Low-slung Force star hit hard by ref

[travelling_gerry]

Low-slung Force star hit hard by ref



Wayne Smith | March 03, 2009


Article from: The Australian

DAVID Pocock might be developing into one of the giants of the game but his Western Force coach John Mitchell believes the young flanker is being penalised for being built so close to the ground.

The Force might have scored its first victory in eastern Australia at the expense of the Brumbies on Saturday night, but Pocock came off second best in his duel with incumbent Wallabies Test openside breakaway George Smith.

That was largely due to Smith's uncanny play at the breakdown, but Mitchell also believes it was because referee Matt Goddard didn't allow Pocock to compete at the tackle.

"We were a little concerned at the way referees are judging Pocock," Mitchell said. "He's not as tall as a Richie McCaw. But he has the ability through his body shape to have a wide stance over the ball."

Trouble is that when Pocock takes up such a low stance, referees often mistakenly believe he has gone off his feet and penalise him accordingly.

It is an understandable mistake given that it hardly seems possible for Pocock to bring so much to bear while bent so low, but then he is extraordinarily strong, holding the Force club record for the heaviest benchpress -- 170kg.

"He is an exceptional player and he prides himself on his accuracy," Mitchell said.
"I'm concerned referees are focusing on him rather than on players acting negatively at the breakdown."

Pocock's strength was highlighted when the Brumbies were awarded a penalty try after smashing the Force scrum right on its own line on Saturday night.

Most other scrums, the Force at least did well enough to clear their own ball, but on this occasion Pocock took up a defensive position on the tryline and halfback Josh Valentine packed in his place at breakaway.

"There's a big difference between a 78kg halfback and a 103kg flanker," Mitchell said.

Mitchell and his fellow selectors boldly gambled on a highly mobile backrow of Pocock, Matt Hodgson and Richard Brown and while that might have hurt the Force at scrum time, it gave the Perth side a clear edge in mobility.

Almost certainly Mitchell would have retained the trio for Friday's clash with the Chiefs in Hamilton, but an AC joint injury to Brown has forced the Test number eight to return to Perth. The expectation is that he will miss at least two matches.

That opens the door for Tamatu Horua to return, with 50-cap veteran David Pusey flying to Sydney yesterday to reinforce the side for its two-match NZ tour.

The Chiefs have yet to win a match this season but they have secured a bonus point for finishing within seven of their opponents in all three matches -- against defending champions the Crusaders, and two of the three unbeaten sides, the Waratahs and Sharks.

"They're a very good side," Mitchell said. "They're pretty miserly in defence and they have some of the best game-breakers in the business in their backline."




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html

[Burgs]

A pretty good point fom Mitch I reckon, there were a few there that I didn't know why he was pinged and by the look on his face Bam knew he wasn't at fault.

Also goes a long way to explaining the scrum situation.
I hadn't noticed the #7-#9 swap, though I know they do it a lot.
If you add that to Holmes just coming on and packing down on one leg it makes a lot more sense. As much as our learned friends in the east would like to think our scrum isn't that bad. Average maybe but not terrible. It makes the try scrum even more meritorious by the Force in holding and popping rather than being on rollerskates and falling apart.

[force addict]

That opens the door for Tamatu Horua to return, with 50-cap veteran David Pusey flying to Sydney yesterday to reinforce the side for its two-match NZ tour.

its Tamaiti Horua, wayne. get the names right !

[TOCC]

A pretty good point fom Mitch I reckon, there were a few there that I didn't know why he was pinged and by the look on his face Bam knew he wasn't at fault.

Also goes a long way to explaining the scrum situation.
I hadn't noticed the #7-#9 swap, though I know they do it a lot.
If you add that to Holmes just coming on and packing down on one leg it makes a lot more sense. As much as our learned friends in the east would like to think our scrum isn't that bad. Average maybe but not terrible. It makes the try scrum even more meritorious by the Force in holding and popping rather than being on rollerskates and falling apart.

actually it is quite a terrible scrum, even before holmes went off the force scrum was getting shoved back.. Which is really only made worse by the fact that it was by the Brumbies, who have a pretty average scrum anyway.

[Happy]

Without quoting anyone directly (just in case some one reads this outside TWF ) Mitch has very good reason to have politley said what he did in that article!!

There were some interesting discussions with two of the three "important" people on the field at the Casino later on that night

Most eye brow raising indeed!

[Burgs]

Holmes came ON and almost immediately injured his leg just prior to that sequence of scrums.

[mudskipper]

"He is an exceptional player and he prides himself on his accuracy," Mitchell said.

"I'm concerned referees are focusing on him rather than on players acting negatively at the breakdown."

What a crock of it… Just to set the record straight as I have just watched the replay Pocock was in the last (3) scrum set which a penalty try was given. So that’s just crap Mitch. Secondly scrum half Josh Valentine was nearly crushed when packing down as the blindside flanker in the second scrum as he clearly has not developed that skill…

Pocock was all over the ground on many occasions playing the ball and got away with it. Additional many of browns tackles were illegal grabbing the player around the neck a swinging them over his body…also lucky not the get a yellow card…

Mitch is talking absolute crap here, I don’t buy any of it and neither will the referees….He is succeeding in making Pocock a target for the Refs.... well done JM...

[Thequeerone]

Without quoting anyone directly (just in case some one reads this outside TWF ) Mitch has very good reason to have politley said what he did in that article!!

There were some interesting discussions with two of the three "important" people on the field at the Casino later on that night

Most eye brow raising indeed!

This aspect of Pococks game needs to be understood rapidly - really pleased that Mitch and Mulvers are raising this so publicly. Bam Bam is an awesome player and doesn't deserve to be pinged cause he is fit enough to hold his weight a lot lower then most people.

Love the way the Coaches are behind our players even at that hour in the morning - congrats to a certain young lady for keeping someone pinned down long enough for them to get their point across.

[Jehna]

He's also pretty short....lower centre of gravity...closer to the ground in general...

I wish people wouldn't discriminate against those that are short...

[Ecky]

'tis an interesting observation.

I reffed him Uni v Paly in the famous game at Crystal Palace last year and pinged him for not staying on his feet. In viewing the DVD of the game afterwards, I am satisfied that, at that time, he was supporting his bodyweight on his hands and, therefore, is not supporting his weight with his feet = free kick.

I did, however, also ping him for "tackler not releasing" at one point and, upon review, I was wrong.

There. I said it. Gloat away.

[goony]

I wish people wouldn't discriminate against those that are short...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jehna]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quiet you. It comes in handy as you well know...

Ok that sounded wrong.

[goony]

you said it....

[zimeric]

'tis an interesting observation.

I reffed him Uni v Paly in the famous game at Crystal Palace last year and pinged him for not staying on his feet. In viewing the DVD of the game afterwards, I am satisfied that, at that time, he was supporting his bodyweight on his hands and, therefore, is not supporting his weight with his feet = free kick.

I did, however, also ping him for "tackler not releasing" at one point and, upon review, I was wrong.

There. I said it. Gloat away.

Ive read/reread the law on this and it clearly states that the player entering to retrieve the ball should be on their feet and not have any other part of their body supported by the the ground or other players... if this is the case and as you have rightly indicated then just about EVERY Ruck that has formed this year shouldve been blown for player off their feet.. Its common knowledge that players lean over and rest their knees on the tackled player or other bodies on the ground and quite often have one hand supporting themselves while "retrieving" the ball.. more often its simply going through the motions in order to force a free kick.

so how really should refs be interpreting this.. ?

[GIGS20]

Ive read/reread the law on this and it clearly states that the player entering to retrieve the ball should be on their feet and not have any other part of their body supported by the the ground or other players... if this is the case and as you have rightly indicated then just about EVERY Ruck that has formed this year shouldve been blown for player off their feet.. Its common knowledge that players lean over and rest their knees on the tackled player or other bodies on the ground and quite often have one hand supporting themselves while "retrieving" the ball.. more often its simply going through the motions in order to force a free kick.

so how really should refs be interpreting this.. ?

Yeah, my point was well illustrated later in the match, when one of the Brumbies breakdowns was clearly shown , I can't remember who it was supporting their weight on one hand while grasping for the ball with the other......I was annoyed at the lack of consistency, If Goddard was going to interpret the rule that way....fine, but the pendulum has to swing both ways.

I'll post a name sometime in the future after I get a chance to review the footage..pretty sure it was a second rower.

There were several occasions where decisions went that way, Hodgson and Pocock on the recieving end of most of it