RWC 2023 Final - New Zealand v South Africa, 28 October

First topic message reminder :

               
NEW ZEALAND v SOUTH AFRICA
28 October 2023
21:00 local time (CEST) (UTC+2)
Stade de France, Saint-Denis

Live on ITV/S4C

Referee: Wayne Barnes (England)
Touch judges: Karl Dickson, Matthew Carley
Television match official: Tom Foley

A. Head to Head

105 Played 105
62 Won 39
4 Drawn 4
39 Lost 62
2185 Points 1728

B. Recent Form

25 September 2021
North Queensland Stadium, Townsville
19–17 to New Zealand

2 October 2021
Robina Stadium, Gold Coast
29–31 to South Africa

6 August 2022
Mbombela Stadium, Mbombela
26–10 to South Africa

13 August 2022
Ellis Park, Johannesburg
23–35 to New Zealand

15 July 2023
Mount Smart Stadium, Auckland
35–20 to New Zealand

25 August 2023
Twickenham Stadium, London
35–7 to South Africa

C. Teams

NEW ZEALAND
B Barrett; Jordan, Ioane, J Barrett, Telea; Mo'unga, Smith; De Groot, Taylor, Lomax, Retallick, S Barrett, Frizell, Cane (capt), Savea.

Replacements: Liernert-Brown for Jordan (71), McKenzie for Mo'unga (75), Christie for Smith (66), Williams for de Groot (66), Taukeiaho for Taylor (66), Papali'i for Retallick (71).Not Used: Laulala, Whitelock.

SOUTH AFRICA
Willemse; Arendse, Kriel, De Allende, Kolbe; Pollard, De Klerk; Kitshoff, Mbonambi, Malherbe, Etzebeth, Mostert, Kolisi (capt), Du Toit, Vermeulen.

Replacements: Fourie for Nbonambi (4) Le Roux for Willemse (66), Nche for Kitshoff (52), Kleyn for Etzebeth (58), Snyman for Mostert (52), Wiese for Kolisi (73), Smith for Vermeulen (58).

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Two men won that game for SA

PSDT

Wayne Barnes

Sam Cane

PSDT and Barnes won it for SA

Sam Cane lost it for NZ

Revised. But still an absolute pathetic comment.

Not sure what Barnes did wrong really. Both sides pushed the boundaries in terms of laws excessively.

Barnes was okay apart from the chalked off try and a couple of other minor incidents but the whole game was like attending a refereeing school. It intrudes way too much in the spectacle of the match.

tigertattie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Two men won that game for SA

PSDT

Wayne Barnes

Sam Cane

PSDT and Barnes won it for SA

Sam Cane lost it for NZ

Revised. But still an absolute pathetic comment.

Why?

When a ref says “oops sorry that wasn’t actually a penalty there, but hey, I’ve given it now, please, take your shot at goal Mr Pollard” that’s just plain wrong

And the number of times a SA player was playing the ball off those feet!!! Christ one time Fourie was fully lying flat on his front and he handled the ball and pushed it back to the SA side.

Because as ever the players made in the whole so many more errors than the ref. Its lazy and stupid to blame singular errors as key reasons while discounting or ignoring all others.

Scottrf wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Two men won that game for SA

PSDT

Wayne Barnes

Sam Cane

PSDT and Barnes won it for SA

Sam Cane lost it for NZ

Revised. But still an absolute pathetic comment.

Not sure what Barnes did wrong really. Both sides pushed the boundaries in terms of laws excessively.

Barnes was okay apart from the chalked off try and a couple of other minor incidents but the whole game was like attending a refereeing school. It intrudes way too much in the spectacle of the match.

Why was the chalked off try wrong?

PSDT though

What do ya do if you are running with the ball and you see him coming? Either soil your pants or kick the ball away pronto.

Humble guy but really wants to kill you in the tackle

tigertattie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Two men won that game for SA

PSDT

Wayne Barnes

Sam Cane

PSDT and Barnes won it for SA

Sam Cane lost it for NZ

Revised. But still an absolute pathetic comment.

Why?

When a ref says “oops sorry that wasn’t actually a penalty there, but hey, I’ve given it now, please, take your shot at goal Mr Pollard” that’s just plain wrong

And the number of times a SA player was playing the ball off those feet!!! Christ one time Fourie was fully lying flat on his front and he handled the ball and pushed it back to the SA side.

That was picked up

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Two men won that game for SA

PSDT

Wayne Barnes

Sam Cane

PSDT and Barnes won it for SA

Sam Cane lost it for NZ

Revised. But still an absolute pathetic comment.

Not sure what Barnes did wrong really. Both sides pushed the boundaries in terms of laws excessively.

Barnes was okay apart from the chalked off try and a couple of other minor incidents but the whole game was like attending a refereeing school. It intrudes way too much in the spectacle of the match.

Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Savea knock on at the lineout. That in turn was partially due to illegal play by Etzbeth, so NZ got a penalty instead

[quote="Soul Requiem"]Only one team has ever won a world cup final without scoring a try, that team has done it three times.[/quote

That's an amazing stat and speaks volumes on how SA play in finals. Their physicality sometimes lets them get away with angles at the ruck but opposition teams consistently come up short. Nice to see the lineouts were more of a contest with the ball going down the middle. Thought Barnes had a pretty consistent game.

Best world cup final I've ever watched. Well done SA!

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

I thought it was four phases?

It's crazy how many fine margins that game had. How many close calls. Plenty what if moments which will keep those AB players up at night in 10 years time.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Only one team has ever won a world cup final without scoring a try, that team has done it three times.[/quote

That's an amazing stat and speaks volumes on how SA play in finals. Their physicality sometimes lets them get away with angles at the ruck but opposition teams consistently come up short. Nice to see the lineouts were more of a contest with the ball going down the middle. Thought Barnes had a pretty consistent game.

But that's how you win knock out footie.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

I thought it was four phases?

Protocol says 2 - unless it's changed since 2022 - and there were at least 3 rucks

I can't see anything in the laws that state 2 phases.

What does puzzle me is why when Barnes sees he's incorrectly awarded a pen and it's not even been taken does he not play a scrum instead - or reverse it for holding on as it should have been in the first place?

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

Unless the tmo deemed it unfair play at the lineout. Bit of a grey area that tbf. Probably unlucky given the indiscretion wasn't NZs.

bsando wrote:Best world cup final I've ever watched. Well done SA!

Did you really think it was the best? For me it was one of the worst. It was very tense so enthralling but the quality if rugby really wasnt great, lots of mistakes. I think the most phases went through before kicking it was maybe two or three. Total kick fest.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:The consistency of the bunker just swung back again

World rugby are going to need to look at what the hell has been going on. I’ve seen worse hits than that not even get penalised.

If it was a club game it’s a red. But this World Cup. Who the hell knows. Not me and not the players which makes a mockery of the whole thing

Precisely. 8 weeks ago I nod that through and say good decision. Now after the last 6 weeks it seems really harsh.

Well said. Was thinking the exact same. World Rugby needs to get this sorted asap.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

Unless the tmo deemed it unfair play at the lineout. Bit of a grey area that tbf.

Not grey at all - foul play has to be before a restart in play - but knock-ons are 2 phases ... and the only 'unfair' play was given as a pen against SA anyway

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

Unless the tmo deemed it unfair play at the lineout. Bit of a grey area that tbf. Probably unlucky given the indiscretion wasn't NZs.

He didn’t - we saw what the TMO highlighted and it was the knock on.

Taylorman wrote:
As much as I don’t like Cane as our 7 nor captain for me those situational things catch the offender just as much as the victim sometimes. Did Cane want to hit his head? No. Did he have the time to adjust for the potential problem? No.
He simply got caught out, a guy running at him and he tried to stop him.
Rules say it’s on you.

So off he goes. Reds are more marginal these days. They used to require malicious intent. Now they simply require poor positioning and a surprise factor.

“Running at him” is putting it a bit strongly. Cane was moving rapidly in the direction of Kriel, who turned in Cane’s direction but has only taken a couple of steps before contact. Cane got the red because he was upright going into the tackle, so there was no mitigation for the change of direction. Compare that to Kolisi, who was always in a legal position and so got some mitigation for the change of position.

Can should have done better. It’s not like the rules have changed (though the interpretation has).

Poorfour wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
As much as I don’t like Cane as our 7 nor captain for me those situational things catch the offender just as much as the victim sometimes. Did Cane want to hit his head? No. Did he have the time to adjust for the potential problem? No.
He simply got caught out, a guy running at him and he tried to stop him.
Rules say it’s on you.

So off he goes. Reds are more marginal these days. They used to require malicious intent. Now they simply require poor positioning and a surprise factor.

“Running at him” is putting it a bit strongly. Cane was moving rapidly in the direction of Kriel, who turned in Cane’s direction but has only taken a couple of steps before contact. Cane got the red because he was upright going into the tackle, so there was no mitigation for the change of direction. Compare that to Kolisi, who was always in a legal position and so got some mitigation for the change of position.

Can should have done better. It’s not like the rules have changed (though the interpretation has).

It was a red but full speed it’s two guys turning at each other and he didn’t have a lot of time to react to the situation.

Soul Requiem wrote:Only one team has ever won a world cup final without scoring a try, that team has done it three times.

And Barrett's try was the first they've ever conceded. At least a paucity of tries usually leads to a close game.

RDW wrote:It's crazy how many fine margins that game had. How many close calls. Plenty what if moments which will keep those AB players up at night in 10 years time.

Hell no. They’re privileged to even be there. They’ll write this off as one that got away in a tournament they weren’t even expected to be in a final.
If you’d said before the tournament the best NH side would finish 3rd you’d have been laughed at.
Sure if Jordie had kicked the goal we’d be champions. He’ll see that for a while.
But professionals see things differently than us fans.
They have a job, to bring money home to family. They can’t spend their time in a dreamworld of what if’s like we can. They get over it because they HAVE TOO.

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

Unless the tmo deemed it unfair play at the lineout. Bit of a grey area that tbf.

Not grey at all - foul play has to be before a restart in play - but knock-ons are 2 phases ... and the only 'unfair' play was given as a pen against SA anyway

Tbf it's normally abnormal when Barnes gets any letter of the law issue wrong. And so looking it up it proves him right again. It's only a formal review that can only go back 2 phases. So as this is the tmo coming in as a live referral he is allowed to come in at this time and correct the decision.

Scottrf wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
As much as I don’t like Cane as our 7 nor captain for me those situational things catch the offender just as much as the victim sometimes. Did Cane want to hit his head? No. Did he have the time to adjust for the potential problem? No.
He simply got caught out, a guy running at him and he tried to stop him.
Rules say it’s on you.

So off he goes. Reds are more marginal these days. They used to require malicious intent. Now they simply require poor positioning and a surprise factor.

“Running at him” is putting it a bit strongly. Cane was moving rapidly in the direction of Kriel, who turned in Cane’s direction but has only taken a couple of steps before contact. Cane got the red because he was upright going into the tackle, so there was no mitigation for the change of direction. Compare that to Kolisi, who was always in a legal position and so got some mitigation for the change of position.

Can should have done better. It’s not like the rules have changed (though the interpretation has).

It was a red but full speed it’s two guys turning at each other and he didn’t have a lot of time to react to the situation.

Yep the key thing is intent is the missed yet unrequired factor.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

Unless the tmo deemed it unfair play at the lineout. Bit of a grey area that tbf.

Not grey at all - foul play has to be before a restart in play - but knock-ons are 2 phases ... and the only 'unfair' play was given as a pen against SA anyway

Tbf it's normally abnormal when Barnes gets any letter of the law issue wrong. And so looking it up it proves him right again. It's only a formal review that can only go back 2 phases. So as this is the tmo coming in as a live referral he is allowed to come in at this time and correct the decision.

Live referrals are live. Not a minute after the incident.

Also it’s where the official has missed an incident. Barnes was alerted to it immediately and said ‘not a knock on’.

Live referral 5 or 6 phases later? ... also not the way I read it - which document are you seeing as I was wondering about the difference earlier?

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why was the chalked off try wrong?

Because they went back 5 or 6 phases and are only supposed to go back 2 for a knock on.

Unless the tmo deemed it unfair play at the lineout. Bit of a grey area that tbf.

Not grey at all - foul play has to be before a restart in play - but knock-ons are 2 phases ... and the only 'unfair' play was given as a pen against SA anyway

Tbf it's normally abnormal when Barnes gets any letter of the law issue wrong. And so looking it up it proves him right again. It's only a formal review that can only go back 2 phases. So as this is the tmo coming in as a live referral he is allowed to come in at this time and correct the decision.

Live referrals are live. Not a minute after the incident.

Also it’s where the official has missed an incident. Barnes was alerted to it immediately and said ‘not a knock on’.

Nope,he's allowed to come in like this under the laws as written. Disagree with the laws but it is allowed.

At least the tournament's ended like it began, whining about the officials.

I think it sums up well the issues with rugby right now that after biggest event in our sport all the discussion is about laws and referees, and not any actual rugby.

Heaf wrote:Live referral 5 or 6 phases later? ... also not the way I read it - which document are you seeing as I was wondering about the difference earlier?

Won't allow me a url but I searched tmo protocol and its July 22 in case there's a later one.

RDW wrote:I think it sums up well the issues with rugby right now that after biggest event in our sport all the discussion is about laws and referees, and not any actual rugby.

No matter what it always is as there are complex (and interesting)laws and there's always people who prefer to blame a 3rd party than the players and coaches involved.its also not limited to rugby.

I'm reading the same document by the sound of it - it's appallingly written but I'm not seeing anything saying either sort of referral can be after more than two phases other than foul play ...

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf

RDW wrote:I think it sums up well the issues with rugby right now that after biggest event in our sport all the discussion is about laws and referees, and not any actual rugby.

To be fair the rugby today wasnt great though was it, barely a backs move all game. I know it was a final and they are sometimes like that but SA looked wrecked and NZ with 14 men just didnt have enough. No disrespect meant to the finalists but it wasnt great.

Heaf wrote:I'm reading the same document by the sound of it - it's appallingly written but I'm not seeing anything saying either sort of referral can be after more than two phases other than foul play ...

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf

Same document. The 2 phase rules only come in for a formal review which this wasn't. Inconsistent laws you may argue but under the laws currently it is a correct and just decision.

Firstly commisserations to NZ, doing that with 14 men was incredible. Not sure how many tackles we made, but if PSDT made 28, it must be close to 200.

I am sure many will call the Boks lucky, or the referees looked after them, but when you need to get through the top six teams (excluding yourself) to win the Cup it should be deserved.

You win by 1 point once, you could call it luck, twice you could call it a coincidence, but three times, it is sheer bloody minded determination.

Old Man wrote:Firstly commisserations to NZ, doing that with 14 men was incredible. Not sure how many tackles we made, but if PSDT made 28, it must be close to 200.

I am sure many will call the Boks lucky, or the referees looked after them, but when you need to get through the top six teams (excluding yourself) to win the Cup it should be deserved.

You win by 1 point once, you could call it luck, twice you could call it a coincidence, but three times, it is sheer bloody minded determination.

Yeah if course there was a bit of luck involved if you win three in a row by 1 point but you cant say the Boks dont deserve this one as for me its their toughest ever RWC campaign by a good bit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:I'm reading the same document by the sound of it - it's appallingly written but I'm not seeing anything saying either sort of referral can be after more than two phases other than foul play ...

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf

Same document. The 2 phase rules only come in for a formal review which this wasn't. Inconsistent laws you may argue but under the laws currently it is a correct and just decision.

That's not the way I interpret the admittedly badly written protocols at all ...

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:I'm reading the same document by the sound of it - it's appallingly written but I'm not seeing anything saying either sort of referral can be after more than two phases other than foul play ...

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf

Same document. The 2 phase rules only come in for a formal review which this wasn't. Inconsistent laws you may argue but under the laws currently it is a correct and just decision.

That's not the way I interpret the admittedly badly written protocols at all ...

OK. Why do you not interpret it that way. You said earlier you didn't agree as it wasn't t live decision but that just means it was a decision made by member of thw officials and not made officially requested by the ref so what's up in your eyes?

Old Man wrote:Firstly commisserations to NZ, doing that with 14 men was incredible. Not sure how many tackles we made, but if PSDT made 28, it must be close to 200.

I am sure many will call the Boks lucky, or the referees looked after them, but when you need to get through the top six teams (excluding yourself) to win the Cup it should be deserved.

You win by 1 point once, you could call it luck, twice you could call it a coincidence, but three times, it is sheer bloody minded determination.

We’ll done buddy, totally deserved, unfortunately kiwis here are all blaming it on the officials.
I get the key calls but it’s embarrassing. The call on Savea was wrong but it was early. Jordie had a chance to win the match late but no one talks about things within our own control for sone reason.
Steph du toit was magnificent. I remember you calling him out years ago and today he was the complete difference. Cane on Ireland was what we got dished up today in spades.
His timing and ferocity on the tackle was title winning.
The rest is a blurr. Well done my friend. Enjoy as much as you’re able to.

Collapse2005 wrote:

bsando wrote:Best world cup final I've ever watched. Well done SA!

Did you really think it was the best? For me it was one of the worst. It was very tense so enthralling but the quality if rugby really wasnt great, lots of mistakes. I think the most phases went through before kicking it was maybe two or three. Total kick fest.

Going into a RWC final I have learnt that you can't expect a flawless performance from either side. It's such a big occasion and you just have to find a way to win it. NZ lost tonight but they barely won it in 2011 against France. Given the red card it could have turned into a very one sided affair but NZ came agonisingly close to winning it.

SA for me won this world cup with their phenomenal defence. Tonight it was PSDT who stood up, in other games it was Kwagga Smith or De Allande or Etsbeth. It was a true team performance from start to finish. Just hearing Kolisi and De Klerk talk about working as a team and together as a nation was really inspiring I thought. Especially how bonkers the world is at the mooment.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:I'm reading the same document by the sound of it - it's appallingly written but I'm not seeing anything saying either sort of referral can be after more than two phases other than foul play ...

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf

Same document. The 2 phase rules only come in for a formal review which this wasn't. Inconsistent laws you may argue but under the laws currently it is a correct and just decision.

That's not the way I interpret the admittedly badly written protocols at all ...

OK. Why do you not interpret it that way. You said earlier you didn't agree as it wasn't t live decision but that just means it was a decision made by member of thw officials and not made officially requested by the ref so what's up in your eyes?

The parameters relating to each of these referrals are further detailed in Section 3: Protocol Detail below,

Where match officials believe a Clear and Obvious infringement may have occurred in the immediate two phases of play leading to a try being scored


Having said that I don't remember anyone checking phases in any review for some time so I suspect they may have quietly binned that?

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:Firstly commisserations to NZ, doing that with 14 men was incredible. Not sure how many tackles we made, but if PSDT made 28, it must be close to 200.

I am sure many will call the Boks lucky, or the referees looked after them, but when you need to get through the top six teams (excluding yourself) to win the Cup it should be deserved.

You win by 1 point once, you could call it luck, twice you could call it a coincidence, but three times, it is sheer bloody minded determination.

We’ll done buddy, totally deserved, unfortunately kiwis here are all blaming it on the officials.
I get the key calls but it’s embarrassing. The call on Savea was wrong but it was early. Jordie had a chance to win the match late but no one talks about things within our own control for sone reason.
Steph du toit was magnificent. I remember you calling him out years ago and today he was the complete difference. Cane on Ireland was what we got dished up today in spades.
His timing and ferocity on the tackle was title winning.
The rest is a blurr. Well done my friend. Enjoy as much as you’re able to.

Thanks Tman, don't be too harsh on Cane, he was magnificent in this RWC, I thought NZ would pull through for the win tonight, I just didn't think we would have enough left in the tank, there are always keymoments in a match, some by referees or tmo's, other by players, whether it is a moment's lapsed concentration, a forced error or unforced.

I thought NZ should have taken the points on offer, they declined three or four kicks to the posts. In the end history willshow SA have won, and right now that is good enough for me.

I never in my wildest expectations thought we would win another after 1995, let alone be the first team to get to four.

It seems no matter how much the Springboks are disliked or criticised, they are undoubtedly a knock out tournament team.

Not that it makes much difference but I believe that NZ finish the RWC ranked third and Ireland go to second.

Old Man wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:Firstly commisserations to NZ, doing that with 14 men was incredible. Not sure how many tackles we made, but if PSDT made 28, it must be close to 200.

I am sure many will call the Boks lucky, or the referees looked after them, but when you need to get through the top six teams (excluding yourself) to win the Cup it should be deserved.

You win by 1 point once, you could call it luck, twice you could call it a coincidence, but three times, it is sheer bloody minded determination.

We’ll done buddy, totally deserved, unfortunately kiwis here are all blaming it on the officials.
I get the key calls but it’s embarrassing. The call on Savea was wrong but it was early. Jordie had a chance to win the match late but no one talks about things within our own control for sone reason.
Steph du toit was magnificent. I remember you calling him out years ago and today he was the complete difference. Cane on Ireland was what we got dished up today in spades.
His timing and ferocity on the tackle was title winning.
The rest is a blurr. Well done my friend. Enjoy as much as you’re able to.

Thanks Tman, don't be too harsh on Cane, he was magnificent in this RWC, I thought NZ would pull through for the win tonight, I just didn't think we would have enough left in the tank, there are always keymoments in a match, some by referees or tmo's, other by players, whether it is a moment's lapsed concentration, a forced error or unforced.

I thought NZ should have taken the points on offer, they declined three or four kicks to the posts. In the end history willshow SA have won, and right now that is good enough for me.

I never in my wildest expectations thought we would win another after 1995, let alone be the first team to get to four.

It seems no matter how much the Springboks are disliked or criticised, they are undoubtedly a knock out tournament team.

That they are bro.. that they certainly are.

Collapse2005 wrote:Not that it makes much difference but I believe that NZ finish the RWC ranked third and Ireland go to second.

I personally think when it comes to NZ, Ireland, France and SA, the rankings don't really matter much, this RWC has shown that a .87 or .34 points difference has no bearing on the outcome of these matches, these teams are all capable of beating one another. SA and NZ had the fortune to win the matches that put them through to the semi's

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Not that it makes much difference but I believe that NZ finish the RWC ranked third and Ireland go to second.

I personally think when it comes to NZ, Ireland, France and SA, the rankings don't really matter much, this RWC has shown that a .87 or .34 points difference has no bearing on the outcome of these matches, these teams are all capable of beating one another. SA and NZ had the fortune to win the matches that put them through to the semi's

Yeah rankings are just a point in time check on the way the formula spits out the latest list.
In the end they mean nothing but relativity.
SA are the best side, have back to back World cups and have their arse firmly on the thread hairs of Razors side, which is a good thing.
Not looking forward to our ungrateful press here bemoaning Wayne Barnes et all as they forget the entire Henry dynasty was BUILT on taking away the factors we couldn’t control after 2007.
Now we’re back to this crap.

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:I'm reading the same document by the sound of it - it's appallingly written but I'm not seeing anything saying either sort of referral can be after more than two phases other than foul play ...

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/14/2a158fb7-ab69-4136-a4ef-ba4a5646e3a8/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022.pdf

Same document. The 2 phase rules only come in for a formal review which this wasn't. Inconsistent laws you may argue but under the laws currently it is a correct and just decision.

That's not the way I interpret the admittedly badly written protocols at all ...

OK. Why do you not interpret it that way. You said earlier you didn't agree as it wasn't t live decision but that just means it was a decision made by member of thw officials and not made officially requested by the ref so what's up in your eyes?

The parameters relating to each of these referrals are further detailed in Section 3: Protocol Detail below,

Where match officials believe a Clear and Obvious infringement may have occurred in the immediate two phases of play leading to a try being scored


Having said that I don't remember anyone checking phases in any review for some time so I suspect they may have quietly binned that?

Got to keep reading though as it says 'in referrals classified as formal reviews....'

So how far can you go back?
Seems they can go back four for a try but none when the actual reason for the penalty is overridden by the replay.
That was seven or 9 points on a one point match.
Ho hummmm