[2014 TRC] South Africa v New Zealand in Johannesburg (04/10/2014)

[Tony Manx]

The TMO booth is soundproof. He cannot hear the crowd noise or the commentary, and he has no windows so he cannot see the game "in the flesh". He can only communicate with the referee, the assistant referees, and the Video Tape Operator (VTO - A legacy term as everything is done digitally now).

His video feed for following the game comes only from the half-way line cameras (so he isn't fed crowd shots either). When he is called up to make a decision then he requests the relevant footage from the VTO.

In short, the TMO cannot be influnced by the commentary or the baying crowd because he cannot hear or see them.

In French games, they do not show the Video Replays at all (foul play or Try)...only the TMO sees it and instructs the referee as to what to do! We were quite used to hearing only the Benny Hill intro music with just a notice on the screen!!

 

[The Jones Boy]

To say the TMO cannot hear 70,000 spectators baying outside the booth is a misnomer.
They don't make soundproof boxes that good I'm afraid. It will muffle the noise but not kill it. Those thousands of raised voices can be heard miles away, but in the same stadium, he'll be hearing the racket through the construction materials.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well I'm just a bit flabbergasted at how some kiwi fans are taking this loss. The well informed guys, this doesn't include you, but geez, some guys are blowing this out of proportion. How about taking the loss on the chin, and go on. If the Coach, Captain, and smart guys like Cooky, Darwin and Nick can take it, then so should the others. Richie Mccaw and JDV showed in the post match interviews how either teams respect their opposition, and it was great to see the top 2 teams staying humble, and congratulate one another. And Steve Hansen got another thumbs up from me in his post match interview.

Onto the test match itself. Well again a cracking test between the top 2 teams in the world. I wonder what would've happened if Duane Vermeulen was 100%?? I thought our second string flankers played exceptionally well. and the entire pack played like posessed men, attacking every ruck with vigour, tackling like their lives depended on it, and even Jannie Du Plessis making some runs and getting turnovers. Apart from Duane, I think Victor Matfield had a great performance. For a 38-year old guy he was everywhere, contributed in defense and attack and disrupted the AB's lineouts as usual.

Then Handre Pollard. 3rd time this year he has beaten the All Blacks. for a 20 year old he was outstanding, especially in the all important role as fly half, apart from the first kick he missed, he was just fantastic, and IMHO he overshadowed Beuden Barrett. Speaking of Barrett, it seemed like the Boks was targeting him when attacking, and I thought that was the AB's downfall, in not protecting him more. Our new gameplan is starting to work wonders. Our mix of "Stampkar" and using the width of the field is becoming a deadly combo.

I thoroughly enjoyed this match, and I wonder if the stigma of Wayne Barnes and NZ weren't there BEFORE the test, if some of these stupid comments would've even popped up. The ref was erroneous on some occasions, yes, but to both sides. The first try for example, I thought he should've given a scrum penalty to the boks for the AB props popping up and wheeling the scrum illegally, but we all know that the scrums and penalties are a lottery nowadays. Barnes also missed a few knock-ons. One of them very close to the AB's goalline, which would've given the Boks a 5m scrum.

As for the Messam incident. It's funny that the guys seem to only see that penalty and the use of the TMO in that instance as wrong. Barnes did the exact same thing in the first half. He called for the scrum, and then just as the guys were getting set up, he stopped the play, and walk to the touch line, and asked the TMO: "is there something we need to take a look at". The TMO and the touch judge communicated with Barnes, had a quick look at a foul play report, and then when they saw that it wasn't foul play, went back to the scrum. IMHO I thought the use of the TMO in this manner, saves time. I thought Barnes call on Messam's high shot was also spot on. in real time it didn't look malicious at all, and therefore the penalty alone was sufficient, even though Messam didn't use his arms. Let's leave it at that.

All in all, the Boks played better on the day, but I have to say the fitness of the All Blacks is something to admire, the way they just got better and better as the game progressed, is a testament to that, especially at altitude.

My biggest concern in the second half was HM sending on subs at the wrong time. Why he replaced Hougaard and Pollard when he did was a strange call, unless Pollard was injured, which didn't look like the case after the game. Last week our subs made a huge difference, and this time, they broke our momentum. I guess it's an area HM and his staff has to concentrate on.

Congrats AB's on winning the RC! And my call even before the start of the tournament was spot on. I said it will be the same end result on the log as last year, but the margins would be closer. I'm looking forward to next year, for both the RC, and the World Cup!

 

[first5eight]

"We were good enough to get in front and then it was unfortunate that a guy gets tackled, slips over and he's going to ground the other guys trying to take him in a ball and all tackle hits him in the head. If he'd [Schalk Burger] stayed in his feet a fraction longer we might all be sitting here with big happy faces."

Hansen sums it up fairly succinctly.........

At the end of the day we where due a loss and the saffas where due a win..

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Well done Bokke. For a team that was criticised at the start for playing older foreign players who would employ a dour Bulls style kickfest, they have finished the tournament in style. Handre Pollard was awesome and to think he's just a kid, then you have Lambie to replace him who has shown nerves of steel in the last 2 games. Is Vermuelen the toughest bloke in world rugby at the moment? I would think so.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Read this somewhere else and thought it raised some interesting questions (by neither a SA or NZer by the way so written from a neutral standpoint):

Rugby's moving into uncomfortable territory now with the use of replays : who, exactly, flags up potential issues? Are there any precise rules around it?
Today, there was a sense that it was the guys in the tv truck who spotted it, stuck it on a screen, got the crowd going, leading to the SA captain saying something to the ref, who at the very last moment then asked to look at it; following six or seven looks, with the crowd doing what they'll naturally do and what only a ref with superhuman nerves/balls (and Barnes doesn't have them) would dare to resist, he makes the match-deciding decision.
Now, compare that with the erroneous, and plainly ridiculous, call for a knock on when Argentina played New Zealand, in New Zealand, a few weeks back. It was a dumb decision from the ref in the first place, but one look would have sorted it definitively. Why didn't that happen? Why didn't it go on the screen immediately? Why didn't someone in the van or elsewhere tell the ref to have a look?
It should be clear (though if I'm missing something, I'll be grateful, once my embarrassment passes, to find out what that is) that the way it's being used now leads to enormous advantages for home teams, especially as the guys in the tv truck are presumably staffed exclusively with people from that nation.
The right decision was probably reached for the incident in question (though it wouldn't surprise me if there were plenty more such incidents which went unflagged- if it is local guys in the truck who bear responsibility for finding them and passing them along) but the process by which the decision was reached is becoming a real problem in the game.
They have got to try iron out some better rules for its use. If that means letting some things go in order to make sure it isn't an... arbitrary decision, which is almost guaranteed to favour home sides, whether or not to look things over again, so be it. What if a world cup final is determined by a refs willingness to look again or evenunwillingness ('I've made my decision,that's it) to do so?
If the answer to all this is that there are independent people in the tv truck co-ordinating things, why was the message unable to be pushed through to the ref in that Arg New Zealand game that he'd made a clunking mistake?
Most amazing of all, people imagine video refereeing can be brought in with no difficulties into a game markedly less-suited to video reffing (partly because of the nature of the game, partly because of the attitude of those who play and manage it) : football. They are crackers. Without precise rules as to when technology can be used, football, a sport in which, unlike rugby, sportsmanship is dead and bitterness, bias and hysteria abound, would be a farce.
Both teams were great today in an incredible match, but this issue is only going to get bigger by the looks of it."

 

[smartcooky]

To say the TMO cannot hear 70,000 spectators baying outside the booth is a misnomer.
They don't make soundproof boxes that good I'm afraid. It will muffle the noise but not kill it. Those thousands of raised voices can be heard miles away, but in the same stadium, he'll be hearing the racket through the construction materials.

Have you ever been in the TMO Box at a major match? Well, I have several times so I know exactly what it is like.

While you can hear the crowd noise very faintly, it just sounds like faint, background white noise, you cannot tell anything about what mood they are in, or if they are jeering or cheering. And that is if you are NOT wearing the headset. When you ARE wearing the headset, all you can hear is the referee's "hot-mic" (the referee's mic is live all the time). You can hear him huffing and puffing and talking to the players. The referee's microphone is a dynamic noise-cancelling type that is typically used on on pilot's headsets. There is almost no crowd noise coming though that either.

PS: If you don't believe that it is possible to have a microphone pick up the referee voice and not the crowd noise, here is a brief, non-technical explanation of how that works.
The system uses two microphones and active electronic circuitry to reduce the noise. The first microphone is close to referee's mouth and receives both his voice and the crowd noise while the second microphone receives only crowd noise. The crowd noise audio feed is put through a phase inverter so that when it is combined with the referee's audio feed, the crowd noise is cancelled out. Effectively, the noise from the two audio feeds are subtracted from each other, leaving only the referee's voice.

 

[Darwin]

Well I'm just a bit flabbergasted at how some kiwi fans are taking this loss. The well informed guys, this doesn't include you, but geez, some guys are blowing this out of proportion. How about taking the loss on the chin, and go on. If the Coach, Captain, and smart guys like Cooky, Darwin and Nick can take it, then so should the others. Richie Mccaw and JDV showed in the post match interviews how either teams respect their opposition, and it was great to see the top 2 teams staying humble, and congratulate one another. And Steve Hansen got another thumbs up from me in his post match interview.

You shouldn't be. I can't recall a single close test match where fans of the losing side didn't blame the referee....

You have to remember too the AB's fans aren't used to watching our side lose. The less you watch your side lose the worse you are at accepting it when your side does lose. That is why AB's fans in general aren't great losers. South African fans don't take loses that well either. Scottish* fans however are great losers

Time for Hansen to revisit the drawing board . Boks fed off the energy and good will of the crowd. They scraped home with the narrowest of wins.Questions for Hansen ? Why was Barrett subdued ? Will fekitoa improve sufficiently to replace Nonu? Is DC still out best no 10? Who is the best loose head ? Who is the best no 6 ? What happened to our composure ? Does our scrum coach need a fresh face to assist him ? Should we play Charles piatau at wing and Ben smith at fullback should sonny bill start at no 12? As graham Henry said the all blacks need to lose. Well it has happened.

I don't think there is any need at all for Hansen to revisit the drawing board at all. We were missing a number of key players (as were South Africa to be fair), and we suffered a narrow defeat against the 2nd ranking side in the world away from home. As you suggest there will be a number of questions that Hansen and his team need to address (to answer a couple: Tony Woodcock is our best LH, followed by Wyatt Crockett, Jerome Kaino is our best 6 by a huge margin, and we should be Piutau on the wing and Smith at fullback, but almost certainly wont). Personally I don't think the AB's needed to lose, as I don't believe we would have learnt any more from the match had Lambie missed that kick (or Burger been penalized at the end).

I didn't see the first half but I'd love to know what Hansen made of it - whether he thought it was worth the gamble, or thought they were making bad decisions. The more you tell people to gamble though, the more they'll do it when it's not on, that's part and parcel. If you think you're better than the other team when the game breaks up completely, null sweat - but big issue if you're not.

I'll have to find some time to watch the whole thing...

The biggest issue in the 1st half for the AB's was that we struggled to get hold of the ball, and most of the ball we got was poor quality ball. The only comments that I've seen from Hansen on the first half performance related to the quality of ball we were receiving (which was indeed the root of our problems), rather than what we were doing with it. Obviously addressing the root cause (poor quality ball) is the prime concern, but I think we need to accept that we aren't always going to get quality ball, and have a (more conservative) fall-back plan if this is the case (though as you suggest the more players are told to gamble the more they will do it no matter the situation).

*My apologies to ImScotty (the sole Scottish fan on the forum). Scotland was used as an example as I thought it would offend the fewest posters

 

[SomeOke]

Absolutely tremendous effort by the All Blacks in the end, to come back like that at after half time is an incredible feet. I did have another look at the last bit of play and Burger was definitely offside at the ruck so no excuses there, in the end it probably could have gone either way but I'm glad it didn't, and I don't feel a win was entirely undeserved on the balance of play.

In any case, we played to a large crowd at high altitude so the factors were stacked in our favour from the beginning so we can't read too much into the win, but it is certainly hopeful.
Our back line is finally playing smarter, gaining some good decision making as opposed to hoofing the ball at every opportunity. No team is going to win with a kicking game against the All Blacks when they have such devastating outside backs who will punish you severely if you do so.

The Good:
- For the last two games Hougard has looked very assured, I like the physicality he brings to the game and I feel he is much more confident when he isn't box-kicking at every ruck, I hope he brings some of this confidence to Super Rugby so we can build on a great potential half-back pairing (even if it means the Bulls crush next season ).

- Pollard is just great, the way he plays so direct and isn't afraid to take on the line (and does so successfully), puts our whole back line on the front foot, it makes a world of difference when the opposition have to worry about the 10 channel as well so they can't just mob 12 and stifle all momentum.

- Lambie looks to be playing some good rugby, could be a great asset off the bench or even a starter, I really hope he stays injury free next season and reaches his potential, depth is always good.

- Don't need to say much more about Duane.

We could improve on:
- Jean didn't play all that well, slipping a few tackles and making a bad defensive error that lead to the Fekitoa try, he's probably irreplaceable in terms of organisation and his captaincy but I can't help but think playing someone like de Jongh at 13 with Serfontein at 12 would add a cutting edge to our backline, which would suit the way we are playing at the moment.

- Our tight five needs to step up, Victor was probably the best of the 5 and he wasn't earth shattering, just consistently good. I hope Eben is still a little rusty.

Anyway it was a good team performance. I'm suddenly sad because rugby season is almost over, going overseas to take on the home nations in their back yard is going to be extremely important and I hope we can make a statement! Especially considering where the WC is.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Read this somewhere else and thought it raised some interesting questions (by neither a SA or NZer by the way so written from a neutral standpoint):

Rugby's moving into uncomfortable territory now with the use of replays : who, exactly, flags up potential issues? Are there any precise rules around it?
Today, there was a sense that it was the guys in the tv truck who spotted it, stuck it on a screen, got the crowd going, leading to the SA captain saying something to the ref, who at the very last moment then asked to look at it; following six or seven looks, with the crowd doing what they'll naturally do and what only a ref with superhuman nerves/balls (and Barnes doesn't have them) would dare to resist, he makes the match-deciding decision.
Now, compare that with the erroneous, and plainly ridiculous, call for a knock on when Argentina played New Zealand, in New Zealand, a few weeks back. It was a dumb decision from the ref in the first place, but one look would have sorted it definitively. Why didn't that happen? Why didn't it go on the screen immediately? Why didn't someone in the van or elsewhere tell the ref to have a look?
It should be clear (though if I'm missing something, I'll be grateful, once my embarrassment passes, to find out what that is) that the way it's being used now leads to enormous advantages for home teams, especially as the guys in the tv truck are presumably staffed exclusively with people from that nation.
The right decision was probably reached for the incident in question (though it wouldn't surprise me if there were plenty more such incidents which went unflagged- if it is local guys in the truck who bear responsibility for finding them and passing them along) but the process by which the decision was reached is becoming a real problem in the game.
They have got to try iron out some better rules for its use. If that means letting some things go in order to make sure it isn't an... arbitrary decision, which is almost guaranteed to favour home sides, whether or not to look things over again, so be it. What if a world cup final is determined by a refs willingness to look again or evenunwillingness ('I've made my decision,that's it) to do so?
If the answer to all this is that there are independent people in the tv truck co-ordinating things, why was the message unable to be pushed through to the ref in that Arg New Zealand game that he'd made a clunking mistake?
Most amazing of all, people imagine video refereeing can be brought in with no difficulties into a game markedly less-suited to video reffing (partly because of the nature of the game, partly because of the attitude of those who play and manage it) : football. They are crackers. Without precise rules as to when technology can be used, football, a sport in which, unlike rugby, sportsmanship is dead and bitterness, bias and hysteria abound, would be a farce.
Both teams were great today in an incredible match, but this issue is only going to get bigger by the looks of it."

The most interesting thing for me is that the foul play occurred so far back that if the ref had picked it up in the first place we might well have seen a situation where the Boks had an advantage and subsequently lost it after gaining quite a bit of ground.

It's certainly an odd rule - why wasn't the TMO (or whoever picked up on the foul play) in the ref's ear straight away? Effectively this kind of thing means a portion of the game is completely null and void.

 

[Peat]

The biggest issue in the 1st half for the AB's was that we struggled to get hold of the ball, and most of the ball we got was poor quality ball. The only comments that I've seen from Hansen on the first half performance related to the quality of ball we were receiving (which was indeed the root of our problems), rather than what we were doing with it. Obviously addressing the root cause (poor quality ball) is the prime concern, but I think we need to accept that we aren't always going to get quality ball, and have a (more conservative) fall-back plan if this is the case (though as you suggest the more players are told to gamble the more they will do it no matter the situation).

Good ball, crappy ball, gotta keep them moving

Was the issue due to inadequate breakdown clearances, or players receiving silly/unsympathetic passes and taking contact on bad terms, or something else, or a mixture?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Read this somewhere else and thought it raised some interesting questions (by neither a SA or NZer by the way so written from a neutral standpoint):

Rugby's moving into uncomfortable territory now with the use of replays : who, exactly, flags up potential issues? Are there any precise rules around it?
Today, there was a sense that it was the guys in the tv truck who spotted it, stuck it on a screen, got the crowd going, leading to the SA captain saying something to the ref, who at the very last moment then asked to look at it; following six or seven looks, with the crowd doing what they'll naturally do and what only a ref with superhuman nerves/balls (and Barnes doesn't have them) would dare to resist, he makes the match-deciding decision.
Now, compare that with the erroneous, and plainly ridiculous, call for a knock on when Argentina played New Zealand, in New Zealand, a few weeks back. It was a dumb decision from the ref in the first place, but one look would have sorted it definitively. Why didn't that happen? Why didn't it go on the screen immediately? Why didn't someone in the van or elsewhere tell the ref to have a look?
It should be clear (though if I'm missing something, I'll be grateful, once my embarrassment passes, to find out what that is) that the way it's being used now leads to enormous advantages for home teams, especially as the guys in the tv truck are presumably staffed exclusively with people from that nation.
The right decision was probably reached for the incident in question (though it wouldn't surprise me if there were plenty more such incidents which went unflagged- if it is local guys in the truck who bear responsibility for finding them and passing them along) but the process by which the decision was reached is becoming a real problem in the game.
They have got to try iron out some better rules for its use. If that means letting some things go in order to make sure it isn't an... arbitrary decision, which is almost guaranteed to favour home sides, whether or not to look things over again, so be it. What if a world cup final is determined by a refs willingness to look again or evenunwillingness ('I've made my decision,that's it) to do so?
If the answer to all this is that there are independent people in the tv truck co-ordinating things, why was the message unable to be pushed through to the ref in that Arg New Zealand game that he'd made a clunking mistake?
Most amazing of all, people imagine video refereeing can be brought in with no difficulties into a game markedly less-suited to video reffing (partly because of the nature of the game, partly because of the attitude of those who play and manage it) : football. They are crackers. Without precise rules as to when technology can be used, football, a sport in which, unlike rugby, sportsmanship is dead and bitterness, bias and hysteria abound, would be a farce.
Both teams were great today in an incredible match, but this issue is only going to get bigger by the looks of it."

You know, I just don't get why the decision is being put under scrutiny? Is it because the AB's lost, or is it because the ref was Barnes??

For many games year in and year out we are pleading that they should go to the TMO more often to cite foul plays. Now it happened, whoever spotted it, and it was referred. The point is that the players themselves must take responsibility of their actions on the field. It's definitely not Barnes' fault that Messam tried to tackle Schalk's head without using his arms.

I would rather welcome this way of checking for foul play, than not checking at all. If only Romain Poite had the balls to do this when Bismarck tackled Carter.

it doesn't matter if the ref makes the call to review or not. What matters is that the players must remain disciplined on the field all the time. I think many journo's are making this a bigger issue than it really is. An All Black got caught out... it was bound to happen.

 

[Darwin]

Good ball, crappy ball, gotta keep them moving

Was the issue due to inadequate breakdown clearances, or players receiving silly/unsympathetic passes and taking contact on bad terms, or something else, or a mixture?

One of the AB's biggest issues in the first half were the poor quality lineout ball we were receiving. A combination of Mealamu's poor throws and good pressure from South Africa meant nearly all the lineout ball we won in the first half was incredibly scrappy (e.g. just slapped back forcing Smith/one of the forwards to dive on it). This meant our backline was on the retreat (and the South African backline could come up flat rather than have to be 10m back), yet we still tried to go wide as rapidly as we could. We ended up with South African players in our backline (legally for a change ), yet still tried to force passes that weren't on.

In addition when we did manage to get to a breakdown we got slow ball because (a) South African players were quick to the breakdown, and (b) we didn't seem to think we needed to commit any numbers to the breakdown. Again this meant South Africa were able to set their backline defense and push up hard. At times like that I believe we should have attacked close to the breakdown and built up some phases (and forward momentum) before going wide, but we simply flung the ball wide and hoped for the best (which didn't really work!).

 

[easy2288]

The score was not a true reflection of how well SA played. If SA was much more composed in the first half and scored more points, the match would have be over by then. I was not surprised with the results.

When you throw in Joe Moody for a big match, then you asking for trouble. He played well for his experience and caliber, but is too big a match for him now.

As I have been saying in the past, ABS management team has 4 years to look for capable and starts to groom players since the last world cup. I don't think they have done enough and giving the new boys the necessary experience. and game time. Looked at the ABS full line out and SA full line out the answer is obvious.

Why didn't they start Moody in Argentina match instead. Well the Management was thinking to win the Championship. This has been the mind set for the past 3 years...and problem now is pop up.

I see the weakness in the front row, hooker, and lock position whether ABS have the sufficient experience players for the world cup. I saw on news today, now ABs is looking for scrum half for the year end tour..

 

[Icemn]

thank you Tv panel thank you for the replay that where all in SA favor... that "perfectly legal" tackle by JP on TKB where JP legally used his arms got played for one reason... so the SA public can laugh at how TKB knee got Hyper extended... that was about it...

i felt that last ruck schalk came in form the side and should have been a NZ penalty... but thank you Wayne Barnes... SA lost the War but won the battle...

Congrats SA, a win is a win right?

 

[The Jones Boy]

Have you ever been in the TMO Box at a major match? Well, I have several times so I know exactly what it is like.

I worked on building and testing the TMO box at Twickenham, (amongst other aspects like the ongoing air conditioning unit and positions in the corporate boxes that require sound reduction baffles around them) I know exactly what was used in the construction and it was really strong and quality sound proofing but nothing, NOTHING is going to stop the collective volume of 88,000 people in full voice from penetrating that small strong room to a certain degree. Not a mic on his head, not even a 'gated' (thats what it's called) mic on his head to minimise the crowd noise.
It is good that every effort is made to minimise contact with the crowd or the vision switcher but it simply cannot be ruled out.
That would be a fallacy.
You can even 'feel' the anthems through the box, not as a sound particularly but as a vibration because sound resonates. The resonance is timed in rythm to the anthem, so it's easy to work out whats happening.
All manner of baffling anti-acoustic materials were used in the construction and when you're inside it you can't hear a thing outside... until the stadium fills up, then it all changes.
Thousands of people standing and exclaiming at the same time makes a physical response that can only be tailored to a point.
Crowd volume varies greatly and randomly in accordance with crowd reaction to what they see and experience.
It is no surprise that the biggest fluctuations in the levels occur at times of success, near success or dangerous play, the times when the TMO is most often called upon.
TMO's are not novices, they know whats going on.

 

[korn1]

So happy that I was able to go to the match Just lucky that we got that last kick.

 

[The Jones Boy]

You know, I just don't get why the decision is being put under scrutiny? Is it because the AB's lost, or is it because the ref was Barnes??

For many games year in and year out we are pleading that they should go to the TMO more often to cite foul plays. Now it happened, whoever spotted it, and it was referred. The point is that the players themselves must take responsibility of their actions on the field. It's definitely not Barnes' fault that Messam tried to tackle Schalk's head without using his arms.

I would rather welcome this way of checking for foul play, than not checking at all. If only Romain Poite had the balls to do this when Bismarck tackled Carter.

it doesn't matter if the ref makes the call to review or not. What matters is that the players must remain disciplined on the field all the time. I think many journo's are making this a bigger issue than it really is. An All Black got caught out... it was bound to happen.

Most of your post I agree with completely. The TMO is an ideal tool for cutting out cheating and foul play.
The part about Messam I'm not convinced about because the Bok player was already falling in the tackle of another player and had he not been falling his chest would have contacted Messam rather than his noggin.
That was never taken into account.
However, Messam does have to ask himself about what kind of tackle he was hoping to effect with that strange looking approach. It looked to me like he pulled out of it late and this is why the Bok player was unharmed by the tackle.
At normal speed it looks innocuous but slowed down and repeated several times it takes on a more sinister appearance and the crowd certainly played that point up to the referee.

This happens at every major ground around the world.
In this case , Messam looks like the culprit.
He will have a lot more time warming the bench after that incident.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Most of your post I agree with completely. The TMO is an ideal tool for cutting out cheating and foul play.
The part about Messam I'm not convinced about because the Bok player was already falling in the tackle of another player and had he not been falling his chest would have contacted Messam rather than his noggin.
That was never taken into account.
However, Messam does have to ask himself about what kind of tackle he was hoping to effect with that strange looking approach. It looked to me like he pulled out of it late and this is why the Bok player was unharmed by the tackle.
At normal speed it looks innocuous but slowed down and repeated several times it takes on a more sinister appearance and the crowd certainly played that point up to the referee.

This happens at every major ground around the world.
In this case , Messam looks like the culprit.
He will have a lot more time warming the bench after that incident.

Maybe... But this is not the first time Messam has used this type of shoulder charge. I think Barnes did take the fact that Burger was falling into consideration. In fact, he and the TMO talked about exactly that while viewing the footage.

 

[The Jones Boy]

That means they discounted it, they didn't take it into consideration.
If it was a foul tackle Messam should have been carded.
I agree about Messam's tackling technique, I can't help but feel it has deteriorated since Kaino has returned to take his place at no.6 in the starting line up. He's trying desperately to do something 'special' in his short visits to the turf at the end of the game.