Did playing at the Mandella Stadium! ! !

by majesticimperialman Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:54 am

Help the Spring Boks yeasterday in their victory over the Abs?

It as been said for along time now that Home advantage is a big thing for the home team....I do believe that the Mandella Stadium is not the home of the Spring boks though.

Or was it that the Abs only needed to win this game and the Trinations was more or less theirs?

Did the Abs(Graham Henry) become complacent when he picked the team to face the Boks?

Or did the Boks decide that they need to win this game more that any other game and just uped their performance?

What are your thoughts on this?

by krusty Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:05 am

All blacks scored the only try with a 2nd string team and had another try dis-allowed.

This was just a practice match for NZ to see which fringe players will make the cut for the world cup.

by Shifty Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:05 am

I think what helped South Africa was New Zealand putting their reserves out!

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:57 am

Lost it in the back row.

But encouraging to know that even the reserve side, with a little more time together on the combinations and little less intervention from local TMOs, the reserve ABs can push the top Springbok side. In fact, if SA stay shackled to the idea of Smit as captain, then this side may even be stronger than the side that will play the RWC.

by nottins Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:23 am

Even if the try had been awarded, it would only have made the score 18-10, so NZ would still have lost. I seem to remember plenty of people said that the TMO was right to disallow a certain try in the RWC 2007 final.

Also, it's points scored that wins matches, not number of tries scored.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:33 am

You can't make a comparison with the 2007 decision nottins - that was a TMO making a good call when a guy went into touch in the act of scoring a try.

What we're talking about here, is a local man drafted in to be the TMO at the last minute who, when given his opportunity recommends to a referee that a try is disallowed based on sequences of events prior to the actual scoring - this is simply not a provision that the TMO is allowed to make.

No one is saying it changed the result of the game. What we are saying is that Clancy has made a fundamental mistake and given the poor reputation of northern hemispehere referees in the RWC, he should be withdrawn before he makes any similar error.

NOW think about the precedent he has set. Rugby world cup final, 30 seconds on the clock, imagine your team scores the winning try and the TMO advises the referee illegally that there was a knock on 12 phases earlier, and the referee disallows the try and marches play back for a scrum...

by nottins Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:38 am

The forward pass was made in the act of scoring a try and was rightly disallowed.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:42 am

Not at all. you don't understand the rule then. The TMO over stepped the mark. In fact Paddy O'Brien has already said the decision was wrong and that action would be considered at an official review of the game with the officials involved.

I can only hope that sense prevails and vigilante Clancy is relieved of his RWC duties.

by Guest Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:48 am

'Home' advantage is very important.

Yes, it was very much a depleted NZ side, but I think serious credit needs to be given to the Boks for this win considering the mess they've been in and all the chopping and changing. That Kiwi team would still have been too good for many a national side and for the Boks to win by that margin (even at home) is impressive.

Good to see forward passes being picked up and not ignored too.

by nottins Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:53 am

So. TGG thinks forward passes are OK when NZ make them and shouldn't be pulled up for it, but it's a crime against all humanity when the side playing NZ gets away with it.

You couldn't make it up.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 12:31 pm

Not at all Nottins.

I merely wish that referees and TMOs would stick to the laws and that we didn't inevitably have controversy whenever South Africa are desperate for a win.

Drafting in a local school teacher at the last minute to be a TMO? Give me a break. What were the odds he do his best to disadvantage NZ? And then look what happens, weak willed vigilante Clancy goes all loose cannon on us and tries to ignore the rules set down for him by his boss.

With any luck O'Brien will see sense and pull him from the world cup for breaking the laws so obviously to suit the home team.

by emack2 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 12:38 pm

This stadium no renamed was Port Elizabeth is a hoodoo ground for the All Blacks.Home Advantage is usually crucial in 3Ns and Super Rugby,Home teams usually win.3Ns title wil be decided next week in Brisbane should be a cracker.Think Oz will be favourites on recent form,they did actually beat this Bokside at home.

by fa0019 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 1:17 pm

TheGreyGhost

I'm sure if it was the reverse situation you would totally stand by your opinion, yes?

Illegal play is illegal play.

What I love about your argument is how you state that the law is the law and it shouldn't be subject to opinion.. yet you are happy to let the real broken law of a clear forward pass go.

In essence you are choosing which laws you like and which laws you don't.... and what a co-incidence that your team had the ruling go against you.

So in the RWC07 QF if the TMO had notified your favourite referee that Michelak's pass was forward would you have thought it was a fair comment and that he was not interfering in play?

The fact of the matter is that referees are a) only human as the rest of us and b) given they have to marshall a match all by themselves they will miss things at time to time... all the best referees do and will continue to do so.

When you say the referee broke the laws of rugby you are making it sound like Schalk Burger fist clearing out Fitzgerald via his eye...

The fundamental law which was broken was forward passing... something that I'm afraid is often abused especially in S15 & 3N matches..... its almost like you brush that aside.

If it doesn't slow the game down for too long and potentially has an important impact on the match then the TMO was right to notify the referee of the decision. If it happens after 12 phases then so be it...thats exactly the same as assistant referees so why are the TMO not able to do the same?

Oh... because this time it was NZ who lost out.

I and all the v2 606'ers will surely remember your interesting standpoint come the RWC.... when something like this happens in a crunch game I'm sure you will pass it off, change your tune etc.... then again perhaps I'm mistaken and you are a rugby purist with a complete unbiased viewpoint who follows every law to the T.

by nottins Sun 21 Aug 2011, 1:25 pm

OK, let's give NZ the try and conversion. South Africa 18 12 New Zealand.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 2:06 pm

emack2 wrote:This stadium no renamed was Port Elizabeth is a hoodoo ground for the All Blacks.Home Advantage is usually crucial in 3Ns and Super Rugby,Home teams usually win.3Ns title wil be decided next week in Brisbane should be a cracker.Think Oz will be favourites on recent form,they did actually beat this Bokside at home.

Hoodoo ground? Are you sure you're not thinking of St George's Park or the Boet Erasmus Stadiums?
It was the first time the Springboks and the All Blacks have played at this ground... which was used for the FIFA WC. Of course the great atmosphere certainly assisted SA in the match.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 2:09 pm

So GG, the TMO was making "a good call when a guy went into touch in the act of scoring a try" in 2007 - even though the Laws do not allow him to make any call, yet the TMO made a bad call yesterday when he called a forward pass to the Ref's attention?

Both were the same 'mistake' by the TMO (who were put on the spot on each occasion by the ref) and both were good calls. Both calls were also out of the TMO's jurisdiction as already noted.

Getting a little selective again aren't 'we'?

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 2:13 pm

Ghost sorry my friend but you can't have it both ways.

Do you want ligitimate tries always, or do you want illigitimate tries because you can use bending a law to suit your way of thinking.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 2:14 pm

By the way, in the act of scoring the try he recieves a forward pass 1 meter from the line?

Where does the act of scoring a try take place?

If you say once he crosses the white wash, then the try england almost scored in the 2007 final should ahve stood, because he stepped out before he crossed the white line.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 2:22 pm

I think he's clearly stated he wants it both ways, biltong.

Congrats to your guys for breaking the pattern yesterday. They now need to maintain the rage when they arrive in NZ.

Congrats to you too mate - you have written some very decent posts in the last few weeks especially (which is not easy to do sometimes) and we know it is something close to your mind/heart... and this latest result was hard earned.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 2:29 pm

Thanks linebreaker, much appreciated.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:16 pm

A referee might think that allowing a TMO to rule in an area forbidden by the IRB is "common sense"

A referee might also think allowing crooked scrum feeds in common sense.

Or that allowing high tackles is common sense.

Or that allowing players to take quick throw ins with incorrect balls is just common sense.

Referees must be conduits for delivering the existing laws, and not graced with divine power to make their own judgements on when the rules and right and wrong.

The fact that the TMO was drafted in at the last minute and was a local man who insisted vehemently to the referee to "use common sense" all stinks to high hell. Frankly SA have been responsible for some pretty ugly smells in rugby history and I would've thought they'd prefer to keep away from controversy.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:19 pm

Any school teacher who advises anybody to use common sense is doing his job well I would have thought.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:21 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:

The fact that the TMO was drafted in at the last minute and was a local man who insisted vehemently to the referee to "use common sense" all stinks to high hell. Frankly SA have been responsible for some pretty ugly smells in rugby history and I would've thought they'd prefer to keep away from controversy.

Yes Greyghost, whatever you say.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:26 pm

Given that we've all lived with a rule which seems to defy common sense so long. I can understand the feeling that justice has been done. But frankly having a referee who spontaneously decides to make up the rules as he goes along is actually adding injustice to all the previous times when a TMO call on a replay would have benefited justice being done.

Why on earth could "common sense" not be applied when the entire world other than Wayne Barnes saw a forward pass knock NZ out of the RWC?

Make no mistake, the IRB must strip Clancy not just of his RWC place, but I would argue make a true example of him and give him a ban. He obviously knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it anyway. Is it any wonder the kids of London are rioting in the streets? if all the life's authority figures are celebrated for breaking the rules?

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:28 pm

by Guest Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:43 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Make no mistake, the IRB must strip Clancy not just of his RWC place, but I would argue make a true example of him and give him a ban. He obviously knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it anyway. Is it any wonder the kids of London are rioting in the streets? if all the life's authority figures are celebrated for breaking the rules?

This single post sums up most of what greyghost posts on here.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 6:25 pm

According to GH, he had "no option" but to rest the Crusaders players and give the other possibles a bit of run time. Fair enough... it was a brave selection for this match but it was probably more of a case of the Springboks playing low risk rugby and secure points when offered. Obviously the desperation was there too in front of the PE faithful. They just to win it and halt the poor run of form in the 3N.

by brennomac Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:13 pm

For a while since v2 started up I thought gg has become house trained - but apparently not, back to the same old broken record

by doctor_grey Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:59 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Make no mistake, the IRB must strip Clancy not just of his RWC place, but I would argue make a true example of him and give him a ban. He obviously knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it anyway. Is it any wonder the kids of London are rioting in the streets? if all the life's authority figures are celebrated for breaking the rules?

Greyghost,
I would like to request a clear explanation of how you connect an Irish referee, working a match in South Africa, with looting in England - something which is actually important and effects people's lives.

by emack2 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 8:32 pm

The Port Elizabeth venue was a Hoodoo ground,not played there in Pro Era.

by fa0019 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:07 pm

TheGreyGhost

Your comments are by far some of the funniest I have read in a long time....

'Make an example of him and give him a ban'

What for taking the advice of a fellow professional who gave the right call.... what I'm rather surprised and concerned about is the linesman... 2 metres away didn't even notify the ref of the forward pass.

If Paddy says its the wrong call then he is a fool and shouldn't really be commenting on behalf of the IRB on a match where he will have natural bias.... thats why referees cannot officiate his home team.

Have you heard what your own coach said.

'"If it was a forward pass, it shouldn't have been a try," Henry said.

"If the officials can make good decisions on the evidence they have got, why not? I know it's outside the laws of the game - they should only adjudicate over the goal line. But I haven't got a problem with it.

He wasn't being diplomatic... he knows that if it was awarded it would have been a gross error... and something the ref and his linesman should have been equally warned for.

Personally I think its all a conspiracy... the rest of the world is just plotting against NZ, the true world champions for all time. They are so good how dare anyone ask NZ to even compete for this title as it should just be a given.

This is by no means a dig at you but you obviously are feeling the weight of pressure that all NZ is feeling about the prospects of somehow again NOT winning the RWC.
If this is how your fellow countryman are reacting you guys are bang in trouble.... come SF time and you will be ready to crack.... just like you did in '99, '03 & '07.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:13 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:Make no mistake, the IRB must strip Clancy not just of his RWC place, but I would argue make a true example of him and give him a ban. He obviously knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it anyway. Is it any wonder the kids of London are rioting in the streets? if all the life's authority figures are celebrated for breaking the rules?
Greyghost,
I would like to request a clear explanation of how you connect an Irish referee, working a match in South Africa, with looting in England - something which is actually important and effects people's lives.

It's about lack of respect for authority. A growing trend in our society. We champion the individual alleged "rights" over the rule of law established to provide for all of society. There is a very important connection in that when we see authority figures, be they politicians, policemen, business leaders, or even rugby referees continually shirk the law in favour of autonomous response it actively ingrains the concept of individual freedom over consensual governorship. This is a two-way process in that the more the ideas are reinforced, the more we accept them and encourage them in return. To see a multitude of posters lauding the referee and TMO for taking matters into their own hands and carrying out a mini revolution on IRB law is galling. We agree to consensual governorship because we believe that it provides the most coherent framework for mutual success. If we start rejecting the fundamental tenants of community, then those communities will fall apart. Similarly in rugby, if we start ignoring the rules we don't like as individuals the idea of fair competition is comprised.

by nganboy Mon 22 Aug 2011, 7:03 am

I agree with GG to some extent on this one.
Clearly it was forward.
Should the TMO have done what he have done?
No - its against the rules.
Should match officials be allowed to use common sense to overrule rules as they see fit?
No.
Am I happy that we didn't get awarded the try? - Sort of yes because we didn't deserve it.
Should Clancey get fired/stood down or what ever?
No - a warning would suffice.

But clearly this rule needs to be changed. However any change you make will be fraught.
Personally I don't like the TMO.
I'd go for 4 assistant referees. two on the sides and two in the in goals. Course all sorts of problems with this.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 9:58 am

The TMO should be allowed to have a word in the referees ear whenever he sees fit, in exactly the same way that either of the other assistant referees can.

Should he be able to trawl the replays endlessly before a try/no try decision? I don't think so. We don't want the game held up by micro-analysis. Just getting the grounding decision takes long enough as it is without applying this level of scrutiny back 10 phases or whatever. Also spotting forward passes on video tape is difficult, as shown in this case when the pair actually got that call wrong too.

If technology is used to spot forward passes it needs to be specific technology which is developed and proven - not the speculation of some local school teacher drafted in at the 11th hour under suspicious circumstances.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:06 am

Was it a forward pass ? Did it affect the outcome of the game ?

by yappysnap Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:11 am

Why did the AB's throw so many forward passes in the first place?

On at least 4 occasions players like Dagg, Slade and SBW through forward passes when there was no need for it, and all of those were in promisiing positions.

I know they're trying to get every extra advantage but some of them were just silly.

by yappysnap Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:13 am

nganboy wrote:I agree with GG to some extent on this one.
Clearly it was forward.
Should the TMO have done what he have done?
No - its against the rules.
Should match officials be allowed to use common sense to overrule rules as they see fit?
No.
Am I happy that we didn't get awarded the try? - Sort of yes because we didn't deserve it.
Should Clancey get fired/stood down or what ever?
No - a warning would suffice.

But clearly this rule needs to be changed. However any change you make will be fraught.
Personally I don't like the TMO.
I'd go for 4 assistant referees. two on the sides and two in the in goals. Course all sorts of problems with this.

what's odd is that when Wales scored 'that' try against Ireland this year everyong was shoutin about how the TMO should be able to pick up acts such as that which affect a score.

Then a TMO does pick up a forward pass which was over the goal line and pretty obvious and he's lambasted for it.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:14 am

Firstly, the passes were flat or backward, the problem was that the pitch is constructed on a slight east-west skew that makes flat passes appear to go forward.

Secondly, after witnessing how many forward passes Quade Cooper was allowed to throw last week, the ABs thought it was part of some new refereeing guidelines for the RWC...the same ones trialled at the last 2007 in the quarterfinal stage by some English referees.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:19 am

forward passes has been a regular topic of conversation the past few months.

When teams lose because of it, there are complaints, when teams get called for it there are complaints.

It seems it is ok for a forward pass to be ignored and a try is scored, by the winning team, but not ok for a forward pass to be picked up 1 meter from the try line by the TMO.

Because it falls outside the scope of the TMO. Well forward passes fall inside the scope for the line man, why did he not call it.

It is all nonsense. A forward pass remains a forward pass, and if the line judge ruled it would have been acceptable (becuase he is allowed to), but not for the TMO (because he is not allowed to.)

Smacks of double standards to me. Just another reason to take the focus off what actually happened in the match.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:21 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:Firstly, the passes were flat or backward, the problem was that the pitch is constructed on a slight east-west skew that makes flat passes appear to go forward.

Secondly, after witnessing how many forward passes Quade Cooper was allowed to throw last week, the ABs thought it was part of some new refereeing guidelines for the RWC...the same ones trialled at the last 2007 in the quarterfinal stage by some English referees.

Perhaps a forward pass is exagirated when a team plays from east to west. The rotation of the earth influences the momentum of the ball, and it not the pass that goes forward but the earth going backwards.

Similar to when superman changed the rotation of the earth to go back in time to save Lois Lane. Whistle

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:27 am

Clearly, the field has been deliberately built on an angle from east to west. This makes the right-hand dominant pass more difficult and encourages the left-hand dominant pass to be too deep for advantage line play.

This effectively encourages running teams to attack one corner of the field.

As you will have noticed, the Springboks were using a new defensive system that essentially shepherded the All Blacks to the right touch line, where the left in pass was more difficult due to the aforementioned ground skew.

The Springboks were of course well aware of the field abberation and hence chose to kick the ball rather than pass it, knowing that scoring tries is almost impossible.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:37 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:Firstly, the passes were flat or backward, the problem was that the pitch is constructed on a slight east-west skew that makes flat passes appear to go forward.

Secondly, after witnessing how many forward passes Quade Cooper was allowed to throw last week, the ABs thought it was part of some new refereeing guidelines for the RWC...the same ones trialled at the last 2007 in the quarterfinal stage by some English referees.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:38 am

Biltong
There is one part of this that you seem to have overlooked.
If the referee doesnt or isnt prepared to comply/abide by the rules of the game then how can they expect the players..
Please not I am not whinging about the try not being awarded,we should have been three trie s ahead by that stage but our finishing was very poor...

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:39 am

New Zealand lost. Get over it. thumbsup

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:48 am

Yes, listen to nottins. After NZ losses, no one is allowed to make any comments whatsoever.

Even when the match referee is officially cautioned by the controlling body for blatantly ignoring the rules.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:03 am

Is Nottins some sort of boss round here?

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:04 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yes, listen to nottins. After NZ losses, no one is allowed to make any comments whatsoever.

Even when the match referee is officially cautioned by the controlling body for blatantly ignoring the rules.

The usual comments are to blame the refereee. Again and again and again and again.

Answer the question. Was it a forward pass ?

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:07 am

nottins
Wrong question.....
ask yourself did the referee have the authirity to do what he did ?
No
Why not blame the referee if he is in the wrong?

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:20 am

Boys, boys. This issue has been going around in circles.

The facts are the TMO said something he shouldn't have said.

Let's all agree on that.

The pass was forward.

Let's all agree on that.

The try was rightfully not given because it was a forward pass, and by the same token it shouldn't have been called a forward pass, because the laws do not allow that.

So let's all agree on that.

Basically the matter is then settled.

Now, let's get back to the issue, mistakes by referees lose matches. There has been numerous discussions about this in the past. The IRB has yet to find a way to erradicate these errors.

by **Pal Joey** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:22 am

Employ more school teachers as TMO/Refs/Assistant Refs... they tend to be correct more often than not. Smile

by Sponsored content