@booboo

Law 12.8(d):
“If the kicker's team is not behind the ball when it is kicked, a free-kick is awarded to the opposing team at the centre of the half-way line.”

@Bones said in Springboks v Italy II:

@OomPB jumping into the tackle and obstruction.

A case of rejecting reality, to substitute your own Bones. The Copium is real.

Law 9.26
In open play, any player may lift or support a player from the same team. Players who support or lift a teammate must lower the player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team.

@PN said in Springboks v Italy II:

@booboo

Law 12.8(d):
“If the kicker's team is not behind the ball when it is kicked, a free-kick is awarded to the opposing team at the centre of the half-way line.”

View embedded content

So the ref cocked up and it should have been a free kick at least?

I'm pretty sure the drafting of the Law assumes the transgression is unintentional.

Will have to check out Laws around intentional transgression of the Laws.

A bit of waffle in the preamble to the Law book:

SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and
within the spirit of the laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

@booboo welcome to professionalism.

Rassie is innovative and seeks any advantage within the laws. It isn’t what I call within the spirit of the game. But that is a throwback to the amateur era.

Winning is all that counts now. Any which way.

Under Law 9 Foul Play

UNFAIR PLAY
7. A player must not:
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game

@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:

@booboo welcome to professionalism.

Rassie is innovative and seeks any advantage within the laws. It isn’t what I call within the spirit of the game. But that is a throwback to the amateur era.

Winning is all that counts now. Any which way.

See above.

He got away with that one through a reffing error.

@booboo sanction at a kick off is a scrum to the opposition. Rassie will have done his homework.

It isn’t a penalty or a FK. Look how fast the SA props arrived for the scrum. They knew.

The ball must reach the 10-metre line.
Sanction:The non-kicking team has the option of the kick being retaken or a scrum.

But 12.5 applies as it's the first offence?

When the ball is kicked:

a. Team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball.
Sanction:Scrum.

@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:

@booboo sanction at a kick off is a scrum to the opposition. Rassie will have done his homework.

It isn’t a penalty or a FK. Look how fast the SA props arrived for the scrum. They knew.

If the ruling under 12.5(a) was correct I'd agree.

But because they deliberately infringed 9.7(a) should apply.

UNFAIR PLAY
7. A player must not:
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from
the playing area.
c. Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed an infringement.
Sanction: Penalty

Agree about the FK though: I was quoting @PN but am not sure where he got his law from(12.8(d) is quick throw)? Is that maybe a SVNS variant?

A smart coach would point the cynicism of the play to whoever runs the refs, to WR, and go on record in the media to pressure refs to see it their way in future. Even if you weren't involved in the game

@canefan said in Springboks v Italy II:

A smart coach would point the cynicism of the play to whoever runs the refs, to WR, and go on record in the media to pressure refs to see it their way in future. Even if you weren't involved in the game

I suspect (hope) there'll be clarification at WR level.

@booboo said in Springboks v Italy II:

@canefan said in Springboks v Italy II:

A smart coach would point the cynicism of the play to whoever runs the refs, to WR, and go on record in the media to pressure refs to see it their way in future. Even if you weren't involved in the game

I suspect (hope) there'll be clarification at WR level.

At least they didn't try that shit on us

@PN said in Springboks v Italy II:

The Copium is real.

Lace bugs are real? No way!

Glad I got at least one bite, surprised anyone was sensitive enough to take that rancid bait seriously.

By the way, might wanna check the ABs v France score, I didn't suffer a loss

@booboo said in Springboks v Italy II:

But because they deliberately infringed 9.7(a) should apply.

That was exactly my thoughts, same deal as intentional knock on. Except quite a bit worse as it's so deliberate and obviously cooked up by the coach with the whole team involved.

Gives Rassie something to cry about when they do it next time and get penalised.

@Bones said in Springboks v Italy II:

Gives Rassie something to cry about when they do it next time and get penalised.

Exactly that thought occurred.

As I mentioned above, rulings and interpretations are constantly being reviewed and clarified.

I fully expected the appropriate branches of the WR bureaucracy to clarify the fuck out of that one.

@Snowy I assume they were.absolutely dealing to thier scrum, otherwise I can't see why.

Maybe Rassie thinks it is a.dumb rule and thought let's highlight it so WR change it now we used it....

@taniwharugby said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Snowy I assume they were.absolutely dealing to thier scrum, otherwise I can't see why.

Maybe Rassie thinks it is a.dumb rule and thought let's highlight it so WR change it now we used it....

No doubt they believed their own press, but they clearly don’t watch enough rugby to know that even a dominant scrum is no guarantee of possession.

@taniwharugby said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Snowy I assume they were.absolutely dealing to thier scrum, otherwise I can't see why.

Maybe Rassie thinks it is a.dumb rule and thought let's highlight it so WR change it now we used it....

It was the match kick off! Didn't see the game last week, so assumed they must have been absolutely annihilating the Italian scrum in that game.

It was pretty funny when you looked back at how pumped the players and Comms were, only to go nowhere and concede a FK.

The way they were carrying on you would've thought the Italian scrum was going to turn to dust.

Rassie coaching staff include an international ref. Paul Roos u19B coach surely would ticked all the boxes before trying it.

@OomPB surely.

@OomPB said in Springboks v Italy II:

Rassie coaching staff include an international ref. Paul Roos u19B coach surely would ticked all the boxes before trying it.

I know the South African translation of the WR Law consists solely and entirely of "Whatever Rassie says". But if you can find the clause in the law book that nullifies Law 9 FOUL PLAY, UNFAIR PLAY 7. A player must not a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game I'd be appreciative.

BTW have no issue with the "lineout" move. Just seems a little unnecessary to me.

@booboo said in Springboks v Italy II:

BTW have no issue with the "lineout" move. Just seems a little unnecessary to me.

Yeah I was just talking shit on that one, no issue, bloody good for a laugh though.

Rassie just showing the world how "innovative" he is. A GENIUS I am told.

I am not sure why the All Blacks are bothering planning to pick a team for the games against the Springboks in September. Rassie is such a bold and innovative GENIUS that he is certain to win.

What a very clever Rassie that Rassie man is!

@booboo said in Springboks v Italy II:

BTW have no issue with the "lineout" move. Just seems a little unnecessary to me.

I think the element of surprise was the biggest facror here. Plus it adds to the legend of Rassie the innovator even though it sounds like it was done by a school team

@booboo You cant blame us. We suffered for a very long time under coaches. The fact that Rassie and his coaches are prepared to scan u19C schools games for new ideas are remarkable. Luckily in South Africa all our main schools sport are covered by Super Schools, from u14A-u19H teams.

Imagine the collective meltdown amongst New Zealanders if Rassie decided to take a B-side over during the Rugby Championship. Ultimate fuckery, striking while the iron is hot.

@Mr-Fish said in Springboks v Italy II:

Imagine the collective meltdown amongst New Zealanders if Rassie decided to take a B-side over during the Rugby Championship. Ultimate fuckery, striking while the iron is hot.

It’s only New Zealand….

Looks like both moves are soon to be outlawed after discussion with URC head of referees:

@PN said in Springboks v Italy II:

Looks like both moves are soon to be outlawed after discussion with URC head of referees:

View embedded content

The stupid thing was, the South African player was well off side when they kicked-off and forced a scrum. It should have been a penalty on halfway for Italy.

@Canes4life said in Springboks v Italy II:

@PN said in Springboks v Italy II:

Looks like both moves are soon to be outlawed after discussion with URC head of referees:

View embedded content

The stupid thing was, the South African player was well off side when they kicked-off and forced a scrum. It should have been a penalty on halfway for Italy.

Yeah that's pretty much what all the referees have said on review. The thing is though, the kicker will just kick the ball out on the full to get the same result, and that will be much harder to police whether intentional or not. Even then, with a perceived scrum advantage, is it that big of a deal? Just give the team the option of starting the game with an opponent scrum feed on the 50, or standard kickoff. (Variation in our game is good, I reckon)

The lifting pod in general play had more of a chance of becoming mainstream if untouched with how effective it is.

Will be interesting if we see either move again before the wording is amended.