Quarter Final 3: Springboks v Wallabies

First topic message reminder :

QF 3: South Africa v Australia - Live Thread

Wellington Regional Stadium
18:00 NZ / 16:00 AEST / 06:00 GMT


South Africa:

1 Gurthro Steenkamp, 2 John Smit, 3 Jan du Plessis, 4 Danie Rossouw, 5 Vic Matfield, 6 Heinrich Brussow, 7 Schalk Burger, 8 Pierre Spies
9 Fourie Du Preez, 10 Morne Steyn, 11 Bryan Habana, 12 Jean de Villiers, 13 Jaque Fourie, 14 JP Pietersen, 15 Patrick Lambie

Reserves:
Bismarck Du Plessis, CJ Van Der Linde, Willem Alberts, Francois Louw, Francois Hougaard, Butch James, Gio Aplon


Australia:

1 Sekope Kepu, 2 Stephen Moore, 3 Ben Alexander, 4 Dan Vickerman, 5 James Horwill, 6 Rocky Elsom, 7 David Pocock, 8 Radike Samo
9 Will Genia, 10 Quade Cooper, 11 Digby Ioane, 12 Pat McCabe, 13 Adam Ashley-Cooper, 14 James O'Connor, 15 Kurtley Beale

Reserves:
Tatafu Polota-Nau, James Slipper, Nathan Sharpe, Luke Burgess, Berrick Barnes, Anthony Faingaa


Weather: Fine - chance of rain, and/or sudden powerful wind-gusts... 12 C
Surface: Good

Referee(s): Bryce Lawrence
Touch Judge(s): David Pearson, Romain Poite
Video Ref: Guilio De Santis

Terrible refereeing.

But congratulations to the Aussies they were the better team.

Hard luck to the BOK

It certainly seemed to be the case that a crucial decision went against SA whenever scoring seemed inevitable.

However, they'll be kicking themselves for missing that second DG attempt.

I'm watching SA coverage and it's nice to hear the commentators, pundits, coaches and players all saying "well done Australia" and not "awful refereeing". The refereeing was pretty poor, letting Pocock cheat and get away with it, but everyone is just saying "we should have played the ref better".

Hard luck SA, well played Aus.

rugbydreamer wrote:

whocares wrote:already 3 qualified countries for the semis who finished 2nd in their pool - must be a 1st time in the RWC?
also provided NZ wins, we would have the same semi finalists that we had in 1987.

I find this amazing.

Yes interesting.
Except the matchups are different.
Also 2 new finalists.

A brutal no frills test match. Although this was the worst display by the officials at this WC I'm not sure it favoured one team - other than at scrum where i was surprised the Aussies were allowed to get away all game.

SA had chances they didn't take and made so many errors. They can only blame themselves and well done to the Aussies for some great defense.

TheGreyGhost wrote:It certainly seemed to be the case that a crucial decision went against SA whenever scoring seemed inevitable.

However, they'll be kicking themselves for missing that second DG attempt.

That must have had something to do with the 2 letters the ARU wrote to the IRU about half a dozen mistakes from Bryce Lawrence in the previous match. The IRU replied apparently - agreeing that the Wallabies had been harshly penalised.

This must have affected the refereeing today for sure.

Anyway, it won't matter. I think the ABs will whip our hides next week and we'll be on the short trip home across the Tasman.
It's a France - NZ final for me... or even Wales - NZ. They would be good matches no doubt.

Aus look very dangerous for any side now.... to come away with a victory with only 25% territory & 40% possession against the 2nd best side in the world is amazing.

They played excellent KO rugby.. (bar cooper... had an awful game).. if he wasn't playing AUS may have won more comfortably.

Die Bokke are the most physical side in world rugby yet AUS' scrum were able to live with them... Moore had a great game bar the lineout & was extra backrow forward and put in shed loads of tackles.

I'm absolutely gutted. Our best performance of the year gets us knocked out of the WC, absolutely demoralising. Well played Aus, especially Pocock absolutely incredibled player. The breakdown was a mess and some of the calls were dubious. Not least the ozzies getting the last scrum of the match despite JoC being held up in the maul (2 minutes earlier the same situation went against us before the player was given a chance to play the ball on the ground).

Pocock was immense but most of the time he was either beaten by the ruck or continued to play the ball with his hands despite there being a ruck. Both teams flying in off their feet at the breakdown, man I'm so piissed off right

deadgoat

When the dust settles it may be a blessing in disguise... surely PDV can't carry on after being knocked out in the QFs?

If die Bokke lost out to NZ in the SF most pundits/fans would deem that as acceptable and he may have survived for another 2 years.

In hindsight this match was lost years ago.

Yeah I suppose that's the only positive to be taken out from this game, hopefully Heyneke Meyer will get the job. But I would've rather kept PdV and retained the WC than I QF exit and him getting sacked

Great effort to win without the ball for basically the whole game, and Cooper's multiple errors nearly costing them the game on several occasions and having to make 150 tackles to 50 tackles. Lineout atrocious on W throw in. Defense wins these tight games, and young O'Connor stepped up under pressure again and nailed the crucial later penalty. Pocock was immense - and yes I maintain his absence was the difference against Ireland (along with Bryce's performance on that day). I think this team likes it when everyone has written them off and they have their backs to the wall - no doubt that will happen again next week.

The fact they did win a knockout against the boks with no possession or territory gives me a lot of encouragement for next week if they can fix the line out and if Cooper can find his game - I have not seen him play this poorly in the last 3 years.

A few comments about the refereeing: it was poor but I don't think it favoured either side in particular.

Scrums: SA loosehead binding was illegal throughout, and much the cause of the boks domination. Similarly to the Ireland game. At least BL didn't penalise the wrong side like he did in that match, but he still failed to penalise a blatantly illegal bind right under his nose.

Breakdown: a free for all I'm afraid, poorly managed. SA constantly off their feet, Aus constantly slowing it down with their hands. Just a point on Pocock: like McCaw he is often the 3rd man at the breakdown; providing he enters from the right side, he is entitled to then go for the ball with his hands, and keep his hands on even after a ruck has formed (this was clarified a couple of years ago).

Forward passes: looked marginal (don't forget the momentum factor). Will have to watch again whilst less passionate.

Final penalty: very well done to Mr Poite, but again you have to wonder how BL could miss it.

All in all, comfortably the worst refereeing display of the quarters (Joubert outstanding, Walsh excellent, Owens very good).

Mike Selig wrote:Scrums: SA loosehead binding was illegal throughout, and much the cause of the boks domination. Similarly to the Ireland game. At least BL didn't penalise the wrong side like he did in that match, but he still failed to penalise a blatantly illegal bind right under his nose.

and keep his hands on even after a ruck has formed

Can't say I agree with you about the binding, Steenkamp was binding on Alexander's arm for most of the game, nothing wrong with that. Still can't believe how BL didn't ping your front row off the park for constantly hinging, standing up and not scrumming straight.

And could you care to provide a source for the part in bold? AFAIK you're allowed ONE go, after the ruck has formed after that its a penalty. If his hands are in the ruck for that long it means the player on the ground is either holding on or the arriving player is now illegally slowing down opposition ball, there's no in between

Can't say I agree with you about the binding, Steenkamp was binding on Alexander's arm for most of the game, nothing wrong with that

Except that it's illegal. He has to bind on the back or side, not on the arm. Law 20.3(c), see here:
http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/laws/index.html

Re the "allowed to keep hands on after the ruck has formed, I have looked for the IRB memo, and here it is:
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/law/16/19

Well then in that case every single prop should get binned. What about responding to the part with Pocock's hands in the ruck?

EDIT: I don't see how that IRB link negates the point I made about only being allowed one go. In fact that link says nothing at all, so how did you arrive at your initial conclusion claiming "it was clarified years ago"?

I said it was clarified "a couple of years ago" and have given you the clarification. I don't know what else you want.

As a neutral I though SA were hard done by, I don't think the Ref once called "its a ruck" so I can only assume he was playing a maul at every breakdown which explained all the hands on the ball. Nigel Owen called "its a ruck" regularly in the second match as the breakdowns were much cleaner.

Key points for me was the hand in the ruck (or maul) under the Aus posts in the first half. And Cooper lieing on the ground but still tackling a SA player under the SA posts in the second half. Australia got away scott free on both occasions.

was very suprised that australia beat south africa to be honest, and the springoks were hard done by.

watching the highlights- omg south africa have been officially robbed of there semi place

mystiroakey wrote:watching the highlights- omg south africa have been officially robbed of there semi place

Rubbish.

Mike Selig wrote:

Can't say I agree with you about the binding, Steenkamp was binding on Alexander's arm for most of the game, nothing wrong with that

Except that it's illegal. He has to bind on the back or side, not on the arm. Law 20.3(c), see here:
http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/laws/index.html

Re the "allowed to keep hands on after the ruck has formed, I have looked for the IRB memo, and here it is:
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/law /16/19

My understanding is that the third player arriving can play for the ball even after a ruck is formed provided he's still on his feet, and that the tackler similarly, provided he releases and get's to his feet, so the tackler essentially enters in the same context as the 3rd person. I've rarely seen this allowed though. Referees tend to be heard to say "ruck formed, hands off now". I'd also say that the definition of "on his feet" varies massively from ref to ref, that the reality of the situation is rarely as straight forward as the rules make it sound as the sequence is rarely that the tackled player has released before the third man arrives, and finally that the referee is rarely in position to see this situation unfold since they are rarely as quick as a good loosie.

Maybe we could "ask the ref" on this point.

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:watching the highlights- omg south africa have been officially robbed of there semi place

Rubbish.

what game did you watch lol!

bad ref performance. SA all over AUS today.

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:watching the highlights- omg south africa have been officially robbed of there semi place

Rubbish.

what game did you watch lol!

bad ref performance. SA all over AUS today.

It was a bad ref performance (and GG will tell you how keen I am in general to defend referees). It was however equally bad for both sides (see my earlier posts). It was not the sole or main factor for SA's loss (that would be lack of composure, failure to get to the breakdown quickly enough allowing Pocock n+1 turnovers, missed kicks, the soft try conceded and the stupid final penalty).

No referee has ever decided the outcome of an international match.

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:watching the highlights- omg south africa have been officially robbed of there semi place

Rubbish.

what game did you watch lol!

bad ref performance. SA all over AUS today.

It was a bad ref performance (and GG will tell you how keen I am in general to defend referees). It was however equally bad for both sides (see my earlier posts). It was not the sole or main factor for SA's loss (that would be lack of composure, failure to get to the breakdown quickly enough allowing Pocock n+1 turnovers, missed kicks, the soft try conceded and the stupid final penalty).

No referee has ever decided the outcome of an international match.

well i will be honest and admit i only saw the highlights- But from what i saw it looked one sided.

Watching also as a neutral (in fact got Australis in the sweep so slighlty want them to win), i have to agree

Ref was the only reason SA lost. They out played the Ozzies in every part of the game.

Pocock should have been pinged almost every time.

The try was not forward

Ozzies should could themselves very VERY lucky

No referee has ever decided the outcome of an international match. .
Mike Selig
Strange thing to say

Posts: 168
Join date: 2011-05-30

Riskysports wrote:Watching also as a neutral (in fact got Australis in the sweep so slighlty want them to win), i have to agree

Ref was the only reason SA lost. They out played the Ozzies in every part of the game.

Pocock should have been pinged almost every time.

The try was not forward

Ozzies should could themselves very VERY lucky

Debateable on Pocock, but importantly so should the SA scrum (see Loosehead incorrect bind) and SA at most breakdowns (never on their feet). The try was marginal on forward. Even if it was wrong SA had 79 other minutes to win the match. To suggest the ref was the only reason Aus won shows you know nothing about rugby.

Mike Selig wrote:

Riskysports wrote:Watching also as a neutral (in fact got Australis in the sweep so slighlty want them to win), i have to agree

Ref was the only reason SA lost. They out played the Ozzies in every part of the game.

Pocock should have been pinged almost every time.

The try was not forward

Ozzies should could themselves very VERY lucky

Debateable on Pocock, but importantly so should the SA scrum (see Loosehead incorrect bind) and SA at most breakdowns (never on their feet). The try was marginal on forward. Even if it was wrong SA had 79 other minutes to win the match. To suggest the ref was the only reason Aus won shows you know nothing about rugby.

ermm mike if you think that incorrect decisions dont make a difference then your in fairyland!

if thats the case then why do we even have technology~!!!!!

And the Pedigree Oak?

When did I ever say incorrect decisions don't make a difference? I have made on this thread 2 points:

1) SA benefitted from as many poor decisions (or non-decisions) as Aus.
2) Refereeing errors are never the sole or main reason for defeat.

I readily accept that BL had a poor game, and that with a different referee (or BL on better form) the result may have been different. I refuse to countenance the idea that the referee was the determining factor, because he wasn't.

Refs with pedigree dont make mistakes, Refs without pedigree can cost teams with pedegree matches. lol

mystiroakey wrote: Refs with pedigree dont make mistakes, Refs without pedigree can cost teams with pedegree matches. lol

Thanks chum, I've often been referred to as a poster who has pedigree

RubyGuby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote: Refs with pedigree dont make mistakes, Refs without pedigree can cost teams with pedegree matches. lol

Thanks chum, I've often been referred to as a poster who has pedigree

for breakfast?

[quote="Mike Selig"]

Riskysports wrote: To suggest the ref was the only reason Aus won shows you know nothing about rugby.

Please don't get personal - I know a lot about rugby.

Yes, maybe SA should have taken more opportunities, but while the ref was dire for both sides, I felt (In my opinion - which I am allowed to have) that the SA were stopped in their tracks more, with attacking moves stifieled by the ref.

I am sure if the Ozzie ever had the ball, they would have found the same

Anyway, they are through and need to raise the game to play the All Blacks, although they are not firing at 100% so are beatable

What I find funny is that people say that the ref was poor at the breakdown and often took away attacking momentum from SA.... yet also say that Pocock (the chief Aussie grafter) put in a career defining performance.

If Aus got away with murder at the breakdown then surely every bokke fan would be calling him a cheat et al.. yet this is not the case, I haven't spoken to or seen a post on any site where bokke supporters have said anything bar admiration for Pocock today.

In reality I thought AUS were quite clean at the breakdown... only once did I see blantant fouling (hands in ruck when die bokke got 2 metres to the try line in 1st half)... otherwise Pocock was well within his rights to steal possession and BL got that mainly right.

Scrums... Aus were able to keep up most of the time and secured a lot of their own ball.... if your props can stay on their feet, no matter how far back they go they're far less likely to give away penalties.

Sometimes this happens in rugby... was Aus victory any less deserving because SA spent a lot of the time with the ball???? Well they have won 6 of the last 7 matches vs die bokke so it looks like they have worked out how best to play this current side.

I thought the definition of a player being on his feet was very flexible. But it was consistent throughout the game.

Pocock was immense true, but again I point to an early injury in the SA back row, and the fact that with this forward mix the Wallabies lineout suffered.

For all of Pocock's heroics, SA sure did have an awful lot of possession, and win an awful lot of breakdowns.

I'm a little bit annoyed with both pdv's and Smits departing shots at the refereree.

PDV was announcing his retirement and Smit probably has played his last test, yet both chose that moment to have a go at the ref. Yes they're full of emotion, yes they lost, and yes it is human to be upset and emotional.

But it is also about character.

In 2007, as hot favourites, the AB's went out in similar circumstances to SA. Had all the ball, had the misfortune of encountering a ref that missed both a blatant forward pass and more importantly missed at least 19 offside offences- many in kickable range- by France later picked by a quorum of referees in failing to award one single penalty in an entire half.

While AB fans the world over were wanting Barnes head, GH said nothing. McCaw said nothing. GH walked into the French dressing rooms and congratulated the French immediately after the match. I wonder if PDV or Smit did that?

At the press conference when pressed on the matter GH simply said he didn't want to comment as that would take away the spoils of victory from the French, who deserved the win. In no shape or form could SA say that the refs display yesterday were worse than that of Barnes.

In contrast pdv and Smit wasted no time in venting their feelings about the ref.

The other thing is winning all the territory and posession doesnt mean more points on the board- especially when it comes to Oz, who as we know score from the small of an oily rag.

Its what you do with the ball you get that is important. Oz made 140 odd tackles and SA only 50 odd. That tells me immediately that ball has been wasted. Ineffective attacks have been thwarted. In the first 10 minutes against Canada (AB's), Canada kicked off, regained posession, ran up something like 9 or 10 phases in the AB half, then lost the ball and from it the AB's scored.

99% posession, 99% territory, 7-0 down, the 1% of both yielding the try.

Selecting a structured team based on kicking for possession and hoping for penalties then deciding to run it, means you're not going to be effective.

SA may be annoyed with the antics of Pocock and the ref but they also need to be aware that you have to use the possession you have to score points, and SA did neither. Oz still won the ball with the little posession they had- same with the French in 2007.