The Kaino 'penalty' , what are people seeing here?

I've just watched the Kaino non-penalty again. Can someone please explain the outrage?

The French player is tackled by 2 ABs, Kaino is the next man there. He stays on his feet and goes for the ball (possible penalty for not releasing?), the French support arrives, the NZ support arives and as he gets driven off his feet spills the ball forwards as the French player flops on top of him. At no time does the ref says hands off, he tells the tacklers to roll away, but that's it.

Really, have people actually watched this again. Or are they merely parroting what that idiot Aussie & Irishman in the youtube clip say. He also mis calls the one of the supposed McCaw 'playing the ball on the deck' ruck as well. You can clearly see his hands in the air as the comment is made. So many holes in his analysis. As they say shameful.

In the aftermath of the game I had some sympathy for the Fench, but the more I look at the videos, the more I think that the 'love of the underdog' has really afected what people saw. Especially the commentators, who I believe have directly framed how a lot of people see the game.

A few rucks prior to this one, Rougerie is first player there and just flops completely over his tackled teammate to seal the ball off.

The decisions really are nowhere near as one sided as people are claiming.

goneagain wrote:I've just watched the Kaino non-penalty again. Can someone please explain the outrage?

The French player is tackled by 2 ABs, Kaino is the next man there. He stays on his feet and goes for the ball (possible penalty for not releasing?), the French support arrives, the NZ support arives and as he gets driven off his feet spills the ball forwards. At no time does the ref says hands off, he tells the tacklers to roll away, but that's it.

Really, have people actually watched this again. Or are they merely parroting what that idiot Aussie & Irishman in the youtube clip say. He also mis calls the one of the supposed McCaw 'playing the ball on the deck' ruck as well. You can clearly see his hands in the air as the comment is made. So many holes in his analysis. As they say shameful.

In the aftermath of the game I had some sympathy for the Fench, but the more I look at the videos, the more I think that the 'love of the underdog' has really afected what people saw. Especially the commentators, who I believe have directly framed how a lot of people see the game.

A few rucks prior to this one, Rougerie is first player there and just flops completely over his tackled teammate to seal the ball off.

The decisions really are nowhere near as one sided as people are claiming.

+1

goneagain, sadly these incidents are up for interpretation and hence personal opinions. People will see it the way they want to see it.

Its really no use, the all Blacks won and who can begrudge them their victory?

The similarity between the 2007 and 2011 scenario becomes more and more parallel when you look a things.

We thrashed England in the pool and played "non rugby" in the final.

The All Blacks thrashed the French in their pool game and won "ugly"

Who would have believed that?

What constitutes staying on your feet is open to interpretation. For some refs it seems they are on their feet so long as their knees are off the ground. This can include virtually lying on top of someone but not actually on the ground, or adopting that head on the ground arse to the sky position.

Allied to players deliberately putting themselves the wrong side of the ball and only moving when teh ref tells them we get slow ball and a turgid game.

Joubert was dreadful at refereeing the breakdown. Both sides got away with far more than they should - but being better at playing right up to the refs boundaries the ABs got away with more.

Still in the end the best team in the competition won it.

biltongbek wrote: People will see it the way they want to see it.

Nail on the head there bilton.

As I've said, it was a passionate, emotional encounter. And I think the closer an underdog gets to beating a favourite, the more neutrals want it to happen and the more emotional energy they invest in it. And when it doesn't happen the disappointment and deflation leave people looking for answers as to why they are not getting the sense of enjoyment they think they deserve, it leaves a need to find excuses and reasons to blame.

And the commentators and analysts are the cheerleaders in this process.

NZ in 2007 and SA this time got very little sympathy because they weren't the brave, plucky, little guy beating the odds.

LondonTiger wrote:What constitutes staying on your feet is open to interpretation.

In the context of this game he was absolutely on his feet.

goneagain wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:What constitutes staying on your feet is open to interpretation.

In the context of this game he was absolutely on his feet.

But with reference to the Laws he was off his feet long before he let go of the ball - a ball he could only get at because of tacklers putting themselves the wrong side of the ball on purpose. But by then Joubert had completely lost control of the breakdown - and both teams committed more blatant offences than this that went unpunished. (He did knock on however, which I think was missed?)

LondonTiger wrote:

goneagain wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:What constitutes staying on your feet is open to interpretation.

In the context of this game he was absolutely on his feet.

But with reference to the Laws he was off his feet long before he let go of the ball - a ball he could only get at because of tacklers putting themselves the wrong side of the ball on purpose. But by then Joubert had completely lost control of the breakdown - and both teams committed more blatant offences than this that went unpunished. (He did knock on however, which I think was missed?)

True, to the letter of the law he was maybe off his feet. But as you seem to agree with me that both teams were guilty of this all game. It just grates that very few people are willing to look at both teams with the same level of scrutiny.

The French try came from a ruck penalty to the letter of the law. But nobody seems to want to talk about that.

goneagain wrote:

biltongbek wrote: People will see it the way they want to see it.

Nail on the head there bilton.

As I've said, it was a passionate, emotional encounter. And I think the closer an underdog gets to beating a favourite, the more neutrals want it to happen and the more emotional energy they invest in it. And when it doesn't happen the disappointment and deflation leave people looking for answers as to why they are not getting the sense of enjoyment they think they deserve, it leaves a need to find excuses and reasons to blame.

And the commentators and analysts are the cheerleaders in this process.

NZ in 2007 and SA this time got very little sympathy because they weren't the brave, plucky, little guy beating the odds.

very well said...

Goneagain
It was a knock on,nothing more nothing less.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Goneagain
It was a knock on,nothing more nothing less.

Yep, I said that on monday when I did my thread on "New Zealand full value for their win"

And was knocked on myself.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Goneagain
It was a knock on,nothing more nothing less.

Exactly.

He knocked on and Hore picked it up from an offside position. Was it French holding, Kaino off his feet or Hore offside? From the context of the game, free reign seemed to be given at the breakdown.