South Africa vs British and Irish Lions - Test 2

[saulan]

Also, this below. He isn't a rugby journalist, but definitely one to normally follow on rugby in SA (Included the translate for all, note this was commented on the latest JacoJohan post):

 

[unrated]

Also, this below. He isn't a rugby journalist, but definitely one to normally follow on rugby in SA (Included the translate for all, note this was commented on the latest JacoJohan post):
View attachment 11874

If i have to take a gamble and guess who it is then i say its Springbok performance analyst Lindsay Weyer. But thats complete speculation.

https://www.rugby-addict.com/en/art...inning-coaching-team/5df0d6b1ff905f538d4ad4e8

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

If it's not Rassie (it probably is) it's almost certainly Johaan Van Graan

 

[WaterboySA]

You can say thats Rassie though

NO....there's NO excuse. This is low class, he's an embarrassment to South Africa.

 

[Ddanno]

I just love stats in rugby…..

AWJ’s 15 tackles were 50% more than the next best - Henshaw’s 10 (and 3 times as many as Itoje).

His 7 metres carried were the same as Itoje, Curry and Conan combined.

Biggar passed three times. Three.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

https://www.planetrugby.com/the-cha...eds-to-make-for-decider-against-south-africa/

 

[unrated]

NO....there's NO excuse. This is low class, he's an embarrassment to South Africa.

I already said I meant that is not Rassie.

It was supposed to be "you can't say that's Rassie"

But i wont call a guy who won us a world cup an embarrassment.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

But i wont call a guy who won us a world cup an embarrassment.

Rookie!

We regularly call Clive Woodward an embarrassment in England

 

[General Melchett]

Rookie!

We regularly call Clive Woodward an embarrassment in England

I'm glad you omitted Sir. One of the worst knighthoods of all time - bad day at the office for the Queen.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'm glad you omitted Sir. One of the worst knighthoods of all time - bad day at the office for the Queen.

No royal honour will ever be as farcical as Joe Simmonds getting whatever he got last year

 

[David Charles]

Having followed the Test matches of the Lions V's South Africa i have been very disappointed in the comments made since the 4th Test and i am ashamed of the state South Africa have become now to to be known. Having played rugby for many years this play making or game playing is does not settle with me at all. If a butch of players have to mine games and coaches alike then this game is no longer for me. The skills available today to a big step above mine though the spirit as now gone when i think of South Africa a proud nation, what does this stand for i ask. World Rugby should have stepped in with a back up TMO there is skills around the world and flights are arriving everyday. The Ball boy coaching is not something that any country county and local referees will except, so why not chastise this very childish act,it is not Rugby, the people around the world have to tolerate such behavior is beyond me and is not a way to recruit for the future more people watching. It was thuggery at the least and ill tempered at the worst.
Of course i enjoy my side winning, but i applaud good rugby skills whoever is playing. What a disgrace in a rugby shirt and for the country.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Biggar passed three times. Three.

Non SH backs passing stats are all shocking:

4: Henshaw

3: Biggar

2: Hogg, Harris & Farrell

1: Watson, McVdM, Daly.

I would say that was because they were all too busy running except…..

Our ‘impact’ subs of Price, Farrell and Daly made not a metre between them. Chuck in Harris and Murray and the dial still doesn’t move. McVdM infinitely improves things with his metre.

Our 10 backs between them ran for 48m which is less than half the length of the pitch. And also less than the 51 managed by our starting pack.

Can Jonny Hill feign a strained mullet or something so we can get Manu on a plane?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

No royal honour will ever be as farcical as Joe Simmonds getting whatever he got last year

I’ll raise you Paul Collingwood’s MBE for his 17 run contribution to the 05 Ashes.

 

[BrokenWing]

Jimmy Saville's contribution to noncery?

 

[Ddanno]

Jimmy Saville's contribution to noncery?

Crikey, but you're not wrong

 

[retired9]

Non SH backs passing stats are all shocking:

4: Henshaw

3: Biggar

2: Hogg, Harris & Farrell

1: Watson, McVdM, Daly.

I would say that was because they were all too busy running except…..

Our ‘impact’ subs of Price, Farrell and Daly made not a metre between them. Chuck in Harris and Murray and the dial still doesn’t move. McVdM infinitely improves things with his metre.

Our 10 backs between them ran for 48m which is less than half the length of the pitch. And also less than the 51 managed by our starting pack.

Can Jonny Hill feign a strained mullet or something so we can get Manu on a plane?

Sober reading isn't it, while I am all for advocating changes (Hogg has not done enough for me as a Scot), how hard can we be on the backs when they saw no ball in hands?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Watched the game finally, really wish I hadn't. More or less went how I expected in the end, SA kept their focus and reaped the rewards. If the lions ring the changes today I'd still have them as marginal favourites though because even though SA are probably the best team out there at playing 3+ consecutive weeks it's a huge ask to beat a team that can bring in about five players who are very close in quality and arguably better in some cases than the guys they'll replace.

If I was in charge I'd bring in Wyn Jones, Henderson, Beirne (6), Faletau, Price, Adams and Williams and Watson and Russell to the bench. Harsh on Conan who has consistently done what's asked of him to drop out completely but he's such an attritional player that I can't see him having a winning impact anyway. The rest can't have any major complaints.

You'd really want Sexton and Slade as options to bring in though, it wouldn't result in total rugby but you'd definitely get the strong runners the lions do have in the backs to see a bit of action.

Will reserve judgement until the teams are announced but just by virtue of the changes the lions can make I'd have them slight favourites in an attritional tie though. I really hope I'm wrong because they were so bad on Saturday, displaying exactly why Gatland isn't a popular coach, it'd be a shame if more success followed.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Sober reading isn't it, while I am all for advocating changes (Hogg has not done enough for me as a Scot), how hard can we be on the backs when they saw no ball in hands?

Hogg was terrible in the air. Got to go I’m afraid.

 

[BenniMarco]

Posted Henderson in for AWJ on a WRU post.

Got lots of imaginative abuse.

Watched the game finally, really wish I hadn't. More or less went how I expected in the end, SA kept their focus and reaped the rewards. If the lions ring the changes today I'd still have them as marginal favourites though because even though SA are probably the best team out there at playing 3+ consecutive weeks it's a huge ask to beat a team that can bring in about five players who are very close in quality and arguably better in some cases than the guys they'll replace.

If I was in charge I'd bring in Wyn Jones, Henderson, Beirne (6), Faletau, Price, Adams and Williams and Watson and Russell to the bench. Harsh on Conan who has consistently done what's asked of him to drop out completely but he's such an attritional player that I can't see him having a winning impact anyway. The rest can't have any major complaints.

You'd really want Sexton and Slade as options to bring in though, it wouldn't result in total rugby but you'd definitely get the strong runners the lions do have in the backs to see a bit of action.

Will reserve judgement until the teams are announced but just by virtue of the changes the lions can make I'd have them slight favourites in an attritional tie though. I really hope I'm wrong because they were so bad on Saturday, displaying exactly why Gatland isn't a popular coach, it'd be a shame if more success followed.

Agree with all this.

Foolishly suggested Henderson for AWJ on the WRU FB post. Why is everyone so tribal and biased? AWJ has become a cult like figure you can't talk out against now. Anyone would have thought he's in his prime of his career... Love the man, but like a lot of you guys echo on here is be hesitant to pick him over 4 locks right now (one who isn't even on tour).

 

[retired9]

Hogg was terrible in the air. Got to go I’m afraid.

Only saw the takes he made in the highlights, I think Williams has to be due a run, bench Hogg in the hope that the game opens up and he finds some form

 

[BeSmart123]

I will try to address the issue from a different angle. Forget Lions vs RSA for a minute, or at least try.

We have a former player, from a tier 1 nation, coach, world cup winner, that looks at a game his team was involved in and does not understand either how the ref is calling the shots or the rules themselves.
And it's not 1 or 2 plays. It's a LOT of the calls. He is not alone and watching how we argue about plays in any thread here is another perfect example.

Just think for a second about this: this guy breaths rugby and cannot explain ~30% of the calls in the most important rugby game of the year. That is a pretty big red flag. Imagine, just picture it for a second, how that impacts the people you want to attract to the sport.
And it's not that the ref made a mistake and we know what the right call should have been. We don't know that either.

This is an issue and an issue that has been dodged for a long time. The elegant excuse is generally something along the lines of 'ref's do not need more pressure'. Fine. bloody fine. Then WR needs to step the **** in and address the issue. Refs need more resources? Better training, more people, twice the pay? (None of that would move the needle at tier 1 btw) Sure, all in, where do I sign?
As long as that comes with no more silly excuses and accountability. I want to know, without much doubt, what the ref should be calling when i watch a play.

As much as you might dislike his methods and particularly his timing, i can't help but to appreciate what RE is doing. I really do. Why? Because a) i think it is very important, b) no one else apparently has the balls to do it and c) he is using his position to make it an issue that has to be at the very least heard.

Let me rephrase: i don't care what the impact is for the tour. I care what the impact is for rugby. I wish, i sincerely wish, every coach would do the same till WR deals with this.

Again, world cup winning coach saying, out loud, 'i do not understand the rules'. Not 'i disagree with the ref here' or 'i saw something different. Again: 'i do not understand how the rules are being enforced'. That is quite a statement.

I for one am very, very happy about this.

You're kidding right? That's rugby. Its a game and a great game but it it isn't Gridiron nfl where everything is measured by numbers and pixels. Every call in rugby is judgement, based on the flow of the game and materiality (an assessment of how does x 'offence' affect the game) and the referee's own character is important. It was true in 1870 and its true today. What Rassie did is start this type of horrifying debate where referees are expected to be minutely detailed and to distrust their instinct. It might be a lot of money but rugby will never stop being a players game and good sport. And Willie Le Roux was offside infront of Mapimpe and can't be played onside if he's still sprinting forward. He had an unfair advantage in the sprint chase before Mapimpe kicked it. That is law and I'm sick of explaining it.

 

[Phil Stringer]

I will try to address the issue from a different angle. Forget Lions vs RSA for a minute, or at least try.

We have a former player, from a tier 1 nation, coach, world cup winner, that looks at a game his team was involved in and does not understand either how the ref is calling the shots or the rules themselves.
And it's not 1 or 2 plays. It's a LOT of the calls. He is not alone and watching how we argue about plays in any thread here is another perfect example.

Just think for a second about this: this guy breaths rugby and cannot explain ~30% of the calls in the most important rugby game of the year. That is a pretty big red flag. Imagine, just picture it for a second, how that impacts the people you want to attract to the sport.
And it's not that the ref made a mistake and we know what the right call should have been. We don't know that either.

This is an issue and an issue that has been dodged for a long time. The elegant excuse is generally something along the lines of 'ref's do not need more pressure'. Fine. bloody fine. Then WR needs to step the **** in and address the issue. Refs need more resources? Better training, more people, twice the pay? (None of that would move the needle at tier 1 btw) Sure, all in, where do I sign?
As long as that comes with no more silly excuses and accountability. I want to know, without much doubt, what the ref should be calling when i watch a play.

As much as you might dislike his methods and particularly his timing, i can't help but to appreciate what RE is doing. I really do. Why? Because a) i think it is very important, b) no one else apparently has the balls to do it and c) he is using his position to make it an issue that has to be at the very least heard.

Let me rephrase: i don't care what the impact is for the tour. I care what the impact is for rugby. I wish, i sincerely wish, every coach would do the same till WR deals with this.

Again, world cup winning coach saying, out loud, 'i do not understand the rules'. Not 'i disagree with the ref here' or 'i saw something different. Again: 'i do not understand how the rules are being enforced'. That is quite a statement.

I for one am very, very happy about this.

Sorry, but if you’re happy about this then you are likely to be part of the problem. Coaches and DoRs already supply lists of queries at the end of every match at all levels asking for clarification on decisions or matters of interpretation. The answers are then supplied in private and with a minimum of emotion.
What Erasmus did was basically say ‘**** you’ to the system. He put additional pressure on the referees and himself on a win/win situation. If it made the refs slightly more amenable to the SA tactics, great, if not he can say I told you so. I doubt very much that he gives a toss about being taken before WR - they’ve already proved they’re incapable of doing anything positive so what are they going to do?

 

[The Hog]

I don’t believe he is trying to influence the ref.

he has stated what was spoken about and then the lack of continuity from said conversations.
How one team has 8 seconds of advantage and another almost identical line break 22 seconds.
How a tip tackle isn’t punished.
I think you’re missing the point he is making in the fact that, the referee was not unbiased (subconscious obviously.)
If this is something that needs to be done to get the 50/50 calls 50/50 then so be it.
There may be an element of give us a shot at those calls, but why should he have to do this?? It’s a joke that you cannot get clarification until 72 hours after.

Hahahahahahaha

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Sorry, but if you’re happy about this then you are likely to be part of the problem.

I guess i missed the memo where they appointed you an authority, judge and jury on the subject.

What Erasmus did was basically say ‘**** you’ to the system.

Precisely.

Do you understand what the current system encourages? This is what the system you appear to defend not only allows but only allows, by design:
- forces the coaches/directors/RUs to submit questions, clarification requests and complaints privately and only privately.
- There is no appeal process if you get an unsatisfactory response. They basically are allowed to reply 'fucky you' and there is nothing you can do about it. If you dont understand a way a rule is enforced, it is your problem.
- There is an article in Regulation 18 (cited on this very thread) that basically states that if you voice your complaint publicly you are breaking the regulation and are liable to a sanction


In a nutshell, the people who create the mess are not only the ones who receive the complaints about the mess but also the ones who judge and punish those who raise the complaints (either directly or by proxy). All of this is done behind closed doors and those who talk about it publicly are liable to punishment.
If you dont see the problem, well, i cant help you.

So yes, when RE says '**** you' to the system i am with him. You need a hell of an argument to argue against transparency, guidance and clarity. I've yet to see an argument, at all. All i hear is 'you shouldnt do that'? **** the system indeed.

Again, talk to coaches anywhere. They all have the same questions RE has. RE is not the problem here, He is just the messenger and shutting him up will not solve the problem. At best, it will only delay the consequences.

But i will bite and this goes for anyone on this thread. Let's assume for a second what RE did in a desperate attempt to get an answer is wrong, unequivocally wrong (keyword here been 'assume'). Now, if what he did is wrong you need to provide me with an alternative process through which i can get answers, guaranteed. Which is that process?
Failure to provide such a process only justifies RE's actions. The guy is falling on a grenade. If anything we should give the guy a medal (not really, he is doing it for other reasons too, but nevertheless).

And again, i understand the bias from B&I lions supporters. I do. But if you want to argue with justification then answer the question: which alternative process guarantees answers to RE's questions?
When the current process provides you with no answers it is inevitable (you could even argue desirable) for people to seek for alternative ways to achieve that goal. RE is not to blame for that. Those who do not provide reasonable answers are.

Assuming people will be indefinitely happy with unclarity, secrecy and lack of answers is pretty stupid. This was long overdue. I'll play Nostradamus for a sec: lack of answers will only result in something similar happening again. And again.

 

[GlennE2]

If he was arguing in good faith, he would not be doing it by posting a 1 hour long video on social media for god sake...

This is a publicity stunt and an attempt to influence the refs.

If he has exhausted all available channels and still not received the courtesy of a reply then what else was he supposed to do?

 

[Becca]

He was expected to wait, like every other Coach, until he gained a response.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If he has exhausted all available channels and still not received the courtesy of a reply then what else was he supposed to do?

There is a grand total of zero evidence he did so.

Even if that was the case, you don't produce a 1 hour long video ranting about every single tiny infringement in a game. If he really wanted to go public he could very easily have simply said he asked for clarification and got none. He didn't. I'm amazed people still can't see this for the stunt it is and are acting like he is some ******* martyr taking on a corrupt world rugby that just hates South Africa oh so much...

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Precisely.

Do you understand what the current system encourages? This is what the system you appear to defend not only allows but only allows, by design:
- forces the coaches/directors/RUs to submit questions, clarification requests and complaints privately and only privately.
- There is no appeal process if you get an unsatisfactory response. They basically are allowed to reply 'fucky you' and there is nothing you can do about it. If you dont understand a way a rule is enforced, it is your problem.
- There is an article in Regulation 18 (cited on this very thread) that basically states that if you voice your complaint publicly you are breaking the regulation and are liable to a sanction

Is that so different from most other professional bodies? Very few organisations play out their internal workings in public. Why should a sport be different?

As far as Erasmus goes I think he embarrassed himself, his employer (you can’t separate the two), the game and many would argue his country. He had no altruistic motives and when everything’s calmed down I hope he thinks it was worth trading his dignity for.

And rest assured I’d say exactly the same if Eddie Jones had plumbed those depths.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Is that so different from most other professional bodies? Very few organisations play out their internal workings in public. Why should a sport be different?

I don't know but to be very honest, saying others do it too doesn't really justify a lot in my book. Maybe they do it for the wrong reasons. Maybe the level of controversy regarding clarity of rules and sanctions doesn't have the impact it does on rugby. Maybe it is incredibly sport-specific. Maybe it's a way of protecting themselves from wrongdoings. Maybe it's a way of concentrating power in a few hands. I don't know and i think the answer to the question could very well be irrelevant. Or not. Hard to tell with the info they give us.

The question i posed was along the lines of "is it good or not"? Others doing it is not a reason. Why others do it could be very enlightening, but the why part of the answer is the relevant bit, not the who.

All those maybe's could be better answered if we had, well, clarity and disclosure, which we do not. It becomes a matter of, well, faith. The powers that be claim this is the best way and it is also best if we don't know why? Seriously?
And one guy comes along and (for the wrong reasons, sure) kicks the board game off the table?
Sure, i'd like to buy the guy a drink. I'd pay for his entire tab if he'd let me.
Again, i understand your bias, i do. But do you understand where my argument is comming from? It's an honest question. I have no skin in the game here. I do not care, at all, who wins the tour.
I sincerely believe what he is doing is good, for the wrong reasons, but good for the sport.

But I digress. I like to give a straight answer to a straight question. Short answer, i do not know. I see no reason for privacy and secrecy but I am willing to be proven wrong and correct my view on this. I need help in order to do that, thou. Give me a reason where the game becomes better when these things are private vs public and let's discuss the specifics. But if you (not you) can't give me those reasons then I have to figure out them by myself and the only ones i can come up with don't look pretty. Again, it is not my first choice. I am eager to hear those good reasons and willing to change my mind, but give me something, because so far no one, ever, here or elsewhere, has explained to me what those reasons are.

If i have to sum it up in one line this would be it: I want answers and I see one party looking for answers (RE) and one party hiding them (WR). Naive, sure, that's why it's a one-liner and it's a situation WR and not RE created.

And rest assured I’d say exactly the same if Eddie Jones had plumbed those depths.

'Agreed'. I would be asking for a medal for him in that case, too. Statues and parades wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

But do you understand where my argument is comming from?

Not really, no
All sounds really tin foil tbh

Plus you keep claiming everyone (else) is bias, when a lot of NH fans on here want SA to win/are actively rooting against the lions