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).

Yes I know - but that just says which laws formal reviews can check against - doesn't say live referrals aren't subject to the two phase limit.

Live referrals are like when an AR sees an offside and calls it to the ref who then either blows up or plays an advantage ... If the TMO had immediately called the knock-on it would be different but he didn't call it in until the try was scored.

Taylorman wrote: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

Two phases - and I don't understand either why Barnes couldn't reverse his decision when he saw the replay for the early pen ...

Taylorman wrote: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

I think it shows how much World Rugby has lost the plot that we even have to have this question. Such a great sport undermined at every step by the people in place to guide it.

Heaf wrote:Yes I know - but that just says which laws formal reviews can check against - doesn't say live referrals aren't subject to the two phase limit.

Live referrals are like when an AR sees an offside and calls it to the ref who then either blows up or plays an advantage ... If the TMO had immediately called the knock-on it would be different but he didn't call it in until the try was scored.

Also just think about the logic - what you're effectively saying is if a try is scored and the ref wants to review something they can only go back 2 phases, but if the ref is happy the TMO can off their own bat go back as far as they like then call it in and the number of phases doesn't matter - that would be obtuse and counter intuitive even for WR

A thought about the captains:
Kolisi is tireless and a terrific leader. I think he represents his team and country with class and good grace. And leads from the front.
Cane, I think, is cut from a very similar cloth. A tough nut and I think also represented the ABs and NZ very well. And also leads from the front. I think he just barely didn't have the horses. Feel gutted for him.

I work with pro athletes every week. I would play for either man any time, anywhere.

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.

Congratulations to you and your team Old Man. Gritty game, not pretty by either team, but felt like an epic game whilst watching it. SA pulled off some stunning tackles to deny/halt the few chances we had. It’s what wins finals.

Absorbing game, due to the closeness of the contest. But feels like rugby was the loser. Exactly the sort of game you dont want to see as the showpiece. An over officiated card fest that felt like the two teams involved were a sideshow and all the focus was on the officials. Added to the ludicrous lop sided draw and the lacklustre pool format there are some real lessons for world rugby to learn..

catchweight wrote:Absorbing game, due to the closeness of the contest. But feels like rugby was the loser. Exactly the sort of game you dont want to see as the showpiece. An over officiated card fest that felt like the two teams involved were a sideshow and all the focus was on the officials. Added to the ludicrous lop sided draw and the lacklustre pool format there are some real lessons for world rugby to learn..

Both captains didn’t need to go off at all but that’s what the rules say.
No head checks just … oooos. Shouldn’t have done that. But we have no idea of the impact on the end.
It is what it is. Bring on Australia 2027

Taylorman wrote:

catchweight wrote:Absorbing game, due to the closeness of the contest. But feels like rugby was the loser. Exactly the sort of game you dont want to see as the showpiece. An over officiated card fest that felt like the two teams involved were a sideshow and all the focus was on the officials. Added to the ludicrous lop sided draw and the lacklustre pool format there are some real lessons for world rugby to learn..

Both captains didn’t need to go off at all but that’s what the rules say.
No head checks just … oooos. Shouldn’t have done that. But we have no idea of the impact on the end.
It is what it is. Bring on Australia 2027

The TMO seemed determine to insert himself into everything. The first yellow card to me was just a rugby incident. Bad luck for Mbonambi, but (as verified by the review) it was a clearout attempt that was accidental. If Mbonambi shakes the knock off - its the sort of nothing incident that happens in countless breakdowns over the course of a game with players falling all over the place. Since Mbonambi was injured though, it becomes a yellow card offence for foul play?

Barnes inexplicable decision to acknowledge a NZ turnover was correct but allow the penalty against them to be taken regardless. I dont know what the actual rule is there but common sense dictates once he saw on the replay it was a mistake he should have reversed the decision.

These a re just a couple of incidents but the game in general is plagued by these inconsistencies. It badly needs to find a way to get the officials out of the spotlight.

Felt like NZ were overall the better team, but du Toit was the best player on the pitch (and the red card was a pretty clear red). The big strategy calls for SA really didn't pay off; lack of another specialist hooker cost them at the lineout, and the lack of backline options meant they were stuck with Willemse, who was rubbish. Got the job done though, and won the title the hard way.

Lowlandbrit wrote:Felt like NZ were overall the better team, but du Toit was the best player on the pitch (and the red card was a pretty clear red). The big strategy calls for SA really didn't pay off; lack of another specialist hooker cost them at the lineout, and the lack of backline options meant they were stuck with Willemse, who was rubbish. Got the job done though, and won the title the hard way.

Agreed. Pollard will get a lot of plaudits but personally though he had a bad game. Not surprised the ABs got a red as they seem to be the tier one side that have struggled the most with dicipline in recent years. The card didnt make much difference though as with respect both sides played ten man rugby all game. The Boks looked out on their feet for a lot of that game but ultimately the ABs werent good enough to capitalise on that and yes DuToit was outstanding.

Lowlandbrit wrote:Felt like NZ were overall the better team, but du Toit was the best player on the pitch (and the red card was a pretty clear red). The big strategy calls for SA really didn't pay off; lack of another specialist hooker cost them at the lineout, and the lack of backline options meant they were stuck with Willemse, who was rubbish. Got the job done though, and won the title the hard way.

New Zealand certainly made more of the play, unfortnuately with Marx injured, Mbonambi was the only test class hooker left, Dweba at his best is a crap shoot when it comes to line out, so perhaps Rassie and Nienaber failed to build enough depth at hooker.

Willemse was indeed crap last night.

Look, I think the Boks came thriugh this knock out phase on the principles of knowing it is going to be a tough run, so they will grind it out with risk averse rugby. Although having said that, NZ vs SA, France and Ireland scored 5 tries, SA vs NZ, Irelandand France also scored 5 tries. So it isn't as if the Boks didn't attack, they perhaps less exhilirating than the All Blacks.

In the end, finals are won and lost via defence, discipline and decisions.

New Zealand won the oenalty count 5-10, so they had opportunities to take the points, but chose not too. Whilst they might want to blame refereeing decisions (some will) they should also consider the decisions they made.

Defensively the Boks made 256 tackles, their line speed was incredible, and even though New Zealand looked dangerous at times, they were also forced into a good number of errors.

This SA side are well able to attack and they attacked as much as NZ did in the final which wasn’t a lot but I feel that was because they were wrecked and Pollard isn’t the most attacking fly half.

Collapse2005 wrote:This SA side are well able to attack and they attacked as much as NZ did in the final which wasn’t a lot but I feel that was because they were wrecked and Pollard isn’t the most attacking fly half.

Yep, Pollard doesn't have the finesse Libbok has, so he will never be as creative as Libbok, looking at last night, conditions, the occasion and the road to the final was never going to be a Springbok masterclass in attack. They aimed to manage the game, keep the scoreboard ticking and win the game. I reckon those blokes must be knackered. They will take a well deserved rest hopefully, unless those who has lressing club duties.

Looks like the missed kick was a sitter, but fair play to NZ for nearly winning with 14 men.

catchweight wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

catchweight wrote:Absorbing game, due to the closeness of the contest. But feels like rugby was the loser. Exactly the sort of game you dont want to see as the showpiece. An over officiated card fest that felt like the two teams involved were a sideshow and all the focus was on the officials. Added to the ludicrous lop sided draw and the lacklustre pool format there are some real lessons for world rugby to learn..

Both captains didn’t need to go off at all but that’s what the rules say.
No head checks just … oooos. Shouldn’t have done that. But we have no idea of the impact on the end.
It is what it is. Bring on Australia 2027

The TMO seemed determine to insert himself into everything. The first yellow card to me was just a rugby incident. Bad luck for Mbonambi, but (as verified by the review) it was a clearout attempt that was accidental. If Mbonambi shakes the knock off - its the sort of nothing incident that happens in countless breakdowns over the course of a game with players falling all over the place. Since Mbonambi was injured though, it becomes a yellow card offence for foul play?

Barnes inexplicable decision to acknowledge a NZ turnover was correct but allow the penalty against them to be taken regardless. I dont know what the actual rule is there but common sense dictates once he saw on the replay it was a mistake he should have reversed the decision.

These a re just a couple of incidents but the game in general is plagued by these inconsistencies. It badly needs to find a way to get the officials out of the spotlight.

The Mbonambi one was correct. It's a reckless clearout where the player is in no control and ends up falling on the wrong side. I don't have any sympathy for that yellow card having had knee injuries similar to that.

With the replay on the big screen, refs aren't supposed to look at that unless the TMO picks up something. Barnes made what looked like a fair call initially and it's only once the super slow mo came out it was questionable. Can't have the refs subject to the whims of the TV production company.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

catchweight wrote:Absorbing game, due to the closeness of the contest. But feels like rugby was the loser. Exactly the sort of game you dont want to see as the showpiece. An over officiated card fest that felt like the two teams involved were a sideshow and all the focus was on the officials. Added to the ludicrous lop sided draw and the lacklustre pool format there are some real lessons for world rugby to learn..

Both captains didn’t need to go off at all but that’s what the rules say.
No head checks just … oooos. Shouldn’t have done that. But we have no idea of the impact on the end.
It is what it is. Bring on Australia 2027

The TMO seemed determine to insert himself into everything. The first yellow card to me was just a rugby incident. Bad luck for Mbonambi, but (as verified by the review) it was a clearout attempt that was accidental. If Mbonambi shakes the knock off - its the sort of nothing incident that happens in countless breakdowns over the course of a game with players falling all over the place. Since Mbonambi was injured though, it becomes a yellow card offence for foul play?

Barnes inexplicable decision to acknowledge a NZ turnover was correct but allow the penalty against them to be taken regardless. I dont know what the actual rule is there but common sense dictates once he saw on the replay it was a mistake he should have reversed the decision.

These a re just a couple of incidents but the game in general is plagued by these inconsistencies. It badly needs to find a way to get the officials out of the spotlight.

The Mbonambi one was correct. It's a reckless clearout where the player is in no control and ends up falling on the wrong side. I don't have any sympathy for that yellow card having had knee injuries similar to that.

With the replay on the big screen, refs aren't supposed to look at that unless the TMO picks up something. Barnes made what looked like a fair call initially and it's only once the super slow mo came out it was questionable. Can't have the refs subject to the whims of the TV production company.

I dont agree its reckless, or at least any more reckless that the clearouts that happen at almost all rucks. He falls on the wrong side and accidentally lands on Mbonambis leg. If Mbonambi is ok to continue, nothing happens there.

The replay incident is common sense. He sees hes made a bad call, has the opportunity to reverse it but doesnt.

The fact this stuff dominates the conversations after the games is evidence itself on the problem.

And then you have the endless officiating debate intervals with music blasting out in attempt to keep the crowd drifting off to boredom.

1 minute left in a WC final with a point it and they are playing music over the intercom during a scrum reset. Kind of sums up where the game is and the direction its going.

catchweight wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

catchweight wrote:Absorbing game, due to the closeness of the contest. But feels like rugby was the loser. Exactly the sort of game you dont want to see as the showpiece. An over officiated card fest that felt like the two teams involved were a sideshow and all the focus was on the officials. Added to the ludicrous lop sided draw and the lacklustre pool format there are some real lessons for world rugby to learn..

Both captains didn’t need to go off at all but that’s what the rules say.
No head checks just … oooos. Shouldn’t have done that. But we have no idea of the impact on the end.
It is what it is. Bring on Australia 2027

The TMO seemed determine to insert himself into everything. The first yellow card to me was just a rugby incident. Bad luck for Mbonambi, but (as verified by the review) it was a clearout attempt that was accidental. If Mbonambi shakes the knock off - its the sort of nothing incident that happens in countless breakdowns over the course of a game with players falling all over the place. Since Mbonambi was injured though, it becomes a yellow card offence for foul play?

Barnes inexplicable decision to acknowledge a NZ turnover was correct but allow the penalty against them to be taken regardless. I dont know what the actual rule is there but common sense dictates once he saw on the replay it was a mistake he should have reversed the decision.

These a re just a couple of incidents but the game in general is plagued by these inconsistencies. It badly needs to find a way to get the officials out of the spotlight.

The Mbonambi one was correct. It's a reckless clearout where the player is in no control and ends up falling on the wrong side. I don't have any sympathy for that yellow card having had knee injuries similar to that.

With the replay on the big screen, refs aren't supposed to look at that unless the TMO picks up something. Barnes made what looked like a fair call initially and it's only once the super slow mo came out it was questionable. Can't have the refs subject to the whims of the TV production company.

I dont agree its reckless, or at least any more reckless that the clearouts that happen at almost all rucks. He falls on the wrong side and accidentally lands on Mbonambis leg. If Mbonambi is ok to continue, nothing happens there.

The replay incident is common sense. He sees hes made a bad call, has the opportunity to reverse it but doesnt.

The fact this stuff dominates the conversations after the games is evidence itself on the problem.

And then you have the endless officiating debate intervals with music blasting out in attempt to keep the crowd drifting off to boredom.

1 minute left in a WC final with a point it and they are playing music over the intercom during a scrum reset. Kind of sums up where the game is and the direction its going.

I've no problem with either decision to be honest. You enter a ruck recklessly and then don't moan when you get pinged, particularly if you land on the wrong side and take an opponent out the game.

If Barnes reverses that decision which wasn't a glaring mistake, it's an interpretation. Then the players will be holding up play whenever possible to try and point to replays on the screen when they don't agree with the decision. It's not exactly a new interpretation that you have to demonstrate to the ref that you've made a clear release. The onus is on the player to demonstrate that and has been for years.

The music blasting out has generally been a fixture and the crowds have been raucous so it's a combination that's worked. Not really a fan of it myself but when the crowds are that loud during the game then it's working.

If you want less handling errors then the SH teams need to stop insisting on the competition being played in September and October when the NH hosts. Start it a month earlier and it's played in warm weather and sunshine.

Hosting at this time of year in the northern hemisphere does not make for a great spectacle, I don't think there's any coincidence that the quality of rugby played dropped significantly as the weather worsened. It also does make a great deal of sense to have rugby union of all sports to have its world cup on at the same time as the Cricket world cup, you end up splitting the viewership.

Soul Requiem wrote:Hosting at this time of year in the northern hemisphere does not make for a great spectacle, I don't think there's any coincidence that the quality of rugby played dropped significantly as the weather worsened. It also does make a great deal of sense to have rugby union of all sports to have its world cup on at the same time as the Cricket world cup, you end up splitting the viewership.

Not sure you can blame the weather, Six nations is played often in bad conditions and yet rarely would you see a game where neither team goes through more than a couple of phases before kicking. The conditions werent that bad either, the way the two sides played was tactical and probably because it was a final.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Hosting at this time of year in the northern hemisphere does not make for a great spectacle, I don't think there's any coincidence that the quality of rugby played dropped significantly as the weather worsened. It also does make a great deal of sense to have rugby union of all sports to have its world cup on at the same time as the Cricket world cup, you end up splitting the viewership.

Not sure you can blame the weather, Six nations is played often in bad conditions and yet rarely would you see a game where neither team goes through more than a couple of phases before kicking. The conditions werent that bad either, the way the two sides played was tactical and probably because it was a final.

Early in the tournament when the weather was much warmer evening games suffered due to humidity. England Argentina was all about England adapting better to conditions where the ball was very slippery. There isn't a simple answer as to when games should be played.

This time of year seems to largely suit both hemispheres

Finals are finals but remember there have been some jaw dropping games this WC

What's the deal with Barnes and Savea?

I read here, and on social media, that Barnes told Savea he had got the decision wrong, but let the penalty award against him stand.

Now I'm hearing that people have misunderstood what Barnes was saying. Eggchasers, and others, believe Barnes just explained to Savea why he made he made his call, rather than apologised for getting it wrong. Something along the lines of "Sorry mate, I thought x happened", where "sorry" is not admitting error.

Barnes said to Savea "i didn't see that"

He was talking about a clear release.

Rugby Fan wrote:What's the deal with Barnes and Savea?

I read here, and on social media, that Barnes told Savea he had got the decision wrong, but let the penalty award against him stand.

Now I'm hearing that people have misunderstood what Barnes was saying. Eggchasers, and others, believe Barnes just explained to Savea why he made he made his call, rather than apologised for getting it wrong. Something along the lines of "Sorry mate, I thought x happened", where "sorry" is not admitting error.

The latter is consistent with how Barnes refs other matches. He will regularly respond to a player challenging with a decision with “I’m sorry, but I saw [x]”. I haven’t heard the clip, but I suspect people are trying to read into it what they want to hear.

I’m very surprised at the amount of flak Barnes is receiving, especially from New Zealand fans who usually pride themselves on being gracious whether winning or losing. As a neutral watching the game, there were things that could have been called either way, but the big decisions looked accurate to me and the officiating team worked well together.

It was a close game, and both teams had chances to win it, but New Zealand weren’t able to get their backline into the game, and blew more of their scoring opportunities than the Boks. In a game decided by one point, the cards - which were correct by the framework as it’s written (though not necessarily as it’s been applied recently) - were probably decisive.

Poorfour wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:What's the deal with Barnes and Savea?

I read here, and on social media, that Barnes told Savea he had got the decision wrong, but let the penalty award against him stand.

Now I'm hearing that people have misunderstood what Barnes was saying. Eggchasers, and others, believe Barnes just explained to Savea why he made he made his call, rather than apologised for getting it wrong. Something along the lines of "Sorry mate, I thought x happened", where "sorry" is not admitting error.

The latter is consistent with how Barnes refs other matches. He will regularly respond to a player challenging with a decision with “I’m sorry, but I saw [x]”. I haven’t heard the clip, but I suspect people are trying to read into it what they want to hear.

I’m very surprised at the amount of flak Barnes is receiving, especially from New Zealand fans who usually pride themselves on being gracious whether winning or losing. As a neutral watching the game, there were things that could have been called either way, but the big decisions looked accurate to me and the officiating team worked well together.

It was a close game, and both teams had chances to win it, but New Zealand weren’t able to get their backline into the game, and blew more of their scoring opportunities than the Boks. In a game decided by one point, the cards - which were correct by the framework as it’s written (though not necessarily as it’s been applied recently) - were probably decisive.

100%. Barnes is a very good referee and he got the majority calls right.

NZ lost because they correctly received one red and one yellow card, they did not penetrate with their attacking play and they missed kicks at goal. Add that up and it equals a championship. I'm not saying that anyone on here is doing this, but there's very limited use in looking for a more dense and discrete explanation than that. From what I read in the NZ Herald and Stuff, nobody is suggesting that NZ should have won, only that on a different day they could have.

NZ can be proud and their fans will be. South Africa is the only side to go through all top 6 sides in the world in a knockout tournament and away from home in the process. That is a staggering achievement that probably (hopefully) will never be repeated once World Rugby have re-established the position of their @rse and their elbow. Surely to god nobody can begrudge the Boks this.

George Carlin wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:What's the deal with Barnes and Savea?

I read here, and on social media, that Barnes told Savea he had got the decision wrong, but let the penalty award against him stand.

Now I'm hearing that people have misunderstood what Barnes was saying. Eggchasers, and others, believe Barnes just explained to Savea why he made he made his call, rather than apologised for getting it wrong. Something along the lines of "Sorry mate, I thought x happened", where "sorry" is not admitting error.

The latter is consistent with how Barnes refs other matches. He will regularly respond to a player challenging with a decision with “I’m sorry, but I saw [x]”. I haven’t heard the clip, but I suspect people are trying to read into it what they want to hear.

I’m very surprised at the amount of flak Barnes is receiving, especially from New Zealand fans who usually pride themselves on being gracious whether winning or losing. As a neutral watching the game, there were things that could have been called either way, but the big decisions looked accurate to me and the officiating team worked well together.

It was a close game, and both teams had chances to win it, but New Zealand weren’t able to get their backline into the game, and blew more of their scoring opportunities than the Boks. In a game decided by one point, the cards - which were correct by the framework as it’s written (though not necessarily as it’s been applied recently) - were probably decisive.

100%. Barnes is a very good referee and he got the majority calls right.

NZ lost because they correctly received one red and one yellow card, they did not penetrate with their attacking play and they missed kicks at goal. Add that up and it equals a championship. I'm not saying that anyone on here is doing this, but there's very limited use in looking for a more dense and discrete explanation than that. From what I read in the NZ Herald and Stuff, nobody is suggesting that NZ should have won, only that on a different day they could have.

NZ can be proud and their fans will be. South Africa is the only side to go through all top 6 sides in the world in a knockout tournament and away from home in the process. That is a staggering achievement that probably (hopefully) will never be repeated once World Rugby have re-established the position of their @rse and their elbow. Surely to god nobody can begrudge the Boks this.

Matt Williams does, the man has an unhealthy dislike of the Springboks. His complaints and criticisms about Springbok tactics this world cup were numerous and spiteful. Some Afrikaans girl must have shunned him at some point in his life.

You really don't want to be paying much attention to Matt Williams. A failed international coach who became a terrible pundit. I am reluctant to call him a journalist!

The guy is fully entitled to his opinion, he has dedicated his life to rugby and coached some good sides. He makes some good points and makes them well and is not afraid to rattle cages but believes in his opinion rather than being provocative for the sake of it. Thats the sign of a good journalist whether you agree with him or not. I highly doubt he has anything against SA but rather has an ideal view of what he wants from the game.

I would say completely full of his own self importance.

The worst coach Scotland have ever had and that is saying something!

Death threats aimed at Wayne Barnes and his family. Are people that twisted and devoid of any redeeming trait or values that this is what they do? Who would ever want to be a referee?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/10/29/rugby-world-cup-final-referee-wayne-barnes-death-threats/

Imagine thinking Cane’s offence didn’t warrant a Red, and then sending cyber death threats to the ref and his family over it. Kiwi players and fans covering themselves in glory since the Ireland game. Pathetic.

mikey_dragon wrote:Imagine thinking Cane’s offence didn’t warrant a Red, and then sending cyber death threats to the ref and his family over it. Kiwi players and fans covering themselves in glory since the Ireland game. Pathetic.

John Kirwan is adament Siya Kolisi's yellow should have beenupgraded to a red, in his own words "I am fedup"

I suspect some New Zealanders take their lead from him.

What is perplexing to me is how anyone can believe Kolisi's contact and height in the tackle was comparable with Cane's tackle

I agree with the Yellow and Red, I didn’t think both were comparable either hence the different outcomes. I can’t remember if Kriel went off for a HIA, if not he should have.

Personally I don't like red cards for anything other than deliberate foul play.

I understand player safety issues, I understand it must be punished, I just don't like the idea of 14v15 for a prolonged period in a match.

Why can the judiciary not just review every yellow card after the match and punish the player and not the team?

For me Frizzell's act was more deliberate than Cane's

He came around the side of the ruck, landed his hip on Mbonambi's lower limb whilst dragging him over by the neck. Effectively removing SA's only specialist hooker thereby nullifying our line out and scrum quite effectively.

Now that is something that can be debated on whether his intentions was deliberate or not, just suspicious in my view so early on in the final. Was it a deliberate tactic? Don't know, but I wonder.

The other question about yellow cards is, is a penalty not sufficient punishment when considering one act of illegal play constitutes ten minutes advantage?

The intercept a case in point. Iknow most will disagree, but whether an intercept is succesful or not, it is a defensive tactic, currently the reasoning is a positive action ie. Two handed attempt is legal but a one handed is illegal, in my mind could just be a scrum to the opposition, or a free kick if you don't want to waste time. Better yet, free kick with the recieving team allowed to kick the ball out and get the line out throw.

Old Man wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Imagine thinking Cane’s offence didn’t warrant a Red, and then sending cyber death threats to the ref and his family over it. Kiwi players and fans covering themselves in glory since the Ireland game. Pathetic.

John Kirwan is adament Siya Kolisi's yellow should have beenupgraded to a red, in his own words "I am fedup"

I suspect some New Zealanders take their lead from him.

What is perplexing to me is how anyone can believe Kolisi's contact and height in the tackle was comparable with Cane's tackle

Its no wonder the ABs get so many cards

Jim Hamilton gets a lot of compliments for his overall coverage in the comments to this YouTube video.

In another thread on this forum, someone noted how much Jim Hamilton has developed as a rugby pundit since he started doing podcasts with Andy Goode. There's a sweet spot for new ex-players, where they are still close enough to the sport to have fresh insights. Hamilton has a likeable, self-deprecating persona which means people are prepared to give him the time of day in interviews.



Meanwhile, in NZ, Scotty Stevenson thinks World Rugby is leaving the match officials out to dry by not addressing some of the questions raised during the game.

mikey_dragon wrote:Imagine thinking Cane’s offence didn’t warrant a Red, and then sending cyber death threats to the ref and his family over it. Kiwi players and fans covering themselves in glory since the Ireland game. Pathetic.

It's really depressing that there are some people out there so dumb that they think sending death threats is a proportionate response to a ref making a call they don't like. It's just pathetic and stupid and I hope anyone doing that after any game can be identified and banned from rugby.

Old Man wrote:Personally I don't like red cards for anything other than deliberate foul play.

I understand player safety issues, I understand it must be punished, I just don't like the idea of 14v15 for a prolonged period in a match.

Why can the judiciary not just review every yellow card after the match and punish the player and not the team?

To that specific point, in an RWC Final it creates an incentive to risk high tackles if you know that the only on-pitch punishment is a YC. It might be different earlier in a tournament, but in a high stakes game, especially where a lot of players are likely to retire afterwards, I would be very worried about player safety.

Old Man wrote:For me Frizzell's act was more deliberate than Cane's

He came around the side of the ruck, landed his hip on Mbonambi's lower limb whilst dragging him over by the neck. Effectively removing SA's only specialist hooker thereby nullifying our line out and scrum quite effectively.

Now that is something that can be debated on whether his intentions was deliberate or not, just suspicious in my view so early on in the final. Was it a deliberate tactic? Don't know, but I wonder.

What we didn't see during the live broadcast was the reverse angle. Frizzell's right arm was on Mbonambi's left shoulder / neck, but that would generally be a penalty at most if the rest of the clearout was legal. If there was sufficient evidence that he tried to wrap with the left arm and missed then he probably gets the benefit of the doubt - and presumably the bunker team did see that and applied mitigation.

Cane's was - by pre-tournament standards - always a red. He made direct head/neck contact, with force, and was always upright so no mitigation applied. The only way it was a yellow was by the (frankly bizarre) standards that had been applied to the tournament from round 2 to the SFs.

Old Man wrote:The other question about yellow cards is, is a penalty not sufficient punishment when considering one act of illegal play constitutes ten minutes advantage?

The whole point about cards is that they provide a higher degree of punishment for acts that have a bigger impact on the players or the game. We don't want high tackles, so the game has gradually increased the cost of making one. Likewise, the option of a penalty try and/or card has long been available for an act of foul play that prevents a score. That can be a bit harsh at times - a family friend was YC'd in an U18 international for collapsing a maul near the tryline, because his team mates did nothing to help him slow it down and it was inevitable that he'd be pushed over by the opposition.

Old Man wrote:The intercept a case in point. Iknow most will disagree, but whether an intercept is succesful or not, it is a defensive tactic, currently the reasoning is a positive action ie. Two handed attempt is legal but a one handed is illegal, in my mind could just be a scrum to the opposition, or a free kick if you don't want to waste time. Better yet, free kick with the recieving team allowed to kick the ball out and get the line out throw.

It often gets reduced to two hands good, one hand bad, but it's supposed to be whether there's a realistic chance to catch the ball. If a player manages to juggle the ball one handed before dropping it, or succeeds in batting it up in the air to a catchable height, they will usually get away with it, whereas if they just bat it down or get a hand in the way of the pass it will be treated as deliberate (unless like Etzebeth in the QF they manage to knock it backwards).

What you've described as sanctions are, in effect, very close to what we have today. A two handed attempt is still an infringement under the laws but a minor one and today would result in advantage or a scrum. A one handed attempt can result in anything from a penalty (which is remarkably similar to "a free kick where you get the lineout") to a penalty try, depending on how likely it was a try would bne scored. It's a question of risk and reward: you want to encourage genuine attempts at interceptions, but not players to bat at the ball to disrupt scoring chances.

Personally, I think the current interpretation probably errs on the side of being too harsh. We see a lot of YCs for deliberate knock ons that look to me like a genuine attempt at a tackle, and I'd not be surprised if in some of them the ball carrier deliberately released the ball to get a chance at a card. But it's hard to judge and players don't complain about it too much, so it's probably not far off where it needs to be.

Wayne Barnes is on this week's BBC Rugby Podcast, and he spoke about his apparent apology to Savea during the final.

Most initial post-match commentary, especially from New Zealand, thought he had apologized because he saw from replays on screens at the stadium that he was wrong, and yet had allowed Pollard to carry on kicking the goal.

Barnes remembers the interaction differently. After he penalized Savea for not releasing before attempting to jackal, Savea approached him, saying "I came off the ball", when Barnes said "That's not what I saw", Savea insisted "I'm telling you, I came off the ball". Barnes says he replied "If that's the case, I'm sorry".

Barnes says he had not seem a replay at that point, so did not know if he had made the correct decision (the BBC podcast team had various views on that). He just wanted an indignant Savea to know that he was making calls in good faith, whether right or wrong.

It's unlikely Barnes has got the words used at the time exactly right, but it does explain why he didn't reverse his decision.

That's how I interpreted the conversation at the time. As a ref it's pretty standard if a player thinks you have missed or misinterpreted something to say "I'm sorry - I didn't see that / didn't see it that way. I'll look out for it in future."

Also, if the penalty is for not releasing, I am not sure how "I came off the ball" would change that. If you were on the ball having not released, then you're liable to be penalised. If you come off the ball fast enough, the ref might decide you've not impeded play, but you were still illegal and there's no guarantee that you get away with it just because you stopped.

Another strange one is a report on the Stuff website headline claims World Rugby has admitted Barnes was wrong to give a disallowed try, as the TMO intervened too many phases back.

Turns out no-one at World Rugby is identified, and World Rugby is apparently not planning to make any formal statement. Seems like a non-story.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/133288593/world-rugby-concedes-all-blacks-disallowed-try-in-rugby-world-cup-final-should-have-stood

On the BBC podcast, Barnes addressed the idea that TMO Foley had been in his ear too much during the final. He said he and Foley have worked together on around 100 matches, so they know each other very well. He added that every one of Foley's five interventions was correct.

I am a little hazier on the exact sequence, but IIRC Foley flagged up in near real time that there was something to look at in the lineout, Barnes said he hadn't seen anything clear and allowed play to continue, and then after the ball was grounded Foley asked him to go back and look at the initial incident.

The incident being flagged before the passage of play ended makes a difference for me. The TMO wasn't being asked to go back and check an excessive number of phased but had already alerted the ref to something that needed checking.

I've seen the anonymous feedback on this and it is at odds with other things mentioned by Barnes. For me it's another area like the new bunker system where what WR do is merely fall into the cracks. The isn't a wall of silence and the assertion that the ref is right on thw field.and move on. Nor though is there full transparency from.refs etc. I know they're probably scared about the brain dead morons who blame refs and worse but they're not getting it right for me.

Poorfour wrote:I am a little hazier on the exact sequence, but IIRC Foley flagged up in near real time that there was something to look at in the lineout, Barnes said he hadn't seen anything clear and allowed play to continue, and then after the ball was grounded Foley asked him to go back and look at the initial incident.

The incident being flagged before the passage of play ended makes a difference for me. The TMO wasn't being asked to go back and check an excessive number of phased but had already alerted the ref to something that needed checking.

That was also my reading, as you can hear Barnes immediately say he thought there was no knock-on, which can only be in response to someone. While it could have been an assistant referee, it was more likely to have been Foley. Like you, I'd assume the phase count doesn't become an issue if something is flagged at the time it happens. It wasn't an instance of the TMO reviewing footage, and suddenly noticing something for the first time.

You could argue the TMO should not have gone checking, after Barnes' dismissed his initial call. Perhaps another TMO would have let it go. The fact Foley and Banes had worked together so often meant they probably had a good idea of what the other wanted.

Interestingly, Barnes cited two cases where the TMO protocol was changed as a direct result of incidents he refereed. The first was the forward pass in that 2007 France-NZ World Cup quarter-final. At the time, a TMO wasn't allowed to intervene, which was changed soon after the tournament. The second was when Manu Tuilagi repeatedly punched Chris Ashton. Barnes didn't see it, and relied on his touch judge, who told him both men had been at it, so he gave both a yellow card. Afterwards, the TMO told him Ashton had been largely blameless, but he wasn't allowed to advise Barnes (perhaps without being asked?).

One point Barnes emphasized on the podcast was echoed by Monye, who serves on one of the World Rugby officiating advisory committees. Most people have the impression the officals decide how the game is refereed. Barnes says they always go to stakeholders like owners, coaches and players and ask for instructions on how they want the game refereed. Consequently, it's frustrating when some of the same coaches talk about how officiating is ruining the game, when they have been party to those discussions.

Barnes related how he would often get post-match videos from rival coaches showing 20 penalties committed by the other team, when he'd only awarded half. Barnes would point out they were both saying he should have blown for a total of 40 penalties, and asked if that's what they wanted to see. Inevitably, they would say no.

The bottom line of course is that there was a clear and obvious knock on in the build up - I don't want to criticise the ref who has a dozen things to watch and may not have seen it from the best angle, but it was pretty obvious to most and I was surprised at the time it wasn't called straight away by the touch judge (again, they may also have had their view impaired). The only reason the try shouldn't have been chalked off is that it should never have been scored - as 99 times out of 100 something like that gets called straight away! So, if the best some of the more petulant NZ pundits and rag writers can find to moan about is that they think there was a procedural error, I would suggest they are clutching at straws. Thank goodness most of their fans are better people and more knowledgeable about the game.

The knock on occurred between two players in a proto-maul. From the tv angles, I suspect it was only clear from the spidercam view (which was the one Foley used on replay). I doubt anyone could have seen it clearly enough on the pitch.

I think Barnes is also being a bit modest about his contribution to refereeing protocols - those were the ones that changed after the fact, but he made a lot of refinements to the TMO protocols in particular on the pitch (including inviting TMO checks while play continued - which is the precursor to Foley offering what he is seeing in real time).

It was still a knock-on though. Kiwi’s still insufferable.

It seems to me that one nation can never lose the WC regardless of results. The hit to Aki and the kolbe charge down were none issues that just needed to get over. Last penalty v England just get over it. Suddenly WR must come out and publicly acknowledge they were wrong.

What I get from this is as follows
1. France did deserve to win the 2007 match because we shouldn't call tries back for things.
2. WR after the Ire v NZ game I think told the TMO that it's the ref that needs to review the head contact not the TMO.
3. After all the issues in the knockout games with calls the ref team was told make sure the right decisions were made.

When we have reports of the ref apologizing to Savea (a lawyer and all) I guess the media realised the NZ fans would eat up everything.

Well for me it is really ablut was is more important, the law actually affecting play, or the technically of how far back you can review,

Which is the more important aspect.

If you are in the camp of the technical aspect of how many phases is more important than the fact the move started with a knock on, then you will forever be dissatisfied with the result.