After their loss to the All Blacks in Wellington, Springbok lock Victor Matfield said that “It seems as if they are untouchable. The refs allow them to get away with murder. … I cannot say much about the ref (Alain Rolland), because I will get into trouble. But there were a few times on attack when we struggled to play because our ball was deliberately slowed down.”
Just whingeing, or did Victor have a point? We decided to take a close look at the All Blacks’ “rules of engagement” at the breakdown.
This is my first video blog, so it’s pretty rough in places. But I think it raises some useful questions.
Questions such as:
- Is Richie McCaw a cheat or a genius?
- What part of “offside” doesn’t Owen Franks understand?
- Is Alain Rolland the plaything of Beelzebub?
You be the judge.
By Scarfman and Scott Allen on Green and Gold Rugby
What’s going on at the breakdown? Part I
It’s been about a year now since Scarfman, at Green & Gold Rugby, produced his All Blacks at the Breakdown video exposing some of the tricks the All Blacks got away with in the first match of the 2010 Tri Nations between the All Blacks and Springboks.
That video proved to be a worldwide hit and evoked plenty of comment from All Black supporters who claimed we were biased in our approach as all teams were guilty of the same breaches, and from the rest who lined up to decry the All Blacks and the referees who let them get away with their disregard for the Laws of the Game.
When I first watched the video I was quite surprised at how much illegal play was being missed by the referees at the breakdown. I went back and looked at some other games and could see plenty of examples of similar play from most teams. While the All Black fans claimed you could produce a similar video and show the Springboks and the Wallabies committing just as many breaches, I’ve never seen anyone come up with such a video.
You can revisit the original video from Scarfman here but I thought it might be interesting to have a look at the corresponding match this year and see if the referees are policing the breakdown any better than they were.
To do that I reviewed all 151 breakdowns from last weekend’s game — 80 where the ball was taken in by the All Blacks and 71 where the ball was taken in by the Springboks — to identify incidents at the breakdown that should have been penalised, whether they were or not.
Of course this is a subjective process so not everyone will agree with every decision I made in my review. While the writer is not a referee and obviously a Wallaby fan, if you’ve read some of the other articles I hope we can credit the writer with being fair. The purpose of this exercise is not to target any particular team or any particular player.
In the review I found 57 penalisable offences at the breakdown by both teams compared to the 11 breakdown penalties awarded by Alain Rolland (who also refereed the corresponding game last year that Scarfman analysed). There were plenty of other incidents which also could have warranted penalties but the decision was made not to include them as they had little impact or the indiscretions were quite minor.
As a rugby fan one wouldn’t want to see 57 penalties at the breakdown in any match as it would ruin the game, but there’s no doubt that the referees are missing far too much. We know they’ve got plenty to keep an eye on and there’s no way one could, or would want to be, a referee. Any player who’s had me as a referee in training runs will attest that I’m hopeless and let most things go. As you’ll see in the video prepared, some of the offences are blatant and occur right in front of the referee and/or the assistant referees.
Before we move on to the video, here’s a summary of the offences found when the All Blacks had possession:
| All Blacks | Springboks | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team Infringing | 28 | 6 | 34 |
| Penalties Actually Awarded Against Team Infringing | 3 (11%) | 2 (33%) | 5 (15%) |
Of the 28 offences committed by the All Blacks when they had possession, 19 (68%) were a result of a player coming from the side and not entering through the gate, although not one of those was actually penalised. Richie McCaw was responsible for 12 of the 28 offences (43%) but was penalised for only 1 of those offences. Ali Williams was second with 5 offences (18%).
A summary of the offences found when the Springboks had possession follows:
| Springboks | All Blacks | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team Infringing | 17 | 6 | 23 |
| Penalties Actually Awarded Against Team Infringing | 4 (24%) | 2 (33%) | 6 (26%) |
Of the 17 offences committed by the Springboks when they had possession, 12 (71%) were a result of a player coming from the side and not entering through the gate, although only 1 of those was actually penalised.
From those statistics it’s clear that Alain Rolland was refereeing in favour of the team that had possession and it’s clear that neither team was concerned about being penalised for coming from the side to ensure they retain the ball or to stop defending players from slowing down their rucks.
In this particular game it was the All Blacks who got away with more infringements and Richie McCaw was the chief beneficiary.
The conclusion is that not much has changed since Scarfman produced his video a year ago.
Here’s hoping we’re going to see more emphasis placed on eliminating some of these breakdown infringements in the future, particularly in the looming World Cup. But I wouldn’t bank on it.
What’s going on at the breakdown? Part II
As is said above … ‘The purpose of this exercise is not to target any particular team or any particular player.’ However, many of our Kiwi friends (and some who weren’t so friendly) didn’t believe that an Australian could prepare an analysis that wasn’t alleging cheating on the part the All Blacks, and in particular Richie McCaw.
The most common question posed was ‘Why don’t you do the same analysis of a Wallabies game to see what they’re doing?’ We said we would, and here it is — Part 2 of my analysis. Next week we’ll complete the analysis with Part 3 — Springboks v. Wallabies. That will mean we would have analysed two games for each team in the Tri-Nations.
We’ve prepared the analysis the same way as we did above: Reviewed all 180 breakdowns from the game — 83 where the ball was taken in by the All Blacks and 97 where it was taken in by the Wallabies — to identify infringements at the breakdown that should have been penalised if the Laws were applied, whether they were or not.
In the review we found 55 infringements at the breakdown by both teams, compared to the 10 breakdown penalties awarded by Craig Joubert (that’s 18 per cent of infringements). There were plenty of other incidents that could also have warranted penalties but once again we decided not to include them as they had little impact or the indiscretions were quite minor.
Interestingly the breakdown penalties last week numbered 11 from 57 infringements (19%), so it’s a fairly consistent situation.
As was said in Part 1: ‘As a rugby fan we wouldn’t want to see 57 penalties at the breakdown in any match as it would ruin the game, but there’s no doubt in the mind that the referees are missing far too much.’ The view hasn’t changed but one would like to see the breakdowns cleaned up. If that means the referee has to make it clear to the captains before the game that he won’t tolerate this level of infringements, and then back it up with additional penalties early in the game to get the message across, so be it. I believe it would lead to a better game.
Of the 55 infringements recorded this week 28 were by the All Blacks and 27 by the Wallabies.
For the Wallabies Rob Simmons was the main culprit, committing 10 infringements and conceding 0 penalties; David Pocock was the next biggest offender, infringing 3 times and conceding 3 penalties. Ben Alexander also had 3 infringements but conceded 0 penalties.
For the All Blacks the main culprit was Brad Thorn with 6 infringements and 0 penalties. Richie McCaw, Kieran Read and Owen Franks all infringed 5 times and conceded 1 penalty each.
Before moving on to the video, the following is a breakdown of the offences found in the first two games analysed. Obviously the numbers include two games for the All Blacks and only one each at this stage for the Wallabies and Springboks, so the totals are less significant than the percentages. In next week’s analysis the totals will be relevant.
In Defence
| All Blacks | Springboks | Wallabies | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team Infringements When Defending | 16 | 6 | 4 | 26 |
| Total Defensive Breakdowns | 168 | 80 | 83 | 331 |
| Infringements as a % of Breakdowns | 10% | 8% | 5% | 8% |
| Penalties Actually Awarded Against Team Infringing | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| Penalties as a % of Infringements in Defence | 38% | 33% | 50% | 38% |
All teams are infringing, with the All Blacks infringing at the most breakdowns (10%) and the Wallabies at the least (5%). The Wallabies are being penalised for the highest percentage of infringements (50%) while the Springboks have the lowest percentage of penalties against infringements (33%).
In Attack
| All Blacks | Springboks | Wallabies | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team Infringements When Attacking | 46 | 17 | 23 | 86 |
| Total Attacking Breakdowns | 163 | 71 | 97 | 331 |
| Infringements as a % of Breakdowns | 28% | 24% | 24% | 26% |
| Penalties Actually Awarded Against Team Infringing | 3 | 4 | 4 | 11 |
| Penalties as a % of Infringements in Attack | 7% | 24% | 17% | 13% |
Again, all teams are infringing, with the All Blacks infringing at the most breakdowns (28%) and the Wallabies and Springboks at 24%. The Springboks are being penalised for the highest percentage of infringements (24%) while the All Blacks have the lowest percentage of penalties against infringements (7%).
Only 8 per cent of total infringements by the attacking team and 26 per cent of total infringements by the defending team are being penalised, so the attacking team is clearly being favoured. There is no issue with the emphasis towards the attacking team but there are just far too many infringements that the referees are not acting on.
Come back next week if you’re interested to see how the analysis finishes with the inclusion of this weekend’s game between the Wallabies and Springboks.
Dankie GBS die video deel ken ek nog nie.
Ek glo vas dat daar GEEN kans is dat die All Blacks gestuit kan word in die Werelbeker as hulle nog boonop hulp van die skeidregters kry nie. Ek het laasjaar baie gekla oor ons so sleg op ons herrie gekry het by die AB’s maar later in die jaar het baie sportskrywers ook begin sien watse voordeel McCaw en sy manne toegelaat is.
Dan weer dink ek dit is “justice” as jy na 2007 se fout deur n ref kyk, n fout wat hulle uit die WB laat “crash” het. Miskien sal dit hulle weer die jaar uithaal. Maar dan weer dink ek aan n artikel n rukkie terug oor tuis voordeel en ek dink nie die Skeidsregters gaan dit maklik he in New Zealand nie.
1@ superBul:
Jy sal moet kom vir video-opleiding as en wanneer jy jou ou Notebook kom haal.
Good one SuperB. Rolland was absolutely shocking when the boks played the AB’s. I like your comparisons and it clearly shows that the AB’s infringe more and get away with it more frequently.
After the Fiji game against the AB’s the Samoans and Fijians that I know here in my valley all called McCaw the greatest cheat in world rugby. My answer too them (they normally support the AB espescially against SA and Aussie) was ‘that is what we’ve been telling all the time and then you call us whingers’.
“I’m starting with the Haka because it might be the last time the AB’s were on side”
Bwahahahahahaha
the stats don’t lie, the AB’s do cheat and get help from the Refs. Richie McCheat might go down as a legend but in my book he will go down as the biggest cheat and bad sport in the history of rugby.
@ McLook:
McLook wrote:
The world love winners, the refs are overawed by them, we will see tears again this RWC, watch my words. Somehow the powers in the IRB wont allow total AB domination. Whow that is a controversial oppinion, but i am fed up watching rugby with 2 sets of rules.
And if Richie wore a green and gold no. 6 jumper he would be praised for his vision and ability to play to the ref.
7@ Pam Anderson:
Amen!
@ Pam Anderson:
you might say if a hungry guy murders a farmer it is OK.
Rules are rules, realy that is all we want. ONE SET OF RULES apleid for both teams.
9@ superBul:
Hehehe
Nee man, Richie is nie so honger om moord te pleeg nie…. hahaha
@ grootblousmile:
jis ou GBS maar hy is n moerse kans vatter. Kyk mooi wat die kritici uitwys, hy maak sy eie reels en die Refs hang aan sy lippe.
Het jy mooi na daai uitwysings gekyk in die artikel wat ek vanmore geplaas het. Ek se laat die ouens weer toe om mekaar te bliksem, daai Hargreaves ou het uiterste dissipline getoon of was hy maar so vaal die dag. Ek sal so ou donner en goed ook.
11@ superBul:
Natuurlik is MaKou ‘n kansvatter…. maar ‘n verdomp slim ene… vir wie ons binnekort Sir Richie sal moet sê wanneer die Koningin hom met die swaard bykom op die skouers.
Kyk, ek het daai possissie gespeel… en mens MOES kanse vat en kwaai naby aan die verkeerde lyn speel, dit was deel van jou job!
Is goed gemoer ook, omdat ek kanse gevat het… en ek kan net saamstem dat hulle rucking en ‘n beheersde moerdery moet terugbring.
Ons eie Bulle heros, Thys Lourens, Burger Geldenhuys, Ruben Kruger… al die oopkant flanke van formaat, moes maar blerrie naby die onkantlyne speel jong.
grootblousmile wrote:
te slim vir sy size soos ons altyd as kinders gese het, natuurlik is hy nie net oppad na sir skap toe nie hy is al amper by saint status in die refs se oe.
Super, one set of rules apply, but some are able to play the ref a lot better.
Do you think OJ Simpson wouldve gotten off if he had a dumbass lawyer?
You use all you can to get the advantage.
I agree that rucking should be brought back, there will be no lazy defenders at the ruck.
Pam Anderson wrote:
some refs allow them to be played by these players, look dont deny it it last year there was discrepencies in our games vs the AB’s. We went trough it a few times, last weekend it was Pococks turn, he made 3 errors and was blown 3 times. Sir Richy made 9 errors blown 1 time.
Just believe our coach Peter , he said it last year, the succes of the RWC lies in New Zealand going into this WC as favorites, the organizers need the NZ publics high expectation for this event. As it is this might be a big flop.
Well, my view is you play the ref to get the best advantage.
Like lawyers play the judge and jury, players will play the ref and some do this better than others.
Fitzy was a master at this and did some ridiculous things to get a penalty, etc. Some may view it as cheating, some as gamesmanship.
I think Richie is a brilliant player and if he is able to swing the ref to see things his way, well done to him.
Maybe it is time for us to smarten upo a bit.
I still beleive we have too many players goinr heleter skelter into rucks. Watch McCaw, he always knows where the referee is, and communicates like an innocent child to him at every ruck.
17@ biltongbek:
Damn, we should have smartened up yonks ago… but unless we sharpen up now, we can kiss William Webb Ellis goodbye!
Here’s my insight on playing “illegally” or “cheating” as some would suggest…
In this regard I would like to draw an analogy with the Legal Profession.
People ALWAYS asked me, “How can you defend a murderer in court… or a rapist… or a child molester, knowing that he or she is guilty?” or “How can you act for a guy who cheated on his wife?” or “How can you defend someone who owes someone else money?”
Well, let me put it this way…. 90% of the people I defended in Courts were guilty, yet 90% of them you get off, scott free or with very limited sanction against them. In civil matters, everybody has the right to be heard and often there are more sides to a story than one realises.
The second question which then arises is, “But how is justice served, in those cases?”
The answer is actually very simple…
1. In the first place you are trained to defend somebody to the best of your ability… that is your JOB! Your job is not to make a judgement based on morality.
2. Secondly, if Lawyers did not defend people who stand accused, with vigour and testing every aspect of the State’s case, it would DEFINATELY lead to Jungle Justice in the Country (or world for that matter). The principle is simple, we would rather see 9 out of 10 guilty guys go free, than see 1 innocent guy found guilty.
3. Thirdly, doing your utmost to outsmart the State Prosecutor and the case against the accused, ABSOLUTELY FORCES the State / Prosecuting authority to do their homework, investigating properly, collecting evidence BETTER, it increases the standard of jurisprudence and it refines the Legal System and process. It makes it dynamic and fair.
These answers or justifications are rooted in the purist of principles…. and in the deepest fundamentals of our law.
Now you might ask, why the long Legal diatribe…. well I see definate similarities in the situations.
It’s indeed Richie McCaw / Henrich Brussow / David Pocock or whichever rugby player’s JOB to win the ball, to gain possession, to advance, to score points.. and ultimately to win the match.
To be able to do that, they need to push as hard as they personally can and to push the boundaries as hard as they can… it forces the opposition to prepare better, to analise better, to be fitter, to use better strategies.
In other words, it raises the quality bar in Rugby as a Sport.
Is there a solution? Of course there is!
What should happen in Rugby is simple, the Rules / Laws should be simplified, so that there are less grey areas… the referees should be trained better and be sharper to enforce the Rules / Laws better and more efficiently. Technology must be used to make scoring decisions more fair.
In stead, we whinge about players who ply their trade to the best of their abilities, to the best of what they are allowed to do or get away with, to the best of the intelligence and performance we require from them.
In future, don’t whinge about McCaw or Brussow or Pocock….. whinge about the standard of refereeing, whinge about not enough technology being used and whinge about the complicated nature of the Rules of the game and the abundance of grey areas in the game. In future, arm the players to counter-act better, like for instance bringing the old rule of controlled rucking back…
Middag Bulle, ek hoop wragtig julle wen more, ek het n’ paar punte nodig op SuperBRu ( ek is nou al so desperaat vir punte ek sal vir die Bulls skree).
Oor die McCheat storie, stem ek saam, die fout le by die skeidsregters wat “inconsistent” is, maar dan daarmee gepaard gaan die feit dat ons nie weet hoe om die referee te speel nie.
Users Online
Total 158 users including 0 member, 158 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,437,230 Page Impressions
_