• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2015 TRC] South Africa v New Zealand in Johannesburg (25/07/2015)

It was alot more than a mistake or two. Everything Conrad did turned to custard in this game I honestly couldnt believe my eyes as to what was going on and followed him closely for the rest of the match. I challenge anyone to make a reel of him doing more than a few things right in this game and then compare it to highlights of what he did wrong.

I was dumfounded when they replaced Nonu instead of him.... And then he went on to make even more cockups.

Harsh I know but its the truth.

That all said I agree that id probably have to play him again.... BUT id likely have SBW and Fekitoa on the bench this time. The reason is im getting that Jane vs England last year feel about him... but I hope not. I honestly think he's taken the Canes loss in the SR final pretty hard...:p

What do you have against players with the last name Smith? It wasn't long ago before Aaron Smith was the victim of your "OMG HE ALL OF A SUDDEN STOPPED BECOMING A WORLD CLASS PLAYER!!1! DROP HIM FOR THIS FLAVOR OF THE MONTH!!!".
 
Wow! I had the privelege to sit in the stands and watch these 2 teams bash it out. It was absolutely fantastic! This has to go down as the 3rd best game I have ever watched live!

But, what wasn't shown as much on tv was how bloody cold it was, it was 1 degree celsius a half an hour before kick-off!! And NZ had the advantage of the wind at their backs in the first half, before it stopped.

He has. There were a small group of protesters outside the gates saying that the teams is too white. And yesterday there were also discussions in some local newspapers regarding the team and the selection of white players over black players. I feel very sorry for HM. He just can't win, whether it's on the field or politically, or with the fans.!

Have to say that I took one look at the crowd and then played spot the non white face for the rest of the shots!!
 
why is this game in this section :? and not in TRC :?

anyways...

this game told me one thing... drop dagg...

smith on fullback...

my other concern... i've always gave SA criticism about their old players... the way they worship "experience"...

the problem is that experience is usually old... the game has evolved and players have evolved... the younger uys hit maturity at 22 instead of 28-30...

saying that...

im worried that the AB are opting to go for older experienced guys instead of the younger guys...

im specifically relating to Nonu and Smith in the centre pairing...

maybe im writing conrad off too soon... but i dont know...

im a huge conrad fan but maybe malakai should feature more :?
 
Have to say that I took one look at the crowd and then played spot the non white face for the rest of the shots!!

Oh there was a lot of All Black supporters in the stands. Most of them were South Africans, what we call the Cape Crusaders... Very Arrogant and Very Ignorant people, some of them had to be physically escorted away from the stands as they were drinking and smoking in the stands and throwing verbal abuse at other fans.
 
What's with that Cape Town crusaders and they won't have an All Blacks test match there because more AB supports will show up than the SA supporters.. also what's with the South Africans supporting the All Blacks? Enlighten me please!!
 
Apparently that was South Africa's own fault.

The story I am hearing coming out is that Trevor Nyakane was nominated as LHP only, despite the fact that he has played both THP and LHP for the Cheetahs and the Bulls, but as a starting player and from the bench. In fact, his SANZAR player profile makes this very point

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/player-profile/?season=2015&competition=205&team=97&player=19115

[TEXTAREA]Trevor Nyakane got his big chance in 2011 Currie Cup competition as an impact player and impressed with his ball skills and his powerful scrumming.

After playing 11 Super Rugby matches for the Cheetahs during 2012 and three Currie Cup matches, he was sidelined for the remainder of the season due to a broken thumb.

Nyakane can pack down on either side of the scrum, which was an asset that played a part in him making his Test debut against in 2013 after an outstanding Super Rugby season for his franchise.

The former Cheetahs' prop moves to the Bulls this season and will be hoping to hit the ground running, carrying his strong form throughout the campaign into potential selection for the 2015 Rugby World Cup.[/TEXTAREA]

Engineers of their own misfortune by the look of things.

Yeah but The Ref made the technical call of uncontested scrums in the game, not the Boks. Nyakane wasn't the designated tighthead for the game, he was designated as the reserve loosehead, and Koch as the designated reserve tighthead.

What's with that Cape Town crusaders and they won't have an All Blacks test match there because more AB supports will show up than the SA supporters.. also what's with the South Africans supporting the All Blacks? Enlighten me please!!

Ask Icemn and his chronies. It's usually people of colour, who are ANC-members that doesn't like the Springboks and the colour/ethnicity of its players, so they rather support the All Blacks against the Springboks and cause problems in the stands.

But I have to say, the Security Guards at Ellis Park on Saturday was very vigilant. As soon as the group who were sitting a few seats in front of us started with their nonsense, they came in, without disrupting the rest of the spectators, and escorted them out of the stands... It's a minor problem, and I think it only bothered us in that section of the stadium, and not the whole stadium.
 
Yeah but The Ref made the technical call of uncontested scrums in the game, not the Boks. Nyakane wasn't the designated tighthead for the game, he was designated as the reserve loosehead, and Koch as the designated reserve tighthead.

You are missing the point heineken. The coach or manager is allowed to designate either or both replacement props as STE (suitably trained and experienced) in BOTH propping positions, but they chose for some extraordinary reason to designate Nyakane only as a LHP when they knew that he was STE for playing both sides. This information is communicated to the referee on the official team sheet. Since the referee doesn't personally know every player in every team, be can only make his call based on what is shown.
 
There is one problematic issue with uncontested scrums I hate it appears if you play so well that the opposing team can't field a prop your team becomes penalised for it. Until that's fixed teams will play silly buggers with the rules. Similar thing happened in a Glous/Bath game this season where the replacement prop also got taken off the field even though another prop on the bench had played that position in the past.
 
You are missing the point heineken. The coach or manager is allowed to designate either or both replacement props as STE (suitably trained and experienced) in BOTH propping positions, but they chose for some extraordinary reason to designate Nyakane only as a LHP when they knew that he was STE for playing both sides. This information is communicated to the referee on the official team sheet. Since the referee doesn't personally know every player in every team, be can only make his call based on what is shown.

Now you see, I did not know that, and the media has failed to mention that point here in SA. Thanx for the info...
 
There is one problematic issue with uncontested scrums I hate it appears if you play so well that the opposing team can't field a prop your team becomes penalised for it. Until that's fixed teams will play silly buggers with the rules. Similar thing happened in a Glous/Bath game this season where the replacement prop also got taken off the field even though another prop on the bench had played that position in the past.

There is actually a Law that addresses this exact issue. It is commonly called the "man-off rule".

[TEXTAREA]Law 3.5 (k) When 23 players are nominated for a match, or if the Union having jurisdiction over a
match or a match organiser decides that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result
of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason
the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused
uncontested scrums.
[/TEXTAREA]

Effectively this means that if you run out of front row players and have to go uncontested, you have to play with 14 players for the rest of the match. The Law was introduced after a number of incidents where coaches manipulated their front-row assets to get uncontested scrums when their pack was being mullered by the opposition. The most high profile of these was the 2008 Guinness Premiership final when Wasps intentionally fiddled their front row players to go uncontested when Leicester was getting the upper hand in the scrum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...rs-as-dallaglio-ends-on-high-note-838187.html

The problem is this bit of the Law...."the Union having jurisdiction over a match or a match organiser decides..."

WR has jurisdiction over all international matches, and they have decided in their infinite wisdom not to apply this Law at International level.

IMO, they should.
 
There is one problematic issue with uncontested scrums I hate it appears if you play so well that the opposing team can't field a prop your team becomes penalised for it. Until that's fixed teams will play silly buggers with the rules. Similar thing happened in a Glous/Bath game this season where the replacement prop also got taken off the field even though another prop on the bench had played that position in the past.

The situation is indeed farcical - if a prop has played on the side of the scrum where their side is a man down during the past (say) 12 months, there should be no option for their coach not to designate them as safe to play that position.

Assuming the team who are short on props are being honest, then it's not correct / fair to say that it's the other team's good play that renders them unable to field a front row. Until someone comes up with a way of making sure that teams are being honest, an area of doubt / dissatisfaction will exist. I would be interested to see a survey carried out of level 1 / international games in which uncontested scrums have been necessary. In particular it would interest me to check out the proportion of the time that the props whose injuries have resulted in uncontested scrums have played in their team's next match and how this compares to other players who have left the field injured. If this turns out to be much higher than players in other positions, my suggestion would be that all teams will have to suffer for certain teams' "gamesmanship" and that injured props who leave the field should be ineligible to play in their team's next match.

- - - Updated - - -

There is actually a Law that addresses this exact issue. It is commonly called the "man-off rule".

You would be amazed how few coaches, captains, referees an fourth officials here in England understand this law. Within the last twelve months or so, I can think of three situations in The Championship / B & I Cup (level 2) where teams have been allowed to send a replacement out for the prop who caused uncontested scrums and finished the match with a man too many on the field.

I agree that WR failing to enforce this in international rugby is farcical.
 
Oh there was a lot of All Black supporters in the stands. Most of them were South Africans, what we call the Cape Crusaders... Very Arrogant and Very Ignorant people, some of them had to be physically escorted away from the stands as they were drinking and smoking in the stands and throwing verbal abuse at other fans.

I was not meaning the AB's. My point is that whilst wanting a multi racial team by quota this is not born out by the make up of the supporters present?
 
I was not meaning the AB's. My point is that whilst wanting a multi racial team by quota this is not born out by the make up of the supporters present?

At least not in the stands, yes.

Rugby is developing under the Black community though. The Blue Bulls Rugby Union has about 3 million Black/African supporters, mostly living around Pretoria and Soweto. They even hosted a Super Rugby Semi and Final in Soweto in 2009 during the FIFA World Cup.
 
Which is good to hear and has to be the future as worthiness must be better way than quota for everyone!
 
There's talk about Richie McCaws try being illegal. @smartcooky what's your response/thoughts on these latest allegations?

"A number of news organisations believe the try should have been referred to the TMO because McCaw was off-side on two counts.

They believe McCaw was lined up in the halfback or receivers position and should have stayed 2 metres from the lineout, which he didn't.

The second issue is that he joined the lineout before the ball was thrown in, which is also illegal."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's talk about Richie McCaws try being illegal. @smartcooky what's your response/thoughts on these latest allegations?

"A number of news organisations believe the try should have been referred to the TMO because McCaw was off-side on two counts.

They believe McCaw was lined up in the halfback or receivers position and should have stayed 2 metres from the lineout, which he didn't.

The second issue is that he joined the lineout before the ball was thrown in, which is also illegal."

You should rephrase that.. to "A number of South African news organisations...."

Its nothing more than typical Saffa journalist whinging. You don't see any of the Saffa posters here making a big issue of it. That's because most of them post commonsense. Indeed, the Springbok management have had plenty of opportunity to complain, and save been silent. Its just the Sports Jocks at SuperSport stirring the pot trying to make excuses for a side that lost their way in the last 10 min, just like they did against Australia.

This issue has generated a fair bit of discussion the referee's forum. Even that forum's rabid anti-NZ/All Black hating Muppet has said he thought it was OK. There is one referee there (an English one) who believes McCaw was only 1m away when the ball was thrown in. I have emphatically refuted that as follows...

[TEXTAREA]I reject any contention that McCaw was only 1m from the line-out, and that he moved toward the line-out before the ball was thrown, and here is the proof that he was in fact legally positioned

►The line-out (therefore LoT) was on the 5m line
► The line-out players are required to be 0.5m from the LoT therefore McCaw was required to be positioned 2m beyond them, at 2.5m from the LoT


KEY
► the red vertical markers are at 2.5m intervals as measured from the goal line
► the red line parallel to the 5m line is 2.5m from it. McCaw was required to be standing at least this far from the LoT
► the yellow marker is 1.5m from the LoT (1m from the lineout). Some claim that McCaw was this close.


* These measurements and marks are positionally corrected for perspective distortion.

Throw1.jpg

At the beginning of the throwing action


Throw2.jpg

During the throwing action


Throw3.jpg

Fractionally after the ball has left the thrower's hands

The three images span a time of less than 0.3 of a second!!

McCaw can be seen to be CLEARLY beyond the 2.5m line (and therefore beyond 2m from the line-out). He is certainly not as close as 1.5m from the LoT (1m from the lineout) as some have claimed.

McCaw does move as the ball is thrown, but he is moving parallel to LoT in order to position himself in line with the gap. I see nothing in Law that says the receiver must remain still or cannot move along parallel to the Lot before the ball is thrown so long as he remains between the 5m and 15m lines.

This is pretty conclusive.

The only other argument is that Kieran Read jumps marginally before the ball leaves the thrower's hands, but this is immaterial since the ball wasn't thrown to him, and in any case, if you look at the other 19 line-outs in this match, in all but three of them, the jumper went up early, most by a lot more than Read's jump.


NOTE: For those who think I have gone to a lot of trouble to prove a point, don't fret. I do this sort of thing for a living. This took me less than 10 minutes to do; it was mere ducksoup (typing the post look longer).

I also do this sort of stuff regularly on skeptics forums, debunking the conspiracy theorist nut-jobs who claim the Apollo moon landings were faked (dual light sources, non-parallel shadows etc). Debunking rabid journalists and blog jockeys is a breeze by comparison.
[/TEXTAREA]
 
That's absolutely brilliant, knew you'd have spot superb analysis. As if they would practice an illegal move over and over as well during training. A great bit of innovation, creativity and bit of Rugby to decide a great test match, it's a shame about the media and sore losers out there. Great post, thanks smartcooky.
 
You should rephrase that.. to "A number of South African news organisations...."

Its nothing more than typical Saffa journalist whinging. You don't see any of the Saffa posters here making a big issue of it. That's because most of them post commonsense. Indeed, the Springbok management have had plenty of opportunity to complain, and save been silent. Its just the Sports Jocks at SuperSport stirring the pot trying to make excuses for a side that lost their way in the last 10 min, just like they did against Australia.

This issue has generated a fair bit of discussion the referee's forum. Even that forum's rabid anti-NZ/All Black hating Muppet has said he thought it was OK. There is one referee there (an English one) who believes McCaw was only 1m away when the ball was thrown in. I have emphatically refuted that as follows...

[TEXTAREA]I reject any contention that McCaw was only 1m from the line-out, and that he moved toward the line-out before the ball was thrown, and here is the proof that he was in fact legally positioned

►The line-out (therefore LoT) was on the 5m line
► The line-out players are required to be 0.5m from the LoT therefore McCaw was required to be positioned 2m beyond them, at 2.5m from the LoT


KEY
► the red vertical markers are at 2.5m intervals as measured from the goal line
► the red line parallel to the 5m line is 2.5m from it. McCaw was required to be standing at least this far from the LoT
► the yellow marker is 1.5m from the LoT (1m from the lineout). Some claim that McCaw was this close.


* These measurements and marks are positionally corrected for perspective distortion.

Throw1.jpg

At the beginning of the throwing action


Throw2.jpg

During the throwing action


Throw3.jpg

Fractionally after the ball has left the thrower's hands

The three images span a time of less than 0.3 of a second!!

McCaw can be seen to be CLEARLY beyond the 2.5m line (and therefore beyond 2m from the line-out). He is certainly not as close as 1.5m from the LoT (1m from the lineout) as some have claimed.

McCaw does move as the ball is thrown, but he is moving parallel to LoT in order to position himself in line with the gap. I see nothing in Law that says the receiver must remain still or cannot move along parallel to the Lot before the ball is thrown so long as he remains between the 5m and 15m lines.

This is pretty conclusive.

The only other argument is that Kieran Read jumps marginally before the ball leaves the thrower's hands, but this is immaterial since the ball wasn't thrown to him, and in any case, if you look at the other 19 line-outs in this match, in all but three of them, the jumper went up early, most by a lot more than Read's jump.


NOTE: For those who think I have gone to a lot of trouble to prove a point, don't fret. I do this sort of thing for a living. This took me less than 10 minutes to do; it was mere ducksoup (typing the post look longer).

I also do this sort of stuff regularly on skeptics forums, debunking the conspiracy theorist nut-jobs who claim the Apollo moon landings were faked (dual light sources, non-parallel shadows etc). Debunking rabid journalists and blog jockeys is a breeze by comparison.
[/TEXTAREA]

Yeah Cooky, you're right. Just some journo from SA trying to put the blame somewhere in the game for us losing the game. To be honest I don't see any fault in that move. Victor Matfield most of the time doesn't stand in the lineout line before he jumps so how is this any different? But it does bring up a question from my side:
1. If Mccaw was the designated scrumhalf for that lineout, is he allowed to join the lineout?
2. If he is allowed, doesn't that then change the numbers of the amount of players in the lineout than what was called out, and then shouldn't SA have been allowed an extra player in the lineout to match?
 
I'd think the journo isn't as much interested in 'shifting' blame for the loss as much as simply getting his reader figures up.
 

Latest posts

Top