FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Richie McCaw

Richie McCaw

Started by hakwa6 REPLIES226 VIEWS· 27 Oct 2012, 00:57
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
HA
hakwaPro4,146 posts
27 Oct 2012, 00:57
#1
27 Oct 2012, 00:57#1

 

Was Rugby better for Ruck Justice  

Mark Reason

The voice of reason

4 days ago

It may be a Neanderthal thought, but perhaps the answer is to bring back good old-fashioned rucking. The question, of course, is what to do about players who are persistently offside.

Back in the day, when Richie McCaw was only getting on the wrong side of his cot, players used to punish offside opponents with a vigorous dose of rucking. Gareth Edwards said you always came out of a game against the All Blacks completely black and blue, but it was fair and well deserved.

But since rucking was banned, players have turned to a far more brutal form of ‘vigilante justice’. In recent weeks both Dean Greyling and Scott Higginbotham have taken it upon themselves to object physically to McCaw’s methods. Unfortunately these two instances show just how out of touch the games authorities are in dealing with the whole issue.

Greyling’s forearm smash to the side of McCaw’s head constituted assault. He should have been sent off at the time, but neither ref nor touch judge were strict enough. You could excuse Alain Rolland his leniency. The last time he sent someone off for foul play it cost him the World Cup final.

But what on earth was the citing officer doing in the case of Greyling. Paul Tully said the South African prop’s action had the potential to cause serious injury. He then handed down a one match suspension. Murder would presumably warrant a month off games.

A couple of weeks later Scott Higginbotham takes it upon himself to sort out McCaw, who had just entered a ruck from somewhere near South Australia. Higginbotham let his knee flick McCaw on the way past. There followed a scuffle. Higginbotham, now on the ground, aimed a head butt so soft that it could only be called a Sydney kiss. There was no intent to harm.

Yet Higginbotham, who had a previously exemplary disciplinary record, received a two match ban. Jannie Lubbe, the citing officer who previously exonerated Quade Cooper for a scuffle with McCaw,recognised that there was no intent to harm. Yet Higginbotham still received double the ban of Greyling.

The world is about face. It seems the worse the offence on McCaw, the more lenient the sanction. In the final of the World Cup McCaw was eye gouged, but the IRB swept the incident under the carpet. They didn’t want the scandal. No action was taken about an incident that shamed rugby. Better to pretend it didn’t happen.

10 months later Meyer assaulted McCaw. His coach apologised to the All Blacks captain and called his actions unacceptable. Captain Jean de Villiers was appalled and said his team would never condone playing dirty. Yet Greyling received a one match ban. It’s a joke and not a very funny one.

So when Higginbotham roughed McCaw, coach Steve Hansen called it another cheap shot and pointed out that his captain was subjected to them every week. McCaw said: “It does get frustrating at times and annoying, but there’s not much I can do about it.”

There’s actually quite a lot Richie could do about it, like staying onside, but world class openside flankers don’t think like that. They push the law past breaking point. That’s why rucking was a good solution. Any stud near the head was an automatic sending off offence, but the rest was fair game.

At the moment the game is anything but fair. The psychos are getting away with murder and the likes of Higginbotham are receiving rough justice.

If the IRB won’t go back to rucking, at least appoint a few more ex internationals – as they do in cricket – to the disciplinary panel. At least that way we might get some understanding of the difference between gratuitous violence and onfield vigilantism.

Hakwa

I don't think dirty play in any form is acceptable - if it can cause boduily harm to a player.   I saw on the Re-Union programme the other night (they showed about 6 ases where similar things happened to McCaw) )  that players take the law into their own hands when it comes to McCaw - because the referees do not penalize him for illegal play.   The question was - what was he doing in the position he was in when he was recipient of some really rough stuff?   In all cases he was stopping balls illegally from coming out of mauls and obstrutingthe flow of th game..

I do not think that the referees are really dealing with the issue correctly and they should be far stricter on off-side and obstructive play and 90% of the problems will be solved.  I still believe the first time it happens during a match  in a maul situation-(where most brawls originate)  the player should be warned after a penalty was given - the second time is an automatic yellow card and if the player concerned does it a third time - an automatic red card.

If other players then do the same tricks after the first warning was given  - they should also get yellow-carded.    That would ensure that there are some rule of law on the field of play.    I do not believe that a side should be penalized for the same kind of offence 11 times - like happened in Soweto for the same kind of offence - without cards being issued.   As from next yer the TV referee should be used to determine whether a card is justified or not.

Players like McCaw and Read would virually be assured of 40 minutes game time a match - since they are perennial offenders.   They always seems toi be where they should not be legally.  

A strict application of the laws would solve 90% of the problems on the field - but would leave players like McCaw others who are also regular in questionable play at a serious disadvantage.   They would be in retirement sooner than they think as no team can afford to keep on playing with 14 players on the field on a virtual continuous basis. 

It is easy for opposition players and Teams to target McCaw. Heck we can even blame him for inflation and unemployment in those countries but we ALL know players and Teams target McCaw because:

1. They want refs to be unfairly biased towards him before the 2015 RWC - case in point Joubert and his linesman were RIGHT THERE when Higginbottom head butted Richie! Joubert was even crouching down to witness the event but because Joubert was labelled an ABs friendly ref, he wanted to shed the tag. Your theory that the opposition players target McCaw because the refs don't pick up his supposed indiscretions is laughable - the Wallabies had ALREADY WON a penalty before Higginbottom decided to knee and then headbutt McCaw.

2. Opposition players and Teams are TOO LAZY to learn the rules - case in point Greyling! Does he even know how to read????

3. The opposition players are simply not fast or good enough!

4. The ABs are gentlemen and scholars of the game.

Hakwa

Please read my comments - based largely on whay was said on the Re-Union progamme carefully.   I was merely referring to the seven instances shown on the programme where McCaw got bad treatment because he was on the wrong side of the mauls doing irregular things.

I do not justify anything where the players are taking the law into their own hands - that applies to any player on the field.  If they target McCaw for that type of treatment - then they must be punished - as were the cases of the assault on McCaw by both  Higginsbottom and Greyling.   In any event the punishment of Greyling by SA will be worse than would be the case of Higginsbottom.   The latter is likely to play for Australia again - Greykling would never play for SA in any test again.

McCaw is sometimes  looking for trouble himself and then the opposing teams get really frustrated.   That often leads to trouble .  I agree whole-heartedly that all players must learn the rules of the game- but that applies to McCaw as well.   If the All Blacks knows the rules and are real scholars - why the large number of penalties awarded against them?  I think the breaking of the rules are really par tof their psychological approach to the game - based on the premise that if they can get away with breaches - then good luck to them.   And yes - they are fairly successful in that - there are at least  success rate of 50% for them in that case. The TV monitor would have more of an impact on the All Blacks than on any other team,

I agree with most of the things stated by you - have only noted things like spear tackles and other unacceptable forms of play are rare in the case of the All Blacks and have never seen them really bad in issues like head-buttting and fisticuffs - but playing according to the law - the All Blacks beat virtually everyone on earth in not applying that in earnest.

I've been on the 'bring back rucking bandwagon' for years. Would def suit us SH teams when we head north.

This season i have noticed the almost cynical way the AB forwards have played and more to the point infringed and i am almost convinced that they are performing some sort of percentage rugby experiment.

Look at it this way: You have a backline that can score alot of points, your D is right up there, your the best side in the world at regaining possession from the kick off.... Why not push, play to the edge of the laws, frustrate the opposition pack, If a penalty is awarded, they will most likely go for 3 which there is no guarantee of any way and leads straight back to halfway and an opportunity to get the ball back (which the AB's are the best at). If no penalty then you might force the turnover ( legally but more likely otherwise) frustrating the opposition further and possibly causing a cardable 'reaction' (His greatness Sir Richie is good at this).  You can have a ton of penalty’s before the ref warns you so it works, thing is with the AB's is they don't even stop there cause they know the ref will only goto the pocket as a last resort and back themselves with a man down anyhow, at which point they tighten their game.

What do you fellas reckon? Cause i'm pretty sure i'm not imagining it and the same pack hasn't always played this way. It brilliant in a way it exploits the shambles of a rule book we have at present very well and gives the AB backs more time in possession in the oppositions half.

However bringing  back rucking would stop all this and speed the game up! However studs would need to be inspected  before kick off…. Those Bokkee boys would be the first to sharpen those bastards lol.

 

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news