Did Rougerie gouge McCaw?

First topic message reminder :

Can't recall seeing anything myself although McCaw was acting a little strange near the end of the game. Anything in it?


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10761510

Edit - KRD. Note that while the article imples Dusatoir gouged, evidence posted down-thread suggests that if anyone gouged it was Rougerie so I've amended the title of the thread

Looks like things have progressed since I was last on and the implied version of Dusautoir was actually Rougerie.....unless there was another incident!?!?

Here's the clip anyway so you can make up your own mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hneJ8Ws8Yuc

Well samuraidragon those last two paragraphs I´ll have to call you up on. Whilst I agree that France was dominant for much of the second half and were gaining ascendancy in the scrums and lineouts in particular, the fact they were 8-0 down meant they could either throw everything they could at the ABs to win or fall further behind. I didn´t like the conservative tactics but second best for long stretches of the game doesn´t matter if you end up winning. I don´t agree with the word choke as it devalues the efforts of the teams who beat us in the previous World Cups but I fail to see how winning and choking can be applied equally. Just because we had thumped them in the pools, just because Wales came within a point of them with 14 men doesn´t mean they can´t play well in the final.

What this World Cup showed is that any team can put in a big performance for one match. What is more difficult to do is maintain those same high standards over several matches. The gap is in your mind. The top teams can beat one another.

Definate gouge for me would like to see 6 months minimum for it.

samuraidragon wrote:I think most posters agree that the All Blacks are the best team in the world and have been for a very long time, and deserved to win the competition, being easily the best team on performances.

In the final they got the rub of the green from Joubert, but by the standards of truly bad reffing, it was no big deal at all. SA vs Oz was far, far worse and also contained a controversial forward pass call which decided the match. In the Oz vs. Wales match we scored a try from a pass that was yards forward.
Got no problem with McCaw, an awesome player who any sensible team would love to have on board.

What was interesting, however, was that in the final the All Blacks did in fact choke. They were second best for long stretches of the game and squeaked the victory by a single point. Seeing Weepu boot the ball into touch to get to half-time was a shock. This was against a far-from-classic French team they had thumped in the pool game.

Has the gap between SH and NH eally shrunk that much? Or are the A-Bs psychologically more fragile than supposed?

Thank you for your objectivity, it is appreciated.

Greybeard, to be called a choker you have to be the best, yet fail to win the crunch games. With all due respect, Ireland have never been good enough to be chokers. Neither have we. England repeatedly failing to win the slam in the late 90s might be an example. Women's tennis has a heap of them.

So how then can you win and be called a choker given your definition?

samuraidragon wrote:Greybeard, to be called a choker you have to be the best, yet fail to win the crunch games. With all due respect, Ireland have never been good enough to be chokers. Neither have we. England repeatedly failing to win in the late 90s might be an example. Women's tennis has a heap of them.

And in one sentence you have contradicted yourself Samurai. You said NZ choked. Yet you openly say to choke is to be the best yet fail to win the crunch games. Last time I looked the scoreboard stood at 8-7 in favour of NZ in the biggest crunch game of them all. So, what is it going to be? A retraction from yourself or is this an exception to the rule?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: The top teams can beat one another.

Well said, it seems pretty much everyone in the top 8 can beat Wales (on their day)

It´s like saying I could´ve dated Penelope Cruz... if I had met her, and if she had taken a shine to me, and if pigs could fly.

Just because France could´ve won doesn´t mean they did win.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It´s like saying I could´ve dated Penelope Cruz... if I had met her, and if she had taken a shine to me, and if pigs could fly.

Kia, don't do yersel down, man, she's just waiting for the call - pick up the phone... ;-)

OK - you won, so maybe I should have said "almost choked" or "quasi-choked." Meaning underperformed previous form. I was surprised to see Weepu miss all those kicks, put the ball out on the full, France dominating scrums and lineouts, T-D get a chance to put France ahead with not much left on the clock, etc. etc. This was at home against a French team described by their own coach as a bunch of spoilt brats.

Mate I´m already married to my Spanish sweetheart. Pé has nothing on my Raquel. Of course I´m biased...

samuraidragon wrote:Greybeard, to be called a choker you have to be the best, yet fail to win the crunch games. With all due respect, Ireland have never been good enough to be chokers. Neither have we. England repeatedly failing to win the slam in the late 90s might be an example. Women's tennis has a heap of them.

Well we could get into (another) meaningless argument about the definition, but it was a label levied at Ireland by many journalists, I was just adding it as an example of why the label is silly.

Kia- What!! an AB fan who's BIASED ?? well, i'm speechless!!

samuraidragon, after it was revealed Weepu did a similar but not so serious groin strain in the pre-match warm-up. This may explain his woeful kicking and why he was taken off after 50 minutes.

That bunch of spoilt brats played like a band of brothers. People say in 2003 the players didn´t have all that much respect for Woodward but they certainly played like a tight unit. In the final, the slate is wiped clean. You just need the one performance. What happened before is irrelevant. Do you think a 14 men Wales team could come within 1 point of NZ? Or 2 points? Possible but unlikely.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Grey,

Gouge is a very emotive word and one id reserve for clear deliberate actions where they eye is targetted and dug into with sustained force.
Like you what I see here is hard to call a certain gouge, but there is a clear rake across the face.

Fair enough, mate. And well said.

I don't like hands near the face at any time, but especially when a player (McCaw or anyone) is reasonably helpless on the ground. Seeing it in normal speed, it seems the hands were there for only a moment. In slow motion, it looks much worse. When I watched it, I couldn't see any raking, but I defer to your observation. So, most likely not a gouge, but illegal play none the less?

No, I don't think that. But I do think a 15 man Wales would have put a 15 man France out in the semis. And after that? Well, now we are in the realm of transexual aunts, so I won't go any further.

NZ didnt choke they were well beaten in all aspects except the scoreboard and thats what matters....

samuraidragon wrote:OK - you won, so maybe I should have said "almost choked" or "quasi-choked." Meaning underperformed previous form. I was surprised to see Weepu miss all those kicks, put the ball out on the full, France dominating scrums and lineouts, T-D get a chance to put France ahead with not much left on the clock, etc. etc. This was at home against a French team described by their own coach as a bunch of spoilt brats.

Weepu was struck down by the flyhalf curse I’m afraid. He injured his groin in the warmup, I thought he looked off key with everything and this is the reason why.

Anyway, we all know that with France recent history goes out the window. We kiwi posters repeatedly stated this leading up to the match but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. We all knew it was going to be one tough mother of a game.

1999 Nz beat France by 50 and then lost in the Semi final
2006-07 NZ played France 4 times in the lead up and racked up over 200 pts against about 30. Then 3 mths later France beats us in the QF.

One thing we've learnt from history is that you don't win knock out matches based on previous results. I think it's a wonderful effort to overcome the french playing at full potential with our 4th best flyhalf, an injured captain and halfback

Weepu shouldn't have kicked anyway. He did his groin in the warmup. Bad decision on his part to take them when he knew he wasn't right.

I think the choking accusation being levelled at a team who won a World Cup Final is quite frankly ridiculous. Everyone knows the French team are capable of some great performances-this happened in the second half and we did bloody well to hold them out.

A few brief words on the last few posts.

I'm one of those "few" non NZ-posters mentioned earlier that have been supportive of the NZer's victory and hyper-critical of any nonsense about McCaw "deserving" what he got, etc. Bad reffing decisions come with the game. That's the way it goes and over the course of the competition the ABs celarly deserved their title. They also deserved their title for having gone through so many set-backs and tough decisions themselves at WCs. So there is no begrudgery from me regarding their World Champions status.

But that does not mean we should not criticise what happened in that final and try to force the authorities to do everything to make sure it never happens again. Emotion and home support appeared to me to get the better of Joubert. And it was far far worse than anything like a badly managed breakdown area or a miss-call regarding a forward pass (where we will never know if they would have scored a try in any case). It was completely one-sided. Which is totally different.

The clearest example was where Joubert clearly saw Kaino illegally handle the ball and then drop it forwards out of the ruck and the NZers then all piled in on top. Joubert called a knock-on in order to cop-out on awarding the French what looked like it could be the winning penalty pretty much in front of the posts with only 5 mins to go. He copped out. That was simply the most one-sided and obvious call I have seen in many years and his motivation was pretty transparent also.

I´m just saying that because one pool match went one way or France´s form in other matches was under the weather, doesn´t mean you can expect the same thing to happen. If France had played like they did on Sunday against Wales, then the score might´ve been not nearly as close. But they didn´t. And they scraped by with one point to spare. Much like NZ did.

Regardless of who won or who was on the ground or what he might have done earlier, there is no excuse for what Rouguerie did. Point final (full stop).

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:A few brief words on the last few posts.

And it was far far worse than anything like a badly managed breakdown area or a miss-call regarding a forward pass (where we will never know if they would have scored a try in any case). It was completely one-sided.

Actually the Boks did score the try and were called back. That decision - right or wrong - cost them the match.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It´s like saying I could´ve dated Penelope Cruz... if I had met her, and if she had taken a shine to me, and if pigs could fly.

Kia, don't do yersel down, man, she's just waiting for the call - pick up the phone... ;-)

Kia

samuraidragon wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:A few brief words on the last few posts.

And it was far far worse than anything like a badly managed breakdown area or a miss-call regarding a forward pass (where we will never know if they would have scored a try in any case). It was completely one-sided.

Actually the Boks did score the try and were called back. That decision - right or wrong - cost them the match.

My memory is a bit vague... but I thought the Boks were called back for a correct call on the dangerous attack and then were called back for a second very dodgy call when they were in the 22 but not an actual try-scoring move?

Memory hazy here too, but I thought they were both dodgy.

samuraidragon wrote:Memory hazy here too, but I thought they were both dodgy.

Fair enough... we'd have to go back and look at them. But do you not see a difference between a dodgy call on a forward pass (where human error can always be a factor)... and a set of circumstances where a ref is looking directly at a number of blatant infringements and appears completely unwilling to enforce the laws because of the huge consequences it entails for one particular side?

I certainly view them very differently.

The first call, Sa went through and scored, then called back.

The second time Hougaard recived a very dodgy call and had two defenders between him and the line, with the momentum going our way and their defence unroganised at the time, the likelyhood was good that we would have scored.

In my opinion I have seen many tries scored off much worse passes.

biltongbek wrote:The first call, Sa went through and scored, then called back.

The second time Hougaard recived a very dodgy call and had two defenders between him and the line, with the momentum going our way and their defence unroganised at the time, the likelyhood was good that we would have scored.

In my opinion I have seen many tries scored off much worse passes.

Thatll be all the Aussie refs in the S15 and 3N games

"One thing we've learnt from history is that you don't win knock out matches based on previous results. I think it's a wonderful effort to overcome the french playing at full potential with our 4th best flyhalf, an injured captain and halfback"

Mintie you forgot to mention the Ref...

France didn't mention the ref in 07 why should he?

disneychilly wrote:France didn't mention the ref in 07 why should he?

What have France in 07 got anything to do with it

I just thought that if as he was handing out plaudits he should incllude the Ref...at least give him a "special appearance" section in the credits....

Because then Barnes would feel left out by the French for not getting any credit

biltongbek wrote:The first call, Sa went through and scored, then called back.

The second time Hougaard recived a very dodgy call and had two defenders between him and the line, with the momentum going our way and their defence unroganised at the time, the likelyhood was good that we would have scored.

In my opinion I have seen many tries scored off much worse passes.

Biltong, my opinion on that de Villiers pass highlights one of the flaws of the game. The ball travelled forward from the point of the pass. What made it appear to be forward was that de Villiers was hit and driven back as he made the pass to Lambie. I said forward pass as soon as it happened…..had de Villiers passed with a bit of time before the hit, I am not so sure it would have been called forward at all as de Villiers would have travelled in front of the ball as he ran.

The second one, which if we are thinking of the same thing, is the comical conventional pass called forward by your man Bruce, it was a joke. Would it have led to a try? Possibly, but we’ll never know I guess

my point exactly about refs.
before the match joubert was unanomously considered by far the best ref of the tourny.
now hes useless, albeit depending on what your interest in the match is.
The usual kiwi critics are adamant.
kiwis obviously dont care.
same happened sa oz.
like I said. its luck. so you have to make your own.

Taylorman wrote:my point exactly about refs.
before the match joubert was unanomously considered by far the best ref of the tourny.

Fair enough

Taylorman wrote:now hes useless, albeit depending on what your interest in the match is.

Agreed

Taylorman wrote:The usual kiwi critics are adamant.

Maybe

Taylorman wrote:kiwis obviously dont care.
same happened sa oz.
like I said. its luck. so you have to make your own.

This bit is hopefully untrue. Hopefully there are Kiwi's who recognise the problems arising from Joubert's performance in just the same way as there are balanced non-NZers who think that the ABs still well-deserve their World Champions tag and only played the game as it was reffed on the night. Bad decisions in the past only offer more of a reason to be upset - they should not be a justification and excuse for further blunders in the present and into the future. And if reffing standards are to be consistently as poor and as one-sided as in that final then the game will just be increasingly lost in argument and controversy. Everything should be done to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen in future WC finals/other big games.

Thing is Nos NZ'ers couldnt care less. These are the same kiwis who screamed blue murder over Barnes in 07. In that case Barnes actually reffed the ABs equally to France (the only blemish was the forward pass which was unfortunate but happens)..after that match each of the indiscretions from the French could be countered with a NZ indiscretion...To the French for the first time they got a ref who reffed them equally cos if you ask any French player the first thing they assume is that the ref is going to be against them....note the extremely disciplined approach last weekend (as well as 07) - funny thing was is that the status quo was returned in the semi final against England....

Anyhow NZ think its just deserts after that and to a certain extent who can blame them but now they are getting all victimised because the win is being questioned in terms that they are not used to. That they got a lucky break from the ref and it was not down to their undoubted brilliance.

http://www.joe.ie/the-2011-rugby-world-cup

DOD wrote:Thing is Nos NZ'ers couldnt care less.

I really still hold out hope that this bit ain't true. There have been Kiwis on here who have accepted that things were a little bit off with the reffing on Sunday. But in the heat of the moment they have been reacting to all the heated debate by standing their ground with the usual "what goes around comes around" argument. But in the cold light of day hopefully more and more (but granted it will still be a small minority) will see that this just isn't good for the game.

DOD wrote: Anyhow NZ think its just deserts after that and to a certain extent who can blame them but now they are getting all victimised because the win is being questioned in terms that they are not used to. That they got a lucky break from the ref and it was not down to their undoubted brilliance.

I think you may have a point there DOD. The NZers are not used to squeaking WC victories with controversial decisions. It's normally a poor team-freezing performance or a blistering try fest. This is perhaps new territory in that sense.

Presume its this article you are referring to Osprey?

http://www.joe.ie/the-2011-rugby-world-cup/features-2/five-rugby-world-cup-final-bottlers-0017087-1

DOD, there's a lot of "interesting" stuff on there, as there is elsewhere.

Look refereeing has influenced far too many games in the pro era and it needs to be stopped. Consistency needs to be applied and to be honest if it means another referee I wouldn't mind. Give it a go anyway.

We're not getting defensive about the lucky nature of the win, nor the closeness. We've been in enough nailbiters and come from behinds to negate any flat frack bully arguments people have. Luck was how the ref favoured NZ on Sunday. Luck also took Dan Carter out of the tournament, and luck also kept France closer in that Weepu got injured himself and missed three kicks that would have lessened the bleating.

We were lucky but it seems like people are telling us we didn't deserve said luck, despite luck evading us in a few other crucial games, think us getting sick in 95 or Barnes missing a few things in 07. If luck hadn't have shined on France they may not have gotten out of the pool, let alone gotten into the final.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. We hate the game too sometimes trust me.

No Kiwi can deny the video evidence - e.g. the Kaino knock on and Hore offside etc. Mistakes were made and though NZ got a couple of rough calls believe it or not, I concede France got harshly done by in the circumstances of the game where they could´ve capitalised and won.

I don´t have a problem with reviewing how reffing is done. I don´t have a problem with the introduction of more video technology to help the ref (rather than undermine them). I wrote a post about it but I got the feeling that most people said it undermined the ref. Now I´m not so sure. I fear though the IRB won´t do anything. Let´s face it, the issue of reffing the modern game where the plays are longer and faster is a problem that has been around for a while and is not going to go away. I heard Nigel Owens against Tonga say Oh my God because he had to run down the field again with an AB counterattack. Looking at the breakdown I would hate to be one guy looking at all that with one pair of eyes from one position.

What I´m not prepared to do is think in any way this victory has been cheapened. We won. I accept many people think France should have won and I certainly agree they would have deserved to win the final. But I waited 24 years for this day and now that it´s arrived, I´ll be damned if I´m not going to enjoy myself and bask in what my beloved team has achieved. But that doesn´t mean I´m blind to criticism and think the game can be improved further and the job of the refs made easier. kia kaha

disneychilly wrote:Look refereeing has influenced far too many games in the pro era and it needs to be stopped.

I agree. There are too many referees and we must stop them before they multiply. Besides, what do they really do? In my matches all they do is ping me for laying on the ball at the ruck. Screw them: I will lay down and rest where I bloodywell want to.

Disney. I would include you among by far the most logical and rational of posters right throughout the tournament.

But, again here, your post seems determined to avoid the ugly heart of the problem with this one. The SA-Oz game people could obvious complain of inconsistency and things like forward passes being dubious. But everyone knew that it was a matter of luck (luck which ref you got and luck as to whether he saw the passes forward or not). And that luck perhaps evens itself out over time.

What happened to the french (at least in my eyes) went far beyond a bit of bad luck. There was a slanted interpretation of the breakdown throughout but worse still, a completely one-sided reffing of the last 10 mins. Joubert seemed to throw the rule book out for the last 10 mins for one side because he feared the consequences and seemed absolutely committed to not giving an easy penalty that might lose the cup for NZ at the last minute.

That is what many supporters are aggrieved about. Not the idea that one team were just "unlucky" with the way things went.

[Please remember as I said earlier this has NOTHING to do with NZ not deserving their victory... players play as refs allow. The problem is that, as many on here have felt, it demeans the game when a referee can have such a negative influence on the crucial part of the game.]

Couldn't agree more Kia. Well done that man.

Just out of interest Nos da Gaoithe, what would you have us do? Should the ABs be down-troued in the parade. Should we Kiwi posters refer to the French as world champs.

I don´t think the French are the only ones who feel aggrieved this tournament. But what do we do? Call them all back and start over again? If people think Joubert went out of his way to give the final to the ABs then may HE be the one judged and dealt with. But the AB players or fans, other than be open to criticism and feeling lucky that we won, can´t do much else.

Have a review of refereeing and what it means in the modern game and ways we can help make the game simpler or more efficient to adjudicate on. But let me ask this question. If Joubert was not the best referee for the match given his performance on the final (and not leading up to the final) who would you have in his place? Barnes? Rolland? Owens? Lawrence (couldn´t resist Bilton sorry mate). Not exactly refs free from controversy themselves.

What you suggest is this was more than human error. It was cynical error. Let he be judged then. But do you think anybody will aspire to be a ref if a witch hunt (however justified) does occur?

I see where you're coming from Nos I do. But when you mention slanted interpretations it's hard to not draw comparisons with a certain other game in which we were on the wrong end. I really don't want to go into conspiracy theories as that opens up a whole new can of worms and I was sick of those four years ago, despite that appealing to my disappointment.

As Biltong mentioned the ruck leading to the French try could've been blown up which helped them points wise, and two French penalties were missed. France weren't good enough to take the refereeing out of the equation on the scoreboard just as we weren't good enough to do so in Cardiff.

I don't want a NZ lovefest, but I'm way over the conspiracy theories. In fact I wish Paddy O'Brien wasn't in his job because we wouldn't have to put up with ridiculous statement after ridiculous statement on his NZ/SH bias.

NZ deserving their victory and the French having as you say far beyond bad luck comes across as self-contradictory. I know it's a fine line. But I'm damned if anyone's going to make me feel guilty for celebrating.

+1

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Just out of interest Nos da Gaoithe, what would you have us do? Should the ABs be down-troued in the parade. Should we Kiwi posters refer to the French as world champs.

I don´t think the French are the only ones who feel aggrieved this tournament. But what do we do? Call them all back and start over again? If people think Joubert went out of his way to give the final to the ABs then may HE be the one judged and dealt with. But the AB players or fans, other than be open to criticism and feeling lucky that we won, can´t do much else.

Have a review of refereeing and what it means in the modern game and ways we can help make the game simpler or more efficient to adjudicate on. But let me ask this question. If Joubert was not the best referee for the match given his performance on the final (and not leading up to the final) who would you have in his place? Barnes? Rolland? Owens? Lawrence (couldn´t resist Bilton sorry mate). Not exactly refs free from controversy themselves.

What you suggest is this was more than human error. It was cynical error. Let he be judged then. But do you think anybody will aspire to be a ref if a witch hunt (however justified) does occur?

Kia, I had missed your earlier post... am in agreement with almost everything you wrote. And once again with this post.

But you have it topsy-turvy. I am not asking for NZers to replay the final or anything of the sort. But it is possible to show empathy even at the moment of your great triumph (as you have done here). And that counts for more in the eyes of every impartial rugby enthusiast than those who tell everyone to feck off... what comes around goes around, etc. It is a matter of showing that you care for the sport as much as winning.

Also, I am a terrible pedant. And there are many NZ supporters who seem to want to avoid the point. The problem for me was with the pressure that Joubert seemed to be under to turn a blind-eye to one side in those closing minutes. There are general problems with the regulation of the breakdown in the sport... but that is a separate issue. I do not think any impartial observer, from the evidence of how he was reffing France throughout, could believe that if that Kaino incident had been in the French 22 with NZ needing 2 points... well lets just say the whistle would have blown before Kaino had even touched the ball. That is different to the "luck" that certain people are going on about. And, unfortunately for Joubert and for NZ... that certainly is something that needs to be looked at. It is inevitable that NZers should feel peeved by people stressing that... but in my opinion necessary.

Anyways you are quite right that it is unreasonable to expect NZers to turn to such self-flaggelation so quickly. But I do appreciate when I see such empathy... just as I appreciated when so many French showed empathy for the Irish after the Thierry Henry incident!

doctor_grey wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Look refereeing has influenced far too many games in the pro era and it needs to be stopped.

I agree. There are too many referees and we must stop them before they multiply. Besides, what do they really do? In my matches all they do is ping me for laying on the ball at the ruck. Screw them: I will lay down and rest where I bloodywell want to.