Can the Springboks beat the ABs this weekend?

by fa0019 Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:05 pm

First topic message reminder :

Here is the team

Springboks – 15 Willie le Roux, 14 Cornal Hendricks, 13 Jan Serfontein, 12 Jean de Villiers (c), 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Handré Pollard, 9 Francois Hougaard, 8 Duane Vermeulen/Schalk Burger, 7 Oupa Mohoje, 6 Marcell Coetzee, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Tendai Mtawarira.

Subs: 16 Adriaan Strauss, 17 Trevor Nyakane, 18 Marcel van der Merwe, 19 Bakkies Botha, 20 Schalk Burger/Warren Whiteley, 21 Cobus Reinach, 22 Pat Lambie, 23 JP Pietersen.

I look at the side and think they probably did well to beat AUS the way they did. AUS simply ran out of steam.

The forward pack - solid front five but missing Louw, Alberts and maybe Vermeulen... Coetzee & Mohoje are not in the same league as Alberts and Louw and Burger is past his best (20 min cameos are fine but 80 mins is a different issue altogether). Matfield will provide decent ball at the lineout and with Bissie back it will improve IMO. Scrumtime is difficult, Jannie is a bit of a liability. I'd be inclined to bring on vd Merwe sooner rather than later.

Backline - Its slow in the midfield. When you see a youthful Serfontein being outgassed by Ashley-Cooper you know he's short of a few steps. Then add into the mix an ageing JDV and you have a little problem. Hendricks is youthful and Hougaard offers a lot of pace off the ruck but not with his pass.

Rucktime - I think SA may struggle here. Without Flip, Louw and Vermeulen I think they will struggle on the floor against NZ and a reason why I think Bissie was brought back into the fold over Strauss. If Burger plays he needs to up his intensity and perhaps leave his ball carrying obligations to be the 1st man on the scene securing possession.

NZ - They are clearly a better side but can they keep the intensity up knowing the RC is already in the bag? The boks will be up for this big time, its a one off match, they don't need a record number of tries and they can secure their objective by winning by kicks only if necessary. NZ rarely drop the intensity but perhaps they may go to ellis park saying... how can we top last year???

For my 10 pence worth I think SA will look to strangle NZ and grind out a win..... but with Alberts, Louw, Flip, Du Preez, Vermeulen and no real centre solution at either 12 or 13 I think it may be a bridge too far. AUS were able to exploit their weakness in defence in both games and a more settled side (i.e. well rounded, strong upfront, backline and bench) like ENG in my opinion would turn over this current bok XV.... let alone NZ.

The boks with their best players all fit are a good match for NZ and at home would be expected to win... but with say 6-7 players out I think its unlikely.

It will be a devastating loss also. They have lost 5 matches in a row and if you take out the win in 2011 when NZ sent a 2nd XV to SA, they haven't beaten NZ since 2009. Crazy when you think they have near been the 2nd best team in the world for the duration.

This is such an important match for the boks, said it before... if they can't beat them at home now NZ might as well book their RWC final place as with no victories in this RWC cycle over NZ, how can they get the confidence and belief to win the most important one????

by Richard Sat Oct 04, 2014 7:57 pm

Doesn't bode well for the World Cup. Twickenham is renowned for influencing referees, it would be nice if the premier tournament was adjudicated by premier officials, but as far as I can see rugby refereeing is still little more than an amateurish sham.

by Richard Sat Oct 04, 2014 7:59 pm

ebop wrote:Well done boks. Couldn't watch the game and still can't because there's been a flippin power cut in Auckland all night, grrrr!! Sounded like a close one worthy of the fixture. NZ teams have been done by late pens this year. ABs twice, Crusaders in the Super final, ah well.

Yes I believe the referee apologised for two of those - wonder if Wayne Barnes will break his egotistical embargo and admit he might've been influenced in another unfortunate episode in his blotchy career.

by disneychilly Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:07 pm

I think the call was like the disallowed try in PE, it wasn't the accepted method of getting info across to the ref but if the call was correct no qualms. Not entirely sure about the penalty itself. Others disagree but that's just me.

by kingraf Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:10 pm

Not sure what Barnes got wrong here. Yes, it doesn't get shown, AB penalty for a later infringement, but do you really prefer it if he looks at it in front of him, and then move on as if nothing happened? If it was just a marginal forward pass, or a case of a collapsed scrum (both of which, believe it or not are also relayed on the big screen) then yeah, maybe the ref should ignore it. But in the case of a near shoulder charge, which were it not for mitigating circumstances was a yellow, right call made. Only issue is that this does put the power into the hands of the local producer a bit, which I'm not completely at ease with... but one could argue that the citing system works that way in any case.

by Mad for Chelsea Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:13 pm

I think once Barnes has decided to have a look at it the penalty is clear-cut. Simply put, Messam makes no attempt to wrap his arms around Burger, it's a clear shoulder-barge to my eyes (the fact it's high - albeit in part because Burger's ducking - doesn't help, but the main offence for me is the lack of arms in the tackle).

In any case, to blame the entire NZ defeat on that decision is misleading. NZ lost because they made too many errors (forced and unforced) and didn't secure their own possession well enough.

by Guest Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:19 pm

It's just home advantage. It's real. It's just the way it is. That's why I say if England make the RWC final next year they may as well just hand the trophy to them. The psychic energy and will for them to win will be too great for any opposition.

by Richard Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:19 pm

The game is adjudicated by a referee, his two on field assistants and the third match official - I whom certain review powers are granted in certain strictly controlled circumstances.

To have a situation where a local South african Home producer can throw up footage beyond even the criteria available to a TMO and then have an on field referee change the course of the game based on his dubious review should send shudders of revulsion through any fan.

Always seems to be certain characters involved in this bizarre and unethical farces, and Barnes name seems to come up far too often.

Last week we had a referee ignoring a head high no arms shot from a South African - worthy of red if not yellow - merely because he "played advantage". This week it's a penalty awarded by the crowd - surely it's time for the IRB to step in and censure some of these poor referees?

by Mad for Chelsea Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:22 pm

ebop wrote:It's just home advantage. It's real. It's just the way it is. That's why I say if England make the RWC final next year they may as well just hand the trophy to them. The psychic energy and will for them to win will be too great for any opposition.

well you'd know all about referees and home advantage in WC finals wouldn't you? Wink

jesting aside, you're right of course. Home advantage takes many forms, one of which can be the refereeing.

by Richard Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:24 pm

I'm not sure this is something that should be accepted. The laws are the laws and clearly Barnes has yet again ignored them. Isn't it time he was "retired"?

by disneychilly Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:26 pm

Yes everyone knows the show of solidarity Ed Morrison made with Mandela by waiving the offside line for the day Wink

You think more will be made of this? Hope the NZ media don't bleat about it-would see what other countries make of it maybe.

by Richard Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:28 pm

Other countries media will be deeply relived nz lost and unlikely to raise an eyebrow at ethics or righteousness.

by disneychilly Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:34 pm

Yup. Cue Stephen Jones writing an article for tomorrow's Times-when the ABs win he usually leaves it to Souster and Barnes but can't wait to get stuck in when NZ lose. Cue praise for Barnes for standing up to the bullying of the preening poached cheats in black who shouldn't be allowed to do the haka...etc etc...

by Mad for Chelsea Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:35 pm

disneychilly wrote:
You think more will be made of this? Hope the NZ media don't bleat about it-would see what other countries make of it maybe.

lequipe have made nothing whatsoever of it, merely saying that Lambie kicked a 56m penalty to win it. They had a rather negative impression of Savea, saying basically he tried too hard to back up Hansen's pre-match talk and made far too many errors. This surprises me a little. While I do think that Savea made a few mistakes (lost balls in contact, a couple of times made poor decisions...) surely the positives (140m made ball in hand?) far outweigh the negatives? I thought it was a good, maybe very good performance from him. The fact it was more a 7/8 out of 10 rather than the usual 9/10 doesn't make it a poor one...

by Mad for Chelsea Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:38 pm

disneychilly wrote:Yup. Cue Stephen Jones writing an article for tomorrow's Times-when the ABs win he usually leaves it to Souster and Barnes but can't wait to get stuck in when NZ lose. Cue praise for Barnes for standing up to the bullying of the preening poached cheats in black who shouldn't be allowed to do the haka...etc etc...

to be fait I thought Barnes in general had a very good game today. And I'm not sure anyone really takes Stephen Jones seriously anymore do they? He's become a parody of himself.

I wonder if in the long term this defeat could actually perversely help NZ in that they won't be going into next year's WC with the massive pressure of that huge unbeaten run. Of course balanced against that is the fact that other teams (and of course SA in particular) may see them as less invincible...

by **Biltong** Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:43 pm

Richard wrote:To have a situation where a local South african Home producer can throw up footage beyond even the criteria available to a TMO and then have an on field referee change the course of the game based on his dubious review should send shudders of revulsion through any fan.

You should watch rugby more often, it happens all the time. In fact, I have to think about it, but it has happened a number of times in the RC this year.

by TJ Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:10 pm

disneychilly wrote:I think the call was like the disallowed try in PE, it wasn't the accepted method of getting info across to the ref but if the call was correct no qualms. Not entirely sure about the penalty itself. Others disagree but that's just me.

Yup - and Barnes did ask the TMO - anything to look at?

by fa0019 Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:13 pm

Barnes truth be told had a good game. He gets a lot of stick for his forward pass miss years 7 years ago but he did well.

Whether of not the ref missed the shoulder charge or not... It was a citing level hit. The player is lucky. It was a min yellow for me.

SA played well. I'm glad they went behind and then came back. It takes a lot god a side to go so far ahead, get caught and then steal the win at this death... Most teams would have rolled over at this point.

Can we put to bed this savea > lomu farce now.....

At the moment in the pro era

Lomu

Robinson, Cullen, caucau

A few more players like habana, Wilson, howlett, Williams.

Then savea.

by blackcanelion Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:47 pm

Congratulations to the boks. Only seen the highlights. There are some cracking tries there. I think Pollard adds another dimension to their attack. Even as an opposition supporter that first try was a thing of beauty. Great kick at the end to win the game and I love seeing a coach with such obvious passion in the box.

by Taylorman Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:05 am

Boks played very well...some good tries and deserved the win. Second half the AB execution wasnt up to their usual standard for finishing and it cost them The Messam penalty was a fair call so no complaints.

I'm honestly glad that the boks have finally found the right way to play the game though they did seem to revert to type second half but that may have been due to the increased AB pressure. Even the AB's can't play that style for the whole game.

Just think the AB's were flat, and I don't think Barrett did himself any favours. Other than the pass for Fekitoas try didnt run the line or vary it up enough. It looks as though he's destined to be the impact player at least through to next years world cup. He's either breakmaker or ball shoveller and thats suits the impact role more.

Despite opinion that the AB's don't need a loss, they didnt look desperate enough for this and in my opinion got exactly what they need. For this is not the best Bok performance versus the AB's in the last 4. Last years Ellis they were better, its just that the AB's were far better then than tonight.

by FerN Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:12 am

rugby365 wrote:The Springboks managed to topple the mighty All Blacks at Ellis Park with a entertaining 27-25 victory on Saturday.

It was a game that the Springboks dominated with ball in hand, scoring three tries in the first half and looking deadily in their attack.

The All Blacks still proved they have a lot of class by comming back and scoring two tries to snatch the lead back with only minutes to go.

It took a late, long range Pat Lambie penalty to snatch the lead and the game.

We rate the Springboks:

15 Willie le Roux
Looked very lively once again and sparked plenty of attacking opportunities as he is famed for.
7/10

14 Cornal Hendricks
Showed good pace when he got the ball in hand but missed double the amount of tackles he made
7/10

13 Jan Serfontein
Again showed his impressive defensive capabilities but was also an important link in the midfield, a great all round performance.
8/10

12 Jean de Villiers (captain)
Tried to keep the ball alive wherever possible and was needed to make tackles in the midfield, but slipped three.
7/10

11 Bryan Habana
Tried to get involved early on and looked superb when he got a chance to run the ball in space, still has masses of pace
7/10

10 Handré Pollard
Seemed happy to attack the line and seem to do it with ease as he scored two tries with off first phase ball a brilliant attacking master class.
9/10

9 Francois Hougaard
looked to run the ball in close against the rucks, great backing up for his try and even looked strong in defence - a player that is steadily rising.
8/10

8 Duane Vermeulen
Another strong and dynamic performance for arguably the world's best No.8, did not look affected by his injury at all.
9/10

7 Teboho Mohojé
Worked hard off the ball, was used in the line-outs and effected a good steal or two but nothing spectacular.
6/10

6 Marcell Coetzee
Got some harsh decisions when he went for the ball at the breakdown but was busy throughout regardless.
6/10

5 Victor Matfield
A fairly quit game, but when he did get the ball he looked to move it through a number of good short pop passes and of course was instrumental in the line-out.
7/10

4 Eben Etzebeth
Played a bit like a battering ram, hard and straight to wear down the All Blacks' defence.
7/10

3 Jannie du Plessis
Gave away a vital penalty when the Boks were sure to score and slipped a number of tackles
4/10

2 Bismarck du Plessis
His throwing still looked to be an issue as a few line-outs were poached but was a good aggressive force.
7/10

1 Tendai Mtawarira
Got in a few more runs than he has for some time and made good yards.
7/10

Replacements:

16 Adriaan Strauss (on for B. Du Plessis, 52 mins)
Came on and got straight into it, keeping the intensity alive.
7/10

17 Trevor Nyakane (on for Mtawarira, 71 mins)
not enough time to be rated.

18 Marcel van der Merwe (on for J. Du Plessis, 62 mins)
Did not do much with the time he had but did work at the breakdown.
5/10

19 Bakkies Botha (on for Etzebeth, 62 mins)
Provided the grunt at the breakdowns when he came on and made a few carries himself.
6/10

20 Schalk Burger (on for Mohojé, 50 mins)
Came on and added to the tackle count straight away
7/10

21 Cobus Reinach (on for Hougaard, 65 mins)
Showing he is a good attacking option with a few good snipes
7/10

22 Pat Lambie (on for Pollard, 63 mins)
Put in the match winning kick from beyond the halfway-line and is showing that he deserves more time on the field.
6/10

23 JP Pietersen (on for Hendricks, 57 mins)
Showed his class and experience with some good field placement and a devastating charge down on Kerr-Barlow.
7/10

I don't agree with some of these though. Savea ran over/through Hendricks 4 times and JDV goes for an intercept that creates space for 2 tries and they get 7. Our loosies out play NZs loosies in my opinion and two of them gets 6. Marcell and Mohoje deserves more than those two in my opinion. I felt a bit relieved when JP came on.

http://www.rugby365.com/article/62471-player-ratings-running-rugby

by FerN Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:13 am

Rugby365 wrote:he All Blacks record undefeated run has finally come to an end as the Springboks dealt them a 25-27 defeat at Ellis Park in Johannesburg on Saturday.

The All Blacks felt the pressure right from the beginning with the Springboks piling on three tries in the first half against Malakai Fekitoa's one.

There was a big come back from the world champions as they got back two tries of their own in the second half.

It was a late Pat Lambie penalty for a swinging arm from Liam Messam that eventually cost the All Blacks the game.

We rate the All Blacks!

15 Israel Dagg
Missed every tackle he made in the first half but he was still a big threat on attack.
6/10

14 Ben Smith
The ball seem to find its way to Savea's wing more often but he did beat a number of defenders and got a try to boot.
6/10

13 Conrad Smith
Devastating in his defensive organisation, kept the Springboks behind the gain line and balanced it well with some good running.
8/10

12 Malakai Fekitoa
Ran hard and direct, a lot like Savea, and was just as devastating in the midfield.
7/10

11 Julian Savea
Took more than one or two Boks to bring him down each time he ran and made a lot of direct metres, really is the Lomu of this generation.
9/10

10 Beauden Barrett
Was troubled by Pollard who ran at him and exploited his poor defence but he did run the All Blacks backline well.
5/10

9 Aaron Smith
Busy around the rucks and made the Boks stretch around the fringes but his kicking game was a bit off.
7/10

8 Kieran Read
Was forced into a defence role throughout the game and put in thirteen tackles, equally with Richie McCaw.
6/10

7 Richie McCaw (captain)
As usual was a menace at the break down and put in a huge amount of tackles, inspirational captain
8/10

6 Jerome Kaino
A strong presence in the tight loose as well as with ball in had, powerful force.
7/10

5 Sam Whitelock
Did his job under pressure in the line-out but also impressed in his defensive work.
7/10

4 Jeremy Thrush
Took on Retallick's role as the enforcer by smashing some big tackles and did not let the team down
7/10

3 Owen Franks
Put in a fair amount of tackles but was not too impressive when it came to scrum time.
6/10

2 Keven Mealamu
showed he still has life in his experienced legs and made plenty of tackles but felt the pressure of Matfield at the line-outs.
6/10

1 Joe Moody
Worked really hard in his first start, put in plenty of tackles and was useful in the loose.
7/10

Replacments:

16 Dane Coles (on for Mealamu, 48 mins)
Was involved quickly off the bench with some of his famed running as he added an extra gear to the All Blacks with his try on the wing.
7/10

17 Ben Franks (on for Moody, 41 mins)
Ran hard and added with that put in a fair amount of tackles.
6/10

18 Charlie Faumuina (on for Franks, 57 mins)
Had a few runs and did well to set up Coles for his try.
7/10

19 Steven Luatua (on for Kaino, 60 mins)
Got involved with some effective ball carries as he got onto the park.
7/10

20 Liam Messam (on for Thrush, 48 mins)
Got plenty of time but was relatively quiet, should have maybe got a yellow card for his tackle on Schalk Burger
5/10

21 Tawera Kerr-Barlow (on for A. Smith, 65 mins)
Got a massive tackle fro Pietersen and that basically ended his night
4/10

22 Colin Slade
Not used.

23 Ryan Crotty (on for C. Smith, 73 mins)
Not enough time to be rated.

Added NZs as well
http://www.rugby365.com/article/62472-player-ratings-finally-defeated

by Taylorman Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:45 am

Don't agree that Barrett ran the backs well. 9 times out of 10 he just shovelled on. We missed the impact Barrett in the last 10 mins and instead got the starting, shovel it on with nothing special on it Barrett. He's confirming he's best as impact with every start.

by FerN Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:48 am

Ja I also think that had Cruden started it would have been a different game.

by offload Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:23 am

Good to see NZ fans (with one or two exceptions) acknowledge that it was SA that beat NZ not the ref.

For most of the match SA brought an expanded game, executed well and the AB's simply made too many mistakes. A close call, but yesterday SA were the better team and deserved the narrow win.

by Richard Sun Oct 05, 2014 10:14 am

fa0019 wrote:Barnes truth be told had a good game. He gets a lot of stick for his forward pass miss years 7 years ago but he did well.

Whether of not the ref missed the shoulder charge or not... It was a citing level hit. The player is lucky. It was a min yellow for me.

SA played well. I'm glad they went behind and then came back. It takes a lot god a side to go so far ahead, get caught and then steal the win at this death... Most teams would have rolled over at this point.

Can we put to bed this savea > lomu farce now.....

At the moment in the pro era

Lomu

Robinson, Cullen, caucau

A few more players like habana, Wilson, howlett, Williams.

Then savea.

Citing level hit? Nonsense. Have actually ever watched rugby? Not on TV? This stuff happens after literally every phase. It just does. To penalise it at such a point in time is naive hypocritical and beyond the powers given to the match officials. You can't make rulings on unsolicited big screen replays.

by emack2 Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:15 am

The King is dead,long live the King,the Jabberwock slain,from Meyer being THE worst bok
Coach ever to SUPER MEYER.The Bok gameplan was obvious to a blind man BEFORE the
game.

The cynic in me says had Hansen any doubts the RC would have been settled BEFORE
yesterday.Cruden would have missed one match plus a heavy fine,Retalick and Kung Fu
Panda would have miraculously made a start.

Before the game predicted discipline and goalkicking on the High Veldt would be decisive
it was.Great Game,and a great win for the Boks,the Penalty fair enough in discipline paid
the price.Would have been interesting if the the game had gone on another 5 minutes
or had been played at sea level whether the kick would have carried.

For All Blacks fans a quote by a famous writer [SIR TM] to Wilson Whineray after his team
lost its first test match "The sun will still rise tomorrow".Nothings changed ABs still IRB No 1,
RWC holders,Freedom Cup holders,4NS holders,Bledisloe Cup holders,World 7`s Series holder
etc.

The Cavalry is coming SBW,Kahui,Gear,Ellis,Carter,Cruden.maybe even Romano a loss was on
the cards.I`ve never bought into this invincible or Great bit you just play each game as it comes.

NOW would you like to bet on how many MORE matches they`ll lose this year my money is
on NONE.

Finally WELL DONE ARGENTINA beating AUS,when went to bed last night losing 14-0
after 20 minutes.Then today wow greatly deserved they have worked really hard this
year.

by fa0019 Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:19 am

Richard wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Barnes truth be told had a good game. He gets a lot of stick for his forward pass miss years 7 years ago but he did well.

Whether of not the ref missed the shoulder charge or not... It was a citing level hit. The player is lucky. It was a min yellow for me.

SA played well. I'm glad they went behind and then came back. It takes a lot god a side to go so far ahead, get caught and then steal the win at this death... Most teams would have rolled over at this point.

Can we put to bed this savea > lomu farce now.....

At the moment in the pro era

Lomu

Robinson, Cullen, caucau

A few more players like habana, Wilson, howlett, Williams.

Then savea.

Citing level hit? Nonsense. Have actually ever watched rugby? Not on TV? This stuff happens after literally every phase. It just does. To penalise it at such a point in time is naive hypocritical and beyond the powers given to the match officials. You can't make rulings on unsolicited big screen replays.

Mess am hit him with his shoulder, didn't wrap around and in fact pushed his shoulder out to meet burgers face. Bismarck was carded for a lesser offence last year.

I love it when people question other peoples rugby prowess. Jake White never played rugby beyond first team schools rugby. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the best eyes and mind in the game. Playing rugby is not a prerequisite to being knowledgable about it.

Nevertheless, that said... There are a few chaps on here that have played very high rugby. I think it was taylorman no who played division 1 kiwi rugby??? I myself played pretty high myself, unless you have played pro and were capped by England youth I can assert my experience is at a higher level than you... But as I said it not a definitive correlation.

Happens every game. Shows as much in that statement about how you pass off such a move. Messam and burger are the same size. Messam tackled high without arms. Fine in league, although I'd be interested to see the mental ability of a retired league player 20 years post playing... One too many of those and you will seriously be impacted.

by Mr Fishpaste Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:23 am

Richard, what would you have Barnes do? He can't un-see the incident. If he didn't address it he'd have had all the Bok fans moaning at him. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't!

by fa0019 Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:29 am

Meyer is no messiah alan

He won a game, that's it with nothing on the table bar pride. The boks will take it as that. Bok coaches are measured on how the fair against NZ but a great coach wins in NZ, not just when you have home support and familiar settings.

The boks were also missing

Flip vd merwe
Alberts
Louw

Which would strengthen that pack no end so both sides had their injuries.

NZ I think will find it tough in twickenham, Eng are a serious side now and I'd say it's only 55-45 in NZ favour when they meet in England. I would say England are now neck and neck with the boks.

by Richard Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:08 pm

It's just a shame to have yet another classic contest mired by refereeing controversy.

by Cyril Sun Oct 05, 2014 12:28 pm

by The Saint Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:39 pm

Richard wrote:It's just a shame to have yet another classic contest mired by refereeing controversy.

Richard you sure are on bitter kiwi. laughing

by TJ Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:30 pm

Richard wrote:It's just a shame to have yet another classic contest mired by refereeing controversy.

Really? I see no controversy. Was the decision correct or not? Clearly a pen IMO

by disneychilly Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:16 pm

Pen at worst but no card. Burger was falling as Coles had his legs. But like McCaw in the Super Rugby final, he put the ref in a position to make a call and he didn't have to do that.

by Mad for Chelsea Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:22 pm

still a shoulder-charge, I think he was lucky not to be binned TBH.

by **Notch** Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:58 pm

Biltong wrote:
Richard wrote:To have a situation where a local South african Home producer can throw up footage beyond even the criteria available to a TMO and then have an on field referee change the course of the game based on his dubious review should send shudders of revulsion through any fan.

You should watch rugby more often, it happens all the time. In fact, I have to think about it, but it has happened a number of times in the RC this year.

One of the major issues I have with the TMO. In a recent Ulster game against Zebre in Italy there was what seemed to be a potential gouge on one of our players which he retaliated to with a punch. The Italian host broadcaster did not show any context to the incident, only showing the punch with nothing that led up to it at all.

by Taylorman Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:13 pm

Notch wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Richard wrote:To have a situation where a local South african Home producer can throw up footage beyond even the criteria available to a TMO and then have an on field referee change the course of the game based on his dubious review should send shudders of revulsion through any fan.

You should watch rugby more often, it happens all the time. In fact, I have to think about it, but it has happened a number of times in the RC this year.

One of the major issues I have with the TMO. In a recent Ulster game against Zebre in Italy there was what seemed to be a potential gouge on one of our players which he retaliated to with a punch. The Italian host broadcaster did not show any context to the incident, only showing the punch with nothing that led up to it at all.

It was weird just seeing it pop up out of nowhere like that, particularly after at least 4 phases across both sides of the field, including a run by Burger himself, ending with the AB scrum... then it just... 'pops up' out of nowhere. Oddly, looking at the replay Barnes was looking straight at it two meters away when it happened and he didn't call it.

Nothing wrong with awarding the penalty and a good kick in the circs but in short 'someone'- neither on the field, nor adjudicating the match had a significant influence on the result. It came up that quickly its as though that someone was using their position to try and influence the match. That doesnt look right, but as I say, had it been awarded at the time it might have been the same result- though at least the AB's would have 3 minutes to do something instead of one.

Just one of those things I guess but going forward there needs to be some transparency in the process given the camera view is now part of the decision making and not just for entertainment.

Its like showing an uncalled for review via hawkeye in tennis where everyone sees it then the player says, review please.

by Richard Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:47 pm

TJ wrote:
Richard wrote:It's just a shame to have yet another classic contest mired by refereeing controversy.

Really? I see no controversy. Was the decision correct or not? Clearly a pen IMO

Imagine this - a try was scored. In that situation the TMO can check the scoring phase, but not before. The match producer puts up a clear infringement (say obstruction or holding back) in the preceding phase on the big screen instead of the scoring play.

If the referee rules on it he is operating beyond his jurisdiction. We've seen it happen and the referee involved was disciplined.

To me this is the exact situation - in this case the referee had no right whatsoever to make a judgement on an unsolicited replay. He did. He was wrong. Whether the replay actually showed a penalisable foul is utterly irrelevant.

The leeway for the use of technology is given strict parameters for good reasons - to ignore them should see a referee disciplined.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:07 pm

This happened last season as well cant for the life of me think what game. Good job it was the right decision but Im sure IRB/WR will look at it. We cant be getting correct decisions like this.

by Richard Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:16 pm

Correct is entirely subjective - hence the restrictions sensibly placed on the use of technology.

Is it fair to ping a team based on applicAtion of one random replay when the same scrutiny is not placed on every passage of play? I think not.

Imagine if the rwc were decided by a video producers selection of propaganda.

by TJ Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:18 pm

Richard - Actually Barnes spoke via his mike to the replay offical and asked him " anything to look at there?" so the replay offical looked at the replays and made a recommendation Also nowadays the ref can look back further than the scoring phase for infringements. So wrong on both counts I am afraid - the correct avenues were used

by Richard Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:28 pm

No - I'm correct. Barnes was beyond his jurisdiction.

by TJ Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:31 pm

Really? what on earth makes you think that. he spoke to the replay offical and asked him if there was anything to look at, the replay offical looked at the video and said yes - pen no yellow. Perfectly OK - and you are wrong about only being able to look at the act of scoring.

You are wrong about what happened - Barnes did not make the decision based on the replay shown by the TV producers - he followed correct proceedure.

You are alos wrong about only being able to look at the scoring phase - that was changed a couple of years ago. Barnes made the right call using the right proceedure.

by Richard Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:32 pm

Check the Irb protocol on TMO and use of replays. I can't post links but it's here:

Irb.com/mm/document/newsmedia/mediazone/02/06/34/01/tmotrialprotocols2.pdf

You need to add the h t t p bit obviously.

by TJ Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:35 pm

I suggest you read that link - it states that what barnes did is exactly correct.

The match officials may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO
for review if they observe an act of foul play where:

They may have only partially observed an act or acts of foul play

They are unsure of the exact circumstances

The views of the match officials reporting the act(s) of foul play differ

There is doubt as to the appropriate sanctions to be applied
3.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate that he
wishes the TMO to review the potential act(s) of foul play and to make a
recommendation as to the appropriate sanction(s).
3.3. In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion
on eachoccasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious especially where sanctions
may apply where a player is removed from the field of play either temporarily or
permanently.
3.4. The other match officials may utilise the in stadium screens (where available) to
form a judgement in this matter.

by Richard Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:38 pm

You're quoting out if context - the referee may use the big screen to review the incident as well as the TMO - but only the footage stipulated in other criteria.

And also you are quoting from the NH only applicable amendments - gotcha there!

by blackcanelion Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:12 am

I'm going to admit I'm not comfortable with the process that led to the last penalty kicked. The game was great, so this is not so much about the game, or the result, it's more about going forward. It was a penalisable offence.

Having now seen the game my feeling is that the game went on one or phases after the offence and none of the on field officials picked it up. It seems top be bought to the attention by the host broadcaster and the pointed out by the De Villiers. My feeling is the ref and touch judges should call, and go to the third official if they think it necessary.

I understand (from reading Biltongbek's earlier post) that this may not be an isolated event. I still think it's something the IRB should avoid in principle.

My reasoning is:

It provides for too much for the home team. This is as true for Auckland, Sydney or London. It's been pointed out that there are multiple offences that occur all the time in rugby. I think there in lies the problem. Effectively allowing the home team to focus the referee in on individual indiscretions of the opposition doesn't sit well with me. For instance in this game there were a number of shoulder charges (e.g. tackles Pietersen and Coetzee between the 60 and 70 minute marks, I wouldn't be surprised if there others from both sides).

I'm not sure of the solution. I think no replays until the next phase is set (i.e. scrum, lineout, etc). I know this means offences will be missed, but that's essentially rugby. In this case the player may have been cited by the match referee.

Lastly. Congratulations once again to the boks and their supporters. Well played and a great game. No complaints about losing. Your team will be even better when you get back closer to full strength. No complaints about Barnes and the refereeing team. I'm not a Barnes fan, but that's style issue for me. It's a pretty good penalty count for an away game for the AB's so I'm not going to be upset because I disagree with the odd decision (the boks were actually penalised more - which doesn't happen that often at home). In terms of the AB's they've got away with a few escapes (e.g. Ireland last year) so this probably evens it out a bit. They still had an opportunity to win. There's nothing like a game in the republic to shine the light on players. I think the likes of Thrush, Moody and Fekitoa got good runs and will better for it. I think our depth at loosehead and the power lock has really been tested this year, but it's potentially a positive looking forward to next year and beyond. my feeling is the boks won it up front in the tight 5 in the first half, pollard was excellent and Meyers tactics were spot on. I was particularly impressed with the boks technique at the breakdown. Their second man in often dominated the ruck.

by Taylorman Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:26 am

yep...sums it up for me bc...

I see SBW is playing for Counties vs Auckland this Wednesday, so looks like our midfield options are starting to bulk up already.

by blackcanelion Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:28 am

Taylorman wrote:yep...sums it up for me bc...

I see SBW is playing for Counties vs Auckland this Wednesday, so looks like our midfield options are starting to bulk up already.

Ranger and Hosea Gear are on their way back soon as well. A potential glut of talent out wide.

by Richard Mon Oct 06, 2014 7:13 am

This incident has opened the door for the home unions to employ specialists to constantly review multiple camera feeds and then advise missed offenses to the producer to display them on the big screen repeatedly until the ref spots them - aided by the home captain.

It's changes the game completely. Barnes has messed up big time.

by Sponsored content