McCaw the Richard Dawkins of Rugby

Tim Robbins

Just saw this clip of McCaw (again). He really makes refs think.

This looks illegal as he's on the wrong side of the ruck. But then if he entered the ruck legally and smashed through and the balls out - there's nothing actually wrong. The thing is he only smashes through because he comes in slightly from the side but only slightly and so fast it's difficult to call. Also if you look at the momentum of the game, the Aussies get smothered in a tackler. Tha All blacks have more men in the breakdown. You'd be thinking it against the momentum that the aussies end up with a penalty.

The are three areas of the game very difficult to ref:
1. The Scrum.
2. The breakdown
3. The McCAW!

I am calling him the Dawkins of Rugby as he really makes you think what exactly is he doing that is legal and illegal - in nano seconds.

You can't just go "ah that look's illegal" - penalty. It has to be grounded in fact.

JustinDee

Yep, looks fine to me. Takes balls to hit the contact area at that speed and when it comes off, its just great play. Other doubtful is Nonu's action but as far as I can see, he's back up on feet and through imaginary gate to challenge.

The areas that he and his buds should be watched on are players over-running the ruck and taking out a defender with them. This is illegal.
And of course, the slowing down of the ball as long as possible without getting pinged. Playing ball off feet in my view is inexcusable and should not be tolerated.

Having said all that, I was chatting to a former international ref and we both agreed that its all very well spotting it from the side, stands or the sofa. On the ground, its a different matter altogether. Some games can be clinical but others can be frantic and therefore more difficult to get a beady upon.

razorblunt

Yeah I was just going to say it's impossible to see where he came from if you're the ref, you're looking for hands on the ball/not relelasing etc.

He takes the "play to the whistle" to the limit.

Tomtom364

as far as i can see, the ball is delayed in coming out (ie it dosnt happen the insant that maccaw crashes through the ruck) and thus maccaw is offside then the ball pops out and he plays it.

penalty stands.

JustinDee

Tomtom364 wrote: »

as far as i can see, the ball is delayed in coming out (ie it dosnt happen the insant that maccaw crashes through the ruck) and thus maccaw is offside then the ball pops out and he plays it

In that case, penalty to NZ.
Ball carrier not releasing ball when tackled to ground.

Digifriendly

Can't see link between Richard Dawkins and McCaw though.

danthefan

He's offside surely?

RuggieBear

ball wasn't out imo

And he was offside anyway. should have had to move back to his own side of the ruck before picking up the ball

Risteard

The way I see it, all the Australians there are on the ground and out of the game. By the time McCaw takes the ball there are no Aussies there which means there's no ruck, so open play.

Tim Robbins

RuggieBear wrote: »

ball wasn't out imo

And he was offside anyway. should have had to move back to his own side of the ruck before picking up the ball

Just to simplify it - let's assume he entered a ruck legally.

If you drive through a ruck, usually a team mate will be bind onto your backside and it's just a turnover.

So are you saying he's offside because no-one of his team mates bound onto him?

RuggieBear

assuming he has not come in the side...yeah basically he has driven thru the ruck but then falls to his knees and isn't connected to the ruck anymore so he's out of the game and offside.

danthefan

Risteard wrote: »

The way I see it, all the Australians there are on the ground and out of the game. By the time McCaw takes the ball there are no Aussies there which means there's no ruck, so open play.

The ruck ceasing to exist would not put McCaw onside. It would just mean anyone who came in from the NZ side to play the ball would not be offside.

MungBean

I'm not a ref but in my humble opinion McCaw doesnt even drive through the ruck, he makes contact with the player and then spins to come in from the side. You cant just grab a player and twist to the side, you have to push through from the correct point and go through the gate. He doesnt so I'd call that in from the side.

Even if its not called in from the side he's offside anyway so whether or not the ball is out he cant touch it.

The only reason he makes ya think is that he seems to commit so many errors you dont know which to do him for.

yimrsg

Surely Nonu( the tackler) didn't release the tackled player? He's on his feet but to me I'd say he's not gone and made it clear that he's released him and then tried to win the ball. Whatever about McCaw's actions the referee under the current rules as I understand them didn't penalise Nonu for not realising.

JustinDee

danthefan wrote: »

The ruck ceasing to exist would not put McCaw onside. It would just mean anyone who came in from the NZ side to play the ball would not be offside.

Actually if the ball is open for takers, he wouldn't have been pinged for offside.

Shelflife

Ball wasnt out and he came in from the side, both infringements would be penalties.

JustinDee

I'll ask in office on Monday on it.

Risteard

danthefan wrote: »

The ruck ceasing to exist would not put McCaw onside. It would just mean anyone who came in from the NZ side to play the ball would not be offside.

I see at as the same as a team driving over the ball in the ruck to turn it over.

He came in from an onside position, drove over the ruck, no Australian players there meaning the ruck was finished and picked it from open play. I don't see where he was offside in the first place.

Of course there's loads of different interpretations on the ruck,another ref would probably have given it for offside.

Hippo

As Digifriendly says, what has Richard Dawkins to do with this??

McCaw seems to be miles offside. As usual.

durkadurka

Reading far too much into mc Caw's 'genius ' and not enough into the whole getting away with murder thing.

Dawkins is for another forum. anything I say on this will get me banned for sure.

Morf

McCaw is an amazing mix of skill, brazenness (i.e. coming in from the side multiple times in the same ruck), being the All Black captain, an ability to push his luck with referees just the absolute limit and the whole "aura" around him which makes referees almost blind in some instances to his misdemeanours.

A fantastic player still.

conf101

JustinDee wrote: »

I'll ask in office on Monday on it.

Thanks for that. Then we'll have a definitive answer.

duckysauce

conf101 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Then we'll have a definitive answer.

perhaps not

JustinDee

duckysauce wrote: »

perhaps not

Well we would really. I'll ask a couple of heads in the Referees Dept for their opinion on it.

FrPhelimYoung

Simple answer:

1. McCaw in from the side - penalty
2. McCaw in offside position when the ball exited from the ruck and he played it - penalty

Shelflife

JustinDee wrote: »

Well we would really. I'll ask a couple of heads in the Referees Dept for their opinion on it.

Ahhh no we wont,

what we will have is another set of opinions, they may well be more au fait and experienced then alot of us but a situation like that where it is marginal is not black and white.

JustinDee

Shelflife wrote: »

Ahhh no we wont,

what we will have is another set of opinions, they may well be more au fait and experienced then alot of us but a situation like that where it is marginal is not black and white.

They are experienced international referees, two still in administration of international refereeing and two current refs lol
I've already said where the difficulties lie in reffing a mess like that. Its all very well comfy from the comfort of a seat by a screen. A different matter altogether on the ground.

FrPhelimYoung

It's not a "mess" as you call it. Until McCaw's involvement it was a standard tackle & poach attempt with attacking side endeavouring to secure the football. A mess arose because of McCaws illegal entry to the ruck. In support of the ref it all happened quite quickly but he still should have picked up the offence. He definitely should have picked up McCaw's offside when he played the ball after it exited the ruck.

I feel the need to apologise cos I'm adding to an already frustrating laws discussion when these things are normally pretty cut and dried anyway but still turn into a full on barrister type debate!!!

JustinDee

FrPhelimYoung wrote: »

It's not a "mess" as you call it. Until McCaw's involvement it was a standard tackle & poach attempt with attacking side endeavouring to secure the football. A mess arose because of McCaws illegal entry to the ruck. In support of the ref it all happened quite quickly but he still should have picked up the offence. He definitely should have picked up McCaw's offside when he played the ball after it exited the ruck.

I feel the need to apologise cos I'm adding to an already frustrating laws discussion when these things are normally pretty cut and dried anyway but still turn into a full on barrister type debate!!!

Nothing standard about it. Non-commital faffing about by Australian support attacker and flying in from all angles at pace from everyone else. Thats a mess and is very very difficult to officiate.

Shelflife

JustinDee wrote: »

They are experienced international referees, two still in administration of international refereeing and two current refs lol
I've already said where the difficulties lie in reffing a mess like that. Its all very well comfy from the comfort of a seat by a screen. A different matter altogether on the ground.

Justin what would be very interesting is to get their opinion individually and see what they all come up with.

agree with your point re armchair and on the ground , have done both , much more difficult on the ground.

FrPhelimYoung

Non committal?! You'll find even with McCaws involvement they clear Nonu off the ball. In fact they are quite specific about how they do it too.....shame the ref couldn't spot obvious infringements. This is a standard breakdown engagement where the same offences occur repeatedly and an international ref should pick these up automatically.

The only flying about is by McCaw!!! All the other players involved seem, in my opinion, to have actually assessed the situation and attempted to apply a legit technique to secure the ball for their respective side. Watch it back again a couple of times and forget about McCaw and look at each players attempt in the engagement.

JustinDee

Count Aussie support present when tackle made.
How committed were attackers to securing ruck ball?

FrPhelimYoung

What's yer point here???

I was replying to this from yourself.

JustinDee wrote: »

Nothing standard about it. Non-commital faffing about by Australian support attacker and flying in from all angles at pace from everyone else. Thats a mess and is very very difficult to officiate.

I count two Oz supports. Does that indicate non committal??? Not sure what your point is here. It's not all about committal of excess numbers to win a ruck....at least that's what I was always coached. Maybe you're getting at something else.

handsomecake

Morf wrote: »

McCaw is an amazing mix of skill, brazenness (i.e. coming in from the side multiple times in the same ruck), being the All Black captain, an ability to push his luck with referees just the absolute limit and the whole "aura" around him which makes referees almost blind in some instances to his misdemeanours.

A fantastic player still.

mccaw was amzing before he was captain.

my favourite thing about mccaw is that he isnt actually a physical specimen in the form of o brien, or chabal or jerry collins. he isnt outrageously fast either.

its his heart ,he is a winner.he is afraid of no-one and there was a period around 05-08 where he used to get awful special treatment from the springboks in SA at ruck time and he manned up. like with hartley smashing him in the face and andy powell clotheslinng him.he just gets back up and gets on with it.

and he is a genius.seemingly himself and andrew mehrtens are renowned for knowing the laws of the game even better then some refs. i must dig up that clip of the tri nations match where the ref makes a call and mccaw corrcts him and the ref concurs with richie.

JustinDee

FrPhelimYoung wrote: »

What's yer point here???

I was replying to this from yourself.



I count two Oz supports. Does that indicate non committal??? Not sure what your point is here. It's not all about committal of excess numbers to win a ruck....at least that's what I was always coached. Maybe you're getting at something else.

Two, including the ball carrier in a contact area of 4-6 players. How do you expect to keep ball without clinging to it and getting penalised in the process? In that instance it was most definitely about numbers.

MungBean

JustinDee wrote: »

Two, including the ball carrier in a contact area of 4-6 players. How do you expect to keep ball without clinging to it and getting penalised in the process? In that instance it was most definitely about numbers.

Two Plus the ball carrier. Ball carrier goes to ground tackled by Nonu. Two Aussies come in to stop him (only all black competing for ball) from competing and close off the ruck. If McCaw didnt hit from the side taking one of the Aussies out in the process support would have arrived while the ball was being placed back and the Aussies retain possession. Only Nonu was competing.

All blacks also only had 3 players in the ruck one of them nonu who had been stopped robbing the ball, another the 13 who didnt compete and McCaw who came in from the side, disrupted and ended up offside. A fourth All black arrives when McCaw on the wrong side was gathering his feet to take the ball.

The only thing that stopped them retaining possession was McCaw. Even with the illegal entry Aussies would have retained if he didnt rob it from his offside position. Aussies committed enough to secure, All blacks robbed illegally. Nothing to do with lack of commitment.

Quint2010

Digifriendly wrote: »

Can't see link between Richard Dawkins and McCaw though.

The McCaw delusion..

FrPhelimYoung

JustinDee wrote: »

Two, including the ball carrier in a contact area of 4-6 players. How do you expect to keep ball without clinging to it and getting penalised in the process? In that instance it was most definitely about numbers.

As per Skunkle's description. Couldn't have put it better. You can secure the ball quite well. The law changes of the last couple of years make it even more likely. Yes, there are examples where flooding the ruck with numbers can disrupt and cause turnover ball. This isn't one of those situations. Two Oz support were spot on with assessment of the situation, correct clean out technique selection, commitment and execution. McCaw chanced his arm, caused the mess illegally and hopefully got pinged.*

thomond2006

This got Thread of the Day!

Tim Robbins

thomond2006 wrote: »

This got Thread of the Day!

Oh cool. How did they decide that, I wonder?

thomond2006

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Oh cool. How did they decide that, I wonder?

It's a selection at random I think.

handsomecake

Skunkle wrote: »

Two Plus the ball carrier. Ball carrier goes to ground tackled by Nonu. Two Aussies come in to stop him (only all black competing for ball) from competing and close off the ruck. If McCaw didnt hit from the side taking one of the Aussies out in the process support would have arrived while the ball was being placed back and the Aussies retain possession. Only Nonu was competing.

All blacks also only had 3 players in the ruck one of them nonu who had been stopped robbing the ball, another the 13 who didnt compete and McCaw who came in from the side, disrupted and ended up offside. A fourth All black arrives when McCaw on the wrong side was gathering his feet to take the ball.

The only thing that stopped them retaining possession was McCaw. Even with the illegal entry Aussies would have retained if he didnt rob it from his offside position. Aussies committed enough to secure, All blacks robbed illegally. Nothing to do with lack of commitment.

for future reference "the 13 " you refer to is Sir Conrad Snake Smith ,qualified barrister and worlds best outside centre.

ArmaniJeanss

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am calling him the Dawkins of Rugby as he really makes you think what exactly is he doing that is legal and illegal - in nano seconds.

'The David Copperfield of Rugby' would have been far better - the Richard Dawkins comparision is just bizarre.

mikedragon32

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's a selection at random I think.

A far more deserving thread about BOD was the favourite for the honours....

On topic, I watched the vid once, RMcC hits the Aussie wing at the left of the ruck on the left shoulder, that must be side entry as if he'd come through the gate he'd have hit the right shoulder. There is no "mess".

I can't see what the controversy is except maybe a bit of surprise that he was picked up for it.

JustinDee

First ref I've asked said straight way: Entering tackle area through the side and not through the gate. Reason ball popped out and made available is that McCaw takes out attacker (Lachie Turner).
Instant penalty to Australia and was surprised ref didn't pick it up.

Tim Robbins

JustinDee wrote: »

First ref I've asked said straight way: Entering tackle area through the side and not through the gate. Reason ball popped out and made available is that McCaw takes out attacker (Lachie Turner).
Instant penalty to Australia and was surprised ref didn't pick it up.

I don't think it's that clear cut because you can't penalise everything in a game. It's very hard in a split second to ascertain if it's illegal, skillful or a bit of both.

Your mate probably could also spot a few dodgy feeds to scrums

JustinDee

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't think it's that clear cut because you can't penalise everything in a game. It's very hard in a split second to ascertain if it's illegal, skillful or a bit of both.

Your mate probably could also spot a few dodgy feeds to scrums

He made that call on first glance and after a couple more looks, stuck by it.
You're right of course. As said earlier, its very difficult to spot on ground level something like that done at pace.

Tim Robbins

JustinDee wrote: »

He made that call on first glance and after a couple more looks, stuck by it.
You're right of course. As said earlier, its very difficult to spot on ground level something like that done at pace.

There's not too many penalities for coming in from the side - it's something refs are probably a soft on. Compared to the amount you see for not releasing and not releasing the tackler.

Piliger

He came in from behind, was caught in the melee as the ball was ripped free and he picked it up in the middle of that melee. Perfectly legal imho.

Snickers Man

Hard to see whether McCaw comes in at the side because of the annoying caption bubbles overlaying the video. But I would say there are two infringements anyway.

1 Nonu does not resume his feet [in the modern interpretation of the term] before attempting to rip the ball from the tackled player. Penalty Australia.

2 McCaw is offside on the wrong side of the ruck. Then the ball comes out to him and he picks it up. It's quick; almost instantaneous but he should have retreated behind the back foot on his own side before continuing. Penalty Australia.

[/tuppence worth]

JustinDee

A more senior intl former-ref here said, when shown the clip, unequivocally 'not through the gate' and repeated that sometimes its not quite so easy to spot given the scramble around the contact area.