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

[Jer1cho]

Well, this match was a write off for me. The match lost all relevance after the card, and the Boks morale was seriously deflated after that imbecile ruined the game. Playing for 50 minutes without Alberts and du Plessis because of a referee too proud to raise his arrogant head and look at the big screen. Can't review a game like this because it wasn't fair. Steve Hansen is also a joke. Standing mighty and proud after a debacle like that saying he doesn't think we were not robbed of a great match, and that du Plessis deserved a straight red for the elbow hit anyway. F*** off mate.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Well, this match was a write off for me. The match lost all relevance after the card, and the Boks morale was seriously deflated after that imbecile ruined the game. Playing for 50 minutes without Alberts and du Plessis because of a referee too proud to raise his arrogant head and look at the big screen. Can't review a game like this because it wasn't fair. Steve Hansen is also a joke. Standing mighty and proud after a debacle like that saying he doesn't think we were not robbed of a great match, and that du Plessis deserved a straight red for the elbow hit anyway. F*** off mate.

Erm I haven't read this anywhere... All Hansen said was that du Plessis should have been more careful, after already receiving a yellow. This is completely fair. Regardless of whether or not you deserve to be on thin ice, you should still be more careful.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Erm I haven't read this anywhere... All Hansen said was that du Plessis should have been more careful, after already receiving a yellow. This is completely fair. Regardless of whether or not you deserve to be on thin ice, you should still be more careful.

How Could Bismarck have been more careful??? should he run with the ball in one hand and the other arm behind his back?? He got a yellow for "not using his arms" the first time, and then following the instruction of the referee, he uses his arms, and then get another yellow card...

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

How Could Bismarck have been more careful??? should he run with the ball in one hand and the other arm behind his back?? He got a yellow for "not using his arms" the first time, and then following the instruction of the referee, he uses his arms, and then get another yellow card...

By not running with his elbow outstretched... It's really not that difficult. You can't intentionally elbow someone - I thought this was obvious?

 

[TRF_heineken]

By not running with his elbow outstretched... It's really not that difficult. You can't intentionally elbow someone - I thought this was obvious?

Please read again my previous post about the laws...

What intent did Bismarck have on Messam??

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Please read again my previous post about the laws...

What intent did Bismarck have on Messam??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4JsFZQBjcE

He shoves his elbow up against Messam's neck... It's reckless play. You can compare it to some spear tackles, which a lot of the time aren't intentional but are still reckless and dangerous. That's the way I look at it, anyway.

I'm not suggesting it was 100% the correct decision, it's certainly debateable, but like I said, when you've already had a yellow card you have to tread carefully.

 

[jessta]

How Could Bismarck have been more careful??? should he run with the ball in one hand and the other arm behind his back?? He got a yellow for "not using his arms" the first time, and then following the instruction of the referee, he uses his arms, and then get another yellow card...

man he got the first yellow for not using his arms in the tackle, rubbish call yes! but when the ref says use your arms he meant in the tackle, not use them to smash someones neck...

 

[TRF_heineken]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4JsFZQBjcE

He shoves his elbow up against Messam's neck...

Debatable...

All NZ'ers will say it was intentional
All Saffas will say it wasn't intentional

IMHO Messam, should have made a better attempt at tackling. Going upright into a tackle is NEVER a good way to go about, and he got off worse. Bismarck, who was the ball carrier, had only one arm to use to protect himself, and he did. The Law says that he shouldn't punch or strike an opponent with his elbow or forearm. and here is where the crux lies. did he really use his arm in a striking/punching manner??

If I were to ask my Karate Sensei, I'm sure he would say that no, he used it in a blocking manner.

 

[Jer1cho]

Erm I haven't read this anywhere... All Hansen said was that du Plessis should have been more careful, after already receiving a yellow. This is completely fair. Regardless of whether or not you deserve to be on thin ice, you should still be more careful.

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/hansen-bismarck-deserved-red-card

All Blacks coach Steve Hansen says referee Romain Poite was right to eject Bok hooker Bismarck du Plessis for foul play, reports JON CARDINELLI in Auckland.Du Plessis was yellow-carded in the 17th minute for a shoulder charge on All Blacks flyhalf Dan Carter, and then shown a second yellow for another transgression in the 42nd minute. Du Plessis ran at All Blacks No 6 Liam Messam, leading with the elbow and inadvertently hitting Messam in the throat.Replays would confirm that neither incident warranted a yellow card and that on both occasions Poite had got it wrong.Nevertheless, it was because of these decisions that the Boks were forced to play 48 minutes of the game with 14 men. These decisions undoubtedly changed the course of the game and determined the outcome.However, when Hansen spoke at the post-match press conference, he downplayed the influence of these dubious calls.While Hansen conceded that Du Plessis was unfortunate to receive a yellow for the first incident, he was adamant that the Bok hooker deserved his marching orders for the second.It was also clear that Hansen genuinely believed the All Blacks had earned this victory through their own efforts.'It's an intense Test match, and you're always going to have those moments,' Hansen said. 'The referee's got to make decisions in those moments.'Bismarck was probably a wee bit unlucky to get a yellow for tackling Dan, but the ref probably got the other ones right [aside from Du Plessis's two yellows, the All Blacks conceded two cards of their own in the second half]. We've got no complaints. That's rugby, and you have to get on with it.'That Hansen would admit Du Plessis did not deserve the first yellow spoke volumes. If Du Plessis had not been sin-binned in the 17th minute, he would not have been in a position to receive a second yellow card, and ultimately a red that would see the Boks finishing the game with 14 men.In short, if the first yellow wasn't a yellow, the Boks would not have played 48 minutes without one of their key players.When it was suggested that the Boks were hard done-by, and that the All Blacks' victory was not all their own doing, Hansen bristled.He pointed to the second incident where Du Plessis had caught Messam in the throat. Hansen felt the act demanded immediate ejection.'Let's not go too far with the robbed [concept], he said. 'I don't think it's legal to go around putting your elbow on someone's throat. The second one may well have been a [straight] red.'Hansen also took the opportunity to take aim at the critics who had slammed his selections of Dane Coles, Sam Cane, and Messam earlier in the week. It seemed lost on the All Blacks coach that the South African pack had operated for 48 minutes of the game with only seven men.How the All Blacks proved a point by bullying a seven-man pack only Hansen will know.'I think that anybody who watched the game could see the intensity. In the end you pay the price for indiscipline, and we paid it twice. I'd really hate to think that this Test match is remembered for that.'There's a lot of other stuff that makes it a memorable Test match. I mean, take Sam Cane ... there were a lot of question marks. To come in and play like that, that's worth writing about.'Brodie Retallick really stood up. Beauden Barrett coming on and replacing Dan and looking like he'd been there all his life; those are the things we should remember about the game. We asked Dane Coles to step up into the big ball park, and I felt he did pretty good. He said he noted the difference in intensity when the the two best teams in the world play.'

It was a yellow card at best, but that doesn't change anything. If Bismark had not been sent off in the first place, then that wouldn't have even happened, as the whole game would have changed. I like how Hansen praises the crap out of his players for coming good against a 14 man Springbok team with their heads down after their chances of winning were ruined. We played without du Plessis or Alberts, our two main wrecking balls, for 48 minutes. We scrummed with 7 men nearly all match, had our scrumhalf throw line out balls... This was not a rugby match. It was a farce.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/hansen-bismarck-deserved-red-card



It was a yellow card at best, but that doesn't change anything. If Bismark had not been sent off in the first place, then that wouldn't have even happened, as the whole game would have changed. I like how Hansen praises the crap out of his players for coming good against a 14 man Springbok team with their heads down after their chances of winning were ruined. We played without du Plessis or Alberts, our two main wrecking balls, for 48 minutes. We scrummed with 7 men nearly all match, had our scrumhalf throw line out balls... This was not a rugby match. It was a farce.

No where in that article does Henry say du Plessis deserved a straight red...

The fact that the Boks had 14 men doesn't mean the actions of the All Blacks players are worth any less. The number of breakdowns Retallick hit was phoenomenal, are you going to tell me that those kinds of statistics are meaningless due to the number of players on the field? I'm not saying the All Blacks didn't get a huge advantage from erroneous refereeing (personally I didn't think either yellow card was warranted, but I CAN see how a referee could card someone for the elbow), but to say the All Blacks only played well because of the red card is unfair.

With regards to Alberts not playing, that's more an issue to do with Meyer's decision making (or perhaps JdV's). The Springboks could have taken off Louw, or a winger, they chose to remove their second wrecking ball. Likewise they choseto have their halfback throw into the line out. You have to mitigate your losses - decision making by the higher powers of the Boks was questionable.

Again, I'd like to emphasise that I completely agree that Poite ruined the test match. Whilst I think think the All Blacks would've won without the red card I don't see it as a foregone conclusion. At the end of the day, however, you have to adapt to the referee and his decisions. He made mistakes, yes, and those mistakes did blunt the contest, but both teams will have learned quite a bit from the match, and hopefully will be better for it.

The game in SA will be an absolute cracker.

 

[jessta]

jeez you saffers need to pick yourselves up and move on... was the first yellow deserving? no. was the second? most likely. regardless it happened... and yous out there talking like its a big conspiracy that the refs favor the AB's speak kuk (to put it in your native tongue.) Poite also gave the all blacks two yellows. you guys sound like the sad NZ supporters who still havnt got over Wayne Barnes decisions at the 2007 world cup quarter final. refs make bad calls... the game of rugby is one with a complex nature.. individual interpretations and opinions play a big role.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The game in SA will be an absolute cracker.

No it won't...

it will be marred by controversy.

It will be brutal and there will be scuffles. I even expect tempers to be very very short and that cards will be given, regardless of who the ref will be. Piet Van Zyl's ban is also no longer in contention, so I suspect he, or some other Moron will invade the pitch.

 

[austingtir]

Debatable...

All NZ'ers will say it was intentional
All Saffas will say it wasn't intentional

IMHO Messam, should have made a better attempt at tackling. Going upright into a tackle is NEVER a good way to go about, and he got off worse. Bismarck, who was the ball carrier, had only one arm to use to protect himself, and he did. The Law says that he shouldn't punch or strike an opponent with his elbow or forearm. and here is where the crux lies. did he really use his arm in a striking/punching manner??

If I were to ask my Karate Sensei, I'm sure he would say that no, he used it in a blocking manner.

O.K you are usually a fairly sensible poster but you've gone way off the rails on this one.

If you think what Bismark did was fine then anybody should be able to do it from now on? Leading into tackles with elbows? Thats just crazy. It doesnt matter if he's striking or not its dangerous. It didnt even look like an incredibly heavy contact and you could see the way messam reeled away out of it. Elbows are one of the most lethal parts of the human body if they are used in that manner.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

No it won't...

it will be marred by controversy.

It will be brutal and there will be scuffles. I even expect tempers to be very very short and that cards will be given, regardless of who the ref will be. Piet Van Zyl's ban is also no longer in contention, so I suspect he, or some other Moron will invade the pitch.

Better hope we bring Richie along then!

Brutal/scuffles don't stop the match from being fantastic! A bit of argy-bargy adds to the contest.

Controversy is inevitable

 

[Jer1cho]

jeez you saffers need to pick yourselves up and move on... was the first yellow deserving? no. was the second? most likely. regardless it happened... and yous out there talking like its a big conspiracy that the refs favor the AB's speak kuk (to put it in your native tongue.) Poite also gave the all blacks two yellows. you guys sound like the sad NZ supporters who still havnt got over Wayne Barnes decisions at the 2007 world cup quarter final. refs make bad calls... the game of rugby is one with a complex nature.. individual interpretations and opinions play a big role.

This was not a bad call. It was a game ruining call, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED had he just looked up at the screen. I just can't read anything into this game, because it was not fair, and that's all there is to it. It's like a cage fight in which one opponent breaks his leg, then the other pummels him into submission, and gets praised heaped onto him. It's not New Zealands fault at all, and they can't be held accountable for playing the game. It was straight up one man who ruined the match, and subsequently handed the All Blacks a bonus point as well, which has a massive effect on the outcome of this competition. I just think it's daftly arrogant of the coach to think it didn't play a major part, and everyone needs to move on and rather focus on how good the new caps were. Balls.

No where in that article does Henry say du Plessis deserved a straight red...

@ Invictus, it does:

Hansen felt the act demanded immediate ejection.'Let's not go too far with the robbed [concept], he said. 'I don't think it's legal to go around putting your elbow on someone's throat. The second one may well have been a [straight] red.'Hansen also took the opportunity to take aim at the critics who had slammed his selections of Dane Coles, Sam Cane, and Messam earlier in the week. It seemed lost on the All Blacks coach that the South African pack had operated for 48 minutes of the game with only seven men.

Right arrogant in my opinion.

 

[TRF_heineken]

jeez you saffers need to pick yourselves up and move on... was the first yellow deserving? no. was the second? most likely. regardless it happened... and yous out there talking like its a big conspiracy that the refs favor the AB's speak kuk (to put it in your native tongue.) Poite also gave the all blacks two yellows. you guys sound like the sad NZ supporters who still havnt got over Wayne Barnes decisions at the 2007 world cup quarter final. refs make bad calls... the game of rugby is one with a complex nature.. individual interpretations and opinions play a big role.

How do you expect us just to move on when we are the only nation frequently being disadvantaged by bad calls?? Looks like you have a very short memory span, didn't you watch the SA vs. Arg match in Mendoza? There were debatable calls by mr. Walsh, that first try scored by Argentina was clear-cut obstruction. He also didn't use the TMO!!

2011 RWC. SA vs. Aus - Bryce Lawrence...

The list is nearly endless.

I never once said it's a conspiracy and that the All Blacks are involved, because that is simply not true.

Paddy O'Brien on the other hand...

O.K you are usually a fairly sensible poster but you've gone way of the rails on this one.

If you think what Bismark did was fine then anybody should be able to do it from now on? Leading into tackles with elbows? Thats just crazy. It doesnt matter if he's striking or not its dangerous. It didnt even look like an incredibly heavy contact and you could see the way messam reeled away out of it. Elbows are one of the most lethal parts of the human body if they are used in that manner.

He didn't lead with his elbow. he first made contact with his forearm and then with his elbow. I said previously that Pierre Spies and Victor Matfield also use this method of defending when carrying the ball, yet they were never guilty of foul play. John Smit was another, but he didn't even recieve a yellow card, he was cited though.

But my point is this, Bismarck didn't INTEND to rupture Messam's adam's apple with his elbow.

He used his right arm, to block/protect himself from the incoming tackler, Messam.

 

[austingtir]

This was not a bad call. It was a game ruining call, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED had he just looked up at the screen. I just can't read anything into this game, because it was not fair, and that's all there is to it. It's like a cage fight in which one opponent breaks his leg, then the other pummels him into submission, and gets praised heaped onto him. It's not New Zealands fault at all, and they can't be held accountable for playing the game. It was straight up one man who ruined the match, and subsequently handed the All Blacks a bonus point as well, which has a massive effect on the outcome of this competition. I just think it's daftly arrogant of the coach to think it didn't play a major part, and everyone needs to move on and rather focus on how good the new caps were. Balls.



@ Invictus, it does:

Hansen felt the act demanded immediate ejection.'Let's not go too far with the robbed [concept], he said. 'I don't think it's legal to go around putting your elbow on someone's throat. The second one may well have been a [straight] red.'Hansen also took the opportunity to take aim at the critics who had slammed his selections of Dane Coles, Sam Cane, and Messam earlier in the week. It seemed lost on the All Blacks coach that the South African pack had operated for 48 minutes of the game with only seven men.

Right arrogant in my opinion.

Thing is you have to take that in context and Hansen i believe was replying to a reporter probably asking him if he thought the Boks were robbed. (what in the heck to you expect the coach of the AB's to say in this situation oh yeah you guys were thrashing us and would of won the game WTF?)

To me its a nothing as the boks had not really put themselves in any position to win the match leading upto that incident. Now if the boks had scored first and tails up were winning the match yeah maybe. Its just not that black and white. End of the day they have freely admitted (after the match) that their kicking and defence was ****house. IMO there defence in particular didnt deserve them to win the game. It was woefull and they have learnt nothing in kicking ball at Dagg either. Instead he got taken out by Banana and Piatau came on and was a even more of a handful.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

@ Invictus, it does:

Hansen felt the act demanded immediate ejection.'Let's not go too far with the robbed [concept], he said. 'I don't think it's legal to go around putting your elbow on someone's throat. The second one may well have been a [straight] red.'Hansen also took the opportunity to take aim at the critics who had slammed his selections of Dane Coles, Sam Cane, and Messam earlier in the week. It seemed lost on the All Blacks coach that the South African pack had operated for 48 minutes of the game with only seven men.

Right arrogant in my opinion.

I didn't see that. Though I would tread carefully when trying to interpret what Hansen meant. I don't necessarily think Hansen meant a straight red, rather that given du Plessis had already received a yellow the elbow incident warranted a red. Hansen didn't say straight red, the journalist has just (conveniently) inferred that. I'd be more inclined to believe he meant straight red if the article wasn't so obviously biased (I don't think many people would say the second incident definitely didn't deserve a yellow card, contrary to "replays would confirm that neither incident warranted a yellow card").

 

[Jer1cho]

The point is, the game was ruined by a referee. I find it arrogant that Hansen doesn't seem to think so. World Rugby was robbed of a spectacle.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The point is, the game was ruined by a referee. I find it arrogant that Hansen doesn't seem to think so. World Rugby was robbed of a spectacle.

Hansen would never publicly say the referee ruined the game. He's said he didn't think the first yellow was warranted, what has he got to gain from criticising the ref?