• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2015 RWC] Semi Final 1: South Africa vs. New Zealand (24/10/2015)

Agreed. This SA-NZ situation is getting a bit Welsh-Aussie, in the sense that we can run the All Blacks close without ever really looking like winning. The gulf in class is growing, and a change in management and personnel is probably necessary, even though it won't be particularly constructive in the short term.

Two points separated the teams, but to my mind the final few minutes encapsulated the difference in class more appropriately. NZ camped deep in the SA 22; we were literally an entire fields length away from beating the All Blacks.
 
Yes agree Luow didn't stand up. He was attempting to get back on his feet. He moved in the way into McCaw rather than McCaw deviating his run towards him. It's obvious McCaws target was DeAllende who was playing scrum half from turn over ball.
NZ took the ball into the ruck and Louw turned it over. McCaw was waiting in the backline as a possible receiver but saw the turnover happening so he headed in towards the ruck. Clearly his target was Louw initially but the ball came out to DeAllende and McCaw followed the ball. I think the fact the DeAllende went right (camera's perspective) lead to McCaw angling his run slightly right which coincided with Louw trying to get up and so the contact occurred. I really don't think there is much in it. Watch it at normal speed and also watch how Louw reacts. Nothing to it. I think the SA's would be embarassed to ask for a citing.

- - - Updated - - -

Looking at it again just watch for another 7 seconds - Louw goes to the next ruck and in the process steps on the back of Aaron Smith who is on the ground away from the ruck. If that were slowed down and islolated we could be discussing another possible citing. I am not saying it should be, I am saying the opposite, that watching isolated incidents slowed down does not necessarily give a fair impression of an incident.
 
Agreed. This SA-NZ situation is getting a bit Welsh-Aussie, in the sense that we can run the All Blacks close without ever really looking like winning. The gulf in class is growing, and a change in management and personnel is probably necessary, even though it won't be particularly constructive in the short term.

Two points separated the teams, but to my mind the final few minutes encapsulated the difference in class more appropriately. NZ camped deep in the SA 22; we were literally an entire fields length away from beating the All Blacks.

I think we did well enough to come as close as 2 points against this NZ side in a SF. Just looks at the age of 1/2 of the team; Malherbe, Etzebeth, De Jager, Pollard, De Allende, Serfontein and Kriel all between 21 and 23 years old. Our line-outs and kicking game let us down and that is where our young guys needed to step up (locks and Pollard not that Matfield added much when he came on mind you) but it'll come. Just think about it all of those guys will go into the next RWC aged 25 to 27 with masses of experience, time together and a RWC behind them.
 
I think we did well enough to come as close as 2 points against this NZ side in a SF. Just looks at the age of 1/2 of the team; Malherbe, Etzebeth, De Jager, Pollard, De Allende, Serfontein and Kriel all between 21 and 23 years old. Our line-outs and kicking game let us down and that is where our young guys needed to step up (locks and Pollard not that Matfield added much when he came on mind you) but it'll come. Just think about it all of those guys will go into the next RWC aged 25 to 27 with masses of experience, time together and a RWC behind them.

youd also be served well by actually trying to play constructive rugby. First 2 minutes of the game you looked very good shifting it, then basically ignored the backs the rest of the game. It must be frustrating as in Super rugby the SA teams play some great running rugby.
 
So what would he be cited for, striking?

I can't see it. He does not even appear to be looking, he's watchin the ball carrier.

Agreed. I think people are reaching with this McCaw footage... it looks both incidental and unintentional at the absolute worst, so I just can't see how he'd cop a ban. That said, on the Tuilagi "running with the ball" offence scale it's probably about even.
 
2. Habana's shove on Milner-Skudder
Habana does stumble, but IMO, it is as a result of him trying to shove NMS and not the other way around. Haban reaches out with both hands before he stumbles, showing intent. Its foul play, and the result is an injury for the opponent seriois enough that he neede to be replace. IMO, that is a potentia YC offence; not nailed on, but it would not be overly harsh either given the outcome.

Personally I thought he stumbled and took Skudder out on the way down no real issue just one of those s**t happens" moments as for the McCaw incident I think they would be hard pushed to turn that into anything either, it just looks as though he is following the ball.

Still what do I know as it seems these days with rugby you have fill out an incident report form for every tackle so maybe he didn't have his high vis vest and hard hat on at the time of impact.

As for the game, I am a little disappointed in South Africa to be honest as they are a excellent team being wasted trying to milk penalties from the most uninspired form of rugby known to man, sure defense wins games but I am not sure boring the opposition and spectators into submission is doing anything for world rugby.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was the cleanest game I've ever witnessed between the two countries... and I've been watching since the 1981 tour.
I didn't see anything cite-worthy from either team.
Both teams looked focussed on the winning of the game.
 
I think there's nothing in the McCaw-Louw "incident". If you track McCaw's head he doesn't seem to even notice Louw and was moving to the ball the whole time. Hoping that sense prevails.
 
Commiserations to South Africa. While your attack was almost nonexistent, your defense was excellent most times - it was always going to be much harder than the crushing victory over France. I was nervous about this match because I thought you'd be tough to breach, I thought you might make ascendancy for us difficult through your ariel bombs - and if it wasn't for Ben Smith we probably would have been hammered in this department. South Africa aren't where they'd like to be, but they have a bunch of players for the future. I just hope that guys like de Allende and Kriel get used. There is potential there for them to grow into the greatest center pairing in the world, but they have to get a chance to showcase that. I'm proud that the relationship we have with South Africa is one of immense respect.

The 51st minute was a massive moment, and Nonu did extremely well to draw in those defenders and shuffle it on to Barrett for the try. Our backs didn't make the easy breaks that we're use to seeing, but that was always going to be the case. I thought Savea was decent, but not outstanding. The All Blacks were very physical when they did take the line on, and Savea was part of that. No he didn't run over people with ease; but it wasn't that sort of game. By the same token, he also wasn't woeful. I haven't looked at Conrad Smith's stats; he could well have been busy, I'm not too sure really. But I wouldn't drop him for the Final. Our starters are our starters and our replacements are our replacements. People like Carter and Smith have solidified themselves by starting and organizing the team. SBW, Barrett, Cane - just imagine the ferocity of them from the bench. Some of the comments saying "drop this person, drop that person" are a bit over the top. Yeah, some people will need to play better - but let's think about our selections rationally for once eh?

Didn't think for one moment that Kaino's retreating and interfering with the ball was 'accidental' .. the way Justin Marshall rambled on about it was just a bit embarrassing. But I also don't think it's a yellow card. It technically might be, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the it. In that context, a warning and a penalty would have sufficed. I've also seen yellow cards for neck rolls - but a penalty was sufficient for those today - so why can't a penalty be enough for what Kaino did? I dunno. Just seems very inconsistent. I really don't want penalties and soft cards deciding the winner of this tournament.

Fouri de prez granted us a few reprieves today. He was clearly not feeling very good, you could tell by his body language and expressions. Not to mention the way he was clearing the ball. One South African player would do something really good and look to spark momentum, and de Prez then spoiled it. He's an excellent player, but in this context he should have been subbed.

Is Owen Franks injured? Bringing on Charlie Faumuina when our scrum was struggling made me nervous. Franks got outdone, but it's not as if Faumuina is any better. Many posters argue he is worse, which is probably true - although I love his drive and general involvement with ball in hand. I also said last week that I wasn't sure if Kaino had improved, or just rode the enormous momentum and success we had against France. Despite the yellow, I was wrong about him - especially early on in the first half. He made a big difference, even if it wasn't for the full 80 - every little bit helps. Special mention to SBW who was just incredible when he came on.

Now to enjoy Argentina vs Australia. My heart says the Argies, but head says the Wallabies since they have Pocock and Folau back. We didn't contest the breakdown very much during this match, and we haven't for a long time really. If the Wallabies slip through to the final this will surely have to change. Hooper and Pocock will just stop, slow, and turnover whatever momentum we get all day long otherwise.

Once again, my thoughts go out to South Africa. I'm sorry things worked out this way; but I think you'll be honest enough to concede that the ABs just converted more opportunities.
 
Personally I thought he stumbled and took Skudder out on the way down no real issue just one of those s**t happens" moments as for the McCaw incident I think they would be hard pushed to turn that into anything either, it just looks as though he is following the ball.

Still what do I know as it seems these days with rugby you have fill out an incident report form for every tackle so maybe he didn't have his high vis vest and hard hat on at the time of impact.

As for the game, I am a little disappointed in South Africa to be honest as they are a excellent team being wasted trying to milk penalties from the most uninspired form of rugby known to man, sure defense wins games but I am not sure boring the opposition and spectators into submission is doing anything for world rugby.

Yeah, I do agree with you here. Although they came close in points terms, there was very little attacking on their part.
 
Game management in the second half won this game for the AB's.
Hansen completely outplayed Heyneke in the tactical game.
Richie and Dan made it function on the pitch.

Tough match but I do think the Aussies will present a bigger problem at the breakdown than the Boks did.
If our forwards can lift their intensity for a big game in the final then we will have the upper hand.
 
Yes agree Luow didn't stand up. He was attempting to get back on his feet. He moved in the way into McCaw rather than McCaw deviating his run towards him. It's obvious McCaws target was DeAllende who was playing scrum half from turn over ball.

Plus when was the last time McCaw got cited?


Never
 
With the media trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, I wouldn't be surprised if McCaw is cited.

Geez the English media really hate the All Blacks don't they.
 
I thought it was the cleanest game I've ever witnessed between the two countries... and I've been watching since the 1981 tour.
I didn't see anything cite-worthy from either team.
Both teams looked focussed on the winning of the game.
Agree with that, and I think it shows that the Mccaw "incident" was sod all. Would Bok forwards really stand around and do nothing if one of their mates got an elbow in the face? Hell, even Flouw didn't react towards Mccaw in any way.

Geez the English media really hate the All Blacks don't they.
No, they've actually got a massive lob-on for them. I don't understand where this victim complex that (some) Kiwis have comes from. I know your toilet water spins the opposite direction but you're not living in opposite land.
 
No, they've actually got a massive lob-on for them. I don't understand where this victim complex that (some) Kiwis have comes from. I know your toilet water spins the opposite direction but you're not living in opposite land.

Well I've been clearly reading the wrong articles then. Seems that a number of the major English papers have arrived at the conclusion that it was a deliberate elbow in pretty quick time after the game and are now just waiting for the citing officer. And unfortunately media pressure does have an influence on citing decisions...

That compared with a number of people here, including non-NZers, saying there is nothing in it.
 
Hmmm, i've seen something by the Telegraph, which was basically a clickbait "COULD mccaw miss the final"
Everything else has come from down under (nz and aus) and even America.

It was mentioned in another thread when this theme was brought up before: SH readers only tend to see the bad articles (Have you seen what they're saying about us in England?!) rather than the near continuous praise/admiration for SH rugby.
 
Yeah I honestly can't work out how he could get a ban for that. I had to watch it 5 times just to see the "offense"... Put it this way, if Pocock's knee and the Scottish spear tackle were ok, this should be fine
 
Well I've been clearly reading the wrong articles then. Seems that a number of the major English papers have arrived at the conclusion that it was a deliberate elbow in pretty quick time after the game and are now just waiting for the citing officer. And unfortunately media pressure does have an influence on citing decisions...

That compared with a number of people here, including non-NZers, saying there is nothing in it.

We shouldn't really take much notice of the media and articles really. We know some individuals in the northern hemisphere hate the All Blacks; that's been going on for years with them spreading lies about us. But that doesn't mean English people in general do, or even the media as a whole. We have our share of idiots here in NZ trying to make out as if we've won the thing already. Luckily most Kiwis have kept outlets like The Herald pretty well grounded.
 
Hmmm, i've seen something by the Telegraph, which was basically a clickbait "COULD mccaw miss the final"
Everything else has come from down under (nz and aus) and even America.

It was mentioned in another thread when this theme was brought up before: SH readers only tend to see the bad articles (Have you seen what they're saying about us in England?!) rather than the near continuous praise/admiration for SH rugby.


There are crap articles out there but the thing is they are usually by the usual suspects.....

Its funny how theres an ex pom reporter down here (Chris Rattue i think his name is) thats just like your welsh git Stephen Jones. Your probably thinking its a NZer writting that utter garbage when its actually Rattue.

For the most part the English fans seem to be pretty fair even on the Mccaw elbow thing just now I was on a few english paper websites and all the comments sections are pretty much wondering why the papers are even running the story at all. Its a nothing.

I even just wrote to the NZ herald berating the **** out of them for being a bunch of ******s for even running the story at all. Its a joke.
 

Latest posts

Top