Did playing at the Mandella Stadium! ! !

First topic message reminder :

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?

Which I suspect is because POB refuses to actually take any action.

Biltong.
Again your wrong, Put it this way,Jonathan Kaplin would have allowed the try,because he is a far more competent referee.

aucklandlaurie wrote: 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?

No, it is the right question. Was the ball passed forward in the act of scoring a try ? Just answer it, it's not hard. I seem to remember some NZ "fans" complaining and still going on about it when Wayne Barnes missed a forward pass against NZ nearly 4 years ago. Now the same ones are complaining that a forward pass was given.

It WAS a forward pass, right decision however it was decided. It didn't affect the outcome of the game. New Zealand lost. Get over it.

You are wrong nottins. As highlighted by the IRB today:

"They made a call they were not entitled to make. If that means referees miss a knock-on or something else in the leadup to a try, then that's the way it is. This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision," O'Brien said."

""They will be told there should not be any breach of protocol as there was on this occasion."

Wrong decision. The try was a valid one. Whether or not the pass was actually forward is open for debate. The only person who thought it was forward was the TMO - and he was a local south african with an agenda, who encouraged the referee to cheat.

Nottins
Nowhere have have I said the ball wasnt passed forward,What you dont understand is that the referee erred ,for in legal terms "want of jurisdiction"

aucklandlaurie wrote: 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?

I refer you to law 6.A.4 (a) which states...

The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply
fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.


It does not mention IRB protocols in relation to the remit of the TMO. Did Clancy step out of agreed IRB protocols? Arguable, as there is no clear definition of what constitutes 'in the act of scoring'.

Did he apply the laws of rugby fairly, in particular law 12.1 (a) which states...

Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of
infringement.


The answer is yes he did.

The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

I'm assuming you mis-read that as "The referee must make up the Laws of the Game as he sees fit".

The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match

I'm assuming you mis-read that as "A local south african man can also be the judge of fact during the match if he thinks a try to a visiting team should be disallowed".

The referee did not see a knock on, or a forward pass. He didn't even ask about one. What we had some was dodgy local south african, drafted in at the last minute under suspicious circumstances petitioning the referee to disallow the try based on "facts" that he is not allowed to relay.

How Clancy still has a job, I have no idea.

How so-called rugby fans can attempt to validate his clearly illegal actions, I have no idea.

ldc pete
so what you're telling us is that the TMO has no authority in the game at all,that makes it worse....

GG, we are well aware that you have 'no idea' mate, no need to put it in black and white.

TheGreyGhost wrote:The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

I'm assuming you mis-read that as "The referee must make up the Laws of the Game as he sees fit".

The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match

I'm assuming you mis-read that as "A local south african man can also be the judge of fact during the match if he thinks a try to a visiting team should be disallowed".

The referee did not see a knock on, or a forward pass. He didn't even ask about one. What we had some was dodgy local south african, drafted in at the last minute under suspicious circumstances petitioning the referee to disallow the try based on "facts" that he is not allowed to relay.

How Clancy still has a job, I have no idea.

How so-called rugby fans can attempt to validate his clearly illegal actions, I have no idea.

So laughable it's untrue.

You STILL bang on about Barnes missing THAT forward pass, but as soon as a decision goes against NZ it's alright for the referee not to see a forward pass.

TheGreyGhost wrote: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.

So, the TMO made a "good call" in disallowing the England try, therefore TMO must also be congratulaed for making a "good call" when a forward pass was made in the act of scoring a try.

Nottins
Small correction, Clancy never saw the pass.........

aucklandlaurie wrote:Nottins
Small correction, Clancy never saw the pass.........

Small correction, "forward pass"

GG and aucklandlaurie

rather than hijacking this thread any further talking about Clancy and 1 decision shall we keep it to the other thread about Clancy?

LDC Pete
thats a better idea its nearly midnight here,i cant keep up...

One thing this game did show was just how powerful the SA forwards can be when the right players are picked.

Odd that even without Smit's apparent legendary leadership on the fireld they put in their best effort for a long time, absolutely hammered the AB's at every tackle and as the game went on crushed them in the scrums.

Bakkies, Bismark, Broussow and Matfield all had massive game.

I don't see how Smit can regain his place now, infact I wouldn't even be subbing him unless there was a problem. Funny to see Bismark's reaction to the substitution too!

Did the very good crowd help? Maybe but i think either way SA were out to prove a point.

Problem is that once Lambie went off they seemed to completely lose all attacking instints, they need some better strike runners and the centres are going to need to be changed Fourie was very good but he needs a new 12 to help him out. Steyn kicked well but one day you're going to need those tries.

Brilliant forward effort.
Backs defended well after the first 30.
Still need to figure out the attack.

yappysnap wrote:Odd that even without Smit's apparent legendary leadership on the fireld they put in their best effort for a long time, absolutely hammered the AB's at every tackle and as the game went on crushed them in the scrums.

I don't recall scrum crushing going on. The Boks were more solid than usual, but remember this was not a top AB scrum, and they largely held their own against the most powerful unit SA can muster.

I think there is another way to settle this non try issue.

I will make it my personal goal in life, to petition the end result of the match.

I will request that the IRB contract some software engineers, to recalculate and reprogram the match, give us a realistic forcast of how the game could have been impacted. and then send this to the sporting ombudsman to make a ruling.

I will have the record books rewritten to whatever decision they abide by.

And just to make sure there weren't any injustices in previous matches, i will have them checked and recalculated.

Biltong! No! We've moved this discussion to the dedicated Clancy thread so as not to clutter this other thread, which is to do with the unfair advantage of playing on a field that wasn't built straight.

SSSSSooooorrrrrrrry, been busy today and didn't know, will search immediately for it.

I think you will find Biltong that Superman flew anticlockwise to go back in time himself. A lot easier to take yourself back in time than to take the earth back in time.
Richie McCaw will demonstrate this during the rugby world cup when he steal the ball of Brussow BEFORE tackling him