Can the Springboks beat the ABs this weekend?

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????

But he was right. Good to have another face on the forum by the way.

Richard wrote: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.

Or anyone for that matter. It could just as easily be Auckland. I hope they review the process and stop it. I don't think it's good for the game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But he was right. Good to have another face on the forum by the way.

It was right. Although I think dangerous tackle, in terms of a lack of arms was probably better. However, I don't think that's the point. If I go to my kids junior game in the weekend, each side provides refs for a half. Invariably some over enthusiastic parents from either side spend a fair bit of time winging that the other teams ref has missed their own sides infringements. For me this is the same thing. Instead of screaming it out you play it on a rather large screen for all to see. I don't mind it so most of the time, and I don't mind refs looking at the screen to make up there mind on an issue. I'm happy for Barnes to look at the review on the screen and make his interpretation. It beats the ref upstairs doing it. What I'd rather didn't happen is the use of screen by the host broadcaster to highlight unpicked up infringements. Essentially, because it will tend to favour the homeside. Rugby is dynamic game, where rules are bent and broken every ruck, maul, scrum and lineout. It works when the ref in the middle has a feel for the game and refs what he see's consistently. This was a game with a number of shoulder charges and high tackles that went unpicked by the refereeing trio. NB: thought boks had a deserved victory and Barnes was ok. This is more about going forward. If it happens in NZ next year I'll be doubly peed. I'm hoping the captains challenge does away with the need anyway (although I've got reservations about that as well).

blackcanelion wrote:

Richard wrote: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.

Or anyone for that matter. It could just as easily be Auckland. I hope they review the process and stop it. I don't think it's good for the game.

You are never going to remove that from the game unless you remove the big screens from the stadiums.

Richard I understand you are unhappy about the loss and therefor justifying yourself, but how often has the Boks copped decisions going against them for referee errors in the last few years.

Every time I am told suck it up, so mate, suck it up, the result aint going to change.

Besides, in close matches you can question many decisions if you are so inclined, all of them could have changed the result of the match.

In this case even though you disagree with how the referee came to the right decision, the tackle was illegal, I even went on the New Zealand Herald and saw them calling it an unfortunate incident.

BS, watch it again, whether Burger was going down already is not the point, it was a stiff arm.

We have been penalised and carded for those ad infinitum.

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

Richard wrote: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.

Or anyone for that matter. It could just as easily be Auckland. I hope they review the process and stop it. I don't think it's good for the game.

You are never going to remove that from the game unless you remove the big screens from the stadiums.

Richard I understand you are unhappy about the loss and therefor justifying yourself, but how often has the Boks copped decisions going against them for referee errors in the last few years.

Every time I am told suck it up, so mate, suck it up, the result aint going to change.

Besides, in close matches you can question many decisions if you are so inclined, all of them could have changed the result of the match.

In this case even though you disagree with how the referee came to the right decision, the tackle was illegal, I even went on the New Zealand Herald and saw them calling it an unfortunate incident.

BS, watch it again, whether Burger was going down already is not the point, it was a stiff arm.

We have been penalised and carded for those ad infinitum.

BB get your point. I think I pointed out in couple of other posts. It's penalisable offence. It was one of a number of similar dangerous tackles made in the match. If Barnes was just going back to check it out on screen I'd have no qualms. The boks won and deservedly so. In the contect of the game it's one of those things that happens every week. Overall, we didn't do to badly with Barnes in the weekend.. My beef, is more with the process going forward. Hopefully the ref challenge overtakes it anyway.

The point is, it's not in the spirit of sport for the 'host' broadcasters to influence refereeing decisions like this. I recall this happening in SA before, and in Oz. To me, it is a bit underhand. Right decision sure, but it kind of takes the shine off the win.

I doubt you will find many bok fans or neutrals who see it as a diminished victory in any way.

I imagine so.

ebop wrote:The point is, it's not in the spirit of sport for the 'host' broadcasters to influence refereeing decisions like this. I recall this happening in SA before, and in Oz. To me, it is a bit underhand. Right decision sure, but it kind of takes the shine off the win.

...and in NZ. In the last Bok v AB match in NZ, whenever the ref made a 50/50 call in favour of the ABs, or if there was some AB off the ball stuff it was not replayed, but when it was a 50/50 call in favour of the boks, or bok off the ball stuff it was subjected to multiple slow-mo replays so that we could all see it again.

Perhaps, we're gonna need a fourth match official to tell the producers which clips they can or can't show

Was it? Don't recall this being the case. Anyways mate, you guys won fair and square. A deserved victory.

quinsforever wrote:I doubt you will find many bok fans or neutrals who see it as a diminished victory in any way.

Yep, I take this win with a lot of gratitude, we have been on the receiving end of dubious calls in the Antipodes for a while now, and lost some close games, not only because of these calls, but nevertheless losses.

The decision was the right one, and whether some believe it is underhanded by Supersport, I really don't care as the same thing happens everywhere.

We had to fight very hard for this victory and any victory over the All Blacks must be savoured as they are usually few and far between.

[quote="ebop"]The point is, it's not in the spirit of sport for the 'host' broadcasters to influence refereeing decisions like this. I recall this happening in SA before, and in Oz. To me, it is a bit underhand. Right decision sure, but it kind of takes the shine off the win. [/quotI am sure it does not take the shine off the win. It was a fair win and a penalty all the way. ALL the News on NZ TV was about Barnes again, such a shame NZ can not be defeated without coming out with pathetic excuses time and time again. Well done the Bok well deserved. Unlucky AB's well competed but you lost fair and square.

None of NZ media I`ve read have said much about the penalty just one of those things.When you consider the game came down to two goalkicks a missed conversion a kicked penalty.

Anyone with any knowledge of Super,3/4 N`s Rugby would know Home advantage at least
between SA/NZ sides .Because of travel and other factors home win in the case of Nz/SA.
At Joburg or Bloemfomtain 70/30 Boks win,at sea level 60/40 Boks win ABS have something
like 43% away record versus Boks.

On Coaches FAO only,Great Coaches beat AB`s in NZ only De Villiers [2] and Mallett [1]
come in that category in the Pro Era,and precious few there anytime.[6]others.

No one in NZ is crying about the SA broadcasters doing what they did. I'm not either. We lost and SA deserved the win. It's just quite a novel way in which it transpired. No matter who you support, you'd have to admit, it was a bit of a different way to win a penalty. That's the point. And like BC has said, do we want host nations doing more and more of this or does the IRB need to have a look at laying down a few guidelines. Do we want host broadcasters focusing all their attention on opposition indiscretions? I see it creeping in more and more and I don't think it's a good thing.

Well done SA. A good hard fought win. And that's a take home message

emack2 wrote:On Coaches FAO only,Great Coaches beat AB`s in NZ only De Villiers [2] and Mallett [1] come in that category in the Pro Era,and precious few there anytime.[6]others.

You would rate De Villiers as a great coach when other don't even rate him as good. I rate him as good, but great is a bit far I would think. And also he was one of the most conservative coaches, but he did accomplish a few great things. But he also had a very good team playing for him.

I would say De Villiers did better than people give him credit for.

Jake White never won in NZ. PDV did it twice and in 2009 he got the boks to the top of the tree which with 3 wins in 3 matches vs. NZ couldn't be denied.

Meyer getting 1 out 6 with arguably the same pool of talent shows how tough he had it and probably shows a little about Meyer too.

Remember PDV took over a world cup winning side and sure that's great but where do you find hunger when your goals have already been accomplished?  No team has won back to back trophies.

I though Pdivvy was a good coach. He did reach #1 in the world. Something which we haven't really been near achieving with Meyer (a distant #2 doesn't count), he also has a 3N and a Lions victory. Had his lads not slipped up against Scotland of all teams, he'd also have had a Grand Slam. Had he got that, then I'd have had him as a great coach. He could still get there, as his relatively young for a coach.

Also I just don't rate White that highly. Cakewalk world cups are still world cups, of course, but I can't think there's a Bok coach post unity who couldn't have won it with the draw we where handed. Except maybe Straulie

Look PDV is a good coach.  He had better credentials than the previous 3 coaches SA had (just maybe not better than his main rival for the position at the time).  His record in NZ can't be sweeped to the side because he had a RWC winning team, as we did get lucky in 2007.  NZ had the same team we couldn't beat the years before under Jake that faced PDV's team.  So he and his coaching team must have done something right.  But he will also be remembered for moving back to our one dimensional play, which at the time might have been the right thing to do, but he didn't shift again when it wasn't the best to play the kicking game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But he was right. Good to have another face on the forum by the way.

hmmm

New old face?

Jake White built the team Pieter de Villiers had success with, there is no way arguing the fact.

I honestly think the media and the public are to blame for the boks demise as much as PDV's.

PDV was hounded to the ground, the sex tape, the harassment and the public making him a laughing stock... as well as the IRB refusing to give him the coach of the year award in 2009.... sure evidence that they would have given it to anyone with a pulse instead of himself.

His only major mistake (which I thnk stemmed all the rest) was to tell Smit he needed him up the RWC. He and Smit openly say they planned for Smit to retire from the Lions tour yet he was pushed so far that the only person he felt he could trust was Smit

I mean Matfield... Matfield refused to see him for 6 months post the RWC. PDV went to France to see him and Matfield said he was unavailable all because he was upset his choice, his club coach Meyer was overruled.

and should PDV have given the armband to Matfield or Du Preez another one of Meyers supporters?

The Bulls players, the bulls senior players at the time did a lot to disrupt the boks and I think we would have seen a very different SA had everyone from the start said... SARU made their choice, it was a fair choice perhaps not mine but lets all get behind the boks.

Biltong wrote:Jake White built the team Pieter de Villiers had success with, there is no way arguing the fact.

You could say the same about Hansen... but people don't.

PDV was unfairly depicted in the media both in SA and in the global rugby community.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Jake White built the team Pieter de Villiers had success with, there is no way arguing the fact.

You could say the same about Hansen... but people don't.

PDV was unfairly depicted in the media both in SA and in the global rugby community.

That may be true, but what did PDV bring or add?

He had a good relationship with the players and it is well know he brought little in way of technical nous.

ebop wrote:New old face?

We'll see

To be honest I fail to see the Jake White hype. I'm pretty sure Meyer could win a world cup every year of his career if he has to beat Tonga and Argentina to get to the final. And then face an England there on guts and determination. He's work with the Sharks promised much, but ultimately fell short... probably because he didn't face the Lions and the Force in the knockouts. Then his time with the Lions was so bad it doesn't even get discussed, its like a vacuum in history.

Jake White did a lot of good, he built a good side but perhaps his messiah image could be half due to Straeuli being so bad.

I don't think there is a lo of Hype around Jake White, he can identify talent and build a team, then he will build the basic foundations of set piece etc.

Further than that I haven't seen much to get excited about, by the way, personally I don't like him.

His ambition is getting in the way of his career.

he is a good coach... but its no surprise he quickly goes from club to club.

Biltong wrote:Jake White built the team Pieter de Villiers had success with, there is no way arguing the fact.

When PdV brought back Matfield, Bakkies and Smit the public already said they were passed their best - yet two of them just played this weekend. And if they were passed their best why couldn't White win in NZ. Most of the players was in PdV's U19 or U21 teams as well. Who of the other players would you have chosen in his tenure for a bok that he didn't choose?

Andries Bekker at the time was very promising... when he decided to go to Japan he was finally starting to live up to the hype he had in his early career. Shame that.

Too big an ego though.

FerN wrote:

Biltong wrote:Jake White built the team Pieter de Villiers had success with, there is no way arguing the fact.

When PdV brought back Matfield, Bakkies and Smit the public already said they were passed their best - yet two of them just played this weekend.  And if they were passed their best why couldn't White win in NZ.  Most of the players was in PdV's U19 or U21 teams as well.  Who of the other players would you have chosen in his tenure for a bok that he didn't choose?

Experience.

He only brought back Smit, Bakkies only left SA in 2012 and Vicki was overseas for less than a season because he didn't enjoy it.

I was only commenting on FAO`s definition of a Great Coach,also interested that when
discussing SA success since Pro era .They said "Excepting the PDV era"his record was
5-6 win rate,granted 3 of those wins were against an injury crippled NZ side.The
loss to France that year the weakest AB side in a decade.

I do not consider him a Great Coach but he did have a Great record including 2 away wins
v AB`s.Jake White did for me the unforgiveable sacrificed a test and tournament for the
RWC.much overated Eddie Jones was best Bok Coach post 2006.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

ebop wrote:The point is, it's not in the spirit of sport for the 'host' broadcasters to influence refereeing decisions like this. I recall this happening in SA before, and in Oz. To me, it is a bit underhand. Right decision sure, but it kind of takes the shine off the win. [/quotI am sure it does not take the shine off the win.  It was a fair win and a penalty all the way.  ALL the News on NZ TV was about Barnes again, such a shame NZ can not be defeated without coming out with pathetic excuses time and time again.  Well done the Bok well deserved.  Unlucky AB's well competed but you lost fair and square.

Tut tut...making things up again to suit your little anti AB fan cause at rainbow...sad.

emack2 wrote:I was only commenting on FAO`s definition of a Great Coach,also interested that when
discussing SA success since Pro era .They said "Excepting the PDV era"his record was
5-6 win rate,granted 3 of those wins were against an injury crippled NZ side.The
loss to France that year the weakest AB side in a decade.

I do not consider him a Great Coach but he did have a Great record including 2 away wins
v AB`s.Jake White did for me the unforgiveable sacrificed a test and tournament for the
RWC.much overated Eddie Jones was best Bok Coach post 2006.

That is a little harsh Alan.

Firstly. Most teams will never be fully fit. Most have at least 1-3 injuries at any single point in time. Both the boks and NZ have hardly ever been 100% fit.

Secondly.... which matches in particular are you speaking of?

How about the loss in Hamilton in 2009? Well this was the side

Mils Muliaina; Joe Rokocoko, Ma'a Nonu, Stephen Donald, Sitiveni Sivivatu; Dan Carter, Jimmy Cowan; Tony Woodcock, Andrew Hore, Owen Franks, Brad Thorn, Isaac Ross, Jerome Kaino, Richie McCaw (capt), Kieran Read

so Donald perhaps instead of Smith? Perhaps Ross but then again NZ were at the time struggling with LT injuries to Williams and Whitelock had yet to fully emerge.

Other than that... that is a full strength side. Hardly crippled.

Perhaps the loss in Dunedin in 2008? Well this was that side

Mils Muliaina, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Conrad Smith, Ma'a Nonu, Rudi Wulf, Dan Carter, Andy Ellis; Tony Woodcock, Andrew Hore, John Afoa, Anthony Boric, Ali Williams, Adam Thomson, Rodney So'oialo (capt), Jerome Kaino.


So no McCaw and Thorn... but again otherwise a full strength side.

Not exactly the most humble of statements. Injuries happen, happen to every team in every game. NZ have more than enough cover and strength in depth and in both those instances your statement is a little wild to say the least.

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I doubt you will find many bok fans or neutrals who see it as a diminished victory in any way.

Yep, I take this win with a lot of gratitude, we have been on the receiving end of dubious calls in the Antipodes for a while now, and lost some close games, not only because of these calls, but nevertheless losses.

The decision was the right one, and whether some believe it is underhanded by Supersport, I really don't care as the same thing happens everywhere.

We had to fight very hard for this victory and any victory over the All Blacks must be savoured as they are usually few and far between.

I'm not overly concerned about the loss as the boks were the better side on the day. Still doesn't mean two wrongs make a right biltong. And if the same scenario has happened before none has been anywhere near at an as important point in the match in an as important match. And if you're not concerned this time how do you expect to be heard when it happens the other way?

Boks certainly worked hard for the win but the reality and likelihood is that had that little scene not been put up when it was the boks would likely not have won. So regardless...they were certainly helped by non officiating sources, so your lack of concern over it not being an issue going forward after being for so long the battler for such causes is a little hypocritical but perhaps the win glosses over all that in the end.

The decision was certainly right, how it came to be certainly wasn't. Refs cannot be dictated to that way.

Anyway...I'm disappointed in our second half effort in not closing it out and as far as I'm concerned we just executed poorly at critical times, Barrett got done by pollard head to head and the boks combination of physicality and the running game triggered by hougaard and pollard is what made this match a great one. This was a real game plan by the boks, much more interesting, exciting, varied. How the continuous kick kick kick theory was maintained for so long remains a mystery.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I doubt you will find many bok fans or neutrals who see it as a diminished victory in any way.

Yep, I take this win with a lot of gratitude, we have been on the receiving end of dubious calls in the Antipodes for a while now, and lost some close games, not only because of these calls, but nevertheless losses.

The decision was the right one, and whether some believe it is underhanded by Supersport, I really don't care as the same thing happens everywhere.

We had to fight very hard for this victory and any victory over the All Blacks must be savoured as they are usually few and far between.

I'm not overly concerned about the loss as the boks were the better side on the day. Still doesn't mean two wrongs make a right biltong. And if the same scenario has happened before none has been anywhere near at an as important point in the match in an as important match. And if you're not concerned this time how do you expect to be heard when it happens the other way?

Boks certainly worked hard for the win but the reality and likelihood is that had that little scene not been put up when it was the boks would likely not have won. So regardless...they were certainly helped by non officiating sources, so your lack of concern over it not being an issue going forward after being for so long the battler for such causes is a little hypocritical but perhaps the win glosses over all that in the end.

The decision was certainly right, how it came to be certainly wasn't. Refs cannot be dictated to that way.

Anyway...I'm disappointed in our second half effort in not closing it out and as far as I'm concerned we just executed poorly at critical times, Barrett got done by pollard head to head and the boks combination of physicality and the running game triggered by hougaard and pollard is what made this match a great one. This was a real game plan by the boks, much more interesting, exciting, varied. How the continuous kick kick kick theory was maintained for so long remains a mystery.

Tman, the time of the incident should have no baring on the importance, nobody has ever in the past complained about it, neither have we when it has happened to us, why should it be an issue now, because the AB's lost?

Just want to wrap up one point.....Burger falling made no difference to challenge. Messam went high and hit Burger's head... but given he didn't even attempt a wrap around it was a shoulder charge regardless so it has nothing to do with Burger falling.

That's 2 points where Messam was at fault, regardless of Burger it was a penalty.

Also Barnes asked the TMO no due to JDV questioning? It wasn't the TMO saying... hi Wayne, I think I have managed to unearth some fault which will give my side a penalty shot at victory. The referee asked and the TMO obliged? What is wrong with that.

Does anyone remember a game where Nigel Owens was refereeing and the TMO couldn't get any footage up to look at. In the end, Owens said he couldn't wait all day, and played on.

I recall the incident being discussed afterwards, amid suggestions that the home production team held it up, but damned if I can use google well enough to dig it out.

I have a feeling it was a Rugby Championship match or else a June international, but could easily be wrong.

The point being that a production team can affect TMO decision-making by what they don't show as much as what they do show.

Sounds familiar, I remember such an instance when Steve Walsh officiated as well. Can't remember which game though, it could have been this year or last year.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I doubt you will find many bok fans or neutrals who see it as a diminished victory in any way.

Yep, I take this win with a lot of gratitude, we have been on the receiving end of dubious calls in the Antipodes for a while now, and lost some close games, not only because of these calls, but nevertheless losses.

The decision was the right one, and whether some believe it is underhanded by Supersport, I really don't care as the same thing happens everywhere.

We had to fight very hard for this victory and any victory over the All Blacks must be savoured as they are usually few and far between.

I'm not overly concerned about the loss as the boks were the better side on the day. Still doesn't mean two wrongs make a right biltong. And if the same scenario has happened before none has been anywhere near at an as important point in the match in an as important match. And if you're not concerned this time how do you expect to be heard when it happens the other way?

Boks certainly worked hard for the win but the reality and likelihood is that had that little scene not been put up when it was the boks would likely not have won. So regardless...they were certainly helped by non officiating sources, so your lack of concern over it not being an issue going forward after being for so long the battler for such causes is a little hypocritical but perhaps the win glosses over all that in the end.

The decision was certainly right, how it came to be certainly wasn't. Refs cannot be dictated to that way.

Anyway...I'm disappointed in our second half effort in not closing it out and as far as I'm concerned we just executed poorly at critical times, Barrett got done by pollard head to head and the boks combination of physicality and the running game triggered by hougaard and pollard is what made this match a great one. This was a real game plan by the boks, much more interesting, exciting, varied. How the continuous kick kick kick theory was maintained for so long remains a mystery.

Tman, the time of the incident should have no baring on the importance, nobody has ever in the past complained about it, neither have we when it has happened to us, why should it be an issue now, because the AB's lost?

No. Nothing to do with the ABs losing. Simply because its wrong. The current rules for a try only allow going back two phases. Here there were at least four with no reason or official calling for it. When it came up first there was the crowd...then jdv pounced on it, then several more replays with more crowd boos, then Barnes ruling on it. He should have made the decision as to whether he should be looking at a past event rather than being influenced by those obviously around him pressuring him to.

Under what rule was he required to officiate on it?

Anyway...if you can't used that in the general haze of the win then that's understandable but if does go to confirm one of my theories...in the big matches the boks still need certain things to go right for them...including the ref. So that is true here...they just had that little bit of extra help.

Not worried about the win as I said...

And I've yet to used any so called example raised from the past so happy to know of one similar if its happened before.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I doubt you will find many bok fans or neutrals who see it as a diminished victory in any way.

Yep, I take this win with a lot of gratitude, we have been on the receiving end of dubious calls in the Antipodes for a while now, and lost some close games, not only because of these calls, but nevertheless losses.

The decision was the right one, and whether some believe it is underhanded by Supersport, I really don't care as the same thing happens everywhere.

We had to fight very hard for this victory and any victory over the All Blacks must be savoured as they are usually few and far between.

I'm not overly concerned about the loss as the boks were the better side on the day. Still doesn't mean two wrongs make a right biltong. And if the same scenario has happened before none has been anywhere near at an as important point in the match in an as important match. And if you're not concerned this time how do you expect to be heard when it happens the other way?

Boks certainly worked hard for the win but the reality and likelihood is that had that little scene not been put up when it was the boks would likely not have won. So regardless...they were certainly helped by non officiating sources, so your lack of concern over it not being an issue going forward after being for so long the battler for such causes is a little hypocritical but perhaps the win glosses over all that in the end.

The decision was certainly right, how it came to be certainly wasn't. Refs cannot be dictated to that way.

Anyway...I'm disappointed in our second half effort in not closing it out and as far as I'm concerned we just executed poorly at critical times, Barrett got done by pollard head to head and the boks combination of physicality and the running game triggered by hougaard and pollard is what made this match a great one. This was a real game plan by the boks, much more interesting, exciting, varied. How the continuous kick kick kick theory was maintained for so long remains a mystery.

Tman, the time of the incident should have no baring on the importance, nobody has ever in the past complained about it, neither have we when it has happened to us, why should it be an issue now, because the AB's lost?

No. Nothing to do with the ABs losing. Simply because its wrong. The current rules for a try only allow going back two phases. Here there were at least four with no reason or official calling for it. When it came up first there was the crowd...then jdv pounced on it, then several more replays with more crowd boos, then Barnes ruling on it. He should have made the decision as to whether he should be looking at a past event rather than being influenced by those obviously around him pressuring him to.

Under what rule was he required to officiate on it?

Anyway...if you can't used that in the general haze of the win then that's understandable but if does go to confirm one of my theories...in the big matches the boks still need certain things to go right for them...including the ref. So that is true here...they just had that little bit of extra help.

Not worried about the win as I said...

And I've yet to used any so called example raised from the past so happy to know of one similar if its happened before.

There are recent examples, I am racking my brain to remember which game it was, once remember I will endeavour to find video footage ad show you. But read post above, maybe you remember the one with Steve Walsh,

Didn't Barnes already refer it before the TMO showed it on the big screen?

2 phases... perhaps that is official but referees often hold advantage for many more. Maybe its a little strange he only did so after speaking with JDV but I doubt he was simply doing so because JDV said so.

Really? It looks cut and dry that JDV points it out to him.

Welcome back ghostie

2 phases - nope - read your own link. You are wrong both inwhat happened adn in what the laws are on this.

It matters not one jot who pointed it out. Barnes asked the TMO - "anything to look at there" and the TMO said yes.

I quoted the laws on TMOs above. there is no limit on how many phases the ref can go back when looking for foul play.

Anything to look at here? Where?

Why not cut the chase and ask "could you review the whole game, ask the crowd, phone a friend and go 50/50? I need a SA penalty here, help me out."

I don't think Barnes got it quite right (should have been a yellow too) but the penalty is spot on.

Good officiating. Fair result

Well, everyone has an opinion. Even the town fool, as they say.

He's quite feisty for a 'new' poster is this one.