• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Rugby Matches
maoriireland
441 Posts 45 Posters 15.9k Views
Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to mariner4life on last edited by
    #390

    @mariner4life back in playing days, if someone got carded, it was cos they were filth, and deserved it, so often got a sarcastic back pat as they trudged off, nowadays there are so many weak reasons for sending people off, and yet some think this is still not enough!

    Crazy...

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • nzzpN Offline
    nzzpN Offline
    nzzp
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #391

    @taniwharugby said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @nzzp was one contact Moorby went into, was taken high, then 2 others joined the maul, holding him up, all the while the tackler had his arm around Moorby's neck, tackler then realised after several seconds releasing and throwing his arms like, nothing to see...then ref blows whistle, held up, turnover.

    Sure we can go over matches and find moments like this, but you want some consistency, its all about protecting the head right, this guy was taken high, then held up with an arm around his throat, nothing malicious, or overly dangerous as it played out, but still well against what WR are trying to achieve, not sure how all the officials missed it.

    I saw that and thought the initial contact was to the head.

    It's very very inconsistent

    mariner4lifeM 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • mariner4lifeM Offline
    mariner4lifeM Offline
    mariner4life
    replied to nzzp on last edited by
    #392

    @nzzp said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @taniwharugby said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @nzzp was one contact Moorby went into, was taken high, then 2 others joined the maul, holding him up, all the while the tackler had his arm around Moorby's neck, tackler then realised after several seconds releasing and throwing his arms like, nothing to see...then ref blows whistle, held up, turnover.

    Sure we can go over matches and find moments like this, but you want some consistency, its all about protecting the head right, this guy was taken high, then held up with an arm around his throat, nothing malicious, or overly dangerous as it played out, but still well against what WR are trying to achieve, not sure how all the officials missed it.

    I saw that and thought the initial contact was to the head.

    It's very very inconsistent

    not a crack at the Irish per se, but, i am astounded that a team that makes a huge amount of effort to make "held up" tackles, with multiple players arriving upright, just never seem to make high contact...

    but put a hand on the shoulder? lynching!!

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to bayimports on last edited by
    #393

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.
    Dickson seemed to have a weird interpretation of this law as he often allowed defenders (both sides) that were alongside the ruck (and ahead of last player) to come forward as soon as the ruck finished. Also ignored the law that says Players must not fall onto, or over, the emerging ball while it is on the ground near to the ruck.

    The thing is (probably for that other thread), this guy is a tier one ref. I accept refs not seeing things but when a supposedly top ref doesn't apply the most basic and clear laws with zero interpretation required you have to wonder wtf is going on.

    chimoausC antipodeanA 2 Replies Last reply
    5
  • chimoausC Offline
    chimoausC Offline
    chimoaus
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #394

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.
    Dickson seemed to have a weird interpretation of this law as he often allowed defenders (both sides) that were alongside the ruck (and ahead of last player) to come forward as soon as the ruck finished. Also ignored the law that says Players must not fall onto, or over, the emerging ball while it is on the ground near to the ruck.

    The thing is (probably for that other thread), this guy is a tier one ref. I accept refs not seeing things but when a supposedly top ref doesn't apply the most basic and clear laws with zero interpretation required you have to wonder wtf is going on.

    I'm kind of surprised the TMO didn't get involved as this is a potential yellow for cynical play within your own 22?

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #395

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.

    Looks like McCloskey is part of the ruck and still on his feet as per the law. How is he offside?

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to chimoaus on last edited by
    #396

    @chimoaus said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.
    Dickson seemed to have a weird interpretation of this law as he often allowed defenders (both sides) that were alongside the ruck (and ahead of last player) to come forward as soon as the ruck finished. Also ignored the law that says Players must not fall onto, or over, the emerging ball while it is on the ground near to the ruck.

    The thing is (probably for that other thread), this guy is a tier one ref. I accept refs not seeing things but when a supposedly top ref doesn't apply the most basic and clear laws with zero interpretation required you have to wonder wtf is going on.

    I'm kind of surprised the TMO didn't get involved as this is a potential yellow for cynical play within your own 22?

    Having looked again at a bigger clip it may not be as clearcut but is still very likely that he is offside. His right foot is alongside a MAB player. from this side you cannot see the Ireland tackler but he has to be in there and is therefore behind that right foot.
    The Ireland explanation that there is no offside once TJ picks up the ball is incorrect.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to antipodean on last edited by Crucial
    #397

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.

    Looks like McCloskey is part of the ruck and still on his feet as per the law. How is he offside?

    Has a foot ahead of his own player on the ground. Just as someone not in the ruck has to be beind that player so does he. The offside doesn't go away instantly. He has to step back onside or be put onside first.

    Edit: he isn't doing anything penalisable by being offside. It is his actions while in that position that are illegal (just like a retreating player is offside but allowed to be as long as they don't interfere with play)

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    wrote on last edited by
    #398

    I don't know if Kinsella is right, I don't care enough to find out because that law will probably change again as soon as I learn it. When I last followed the game closely, that would have been a penalty (not that I agreed with that law).

    I also, don't agree with Crucial's take above. He looks in the ruck, so offside/last feet is irrelevant. I also don't want to research this. If I am wrong, then that law is an ass.

    My high-level (state-of-the-game) take. Why would you want to discourage defensive forwards committing to rucks? Therefore, why on earth would you ever want any laws, that prohibits or discourages what he is doing, or trying to do.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • BovidaeB Offline
    BovidaeB Offline
    Bovidae
    wrote on last edited by
    #399

    Dickson's officiating of the breakdown was a lottery. Sometimes he (correctly) penalised players for cleaning out from the side, other times he just ignored it. All the players and spectators ask for is consistency.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Crucial on last edited by antipodean
    #400

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.

    Looks like McCloskey is part of the ruck and still on his feet as per the law. How is he offside?

    Has a foot ahead of his own player on the ground. Just as someone not in the ruck has to be beind that player so does he.

    Nonsense. He just has to join from behind their offside line.

    I get what you're trying to say, but that's for people who aren't part of the ruck. The law is clear on that.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Rapido on last edited by
    #401

    @Rapido said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    I don't know if Kinsella is right, I don't care enough to find out because that law will probably change again as soon as I learn it. When I last followed the game closely, that would have been a penalty (not that I agreed with that law).

    I also, don't agree with Crucial's take above. He looks in the ruck, so offside/last feet is irrelevant. I also don't want to research this. If I am wrong, then that law is an ass.

    My high-level (state-of-the-game) take. Why would you want to discourage defensive forwards committing to rucks? Therefore, why on earth would you ever want any laws, that prohibits or discourages what he is doing, or trying to do.

    Simply because the game still has to be playable. If every player on their feet in a ruck is onside then the game would be even more of a shambles. These laws are there to create separation at a breakdown so the ball can get back in play.
    Note: If I am wrong it would only be because there is no Irish player on the ground at that ruck. If that is the case then he is not offside.

    antipodeanA RapidoR 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #402

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.

    Looks like McCloskey is part of the ruck and still on his feet as per the law. How is he offside?

    Has a foot ahead of his own player on the ground. Just as someone not in the ruck has to be beind that player so does he.

    Nonsense. He just has to join from behind their offside line.

    If he plays at the ball or player than he has come from an onside position. Is that so difficult to understand? If so then the game truly is fucked.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #403

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Rapido said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    I don't know if Kinsella is right, I don't care enough to find out because that law will probably change again as soon as I learn it. When I last followed the game closely, that would have been a penalty (not that I agreed with that law).

    I also, don't agree with Crucial's take above. He looks in the ruck, so offside/last feet is irrelevant. I also don't want to research this. If I am wrong, then that law is an ass.

    My high-level (state-of-the-game) take. Why would you want to discourage defensive forwards committing to rucks? Therefore, why on earth would you ever want any laws, that prohibits or discourages what he is doing, or trying to do.

    Simply because the game still has to be playable. If every player on their feet in a ruck is onside then the game would be even more of a shambles. These laws are there to create separation at a breakdown so the ball can get back in play.
    Note: If I am wrong it would only be because there is no Irish player on the ground at that ruck. If that is the case then he is not offside.

    You don't need a player on the ground to form a ruck.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #404

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @bayimports said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    interesting not everyone agrees on this interpretation either, plenty here think TJ got this one right..

    Ref totally got this wrong.

    McCloskey is offside at the ruck as he is ahead of the last feet. As an offside player he cannot play at TJP. End of.

    Looks like McCloskey is part of the ruck and still on his feet as per the law. How is he offside?

    Has a foot ahead of his own player on the ground. Just as someone not in the ruck has to be beind that player so does he.

    Nonsense. He just has to join from behind their offside line.

    If he plays at the ball or player than he has come from an onside position. Is that so difficult to understand?

    Show me the law that says he can't play at the player as a member of that ruck.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • mariner4lifeM Offline
    mariner4lifeM Offline
    mariner4life
    wrote on last edited by
    #405

    The near-side Irish pillar is a foot offside anyway.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #406

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Rapido said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    I don't know if Kinsella is right, I don't care enough to find out because that law will probably change again as soon as I learn it. When I last followed the game closely, that would have been a penalty (not that I agreed with that law).

    I also, don't agree with Crucial's take above. He looks in the ruck, so offside/last feet is irrelevant. I also don't want to research this. If I am wrong, then that law is an ass.

    My high-level (state-of-the-game) take. Why would you want to discourage defensive forwards committing to rucks? Therefore, why on earth would you ever want any laws, that prohibits or discourages what he is doing, or trying to do.

    Simply because the game still has to be playable. If every player on their feet in a ruck is onside then the game would be even more of a shambles. These laws are there to create separation at a breakdown so the ball can get back in play.
    Note: If I am wrong it would only be because there is no Irish player on the ground at that ruck. If that is the case then he is not offside.

    You don't need a player on the ground to form a ruck.

    No you don't.

    What I am saying is that if there is a player on the ground in that ruck then McCloskey's foot is in front of that player which makes him 'offside at the ruck (as part of it). I am assuming that is the case as he wasn't the tackler.
    Being 'offside at the ruck' is not an offence unless you take part in play before either putting yourself back onside or someone else putting you onside. TJs actions did not put him onside.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    replied to Crucial on last edited by Rapido
    #407

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Rapido said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    I don't know if Kinsella is right, I don't care enough to find out because that law will probably change again as soon as I learn it. When I last followed the game closely, that would have been a penalty (not that I agreed with that law).

    I also, don't agree with Crucial's take above. He looks in the ruck, so offside/last feet is irrelevant. I also don't want to research this. If I am wrong, then that law is an ass.

    My high-level (state-of-the-game) take. Why would you want to discourage defensive forwards committing to rucks? Therefore, why on earth would you ever want any laws, that prohibits or discourages what he is doing, or trying to do.

    Simply because the game still has to be playable. If every player on their feet in a ruck is onside then the game would be even more of a shambles. These laws are there to create separation at a breakdown so the ball can get back in play.
    Note: If I am wrong it would only be because there is no Irish player on the ground at that ruck. If that is the case then he is not offside.

    The bolded part is head-explosion gif for a casual fan. As a detached fan, I'm like reading that a few times going hmmm

    This is not a current laws argument I am now switching context to ... more an overall 'philsosphy' - But the halfback should be protected by his own forwards, not the referee or a law with as many confusing permutations as suggested here.

    Need to slim down those roided freaks by making them chase rucks side-to-side on a 70m wide pitch. Not spread out coz' there's no point contesting or risk punishment for entering from an 85 degrees angle. etc

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #408

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @antipodean said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Crucial said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    @Rapido said in Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2:

    I don't know if Kinsella is right, I don't care enough to find out because that law will probably change again as soon as I learn it. When I last followed the game closely, that would have been a penalty (not that I agreed with that law).

    I also, don't agree with Crucial's take above. He looks in the ruck, so offside/last feet is irrelevant. I also don't want to research this. If I am wrong, then that law is an ass.

    My high-level (state-of-the-game) take. Why would you want to discourage defensive forwards committing to rucks? Therefore, why on earth would you ever want any laws, that prohibits or discourages what he is doing, or trying to do.

    Simply because the game still has to be playable. If every player on their feet in a ruck is onside then the game would be even more of a shambles. These laws are there to create separation at a breakdown so the ball can get back in play.
    Note: If I am wrong it would only be because there is no Irish player on the ground at that ruck. If that is the case then he is not offside.

    You don't need a player on the ground to form a ruck.

    No you don't.

    What I am saying is that if there is a player on the ground in that ruck then McCloskey's foot is in front of that player which makes him 'offside at the ruck (as part of it). I am assuming that is the case as he wasn't the tackler.
    Being 'offside at the ruck' is not an offence unless you take part in play before either putting yourself back onside or someone else putting you onside. TJs actions did not put him onside.

    He's not offside - he's part of the ruck. The offside line is for people not part of the ruck.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    wrote on last edited by
    #409

    It's clear to me WR should employ me as their one and only TMO. Also referee coach.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1

Māori All Blacks v Ireland 2
Rugby Matches
maoriireland
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.