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
-
@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!!
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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?
-
@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. -
@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)
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
The near-side Irish pillar is a foot offside anyway.
-
@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. -
@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
-
@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.
-
It's clear to me WR should employ me as their one and only TMO. Also referee coach.
-
@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:
@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.
It's a combo of two laws.
Offside at a ruck
Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
Retiring from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout
A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
The player can be put onside only if:
That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
An opposition player kicks the ball.
An offside player may be penalised if that player:
Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; orInterferes with play; or
Moves towards the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.
