South Africa v New Zealand. 21 Aug 2010. What is your prediction?

[Jer1cho]

While i agree that Smith was in the wrong, and should get a punishment, as it was totally unnecessary, in the same breath, Owens was all over the place numerous times. Passes hitting him, and players dodging him. Really rubbish.

On the game, it was incredible to be there, and it was a great occasion. Gutted by the outcome, but fair play to New Zealand, as they never gave up, and finished well. A draw would have been a proper reflection of the game i feel, but that missed forward pass was crucial. McCaw's try? Well, i guess now we know that if you ground the ball the same time as your foot goes in touch, the try is given. Can you point out that law for me Cooky?

We went to sleep at the end though, and with our two best players in Juan Smith and Francois Hougaard being substituted, we completely lost our momentum. With regards to Australia coming up, quite frankly, I don't care. This was the test we should have won. The test that our year would have been based on. It's very seldom that a Springbok team loses like that, and it really hurts. It was also very sad that the missed tackle on Nonu that led to the winning try was none other than John Smit.

 

[Saffa]

Yet Nigel is still regarded as the top IRB referee!

As far as I know Kaplan is rated number 1 ref in the world, isn't he?

 

[nickdnz]

But what im saying is, we have enough depth in every position at the moment. If McCaw goes down then we have Braid to step in but who takes Braids spot would be a concern.
Right now we have the players to cover pretty much every position, but if we take an injury then the bottom of the depth chart will weaken. Its not really the same.

We have concern in every position is a little harsh. In terms for selection any of these could be adiquete players come the RWC.
Props
Woodcock - LS
O.Franks - TH
Mackintosh - TH
B.Franks - LH+TH
Tialata - LH+TH (meh, he'd do the job more or less)
Afoa - LH+TH+HK

Hookers:
Mealamu - HK
Hore - HK
de Melmanche - HK+LH+TH

Locks:
Thorn - LK
Whitelock - LK
Donnelly - LK
Jack - LK -(He's looked pretty good for Tasman lately, I think he'd genuinly be a good option for the RWC)
Williams -LK- (Providing he can recover in time/at all)
Ross - LK - (His chances may have sailed though)

Loose Forwards:
Vito - BS+8
Kaino - BS
McCaw - OS
D.Braid - OS (Rate him highly, best McCaw backup)
Latimer - OS (Don't really rate him that high, but he wouldn't be terrible for the AB's).
Waldrom - OS+BS (I rate him, but doubt he'll make the squad)
Read - 8+BS
So'oialo - 8+BS+OS (probably won't be in good enough form, but is an option).

Scrum Half:
Weepu - SH+FH (Best option imop)
Cowan - SH
Leonard - SH (If he is selected, we will undoubtably lose)
Mathewson - SH

Fly Half:
Carter - FH+2/5
Cruden - FH+SH
Slade - FH+FB
Brett - FH+2/8 (Don't really rate him at all).

2nd 5/8th:
Nonu 2/8+Wing
McAlister 2/8+FH
SBW (not really though, out yet another week I see)

Centre:
C.Smith - C
Kahui - C+2nd 5/8th+Wing
Fruen - C+Wing (Probably won't be ready in time).
B.Smith - C+Wing (Probably not).
Ranger (Good prospect, but wouldn't want him to start a big match)

Wing:
Gear - Wing (!)
Rokocoko - Wing
Sivivatu - Wing+FB
Jane - Wing+FB (prefer him at FB)
Guildford - Wing (meh)
Masaga - Wing (won't be ready)
Stowers - Wing (Isn't really in the frame, but man he had a great game).

Fullback:
Israel Dagg - FB+Wing
Muliaina - FB+Wing+Centre

And there are plenty of up and coming players who could be called in for extreme messures. Only 1st 5/8th is a real concern for me, as Braid I think will take away the problem at Openside...and you have other, prehaps non world class players who could fill Braids spot from the bench.

 

[Darwin]

We have concern in every position is a little harsh. In terms for selection any of these could be adiquete players come the RWC.
Props
Woodcock - LS
O.Franks - TH
Mackintosh - TH
B.Franks - LH+TH
Tialata - LH+TH (meh, he'd do the job more or less)
Afoa - LH+TH+HK

Hookers:
Mealamu - HK
Hore - HK
de Melmanche - HK+LH+TH

Locks:
Thorn - LK
Whitelock - LK
Donnelly - LK
Jack - LK -(He's looked pretty good for Tasman lately, I think he'd genuinly be a good option for the RWC)
Williams -LK- (Providing he can recover in time/at all)
Ross - LK - (His chances may have sailed though)

Loose Forwards:
Vito - BS+8
Kaino - BS
McCaw - OS
D.Braid - OS (Rate him highly, best McCaw backup)
Latimer - OS (Don't really rate him that high, but he wouldn't be terrible for the AB's).
Waldrom - OS+BS (I rate him, but doubt he'll make the squad)
Read - 8+BS
So'oialo - 8+BS+OS (probably won't be in good enough form, but is an option).

Scrum Half:
Weepu - SH+FH (Best option imop)
Cowan - SH
Leonard - SH (If he is selected, we will undoubtably lose)
Mathewson - SH

Fly Half:
Carter - FH+2/5
Cruden - FH+SH
Slade - FH+FB
Brett - FH+2/8 (Don't really rate him at all).

2nd 5/8th:
Nonu 2/8+Wing
McAlister 2/8+FH
SBW (not really though, out yet another week I see)

Centre:
C.Smith - C
Kahui - C+2nd 5/8th+Wing
Fruen - C+Wing (Probably won't be ready in time).
B.Smith - C+Wing (Probably not).
Ranger (Good prospect, but wouldn't want him to start a big match)

Wing:
Gear - Wing (!)
Rokocoko - Wing
Sivivatu - Wing+FB
Jane - Wing+FB (prefer him at FB)
Guildford - Wing (meh)
Masaga - Wing (won't be ready)
Stowers - Wing (Isn't really in the frame, but man he had a great game).

Fullback:
Israel Dagg - FB+Wing
Muliaina - FB+Wing+Centre

And there are plenty of up and coming players who could be called in for extreme messures. Only 1st 5/8th is a real concern for me, as Braid I think will take away the problem at Openside...and you have other, prehaps non world class players who could fill Braids spot from the bench.

Just to add a few other players that will likely be in contention (just to emphasize how much depth there is):

Flynn will certainly be in contention for the third hooker spot, as would Elliot (if the squad is picked on form). Eaton may be in contention if he comes recovers, while Thomson and Messem will certainly be in contention in the loose forwards. Mike Delany will certainly be in contention for the first-five spot - I'm sure he would have been backing up Carter throughout the tri-nations if he hadn't been injured. If he is back to full fitness I'd be very confident in his ability to perform in the big tests. Stanley will be in contention for a midfield, while Maitland could be a wing/fullback option if he keeps playing at the high level he is. I'd also be surprised if Toeava doesn't get a spot covering both the midfield and outside backs. I'm sure there are plenty of other players also in contention...

 

[*Axe*]

I think 10 is the biggest concern. Cruden obviously has lots of talent potential, but that doesnt count for naff all in the test arena. I just hope he can do what Jane and Dagg have done and take their chance. Mike Delany supposed to be back in action for the Steamers in two weeks (can anyone update that further?)
Number 8 is also a bit of a concern for me (If read was injured), although I would love to see Richie have a go with Braid at 7.

 

[Darwin]

I think 10 is the biggest concern. Cruden obviously has lots of talent potential, but that doesnt count for naff all in the test arena. I just hope he can do what Jane and Dagg have done and take their chance. Mike Delany supposed to be back in action for the Steamers in two weeks (can anyone update that further?)
Number 8 is also a bit of a concern for me (If read was injured), although I would love to see Richie have a go with Braid at 7.

Yeah 8 is a concern for me if Read is injured. Messem just isn't accurate enough, while both Kaino and Vito have yet to really excel at 8 (though are both very good 6's, and I think Vito may develop into a quality 8). Adam Thomson has also been playing at 8 for Otago (presumably at the request of the AB selectors) but hasn't really impressed, while I don't think they will go back to So'ioalo. I'm hoping Vito is given a few starts on the end of year tour, to see whether he's got the goods to play 8 at test level.

 

[squirrel]

i still reckon the 07 world cup team had the most depth you could wish for, just look at the players who missed out on selection, to be honest i dont think the ABs have such good depth and the springboks will have some crucial players coming back,so i think their starting xv has more to improve, the wallabies i reckon are missing six key regulars but we all know their depth is paper thin

 

[Sam Owen]

It's very seldom that a Springbok team loses like that, and it really hurts. It was also very sad that the missed tackle on Nonu that led to the winning try was none other than John Smit.

Try losing $40 bucks on it, hurts alright.:wall:
As for John Smit he'll be ok because like some of us here on TRF think PDV is soooo "clever", because he will take the spotlight of his captain, again. I dont believe that PDV says those things for J.Smits sake I believe what he's says is what he feels.

 

[Sparty]

Ok good game by the ABS , Juan Smith should never be sited for that , the ref got into his way and it was an involentary reaction more than anything else. I always said that Schalk will one day tackle the ref in a game , never actually believed that I would see it come true lol.

Lastly Mccaw deserved that MOTM more than Schalk who came in a very close second !! Well done ABS well done , pity u peaked again one year too early.

 

[smartcooky]

McCaw's try? Well, i guess now we know that if you ground the ball the same time as your foot goes in touch, the try is given. Can you point out that law for me Cooky?

Sure.

The Law is 22.3 (b) and I have highlighted the important bit.

22.3 BALL GROUNDED BY AN ATTACKING PLAYER
(b) When an attacking player who has possession of the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously contacts the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line (or anywhere beyond), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.

So, if McCaw's foot had simultaneously contacted touch-in-goal as he grounded the ball, then no try.

However, it was touch (in the field of play) that was the issue here, and in that case, the TMO would have to see clear evidence that McCaw's foot touched the touchline, or the ground beyond it, BEFORE the ball was grounded. If he is going to call McCaw in touch, he must see that his foot was in touch first; if he cannot determine this, then he must not guess or say what he thinks might have happened.

To be fair, there was one view from a camera low to the ground that appeared to show the ball grounded with McCaw's foot off the ground.

These two pictures will give you an idea of the difficulty of the decision facing the TMO.

This view from the front clearly shows the ball grounded, but the problem is that McCaw's toe is obscured by the corner post, so the TMO cannot tell if it too is grounded.

This view from the back clearly shows McCaw's foot off the ground, but it is not 100% clear if the ball is grounded. It looks grounded, but there is some curvature of the ground.

In the end, the TMO decided there was no clear evidence the McCaw's foot was in touch, so the try was awarded.

 

[Draco]

Yet Nigel is still regarded as the top IRB referee! Its all well and good sitting there poo-pooing his performance ... lets face it how much better could you do it? Its all well and good criticising the officials, the No. 9 had other options also available to him.

Nigel stood where he deems to be able to see where the ruck and where he can ensure there is no foul play. Christ its like sometimes these ref's can do anything right.

Tell me...if he is right behind the ruck, how does he see what the oppisite team members do in the ruck?

He was.....the best ref.

 

[Logorrhea]

When the same referee keeps getting pushed out of the way by different players in different matches and different competitions, you have to conclude that the problem is with that referee and not the players.

The first time it happened was the Saints game and the player in question ran out of his way to barge the referee. Owens positioning was not a factor. The player was cited for it.

The second time was here. So overall, maybe once in the hundred of games (probably about 0.03% of his games) he has refereed has his positioning interfered with play. Stop using makeyuppy statistics to back up a non existent point.

There is a lively discussion topic on the referees forum about this, and its running about 50/50 as to whether Smith should he cited

No there isnt, there are only two of you talking about the citing. Again, stop trying to reenforce your point by making stuff up.

The fact that players have other options is irrelevant. The referee should not be affecting play at all, and should not be standing where he cuts any of the attacking side's options down. At least, that is what we teach them anyway!

You never answered the question. Can you confirm whether or not you approve of Juan Smiths push on the referee? Players are allow to handle the referee if they feelhe is in the way yeah?

 

[smartcooky]

There is a lively discussion topic on the referees forum about this, and its running about 50/50 as to whether Smith should he cited

No there isnt, there are only two of you talking about the citing. Again, stop trying to reenforce your point by making stuff up.

You sir are telling lies. There are in fact 23 different posters, some of whom are very experienced referees (at least one that I can see who has refereed at international level) who are in fact discussing that point as well as other related points.

The most recent post is from a Senior RFU Group Assessor

► NO (Nigel Owens) was poor in his management of the gate post tackle - numerous examples some of which have been mentioned here.

► JS (Juan Smith) push on NO was an instictive reaction by an open side flanker (who had an awesome match on his return after his recent family loss) at top speed in a quick international - NO will have had no issues with it (his positioning was at fault running that line), and JS was genuinely concerned for NO's welfare. I am not as bullish as DaveT on this one, but referees at all levels must get out of the way of the players.

Here is a link to the post

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128586&postcount=64

You will apologise and retract your statement that I have "made stuff up" or I will make a formal complaint to the owners of this forum that you have abused your posting rights and made demonstrably false statements about me.

You never answered the question. Can you confirm whether or not you approve of Juan Smiths push on the referee? Players are allow to handle the referee if they feelhe is in the way yeah?

I believe the RFU Group Assessor has answered this for me!! I certainly think as he does



By the way, in case you didn't notice, when Owens was run into by Mujati in the Saints v Perpignan match, he called Mujati over at the next stoppage and gave him a bollocking. This did not happen in this match, because Owens realised it was his own fault.

Smith will not be cited because there is no reason for him to be cited. End of!!

 

[ShaheenJ]

Sure.

The Law is 22.3 (b) and I have highlighted the important bit.

22.3 BALL GROUNDED BY AN ATTACKING PLAYER
(b) When an attacking player who has possession of the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and simultaneously contacts the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line (or anywhere beyond), a 22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.

So, if McCaw's foot had simultaneously contacted touch-in-goal as he grounded the ball, then no try.

However, it was touch (in the field of play) that was the issue here, and in that case, the TMO would have to see clear evidence that McCaw's foot touched the touchline, or the ground beyond it, BEFORE the ball was grounded. If he is going to call McCaw in touch, he must see that his foot was in touch first; if he cannot determine this, then he must not guess or say what he thinks might have happened.

To be fair, there was one view from a camera low to the ground that appeared to show the ball grounded with McCaw's foot off the ground.

These two pictures will give you an idea of the difficulty of the decision facing the TMO.

This view from the front clearly shows the ball grounded, but the problem is that McCaw's toe is obscured by the corner post, so the TMO cannot tell if it too is grounded.

This view from the back clearly shows McCaw's foot off the ground, but it is not 100% clear if the ball is grounded. It looks grounded, but there is some curvature of the ground.

In the end, the TMO decided there was no clear evidence the McCaw's foot was in touch, so the try was awarded.

No problem with the McCaw try, or the forward pass for that matter. Sometimes you don't get the rub of the green - just the way it is. Credit to the All Blacks for coming back in the last quarter to clinch it right at the death. Great game of Rugby in the end. Last years was ours, this year belongs to the All Blacks. Will be interesting in 2011, that's for sure.

 

[Jer1cho]

Agree man. We were at home, on the highveld, in Smit's one-hundredth appearance at a phenomenal stadium. If the best we could do was a loss, then we are in a dire situation. We lost to a better side. Plain and simple. New Zealand are finally realizing that they don't need to panic, and just need to keep playing. They were tackled backwards for 70 minutes, but never gave up. That determination, and belief has been lacking in their game for a long time. It's something we had for a long time. New Zealand are the best in the world, and they thoroughly deserve that ***le.

 

[ShaheenJ]

Agree man. We were at home, on the highveld, in Smit's one-hundredth appearance at a phenomenal stadium. If the best we could do was a loss, then we are in a dire situation. We lost to a better side. Plain and simple. New Zealand are finally realizing that they don't need to panic, and just need to keep playing. They were tackled backwards for 70 minutes, but never gave up. That determination, and belief has been lacking in their game for a long time. It's something we had for a long time. New Zealand are the best in the world, and they thoroughly deserve that ***le.

We have only ourselves to blame for this defeat. Still a much improved performance and just shows that the margin for error at the top is so little, that if you're bad, you get thrashed, if you a little off you lose. I'm still gutted though, but we move on. At least there's the consolation of more senior players coming back. Bismark was excellent against WP, Juan Smith proved again why he's regarded as world class, Francois Steyn should be back, Brussouw and Du Preez will be back from their injuries and Fourie from his suspension. Add those missing players, and take our much improved performance of Saturday into account, then it doesn't look all doom and gloom.

 

[Jer1cho]

Yeah. Funny how competitive we are when players play in their preferred positions hey... Can't believe it took our mongoloid coach seven games to realize this... He still doesn't know how to use replacements though... Taking off Smith and Hougaard was suicide. When that happened, i knew it was over.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

You sir are telling lies. There are in fact 23 different posters, some of whom are very experienced referees (at least one that I can see who has refereed at international level) who are in fact discussing that point as well as other related points.

The most recent post is from a Senior RFU Group Assessor

Here is a link to the post

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128586&postcount=64

You will apologise and retract your statement that I have "made stuff up" or I will make a formal complaint to the owners of this forum that you have abused your posting rights and made demonstrably false statements about me.

I believe the RFU Group Assessor has answered this for me!! I certainly think as he does



By the way, in case you didn't notice, when Owens was run into by Mujati in the Saints v Perpignan match, he called Mujati over at the next stoppage and gave him a bollocking. This did not happen in this match, because Owens realised it was his own fault.

Smith will not be cited because there is no reason for him to be cited. End of!!

Hold your high horse right there sonny jim, before buckaroo kicks you off.

The only saving grace for why Owens never called him over was for the fact that Smith seemed to apologise, where Mujati did nothing of the sort. Also consider that Smith's push was far more dangerous than Mujati push, Owens could have been hurt quite badly, luckily for all he only sprained his shoulder and continued on.

Also demanding an apology from a member has also brightened by day up no end.

 

[smartcooky]

Also demanding an apology from a member has also brightened by day up no end.

So what, you threaten to ban me for calling someone a "dick", but its OK for anyone to call me a liar?

Calling someone a liar with no basis for the allegation is the worse kind of abuse, and you, a Moderator think that is OK? Well that is a double-standard if ever I saw one.

I did not expect double standards here... especially from moderators.

 

[Logorrhea]

The most recent post is from a Senior RFU Group Assessor

Ooooooooo and a member of Hamshires Rugby Union Referees Society no less. How could I possibly argue with somene who claims to be in a referees society. He must be a dude amongst dudes.

You will apologise and retract your statement that I have "made stuff up" or I will make a formal complaint to the owners of this forum that you have abused your posting rights and made demonstrably false statements about me.

I swear I nearly peed a little when I saw that. Class stuff.

Anyway, exactly which bits were false? The one about using makey uppy statistics, which you didnt seem to argue with, or the one where you pretended people were talking about Juan Smiths shove when they actually werent.

For example in your most recent post where you called me a liar (the drama was absolutely brilliant), you stated there are 23 posters in that topic. Creating an impression that 23 people were discussing Juan Smiths shove (a lively discussion that was about 50/50 for a citing).

The reality as we both know is that there were 23 posters (I didnt actually count) but about 4 of them briefly talked about the citing, the rest were talking about McCaws try, Spear tackling and Positioning.

Its another missrepresentation of the facts. You did the same in another discussion of the laws not to long ago. You seem to do it quite a lot actually. I cant be the only person who has called you on it, can I?

Either way, I'll report myself for the laugh.

I believe the RFU Group Assessor has answered this for me!! I certainly think as he does.

To my dissapointment it looks as it your right. Interesting all the same.