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????

I ve said it before but just come back under gg and have the courage of your convinctions.

Taylorman wrote:

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.

Really Taylor!!! What am I making up? That I imagined the trash on One News on Monday evening? Wake up son, even when there it televised evidence a kiwi will still deny it happened.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

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.

Really Taylor!!!  What am I making up?  That I imagined the trash on One News on Monday evening? Wake up son, even when there it televised evidence a kiwi will still deny it happened.

ALL the news...No. It wasnt ALL the news. I saw the news and I didnt see Barnes mentioned once so it can't be ALL the News. Its your myopic selective vision that only saw ALL the news.

And did you see Breakdown, Engage or Reunion or whatever the Sunday one is...did you see any of the 'experts' going on ALL about Barnes in their usual breakdown of the match? No. Not once. All they went on about was how good the Boks were and how they did this and that.

You live in NZ yet purport to present a view of what is reported here to your fellow overseas posters yet its myopic at its best.

Watch you are reporting...simply...isnt...happening.

Even if NZ news did go on about it, what would be wrong with that? It's a valid point of view and it's not like SA fans haven't been known to get a little hysterical about refereeing from time to time, now is it?

Carry on Richard, maybe someone will bite later on

Not fishing. Just spitting out a lure, actually.

Richard wrote:Even if NZ news did go on about it, what would be wrong with that? It's a valid point of view and it's not like SA fans haven't been known to get a little hysterical about refereeing from time to time, now is it?

Valid point of view.... Something ghost aspires to achieve.

One day over the rainbow huh "Richard"?

So same scenario...World cup final at Twickenham England on the Boks line down by two, spend 3 minutes camped on the line only to be penalised on the final whistle....

JDV and his boys are up celebrating...all they need to do is kick it out.

Then a grumpy ex BBC technician tired of watch Coro street re-runs flashes up on the screen an off the ball incident back by none other than bakkies on the 22 from 4 plays earlier...

Crowd go nuts...booo.boooo...penalty...England captains right on the spot (knowing his mate from the BBc will have been searching high and low)...says...ah ref...can you have a look at it...

and the rest is history...

Conspiracy theories are rife again

Come on, chaps. Show a little respect

Any other wins you have an issue with Tman?

Never said I had an issue with the win Biltong. So you're saying you'd be ok with that scenario?

Which scenario?

Biltong, all kiwis here have said well done to SA to a deserved win. Can you see that?

Hi,FAO referring to 2009 injuries first part of season missing at various times Ali Williams,
his replacement Anton Boric,Dan Carter,Ritchie McCaw,Conrad Smith,Sivivatu,etc.

McCaw not match fit was outplayed by flavour of the month Heinrich Broussow in first
two tests,by the third RM was fully fit and Broussow the invisible man.Nonu played as
utility back in both centre positions and wing.

Third test that year was won by the Boks by a controversial penalty at death knock
sound familiar?Isaac Ross was lauded to the heavens by GH then dropped couldn't
even get an ITM start.Media attack on the 3 wise men Donnelly to Lock solved the
Line out problems back to IRB number one when Boks had the tour from Hell.

1995 players were honking up running onto field saw that with my own eyes to
play extra time and only lose by a last minute drop was surprising.
1996 they proved a point 5 matches v Boks won 4 lost 1 ,4 of those in SA .

Can somebody please translate emack's post into something we can all understand?

Biltong wrote:Which scenario?

World cup final at Twickenham England on the Boks line down by two, spend 3 minutes camped on the line only to be penalised on the final whistle....

JDV and his boys are up celebrating...all they need to do is kick it out.

Then a grumpy ex BBC technician tired of watch Coro street re-runs flashes up on the screen an off the ball incident back by none other than bakkies on the 22 from 4 plays earlier...

Crowd go nuts...booo.boooo...penalty...penalty... England captains right on the spot (knowing his mate from the BBc will have been searching high and low)...says...ah ref...can you have a look at it...

and the rest is history...

You're happy to have this repeat having made your view on last week that basically...things happen?

no worries if so and it would be consistent with your view...I just think its worthy of being addressed. In that someone outside either of the teams or the match officials can be put in a position to selectively decide a match. That it hasnt been sorted before isnt a reason not to now.

Hang on Cyril we`ll get someone to read it to you as you are to thick to understand it

emack2 wrote:Hang on Cyril we`ll get someone to read it to you as you are to thick to understand it

If you can post in proper sentences and use punctuation then we can get somewhere.

Think some are confusing 'eye-brows being raised' with 'sour grapes'. The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now. Given there's no criticism levelled at the SA broadcasters from anyone, it's open slather from now on I imagine. To be clear, I have absolutely no issue with the SA team, they played what was in front of them and they pinched the win with a fantastic kick, good on them.

ebop wrote:The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now.

NZ were very lucky that it wasn't a yellow. Admittedly it wouldn't have made a difference but I'm glad we can take advantage of the cameras. Excellent referring which should be taken as a standard.

ebop wrote:Think some are confusing 'eye-brows being raised' with 'sour grapes'. The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now. Given there's no criticism levelled at the SA broadcasters from anyone, it's open slather from now on I imagine. To be clear, I have absolutely no issue with the SA team, they played what was in front of them and they pinched the win with a fantastic kick, good on them.

Yes ebop...the point is being interpreted as another excuse story when it is clear the issue needs to be resolved...very shallow...and I don't think we need to keep re-iterating that we've no issue (with the loss, or the Boks) just to make a valid point that affects every side playing under this potential scenario as it tends to fall on deaf ears anyway, only apparently an 'issue' when it happens to their side. Let's just hope it pans out that way then...if it happened that way here, or anywhere I'd want it addressed because it sets a poor precedent.

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now.

NZ were very lucky that it wasn't a yellow. Admittedly it wouldn't have made a difference but I'm glad we can take advantage of the cameras. Excellent referring which should be taken as a standard.

So you're ok that incident was lit up at that time where others werent, such as the hit on Read during the game, something we never saw again but clearly happened. -ie you're ok with the potential for 'selective' viewing of events? Whether it was a yellow or not isn't the point.

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now.

NZ were very lucky that it wasn't a yellow. Admittedly it wouldn't have made a difference but I'm glad we can take advantage of the cameras. Excellent referring which should be taken as a standard.

So you're ok that incident was lit up at that time where others werent, such as the hit on Read during the game, something we never saw again but clearly happened. -ie you're ok with the potential for 'selective' viewing of events? Whether it was a yellow or not isn't the point.

I don't think anyone could disagree that it was a penalty or that it should have been a yellow. Good officiating. Incidents always get missed/wrongly judged. England could/should have won a consecutive World Cup in 2007. It happens mate.

Cyril wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now.

NZ were very lucky that it wasn't a yellow. Admittedly it wouldn't have made a difference but I'm glad we can take advantage of the cameras. Excellent referring which should be taken as a standard.

So you're ok that incident was lit up at that time where others werent, such as the hit on Read during the game, something we never saw again but clearly happened. -ie you're ok with the potential for 'selective' viewing of events? Whether it was a yellow or not isn't the point.

I don't think anyone could disagree that it was a penalty or that it should have been a yellow. Good officiating. Incidents always get missed/wrongly judged. England could/should have won a consecutive World Cup in 2007. It happens mate.

ok...sorry...you've missed the point again...so what about the Read incident? Was that a penalty or Yellow?

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now.

NZ were very lucky that it wasn't a yellow. Admittedly it wouldn't have made a difference but I'm glad we can take advantage of the cameras. Excellent referring which should be taken as a standard.

Fair enough Cyril. I can understand why there's no sympathy given it was against the ABs. We are not even looking for it anyway. I've highlighted the above in your post and you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. SA took advantage of the cameras. It's exactly the point. Taking advantage of the cameras for a host nation now seems like an additional and acceptable method for them to twist the game in their favour even more.

ebop wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now.

NZ were very lucky that it wasn't a yellow. Admittedly it wouldn't have made a difference but I'm glad we can take advantage of the cameras. Excellent referring which should be taken as a standard.

Fair enough Cyril. I can understand why there's no sympathy given it was against the ABs. We are not even looking for it anyway. I've highlighted the above in your post and you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. SA took advantage of the cameras. It's exactly the point. Taking advantage of the cameras for a host nation now seems like an additional and acceptable method for them to twist the game in their favour even more.

I have an issue with the broadcaster airing that, but I do know that it has happened in the RC against us, so it is not something that is new. In my local paper and I think Biltong's as well (BEELD), they actually made an issue out of this. I just think Biltong is thinking - it happened to us, why can't we get the advantage for once.

fern wrote:I just think Biltong is thinking - it happened to us, why can't we get the advantage for once.

Yep, exactly.

AGAIN I HAVE TO EXPLAIN I`M PC dyslexic ,AGAIN say this is a rugby forum NOT an
English COURSE. .I come here to debate RUGBY not SCORE PETTY
POINTs.

FRANKLY I`m FED UP with having to defend myself CYRIL try reading others views instead
and use your Spell checker while your at it

What is PC dyselxia?

Biltong wrote:

fern wrote:I just think Biltong is thinking - it happened to us, why can't we get the advantage for once.

Yep, exactly.

There is a difference between acknowledging and appreciating an unfair ruling that turned the tide of a game, and claiming that it was a fair ruling. Is my point.

If you want to say "yep, Barnes was wrong, but it worked out nicely for us" thats different to trying to justify what was an illegal use of a technology between a home producer and notoriously incoherent referee.

Check the kick off leading to the phase
Of play where Perenara fails to clear - springboks were well ahead of the kick off. Where was the video footage of that? If we want to allow rampant invasive use of replays for all technicalities then it has to be consistently applied to the entire game - not just the clips that could be construed to favour the home team.

Richard wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fern wrote:I just think Biltong is thinking - it happened to us, why can't we get the advantage for once.

Yep, exactly.

There is a difference between acknowledging and appreciating an unfair ruling that turned the tide of a game, and claiming that it was a fair ruling. Is my point.

If you want to say "yep, Barnes was wrong, but it worked out nicely for us" thats different to trying to justify what was an illegal use of a technology between a home producer and notoriously incoherent referee.

I don't think it is illegal use of technology, but I do think that maybe it should be.

emack2 wrote:Hi,FAO referring to 2009 injuries first part of season missing at various times Ali Williams,
his replacement Anton Boric,Dan Carter,Ritchie McCaw,Conrad Smith,Sivivatu,etc.

McCaw not match fit was outplayed by flavour of the month Heinrich Broussow in first
two tests,by the third RM was fully fit and Broussow the invisible man.Nonu played as
utility back in both centre positions and wing.

Third test that year was won by the Boks by a controversial penalty at death knock
sound familiar?Isaac Ross was lauded to the heavens by GH then dropped couldn't
even get an ITM start.Media attack on the 3 wise men Donnelly to Lock solved the
Line out problems back to IRB number one when Boks had the tour from Hell.

1995 players were honking up running onto field saw that with my own eyes to
play extra time and only lose by a last minute drop was surprising.
1996 they proved a point 5 matches v Boks won 4 lost 1 ,4 of those in SA .

Although Alan if you look at the test matches in 09.... they were near full strength first XVs. So players were injured at the start of the season. Its a pretty lame excuse.

Did you go through the bok side? Did you check the injuries of the boks, if they had a full season?

Stating that players were not at full strength is ridiculous.

Are we only able to count victories when NZ are at full strength, have players who are not tired, haven't recently been injured, have no personal problems, no contractual issues with the union, no girlfriend problems, didn't eat a dodgy spaghetti the night before, weren't testing out some new boots which they hadn't worn in properly, the weather was in peak condition, that the venue was no more than 50% opposition supporters, the referee was not from England/France/ Australia,/Ireland/Scotland/Argentina, you weren't wearing grey?????

On that note:

Kaplan also doesn't think it was the right call

http://ratetheref.co.za/2014/10/06/kaplans-comments-rugby-championship-round-6/

Richard wrote:Check the kick off leading to the phase
Of play where Perenara fails to clear - springboks were well ahead of the kick off. Where was the video footage of that? If we want to allow rampant invasive use of replays for all technicalities then it has to be consistently applied to the entire game - not just the clips that could be construed to favour the home team.

I'm sure you could pick out 50 areas where NZ/SA were at each contrary to the rules but were let off. Rugby officiating is not an exact science. If it were then the game would be a dire start stop start stop.

Keep on complaining, keep on cherry picking. Victory just gets sweeter.

I actually just looked at the incident again. It was shown once, in fact the passage of play in sequence was shown, the hit on Burger and then the ruck that formed that stopped play.

Standard procedure in any game when play is stopped. Immediately as play stopped for the scrum, de Villiers spoke to Barnes and Barnes asked the TMO if there was something to look at.

The fact that the crowd reacted for something they have seen is pretty normal, it happens in every game.

Not exactly sure what the issue is.

Biltong wrote:I actually just looked at the incident again. It was shown once, in fact the passage of play in sequence was shown, the hit on Burger and then the ruck that formed that stopped play.

Standard procedure in any game when play is stopped. Immediately as play stopped for the scrum, de Villiers spoke to Barnes and Barnes asked the TMO if there was something to look at.

The fact that the crowd reacted for something they have seen is pretty normal, it happens in every game.

Not exactly sure what the issue is.

If that is the case there is no issue really.

Biltong wrote:I actually just looked at the incident again. It was shown once, in fact the passage of play in sequence was shown, the hit on Burger and then the ruck that formed that stopped play.

Standard procedure in any game when play is stopped. Immediately as play stopped for the scrum, de Villiers spoke to Barnes and Barnes asked the TMO if there was something to look at.

The fact that the crowd reacted for something they have seen is pretty normal, it happens in every game.

Not exactly sure what the issue is.

The issue is that NZ lost.

Thus the game will be filed next to the JFK case files, the alien landings at Roswell and Malema's school report card in the national archives.

Fao actually was referring specifically to the first French match,the rest was just
historical background.To things mentioned in other posts,indeed injuries happen to
every side.

It could be argued relative problems 2010 3Ns by Boks and Aus was injury driven too.
The modern game today players asked to play/train something like 30 odd games
injuries/recovery times inevitable.

Depth of players is essential on Saturday game was so intense ABs lost 3 players with
suspected concussion.Moody,Thrush,Conrad Smith ,plus a horrendous injury to SH
Kerr-Barlow.

Players are  bulkier than ever and League style tactics employed in the modern game
means its inevietable.Player management is the name of the game since 2011 Hansens
introduction of fringe players.

Who can step up and replace injured players without greatly effecting the teams overall
performance.Many mere journey men but they stepped up to the plate and did a job.

THAT of course is true of every team ,every where,we all know better than the selectors
after the match.

emack2 wrote:Fao actually was referring specifically to the first French match,the rest was just
historical background.To things mentioned in other posts,indeed injuries happen to
every side.

It could be argued relative problems 2010 3Ns by Boks and Aus was injury driven too.
The modern game  today players asked to play/train something like 30 odd games
injuries/recovery times inevitable.

Depth of players is essential on Saturday game was so intense ABs lost 3 players with
suspected concussion.Moody,Thrush,Conrad Smith ,plus a horrendous injury to SH
Kerr-Barlow.

Players are  bulkier than ever and League style tactics employed in the modern game
means its inevietable.Player management is the name of the game since 2011 Hansens
introduction of fringe players.

Who can step up and replace injured players without greatly effecting the teams overall
performance.Many mere journey men but they stepped up to the plate and did a job.

THAT of course is true of every team ,every where,we all know better than the selectors
after the match.

But Alan, that has nothing to do with the boks wins vs. NZ which you said were tainted because NZ were under-strength... which I clearly showed was not true given I gave the lineups that day showing near first choice (which is as good as you'll ever get it these days).

SA were without Frans Malherbe, Flip van der Merwe, Willem Alberts, Frans Louw, Fourie Du Preez and Jaque Fourie... and Vermeulen past a fitness test only hours before. As much as NZ were injured, SA were equally and probably more so.

Fa and BB. i can understand your irritation and scepticism. I don't have an issue with the result. As i said earlier I think the process was suspect and isn't a great precedent. In this case I think there's a bit more to it. It's not just kiwis, but a number of SA commentators that are questioning it (e.g. Jonathon Kaplan http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/kaplan-match-decided-by-tv-producer). For me the actual game is over and it's water under the bridge. But I think there is a need to look how highlights are streamed into the arenas.

BC, as I said earlier I checked the incident again, it is exactly the same process broadcasters follow in any game, once play came to a halt te highlights of the passage of play was shown, only once.

The repeated views was the TMO after Barnes asked if there was something to see.

I don't really care whether some want to question it, as I cannot see what issue the process has done wrong.

If NZ has an issue with it, then ban big screens, simple as that.

I have said here and on other forums, a close game like that is inevitably decided by a call from a referee, it is the nature of rugby, this time round we were the ones getting the final penalty, we have lost many close games on blatantly wrong or harsh decisions in the past 3 years.

SO we had the bounce of the decision going our way this time, if you ask me, it is about time.

If I had to list you the decisions we have copped since 2011 I will only be told to suck it up and get on with my life. SO I am not even going to try.

SUffice it to say, it is what it is, most AB supporters have been genuine in their congratulations of the SPringbok win, I think there is a solid respect between the teams and fans of these countries, and I don't think that is about to change.

It is logical people will be aggrieved at certain decisions and outcomes, after all we are passionate rugby supporters.

By the way, I started going to the game, Barnes missed a hell of a lot if you take time to look at his decisions.

I dislike saying a game is decided by a ref. Even if he makes a mistake and it costs the team 7 points and they lose by 1 a team plays and influences the match for 80 min plus. The teams will always have more influence in deciding a game than a ref will.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I dislike saying a game is decided by a ref. Even if he makes a mistake and it costs the team 7 points and they lose by 1 a team plays and influences the match for 80 min plus. The teams will always have more influence in deciding a game than a ref will.

I understand what you are saying, but the reality is the breakdown is a mess, most penalties could be called either way. Thus close matches are influenced whether we want to admit it or not.

And if you know the ref is calling the breakdown one way play to that rule. Just think it's unfair to place it on the ref but rather easy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And if you know the ref is calling the breakdown one way play to that rule. Just think it's unfair to place it on the ref but rather easy.

WHen I look at the manner in which referees officiate breakdowns there is little consistency no matter how hard they try.

Adapting to a referee at the breakdown is much easier said than done, what I am also trying to convey is the things that are not seen.

ebop wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:The win was a good win. The referee being influenced by the host broadcasters was not good for the game. A precedent in the situation and I'm sure other nations will try it on a lot more now.

NZ were very lucky that it wasn't a yellow. Admittedly it wouldn't have made a difference but I'm glad we can take advantage of the cameras. Excellent referring which should be taken as a standard.

Fair enough Cyril. I can understand why there's no sympathy given it was against the ABs. We are not even looking for it anyway. I've highlighted the above in your post and you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. SA took advantage of the cameras. It's exactly the point. Taking advantage of the cameras for a host nation now seems like an additional and acceptable method for them to twist the game in their favour even more.

No, the officials are the ones taking advantage of the technology available to them.

As I've said, NZ were extremely lucky not to incur a yellow card in that incident. They got off pretty lightly with only conceding a penalty.

Burger was falling and I think that had he not Messam's arms would have travelled further around making it look more ok. He hit Burger high though so the penalty was correctly given (again the method is the issue not the call) but Burger's falling is a mitigating circumstance implying that a card would have been really rough.

disneychilly wrote:Burger was falling and I think that had he not Messam's arms would have travelled further around making it look more ok. He hit Burger high though so the penalty was correctly given (again the method is the issue not the call) but Burger's falling is a mitigating circumstance implying that a card would have been really rough.

The fact that burger was falling would only have mattered if he wrapped around.. i.e. it would have been an unfortunate high tackle.

Messam never attempted a wrap around so even if it was high... it was a shoulder charge not a tackle and regardless of height legal or not it would have been a penalty.

Yeah, think we need to acknowledge that it was a shoulder hit, there was no attempt to bring the arm around, I checked it (couldn't measure) but if Burger stayed upright he would have clocked the shoulder high up on his chest just below the jaw line.

BUt irrespective, the penalty was given and the match is over.