Congratulations Wallabies Win Tri Nations

First topic message reminder :

Well, well, well.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/sarefs/appointments/2775364.htm

May I take this opportunity to be the first to congratulate Australia on winning the Tri-nations this year.

Tri-Nations

Australia vs New Zealand at Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane
Referee: Wayne Barnes (England)
Assistant referees: Craig Joubert (South Africa), Cobus Wessels (South Africa)
Television match official: Matt Goddard (Australia)

Lol. I think if he continues he'll be the author of his own misfortune.

{]Sigh}oh for the good old days when McCaw would have got up and lumped him,or he`d end up at the bottom of a ruck and with a herd of forwards trampling over him.
Just because it`s de riguer in league to niggle some one, it is considered not Pc in Union.
He got away with a blatant red card offence,then when cited nothing,Bakkies Botha in the same situation would have ben banned!!
If Richie had punched him in retaliation,HE would probably have been carded maybe the object of the exercise.

Well the way it has hit the headlines here I can't see him venturing to too many of our delectable maori drinking establishments for a refreshment...so to speak.

What a load of rubbish. An independent committee cleared him end of story - if there was anything in it he would have been rubbed out - there wasn;t and he wasn't. If ABs don't like a team that is prepared to stand up to them they know where to buy some dummies. McCaw is a great niggler as well, that's his job.

Each to his opinion Rob. I havnt even bothered looking at the clip since the match so I'm not fussed.

Right or wrong, he's just given himself a rough ride down these parts...

Have a look at the clip - should be on youtube - my first impression was it was accidental and that's what I normally go with and SANZAR did too.

Yep just looked at it.
Hard to say. If its not intentional its a clumsy and wreckless way of getting up. If his own son was lying there would he get up that way? perhaps not.

If its intentional then its a clumsy attempt at a good hit so benefit of the doubt was probably correct. Certainly dont agree with some hardline posters. Just looked careless

Yeah, I've seen it a few times. Looks worse each time I must admit. He could have avoided him if he wanted to. Agree with GG here - it was a cowardly act and he was very lucky to get off the charge.

Anyway, as noted above... he may well have a 'welcoming committee' next time the two teams meet and he'd best be ordering Room Service during his stay back home. Knowing him though - he'll tempt fate again...

It must be so depressing not being able to just watch a game and enjoy it as entertainment.

The best team always wins on the day. Refereeing isn't black and white, you learn at youth level to adapt to the referee, any good team should be able to adapt and manage different referees, it's an integral part of the game. If you lost a game because you were on the wrong end of refereeing decisions then that is your fault for not playing the game as well as the other team.

I'm pretty indifferent to a bit of provocation in games, as long as it's of the type to leave a bruise, rather than a persistent injury. Happens in all levels of the game and you deal with it (or not). Pretty dumb to do it on televised games with post-match citing mind.

Linebreaker wrote:Yeah, I've seen it a few times. Looks worse each time I must admit. He could have avoided him if he wanted to. Agree with GG here - it was a cowardly act and he was very lucky to get off the charge.

Anyway, as noted above... he may well have a 'welcoming committee' next time the two teams meet and he'd best be ordering Room Service during his stay back home. Knowing him though - he'll tempt fate again...

If it was a cowardly act then why was he not found to be at fault by SANZAR? I mean reading some of the posts here it appears it was so cut and dried then he should have given a red card on the spot - it happend in front of the touchie who did nothing, or if at fault, he would he would have been rubbed out later. Neither happened.

I think the refereeing here was not to blame, it was a good test match. Both teams kicked a little more than their average over the last year or so, Scrum and line outs favoured the All Blacks having stolen 2 from the Wallabies.

The Wallabies surprisingly didn't pass much at all, almost half of what they normally do, the All Blacks though surprised with their pick and drive which increased their rucks and breakdowns quite significantly.

What it did show though was that New Zealand are capable of the pick and drive and didn't have to go wide all the time. They did exactly what I am hoping SA would do, pick and drive gain territory and when in the opponent half with momentum going your way, pounce out wide.

Both their tries came in that fashion, through long periods of dominant possession. Had they done that from the start, they might have won this game.

Rob B wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:Yeah, I've seen it a few times. Looks worse each time I must admit. He could have avoided him if he wanted to. Agree with GG here - it was a cowardly act and he was very lucky to get off the charge.

Anyway, as noted above... he may well have a 'welcoming committee' next time the two teams meet and he'd best be ordering Room Service during his stay back home. Knowing him though - he'll tempt fate again...

If it was a cowardly act then why was he not found to be at fault by SANZAR? I mean reading some of the posts here it appears it was so cut and dried then he should have given a red card on the spot - it happend in front of the touchie who did nothing, or if at fault, he would he would have been rubbed out later. Neither happened.

Ro as many posters have said over the last week it is difficult to prove intent, and from that point of view the reason I think he was exonirated. Still doesn't change the incident though. Through the match it was clear on a number of occasions he was trying his best to irritate McCaw.

As I said earlier, was that Bakkies or Schalk the outcome from the judicial hearing would have been different.

biltongbek wrote:What it did show though was that New Zealand are capable of the pick and drive and didn't have to go wide all the time. They did exactly what I am hoping SA would do, pick and drive gain territory and when in the opponent half with momentum going your way, pounce out wide.

Both their tries came in that fashion, through long periods of dominant possession. Had they done that from the start, they might have won this game.

I don't think they could have done it all game Biltong, at the start the Oz defence was ferocious but they obviously tired themselves out in the process which was always the danger. I think NZ probably talked about that at half time as they came out with a clear tactic in the second half knowing there would likely be some easy metres up the guts. Once some fresh legs were brought on for Samo and Vicks the ruck area tightened up again.

leinsterbaby wrote:Fair play to cooper, apart from kneeing someone which I don't agree with, he has succeeded in getting under macaws skin and it's no surprise he was very quiet yesterday. Quite impressed with coopers passion.

I agree - just think it is sour grapes because of another loss for the ABs (2 in a row hard very hard to swallow) and Sir Richie has had his feathers ruffled and he and his fans don't like it. It is great there are some players who won't take his sh*te. These are not isolated incidents. Look carefully throughout the game - there is niggle between Cooper and McCaw in the background throughout - same at Eden Park. McCaw is no saint. With the rest of the entire pack constantly offside at the ruck line (never standing behind the feet of the last player), constantly impeding people, slowing ball down, lying in the way of the ball and holding people back, at Crusaders level forearms to the face (Franks) and even tripping people (Thorn)! - generally running interference - all of which is illegal and yes it gets under the skin of the opposition. There will be a retaliation from time to time - he has to expect it given the cynical way he and several of his forwards play. A few cheap shots here and there is inevitable - part of the game. In this case there was nothing in it IMO. He wasnt hurt or injured in any way, nor was it intentional. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Full Credit, true that the Wallaby defence was very brutal in the first 40 minutes, and that effectively shocked the All Blacks, it was a long time since I have seen Australia be that physical in the tackle and breakdown areas.

But the all Blacks only woke up in the second half, they surely didn't expect the wallabies to be that physical.

But the game didn't start well for Carter, he made some uncharateristic mistakes in the first 5 minutes when he wanted to run from deep, and was turned over. And that immediately put the all Blacks on the back foot, and the Wallaby tails up.

What should be a caution to Deans though, is to ensure they temper that aggression so that they can holg it for 80 minutes.

Rob i think youre reading mccaw wrong. In the same vain as cooper if mccaw is as bad as you keep insisting surely the powers that be over the years would have picked him up?
Or is his case different. Are in his case refs and officials blinded by his abilities and just collectively choose not to pull him up.
Ever see him hit anyone. Ever see him bad mouth anyone in the media.
Just where are these so called attrocities that officials for some reason keep missing that you think are obvious.
The only thing i see him picked up for is player of the year awards. Year. After year. After year.
In NZ hes a great role model. Goes out of the way for all sorts of causes and has never been a drunken lout like others i can think of. A la paris and things.
Where hes concerned. There have been a lot worse.

Don't get me wrong - I think he's a great player too and he is not a thug in the Bakkies mold. He does get a way with a lot - good luck to him. I don't think it is "genius" I just think he knows he can get away with a lot so he does. Why? Could be a number of factors. Being All Blacks capatain has a certain aura about it and referees are human too - they read the press; they know he is the best and is captain of the best team; Paddy O'Brien has publicly called him a freak of a player (nice independence there, Paddy....woops....). They get influenced.

One case in point 3N last year - W had multiple yellows issued to them throughout the series eg a player cynically slows play down in a ruck - second offense yellow card issued. I recall that Richie was nailed and penalised 4 times for ruck infringements. After the 4th the ref said "This is a formal warning". MCcaw must have been laughing at him.

He and some of his cohorts (eg Ali Williams; Thorn) only know the side gate not the front gate and the concept of rolling away from a tackled player is one not known to them. Not saying they are the only offenders but all you have to do is consider the number of yellos issued to ABs compared with other sides. That might just grate on other sides and if W approach is to retaliate then fair enough. He is not as bad this year as he was last year - hence this year he is not having the same influence on the game as he is used to. That's why GH is bleating to the press about consistent refereeing at the breakdown - he knows the jig is up or nearly up.

You guys should be greatful for a player like Bakkies, he makes your players look like sunday school teachers, even when they commit foul play.

Bakkies goes into a ruck , unfortunately injures Jones, and he is a thug.
He headbutts cowan and rightfully gets punished, so now he has the "thug" tag (perhaps not unwarranted.)

Brad Thorn dumps John smit, he is out of rugby for half a season, no thug tag.

Cooper knees McCaw ( accidently after a history of niggling McCaw), no worries mate, no intent.

Bakkies is a thug

All forwards should be

Here are some stats ran off the greenandgoldreugby.com site - some people there produce a lot of stats. 2010 3N in game order for the first 5 games - with penalties awarded against in brackets:

1. AB (12) v SA (5)
2. AB (8) v SA (9)
3. W(7) v SA (10)
4. AB (12) v W (9)
5. AB (11) v W (6)

ABs seems to be team penalised the most. They infringe the most - happy to take the penalty in defense - but no yellow card risk, so why not take the penalty.

Yellow Cards:

SA - 4
W - 3
AB - 1

Penalties per yellow card issued:

Sa - 6

W - 7

AB - 43

Tells a story indeed.

Rob B wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:Fair play to cooper, apart from kneeing someone which I don't agree with, he has succeeded in getting under macaws skin and it's no surprise he was very quiet yesterday. Quite impressed with coopers passion.

I agree - just think it is sour grapes because of another loss for the ABs (2 in a row hard very hard to swallow) and Sir Richie has had his feathers ruffled and he and his fans don't like it. It is great there are some players who won't take his sh*te. These are not isolated incidents. Look carefully throughout the game - there is niggle between Cooper and McCaw in the background throughout - same at Eden Park. McCaw is no saint. With the rest of the entire pack constantly offside at the ruck line (never standing behind the feet of the last player), constantly impeding people, slowing ball down, lying in the way of the ball and holding people back, at Crusaders level forearms to the face (Franks) and even tripping people (Thorn)! - generally running interference - all of which is illegal and yes it gets under the skin of the opposition. There will be a retaliation from time to time - he has to expect it given the cynical way he and several of his forwards play. A few cheap shots here and there is inevitable - part of the game. In this case there was nothing in it IMO. He wasnt hurt or injured in any way, nor was it intentional. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

When Drico was cynically injured against the ABs and out of the game for 8 months, potentially career ending, the message from NZ was "it's a mans game", "it's not tiddlywinks", "don't be a sook Brian" etc. Blah blah. In this case Cooper kneed McCaw in the head probably on purpose but did he do any damage? No he probably did him a favour cause he was asleep all game. Kiwis can give it but can't take it. Plus I'm glad cooper wasn't cited because if a kiwi did what he did they would just claim it was an accident and get off.

If the roles were reversed there is no way on earth Richie would have been rubbed out.

Pick and drive done as accurately as the kiwis did on the weekend looked all but unstoppable. Is there a standard way that teams use to counter it? Something i like about rugby is that strengthening one aspect seems to expose an alternate weakness, but that looked pretty difficult to stop unless you actively concede a penalty.

boomeranga wrote:Pick and drive done as accurately as the kiwis did on the weekend looked all but unstoppable. Is there a standard way that teams use to counter it? Something i like about rugby is that strengthening one aspect seems to expose an alternate weakness, but that looked pretty difficult to stop unless you actively concede a penalty.

Yeah you stop it by infringing, that's how the boks scored all those penalties off their "boring" game plan.

boomeranga wrote:Pick and drive done as accurately as the kiwis did on the weekend looked all but unstoppable. Is there a standard way that teams use to counter it? Something i like about rugby is that strengthening one aspect seems to expose an alternate weakness, but that looked pretty difficult to stop unless you actively concede a penalty.

Get the AB back 5 to lie all over the ball - works a treat.

I was (for once) trying to rise above my inherent cynicism.

biltongbek wrote:

boomeranga wrote:Pick and drive done as accurately as the kiwis did on the weekend looked all but unstoppable. Is there a standard way that teams use to counter it? Something i like about rugby is that strengthening one aspect seems to expose an alternate weakness, but that looked pretty difficult to stop unless you actively concede a penalty.

Yeah you stop it by infringing, that's how the boks scored all those penalties off their "boring" game plan.

Thanks

boomeranga wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

boomeranga wrote:Pick and drive done as accurately as the kiwis did on the weekend looked all but unstoppable. Is there a standard way that teams use to counter it? Something i like about rugby is that strengthening one aspect seems to expose an alternate weakness, but that looked pretty difficult to stop unless you actively concede a penalty.

Yeah you stop it by infringing, that's how the boks scored all those penalties off their "boring" game plan.

Thanks

No Problem, if you want any ther technical advice please do not hesitate to ask.





















You do take my advice with some risk attached though.

biltongbek wrote:

boomeranga wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

boomeranga wrote:Pick and drive done as accurately as the kiwis did on the weekend looked all but unstoppable. Is there a standard way that teams use to counter it? Something i like about rugby is that strengthening one aspect seems to expose an alternate weakness, but that looked pretty difficult to stop unless you actively concede a penalty.

Yeah you stop it by infringing, that's how the boks scored all those penalties off their "boring" game plan.

Thanks

No Problem, if you want any ther technical advice please do not hesitate to ask.





















You do take my advice with some risk attached though.

I bet that's what South African players think after PDV's team talk.

Thanks for that. you have now ruined a perfectly good sunny day, i keep on trying to forget about him.

You reckon he would coach Ireland? We need a better coach at the moment.

leinsterbaby wrote:You reckon he would coach Ireland? We need a better coach at the moment.

Yeah, great idea, or not!

Rob B wrote:
Penalties per yellow card issued:
Sa - 6
W - 7
AB - 43

Tells a story indeed.

Interesting Rob, do we know what the yellow cards are for each instance?
a string of same offences as you mentioned vs a bop on the head might make a difference to the stats

Rob B wrote:Here are some stats ran off the greenandgoldreugby.com site - some people there produce a lot of stats. 2010 3N in game order for the first 5 games - with penalties awarded against in brackets:

1. AB (12) v SA (5)
2. AB (8) v SA (9)
3. W(7) v SA (10)
4. AB (12) v W (9)
5. AB (11) v W (6)

ABs seems to be team penalised the most. They infringe the most - happy to take the penalty in defense - but no yellow card risk, so why not take the penalty.

Yellow Cards:

SA - 4
W - 3
AB - 1

Penalties per yellow card issued:

Sa - 6

W - 7

AB - 43

Tells a story indeed.

Only tells a story as far as wind ups go. Statistics and sports science are useful. These stats are realitively meaningless. It assumes that there is a clear corelation between the number of penalties awarded and cards. If you want to go down this road you have to really analyse a game. There's a lot more required for this to robust than just counting penalties, or even one person going through and counting "penalty offences" (which is inherently open to bias). You have to start with a objective, repeatable system, that stand up to scrutiny etc. It's not rocket science, but it is science.

Taylorman wrote:

Rob B wrote:
Penalties per yellow card issued:
Sa - 6
W - 7
AB - 43

Tells a story indeed.

Interesting Rob, do we know what the yellow cards are for each instance?
a string of same offences as you mentioned vs a bop on the head might make a difference to the stats

Taylorman, no the analysis didn't go that far. But I thought it was an interesting set of numbers.

blackcanelion wrote:Only tells a story as far as wind ups go. Statistics and sports science are useful. These stats are realitively meaningless. It assumes that there is a clear corelation between the number of penalties awarded and cards. If you want to go down this road you have to really analyse a game. There's a lot more required for this to robust than just counting penalties, or even one person going through and counting "penalty offences" (which is inherently open to bias). You have to start with a objective, repeatable system, that stand up to scrutiny etc. It's not rocket science, but it is science.

not suggesting the numbers are robust - the sample size is small and behind the cards could be tip tackles etc which maybe ABs never did.

However, given the differential involved, it suggests on its face that ABs at least last year and perhaps this year (12 against penalties in last game) are prepared to infringe more - particularly in defense - without yellow cards for repeat infringements. I mentioned 1 test last year where McCaw infringed and got penalised 4 times at the breakdown and no yellow card. I have seen yellow cards issued after 2 or 3.

Rob B wrote:

not suggesting the numbers are robust - the sample size is small and behind the cards could be tip tackles etc which maybe ABs never did.

However, given the differential involved, it suggests on its face that ABs at least last year and perhaps this year (12 against penalties in last game) are prepared to infringe more - particularly in defense - without yellow cards for repeat infringements. I mentioned 1 test last year where McCaw infringed and got penalised 4 times at the breakdown and no yellow card. I have seen yellow cards issued after 2 or 3.

Rob, there's a wide range of things the data could suggest. There are a number of lines that could be used to indicate that the AB's are in fact disadvantaged (e.g. the data ratio shows the all blacks are over penalised relative to the Wallabies and Springboks). The point is if you want to hypothesis test you need to design appropriately.

Not really convinced. Appreciate the argument, just like to see a bit more analysis.
Perhaps if all penalties were categorised against player, reason, match, point of time in the match, position on the field etc. Same with yellow cards i think we'd get a better picture.
Id be interested and so id guess would the abs.
For one its too many if thats the ratio.
Not dismissing the argument as i know theres a consensus around re this.
"Refs just dont want to yellow card nz or mccaw" is supposition gone perhaps a little too far.

I can help you guys out a little.

Through the series

All Blacks recieved 67 penalties
1 yellow card
Owen Franks for Dangerous shoulder charge.

Australia recieved 56 penalties
4 yellow cards one turned into a red.
Drew Mitchell unfairly carded for supposed dangerous tackle, replay showed unfair, then recieved another for slapping the ball out of Conrad Smith's hand and sent off.
Quade Cooper tip tackle
Faaingaa tip tackle

South Africa recieved 4 yellow cards
Danie Rossouw supposedly slapped McCaw, replay showed unfair decision.
Bakkies Botha headbutt on Cowan
BJ Botha for killing the ball
Jaque Fourie for tip tackle

As I can remember the south africans got irrate with the amount of illegal play the All Blacks got away with at the ruck.

There are three cards here that can be questioned.

BJ Botha
Drew Mitchell
Danie Rossouw.

biltong
my memory of the Drew mitchell is a little different, He slapped the ball away, and as the referee deemed it was intentional to pre vent the ABs taking a quick throwhe ruled it as cynical, and it was for that that it was promoted to a red card....

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong
my memory of the Drew mitchell is a little different, He slapped the ball away, and as the referee deemed it was intentional to pre vent the ABs taking a quick throwhe ruled it as cynical, and it was for that that it was promoted to a red card....

Wasn't he carded twice that game?

gee you might be right, or maybe i'm thinking of a different situation involving Mitchell.

Yes that is correct, he was first unfairly carded for the supposed dangerous play, and then when he recieved the card for the slap down, it became an automatic red.

I apologise Biltong. I was confusing the two separate incidents.

No worries.

Biltong
Cheers, I went back to you tube, I must say didnt craig Joubert make a decision and stand his ground...

aucklandlaurie, i don't think there is any cosnpiracies in regards to this.

Andre Watson was talkng on super rugby one evening, and he was talking about the mental approach referees took into a game. He said quite vicifirously that no referee goes into a match with the intention of favouring any team, he was talking about when he was going to officiate his first tests and was told by referees that Argentina was overly aggressive with their forwards and he should watch them for dangerous play.

Even though the intention is not there to disadvantage them, it is only human to foacus on it. In such a case you might watch one team more than the other.

That is why SA suffers at the hands of referees, the referees are watching us and not the opponent.

The perception is not intentional but it does happen, there are times in a match where I can see the All Blacks get away with repeated infringements, but it isn't going to change if we keep on doing the rough stuff.

In many cases it is a handfull of players that become the liability for their teams, because referees are watching them and not the infirngements of the opponent.

Well done Aus.

To me the turning point of the game was after NZ had scored their 2 tries, that DC decided to kick the ball out of their 22. DC's kicking and NZ's chasing had not been good most of the game. Aus had shown themselves to be extremely dangerous with the ball. NZ had shown that by rumbling it up and holding onto the ball they could create space for their centres.

DC kicked, Aus got the ball and scored soon after. Final act of scoring.

Who knows what may have eventuated if NZ had retained possession at that stage.

Full Credit wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong
my memory of the Drew mitchell is a little different, He slapped the ball away, and as the referee deemed it was intentional to pre vent the ABs taking a quick throwhe ruled it as cynical, and it was for that that it was promoted to a red card....

Wasn't he carded twice that game?

The cards Australia were issued in that game were entirely precipitated by Rocky Elsom as I remember. He spent the entire game whining at the referee in this really annoying high pitched nasal whinge. He really wound the ref up. Shortly before the Mitchell slapped the ball away Rocky was in the referees ear with "Oh jeez, can you tell them to stop chucking the ball away when we get a peeeenalty? Jeez is stoping us from taking queeek taps" to which the ref replied "I'll look at it". Rocky says over his shoulder as he walks away "You've looked at it all day. You should card them".

10 minutes later the ABs try to take a quick throw and Mitchell throws the ball away. Card.

I'm not saying this was fair. But I think Rocky learned some lessons about handling the delicate egos of referees that day.