[2013 TRC] New Zealand vs South Africa in Auckland (14/09/2013)

[Tony Manx]

Please excuse bold but not worked out how to change it on this tablet!!

As for this match, I thought that up to the first yellow, we were dominating in every regard of the match apart from the scoreline. When BDP went off we lost 2 consecutive lineouts because Ruan Pienaar had to throw in. Then the next scrum we got awarded a penalty against us as it was an 8 on 7 scrum and that is always going to be the case as we had to sacrifice another heavy body on the shape of Willem Alberts, who on his own is 120kg's.

Tinus Delport...excuse spelling if wrong.....does not see it that way in summarising the game on UK tv and have to say, I thought the AB's were good for their lead at that time.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Please excuse bold but not worked out how to change it on this tablet!!



Tinus Delport...excuse spelling if wrong.....does not see it that way in summarising the game on UK tv and have to say, I thought the AB's were good for their lead at that time.

Could you please eloborate on what Thinus Delport was saying? Not that I really care what he says as he wasn't a good rugby player when he played and he's not Albert Einsteins brother if you know what I mean...

 

[Tony Manx]

Could you please eloborate on what Thinus Delport was saying? Not that I really care what he says as he wasn't a good rugby player when he played and he's not Albert Einsteins brother if you know what I mean...

I do but basically he said that AB's were good for the win and Boks could have done better! I appreciate he is just one man and not the greatest Bok ever but think he was right from a very neutral perspective!

 

[Colombia]

I think what W18 meant is that regardless of that bad first yellow, the second yellow was legit and so that penalty can't be debated (though the red card can). The second yellow would have happened no matter what, and since the try was scored within the first 10 minutes (we think), then that try can't be debated, either. Now, if it had been scored beyond those first 10, then we could say, 'if du Plessis hadn't been unjustly red-carded, then this try probably wouldn't have happened'.
das

lol with respect bro, which part of "15 v 15" aren't you getting? I know NZ scored against 14 on two occasions, that tells us nothing about which is the better side with a full complement nor does it indicate who would have won the game because BDP would and should have been on within 10 minutes. Taking away the scores against 14 men, the two sides were even. It was an inconclusive game, the rematch should tell us more.

 

[dasNdanger]

lol with respect bro, which part of "15 v 15" aren't you getting? I know NZ scored against 14 on two occasions, that tells us nothing about which is the better side with a full complement nor does it indicate who would have won the game because BDP would and should have been on within 10 minutes. Taking away the scores against 14, the two sides were even.

Oh, I understand. But what I'm saying is that for that particular try it was SA - not a bad ref call - that was responsible for being down a man. Games rarely go a full 80 @ 15-15. Even without a card there are moments when players are down getting attention for some minor boo-boo and not participating in the continuing play.

Yes, NZ scored when SA was down a player, but don't you think if the tables were turned and NZ was down a player that SA would have jumped at the opportunity to score? I think so. That doesn't mean a team is the weaker side or stronger side (depending on who's doing the scoring), it just means that a team should take the opportunities when they're presented with them, and the ABs were presented with the opportunities. Similar opportunities can pop up in any match, even ones that a referee calls perfectly.

That said, I do think SA got a raw deal with that first yellow. I'm pretty sure by now the referee has been shown the error of his ways, too, so hopefully it will be a learning experience for him. That doesn't mean that New Zealand just waltzed away with the game. They fought hard for that win. South Africa IS a force to be reckoned with. It's just that on most days - good calls or bad, injuries or not - New Zealand still usually comes out on top. That's not to say that they can't lose; they have, and they will. It's just that I still think even without the advantages they had this match they would have won, but by a much smaller margin.


das

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Aw, man. Didn't watch the game and not sure I want to. Heard we were competitive enough but just didn't have the hands and some luck today. So now I am Yoe's *****..
Just hope the swing bonus point doesn't cost us the tournament.

 

[TRF_heineken]

 

[dasNdanger]

Aw, man. Didn't watch the game and not sure I want to. Heard we were competitive enough but just didn't have the hands and some luck today. So now I am Yoe's *****..
Just hope the swing bonus point doesn't cost us the tournament.

I think it's a better match to watch than the Aussie/Argentina game, solely for Justin's comment that is now in my sig.

Joking aside, and now that you've heard the problems and arguments about the game, watch it with an open mind and decide for yourself if SA lost because of a bad call, or because they just weren't up to snuff. IMHO they played well, just not well enough and I don't think one the bad call is the reason for the loss (though I do think it's the reason for the size of the point gap).

After the match (before the presentation) de Villiers said, "What a way to disappoint yourself, dishing up a performance like that, but then again I think we've seen tonight how far we're still behind the All Blacks. Credit must go to them for the way they played. They're a fantastic team and we can learn a lot from them." While he did acknowledge the penalty disadvantage, he clearly acknowledged his team's poor play (later stating the missed tackles and poor defense).

He was there, on the ground. We can say all we want about who played this way or that, but he knows first hand what he was up against, and how hard a fight it was. I think they will certainly learn something from this match.


das

 

[Colombia]

Yes, NZ scored when SA was down a player, but don't you think if the tables were turned and NZ was down a player that SA would have jumped at the opportunity to score? I think so. That doesn't mean a team is the weaker side or stronger side (depending on who's doing the scoring).

Correct, which was the point I was making. Yourself and W18 appeared to be implying otherwise. 15 v 15 the teams were even.

Now granted, yellow cards occur in games but when a player returns the team usually have the rest of the time with 15 players to make up any points they have conceded. The case in point was when Du Plessis's own try cancelled out the one scored in his undue absence from the field.

It's just that I still think even without the advantages they had this match they would have won, but by a much smaller margin.

A South African could make the same case for his team, but to what end? It's irrelevant conjecture.

As I said before, this will be settled in their next meeting.

 

[Big Ewis]

Aw, man. Didn't watch the game and not sure I want to. Heard we were competitive enough but just didn't have the hands and some luck today. So now I am Yoe's *****..
Just hope the swing bonus point doesn't cost us the tournament.

:lol:
now now good sir, let's not lose ourselves in distasteful folly...in stead, let's just see each other as equals, except I come back home from long, hard work and you do prepare supper. That's all.

Well hey, you wished this upon yourself !....

scoring more tries than the All-Blacks IN New Zealand
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Kanye-West-Shaking-Head-No.gif

 

[GeneralduPreez]

I don't agree with the comments that Bismark was stupid to get the second yellow card and that the blame for the red lies with him. It didn't look malicious at to me at all, more than an attempted hand-off gone wrong. As Heineken said, if you look at how Bismark plays, he likes to push players away to the side in stead of taking all of their forward momentum. That said, it deserved a yellow, but an "unlucky" one.

I am so fed up with below par refs!!!! "Pottie kak" or whatever his name is (don't really care) has murdered potentially "the game of the year". Both teams looked good early on and it would have gone down to the wire imo.

For how long have we been b#**ing about bad refs in internationals, world cups and super rugby, yet nothing is being done about it. There should be a ref rating system where good refs get rewarded with big games and refs performing badly minor games of less importance. If they are kak, then they must struggle to keep their careers going, just like the bloody rest of us.

But Paddy O'Brien refuses to allow responsibility to fall on refs. I think refs need to be reminded that they are there to serve the game and that their profession depends on the game and not the other way around. But who will convince them.

I am going to buy Piet van Zyl flight tickets to the UK, with a **** load of Klipdrift!

 

[Gena_ZA]

Such a pity what could have been a great contest was spoiled by refereeing
Would love to see how good/bad SA really are without get ****ed by officials

 

[GeneralduPreez]

shame about the cards, Bismarck's first yellow was obviously questionable/bull**** but when you come back on after a yellow you have to be right on your toes and make damn sure you don't pick up another and lifting his elbow towards another players head/throat Bismarck can only blame himself for that and the red card.

Best team still won, ABs won most areas of the game other than the breakdown at times where the boks were strong a won a number of turnovers.

And in the end the AB's won without McCaw, Carter or Dagg, Barrett was more than impressive. Cane was excellent, but Brodie Retallick was simply awesome, it would be hard to recall a lock having a more impressive individual performance in such a big game. Read had another big game and Messam was impressive in his first game since he was man of the match in the Super final.
Even Todd had a good showing as regular blood replacement for Cane.
While Conrad and Nonu both made bad mistakes at critical times they also both made critical plays to create trys. Play didn't really go Ben Smiths way but he still made some critical/big plays in the game.

kinda a rare game where all the ABs were very good in general. just a few individual errors at times, knock ons. But generally they won the gain line, the all important contact, the set plays and the game.

Going into the last couple of games bonus points are going to become critical for the championship. And it seems the ABs will have to do it without Carter or McCaw.

I'm sorry Larksea, but you cannot compare how the All Blacks fared against a 14 man springbok team. Bismark is a key player. In his absence we were not as formidable at the breakdowns and lost a lot of physicality in the pack. Ruan Pienaar had to throw in at a line out and as a 7 man scrum, we were always going to be on back foot. Without strong set pieces, a team will never do well. The springboks found themselves under constant pressure which led to a lot of "scrappy play" in the second half. That said, their first time tackling could have been better.

Bottom line is, the ref killed this game. We will have to wait for Ellis Park to see how the teams measure up.

 

[cityrunner]

The "Blocking Law" aye?

I've been involved in refereeing for over 35 years and I have never heard of that one. Sounds like an NFL Rule to me

The Offside at the Ruck law says nothing about stationary players not being liable to be penalised.

[TEXTAREA]16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
(b) Players must either join a ruck, or retire behind the offside line immediately. If a player
loiters at the side of a ruck, the player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

Perhaps your are confusing this with Law 11, Offside in General Play, which says...

[TEXTAREA]11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.[/TEXTAREA]

However, that is not what the players were penalised for. They were penalised for Obstruction

[TEXTAREA]LAW 10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

Note that the Law SPECIFICALLY says that STATIONARY players can be penalised for Obstruction



Nice try but not quite.

The second PK was against the Springbok tight-head prop for pulling his opponent...

[TEXTAREA]LAW 20.8 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS
(g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or
pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is
being thrown in or afterwards.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

Poite even gave the secondary signal for that.

Thank you for the detailed clarification. I was referring to the rule on Obstruction when I mentioned Blocking. Do you believe that Romane Poite applied these rules in a consistent manner in the game today ? I don't.

 

[GeneralduPreez]

I think it's a better match to watch than the Aussie/Argentina game, solely for Justin's comment that is now in my sig.

Joking aside, and now that you've heard the problems and arguments about the game, watch it with an open mind and decide for yourself if SA lost because of a bad call, or because they just weren't up to snuff. IMHO they played well, just not well enough and I don't think one the bad call is the reason for the loss (though I do think it's the reason for the size of the point gap).

After the match (before the presentation) de Villiers said, "What a way to disappoint yourself, dishing up a performance like that, but then again I think we've seen tonight how far we're still behind the All Blacks. Credit must go to them for the way they played. They're a fantastic team and we can learn a lot from them." While he did acknowledge the penalty disadvantage, he clearly acknowledged his team's poor play (later stating the missed tackles and poor defense).

He was there, on the ground. We can say all we want about who played this way or that, but he knows first hand what he was up against, and how hard a fight it was. I think they will certainly learn something from this match.


das

De Villiers is a gentleman and was only being diplomatic. He is not the type to complain, but will rather look at how he or his team could have changed a situation, rather than blaming others. It is up to us fans to complain.


hhhhuuuurrrrgggg!!!! HULK ANGRY!!!!

 

[GeneralduPreez]

haha. I see now that the forum sensors out 'rude' words. And I thought you were just a bunch of classy people. :moon5zx:

 

[dasNdanger]

haha. I see now that the forum sensors out 'rude' words. And I thought you were just a bunch of classy people. :moon5zx:

Yup - it sensors out relatively mild words like pyss, but lets us post emoticons of shagging bananas. Makes no sense at all.


das

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

:lol:
now now good sir, let's not lose ourselves in distasteful folly...in stead, let's just see each other as equals, except I come back home from long, hard work and you do prepare supper. That's all.

Well hey, you wished this upon yourself !....

scoring more tries than the All-Blacks IN New Zealand
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Kanye-West-Shaking-Head-No.gif

That sounds swell, Dear. What would you like for dinner tomorrow evening?

 

[GeneralduPreez]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4zXEBZLGbE

For everyone that understands Afrikaans, watch the last 30 seconds of the above youtube video.
Scotty Stevenson eindig 'n radio "interview" af met 'n rowwe rympie wat een of ander SA hom moes geleer het. Kak snaaks.

 

[Big Ewis]

That sounds swell, Dear. What would you like for dinner tomorrow evening?

:lol:
Oh I dunno...whatever gourmet typically French dish you can manage...