The Mythical Gate.

I have just finished watching the Sharks v Highlanders match, which was interesting to say least, and not for their defensive prowess.

The Gate. This mythical beast we hear about all the time, which is used to keep the ruck a fair place to rest your hands, is - in my opinion - non-existant.
i have a link to the game - bit.ly/1n9OyxY - tell me if you do not see the blatant in the side to protect an isolated runner @ 1:35:40 right in front of the ref.

I do not recall one in the side being called, and there were more blatant ones from the sharks, and not one called.

The big question is: Do we have to worry about the gate anymore?

as it seems fine that any player can come in willy nilly to protect an isolated player.

Thanks for listening folks, i just got a bit pissed off with the one sided breakdown calls, heavily in favour of the sharks, and the blatant diregard for the gate at such an important phase of the match, where there was one point in it get to the next final.

I think you are right.

Definitely the prop (18) joined the Ruck from the side and should have been penalized in my humble opinion.

As I understand it - the gate is formed by the last feet of the ball carrying team

A
B C

Where A is the ball carrier B and C are referred to as Pillar and Post. the outside feet of both B and C form the mythical Gate and anyone joining the ruck must do so by entering said gate. And remaining on their feet when they do so.

Of course I could be wrong and I defer to our on staff referees who are much better qualified to answer.

yeah, i know. I just fond that it is called so inconsistently. Where they enter at 90 degrees to the gate is what gets me. I get a little bit of leeway, but not that much!

Interesting observation that.

From my own watching of televised matches, it seems that Sir is way more lenient on the arriving player from the team in possession than the other side. In law this should not be the case, but in reality, especially on the telly, it seems so.

Were it me, I would err on the side of leniency where (a) the arriving player is at least heading towards their attacking goal line (as opposed to the side line) and (b) the arriving player does not stop an opposition player from getting to the pill (ie no material effect).

Where is it blatantly 'in from the side' to get an oppo player away from being near the ball, then I'd be blowing my whistle.

But then I seem to be a technical prick, right Billygoat? :biggrin:

Whenever Steve[hates a beer]Walsh is involved in a game it becomes a lottery and a totally set of different interpretations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westies man

Whenever Steve[hates a beer]Walsh is involved in a game it becomes a lottery and a totally set of different interpretations.

---

Walsh likes to penalise people going past the ruck though when clearing out no matter how little affect it has. e.g Penalty against Pek against the Brumbies. I have noticed him penalise that in other games too.

You'd have thought that teams analyse the ref as well as the opposition, to see what the ref in their next game is more/less leniant on. It's not a guarantee that their match will be reffed similarly, though, if the ref is particularly inconsistent.

yes there were a couple of horribly wrong infringements - three sharks on defence go straight over and off their feet - penalty to the sharks for holding or something... I watched the repaly and still couldn't figure out how the boys lieing on the wrong side of the ruck won a penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palitu

The Gate. This mythical beast we hear about all the time, which is used to keep the ruck a fair place to rest your hands, is - in my opinion - non-existant.
i have a link to the game - bit.ly/1n9OyxY - tell me if you do not see the blatant in the side to protect an isolated runner @ 1:35:40 right in front of the ref.

The big question is: Do we have to worry about the gate anymore?

as it seems fine that any player can come in willy nilly to protect an isolated player.

---

Palitu, haven't been on here much lately (I'm still somewhat surprised at lack of commentary on Perth comp compared to past seasons), but was glad to see this thread, where unlike the Perth comp comments, it felt like there was some good rugby conversation / observation without obvious partisanship amongst other things...

Watched the clip you mentioned and concur with the illegal entry and that a PK should have been forthcoming. However I wanted to add food for thought from a recent trip to Sydney and my observations on the ARU /NSW philosophy compared to WA - please note again this is not a justification of the non-decision in the Sharks game - I think this should have been a PK.

One of the phrases that is heard more and more now is 'PK relevance', whereby we are all aware that with so many laws, multiple PKs could be found at every TRM and other phases of place. Refs are now being assessed on the basis of whether the PK offence had relevance / material effect / impact on the outcome. Refs can actually be 'marked down' if it is felt they are becoming too technical (and what sideline spectator doesn't want every technical PK that goes their way !)

Therefore we may very well see more and more 'technical' PK offences go unpunished, however in the main (not foregoing refs getting it wrong on occasion) I'd suggest this is the IRB / SANZAR / ARU philosophy of encouraging the competition / contest / overall product, allowing teams to decide an outcome not the ref...

Interested in your thoughts on this 'philosophy'...

Sprog, said philosophy would seem to have been implemented for quite some time with the bullshit that the AllBlacks tend to get away with at the breakdown.....unfortunately, when the law is interpreted under such a loose interpretation and players are allowed to have virtually complete control of the outcome, then the law becomes irrelevant, why even have it? Bring back stomping? Sure why not? The only thing I can see resulting from this is an increase in the ability for New Zealand teams to interpret the breakdown as a balls to the wall fight for the ball where everything is possible, right up until the other team has the temerity to try it and then bitch and complain until the ref penalizes them. I can't say I'm in favour of that!

If the law is written one way, and interpreted one way, it should be applied consistently to every circumstance regardless of the impact on the match (that's what the advantage law is intended to accomplish) since the referee is 'the sole judge of law' and is given quite an amount of freedoms to interpret the law as he sees fit, surely that isn't going to be too hard to achieve.....all I want is some consistency!

Sprog,

Yes i agree with you, this is especially relevant with players leaving there feet at the breakdown (securing own ball), if there is no one there to snaffle, what does it matter. And i am all for that, otherwise rugby will become a sport like basketball where the whistle is blown all the time.