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

[Jer1cho]

was has he got to gain from criticising the ref?

Hopefully it can help get Poite fired.

 

[austingtir]

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...



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.

Elbow is clearly the first contact point. He just needs to be smarter about how he goes about doing that crap man. Back to what i said earlier. All those players you mention probably have more braincells in their elbow than Bismark does in his head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jntu7tK49TQ

 

[Icemn]

why must there always be a reason for the boks fans to blame a loss on... as if they had a chance in this game...

gameplan of the boks.. take out carter and dagg... and then we have a chance...

that kick banana gave, when to the other end of the field, yet he continued his run directly at dagg and makes contact... he carried on running for what? +-10m/15m to kick dagg...

this ref is 100% correct, SA players have malicious intend, this have beeen drilled into referees minds from the days of Schalk Burger and Bakkies etc

now the naive boks fans have something they can blame the loss on, as if they had a change in the 1st place with their predictable gameplay... the where down by 10point when this happend and did not have momentum... carter dominated the game and the boks knew this and wanted to take him out incl dagg.

up stepped Barrett and fcked the boks up :lol:

this game reminded me of a champions league game a few years ago, where Barcelona played Arsenal. Barcelona dominated the game upto a point where arsenal got a controversial red card (robin v percy i think). After that Barcalona somehow ran away with the game. Afterwards the arsenal fans felt they were robbed, unfair red card etc etc... my point was/is yes i'm a All Black supporter, but i'm a fair supported and give due where it, well due. I'm never bias but the boks were never in this game to begin with. AUS were so disappointing against ARG this week which only proves my point that they made the boks look good last week and game them false hope in winning the game against the AB.

i feel Bismark deserved a yellow on the carter tackle. just look closely. He was diving with his shoulder and made contact with his shoulder. seconds after contact he only slightly grabber carter with his arms, his arms was raised and around carter's body but he was not touching carter with his arms (i hope u guys know what i'm trying to say). This means the impact is serve and it is a disguised should tackle. They need to revise this law, as i feel if your arms is now wraped around and actually touching/holding/securing the player it is also a shoulder charge.

 

[Jer1cho]

why must there always be a reason for the boks fans to blame a loss on... as if they had a chance in this game...

gameplan of the boks.. take out carter and dagg... and then we have a chance...

that kick banana gave, when to the other end of the field, yet he continued his run directly at dagg and makes contact... he carried on running for what? +-10m/15m to kick dagg...

this ref is 100% correct, SA players have malicious intend, this have beeen drilled into referees minds from the days of Schalk Burger and Bakkies etc

now the naive boks fans have something they can blame the loss on, as if they had a change in the 1st place with their predictable gameplay... the where down by 10point when this happend and did not have momentum... carter dominated the game and the boks knew this and wanted to take him out incl dagg.

up stepped Barrett and fcked the boks up :lol:

this game reminded me of a champions league game a few years ago, where Barcelona played Arsenal. Barcelona dominated the game upto a point where arsenal got a controversial red card (robin v percy i think). After that Barcalona somehow ran away with the game. Afterwards the arsenal fans felt they were robbed, unfair red card etc etc... my point was/is yes i'm a All Black supporter, but i'm a fair supported and give due where it, well due. I'm never bias but the boks were never in this game to begin with. AUS were so disappointing against ARG this week which only proves my point that they made the boks look good last week and game them false hope in winning the game against the AB.

i feel Bismark deserved a yellow on the carter tackle. just look closely. He was diving with his shoulder and made contact with his shoulder. seconds after contact he only slightly grabber carter with his arms, his arms was raised and around carter's body but he was not touching carter with his arms (i hope u guys know what i'm trying to say). This means the impact is serve and it is a disguised should tackle. They need to revise this law, as i feel if your arms is now wraped around and actually touching/holding/securing the player it is also a shoulder charge.

You are an idiot.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Forget about what the coaches said, Hansen will never say the Boks were robbed, that will just not happen
Same with HM, said he has no complaints about the refereeing, the "right" thing to say

Let's move on from this, having our anger directed at each other is not going to help, rugby got hurt here in the end
Let's rather all club in and get Poite to Congo in deep Africa, will arrange a blind date with a Silveback Gorilla to get even.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Seen on Facebook and Twitter in the last 48 hours:

"If Romain Poite and Bryce Lawrence were drowning and you only had time to save one - what type of sandwich would you make... ?" - Greg Forbes

"Not only was it a completely legal, well timed tackle, it should get an award for tackle of the year!" - Gary Doyle

"Helluva job Romain Poite. Bryce Lawrence is now only public enemy #2." - Clinton van der Burg

"#RomainPoite and #BryceLawrence walks into a bar in South Africa.......#jokesover" - Jacques Burger

"Now the Boks might as well walk off the field. Only one result from here. Well played Romain Poite." - Brenden Nel

"Chin up Heyneke. You have a great team and they'd wipe the floor with all. Except NZ in NZ with ref Romain Poite." - Kyle John Leigh

"I bet you Romain Poite and Bryce Lawrence are pen pals." - Simon Hill

"For clarity's sake, Romain Poite wasn't biased in any sense, he was just appalling." - Jean Smyth

"Is Romain Poite the president of the Dan Carter fan club?" - Elma Smit

"Feigning injury on the ground, throwing your arms wildly up in the air at the referee, complaining about legitimate tackles. I must commend the All Blacks SOCCER team on their 'performance' against the Springboks this morning." - Quinn

Romain Poite's mentor discovered?

 

[smartcooky]

I got this off SA Rugby Referees website:

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-that-red-card/2829987/



Now, I would like Smartcooky to assist here, and more specifically with the Second Yellow card.

Law 10.4 Punching or Striking - A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Okay fine, that is pretty much straight forward.
But...
And this is a bit technical, but IMO has merit, Bismarck didn't Strike, nor Punched Messam with the Forearm or elbow... Bismarck used it in a defensive manner. Now me, being a student of the laws, sitting here, thinks that the laws needs to be more detailed, as Bismarck didn't have the intent to punch or strike Messam. he used his arm as a method of covering/blocking/protecting himself. Surely there had to be a bit more leniency towards Bismarck for this instance??

I would like to some constructive opinions about this, and not some smug comments or rude comments please.

Heineken

Firstly, I assume that your first language is Afrikaans and not English. As written, this appears quite a rude way of asking my opinion. However, I am 100% sure that that last comment wasn't directed at me, and that its not the way you intended it to come out.

Now to the real issue.

I agree 100% with sareferees.com. No way on God's green Earth that was the tackle on Carter even a penalty, let alone a cardable offence. It was a good solid, very hard tackle, and Carter was just unfortunate enough that he didn't see it coming. I also agree with their view on the elbow to the throat of Messam.

Relatively recently, the iRB introduced a Law change to legitimise "fending" an opponent. The "fend" or "hand-off" is a technique that has been accepted as a part of rugby for over 120 years, but it actually had no legal basis in the Laws of the Game until 2011. This Law change was brought about by two things;

1. In 2010, an incident occurred where a player fended an opponent off in a way that was so violent, that it burst the opponent's eyeball, causing permanent blindness in that eye. Some of our England posters might remember this one - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...er-Callum-Jennings-banned-for-five-years.html

2. An increasing trend of players fending to the face and neck of their opponents with closed fists or forearms.

The iRB decided it was time to act and change the Law to define what constitutes a legitimate fend, so the following was added to the Laws of the Game in 2011

[TEXTAREA]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Hand-off: An action taken by a ball carrier to fend off an opponent by using the palm of the hand.

Law 7 PLAYING A MATCH
...
A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.
...[/TEXTAREA]

First off, Du Plessis used his elbow. This in no way matches the Law description of a hand-off which must be done with the palm of the hand

Second, whether or not a player's arm is stationery or swinging, he still cannot use it in a manner which causes it to contact the opponent's head or neck in a dangerous manner. The bruise on Messam's neck is two inches the to right of his windpipe. Messam could have had his windpipe crushed or at least damaged.

The fact is that Bismarck lifted his elbow into Messam's throat, and that suggests intent.

Lastly, I do feel sorry for Bismarck, he's a hard, tough bugger, but he generally plays the game clean (a lot cleaner than one or two other Bokke enforcers I could name), but no matter how aggrieved he must have felt after the first yellow card, he is a professional rugby player, and he had to keep in mind that he was on a yellow card. The elbow to the throat was just dumb rugby under the circumstances, and as sareferees points out in the 2005 Smit case, it was potentially a red card offence anway.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Heineken

Firstly, I assume that your first language is Afrikaans and not English. As written, this appears quite a rude way of asking my opinion. However, I am 100% sure that that last comment wasn't directed at me, and that its not the way you intended it to come out.

Now to the real issue.

I agree 100% with sareferees.com. No way on God's green Earth that was the tackle on Carter even a penalty, let alone a cardable offence. It was a good solid, very hard tackle, and Carter was just unfortunate enough that he didn't see it coming. I also agree with their view on the elbow to the throat of Messam.

Relatively recently, the iRB introduced a Law change to legitimise "fending" an opponent. The "fend" or "hand-off" is a technique that has been accepted as a part of rugby for over 120 years, but it actually had no legal basis in the Laws of the Game until 2011. This Law change was brought about by two things;

1. In 2010, an incident occurred where a player fended an opponent off in a way that was so violent, that it burst the opponent's eyeball, causing permanent blindness in that eye. Some of our England posters might remember this one - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...er-Callum-Jennings-banned-for-five-years.html

2. An increasing trend of players fending to the face and neck of their opponents with closed fists or forearms.

The iRB decided it was time to act and change the Law to define what constitutes a legitimate fend, so the following was added to the Laws of the Game in 2011

[TEXTAREA]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Hand-off: An action taken by a ball carrier to fend off an opponent by using the palm of the hand.

Law 7 PLAYING A MATCH
...
A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.
...[/TEXTAREA]

First off, Du Plessis used his elbow. This in no way matches the Law description of a hand-off which must be done with the palm of the hand

Second, whether or not a player's arm is stationery or swinging, he still cannot use it in a manner which causes it to contact the opponent's head or neck in a dangerous manner. The bruise on Messam's neck is two inches the to right of his windpipe. Messam could have had his windpipe crushed or at least damaged.

The fact is that Bismarck lifted his elbow into Messam's throat, and that suggests intent.

Lastly, I do feel sorry for Bismarck, he's a hard, tough bugger, but he generally plays the game clean (a lot cleaner than one or two other Bokke enforcers I could name), but no matter how aggrieved he must have felt after the first yellow card, he is a professional rugby player, and he had to keep in mind that he was on a yellow card. The elbow to the throat was just dumb rugby under the circumstances, and as sareferees points out in the 2005 Smit case, it was potentially a red card offence anway.

Thanx Cooky. Once again insightful as ever.

Sorry for the misconception. The first part was directly aimed at you, while the last part was aimed at everyone else. And yes, I'm Afrikaans.

Don't know if anyone saw this: http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/RugbyChampionship/Messam-thanks-SA-haters-20130916

He tweeted the following after the match on Saturday, hinting that next time he will perhaps go lower when Du Plessis is approaching.

"Thanks for the hate coming out of SA, it is what it is, Lesson learnt tackle low."

His tweet - which was also displayed on SuperSport's Blitz news channel over the weekend - received a fair bit of criticism before the Kiwi responded by deleting the post from his account.

This just adds fuel to the fire IMHO.

I see that SARU is taking further steps: http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/RugbyChampionship/SARU-to-take-ref-matter-further-20130916

SARU vice-president, Mark Alexander, told the Beeld website that only the best referees should be considered when the world's top teams clash.

"The matter will be taken further with the IRB, especially now that they have apologised. We have to find out why things could have turned out so wrong with the decisions," said Alexander.

Alexander also said that it is "unacceptable" that such a poor decision was made when the top two teams in the world meet in front of a packed house with millions of fans watching.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Messam and the tweet:

Messam though feels all the anger from South African rugby fans is a bit uncalled for.

He tweeted the following after the match on Saturday, hinting that next time he will perhaps go lower when Du Plessis is approaching.

"Thanks for the hate coming out of SA, it is what it is, Lesson learnt tackle low."

His tweet - which was also displayed on SuperSport's Blitz news channel over the weekend - received a fair bit of criticism before the Kiwi responded by deleting the post from his account.

 

[Saffaboy]

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.

What's that then? We shouldn't discuss something that happened in a match that just happens to be in a thread created for that match? Ok mate. moving on.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

What was wrong with Messam's tweet?

 

[TRF_heineken]

What was wrong with Messam's tweet?

Basically an admission that he was also at fault... not just Bismarck. if it was a court case, then Bismarck wouldn't have been found guitly as Messam was then an equal contributor to the end result.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Basically an admission that he was also at fault... not just Bismarck. if it was a court case, then Bismarck wouldn't have been found guitly as Messam was then an equal contributor to the end result.

That's not quite how it works

I don't see why people are complaining about the tweet then, or why it was removed...?

 

[TRF_heineken]

That's not quite how it works

I don't see why people are complaining about the tweet then, or why it was removed...?

A good lawyer could argue that if Messam did go low, as he has admitted he should've, then there wouldn't have been any dispute...

Therefore the complaints are, in a sense an outcry that Messam was part of the problem. Him then deleting the tweet could be seen as covering his tracks...

This just in:
http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugbychampionship/news/sanzar-judicial-release-bismarck-du-plessise28099-red-card-rescinded/

Bismarck's Red card has been Rescinded!!!

 

[Gena_ZA]

What was wrong with Messam's tweet?

Nothing, why did he remove it makes me wonder

 

[Gena_ZA]

Basically an admission that he was also at fault... not just Bismarck. if it was a court case, then Bismarck wouldn't have been found guitly as Messam was then an equal contributor to the end result.

This is RUGBY, not criminal law, stick to it

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

A good lawyer could argue that if Messam did go low, as he has admitted he should've, then there wouldn't have been any dispute...

Therefore the complaints are, in a sense an outcry that Messam was part of the problem. Him then deleting the tweet could be seen as covering his tracks...

This just it:
http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugby...bismarck-du-plessise28099-red-card-rescinded/

Nope For BdP to get off it would have to be decided that Messam was completely at fault and BdP had done nothing wrong at all. A good lawyer wouldn't argue this, because he would lose (as BdP's behaviour was still dangerous). A good lawyer would argue that Messam contributed to BdP's behaviour - which could see BdP's sentence be decreased. He wouldn't get off Scot free though, his elbow was still raised dangerously.

Of course the above is more a legal argument than a rugby argument

 

[Colombia]

this game reminded me of a champions league game a few years ago, where Barcelona played Arsenal. Barcelona dominated the game upto a point where arsenal got a controversial red card

New Zealand didn't dominate this game up to either card though. In fact, both cards were administered in the NZ half.

Anyhow to Heineken above, Bismarck deserved a yellow in the second half.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Nope For BdP to get off it would have to be decided that Messam was completely at fault and BdP had done nothing wrong at all. A good lawyer wouldn't argue this, because he would lose (as BdP's behaviour was still dangerous). A good lawyer would argue that Messam contributed to BdP's behaviour - which could see BdP's sentence be decreased. He wouldn't get off Scot free though, his elbow was still raised dangerously.

Of course the above is more a legal argument than a rugby argument

Lol!

yeah yeah, I know. and the sanctions in place doesn't provide for the jurisprudence of the case...

Either way, it's something that I've been tussling around with in my mind, and I can't seem to get to a conclusion.

I appreciate the discussion though, it has helped in getting rid of the frustration.

 

[nickdnz]

I hate losing to South Africa - they suck the joy out of it.

New Zealand didn't dominate this game up to either card though. In fact, both cards were administered in the NZ half.

Umm, we were still winning prior to both incidents.