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

[Zapphod]

Point 2 - I'll indulge you here. The Moody / Marx incident looks dodgy to me. Moody does make contact with Marx's head. However, Marx is falling (quickly at that) and that could be seen as mitigation. It is however still worth looking at. But what's lacking in your analysis (and I suggest has annoyed some people) is an attempt to be even handed. If you're going to look at Moody knocking Marx you're going to have to look at pretty much every breakdown involving Savea and for that matter Duane Vermuelen and Francois Louw. Due to Garces being very generous about clean out technique (do whatever you like) those three players got absolutely battered. I'd bet decent money that if you gave me the full match footage I could find evidence of Etzebeth or Mossert (or a.nother) belting Savea in the head / neck at a ruck.

If Garces was biased, why was he? What's the motivation? The only one I can actually think of is that Erasmus would be better off keeping his thoughts on refs to himself. By stating boldly that the All Blacks get better treatment what did he think Garces would do? Red card the whole team to cheer him up?

If Garce's was biased he could have done a hell of a lot better job of it, at a stretch there were a number of incidents where a biased ref could have handed out penalties or yellow cards.
I think people struggle to understand the difference between bias and not being up to standard.

With regards to point two, I think Hansen's comments on Stuff fairly well cover these issues.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...dge-all-blacks-wont-be-judged-by-social-media

"Fiji didn't have to go via social media to go to the judicial committee," he responded. "You get asked after every game, 'have you got anything you want to put up'? If you feel like you've got something to put up, you put it up. South Africa obviously didn't feel like they had anything and we didn't have anything and the citing commissioner didn't see anything."

 

[Shimano]

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.

Nothing wrong with it. It was not a ruck (no black players there) so no offsides. it was a tackle and he was behind the ball so no side entry. he was entitled to pick up the ball.

That was just crap breakdown defence by the blacks.

 

[Geralt_]

Nothing wrong with it. It was not a ruck (no black players there) so no offsides. it was a tackle and he was behind the ball so no side entry. he was entitled to pick up the ball.

That was just crap breakdown defence by the blacks.

(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?

I'm talking about this incident mate, the ruck had formed when ALB was held and there was a Springbok forward over the ball and he was cleared out. Skip to 3.46

 

[Zerobound]

Hi all.. Not sure if this will be a good first post or not. I want to address the abundance of 'foul' play that has come out of this match. First thing is first. The only real foul play I believe was from Read. You can not take another player out of play no matter the situation that is the law of the game. Whether he was offside or not you don't take the law into your own hands. (Might not have seemed so bad if he hadn't referred to the ref as being gutless) . As a captain, that kind of of play (or speech) is not acceptable. I don't believe even McCaw the master of the dark arts ever sunk to that level. His eye was always on the ball. He won many and he lost some.

For the rest, from a young age you learn. Play to the whistle. For the 30 men on the pitch they were playing to win. Everything is permissable until the ref says otherwise. Neck rolls, dodgy scrum technique, offsides. As a player you will keep doing what you do until the ref says no. As a player on either side part of the fun is roughing each other up. Is that not rugby? You'll try to get away with what you can. Don't forget the guys on the paddock just want to play rugby as it has always been played.

In every match I've watched or played. I don't know if I can ever say that a ref has not missed a knock on, high tackle or offside. That's not to mention the less obvious things that go into scrums, rucks and mauls. Even players make mistakes! It's not always the refs fault! Heck, I got away with a few things in my playing days! Playing under 16s one of my efforts that stood out for me was was lying over the ball. A young Ben May who was a 7 at the time (Someone only the NZers will probably know) was rucking the crap out of me. I somehow won the turn over, the two of us just shared a knowing grin. Gamesmanship.

Rugby was born as an amateur game. Just like all sport. That spirit is still there with everyone who competes. Everyone who competes always started as an amateur. This is what I love about the game. I want to honour the players on the pitch.

I really enjoyed watching NZ v RSA. Even today almost 25yrs after the professional era began, the rivalry is still the same. I respect that the game was refereed in that same spirit. I don't believe that the refereeing was detrimental to the match that we all watched. I think the result was a fair result. 10 points in this age of rugby represents a very hard fought and close match. Where a loss came about from rare moments of inaccuracy or a split second judgement call that can turn the match. (I'm sure Stuart Hogg in 2017 and Cheslin Kolbe both wish they went inside our 10 rather than out!)

We all get down about loses in our lives. We are prone to over analysing what has happened. It hurts to lose. Especially when you are so invested in what you are doing or who you support.

So now I digress.. There were two conteniuous calls that have been mentioned on this board and elsewhere. First the yellow card that wasn't. I was watching the game with a South African. Both of us initially didn't understand why there was even a penalty. The game still flowed. It really was a split second call. I don't believe Mapimpi was trying to be cynical as in kill play. He did an amazing job to make the tackle, get to his feet and make a play on the ball. He just wanted the ball. I am certain that was his mindset. It was one on one at that stage. The penalty came, this is what I believe, because he did not release the tackled player to allow him to play the ball. I believe the ref made the right decision.

The second contenious call was the 'offside' play of of du Toit. I went frame by frame, I recommend anyone else to do the same, at the point he took possession of the ball he was onside. The initial ruck as Leinert-Brown went to ground was formed approximately 2m - 3m inside the New Zealand 22m. If you look at the play du Toit took possession just inside 22m line. The ensuing ruck from du Toit taking possession was on the 22m as he went to ground.. As a little bit of a side note. If you watch the ruck that was formed when Leinert-Brown went to ground. You'll notice Read coming in from the side to clear out.

Anyway! These calls would not have changed the outcome I believe. I was glad there was some physicality in the match and every player tried their best and tried to play in the spirit of rugby that we have always known.

Samoa v Russia kind of showed up the farce that is technicalities. Two players that could and maybe should have been red carded!

We were treated to a real spectacle that was NZ v RSA rugby and we should be glad for that. I myself would love to see a rematch now that the rivalry has well and truly been reignited over the past 18 months.

One last note before signing off. I may have not mentioned too much about Moody. Unfortunately he showed himself up in this match. So all I can say now is bring back Franks.!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

wow...big first post...sorry, too much to read

For those I've bored before I apologise. I love (and I mean love) a good discussion about the laws of the game. I was kind of hoping that the salty saffer video was tongue in cheek but a few of my Bok friends are now using it as evidence of a conspiracy to ref them out of a game that they were outplayed in. The word used has been "cheat" as in "Garces is a cheat"...... Bizarre, what motivation does he have?

I imagine a technical infraction was committed in almost every single phase of play. I could spend all day reviewing and pointing them out but, well, life is happening...........

FWIW I thought Garces was terrible (I often do). Some simply inexplicable decision making that impacted both sides. How ever many times I watch it, I can't get PSDT onside in the passage of play that led to the Bok try. There's either a tackle that establishes offside lines or more likely a ruck.......... Anyone got a different view?

For me it's just evidence of one more thing the All Blacks are better at than any other team. That is understanding what the referee will allow and adapting to it. It's not a question of a ref favouring them, it's simply they work out the boundaries and play to them quicker than the other team. In this game case in point was the approach of New Zealand ball carriers. Garces has a different interpretation of the following (in respect of tackled players responsibilities):

"Make the ball available so that play can continue by releasing, passing or pushing the ball in any direction except forward. They may place the ball in any direction."

Garces seems happy for "jacklers" to just get smashed to pieces when contesting the ball. For me it's poor reffing and puts players in a dangerous position as rather than a quick contest which may be won / lost or a pen conceded players simply continue to smash in to the contesting player until they "lose". He's also lax on binding / staying on feet type stuff. However, he's reasonably consistent in this regard (not 100% but good enough to gamble on). The All Blacks see this happen and simply start holding on to the ball in the tackle preventing any contest knowing that 9 times out of 10 Garces will allow the likes of Louw / Vermeulen to take a fearful hammering (virtually impossible to "survive")before giving a penalty. So the choices for the carrying player are:

a: Play exactly to the laws and get turned over
b: Play to the ref and pretty much guarantee possession

Only the most naive would expect any professional to do anything but b: In fact I would suspect any top-level coach to insist on their players doing so.

This is just one example. The All Blacks have superior game intelligence and will exploit everything they can. From entry angles, "flat passing", blocking lines, managing the scrum to their advantage etc. etc.. This on top of their already formidable skill-set makes them damn hard to beat. Not impossible just very, very hard. Every now and then they will run across a ref who they struggle to read or who has interpretations that they find it more difficult to work around. Usually they adapt but when they can't / don't they become more vulnerable.

you're probably right....does that not concern people, the game has become so complicated, with so many rules, and so many based on interpretation or judgment from the ref it leads to **** like this

I've said it before, these rule reviews they are always doing, they should go back to the start, 1)cant pass forward 2) 15 a side and these are the positions 3) this is the field 4) scrums and lines outs happen in these situations....what next...i think we'd end up with half as many rules

 

[Geralt_]

Hi all.. Not sure if this will be a good first post or not. I want to address the abundance of 'foul' play that has come out of this match. First thing is first. The only real foul play I believe was from Read. You can not take another player out of play no matter the situation that is the law of the game. Whether he was offside or not you don't take the law into your own hands. (Might not have seemed so bad if he hadn't referred to the ref as being gutless) . As a captain, that kind of of play (or speech) is not acceptable. I don't believe even McCaw the master of the dark arts ever sunk to that level. His eye was always on the ball. He won many and he lost some.



The second contenious call was the 'offside' play of of du Toit. I went frame by frame, I recommend anyone else to do the same, at the point he took possession of the ball he was onside. The initial ruck as Leinert-Brown went to ground was formed approximately 2m - 3m inside the New Zealand 22m. If you look at the play du Toit took possession just inside 22m line. The ensuing ruck from du Toit taking possession was on the 22m as he went to ground.. As a little bit of a side note. If you watch the ruck that was formed when Leinert-Brown went to ground. You'll notice Read coming in from the side to clear out.

This isn't correct.

The reason he is offside is he never got back behind the advantage line that was formed from the ALB ruck, he was still retreating back when he played the ball.

It doesn't matter where the intercept took place, it's the fact he never got back behind the advantage line mate.

 

[Zerobound]

This isn't correct.

The reason he is offside is he never got back behind the advantage line that was formed from the ALB ruck, he was still retreating back when he played the ball.

It doesn't matter where the intercept took place, it's the fact he never got back behind the advantage line mate.

Sorry mate. If the intercept took place behind the advantage line. Then he did get behind the advantage line

 

[Geralt_]

Sorry mate. If the intercept took place behind the advantage line. Then he did get behind the advantage line

It doesn't work like that.

When the new passage of play started, du Toi had to have retreated back to the advantage line to play at the ball to deem it legal.

He didn't even get close to coming back onside.

If that wasn't a rule, you would have defensive players literally standing between the attacking line intercepting balls all day. The offside rule would virtually be redundant/non-existent.

 

[Zerobound]

It doesn't work like that.

When the new passage of play started, du Toi had to have retreated back to the advantage line to play at the ball to deem it legal.

He didn't even get close to coming back onside.

If that wasn't a rule, you would have defensive players literally standing between the attacking line intercepting balls all day. The offside rule would virtually be redundant/non-existent.

I'm not even going to bother with this. Completely against the spirit of my post.. Rugby was the winner at the end of the day

 

[Geralt_]

I'm not even going to bother with this. Completely against the spirit of my post.. Rugby was the winner at the end of the day

Disappointing response.

The situation you're referring to is if the ALB ruck hadn't formed, du Toit would've been onside.

 

[Zerobound]

Disappointing response.

The situation you're referring to is if the ALB ruck hadn't formed, du Toit would've been onside.

That isn't what I said. I acknowledged the ruck had formed.. Remember the comment about Read clearing out from the side?

Your comment made no sense in general. If what you said was correct. If a player was retreating and ended up on an onside position with the ball, that player would still be offside.

Maybe go back and read what I said. Honestly I don't care for your opinion. I really enjoyed the game and am annoyed by the way people have picked it apart so much.

If I could figure out how to post images, I'd show you exactly what I mean.

The directing of the cameras on the day actually made it look worse than it was.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

chill n00bs! everyone knows you need at least 100 posts before you can start an open feud with someone over something trivial

 

[Zerobound]

chill n00bs! everyone knows you need at least 100 posts before you can start an open feud with someone over something trivial

Ha! Rugby was the winner at the end of the day

 

[Geralt_]

That isn't what I said. I acknowledged the ruck had formed.. Remember the comment about Read clearing out from the side?

Your comment made no sense in general. If what you said was correct. If a player was retreating and ended up on an onside position with the ball, that player would still be offside.

Maybe go back and read what I said. Honestly I don't care for your opinion. I really enjoyed the game and am annoyed by the way people have picked it apart so much.

If I could figure out how to post images, I'd show you exactly what I mean.

The directing of the cameras on the day actually made it look worse than it was.

Look I'm in the same boat, I really enjoyed the game and didn't have many problems with it until I discovered this forum and started seeing social media posts with salty responses.

You feel obliged to point out the other teams discretions (South Africa, and there were many) when all you're reading is about how we got away with murder - but at the end of the day people are always going to find fault in most losses.
We (New Zealand) have been guilty of it in the past too, like when we blamed the 2007 loss on Wayne Barnes instead of admitting our own arrogance and lack of finishing. The internet has just made that louder since anyone can post anything.

For the record I was not trying to be rude to you, just think you have the rule mixed up.

 

[OneBlackEye]

I'm stealing this from another thread which I'm hoping the guy actually took from the WR website or I'm going to look like a penis:

• 
  RETIRING FROM A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT

• A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.

• The player can be put onside only if:
  1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
  2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
  3. An opposition player kicks the ball.

• An offside player may be penalised if that player:
  1. Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or
  2. Interferes with play; or
  3. Moves towards the ball.
     Sanction: Penalty.

As I said in that thread, even if he is put on side by any of those factors he still gets penalised for "benefiting from being in a more advantageous position". You can't just jog back in the opposition back line and as soon as someone runs 5 meters or crosses the offside line you're good to do whatever you want.

 

[Zapphod]

chill n00bs! everyone knows you need at least 100 posts before you can start an open feud with someone over something trivial

Ha I had to go check how many posts I had.

I am safe.

 

[BobbyM]

I'm stealing this from another thread which I'm hoping the guy actually took from the WR website or I'm going to look like a penis.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10

You may look like a penis, but what you posted were from the world rugby laws

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm talking about this incident mate, the ruck had formed when ALB was held and there was a Springbok forward over the ball and he was cleared out. Skip to 3.46

You need to calm down man. I don't see it as a ruck. Kitshoff is the only Saffer there, because he's the tackler. No other Saffer joined in, so no ruck was formed, therefore it's broken play, and PSDT wasn't at any point offside. Plus a contention can be made that the ball was out prior to any other NZ players arrived...

Anyways. It's rather interesting, how the non-Saffas have been taking this issue with regards to the poor refereeing. I mean half the videos I've seen on Social Media were by non-saffas as I see a lot of ITV logos on the videos being made, and ITV isn't a broadcaster in South Africa...

What is interesting, is that so many errors are being pointed out, A lot of things were issues which Rassie talked about prior to this game as well as the previous games we played against NZ the past 2 years.

I have an issue with how WR is attending to these refereeing issues, and I've had this issue ever since Bryce Lawrence screwed us over in 2011. The issue is that with overwhelming evidence presented to them about a referee/referees, they ALWAYS make these half-committed statements that there is an issue and that they will attend to it, but we hardly ever see it happening.

I mean, half these videos of guys who aren't even top notch referees spotting clear and obvious infringements makes me think there is an underlying issue and the more it's happening, the bigger the outrage will be.

 

[Paulo]

You need to calm down man. I don't see it as a ruck. Kitshoff is the only Saffer there, because he's the tackler. No other Saffer joined in, so no ruck was formed, therefore it's broken play, and PSDT wasn't at any point offside. Plus a contention can be made that the ball was out prior to any other NZ players arrived...

Anyways. It's rather interesting, how the non-Saffas have been taking this issue with regards to the poor refereeing. I mean half the videos I've seen on Social Media were by non-saffas as I see a lot of ITV logos on the videos being made, and ITV isn't a broadcaster in South Africa...

What is interesting, is that so many errors are being pointed out, A lot of things were issues which Rassie talked about prior to this game as well as the previous games we played against NZ the past 2 years.

I have an issue with how WR is attending to these refereeing issues, and I've had this issue ever since Bryce Lawrence screwed us over in 2011. The issue is that with overwhelming evidence presented to them about a referee/referees, they ALWAYS make these half-committed statements that there is an issue and that they will attend to it, but we hardly ever see it happening.

I mean, half these videos of guys who aren't even top notch referees spotting clear and obvious infringements makes me think there is an underlying issue and the more it's happening, the bigger the outrage will be.

I thought you didn't need to form a ruck to have offside lines formed (thanks Italy). So regardless of whether there is a Saffa there or not offside lines are formed and PSDT was never onside as he was still retreating from the earlier play.

 

[BobbyM]

I thought you didn't need to form a ruck to have offside lines formed (thanks Italy). So regardless of whether there is a Saffa there or not offside lines are formed and PSDT was never onside as he was still retreating from the earlier play.

That was my understanding too that they changed the rules following that England Italy game