Tuesday Jul 28, 2015 Brilliant Richie McCaw lineout move first done vs Springboks by Samoa in 2013

Brilliant Richie McCaw lineout move first done vs Springboks by Samoa in 2013
26
Comments

Richie McCaw’s winning try against the Springboks on Saturday was hailed as a moment of genius, while some have called it illegal, and it has had a fair bit of scrutiny this week. Technically legal or not, it was very well created, but it’s not the first time we’ve seen it.

Two years back Samoa did the exact same thing against the Springboks, also resulting in a try. It’s almost a carbon copy of McCaw’s, and equally effective. But who is to blame defensively? You can work that out for yourself, as you can watch both tries together below.

The Springboks beat Samoa convincingly in 2013, but McCaw’s try on Saturday proved vital and there will have been plenty of headscratching in the South African camp.

Interestingly, the legendary All Black skipper said that it was a move they practiced during the week, and while it was going to go to number nine originally, as with the Samoa try, he pulled rank and said he’ll step up and take it on.

“I had to pull rank,” McCaw jokingly told reporters. “When we practiced the move during the week there was a debate as to whether I or a half-back would execute it. I am pretty relieved that it worked out.”

New Zealand won 27-20. You can view post match interviews and the full match replay here

EXTRA: The match against Samoa in 2013 is the same one in which Alesana Tuilagi was red carded for almost taking Jean De Villiers’s head off. You can watch that here.

26 Comments

  •  larry
    larry

    He moved within 2 meters just before the ball was thrown. He's 2 1/2 meters away, before that, and scoots up as the thrower has the ball at the back of his head. Clearly, looking at when the ball was thrown, the lineout jumper is already in the air.

    Reply
  •  larry
    larry

    I disagree. I've watched the end of the Ireland match several times, and at least twice the ball was forward on passes. Regarding what went on forty years ago, I think it's relevant in that it set the tone for what happened in the ensuing years. Just the face that Haden was quite willing to dive out of the lineout says plenty about "the end justifies the means" mentality, that it's do whatever to win a match, even if it isn't sportsmanlike. JPR Williams scored that try, and didn't double play it off the ground, several years earlier. Heck, go back to 1967 against England, a knock on wasn't called, leading to one of New Zealand's first tries in that match on that fall tour. Finally, just look at that 2011 WC final against France. Lots of calls seemed to go against France.

    Reply
  •  larry
    larry

    You have it right. And check where McCaw is at 16 seconds. The problem is actually with the law itself regarding the receiver. The older laws about this were much better, in my opinion. Either McCaw is playing scrum half or he isn't, and he is in the lineout or he isn't. Now, with the law as it stands, it seems a player can be both at the same time, and yes, I'd agree that trying to figure out exactly where a player is standing at a given time is tough to tell for a referee.

    Reply
  •  larry
    larry

    Bring up 2007 and I'll bring up 2011. France got hosed in the final!

    Reply
  •  larry
    larry

    I read it correctly. The jumper went up too early, check at 16 seconds versus 17-18 seconds. McCaw was 2 1/2 meters away from the lineout. And that's easy to check at 16 seconds too, as he's basically standing right where that stripe, parallel to the touch line, goes out from the five meter stripe. That stripe is also five meters long, and see where he's standing. He's basically half way between the lineout and the end of that stripe. He should have been standing closer. He wasn't.

    Reply
  •  larry
    larry

    Look at where McCaw is standing at 16 seconds on the video. Ironically there's a stripe that's five meters long extending parallel to the touch line from the five meter (sorry, metre) line, and McCaw is standing exactly 2 1/2 meters away from the lineout. Then there's the early jump. Clearly early, before the throw was made. At 17 seconds the ball is just leaving the thrower's hands. I can read Law 19 too. I have a law book in the next room, and it's a 2015 version! Perhaps your "interpretation" is different from mine. There's plenty wrong with referees who let too much "go" in international matches, for the sake of what, continuity? More scoring? I saw the Canada-Japan match a few weeks ago in San Jose, Ca. Japan blatantly ran dummy runners ahead of backline moves, and the dummy runners ran into and across the defenders. They didn't hold up in their runs so as not to obstruct. No calls were made. Canada didn't use that ruse. Now I don't know if it would have made any difference to the final score, but right off the bat, with a ref not bothering to call obstruction, Japan weren't going to stop running obstructing dummies. I actually took a photo from the stands, up some fifteen row in the upper deck, and "caught" a Japanese player running right into a defender as the ball is passed along the line some five meters behind. NO call. Baseball in America is on the verge of having a computerized way of calling balls and strikes at the plate. Now, I know that video refs are only going to be used for controversial tries in rugby, but there's a reason that baseball will, eventually, because it's already been done in a minor league game near San Francisco this last week, to have a computer tell the home plate umpire if there's been a ball or strike thrown by the pitcher. Here's the reason: too many "interpretations" by umpires of the strike zone, though it's completely obvious in the rule book where a strike is!

    Reply
  •  rugbydump
    rugbydump

    PEBCAK, quite possibly :)

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    User error, most likely. ;)

    Reply
  •  pipo
    pipo

    Great move. I enjoy mauls too; just different moves, can't really say which one is more entertaining.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Oh come on, you didn't remove my comment did you?!? It was all in jest... I'm hoping RD hasn't gone peacekeeping mad and that it was some inner workings of the interweb that didn't post the comment...

    Reply
  •  kadova
    kadova

    Thanks alot, PD, for your link. Pictures speak more clearly than text. So Richie McCaw was at the right place. @calvdog: the ABs were not poisoned in 2012, half of the English population had the virus that same week. But it's true that the first thing that popped out of my mind when I learned the ABs were sick (again) was "Suzie!", lol.

    Reply
  •  calvdog
    calvdog

    I like most right thinking people don't like the AB. However, to accuse them of getting the rub of the green is unfair. Actually, one of the only things I like about the AB is the fact that when thy get beaten they don't bleat about it, no matter how much they want to. Note the loss to England when they had food poisoning. We should congratulate and move on.

    Reply
  •  benny
    benny

    I forgot to mention, after BdP, in front of the kicker, takes Read high, he also doesn't release and plays the ball on the ground. Four illegal movements in about four seconds.

    Reply
  •  benny
    benny

    There are dozens of infringements the ref misses in every game and inconsistent rulings. As long they are appx even by the end of the game or the end of the season, no one can really complain. Even within that game - Whitelock was binned for an infringement in the 22 with no prior warning while the Boks were penalised three times in one period of play but never even spoken to by the ref. Another example, before BdP took Read out in the air, he had never attempted to retire and was miles offside. That led immediately to a try to the Boks. To suggest the refs are using two sets of laws for NZ and the opposition is insane.

    Reply
  •  oldflyhalf
    oldflyhalf

    "McCaw as the receiver was nearer than 2 meters from his team mates." - I suppose you measured the distance with rangefinder. :)

    Reply
  •  roadpig
    roadpig

    Disagree with you, Nico. I would recommend you read the IRB Rules again, and have a look at the considered analysis, and accompanying diagrams, here: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19009-NZ-v-SA/page7 - at all times, up until the ball leaves the hand of the hooker, Richie was on-side. Great try.

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    Top quality post Mr Breakaway.

    Reply
  •  docrugby
    docrugby

    Really Larry?So how does your theory fit in with the All Blacks losing the 2007 quarter final to France with diabolical refereeing by Barnes and the other WC failures by NZ?It doesn't...because it's all in your head.The fact is sometimes the bounce goes the All Blacks way and sometimes it doesn't...the reality is it goes in the All Blacks favour more than most because they are better at the game more often than not...have a look at 100 years of stats and see how that fits in with your confirmation bias...hell it can't possibly be through skill,planning and execution could it?Face the facts Larry, however inconveniently they fit into your bias.The All Blacks win more often than not because they are better more often than not.

    Reply
  • Agreed but really that all seems kinda like getting a speeding ticket for driving 10 km over the speed limit. Technically illegal but never called, especially the jumper

    Reply
  • 2 years apart? Lil harsh don't u think?

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    Larry, I think you're reading the law incorrectly.

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    Brilliantly put Nico. The Samoan one clearly looks a lot more legit than the NZ one.

    Reply
  •  larry
    larry

    And I wouldn't be surprised if some other international side tries the same exact thing against the All Blacks, and a whistle blows, and New Zealand is awarded with a free kick.

    Reply
  •  larry
    larry

    The referee let two infractions go by without blowing the whistle. McCaw was never part of the lineout, running into it after the ball was thrown in, and running from a spot on the pitch more than 2 meters away from the lineout. A New Zealand forward was lifted before the ball was thrown in as well as a dummy. There's supposed to be one interpretation of the laws of the game, not multiple interpretations. If someone in a lineout jumps early, or runs into a lineout to receive a throw in from a position more than two meters away from the lineout, it should be called, and a free kick awarded to the opposition in both cases. Two infractions with no calls. Read Law 19! It's no different from what was at least two forward passes not called in the last movement in that November 2013 Ireland v New Zealand match. I guess there's two sets of laws in Rugby Union at the International Level. One set for everyone else, and one for the All Blacks. That's been fairly obvious since JPR Williams' try was disallowed and a penalty awarded to New Zealand back in the fall of 1972, and Haden's play-act six years later against Wales.

    Reply
  •  welshosprey
    welshosprey

    Really wish teams would try more moves like these. So much more entertaining than a catch and drive and often, a lot more effective.

    Reply
  •  whiteafrican
    whiteafrican

    Brilliantly done both times. Surprising the Boks didn't learn from it.

    Reply

Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Training Videos

View All

Player Features

View All
Brilliant Richie McCaw lineout move first done vs Springboks by Samoa in 2013 | RugbyDump