaches who might've had a quiet word: "The tackle was great son, but don't be a dickhead about it".
1 Year, 1 Month ago
There's an interesting discussion of the charge-down and the other incidents here:
1 Year, 8 Months ago