Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:47 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16275
I've noticed the All Blacks doing it before, but yesterday there were several occasions where we did it against the Scots:

After the tackle has been made, you place your legs wide apart and your hands on the ground over the tackled player supporting your weight. As the ruck forms, you grab the ball and move your centre of gravity back so that your legs form a fulcrum. The opposition clean out players then actually assist you in supporting your body weight as they try to force you back and off the ball. I hope I'm explaining it clearly.

We got a few penalties doing this, but I'd like to know : is it legal? and, if it's not, will we get away with it against Wales?

Several different players used the technique, which makes me think that it's being coached.

I'd always thought that it was illegal, but, if the tackled player and the tackler are on the ground and you are the first one there, then no ruck has formed and the fact that your body weight is supported on your hands is immaterial?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4885
Location: Straya cunt
I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but you're definitely not allowed to place your hands on the ground past the ball to support your weight and then drag them back to play at the ball... that's a penalty.

Similarly you're not allowed to rest your knees on the player on the ground to keep yourself balancd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16913
Basically what refs allow in terms of supporting your own weight doesn't reflect things like physics and they also often allow players to go to ground (by putting hands/elbows/forearms on the deck) before playing the ball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16913
Slim 293 wrote:
I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but you're definitely not allowed to place your hands on the ground past the ball to support your weight and then drag them back to play at the ball... that's a penalty.

Similarly you're not allowed to rest your knees on the player on the ground to keep yourself balancd.


In theory that's true, in practice it's not remotely true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16275
Hope this is clearer:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16275
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Basically what refs allow in terms of supporting your own weight doesn't reflect things like physics and they also often allow players to go to ground (by putting hands/elbows/forearms on the deck) before playing the ball.

Okay.

That's what I'm asking; thanks.

I remember seeing Owen Franks (I think) doing it some years back and thinking it was a dodgy tactic then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16913
Rinkals wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Basically what refs allow in terms of supporting your own weight doesn't reflect things like physics and they also often allow players to go to ground (by putting hands/elbows/forearms on the deck) before playing the ball.

Okay.

That's what I'm asking; thanks.

I remember seeing Owen Franks (I think) doing it some years back and thinking it was a dodgy tactic then.



Everyone does it these days, I dunno why they allow it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4885
Location: Straya cunt
It does get penalised quite often though when it's blatant...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7997
Location: Vandean Coast
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 15091
This is how McCaw use to do it. It's split second moment between "it's not a ruck" therefore I can do this and "it's a ruck" I'm on my feet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16275
CrazyIslander wrote:
This is how McCaw use to do it. It's split second moment between "it's not a ruck" therefore I can do this and "it's a ruck" I'm on my feet.

Ok, that makes sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16913
CrazyIslander wrote:
This is how McCaw use to do it. It's split second moment between "it's not a ruck" therefore I can do this and "it's a ruck" I'm on my feet.


Na, McCaw used to post on the tackled player rather than the ground. And for the second half of his career he largely abandoned the jackal altogether.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16584
Location: West of Londinium
deadduck wrote:
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.

He had his knees on the ground too. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22072
Location: Centre of the Universe
Physics experts here ... could you mandate that a player must be flat footed to jackal?

Refs look for visuals (heard Wayne once say 'You're too long' in that a would-be jackaler must not be supporting his weight / couldn't actually steal the ball given how stretched out he was).

I'm not so certain you could bend over and pick up the ball - which should be the aim, not trapping in for a penalty because you'd fall over otherwise - while on your tip toes, especially with the height and top-heavy frames many have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4071
Gospel wrote:
deadduck wrote:
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.

He had his knees on the ground too. :lol:


Yeah that was a shit call which lead to the Irish try. Called it at real time but you win some you lose some in rugby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33732
Location: Pigdogistan
deadduck wrote:
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.

Absolutely. I was pissing myself laughing at it. Happens all the time, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21761
Brussow used to get loads of penalties by this method. In trying to get him off the ball, you were actually assisting his jackal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:07 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:14 am
Posts: 18629
Nolanator wrote:
deadduck wrote:
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.

Absolutely. I was pissing myself laughing at it. Happens all the time, though.

I have no idea how he got away/gets away with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21970
CrazyIslander wrote:
This is how McCaw use to do it. It's split second moment between "it's not a ruck" therefore I can do this and "it's a ruck" I'm on my feet.


AN issue is now, rucks are supposed to be from the moment the tackle is made with a player over the ball now thanks to Eddie Jones rant about Italy outsmarting him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:47 pm
Posts: 2515
yeah i was certain POM's one would go the other way

it balanced out the "forward pass" the gave NZ a long period of pressure though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14287
Location: Coalfalls
deadduck wrote:
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.

I've not noticed this incident (I'll look for it now), but is the fact OM's hands are on the ground the only reason you think he should have been penalised? Having your paws on terra firma and being supported by said paws are not one and the same. My proof-of-concept test showed a 66 year old with buggered knees could, without being supported by anything other than his own feet, get 12 inches of ground between tip of boot and heels of palms flat on the ground or 18 inches with tips of all fingers and thumbs on the ground.

Accordingly, as a non-ref the distinction between, on the one (ahem) hand, hands on the ground and on the other, 'any other part of the body is supported by the ground' seems crucial to officiating this aspect of the tackle contest.

Because the LOTG use 'is supported by the ground' and not other words, it seem reasonable to give 'support' its normal meaning for this context; i.e bear the weight, hold up or similar. If that's so, I'm assuming refs use their judgement as to whether players would pitch forward on their face, were the ground beneath their hands to dematerialise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16913
MungoMan wrote:
deadduck wrote:
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.

I've not noticed this incident (I'll look for it now), but is the fact OM's hands are on the ground the only reason you think he should have been penalised? Having your paws on terra firma and being supported by said paws are not one and the same. My proof-of-concept test showed a 66 year old with buggered knees could, without being supported by anything other than his own feet, get 12 inches of ground between tip of boot and heels of palms flat on the ground or 18 inches with tips of all fingers and thumbs on the ground.

Accordingly, as a non-ref the distinction between, on the one (ahem) hand, hands on the ground and on the other, 'any other part of the body is supported by the ground' seems crucial to officiating this aspect of the tackle contest.

Because the LOTG use 'is supported by the ground' and not other words, it seem reasonable to give 'support' its normal meaning for this context; i.e bear the weight, hold up or similar. If that's so, I'm assuming refs use their judgement as to whether players would pitch forward on their face, were the ground beneath their hands to dematerialise.


He was supporting himself on his forearms at first.

As for your proof of concept, how quickly did the old fart assume the position? There's a big difference between slowly bending over to get your head down and the rapid flop/snatch that pro rugby players do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33732
Location: Pigdogistan
Uncle Fester wrote:
Brussow used to get loads of penalties by this method. In trying to get him off the ball, you were actually assisting his jackal.

You've to take those guys sideways in a can opener, croc roll thing. Can make the ruck very messy, though. Not as quick to execute as a simple linear smash, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1002
It's usually a penalty if hands or but the ref probably allows it in this case because 7 black is slightly isolated. Rewarding dominance so to speak

Image

:lol: it's pretty bad though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21717
Sundy wrote:
It's usually a penalty if hands or but the ref probably allows it in this case because 7 black is slightly isolated. Rewarding dominance so to speak

Image

:lol: it's pretty bad though



Fark! That is indeed awful. :lol:

There was a fair but of that in the game though. I even noticed pairs of players arching in like that, not quite Safa style porpoises, as the object was to win or slow the ball, or get a penalty, but they were lining up abreast to have a dig. It was a clear tactic that worked like a dream. :thumbup:

Against that, Savea did remarkably well as the lone ranger amongst the AB's loosies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4071
Sundy wrote:
It's usually a penalty if hands or but the ref probably allows it in this case because 7 black is slightly isolated. Rewarding dominance so to speak

Image

:lol: it's pretty bad though


It looked prettybad in real time let alone in a still!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5504
eldanielfire wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
This is how McCaw use to do it. It's split second moment between "it's not a ruck" therefore I can do this and "it's a ruck" I'm on my feet.


AN issue is now, rucks are supposed to be from the moment the tackle is made with a player over the ball now thanks to Eddie Jones rant about Italy outsmarting him.


No, it's still a tackle. The difference is now that offside lines are formed at a tackle, rather than only at a ruck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5504
booze wrote:
Sundy wrote:
It's usually a penalty if hands or but the ref probably allows it in this case because 7 black is slightly isolated. Rewarding dominance so to speak

Image

:lol: it's pretty bad though


It looked prettybad in real time let alone in a still!


And the worst element is the apparent randomness of the refereeing.

In the England v Japan game, Mark Wilson got into a good legal position on a number of occasions, hands on the ball and pulling at it whilst the tackled player clung on up until Wilson got cleared out. No calls went his way.

On the other hand, Lawes won a penalty in his own 22 when there was absolutely no way he was supporting his own weight. Hands were past the ball and he used them to support himself. England scored a try from the next sequence of play. In the end, that decision was an 10-pointer in England's favour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14287
Location: Coalfalls
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
deadduck wrote:
In the lead up to the Irish try today there was a key turnover penalty won by O'Mahony in this manner.

He had his hands all over the ground, should really have been called off the ball or a penalty awarded to NZ.

I've not noticed this incident (I'll look for it now), but is the fact OM's hands are on the ground the only reason you think he should have been penalised? Having your paws on terra firma and being supported by said paws are not one and the same. My proof-of-concept test showed a 66 year old with buggered knees could, without being supported by anything other than his own feet, get 12 inches of ground between tip of boot and heels of palms flat on the ground or 18 inches with tips of all fingers and thumbs on the ground.

Accordingly, as a non-ref the distinction between, on the one (ahem) hand, hands on the ground and on the other, 'any other part of the body is supported by the ground' seems crucial to officiating this aspect of the tackle contest.

Because the LOTG use 'is supported by the ground' and not other words, it seem reasonable to give 'support' its normal meaning for this context; i.e bear the weight, hold up or similar. If that's so, I'm assuming refs use their judgement as to whether players would pitch forward on their face, were the ground beneath their hands to dematerialise.


He was supporting himself on his forearms at first.

As for your proof of concept, how quickly did the old fart assume the position?

Quickest. Get there, bend the knees, bend the back, reach out.

(OK OK I’ve got short bowed legs and long arms)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1002
4071 wrote:
booze wrote:
Sundy wrote:
It's usually a penalty if hands or but the ref probably allows it in this case because 7 black is slightly isolated. Rewarding dominance so to speak

Image

:lol: it's pretty bad though


It looked prettybad in real time let alone in a still!


And the worst element is the apparent randomness of the refereeing.

In the England v Japan game, Mark Wilson got into a good legal position on a number of occasions, hands on the ball and pulling at it whilst the tackled player clung on up until Wilson got cleared out. No calls went his way.

On the other hand, Lawes won a penalty in his own 22 when there was absolutely no way he was supporting his own weight. Hands were past the ball and he used them to support himself. England scored a try from the next sequence of play. In the end, that decision was an 10-pointer in England's favour.


While I didn't see any of the incidents you mention, a ref will consider the following:
Is there a genuine attempt to rip the ball? ie not just hands on or near
Is the player denying a contest?
Reward dominance
Survive the clear out

The POM penalty actually ticks a lot of those boxes probably why Barnes gave the penalty


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bert, Big D, Bing [Bot], BokJock, Brazil, camroc1, danny_fitz, Diego, englishgreat, etherman, fatcat, Google Adsense [Bot], Homer, I like haggis, irishrugbyua, Joost, Jumper, Kahu, Laurent, Leffe, Lenny, lorcanoworms, Lorthern Nights, Margin_Walker, Mog The Almighty, MunsterMan!!!!!, Nobleman, Pat the Ex Mat, Petej, Poshprop, ruckinhell, Sards, SASP, sewa, The Sun God, Turbogoat, Ulsters Red Hand and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group