The refereeing of the 2010 Tri Nations

[smartcooky]

We won the dam thing twice and while NZ did win in 87 many Kiwi supporters tell me it does not count (well the cape town ones anyway) unless the Boks are in it.

Rubbish mate.

Firstly, it wasn't NZ's fault that the Boks weren't in it. Only one small group of racists to blame for that state of affairs.

Secondly, the Boks were crap in the late 1980s. They struggled to beat a NZ "B" team (Cavaliers), the Jaguars (effectively Argentina with a couple of Uruguayans thrown in as tokens). In 1989, they struggled to beat a scratch "World" XV, and all of that time with their own biased and corrupt home-town referees. Even if they had been at the 1987 World Cup, there is no guarantee they would have won it. Even if they had made it out of their group (Pool 4 instead of Zimbabwe), they would likely have met NZ in the quarter final.

In short, the 1987 World Cup counts as a World Cup, and no-one anywhere else in the world (other than South Africa) gives a f**k that you weren't there. Those South Africans who say it doesn't count are just suffering from sour grapes. If it was important enough to the average white Saffa to be there, they would have voted their racist government out.

I am old enough to have been there and experienced the 1987 World Cup. South Africa's absence didn't even get a mention.... they weren't missed.

 

[User1245]

What??...lol never thought I'd hear AB fans say something like that. The world doesnt wait for no-one to sort themselves out and that was the case in 1987.

Yeah agreed.

But I understand where he coming from although it's tainted. Sparty is coming from a community which supported the All Blacks in order to appose the Boks. Not out of nationality or pride.
The All Blacks were the only team who could challenge the Boks back in the day, and they involuntary became a symbol for the coloured Cape community.

This kind of sentiment towards the '87 WC from that faction of AB supporters is as of a result. It's tainted and serves it's own needs, and has nothing to do with sport. You won't hear the same tune about the '91 Wallabies from them.

 

[Sam Owen]

Sparty is coming from a community which supported the All Blacks in order to appose the Boks. Not out of nationality or pride.
The All Blacks were the only team who could challenge the Boks back in the day, and they involuntary became a symbol for the coloured Cape community.

This kind of sentiment towards the '87 WC from that faction of AB supporters is as of a result. It's tainted and serves it's own needs, and has nothing to do with sport. You won't hear the same tune about the '91 Wallabies from them.

Oh yes I've seen this an old documentary. Oh ok I see where Sparty's comin from now. Thanks.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Downgrade the '87 cup all you like, but at the end of the day, that has absolutely no relevance to this thread. This thread is about this years refereeing. I'd love to know the purpose and relevance of it to this years refereeing please? It's just mindless baiting. The issues in this thread are involved enough.

Starting another one on the '87 world cup is suggested.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I too believe it was a nothing incident but I want to point out it was actually the Boks ball, it came off an All Black player, and McCaw still went for it. Not sure why Burger threw it away. Maybe to avoid confrontation?

It would be obvious to anyone and beyond dispute that for a tackling player to be going after the ball, when the tackled player has just been involved in a tackle which may look as though he's carried it into touch, the attacking player is highly likely to be going for a quick throw in. McCaw obviously wasn't aware that the ball had come off an All Black.

Still that's besides the main point. I think the question is simple. Squirrel contends that McCaw's contact with the head was an (presumably deliberate) attack on Burger's eyes, which in turn would deserve as much punishment as what Burger did during the Lions series.

Just out of interest, who from South Africa believes on actually seeing what McCaw did, that it is the same kind of situation?

 

[Sparty]

Rubbish mate.

Firstly, it wasn't NZ's fault that the Boks weren't in it. Only one small group of racists to blame for that state of affairs.

Secondly, the Boks were crap in the late 1980s. They struggled to beat a NZ "B" team (Cavaliers), the Jaguars (effectively Argentina with a couple of Uruguayans thrown in as tokens). In 1989, they struggled to beat a scratch "World" XV, and all of that time with their own biased and corrupt home-town referees. Even if they had been at the 1987 World Cup, there is no guarantee they would have won it. Even if they had made it out of their group (Pool 4 instead of Zimbabwe), they would likely have met NZ in the quarter final.

In short, the 1987 World Cup counts as a World Cup, and no-one anywhere else in the world (other than South Africa) gives a f**k that you weren't there. Those South Africans who say it doesn't count are just suffering from sour grapes. If it was important enough to the average white Saffa to be there, they would have voted their racist government out.

I only mentioned it becos I was trying to highlight why I thought NZ deserved to win , as a WC win without SA in it is not the same. It was the same for us in 2007 , yes we will take the win for sure but many feel it was gifted to us with a easy passage to the finals and Iwould have prefered to beat NZ on our way to the finals.

I am old enough to have been there and experienced the 1987 World Cup. South Africa's absence didn't even get a mention.... they weren't missed.

I think u kidding yourself , just this past w\end All Black legend said that the ABS vs Boks is the ultimate in world rugby , our history is too strong and we have been the only team to trouble the ABS in the past (well besides France in WC games).

Downgrade the '87 cup all you like, but at the end of the day, that has absolutely no relevance to this thread. This thread is about this years refereeing. I'd love to know the purpose and relevance of it to this years refereeing please? It's just mindless baiting. The issues in this thread are involved enough.

Starting another one on the '87 world cup is suggested.

sorry mate it was not about downgrading the 87 win and yes you correct it has no relevance. I was certainly not baiting anyone to clear matters.

Yeah agreed.

But I understand where he coming from although it's tainted. Sparty is coming from a community which supported the All Blacks in order to appose the Boks. Not out of nationality or pride.
The All Blacks were the only team who could challenge the Boks back in the day, and they involuntary became a symbol for the coloured Cape community.

This kind of sentiment towards the '87 WC from that faction of AB supporters is as of a result. It's tainted and serves it's own needs, and has nothing to do with sport. You won't hear the same tune about the '91 Wallabies from them.

correct , many of my Dads friends and family represented the "colored boks" in their day but never got to play for the country hence the dislike (hate is such a strong word) the Boks. You will always hear that marvel about the ABS and the 70's Lions series as these are the teams that beat the boks. ALso our admiration comes from how the ABS play and its is a style more liked by us than the Boks bash em way or 10 man rugby. Today still many of these guys and their kids support the ABS and NZ super 14 teams , you should see them when any touring team plays in Cape Town. I have friends that welcomes the Blues at the airport 06H00 the morning

 

[Sparty]

Just out of interest, who from South Africa believes on actually seeing what McCaw did, that it is the same kind of situation?

Just out of interest who believed Danie Roussow deserved that yellow ? Or Jean De Villiers a 2 weeks vs Woodcocks nothing ? FYI I dont believe Mccaw is guilty but neither was Jean , Danie etc etc and they got punished so I believe its inconsistant. Simarly I think it was Franks shoulder charge into Juan De Jongh. The citing's has been one side to say the least and downright unfair in some cases.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Just out of interest who believed Danie Roussow deserved that yellow ? Or Jean De Villiers a 2 weeks vs Woodcocks nothing ? FYI I dont believe Mccaw is guilty but neither was Jean , Danie etc etc and they got punished so I believe its inconsistant. Simarly I think it was Franks shoulder charge into Juan De Jongh. The citing's has been one side to say the least and downright unfair in some cases.

Oh answering a legit question with a question? Thanks, that says more than enough.

 

[smartcooky]

I only mentioned it becos I was trying to highlight why I thought NZ deserved to win.....................I have friends that welcomes the Blues at the airport 06H00 the morning

OK, I'll wind my head in Sparty. I completely misunderstood your post. Sorry pal. It just looked like yet another "1987 wasn't a real World Cup because the Boks weren't there" argument.

So you are what used to be referred to as a "Cape Coloured" (if that's not an appropriate term, I apologise again). Like Sam, I remember seeing documentary recently about the All Black supporters in Cape Town or more precisely, I think they referred to it as the "Cape Flats"?

Now you may find this interesting. The first Soccer world Cup was in 1930 (and no, I was not there!). It was won by Uruguay who beat Argentina in the final. The next world cup was in 1934, but Uruguay, the champions didn't go, nor did Argentina. They qualified, but withdrew, as did Peru and Chile. Brazil was the only South American team to go, but they got knocked out by Spain in the first round. Again in 1938, neither Uruguay nor Argentina went, even though they were qualified. I don't think anyone considers Italy (1934) or France (1938) as not being real World Cup holders of their era just because two of the most powerful teams in the world at that time, chose not to go.

 

[smartcooky]

IMO...

► The McCaw - Burger incident was nothing.

► The Rossouw - McCaw incident was nothing, but Rossouw acted stupidly in drawing attention to himself by upping the ante and going after McCaw after he got to his feet. If he had let it lie, nothing would have happened.

► de Villiers, Cooper and Fourie all deserved their suspensions. The Law is clear... TIP TACKLES THAT END WITH THE PLAYER BEING DROPPED OR DRIVEN ARE OUT!!! No argument!

► Rene Ranger's tackle was NOT a shoulder charge when you saw the slo-mo, but given that he was penalised, he probably should have been yellow carded. He would not have been suspended afterwards

► Bakkies Botha should have been red carded for the head butt. How did both the referee and the nearside touch judge miss it? Those who say it would not have happened if Cowan had been penalised for the pull back are talking ********; the referee would have played advantage, and Bakkies would have done it anyway. Thugs like Bakkies can't resist getting the filthy cheap shot in any chance they get. In fact, if the referee had seen Cowan and played advantage, he would also have been more likely to be looking at Cowan instead of the ball after he got the ball away, so he would likely have seen the head butt... then bye bye Bakkies!!!

► Tony Woodcock should have got a yellow card. Yes, Fa'ainga was loitering around on the NZ side of the ruck, but what Woodcock did was unacceptable. He could not be cited for reasons I have explained elsewhere, but he certainly should have spent 10 min. keeping the naughty chair warm.

 

[wjd23104]

Talking of the Ref's i have seen this theory that SA have been disadvantaged by having northern Refs, Funny how this wasn't an issue last year when the Bok's were winning. SA's problems come down to fitness not the Ref's.

 

[woodward]

Did O' brien not visit the ABS in their hotel room last year to apologies for Stuat Dickensons reffing in the ABS - Italy game. I remember his absolute scathing attack on Stuat Dick. This year we had a SA ref dropped for flagging Aussie Winger Mitchel for a shoulder charge but surprisingly Kaplon escaped any censorship for missing Tony Woodcock's thuggery on the Aussie Hooker , Woodcock also not surprisingly missed being cited. Lastly we had the w\ends game where Paddy and co seemed to forget the utter k@k standards they set and allowed Mccaw (facial attack on Burger) and Franks ( shoulder charge into Juan De Jongh ) to escape scott free , imagine that. At least he said that the pass was forward , but I wonder how come he did not feel the need to also apologise to SA ? He set that k@k standard.

And I am yet to see anyone say anything about the 2 fouls here on TRF but be that as it may all is over , karma is a BIT** and next year is the knock outs (if u make it ) when u lose dont feel too bad lol

Quite sad and pathetic, people like you give your country its reputation for bad sportsmanship. If you didn't notice the referee and citing commissioner missed a eye gouge by burger

 

[woodward]

I think u kidding yourself , just this past w\end All Black legend said that the ABS vs Boks is the ultimate in world rugby , our history is too strong and we have been the only team to trouble the ABS in the past (well besides France in WC games).

Na in the modern era the Wallabies have been our greatest rivals

 

[Hurricane Nate]

Bit of talk bout the AB world cup record or lack of. I'd take practically 100 years of domination of rugby over a few measly world cups any day hahaha.

 

[squirrel]

im with you their mr nate, i would rather my team demolish all other teams 90% of the time

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Bit of talk bout the AB world cup record or lack of. I'd take practically 100 years of domination of rugby over a few measly world cups any day hahaha.

Have I thought that myself many a time or what. I'd rather be the best team overall than a world cup winner. The world cup is a fickle albeit important trophy.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

And another *****ing and moaning topic! It's weird to see how much the kiwi's want to win the World Cup but when they don't, some of them write it off as a unimportant little tournament.

New Zealand are superior in the Tri-Nations, South Africa has had success in the Super 14 lately and Australia has won the World Cup twice (together with the Springboks). The moaning about the referees is pathetic, from both sides! New Zealand is very successful together with the other 2.

Funny thing that the World Cup was the idea of a NZ though. Can we please stop comparing and *****ing? it's like teenage boys looking to see who has the biggest ****

 

[woodward]

to be honest I think the lack of All Black success at World Cups has made it hyped more and not just in NZ. It's effectively the only chance for any country to hold anything against the All Blacks for any real length of time, its basically a leveller. France would never have been considered a better team but because it only came down to a one off game they could put everything into it and by good fortune, a lot of passion and a bit of flair they pulled off the upsets. I'm not trying to downplay the World Cup but it has been over hyped partly because of the reason just mentioned, that its a chance for everyone else to get the All Blacks, the result of it is not a definitive reflection of the best rugby team and it has benefited from association with the soccer world cup. I think people forget that unlike football their is meaningful competition year in year out between all the top nations and a World Cup is no different from the competition with see regularly anyway.

 

[squirrel]

and the fact graham henry wouldnt shut up about it and devalued the jersey in the process then failed to achieve the cup

 

[woodward]

and caused you to pretend to be a south african

 

[Draco]

I think this year revs was very un professional towards the Springboks....there was not one match I watched the I saw plenty of mistakes.

Yes, refs are human, but when it is mistakes thats made right in front of them it makes me wonder how much of a mistake it really is.

Am I whining....you bet....it's obveous why.....or did "you" also not see?

I guess this year it was our turn.....hopefully next year the whining will come from someone else.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

to be honest I think the lack of All Black success at World Cups has made it hyped more and not just in NZ. It's effectively the only chance for any country to hold anything against the All Blacks for any real length of time, its basically a leveller. France would never have been considered a better team but because it only came down to a one off game they could put everything into it and by good fortune, a lot of passion and a bit of flair they pulled off the upsets. I'm not trying to downplay the World Cup but it has been over hyped partly because of the reason just mentioned, that its a chance for everyone else to get the All Blacks, the result of it is not a definitive reflection of the best rugby team and it has benefited from association with the soccer world cup. I think people forget that unlike football their is meaningful competition year in year out between all the top nations and a World Cup is no different from the competition with see regularly anyway.

Sorry but The Six Nations and Tri Nations don't really reflect a worldwide domination. If you want to know who is the best team in the World, teams should play each other no matter where they are from. Now France won the Six Nations this year, South Africa the Tri-Nations last year. When SA beat France back in june, did that make them the best team in the World? According to your theory it did.

I don't agree. A World Cup is the defying moment every 4 years to prove you are the best. Of course there are always upsets but that happens in football. This year Spain won the World Cup when in fact Germany was the better team. The 1 loss in the semi's vs. the Spanish cost them the title. That's life. Same with New Zealand. Amazing team but in 2007 they lose to a French team which was a one in ten chance of them winning.

Winning the World Cup is the biggest price to win in every sport (except the Olympic gold medal if it's an Olympic sport) and sometimes it hangs by a thread. What if the English try was awarded in the final? That's how close it gets.

Don't give me the crap that the Tri-Nations is a meaningful competition to decide who's the World's best. It just doesn't work that way. You cannot take a tournament with 3 teams and say that's a reflection of the ranking. Or 6. The Six Nations is not a worldwide tournament and neither is the Tri-Nations

 

[Jer1cho]

I think that when the next Trfies™ Awards come around, it's going to be impossible to decide on a winner for the least-grammatically able member on this forum...

 

[woodward]

Aside from the fact that the three best teams are almost always the 3N teams, there are June internationals and EOYT.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

And another *****ing and moaning topic! It's weird to see how much the kiwi's want to win the World Cup but when they don't, some of them write it off as a unimportant little tournament.

New Zealand are superior in the Tri-Nations, South Africa has had success in the Super 14 lately and Australia has won the World Cup twice (together with the Springboks). The moaning about the referees is pathetic, from both sides! New Zealand is very successful together with the other 2.

Funny thing that the World Cup was the idea of a NZ though. Can we please stop comparing and *****ing? it's like teenage boys looking to see who has the biggest ****

1. No-one said the don't want to win the world cup OR that it was an unimportant little tournament. That's you making those words up and putting them in our mouths. We just said if we had to choose between winning it and being permanently lower ranked as an international side, we'd rather be ranked higher.

2. The World Cup was not just the idea of New Zealand. It was hosted here first, but the idea was in the heads of many rugby administrators from many different parts of the world for several years.

3. The moaning about the refs is pathetic, from both sides? Well you obviously are struggling to read because New Zealands fans are generally not the ones complaining about refereeing decisions.

So, on three counts you are completely wrong and proven so.

Stop trying to come in here like your "the mature one" and we're all immature, your no better than anyone else.

 

[Sparty]

Na in the modern era the Wallabies have been our greatest rivals

In your deluded mind sure. I will take Sean Fitzpatrick , Zinzan Brooke and others word overs yours thanks ! LOL

 

[nickdnz]

I think that when the next Trfies™ Awards come around, it's going to be impossible to decide on a winner for the least-grammatically able member on this forum...

Haha, good call.

On a slightly different note, the stress from Tri Nations posts is hurting me. I'm hanging around the NH side of the forum for a while. God those people are lovely.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Haha, good call.

On a slightly different note, the stress from Tri Nations posts is hurting me. I'm hanging around the NH side of the forum for a while. God those people are lovely.

It's true, we're excellent.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

It's true, we're excellent.

Most of you, lol.

 

[Sparty]

Bit of talk bout the AB world cup record or lack of. I'd take practically 100 years of domination of rugby over a few measly world cups any day hahaha.

Prior to readmission to world rugby in 92 SA has a very good record against the ABS actually. Its was about equal with SA shading the ABS fractually in wins/losses , its only after 92 that the ABS created a gap which the Boks tried to close last last a little but failed miserably this year. So yes 100 years of domination is kinda exaggerated