Nz sa

Not sure if I've missed on bit a fair red to NZ.

Well the red was actually 2 yellows (neither escalated to red on its own merit). I think that if the Boks were just a bit more patient they might have scored more than the three tries.

When was the last time anyone saw the ABs down 21-0?

The crowd seems a bit skewed to the Boks as well.

And ouch that's a red.

Yellow imo

On a side note, I've never known a team to have 7 forwards on the bench before either

Faf still has great hair, even after almost 60 minutes of Rugby....

Stays yellow. Correct imo

Wow.
Lucky boy.

Jeez, 20 minutes to go and we might almost be in Garbage Time. Against the ABs!

Maine man wrote:On a side note, I've never known a team to have 7 forwards on the bench before either

If you’re a forward or a rugby “purist” then you’ll love this game.

If you’re a back or someone who likes to see running rugby, jeez this is awful. I don’t blame the boks one bit. NZ are playing right into their hands and the ref is penalising NZ off the park (which is nice to see for a change). But this is the very epitome of 10 man rugby for SA

Almost makes me think England could hang close against the AB...



But I know that ain't right...

Hell of a statement from the Boks.

The SA - Ireland game is now the most mouthwatering for me. France-NZ is an amazing opener, but there's a big chink in NZ's armour now, and Barrett's likely to be out for a bit. Fascinating!

That was uncharacteristic from the ABs in the first half, never seen them give away so many penalties and WRT to the ABs that’s saying something. You could argue it was because SA put so much pressure on them. The Bok forwards and defence look unstoppable right now, peaking at the right time.
Ireland on the other hand may have peaked too soon .

mikey_dragon wrote:That was uncharacteristic from the ABs in the first half, never seen them give away so many penalties and WRT to the ABs that’s saying something. You could argue it was because SA put so much pressure on them. The Bok forwards and defence look unstoppable right now, peaking at the right time.
Ireland on the other hand may have peaked too soon .

Almost seems the England coaching team had been working with the All Backs on their discipline.  I agree, don't recall ever seeing an AB team with so many pens in the first half.  

I thought it was kind of funny the Boks made a point about tackle training almost every day and then du Toit gets a yellow for a high tackle.  I think that minor point may have gotten lost in the carnage.  

I would really like to see match stats, but can't find them anywhere.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?

https://www.espn.com/rugby/matchstats?gameId=596366&league=289234

Maine man wrote:Stays yellow. Correct imo

If that's PSDT I thought the yellow was harsh. He's low and trying to wrap and make a legal tackle. Cane is low to the ground and it's arm to the head in the act of wrapping and not shoulder to head.

Did Barrett's really on stay at yellow as that was pretty nasty?

NZ were awful. How many interceptions? Terrible discipline. They've got France coming up who will be at home and chomping at the bit to provide their fans with a statement performance. Could get ugly quickly.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Maine man wrote:Stays yellow. Correct imo

If that's PSDT I thought the yellow was harsh. He's low and trying to wrap and make a legal tackle. Cane is low to the ground and it's arm to the head in the act of wrapping and not shoulder to head.

He was always too high and made contact with the head with force. Thats red territory. attempt at a legal tackle so mitigation can be applied which was correctly done, given that another SA player had made a tackle and the NZ player was going down. Ends at yellow. correct decision.

You could argue it was low force so starting point yellow mitigated down to pen only

formerly known as Sam wrote:NZ were awful. How many interceptions?

I think that was the result of some clever defensive tactics. SA looking for the offloads and putting themselves in a position to catch the offloads. NZ should have adapted tho.

Anyone seen anything about how the disciplinary process works now for Barrett?

For a sport which has a regular number of cardable offences, it is infuriatingly hard to find information about what happens to players.

Barrett ultimately got a red card, so will face some kind of sanction. Bismarck du Plessis got a two-yellow red in 2013 but the second yellow was later ruled a mistake. Drew Mitchell also got a two-yellow red. However, his second yellow came for preventing a quick lineout while Australia was on a team warning, so the panel thought getting sent off was sufficient punishment.

Neither of Barrett's yellow card offences will be mitigated - the second one might conceivably be upgraded to red on a citing - so he presumably goes in front of a panel. Foster decided against a fifth specialist lock, so, with Retallick still injured, NZ will likely be down to two for the opening match against France.

R Fan
Think you are right that Scott B will likely face further sanction for his second yellow.
Playing France with only two locks and back rowers on the bench as 2nd row cover will be a tough day at the office.
Facing Woki and Willemse who will then be replaced by Flament and Taofifenua when you only have a couple of back rowers to match them is unlikely to end well.

TJ wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Maine man wrote:Stays yellow. Correct imo

If that's PSDT I thought the yellow was harsh. He's low and trying to wrap and make a legal tackle. Cane is low to the ground and it's arm to the head in the act of wrapping and not shoulder to head.

He was always too high and made contact with the head with force.  Thats red territory.  attempt at a legal tackle so mitigation can be applied which was correctly done, given that another SA player had made a tackle and the NZ player was going down.  Ends at yellow.  correct decision.

You could argue it was low force so starting point yellow mitigated down to pen only

Both players are bent at the waist. He gets any lower and he's either not in control and diving forwards into the tackle or he's going down on one knee. I think had there not been so many NZ cards already by that point it would have been just a penalty.

Under the current rules I'm not sure it qualifies with force as I don't think it was a dominant hit. Cane wasn't driven backwards.

My prediction of NZ being favourites for the RWC might have to change. Thought SA would miss Pollard but if SA are going to play ten man rugby, then not sure who can/will stop them.
It helped that the ref made positive decisions on the breakdown and set piece rather than avoiding them. That allowed constant pressure and then any team under that barrage will eventually crumble, even the ABs.

The opening France NZ game has massive significance as both teams will want to avoid the Bok onslaught in the quarters. If Ireland were playing in Dublin they might have a chance but if SA repeat anything like that performance in France they will be very difficult to beat, even if you manage to maintain 15 players on the field. The most interesting game will be Scotland Ireland.

The other side of the draw will be a side show. Australia and Argentina, who didn't get out of the quarters at the last RWC, must be thanking their lucky stars compared to Ireland, Scotland and France.
Watching the SA playing style is akin to having a morbid fascination with car crashes, but they certainly look ominous.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Maine man wrote:Stays yellow. Correct imo

If that's PSDT I thought the yellow was harsh. He's low and trying to wrap and make a legal tackle. Cane is low to the ground and it's arm to the head in the act of wrapping and not shoulder to head.

Did Barrett's really on stay at yellow as that was pretty nasty?

For PSDT Sam. I thought yellow would be given. Definitely not a red

Maine man wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Maine man wrote:Stays yellow. Correct imo

If that's PSDT I thought the yellow was harsh. He's low and trying to wrap and make a legal tackle. Cane is low to the ground and it's arm to the head in the act of wrapping and not shoulder to head.

Did Barrett's really on stay at yellow as that was pretty nasty?

For PSDT Sam. I thought yellow would be given. Definitely not a red

I could go either way on that yellow.

Despite all the cards and pens, I thought the referee had a decent game. That must have been a difficult match to officiate.

Barrett is off Scott-free for the red card offence. I don't remember the opposition, maybe Ireland, but he previously received a straight red for an almost identical offence. Surely that's a ban this time around? World Rugby know NZ are fei*ed if they ban Barrett whilst they are already without Retallick - behind these two their lock options seem meh.

Card decisions seem to have become even more of a farce/lottery in this build-up series

mikey_dragon wrote:Barrett is off Scott-free for the red card offence. I don't remember the opposition, maybe Ireland, but he previously received a straight red for an almost identical offence. Surely that's a ban this time around? World Rugby know NZ are fei*ed if they ban Barrett whilst they are already without Retallick - behind these two their lock options seem meh.

Think it was Australia. And I'm sure they were both in the 39th minute. Clearly he's in a rush for his half time orange.

Disciplinary hearings are just completely random. Seems like they just spin a wheel and see what it points too

I think Barrett is off the hook because it didn't get upgraded to a red (the second yellow)? Where-as it probably should have as it was a red card offence as far as I know. The incident versus Aus was against Hooper and Barrett was shown a straight red, followed by a 3 week ban. This was 2019, so not sure if this would be taken into account if he had a red card this time around. Both incidents are not as similar as I remember, but the flying shoulder action is very similar.

Have you seen the blurb that's come out. He didn't enter at any speed, it wasnt dangerous etc. Kinda ignores a little like Farrells tackle that he was never entering that ruck legally. Straight off his feet on a prine player not part of the ruck themselves any longer with no bind.

The mitigation they are trying to offer is shocking for that (and Farrell a bit) aye.

So who appeals this one?