[2014 TRC] South Africa v New Zealand in Johannesburg (04/10/2014)

[goodNumber10]

Most of your post I agree with completely. The TMO is an ideal tool for cutting out cheating and foul play.
The part about Messam I'm not convinced about because the Bok player was already falling in the tackle of another player and had he not been falling his chest would have contacted Messam rather than his noggin.
That was never taken into account.
However, Messam does have to ask himself about what kind of tackle he was hoping to effect with that strange looking approach. It looked to me like he pulled out of it late and this is why the Bok player was unharmed by the tackle.
At normal speed it looks innocuous but slowed down and repeated several times it takes on a more sinister appearance and the crowd certainly played that point up to the referee.

This happens at every major ground around the world.
In this case , Messam looks like the culprit.
He will have a lot more time warming the bench after that incident.

It was an awful attempt at a tackle - no arms and lead with the shoulder - he's lucky he wasn't carded and lucky he didn't do burger some serious damage that's broken jaw territory if it connects.

 

[Darwin]

Maybe... But this is not the first time Messam has used this type of shoulder charge. I think Barnes did take the fact that Burger was falling into consideration. In fact, he and the TMO talked about exactly that while viewing the footage.

Really? I can't recall Messam ever being penalized for a shoulder charge before. He does like to impose himself on defense, but when he does tackle around the chest he tends to get very square on rather than leading with the shoulder.

Regardless it was a very clear penalty. It is the tacklers responsibility to (a) wrap their arms in the tackle, and (b) not hit the opponent in the neck/head. The fact the Burger was falling at the time was completely irrelevant. It was both dangerous and reckless, and I wouldn't have complained if a yellow card was issued...

 

[TRF_heineken]

That means they discounted it, they didn't take it into consideration.
If it was a foul tackle Messam should have been carded.
I agree about Messam's tackling technique, I can't help but feel it has deteriorated since Kaino has returned to take his place at no.6 in the starting line up. He's trying desperately to do something 'special' in his short visits to the turf at the end of the game.

Here's a photo of the "incident" just before he made contact. It looks to me like Messam had no intention of hitting Schalk lower than the Shoulder. Many will have different views about this. Some say Red, some say yellow, some say just a penalty... But it's clear that it had to be one of those 3 options...

Really? I can't recall Messam ever being penalized for a shoulder charge before. He does like to impose himself on defense, but when he does tackle around the chest he tends to get very square on rather than leading with the shoulder.

Regardless it was a very clear penalty. It is the tacklers responsibility to (a) wrap their arms in the tackle, and (b) not hit the opponent in the neck/head. The fact the Burger was falling at the time was completely irrelevant. It was both dangerous and reckless, and I wouldn't have complained if a yellow card was issued...

I'm referring to the Bismarck incident last year.

But yes, I agree with your remark regarding the tackler. The onus is on the tackler, not the guy being tackled. Schalk's positioning, no matter what it was has no major bearing.

It's the same as when a 2.0+m lock tackles a midget-like scrum half. And they always get penalised if the tackle is above the shoulder.

 

[Darwin]

Here's a photo of the "incident" just before he made contact. It looks to me like Messam had no intention of hitting Schalk lower than the Shoulder. Many will have different views about this. Some say Red, some say yellow, some say just a penalty... But it's clear that it had to be one of those 3 options...

I'm referring to the Bismarck incident last year.

But yes, I agree with your remark regarding the tackler. The onus is on the tackler, not the guy being tackled. Schalk's positioning, no matter what it was has no major bearing.

It's the same as when a 2.0+m lock tackles a midget-like scrum half. And they always get penalised if the tackle is above the shoulder.

You mean when Messam went in for a square-on tackle (wrapping both arms around Bismark) and got elbowed in the throat? I don't see how that perfectly legal tackle has any relation to this tackle.....

Anyways.... I forgot to mention my analysis that I thought Colin Slade did a pretty good job filling in at halfback those last 6 minutes. He was getting to the breakdown quite well for someone unfamiliar with the lines 9's usually run.

 

[Jer1cho]

thank you Tv panel thank you for the replay that where all in SA favor... that "perfectly legal" tackle by JP on TKB where JP legally used his arms got played for one reason... so the SA public can laugh at how TKB knee got Hyper extended... that was about it...

i felt that last ruck schalk came in form the side and should have been a NZ penalty... but thank you Wayne Barnes... SA lost the War but won the battle...

Congrats SA, a win is a win right?

How about some tomato sauce for that chip on your shoulder?

 

[donmcdazzle]

It was an awful attempt at a tackle - no arms and lead with the shoulder - he's lucky he wasn't carded and lucky he didn't do burger some serious damage that's broken jaw territory if it connects.

What the hell are you supposed to lead with? Your hands? The first point of contact should always be your shoulder, followed by the arms.

If he didn't fall I to it then contact would have been chest high and there wouldn't have even been a penalty. Every tackle is broken jaw territory if the player falls into the tacklers shoulder.

 

[austingtir]

You know, I just don't get why the decision is being put under scrutiny? Is it because the AB's lost, or is it because the ref was Barnes??

For many games year in and year out we are pleading that they should go to the TMO more often to cite foul plays. Now it happened, whoever spotted it, and it was referred. The point is that the players themselves must take responsibility of their actions on the field. It's definitely not Barnes' fault that Messam tried to tackle Schalk's head without using his arms.

I would rather welcome this way of checking for foul play, than not checking at all. If only Romain Poite had the balls to do this when Bismarck tackled Carter.

it doesn't matter if the ref makes the call to review or not. What matters is that the players must remain disciplined on the field all the time. I think many journo's are making this a bigger issue than it really is. An All Black got caught out... it was bound to happen.

But are we going to have each home ground just replaying dodgy stuff non stop until the officials see it!? While the right decision was made it was a little over the top the way it was handled by barnes and the ground/broacasters..... This same thing MAY have even happened to a lesser extent in the Bismark decisions last year.... i cant remember clearly but I do feel the crowd certainly swayed that decision similar to this one after seeing replays on the big screen. This particular one was for me just over the top with the amount of replays that seemed to go on before the ref even knew about it.

https://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/n...1/kaplan-critical-of-late-springboks-penalty/

What got me was when the Video guy asked barnes if he wanted it at full speed or slow mo. Barnes said full speed..... Im pretty sure it was played at full speed and slow mo. At full speed it didnt look terrible at all. But on the slow mo it certainly looked very bad indeed.

When I heard Barnes ask for it at full speed I honestly thought he would dismiss it all together.... To me played at full speed it was actually a nothing.... But thems the breaks and finally some would say NZ lost one.

Im not saying SA certainly didnt deserve the decision and the win its just the way this particular one was handled was kinda bizarre to me.


This one was only brought to the refs attention because of it playing non stop at the ground and the crowd going nuts. The Refs had totally no idea initially.

What the hell are you supposed to lead with? Your hands? The first point of contact should always be your shoulder, followed by the arms.

If he didn't fall I to it then contact would have been chest high and there wouldn't have even been a penalty. Every tackle is broken jaw territory if the player falls into the tacklers shoulder.

The thing for me was when it was played at full speed. On the slow mo it looked dodgy as. At full speed not at all imo.

The still posted above is a bit rank. It needs to be taken in context. Post the video of it at full speed next to the still!!!

 

[Jaguares]

Hey @TRF_Draggs Can you open the thread: "Pumas v Wallabies", pleaseeee? I won't upload a music video, I'm going to talk about the game. The party is over, we won't beat the Wobs in years

 

[TRF_heineken]

But are we going to have each home ground just replaying dodgy stuff non stop until the officials see it!? While the right decision was made it was a little over the top the way it was handled by barnes and the ground/broacasters..... This same thing MAY have even happened to a lesser extent in the Bismark decisions last year.... i cant remember clearly but I do feel the crowd certainly swayed that decision similar to this one after seeing replays on the big screen. This particular one was for me just over the top with the amount of replays that seemed to go on before the ref even knew about it.

https://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/n...1/kaplan-critical-of-late-springboks-penalty/

What got me was when the Video guy asked barnes if he wanted it at full speed or slow mo. Barnes said full speed..... Im pretty sure it was played at full speed and slow mo. At full speed it didnt look terrible at all. But on the slow mo it certainly looked very bad indeed.

When I heard Barnes ask for it at full speed I honestly thought he would dismiss it all together.... To me played at full speed it was actually a nothing.... But thems the breaks and finally some would say NZ lost one.

Im not saying SA certainly didnt deserve the decision and the win its just the way this particular one was handled was kinda bizarre to me.


This one was only brought to the refs attention because of it playing non stop at the ground and the crowd going nuts. The Refs had totally no idea initially.




The thing for me was when it was played at full speed. On the slow mo it looked dodgy as. At full speed not at all imo.

The still posted above is a bit rank. It needs to be taken in context. Post the video of it at full speed next to the still!!!

The photo is above is to illustrate the positioning of Messam. He's way too straight to attempt to hit Schalk "legally", even with Schalk falling.

I'm with you and that moron Veitchy on Sport with regards to the dangerous precedent this has created. But the fact remains the same. The players should take responsibility for their actions on the field. With the technology becoming better and better, and stadium getting more and more cameras at games, every player is under a microscope throughout the whole game.

it saddens me that once again a referee decision is the only talking point after the game. Even though he made the right decision. The TMO first showed Barnes the slow-mo version and then when Barnes asked him to show it at real time, the TMO obliged. My understanding was that Barnes would have given Messam a card, based only on the slow-mo version, but the real time version, was the same as how Barnes saw it when it happened and then mitigated the situation.

Hey @TRF_Draggs Can you open the thread: "Pumas v Wallabies", pleaseeee? I won't upload a music video, I'm going to talk about the game. The party is over, we won't beat the Wobs in years

Stay on topic!!!!

 

[goodNumber10]

What the hell are you supposed to lead with? Your hands? The first point of contact should always be your shoulder, followed by the arms.

If he didn't fall I to it then contact would have been chest high and there wouldn't have even been a penalty. Every tackle is broken jaw territory if the player falls into the tacklers shoulder.

Utter rubbish. Contact should be with the shoulder and upperarm/bicep in unison, as much for the tacklers safety as the ball carriers. Arms and hand should be up ready to wrap or grip not down around his hip.

Otherwise it's not much more than a shoulder charge (which this was)... The point is he had no intention of wrapping his arm around Burger to effect the tackle it was a cheap shot.

If Burger hadn't fallen it would still have been a cheap and dangerous hit.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Wow, some reactions on this thread has me all giggling from disbelief.

Anyways its good to get the two home wins under the belt; that should be non-negotiable from now on out IMO. I'm glad it looks like HM has come down hard on the team for letting the foot off the gas somewhat and letting in two softish tries to allow NZ to get in front. I'm glad to see fitness and conditioning has become a key issue now. Our work at the breakdown was a major weaknes after Peter de Villiers and we've turned it into a strength so hopefully we can do the same regarding fitness levels.

All fit the squad is looking more solid after each match but for some of the players needing consistency or just to get back to top form. Gonna be a tough tour this November. Ireland, England and Wales will fancy their chances I expect. Hopefully HM can maintain his record on these November tours.

 

[Chikwa]

This is incredible the boks let their foot off the gas somewhat !! Ha ha I am in hysterics ! The last two tries by the AB's were soft tries. Oh the psychology of mankind! Suddenly the AB's have become a minor team in the eyes of the boks! Comical ! Prior to the game JV was confidently alluding to the fact that the boks conditioning was better than the other teams . Specifically citing the last ten minutes in Wellington and in Capetown .Now it is being recognised as work in progress. HM congrats on the victory . Though if the shoe was on the other foot,The congrats would have come with a lot of qualifications. As I commented earlier in reality this game was in truth a dead rubber.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Utter rubbish. Contact should be with the shoulder and upperarm/bicep in unison, as much for the tacklers safety as the ball carriers. Arms and hand should be up ready to wrap or grip not down around his hip.

Otherwise it's not much more than a shoulder charge (which this was)... The point is he had no intention of wrapping his arm around Burger to effect the tackle it was a cheap shot.

If Burger hadn't fallen it would still have been a cheap and dangerous hit.

You're getting a bit carried away - if it was such an obvious cheap shot then how did Barnes miss it? It was right in front of him in real time. He did swing his arms up to wrap after the initial contact - something you don't see from one image. I actually have no issues with the penalty, but to get all sensitive and start labeling it as a cheap shot and everything is a bit over the top.

As an aside, if your initial point of contact is your bicep you'd end up with hematomas after every game. Head on tackles where you are trying to smash someone you definitely want to be hitting shoulder first.

 

[Jer1cho]

If Clancy could send Habana off for that tackle in perth, then Messam's tackle attempt was at least a penalty. Totally agree on Burger though. He went in straight from the side. That should have been an AB penalty. A dodgy call or two only cost you a dead rubber game. A dodgy call or two pretty much ended our Championship hopes after Perth.

 

[goodNumber10]

You're getting a bit carried away - if it was such an obvious cheap shot then how did Barnes miss it? It was right in front of him in real time. He did swing his arms up to wrap after the initial contact - something you don't see from one image. I actually have no issues with the penalty, but to get all sensitive and start labeling it as a cheap shot and everything is a bit over the top.

LOL!

As an aside, if your initial point of contact is your bicep you'd end up with hematomas after every game. Head on tackles where you are trying to smash someone you definitely want to be hitting shoulder first.

Double LOL!

 

[Chikwa]

The score was not a true reflection of how well SA played. If SA was much more composed in the first half and scored more points, the match would have be over by then. I was not surprised with the results.

When you throw in Joe Moody for a big match, then you asking for trouble. He played well for his experience and caliber, but is too big a match for him now.

As I have been saying in the past, ABS management team has 4 years to look for capable and starts to groom players since the last world cup. I don't think they have done enough and giving the new boys the necessary experience. and game time. Looked at the ABS full line out and SA full line out the answer is obvious.

Why didn't they start Moody in Argentina match instead. Well the Management was thinking to win the Championship. This has been the mind set for the past 3 years...and problem now is pop up.

I see the weakness in the front row, hooker, and lock position whether ABS have the sufficient experience players for the world cup. I saw on news today, now ABs is looking for scrum half for the year end tour..

They should never have mistreated any Ellis. They should pick willy Heinz!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

This is incredible the boks let their foot off the gas somewhat !! Ha ha I am in hysterics ! The last two tries by the AB's were soft tries. Oh the psychology of mankind! Suddenly the AB's have become a minor team in the eyes of the boks! Comical ! Prior to the game JV was confidently alluding to the fact that the boks conditioning was better than the other teams . Specifically citing the last ten minutes in Wellington and in Capetown .Now it is being recognised as work in progress. HM congrats on the victory . Though if the shoe was on the other foot,The congrats would have come with a lot of qualifications. As I commented earlier in reality this game was in truth a dead rubber.

I really thought I'd get more than just the 1 hit with that subtle little WU of mine.

Anyway, I am still loving this thread.

 

[nzlizard]

Didn't watch the game but watched this part that everyone is talking about.

Burger went in from the side, Messam made a bad tackle, his tackle was worthy of a penalty but first infringement was by Burger, should have been a AB penalty, but it wasn't, at the end of the day it was 1 bad call in an otherwise well referred game(from what I have read/heard) and certainly better than the standard of some of the other RC games.

The concern I have here is the content being replayed without the referee asking to see the replay or not getting enough of the content to see lead up infringements, the reality is this is going to happen more and more with more cameras and technology and has happened in the AB's favor a few times from what I remember, Daggs kick was deemed out on the full until a random replay a few seconds later let the ref see he was in his 22 when he kicked it.

What do they do in league? I think they should only replay content on the big screen that the referee asks to see or that has already happened and is not in the last XX phases that can be ruled on.

 

[Gena_ZA]

I have been absent for a while so good to be back.

Excellent tournament, SA and NZ beat each other on home soil in tough encounters with small margins.
NZ still took the cup and congrats. We shall not complain about that yellow on Habana against the Aus, nah that be so 2013...

SA is creeping up on NZ and 2015 WC might be the ultimate decider. Think the mental block is lifted and this side is only starting to get hungry.
NZ's biggest drawback in my view next year will be keeping ageing great players - Richie and Dan - but they have won so many times, who say they can't do it again

Very much like where this fight is heading

 

[The Jones Boy]

Richie is fine, for an old bloke he just dragged a lack lustre looking All black team back from the brink of defeat against Australia to single handedly lead them to a victory they should never have achieved.
If thats a tired old man, then the rest of the world needs to get old and tired too.
Carters problem is not his age, it's his frequency of injuries and the mounting toll they take aon a players confidence and performance in equal measure.
Carter could come back magnificent or he could be a peg below where he is used to being, if thats the case then young Barrett and the foolhardy Cruden will be there to cover and Barrett is getting plenty of experience.