All Blacks full value for their win.

Since the start of this tournament, New Zealand looked ominous. Forget for a moment anything else that has trnapsired in the World Cup. Their players were full value for their money.

There certainly was a hickup when Carter got injured, and for a time we all wondered whether McCaw would see the end of this tournament. When Read came back he, McCaw and Kaino were just unbelievably good.

Taking into consideration that Slade then also got injured and eventually Cruden had to be called up, the All Blacks had their fair share of injury worries.

France came to play today and in my view it was a brilliant match. Not the helter skelter league type rugby that the All Blacks claim to play, but the way South Africa is often criticised for. Hard brutal direct rugby, kicking for territory, kicking up annd unders and hard contesting forwards.

I don't pretend to be a referee, or know the laws all very well, but after seeing the comments earlier, I just watched the match as I wasn't able too earlier. Here is a breakdwon of "clear" mistakes I saw Craig Joubert and the AR's made, and mistakes by the teams.

3minutes 25 seconds French 11 penalised for holding on, but McCaw as the tackler rolls to block ball whilst Woodcock is trying to steal the ball whilst off his feet. Inside All Black 10 meter line. Kickable penalty not given.

6 minutes 9 seconds.Weepu misses kickable penalty

9 minutes 53 seconds: Bonairre lucky to get away with being on the wrong side of the ruck on halfway. Joubert's call was broken play.

17 minutes 40 seconds, Brad Thorne and Woodcock, roll around the maul on the NZ 22 and blocks the maul that goes down, NZ scrum, could have been France penalty.

19 minutes 48 seconds, skew throw in at the lineout by Mealamu, AR should have called it.

26 minutes Weepu misses a very kickable penalty.

34 minutes 24 seconds, France decides not to kick to posts from halfway, maybe vworth a shot? A few moments later TrenDuc misses a drop goal 38 metres out.

42 minutes 50 seconds, France misses a penalty kick.

43 minutes 25 seconds, NZ is deep in French territory, Woodcock commits a high tackle swinging leadigng arm, misses a little, maybe that is why Joubert doesn't call it.

63 minutes 53 seconds France gets a scrum penalty but misses from 48 metres out.

74 minutes 48 seconds Conrad Smith lies on the wrong side of the scrum for a number of seconds, then rolls away with waving arms to show Joubert he is moving, enough time for All Blacks to contest, but there are so many bodies on the ground Joubert decides to give France a scrum.

In my view, I really do not understand what everyone is going on about. In fact I don't even think Joubert ad even close to a bad game.

The way I see it there were two clear mistakes by Joubert in the first half. Two other possible incorrect decisions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. The AR made one error with a skew throw in.

So I am sorry but do not see what is wrong with his performance, to make so few errors in a final is commendable.

Congratulations New Zealand.

Pretty much agree with your take on it too Biltong.

OK, given the final margin of 1 point - any of those 4 or so errors may have had led to a different outcome but heck, that's life isn't it?

Even if the 2 50/50 'possible errors' would have gone the other way - there would still be threads on here like the 'Joubert one'. Some people are never 100% satisifed and that's how it always is... or should be....?

[Nice win in the 2nd ODI btw... great knocks from Kallis & Smith and Miller looks like a formidable competitor. Should be a decent Test series... just wish it was 3 tests. Rudolph coming back is a bit strange though?]

Yeah, Don't understand why he is in, he had his chance a number of years ago and looked like drying paint when he batted.

I suppose we are still looking for some batting depth, we do need some top order batting, wonder if Kirsten is going to put him in there?

You forget that after the high tackle incident with Woodcock that NZ got the penalty for the 8-0 lead. Even that penalty was dubious pinging the French tacklers for not rolling away when Nonu hadnt hit the ground and was drivene forward by his own back row and lost the ball in going to ground.

74 mins...you forget Kaino contesting the ruck (prior to the scrum being given) even though he is off his feet....

Scrums...didnt reset scrums (not even penalise) which is a requirement usually on the ABs put in...

Its all academic if a little one sided

that high tackle was deep in french territory and the penalty you are talking about didn't come from the ensuing play.

when Kaino contested for that ball, it wasn't a ruck yet, it was him conteting in the tackle, and both went to ground.

There were 2 scrum penalties in the match, one for each team, there was only one collapsed scrum he didn't reset, All Blacks have already won the ball, and he let play go.

The point is the high tackle was prior to that penalty and France would have cleared there lines....

Yes it was a ruck as he was the second player in...he then goes off his feet...regardless....

For the scrums in the final 10 mins there were a couple of collapsed scrums on AB put ins these were not reset..given the French were pressurising you wonder why...

It is a matter of opinion.

The fact is DOD, there were far worse performances by other referees. A handfull of mistakes does not make Craig Joubert biased, crooked or poor.

Finally a sane take on the game, that's pretty much how I saw it too Biltongbek, not sure why everyone is getting so hyperbolic about the referee.

My impression certainly was that France were getting nothing from Joubert and the ABs were consistently getting a half second more, or all the 50/50 calls. A lot of other neutrals felt likewise. We might all be wrong, but it takes quite a lot to get the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh to be in general agreement on anything!

Given that my impression was genuine, I would love to know if it is actually correct. But that's a secondary concern: I now worry that so much depends on the ref it has become an impossible job and the IRB need to look at the whole way the game is officiated, at least at the highest level.

All the decisions were marginal, but France rarely got the breaks, especially in scrums. Also, unusual to see a line-out reversed for time-wasting when a player was being treated on the ground. Why would France, who were behind at the time, be time-wasting?

samurai
At that point France were out on their feet and they were trying to buy some oxygen recovery time. Joubert was onto them.

The ABs are worthy winners.

Just a shame they played their worst game of the tournament in the final and were so negative in everything they did. I lost count how many times they had men to spare out wide yet did not even look to move the ball.

Pretty similar game play as SA, wasn't it?

I just wait for the next time a New Zealander criticise my team's gameplan, then I will remind them how they won the RWC.

Congratz to the ABs, best team in the tournament, best team in the world for donkeys ears, a team full of amazing players.

Yet after a strong start, they didn't play well in this match and could easily have lost. Their nervousness and sense of constipation was surprising since they had already thumped this far-from-classic French side in the pool stages and dispatched Oz in the semis with ease and style.

Are they in fact human?

To me it seemed as if the AB's really did believe their own words that they would approach the match as if France were the best side in the world and showed them way too much respect. I thought that they were very conservative and started to look very nervous once France started to turn the screw.

As for the original question, yes the AB's are full value for their win as they are the best side in the world and won all their matches.

There were another couple of high tackles that you've missed off your list. One by Franks, can't remember the other. I also think Joubert was a little lenient on the breakdown (although not in favour of one team).

Nonetheless, I don't think Joubert had a particularly bad game. Most the calls went to the side on the front foot, so there's no real cause for complaint.

There's no way the refereeing determined the outcome of the game. NZ have been far and away the side of the tournament, and, even when they looked on the ropes and were down to 4th choice fly half, still had enough to close out the game. Well done All Blacks, thoroughly deserved victory.

Point is, though, why were they "on the ropes" at all? France played very well, but are not a great side by any means. Made me wonder what would have been the result of the game that everybody wanted to see, but never happened - AB, vs. Boks.

In both this WC and the previous one, we got to see a whole load of mismatches but the winner only played 1-2 crunch games. 2007 was worse, in that the Boks avoided the ABs, France and Oz and were never challenged in the entire competition.

NZ are full value for the win on the basis of how they have played in this competition and over the last 4 years. The RWC has gone to the best side in the world by a distance.

However yesterday they were 2nd best for me and were given a get out of jail card by Joubert. They simply weren't at the races yesterday and if Joubert had of been anyway even handed France would have won that match.

The only thing that kept NZ in the game was the fact that Joubert was pinging the French left right and centre but allowing NZ a free reign at the breakdown and to throw in crooked to the lineouts. He ignored 3 high tackles, didn't yellow card McCaw for a blatant off side at the ruck. He also gave a ludicous free kick at the lineout when the french prop was injured but allowed NZ as much time as they needed when they had men down.

France were superior in nearly every aspect: Scrum, Lineout, defenders beaten, metres gained, tackle success rate but yet were penalised twice as many times as NZ?

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/match/93505.html

Sorry but that is unacceptable and France were robbed yesterday by the most bias officiating I've ever seen in an international rugby game.

Going back to the title of the thread - yes, the All Blacks were "full value" for the tournament win. They were the best team, and the only one unbeaten.

But "full value" for Sunday's match? Not really, not on the stats anyway. For most of the second half they were second best and never looked like scoring a try. All you can say is they won because they had one more point on the board than France. If T-D had knocked over a kick near the end, not even Graham Henry could have complained.

aucklandlaurie wrote: samurai
At that point France were out on their feet and they were trying to buy some oxygen recovery time. Joubert was onto them.

Pity he wasn't on to the AB high tackles, their repeated infrigement at the breakdown and cheap shots in the lineout.

aucklandlaurie wrote: samurai
At that point France were out on their feet and they were trying to buy some oxygen recovery time. Joubert was onto them.

Not really, it wasn't long after half time and the game hadn't quite gotten going again after France's try (which gave the players a couple of mins break as the conversion was taken), NZ having kicked out on the full for the restart meant that France had forced NZ to give them a lineout in their half after they'd kicked for territory on the back of the scrum on halfway. The French would have been keen to press the advantage, the player down was receiving treatment for his neck after the scrum

If Joubert wasn't going to pause the game for players to be treated, that's fine, but he didn't seem to have much of a problem waiting for Kiwi players to receive treatment earlier in the game.

He really should have paused the game for Parra's head injury when the ball went into touch for a lineout 10m from the NZ tryline as well. Parra ended up being on the floor for 2mins of play before they were able to get him off the pitch.

I don't think Joubert was trying to be dodgy, but his performance in that game is proof that even the best refs have their judgment swayed by home crowds and the big occasion. That's the benefit of a home WC though, something France had 4 years before.

samuraidragon wrote:Going back to the title of the thread - yes, the All Blacks were "full value" for the tournament win. They were the best team, and the only one unbeaten.

But "full value" for Sunday's match? Not really, not on the stats anyway. For most of the second half they were second best and never looked like scoring a try. All you can say is they won because they had one more point on the board than France.

That's all that matters. The scoreboard.

3minutes 25 seconds French 11 penalised for holding on, but McCaw as the tackler rolls to block ball whilst Woodcock is trying to steal the ball whilst off his feet. Inside All Black 10 meter line. Kickable penalty not given.

74 minutes 48 seconds Conrad Smith lies on the wrong side of the scrum for a number of seconds, then rolls away with waving arms to show Joubert he is moving, enough time for All Blacks to contest, but there are so many bodies on the ground Joubert decides to give France a scrum.

-----------------------

You only picked two examples but these type offences by NZ could have been applicable at pretty much every breakdown.

This is not just a dig at NZ, but the breakdown needs looking at accross the board, it is a mess and refs are left almost to guess each time!

This is not just a dig at NZ, but the breakdown needs looking at accross the board, it is a mess and refs are left almost to guess each time!

No. They see three offences at every ruck and have to chose one.