[RWC2019][Pool B] Round 1 - New Zealand vs. South Africa (21/09/2019)

[mdaclarke]

1. "We need to keep calm"

2. "a QF exit after Ireland is now very likely"

Please refer to clause 1

Assuming both teams make it, the Ireland v South Africa QF will be epic. I still fancy SA to edge it.

 

[Paulo]

.....i can see that being given as Red

the whole, if he wasn't offside it wouldn't have happened thing is BS too, that's not how the rules work and we all know it, a card would take precedence over and offside.

From where i sit, there does seem to be a bias against the AB's...but it think its feed by kiwis coming on and defending every single thing the AB's do, no matter how bad.

If we kiwis...specially when we've won...maybe just cool off and let people vent....god forbid even acknowledge some times AB's do stupid stuff...then we'd move on a lot faster and not get into these stupid arguments...

believe it not no one on this forum can get someone sited just by posting they should be sited

and some people need to just accept normal people/players aren't planning to go out and hurt the other team...that's would be psychotic...just like others need to accept WR doesn't have a great plan for the AB's to win everything...that would kill the sport

Couldn't agree more, but sadly, for an online forum, that all makes far too much sense to be taken seriously.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well, the result certainly sucked, but then again, all of the opening games were a bit of an error-prone mess with the nerves and everythin else going on. Yeah we missed a lot of tackles (35 I think), but man that was an intense game.

I do however agree that the referee made the quality of the game of less value with a lot of questionable decisions, especially with regard to forward passes and knock-on's. As for the Mapimpi incident, I don't see it as cynical. He made a great chase, tackled the player from behind, managed to get to the right side of the tackle, got to his feet, released the player and tried to go for the ball. To me, that is outstanding play, and I thought the penalty was a bit harsh. But I can live with that. The Read incident for me is yet again a sign that there is favouritism. But I think Rassie's remarks this week made the situation worse by making Garces the villain. One side of the argument is that Rassie would say "I told you so", but on the other side some would say that Garces was retaliating against the attack made on him. Whatever way you look at it, it's not good for WR. The refereeing on many instances in this game was horrendous.

So Nyakane is out of the World Cup, and Thomas Du Toit has been called up in his place. Luckily we didn't have any other injuries to worry about. I think our game plan to an extent was the right way to go about it, it was just our execution that was a bit of an issue. And the missed tackles made the AB's look better.

We lost our first game last WC and we made it to the semi's, so there's no need to panic fellow Saffas. And that was against Japan!! We are still in this, and we shouldn't be doom prophets based on this game alone, there is still a long way to go. And it's okay that some of our guys had an off day, rather now the first time out than in the playoffs.

Congrats NZ with the win.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I don't think you are right about that framework. There definitely was not a high degree of danger. By that framework it would be a yellow, and by the has always been a rule framework du toit would have been yellowed too for the Hollywood.

NO.
That framework is for high tackles, as in tackles.

Rugby laws define tackle clearly.
Tackle: The method of holding a ball-carrier and bringing that player to ground.


He wasnt the ball carrier as he wasn't in possession! He wasn't even near of being in possession. The opposing team was in possession.
Again, the protocol doesn't apply.

That is a deliberate and intentional attack, with force to the head, near the eye area, to a player off the ball. Red card. No way around it.

This is not rocket science.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

NO.
That framework is for high tackles, as in tackles.

Rugby laws define tackle clearly.
Tackle: The method of holding a ball-carrier and bringing that player to ground.


He wasnt the ball carrier as he wasn't in possession! He wasn't even near of being in possession. The opposing team was in possession.
Again, the protocol doesn't apply.

That is a deliberate and intentional attack, with force to the head, near the eye area, to a player off the ball. Red card. No way around it.

This is not rocket science.

Ahh I was just going off the diagram that was posted.

Whether or not the rules say it should be red I think there is a legitimate concern about player safety that we need to prioritise, even if that means downplaying non dangerous acts like this.

The focus has to be on not allowing dangerous play at this point in time.

But I despise dick moves like what read did. Maybe red card him but make sure you are bloody clear why, and let's not all get those reasons confused here, because it counts

 

[ncurd]

Honestly, off-the ball tackles are penalties at first, then the level of cynicalness ups it to a yellow (ie absolutely no need and he knew what hwas doing).

A red honestly I've watched it several times and I'll need a much better close up angle to make a determination. It certainly looks to the head so it ups it again IMO as he'd deliberately targetted a play off the ball.



This forum can get testy at times but its nowhere near as bad mannered as other areas of internet by a long stretch. I'm not going to speak about other NZ contributers although most appear to be about. I get the sense of inevtiability with smartcooky, excellent contributer on everything but an ABs thread then he becomes just as one-eyed as the rest of us but uses his position of authority to try to argue black is white even when people can plainly see he's wrong. Then yells about his signature when people call him out on it. Has all the signs of someone leaving in a huff.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Honestly, off-the ball tackles are penalties at first, then the level of cynicalness ups it to a yellow (ie absolutely no need and he knew what hwas doing).

A red honestly I've watched it several times and I'll need a much better close up angle to make a determination. It certainly looks to the head so it ups it again IMO as he'd deliberately targetted a play off the ball.



This forum can get testy at times but its nowhere near as bad mannered as other areas of internet by a long stretch. I'm not going to speak about other NZ contributers although most appear to be about. I get the sense of inevtiability with smartcooky, excellent contributer on everything but an ABs thread then he becomes just as one-eyed as the rest of us but uses his position of authority to try to argue black is white even when people can plainly see he's wrong. Then yells about his signature when people call him out on it. Has all the signs of someone leaving in a huff.

Look, nobody is forcing anybody to be on the forum. If he's not happy about the remarks being made, he can do whatever he wants.

But I have to agree with you, the past couple of refereeing matters especially where the All Blacks were involved, his bias certainly came to the fore, without providing conclusive or constructive arguments to sway others to agree with him.

I get the sense that he doesn't want to see the arguments we point out from a referee perspective alone, and tends to always dial towards favouring the AB's even when it's wrong.

But what is still baffling to me is the way in which WR is handling these incidents. I mean Round 1 isn't even done yet, and there has been an incident in nearly every game where bad calls were made, or where players haven't been cited and are getting away with big issues.

WR gives a clear instruction to referees to punish players for illegal contact to an opposing player's head, yet nothing is being done to crack down on the incidents when they took place.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

This forum can get testy at times but its nowhere near as bad mannered as other areas of internet by a long stretch. I'm not going to speak about other NZ contributers although most appear to be about. I get the sense of inevtiability with smartcooky, excellent contributer on everything but an ABs thread then he becomes just as one-eyed as the rest of us but uses his position of authority to try to argue black is white even when people can plainly see he's wrong. Then yells about his signature when people call him out on it. Has all the signs of someone leaving in a huff.

The guy can read (and only read) a dictionary and a rulebook and thinks it made him a supreme court judge... There's a better referee poster on here.

NZ are going to attract the most commentary, positive, negative or indifferent, than any other team. Every rugby fan watches them play as much as they can. This thread has been far from a bad one either, off the top of my head it's had one poorly delivered joke about the haka that spiraled a bit, a legitimate discussion on Read where we've had opinions ranging from red card to some absolute mad lad suggesting PSDT should have got done for simulation and a bit of guff about the ref. Apart from Lord Denning attention seeking a wee bit this is about as good as you're going to get for a big NZ game on an international platform.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The guy can read (and only read) a dictionary and a rulebook and thinks it made him a supreme court judge... There's a better referee poster on here.

NZ are going to attract the most commentary, positive, negative or indifferent, than any other team. Every rugby fan watches them play as much as they can. This thread has been far from a bad one either, off the top of my head it's had one poorly delivered joke about the haka that spiraled a bit, a legitimate discussion on Read where we've had opinions ranging from red card to some absolute mad lad suggesting PSDT should have got done for simulation and a bit of guff about the ref. Apart from Lord Denning attention seeking a wee bit this is about as good as you're going to get for a big NZ game on an international platform.

To be honest, I expected a lot worse posts than there have been on all the threads, not just this one.

But you are correct in saying that NZ will be under the microscope a lot more than any other team, simply because they are the World Champions, and there is this aura around them that they are higher above anyone else in WR. But not only that, it just seems like are being treated that way by the referees and administrators and citing commissioners by everyone else that isn't a kiwi.

I don't think a lot of poster on this thread hates the All Blacks like we hate other teams. I think all of us outsiders respect them because they are so good, but it infuriates us when it seems like our teams are suffering and the AB's god-like complex are getting away with things no other team would.

 

[ncurd]

But what is still baffling to me is the way in which WR is handling these incidents. I mean Round 1 isn't even done yet, and there has been an incident in nearly every game where bad calls were made, or where players haven't been cited and are getting away with big issues.

WR gives a clear instruction to referees to punish players for illegal contact to an opposing player's head, yet nothing is being done to crack down on the incidents when they took place.

Aside for internet drama, I just get the feelings ref were unwilling to make hard calls. Barnes aside it does feel like every games had a ref bottle it and I think that's mainly due to the amount of f's Barnes gives these days as he's had it from all quarters over the years.

I think its two things,

1) These were important games in regards to how the tournament shapes up, no ref wants to make wrong decisions that cost teams matches.

2) Being gun shy early doors as it could effect teams tournaments.


Honestly I just hope the ref panel is having words behind closed doors and the TMO's are given a bit of a kick. Way too many citable offences not even being looked at.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Aside for internet drama, I just get the feelings ref were unwilling to make hard calls. Barnes aside it does feel like every games had a ref bottle it and I think that's mainly due to the amount of f's Barnes gives these days as he's had it from all quarters over the years.

I think its two things,

1) These were important games in regards to how the tournament shapes up, no ref wants to make wrong decisions that cost teams matches.

2) Being gun shy early doors as it could effect teams tournaments.


Honestly I just hope the ref panel is having words behind closed doors and the TMO's are given a bit of a kick. Way too many citable offences not even being looked at.

See, I think the refs should have been the strictest they could possibly be in this first round of matches. To lay down the law, and get all the teams adjusted to how it's going to be going forward, and if players are cited now, the players still have a chance to play in the playoffs. I'd rather lose a guy for a minnow match than for a playoff game against Ireland...

here is the disciplinary process of the citing commissioners during the RWC if anyone wanted to read it: https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazo...c3cc702c19b/RWC-2019-Disciplinary-process.pdf

 

[ncurd]

See, I think the refs should have been the strictest they could possibly be in this first round of matches. To lay down the law, and get all the teams adjusted to how it's going to be going forward, and if players are cited now, the players still have a chance to play in the playoffs. I'd rather lose a guy for a minnow match than for a playoff game against Ireland...

here is the disciplinary process of the citing commissioners during the RWC if anyone wanted to read it: https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazo...c3cc702c19b/RWC-2019-Disciplinary-process.pdf

Agreed entirely utter madness and I don't think it matters when and who does it. Tonga were allowed some shots yesterday that I'm 100% sure England would not of got away with.

 

[Which Tyler]

Agreed entirely utter madness and I don't think it matters when and who does it. Tonga were allowed some shots yesterday that I'm 100% sure England (except Farrell) would not of got away with.

FTFY

 

[ncurd]

FTFY

Thanks glaring omission on my part.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Just putting it out there but there's a list as long as your arm of controversial tackles this tournament....and none by Farrell(/English players at all).

 

[ncurd]

Just putting it out there but there's a list as long as your arm of controversial tackles this tournament....and none by Farrell(/English players at all).

Only a matter of time Actually apart from Farrell when was the last time an England player playing for England put in a dodgy shot?

 

[Reiser99]

Tbh my criticism of the ref was as a whole for both sides. I questioned why he would ask the TMO for a players number and then not yellow card him.

The reason there is so much discussion around these incidents is that WR have made such a big issue out of it and we were told that referees were going to be tougher on anything close to the head and it's been the opposite. TMOs seen to have not been picking incidents up and telling the ref to go back, so it then becomes whether the citing commissioner gets involved, because if WR are going to back up their talk then they also need to act. However it seems like they aren't in order to try and not ruin the world cup. However for more dedicated fans like us, it leaves them looking spineless.

There is always going to be a difference of opinion over incidents, but sometimes it gets absurd. I can understand saying that the Read incident might be a yellow or possibly even just a penalty. But how you can say that grabbing a player around the neck off the ball is legal, is beyond me.

 

[Which Tyler]

Only a matter of time Actually apart from Farrell when was the last time an England player playing for England put in a dodgy shot?

They looked very hard at Manu hitting someone's lower shoulder area

 

[Geralt_]

Just to weigh into the argument about the high shots/cheap shots.

I thought the officials missed them for both sides.

There were multiple head highs on Ardie and BB and very visible neck rolls on our players and we committed a couple of dodgy offenses ourselves, Read's to name one.
I'm guessing Garces had been handed strict warnings to try not card anyone after giving us 2 red cards in the recent future and to avoid any controversy, ironically he's ended up causing controversy in the opposite direction by failing to act or even have 2nd looks at blatant dodgy play from both sides.

As for the game, some good stuff from South Africa, but our new pod system finally clicked vs Aussie and I always felt sure we were going to win this tie. I felt SA have ridden their luck a little vs us in the recent future, barring the game we stole from them in SA last year.

I've been impressed with Hansen to make the changes necessary. Bridge and Reece are the form outside backs and bringing them in has completely given us our edge and "x factor" back on in the wings. Ioane for me has attitude issues and goes missing, much like his sibling.

The new pod system deals with the rush defense nicely and sucks in the opposition runners into the middle, leaving the space out in the wings. There isn't really much defences can do about this other than try stifle the centre pod before getting the ball outwide.

Another masterstroke from the AB's coaching team to come up with strategies to stay ahead of all the other opposition and lay the groundwork for future tactics.

I was cautious of our chances of winnings 3 on the Trott, but knowing we have a great coaching staff that can find solutions to problems I'm confident we can do it again.

Also, can anyone tell me otherwise that the South African try resulted from an offside intercept of a player who failed to get back behind the advantage line? I maybe wrong, but it certainly looked like that in live motion and the live game replays were awful that they didn't want to highlight any of the referring errors from both sides. Our boys were visibility ****** off too from that intercept. I'm sure he failed to get back behind the line.

 

[Geralt_]

(Skip to 3.46 for the intercept).

Ok, so watching the highlights again.

It's clear ALB was held and ruck was formed, albeit very briefly, but he was grounded and planted the ball to Aaron Smith, not an offload and South Africa had a player over the ball - ruck.

So, therefore, all retreating SA players, needed to get back behind the advantage line before playing at the ball.

If you look top left du Toit was still retreating and at no point made it back behind the advantage line before he played the ball and therefore miles offside - he was evidently not part of the rush defence.

How has basic reffing gone out the window in such a big match?