Question for Moolaa and Cloudy . . .

You were among the posters claiming that Bismarck tackled Dan Carter from an offside position. There may well have been others who also made that claim and they are also welcome to reply to my question, but I specifically remember the two of you claiming Bismarck was offside.

Have you chaps had a chance to look at the replays since then? Are you still claiming Bismarck was offside . . . because I haven't seen a post from either of you admitting you screwed this one up.

If you still think Bismarck was offside then please answer me this . . . it was a 22m drop out, there was no tackle and no Springbok player touched the ball . . . so where was the offside line in this instance? Hmmm? Do you actually understand the laws of the game or do you just bleat "offside" in the hope that other people are as ignorant as you?

Please either answer the question or at least have the common courtesy to admit your blunder and (in Moolaa's case) retract all your self-righteous drivel. Thanks!

Oh I see, so it wasn't a blunder, it was an . . . ummmm . . . incorrect observation? Oh well, that changes everything then, doesn't it?

Not sure which part of my post above you'd consider to be "hysterical" but call it what you will, there were some Kiwis (perhaps not you so much . . . I see subsequent posts where you admitted it was "legit") who insisted the yellow card was justified because Bismarck was apparently "offside". Those are the posters I am addressing.

Now I see you saying that Bismarck may have been within 10m of an opponent who was waiting for the ball? Well, first off, there's no distance anyone has to be from anyone else at a 22m drop out and even if there was such a law, it was Dan Carter taking the 22m drop out so it would have been a Springbok waiting for the ball. Not so?

For Petes sake man, do you understand English?

My beef is with those ignorant and one-eyed Kiwi supporters who justified the first yellow card because Bismarck was "offside" according to them but now - after the dust has settled and everyone with even the slightest understanding of the laws of the game now concedes there was no offside - they have not been back to admit they stuffed up.

Got it now?

I'm not bleating about the decision, I just want the loud-mouthed AB finger-pointers (and yes, Moolaa was the most vociferous of them) to concede that they were wrong and that Bismarck was in fact onside.

Oh and if you're claiming that the entire stadium of 48 000 Kiwis agreed with you that it was offside then I'd suggest you lot read up on the laws . . . especially the definition of offside in rugby.

"And yes he can be offside if he is on top of Carter waiting for that ball....that is an infringement."

Really? Do you know how offsides works in rugby?

Go on then, use your imagination and explain to me how someone can possibly be offside when their team is receiving a 22m drop-out, no-one from your team touches the ball and the possession goes back to the opposition team who took the drop-out. Like I said, use your imagination. I'm fascinated to know how this is possible.

By the way, nowhere did I ask you or anyone to apologise or say sorry. Asking someone to admit their mistake is not the same as demanding an apology.

 Personally I dont give a toss if he was onside or offside ,thats the refs call .Tell you what you get all the loud mouthed saffas who continue to bleat about the ABS somehow being responsible for a French refs decision [ Now if  he wasnt being im partial wouldnt he be hammering the ABS given our history vis a vis the French ? ] to apologise and I will apologise for bismark being a dumb animal and not being smart enough to not use his elbow on Messams throat . There you go !Hey Cloudy ! dont see why you should apologise to anyone for a French refs decision .

Uh-oh, here we go again!

Once again, I'm not asking anyone to apologise. I'm asking those posters who justified the yellow card because they thought Bismarck was offside to admit they were wrong.

Dont worry, you chaps don't have to be sorry about it and you don't have to apologise to anyone. Let's just get some closure on this and all agree that the issue of Bismarck being offside was never a factor.

By way of example, this was a quote from moolaa after the game: "And you couldn't be more off side than the thug Bismarck was so after that deliberate blindsiding of Dan, I hope he gets banned for plenty of weeks."

Now I am confused. Please explain how that quote of mine contradicts anything I said on this thread?

If your commentator is so clueless about the laws that he called that offsides then he should be apologising to his TV audience. I was listening to to Matthew Pearce and Bob Skinstad so he doesn't owe me squat . . . but I bet he's feeling a right dick since he saw the replays and I bet he was man enough to admit he got it wrong!

So, no offside scenario from you? Can we assume this is you grudgingly admitting that you don't really understand the offside law in rugby? Yes?

 Crybaby Hypocrite Rooinek, aka Rooipoes wants an apology. 

Say sorry to me or I will tell my Daddy. Booo hooo, Booo hooo.

I thought exactly the same thing when I was reading this, Sasuke.

I'm not talking about whether I agree with the writer or not, but for TwatBok to try and pass this off as the view of the "Australian Media" is nothing short of pathetic. It's deceitful and indignant "supporters" like TwatBok who embarrass South Africans and give us a reputation for being crybabies and liars.

You chumps celebrated his yellow card … as unjust as it was … the crowd boo’d him, showing their fear of the physical and their ignorance on what was a legit tackle  … and then you roared with approval when he was red carded … unjustly I might add … but when it was shown that his yellow card and subsequent red was unfair, none of you came back aboard to say the simplest little thing like “my mistake” … “you saffas had the right to bitch” … instead you harped on about how we’re bad losers … always bitching when beaten.  

You didn’t beat us … the ref did … and you celebrated him …    

That’s the frigin point. Surely it’s not that difficult to grasp?

If you had beaten us we would have congratulated you and your team on the win. Maybe not Beano but I know I would have and many others on this board would have too.  

A little slow on the uptake, hey Wart … catch a wake up, man.

You guys favour winning for winning sake … how the victory comes matters not.

You have no integrity.

 What a load of tosh ! From a country that would do anything to beat the ABS thats a bit on the nose CC!I rarely have seen anything approaching a straight up well done from Bok fans when they lose ,a few do not many .Even then most of those qualify it with a " but if the ref ... or so and so cheated ....blah blah .Look at beanhead he actualy thinks you won by 20 points in Dunedin last year .

Dont talk to me about integrity ,if our boys lose I allways just congratulate the other team and leave it at that .Ask any of the Kiwis here who know me .And they are virtualy all pretty much the same .

And your horse [ that you rode in on ]

warped dud you are sounding very sanctimonious. Given how many tests you guys burgle via biased refs you would be churlish not to congratulate the winning opposition  side. your oppoenents hasveto be at east 20 points better to beat the wee abs and ref. Bwahahhahaha

Now rooitwit could you please treat my lady friend Cloudy with respect. Cloudy take no notice of rooitwit he simply doesnt know how to behave decently.He is most un South African in this regard!!!

Rooi, you can still be off side in general play! When Carter kicked off from the 22m line and the ball was claimed by an AB, the ball becomes the line to measure where the off side line is.

As Bismarck was dawdling back he was in an off side position and could not legally move towards Carter until he had played himself on side. He seized his chance to blindside Carter and although the hit itself was legal, the fact that he was miles off side gave him a distinct advantage.

I've got no sympathy for him or any SA supporter who thinks what he did was OK.......If you want to hurt someone then you take the risk of the ref thinking it was worse than it was and dishing out a severe penalty. I'm sure if he had hit him a tad lower then he'd have still been on the field at the end of the game.

Then of course the brainless Bismarck showed why he is a true thug by elbowing Messam in the neck.....as if we needed any further proof with his history!

You are offside if you are in front of YOUR OWN player who kicks or knocks the ball forward. Not because you are ahead of the opposition who play the ball.

Love the ruling by the IRB, not only is it legal, its perfect ! 

Read the rule book First Five.....you haven't a clue regarding the off side rule.

And Blobbok, the IRB only cleared Bismarck of the high shot, not the fact he was off side.

Moola

I don't need to read it. I know the rule and so does everyone else. Well.... almost everyone.

Anyway, for your benefit, here it is, straight from the rule book:

DEFINITIONS
At the start of a game all players are onside. As the match progresses players
may find themselves in an offside position. Such players are then liable to be
penalised until they become onside again.
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is
carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable
to be penalised if they take part in the game.
In general play, a player can be put onside either by an action of a team-mate or
by an action of an opponent. However, the offside player cannot be put onside if
the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails
to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.

Oviously taught by the best in the business     https://twitter.com/NelioDeSa/status/379594267666448384/photo/1 

So what is the difference Mr Kiwi?

Moolaa, you are embarrassing yourself. Please either read up on the laws yourself (the fact that you think it's a "rule book" rather than the "laws" tells me something already) or else get someone to explain it to you and then when you're done, wipe all the egg off your face, admit your mistake and take back all your vitriolic nonsense about Bismarck.

If it saves you time, here's a hint . . . the poster First Five (who you ridiculed) actually understand the laws a lot better than you do.

Off you go now . . .

Rooinek if you really want to win this argument, you need to get the BBC wide angled view! I thought Bismarck was confused and thought he was the ABs first five and that he was going to join the ABs backline attack!

 On the contrary Rooi, read the last 7 lines of  First Five's quote from the "laws". Proves you can be off side in general play......take some English lessons or give the "rule book" to someone who understands it. That applies to you too First Five.

 and Rooi and First Five while you are looking at the Rule Book, also look at the picture below - That is called "Eye Gouging" that too is against the rules/laws/spirit of the game!

The difference between ignorance and stupidity . . .

Ignorance is not knowing the laws pertaining to offside in rugby.

Stupidity is not knowing the laws pertaining to offside in rugby but still lecturing other people on the laws without bothering to actually look it up yourself.

In rugby, you can only be offside if you are in front of a team-mate who has the ball or in front of a team-mate who has just played the ball. In this incident, no Springbok player touched the ball between the time of Carter's 22m drop out and Bismarcks tackle and therefore, no Springbok player could possibly be offside.

Moolaa, keep squeaking and squawking if you must, but know that your rugby cred on this board has plummeted and you now rank alongside the likes of Baboon-ou and Smallcock.

Hakwa, rugby does not have rules. Rugby has laws.

If you agree that Bismarck tackled Carter from an offside position (and dont feel alone if you do . . . according to Cloudy, 48 000 Aucklanders agreed with you) then consider your rugby cred similarly downgraded.

If you want to start a thread about Bismarck's eye-gouging then please go ahead and start one. This thread isn't about that. This thread is only about whether Bismarck tackled Carter from an offside position or not. Okay?

 I have looked up the "law" and you are hopelessly wrong here Rooi. I don't know how I could make it plainer but you continue to ignore the obvious. Bismarck is not allowed to move towards the ball until he plays himself on side which clearly he didn't. End of story but no doubt you'll come back with some more witticism/abuse/drivel etc to try and score a point.

 sure Rooi, if he had done that in isolation we wouldn't be continuing this conversation now Rooi would we? BUT we all know he did not stop there! It is only fair that we look at ALL his misdemeaners in context! To assume that your previous acts do not influence a ref in ANY Test is naive! You are not that naive are you Rooi?

"Bismarck is not allowed to move towards the ball until he plays himself on side which clearly he didn't. End of story but no doubt you'll come back with some more witticism/abuse/drivel etc to try and score a point."

Please man, either put up something substantial or else stop wasting my time. First Five and I have both quoted the relevant law while all you do is bleat about Bismarck having to play himself into an onside position or some such garbage. No Springbok player touched the ball therefore Bismarck was never in an offside position and never had to play himself onside.

You're not going change my understanding of the laws of rugby by simple repetition or by saying stupid and unsubstantiated things like "end of story". At the very least, tell me who you think Bismarck was offside in relation to. Which Springbok player would Bismarck have had to retreat behind before he was onside again? Hmmm?

 Rooi, go ask a competent referee on the subject. According to your "rule book" a player can just hang around anywhere on the field and be on side. Perhaps he should've just waited down by the goal line for the ABs to pass it to him then?

Your point is that he can't be off side because no SA player had touched the ball. That is so wrong it's not funny.

Ever heard of lazy running? You should have as the Boks are past masters at it.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!

I tried to be patient and polite but now I'm just laughing at you, Moolaa!

You're too stupid to understand one of the most basic and fundamental laws of rugby and you're too cowardly to answer the actual question I asked. Enough! Your'e a confirmed idiot and a coward. I have nothing more to say to you.

"Ever heard of lazy running?" Pffffffffffffffffhahahahahahahahahaha!

Moolala, I understand & I'll get Beano to draw you some pictures .

C'mon Moola you know you're wrong you just refuse to admit it and you try and divert attention and change the subject.

Hard to believe, but yes, a player can hang around anywhere on the field in open play while the opposition has the ball. Even by the goal line as per your example. I've seen many a junior referee get this wrong too. That's all provided the player was never offside in the first place.

That all ends once his own team touches the ball, and of course, and as soon as there is a ruck or maul or a break in play for a scrum, line out, penalty etc.

if you are adamant we are wrong then you quote the law which proves Bismarck was offside to start with.

He's going to say "lazy running" as if that proves anything.

Good luck getting Moolaa to admit he's wrong on this one. I was looking at some other threads and this idiot has invested quite heavily in this fantasy that Bismarck was offside.

He talks about how a competent referee would set me straight on the offside laws but I wonder how he explains the fact that Poitre didn't call Bismarck offside at the time and not a single referee - competent or otherwise - has even mentioned Bismarck being offside at any stage?

Like I said, good luck getting the pig-headed and obstinate fool to concede anything. He's decided he's right and that's the end of it.

 There are 3 ways an off side player can be put on side by an action of the opposing team:

1. Opponent runs 5 metres with the ball

2. Kicks or passes (which is what happened in Bismarck's case)

3. Opponent touches ball intentionally but does not catch it.

Because Bismarck never technically made an effort to get back  in the first place then Law 11.9 Loitering comes into play.

"A player who remains in an off side position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game and is penalised. THE REFEREE MAKES SURE THAT THE LOITERER DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM BEING PUT ON SIDE BY THE OPPOSING TEAM'S ACTION.

I highlighted that bit for obvious reasons. Bismarck benefited from not getting back quick enough and seized his opportunity to blindside Carter and put him out for 6 weeks!

That's why I've got little sympathy for him even though his actual hit was legal.

 Okes, why are you arguing your point with these pig headed kiwi's now? You know they change the rules or make them up to suit themselves. Im reading a bunch of nobodies here talking about the offside law but why is it that not 1 of Jeff Wilson, Ian Jones, Bob Skinstad, Grant Nisbet, Justin Marshall or TJ say it was offside after the review?

The offside mark from a 22m drop out is determined by the first player that touches the ball. In this case, that was Woodcock. He flicks it to Smith who throws a floated pass into midfiled intended for Carter. By the time Smith has the ball, Bizzy has read the player and sees and opportunity to either intercept or snuff the attack out with a tackle on Carter, isolate him and gain possesion or a penalty. The result of this should have been a penalty to SA as Bizzy was on his feet and Carter held on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObE3x79QVs8

Have a look at the clip and freeze it on 0:02...Now keep in mind that at this point, Bizzy was at full speed. Something that would take a Hooker at least 4 or 5 steps to achieve. Draw an imaginery offside line from Smith directly across the field. You will see Bizzy is in line with Smith. Bear in mind he does not have to be in line with Smith, he just needed to start his run from behind/in line with Woodcock. Considering Woodcock is only 2 steps infront of Smith and Bizzy is at full speed which would take more than 2 steps, it has to be assumed that Bizzy was well within his rights to make the hit and offside is a non issue. I am sure if we had a camera angle we would all see this.

Kiwi's on this board just need to fess up and admit that Bismarck was only guilty of reading the game like a champ and making a hit not even seen in League! Come on guys, is it not enough that you celebrate a hollow victory with such pride, now you trying to tell us the rulings were justified. That is a bigger laugh than someone telling you that NZL will beat you fair and square..Never gona happen!

@Moola. You are clearly still very emotional because it was Dan Carter who you have lost. It is my impression that the whole uproar is because it is Dan Carter. Now, at this point, let me remind you of an incident where Brad Thorn caused an injury to John Smit which took him out if play for months. The irony is that there was not as much as a penalty against Thorn, but that is water under the bridge. Let's get to this game.

You are clearly pissed off that all of us have been vindicated and that Bismarck was cleared of any wrong doing as far as his tackle on Carter goes. Let me also add, at this stage, that I am one of probably very few who think that, on the whole, Bismarck got of lightly in this game. The IRB did not go through with the disciplinary hearing against him, to compensate for the wrong send off. It is my honest opinion that, had he not been suspended after the Carter incident, he could well have been cited for the elbow charge, and as I mentioned elsewhere John Smit  (again, LOL) got a suspension for a similar elbow charge in 2005.

Thing is that I think that the Carter tackles should now be put to rest. The off-side issue is jumping on a bandwagon because of what a commentator said. If you look at the law book then Bismarck could not have been off-side in that situation, if I understand it correct of course. If I am wrong, then help me out as to where I am wrong. And I am not trying to be sarcastic about it.

First look at the definition of off-side in general play:

Law 11 Offside and Onside in General Play

DEFINITIONS
At the start of a game all players are onside. As the match progresses players
may find themselves in an offside position. Such players are then liable to be
penalised until they become onside again.
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is
carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable
to be penalised if they take part in the game.
In general play, a player can be put onside either by an action of a team-mate or
by an action of an opponent. However, the offside player cannot be put onside if
the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails
to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.

Bismarck could not have been off-side as per this definition, because none of his team mates were playing the ball. The All Blacks were playing the ball.

The next possible offside situation in the lawbook is law 11.4:

11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to
be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which
is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may
land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the
kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an
opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

This one does not apply either, because the ball was kicked by the All Blacks and then played by the All Blacks.

Next Offside situation is law 11.6. Accidental offside. This is out as well.

The next one is not applicable either. 11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON

The next possible instance of an offside is law 11.8.

11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL,
SCRUM OR LINEOUT
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as
required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the
applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s
team mates can put the offside player onside.
If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing
team. There are two such actions:
Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres,
the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent
passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put
the offside player onside.
Opponent kicks. When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside.

There was no line-out, ruck or maul at all. It was broken play from a 22m drop-out, so this law was not applicable either.

All in all, Bismarck has done nothing wrong in the tackle on Daniel Carter. It was an unfortunate injury. Period.

Malicious intent? Not really, just wanted to set the record straight . . . and if you believe that anything Moolaa has said on this entire thread is "educational" then it's clear you still don't get it. Moolaa is still bleating about how a player can be played onside again but that's not applicable here because no-one was ever offside who needed to be played onside again.

Oh and if the ref was so painfully ignorant of the laws of the game he's paid to know and implement, that he thought Bismarck was offside, why didn't he say Bismarck was offside at the time? Hmmm? He said Bismarck went high and he said he went in with no arms (both subsequently found to be wrong) but he never once said anything about offside. No-one did . . . other than Moolaa, you and a few other Kiwi armchair "experts".

It's not a difficult law to understand and we've quoted it ad nauseum here. You're offside if you're in front of a team-mate playing the ball or a team-mate who was the last to play the ball. That's it. That's the law. Pretty simple.

 "The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. (WE ALL KNOW BISMARCK DID NOT RETIRE BEHIND THE APPLICABLE OFFSIDE LINE THEREFORE HE WAS LOITERING) No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s team mates can put the offside player onside.
If the player remains offside, the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing
team. There are two such actions:
Opponent runs 5 metres with ball (DID ANYONE SEE CARTER OR AARON SMITH RUN 5METRES WITH THE BALL??? NO! THEREFORE BISMARCK IS STILL OFFSIDE) When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. An offside player is NOT put onside when an opponent passes the ball.(HEAR THAT? BISMARCK IS STILL OFFSIDE) Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put the offside player onside." (HELLO?)

Ceradyne you put this up and STILL YOU DO NOT SEE IT????????

Wehe, and here's hakwa joining the ranks of the impossibly pig-headed and ignorant!

hakwa, every single thing you say in your post is with regards to an offside player being played onside again. None of that is relevant because Bismarck was never offside.

I'm honestly amazed how many of you New Zealanders are ignorant of the offside law in rugby!

Rooi, what does the "Applicable offside line" mean to you?

Geez guys, read the laws of the flippin game.

@Hakwa. Loitering????????????

11.9 LOITERING
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing
team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The
referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing
team’s action.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line

To remain in an offside position, you have to be offside to start off with. In addition, loitering comes into play from a set piece like a line-out, scrum, ruck or maul. This was a 22m drop-out. The Springboks did not have to retire to get onside. This was not a normal kick downfield. The only players who can be offside from a kick-off or a 22m drop-out as the team mates of the kicker, who all have to be behind the kicker. There in no way that there could be any question of loitering or a five metre retiring for any reason.

Go read revisit the heading of this particular law and tell me how it is applicable to this situation. This is the heading: 11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL,
SCRUM OR LINEOUT

Was there a ruck,maul, scrum or a line-out? No. there wasn't, hence my argumengt that he was not offside under this law either. As I have said.... If I am mistaken, please point me to where I am mistaken.

@Cloudy. I am not trying to be funny or sarcastic by saying this, but you mentioned on another thread that something was correct because the commentator said so. If there is one thing that is dangerous, then it is to listen to the commentators' impression of the laws. Justin Marshall is one of a handfull who knows what he is talking about. You have said in that post, though, that it was not Marshall who made the remark. Sadly none of the SA commentators really have a clue about the laws. The fact is that even if he was offside, it is debateable wether it would have warranted a yellow card, and I am not saying this because I am an SA supporter. That is my honest opinion. Just as I honestly believe that ,overall, Bismarck was lucky to have escaped further sanction because of the elbow charge, and that was just because the IRB was in a tight spot due to the blunder with the first yellow card.

"Rooi, what does the "Applicable offside line" mean to you?"

The "applicable offside line" is the imaginary offside line that applies whenever one team is in possession of the ball.

In this particular case, the All Blacks had possession so the only "applicable offside line" was in relation to the last All Black who handled the ball. No Springbok player could possibly have been offside between the time that Carter kicked the 22m drop out and Bismarck's perfectly legitimate tackle.

Have I answered your question?