TRC Round 2: South Africa v New Zealand, 25 July

First topic message reminder :

                
SOUTH AFRICA v NEW ZEALAND
25 July 2015
KO: 17:05 SAST (UTC+02)
Emirates Airline Park, Johannesburg

TV TBC

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant Referees: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. Recent History

4 October 2014
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 25 to South Africa
 
13 September 2014
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
14 – 10 to New Zealand

5 October 2013
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 38 to New Zealand

14 September 2013
Eden Park, Auckland
29 – 15 to New Zealand

6 October 2012
FNB Stadium, Johannesburg
16 – 32 to New Zealand

B. Squads

1. South Africa

Forwards: Willem Alberts, Schalk Brits, Schalk Burger, Marcell Coetzee, Eben Etzebeth, Steven Kitshoff, Vincent Koch, Siya Kolisi, Francois Louw, Frans Malherbe, Victor Matfield, Heinke van der Merwe, Marcel van der Merwe, Teboho 'Oupa' Mohoje, Francois Mostert, Tendai Mtawarira, Scarra Ntubeni, Trevor Nyakane, Bismarck du Plessis, Jannie du Plessis, Adriaan Strauss, Warren Whiteley

Backs: Damian de Allende, Bryan Habana, Cornal Hendricks, Elton Jantjies, Zane Kirchner, Faf de Klerk, Jesse Kriel, Lwazi Mvovo, Rudy Paige, Ruan Pienaar, JP Pietersen, Handre Pollard, Willie le Roux, Morne Steyn

Conditioning squad (injured players)

Heinrich Brussow, Jaque Fourie, Lood de Jager, Patrick Lambie, Lionel Mapoe, Coenie Oosthuizen, Fourie du Preez, Cobus Reinach, Jan Serfontein, Francois Steyn, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Duane Vermeulen, Jean de Villiers

2. New Zealand

Backs: Israel Dagg, Ben Smith, Nehe Milner-Skudder, Charles Piutau, Cory Jane, Waisake Naholo, Julian Savea, Conrad Smith, Malakai Fekitoa, Ryan Crotty, Ma'a Nonu, Sonny Bill Williams, Dan Carter, Beauden Barrett, Colin Slade, Lima Sopoaga, Aaron Smith, TJ Perenara, Tawera Kerr-Barlow.

Forwards: Kieran Read, Victor Vito, Richie McCaw (capt), Sam Cane, Jerome Kaino, Liam Messam, Matt Todd, Sam Whitelock, Brodie Retallick, Jeremy Thrush, Luke Romano, James Broadhurst, Owen Franks, Charlie Faumuina, Tony Woodcock, Wyatt Crockett, Ben Franks, Joe Moody, Dane Coles, Keven Mealamu, Codie Taylor, Hika Elliot.

C. Teams

1. South Africa

Willie le Roux, Cornal Hendricks, Jesse Kriel, Damian de Allende, Bryan Habana, Handre Pollard, Ruan Pienaar, Schalk Burger (captain), Francois Louw, Heinrich Brussow, Lood de Jager, Eben Etzebeth, Jannie du Plessis, Bismarck du Plessis, Tendai Mtawarira.

Replacements: Adriaan Strauss, Trevor Nyakane, Vincent Koch, Flip van der Merwe, Warren Whiteley, Cobus Reinach, Pat Lambie, Lionel Mapoe.

2. New Zealand

Israel Dagg, Ben Smith, Conrad Smith, Ma'a Nonu, Charles Piutau, Lima Sopoaga, Aaron Smith, Kieran Read, Richie McCaw (c), Liam Messam, Brodie Retallick, James Broadhurst, Owen Franks, Dane Coles, Tony Woodcock.

Reserves: Codie Taylor, Wyatt Crockett, Ben Franks, Sam Whitelock, Victor Vito, TJ Perenara, Beauden Barrett and Malakai Fekitoa.

Yeah the ABs scrum got hammered a couple of times but not all the time. The golden oldies scrum decision was a strange one but definitely helped us more than them. I read today that SA should have had to play with 14 after their two specialist tight-head props went off and it went to uncontested scrums. Not sure if that is right?

emack2 wrote:What match were you watching Sgt.Pooly?there was NOTHING in the Scrums with one exception.Even the the two 8 v 7 Boks didn't have a real advantage,there lineout was pants
3 against the throw.
Surprise,Surprise all the names are coming out of the woodwork to play Argentina,the young
Bok side did very well.BUT the conditioning to play a high speed game on the veldt was`nt
there.
The Dodgy Line Out is all over the Bok Press,just like the biased commentary team of the match.
I respect the Boks Rugby over all but NZ`s but frankly the smoke and mirrors bit by ALL
sides in RWC year makes me sick.
NOTHING will can convince me that was the strongest side SA could have fielded,well as
the youngsters performed.

Nothing in the scrum??? Perhaps you're getting confused with the uncontested scrums which I agree were very close.

Sean Fitzpatrick agrees and obviously watched the game....

"The Springboks had dominated the scrum and when All Black lock Sam Whitelock was yellow carded in the 60th minute it looked like South Africa would really capitalise on their forward power"

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12336/9924795/sean-fitzpatrick-was-left-wondering-why-south-africa-opted-for-uncontested-scrums

Good analysis:

http://www.the42.ie/new-zealand-scrum-analysis-south-africa-2239798-Jul2015/

Sean Fitzpatrick ALSO said in the half time break "the Scrum is going well",AB`s,Boks
monstered one Scrum that half,All Blacks restored the compliment in one too.Aaron Smith
was clearing the ball from his own scrum with little difficulty.

Totally disagree Emack, I really can't see where you're coming from as it was dominance from SA until uncontested.

The whole point is BOTH teams were many players short of relevant starting squads in
RWC.Object of the exercise get as many first choice players to the starting gate of RWC
fit.
I take little notice of these match results all smoke and mirrors,all 3 SH teams will be
up for it and raring to go.
All teams at RWC will be as near as possible full strength,Argentina sides this comp
understrength so don`t write them off either.
France will be there or there abouts BUT IF they want to win RWC they need to win there
group to avoid SH sides.

At the time when uncontested scrums came into play, the AB scrum was in real trouble. They had lost two scrums in a row in their own 22, having retreated significantly or collapsed in each, they were down a forward, and the Boks had called a scrum from a penalty five metres out...and then the 'uncontested' call was made. In my opinion the Boks would almost certainly have scored from there in the next scrum had the scrums remained contested - either from a push over or a penalty try...but no complaints here, that's the way the game went, and the AB were able to make the most of the few chances they had, whereas the Boks came agonisingly close (but not close enough) in several of their chances...and there's the difference between the two teams

Not sure the uncontested scrum call comes from the ref either. Normally the coaches have to state whom in their squad can cover each front row position safely. Never seen the ref make the call before as I've heard in some corners for this.

You're changing the goal posts Emack.

Irrespective of players missing, it was a full strength NZ front row and they struggled throughout.

Totally Fishpaste, I can't understand how you'd think the NZ scrum wasn't struggling.

The McCaw try was certainly on the margins but given the letter of the law I would say it was just about valid. However, I do think that had the ref been wise to it, he would have referred it and it may not have been given. I don't think the ABs will get away with it again without a referral. Perhaps they should have kept this one in their pocket for the SF match in the RWC???

ebop wrote:Yeah the ABs scrum got hammered a couple of times but not all the time. The golden oldies scrum decision was a strange one but definitely helped us more than them. I read today that SA should have had to play with 14 after their two specialist tight-head props went off and it went to uncontested scrums. Not sure if that is right?

That cannot be right ebop. You can't be enforced to go to go to 14 men because of injury if you have players on the subs bench. The laws may have changed since but I do recall when the lions went to uncontested scrums in 2009 in the 2nd test, simon shaw a lock went to prop. Hell you can even bring on subbed off players due to injury.

Actually I didn't twig that rule. It's absolutely correct if you have an injured front and can't replace him for whatever reason you should go down to 14 men. Happened last year or the end of the previous season for Bath. After Wayne Barnes explained to them they'd have to go down to 14 they discovered there prop could actually play hooker safely and went on with 15.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Actually I didn't twig that rule. It's absolutely correct if you have an injured front and can't replace him for whatever reason you should go down to 14 men. Happened last year or the end of the previous season for Bath. After Wayne Barnes explained to them they'd have to go down to 14 they discovered there prop could actually play hooker safely and went on with 15.

Do you recall the Lions match in 2009 when Jones and Jenkins went off? Sheridan and A nother (not a prop, could have been AW Jones) came on but Simon Shaw went to prop. Was that an error on the ref's point or have the rules changed since?

It seems a crazy rule if true.... more akin to the days of no substitutions allowed.

Actually Barnes was 4th official and Carley the ref.

Not sure if the rules changed since the Lions but I don't believe they've changed since May 2014.

3.5 (k)
)


When 23 players are nominated for a match, or if the Union having jurisdiction over a match or a match organiser decides that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums

Given the info from 7.5, in SA's case this is how the match for prop line ups went.

1 LH 1 TH
Mtawarira
Jannie

1 LH 1 TH
Mtawarira
Koch (Jannie injured)

Uncontested with 2 LHs
Mtawarira
Nyakane (Koch injured)

Nyakane has played TH before but SA chose not to risk it. So according to the laws SA were within rights to retain 15 players on the pitch although its a bit strange to go uncontested when you have 2 props on the field.

Interesting though on the law... although it would probably take at least 3 injuries to props in a game to get there and maybe even more if a hooker had prop experience (but what experience is needed... first class appearance as one???).

No they weren't, they should have gone down to 14. Of course if the ref had correctly called that I have no doubt that SA would have remembered they did have someone who could go in. Good memory by whoever picked it up, I've only ever seen it that once before.

Nyakane is a suitably trained front rower.... as he is a front rower. How can that not been so. He is a LH... but he has played TH before.

Which is fine but SA said he couldn't cover hence it should have been 14 men.

the law you quoted didn't say he needs to be a specialist in that actual position only that "there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement", Nyakane is that but perhaps not a specifically trained TH.

If so then all non-contested scrum situations would go to 14 men... and I can't think of one ever occurring and posters here can only recall one in a Bath AP match.

I acknowledge the new info, quite interesting actually but I don't think it is applied in the manner in which you speak.

I can quote all the rules under 3.5 or you can get them from the IRB site; I'd prefer not to have to go look and paste them all in!

SA told the ref they couldn't field a player for contested scrums due to injuries to the 2 named tight heads. At that point they should have been told to play with 14 men. Like I said I don't doubt if they had been told that they would have discovered someone with enough experience to allow proper scrums. That's actually a big miss by the ref as he should have known his rules better than us!

Thanks for looking into and confirming this 7.5. I read it in an article by ex-AB Ian Jones and he quoted that exact same law 3(k).

The way I see it, SA had a player in Nyakane who could 'play' tight-head but maybe not very well. So to avoid potentially having their scrum humbled by the ABs on home soil and giving away penalties in kickable positions in a tight game. They opted for uncontested scrums. But in doing so they got away with one and a fairly big one at that. In hindsight, I think maybe the uncontested scrums helped SA more than it did us.

Yeah you'd have to imagine that Meyer didn't fancy his chances. I can't imagine that SA knew the rule but for an international ref that's a big mistake.

The Lions in SA 09 was before you had to put an extra prop on the bench (i.e. 7 subs).

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can quote all the rules under 3.5 or you can get them from the IRB site; I'd prefer not to have to go look and paste them all in!

SA told the ref they couldn't field a player for contested scrums due to injuries to the 2 named tight heads. At that point they should have been told to play with 14 men. Like I said I don't doubt if they had been told that they would have discovered someone with enough experience to allow proper scrums. That's actually a big miss by the ref as he should have known his rules better than us!

I read all the rules under 3.5 and can't see where it implies that the Boks should have played with 14 men!

k. quoted it above.

My reading of that rule is that in the case that the scrums are already uncontested, then a front row player has to be replaced by another front row player (rather than the more specific criteria of a TH being replaced by a TH). Nyakane and Struass were both front row players and hence both entitled to come into the front row in place of Koch and Beast!

'where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement', with the 2 tight heads going off injured the SA bench informed the ref they didn't ahve a suitable replacement. At that point the ref should ahve informed them it was 14 men.

Doh!...See what happens when I skim read!...But now another question? Who determines 'suitably trained'...because Nyakane has played TH for the whole of the Super Rugby Season! (Which may beg the question, why were there uncontested scrums at all?)

(b)
Prior to the match teams must advise the referee of their front row players and replacements. Each player in the front row and any potential replacements must be suitably trained and experienced.

(c)
The replacement of a front row player must come from the suitably trained and experienced players who started the match or from nominated replacements. A player other than a nominated front row player is permitted to play in the front row only when uncontested scrums are being played and there are no available front row replacements.

(m)
If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.


Think those cover it. Basically there were uncontested scrums because SA said they didn't have anyone to play there, because of that they should have gone to 14 men.