RWC 2011: THE FINAL!!! France vs. New Zealand

[markshaw]

Champs baby, still partying

 

[smartcooky]

Look it's the laws that are at fault here. Now you could say Rougerie stepped through the ruck as he goes over the feet of a player. That is the gate isn't it? and if it's not, then why is the ball in a direct line with Rougeries path?..

It's the laws, they just don't make sense.

There is no gate at the ruck. That is a common misconception. The gate only applies at the tackle.

However, even if you argue that this is not a ruck, but a tackle instead, then Rougerie still acts illegally, because he does not initially come from directly behind the ball.

In this photo (ignore the offside line because it would not apply
if this was a tackle) you can see that he is clearly well to our side of
where the ball is. If you want to say this is a tackle, then right
there, he has entered the tackle zone from the side; and this
would be a material offence because he takes part in play...PING!!

 

[Isurus]

Well, I think that this backline has everything. It's a backline that consists of running, crashing the defensive line, breaking through, kicking. It is what you guys missed over the years. Not that you were bad, but now it all falls into place.

Wow, ok. Thought you may have mistyped.

You do realise that your 15 year timeframe covers most of the international careers of the likes of Christian Cullen, Jonah Lomu, Tana Umaga, Jeff Wilson, Joe Rokocoko, Sitiveni Sivivatu, and others? I am curious, which teams did have edge by your criteria in the last 15 years?

 

[donmcdazzle]

How is that ball in the ruck?
There's no legs or feet over it, it's just lying on the floor next to a prone player?

He was already offside in the first photo anyway

 

[donmcdazzle]

lol, go ahead. Honestly I think some people here need to man up and come clean about comments towards beaver and my assessment of his abilities and potential at test level over the last few years.

I hope the NZ public learns from this, apart from the fact people should just acknowledge my assessment of players as fact ... People need to encourage and get behind the all blacks no matter what because like it or not the guys selected are the best we have and they will perform closer to their potential with the public opinion behind them and not on top of them.

It's a shame he waited until his last game for the AB's to play with confidence in the black jersey. Good on him, after all the stick he's received it was good to see him get the monkey off his back. He still managed to sneak one "Donald moment" in when he ran into touch haha.

Good on you Stevie, his legacy now will be kicking the winning points in the final (although he won't go down as an AB "great")

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Wow, ok. Thought you may have mistyped.

You do realise that your 15 year timeframe covers most of the international careers of the likes of Christian Cullen, Jonah Lomu, Tana Umaga, Jeff Wilson, Joe Rokocoko, Sitiveni Sivivatu, and others? I am curious, which teams did have edge by your criteria in the last 15 years?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it's better players now than 10 years ago... I feel that you have players who complete each other in the backline now. That is what makes a good team evolve into a great team.

 

[kovana]

Another thing after watching the 3rd replay of the final. In the lead up to the Woodcock try... It was a PK to touch by weepu that got them into the French 22. But the penalty that gave them the ball is really off.

Mccaw tackles Dusatoir and turns him.. But Mccaw does not release Dusatoir nor does he roll away , thereby preventing Dusatoir from presenting the ball back to his own players.. Weepu comes in and rightly tries to steal the ball.. Nothing wrong with Weepu, but Mccaw is the one who should be penalized.

 

[smartcooky]

No one seems to have said anything in defence of McCaw's hit on Parra.

Nonu was in possession of the ball and was tackled by Parra. First man on the scene was Desautoir who attempted to turn the ball over. McCaw arrived before Parra had rolled away and attempted to clear Dusautoir out and retain All Black possession. In the process McCaw's left hand strikes/hits/brushes Parra's right cheek and then McCaw's left knee hits Parra in the right temple.

The slow motion replay from the New Zealand end makes this look horrible. Parra was certainly struck and hurt during this clearout.

Here's a video which shows this in the worst possible light:


Some points:
1. In my opinion McCaw seems to have no motivation other than to clearout Dusautoir.
2. He leads into Dusautoir with his left hand, aiming to get under Dusautoir's left arm to remove it from the area where the ball is located. Technically sound, but his left hand strikes Parra on the way through.
3. This all happened very quickly but Parra certainly made no motion to roll away. In fact, at the moment that McCaw arrives Parra raises his head and that is when the initial contact between hand and face occurs.
4. All of McCaw's energy continues to be aimed at removing Dusautoir which he succeeds in doing.

Is anyone going to make a case that McCaw's actions here were actually malicious or underhanded? At the very worst he was careless. Barely that. Parra was just a little unlucky I think.

Accidental collision, nothing more.

For all the criticism McCaw cops for his close to the limit of the Laws play, from supporters of the teams he plays against, he is not, never has been, and never will be a cheap shot artist, unlike some others we won't mention.

 

[shtove]

The "moment of madness" happens AFTER Rougerie illegally kicks the ball out of the NZ side of the ruck. Do you seriously beleive that the French would still have scored that try anyway? YOU must be joking.



OK

Here is Kaino, the player in front of McCaw (our view is obstructed by France 17 and the French player beyond). He appears to be on his feet competing for the ball. He's the first man to the breakdown and no ruck has yet been formed.

Kaino is still on his feet, and has moved slightly forward. A ruck has been formed by the arrival of France player whos number we cannot see. However, since Kaino has his hands on the ball already, he is entitled to KEEP his hands on the ball.

[TEXTAREA]16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES

(b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

However, in the act of picking the ball up, he knocks it on, and, after waving play-on and playing advantage to give France a chance the continue with play, the ball does not come out, and so Joubert correctly awards the scrum to France.

If you watch the sequence from 1:07 to 1:24, after you have read and understood what I have written here, you will see that Joubert was right, and Mr Pink Shirt is wrong.

All respect, but NO. Kaino is simply not on his feet.

Remember Joubert saying to Pocock in the semis, You were down on one knee? The Aussie's knee hit the ground for a second, and straight back up. No materiality - hehe! But still a penalty.

Inconsistent.

ps. I just watched the Setanta reel, surprised they didn't address the toaster pop-up performance of the AB frontrow. And you don't recognise the guy in the pink shirt, Matt Williams?

pps. I agree on the McCaw thing - "scything clear out" meets "just popping my head out the top of the trench".

 

[kovana]

To be honest.. Joubert was more favoring the home town boys in his decisions.. Its natural.

If the Final was played outside of NZ, i dont think NZ would have won.

 

[Isurus]

In this photo (ignore the offside line because it would not apply
if this was a tackle) you can see that he is clearly well to our side of
where the ball is. If you want to say this is a tackle, then right
there, he has entered the tackle zone from the side; and this
would be a material offence because he takes part in play...PING!!

What is shown here is not, by definition, a ruck.
[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]Law 16: Ruck
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on
their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has
ended.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or
keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play. ..[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


So I went back to the video to see what happened before the photo above. It was definitely a ruck. Dagg was tackled by Mermoz then Dusautoir was the first there on his feet followed closely by Smith and Weepu. Donald and Thorn then arrived together and their combined force with no opposition pushed the ruck over resulting in what we see above.

So is the ruck over then?

No, not according to the laws.
[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]16.6 SUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the
goal line.
16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered.
The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the
ruck throws in the ball.
If neither team was moving forward, or if the referee cannot decide which team was moving
forward before the ball became unplayable in the ruck, the team that was moving forward
before the ruck began throws in the ball.
If neither team was moving forward, then the attacking team throws in the ball.
(b) Before the referee blows the whistle for a scrum, the referee allows a reasonable amount of
time for the ball to emerge, especially if either team is moving forward. If the ruck stops
moving, or if the referee decides that the ball will probably not emerge within a reasonable
time, the referee must order a scrum.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Nothing in 16.7 is applicable here so what is relevant is whether the ball has left the ruck and I think that has been dealt with by smartcooky - no, the ball is still in the ruck.

Another thing after watching the 3rd replay of the final. In the lead up to the Woodcock try... It was a PK to touch by weepu that got them into the French 22. But the penalty that gave them the ball is really off.

Mccaw tackles Dusatoir and turns him.. But Mccaw does not release Dusatoir nor does he roll away , thereby preventing Dusatoir from presenting the ball back to his own players.. Weepu comes in and rightly tries to steal the ball.. Nothing wrong with Weepu, but Mccaw is the one who should be penalized.

McCaw does release Dusautoir and he does roll away. It's a timing thing for sure but I think he timed it just about perfectly. The problem was that Dusautoir had no support and he did hold on. Trinh-Duc eventually arrives and clears out Weepu but it was too late to stop the penalty being awarded.

Accidental collision, nothing more.

For all the criticism McCaw cops for his close to the limit of the Laws play, from supporters of the teams he plays against, he is not, never has been, and never will be a cheap shot artist, unlike some others we won't mention.

Agree 100%. McCaw has a long career behind him at various levels and i don't recall ever seeing him do anything malicious. As for playing close to or over the limits of the laws - that is his job and he does it better than anyone.

Here is Kaino, the player in front of McCaw (our view is obstructed by France 17 and the French player beyond). He appears to be on his feet competing for the ball. He's the first man to the breakdown and no ruck has yet been formed.

Kaino is still on his feet, and has moved slightly forward. A ruck has been formed by the arrival of France player whos number we cannot see. However, since Kaino has his hands on the ball already, he is entitled to KEEP his hands on the ball.

[TEXTAREA]16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES

(b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

I agree mostly with what you have said here but there are a number of seconds that go by and the coverage certainly does not give us much of a view of what occurred in those seconds. A number of French players that could see what was going on protested to the referee. I suspect what happened is that Kaino went down onto his knees and then got back up again, or he took his hands off the ball and then subsequently played the ball on the ground. But we don't have the evidence in the coverage to say definitively what happened.

However, in the act of picking the ball up, he knocks it on, and, after waving play-on and playing advantage to give France a chance the continue with play, the ball does not come out, and so Joubert correctly awards the scrum to France.

Joubert does not see the knock on, he does not play advantage, and he does not blow for the knock-on. He must have seen the ball come out the back of the ruck without seeing the knock-on, followed by various players competing for possession. Joubert blows up when it is clear the ball is not coming out and awards the scrum to France because they are moving forward.

 

[kovana]

McCaw does release Dusautoir and he does roll away. It's a timing thing for sure but I think he timed it just about perfectly. The problem was that Dusautoir had no support and he did hold on. Trinh-Duc eventually arrives and clears out Weepu but it was too late to stop the penalty being awarded.

He did not release Dusatoir and he was laying right there and therefore preventing Dusatoir from putting the ball back.. Look at how weepu got hold of the ball. Dusatoir couldnt put the ball back on his side.

 

[Isurus]

He did not release Dusatoir and he was laying right there and therefore preventing Dusatoir from putting the ball back.. Look at how weepu got hold of the ball. Dusatoir couldnt put the ball back on his side.

From the time they hit the ground to the time McCaw released was about 1.5 seconds and most of that they were still in motion from the momentum of the tackle. I think you are wrong on this - I don't know what more I can say.

 

[Blacktrick]

Sheeeeeez ! After reading all these comments and arguments about the ruck, who's offside, who's illegally joined, who's on their feet, etc. Itbmakes me realize how hard it is to Ref this game effectively, you'll always get wrong interpretations. All the more reason to support making the World Cup final a 3 game affair!.................maybe I'll start supporting netball....

 

[smartcooky]

And you don't recognise the guy in the pink shirt, Matt Williams?

So its confirmed then. He is an idiot!

 

[nix0000]

If Sam Owen is out there, i accept i was wrong about my 10 minute bet, however, i think only a few would deny that if France had taken the lead in that last 10 we wouldn't have come back. So while our defence was stunning in that last 10, and we closed out well, i honestly couldn't have seen us come back to grab another 3 in the death. Big ups to Ellis and Donald-don't think anyone expected them to be the half pairing in the clutch period of a world cup final- but I doubt we would have composed enough to regain the lead.

U also said I was overtly critical as an Ab fan. well in 2007 I was a naive Abs supporter who was caught off guard by our loss to France; I was already thinking about a SA vs Nz final. Since that day, I started to realise that the Abs aren't God's gift to sport and realised that while we have one HELL of a team, it ain't unbeatable. It's important to be critical of teams you support imo than to be a one eyed idiot. I was being critical because everybody had forgotten how so-so we'd been in the Argentina game- which was always going to be a better representation of what was to follow than that game agianst that soft Aussie forward pack. I understood the French had about a blimin good scrum, a solid lineout, and a world class loose trio capable of upseting ours, and backs which if they got their s**t together on the night could cause us nightmares.

 

[austingtir]

All this discusion proves is that some rules of the game really need to be looked at and cleared up alot. Joubert probably woudnt have made it out of the country had he awarded a kickable penalty for anything that went on in the last 20 minutes in that game. Most of this is neither here nor there and to win a WC final on that sort of rubbish decision would be more of a disgrace than letting the players just duke it out with loose rulings for 20minutes at the end of the game.

I think joubert made mostly the correct decisions and NZ can certainly be thankfull Nigel Owen wasnt in charge of that game as things could of been pretty different.

Im at a total loss how people can say that france deserved to win that game. If they deserved it they would have constructed a decent try for starters. Their try was well taken but certainly imo not well constructed just a bit lucky with nonu muddling around at the back of a ruck.
And ref decisions aside they never looked like constructing anything positive in the last 20 minutes of the game.

Para getting KOed by Mccaw was his own fault imo alot of players put themselves in that position to be seriously hurt to intentionally slow ball down/gain advantage at the ruck. When he stuck his head up like that im sure he knew the consequences of what might happen to him as im sure he's been in that position in FRANCE on many occations and probably would have received similar treatment.

 

[William18]

Sheeeeeez ! After reading all these comments and arguments about the ruck, who's offside, who's illegally joined, who's on their feet, etc. Itbmakes me realize how hard it is to Ref this game effectively, you'll always get wrong interpretations. All the more reason to support making the World Cup final a 3 game affair!.................maybe I'll start supporting netball....

A 3 game final would take the "occasion" out of the match. But, yeah, how can anyone reading this thread criticize Joubert? The breakdown is clearly difficult to officiate and you could probably find a penalty at any second ruck for a number of infringements.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I don't think any team bar the All Blacks would be comfortable with a three match final - Most teams are only rarely able to grab one win over the All Blacks, getting two would be quite unheard of...

 

[jaunard06]

The "moment of madness" happens AFTER Rougerie illegally kicks the ball out of the NZ side of the ruck. Do you seriously beleive that the French would still have scored that try anyway? YOU must be joking.

Please re-read post #861. If this is not a ruck - which is seemingly the referee's interpretation, then Rougerie's kick is valid as we are either in open play or still in a tackle and therefore your whole claim falls apart.

If this is a ruck then there are so many fouls commited by the blacks in that same ruck that we should invent a penalty try especially for it. More seriously, it would have been an immediate penalty kick, and if Joubert had blown every similar opportunity in the match France would have won by 15 points, to be put to the "credit" of McCaw.

Now if this still a tackle zone as you claim now - then there is violation of rule 15.6 as two ABs are lying onto the tackle zone and therefore not on their feet. PENALTY KICK.

And unlike what you said- but you didn't show the exact moment on your pictures - Rougerie is at the same time behind the tackled player and the ball, so his kick is perfectly valid. On the following video:
http://www.akl.stuff.co.nz/waikato-...l-Blacks-vs-France-World-Cup-final-highlights
, at 0:29 we can clearly see the tackled player and the ball, with Rougerie perfectly positioned behind them.

And no, I don't believe that the frenchs would have score that try "anyway", neither that they would not have: YOU believe that this so-called foul had "DIRECTLY" led to the try which is a complete nonsense. There are at least two or three situations where the Blacks had the opportunity to contest the ball, at least two or three rucks, and they could have also try to defend their line instead of letting Dusautoir break into it.

Finally, if you want a fault that "directly" leads to a try, you should rather look at the AB's player that prevents Harinordoquy to run towards Woodcock just after the line-out starts. This violates Law 19.10: "Holding or shoving. A lineout player must not hold, push, charge, obstruct or grasp an opponent not holding the ball except when a ruck or maul is taking place."

THIS directly leads to Woodcock's try.