[2016 Super Rugby] Kings vs. Jaguares (Round 14) 27/05/2016

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You put me in a tough spot H. I blame ourselves for the loss but i can easily understand the people's frustration.

I honestly can't see why there is even anger or frustration with regard to the 2 red cards.

Post #98 and #76 might help then. The frustration is not about the red cards themselves.

Most people keep saying that the reds were deserved and i agree. The problem is that every other week we see comparable instances (specially for the 1st red) where such plays do not receive a red card. The problem appears to be consistency. The penalty try against us is another crystal clear example. Jaguares' scrum has been collapsed by the opposition over and over again over the season and we were never awarded a penalty try.
We commit one penalty and are punished with a penalty try. The sharks committed 3 on a row against us and no penalty try nor a yellow card was given because of that.

During this whole Super Rugby tournament we've seen how strict the referees are with foul play

I guess that's more an opinion than a fact.
I was watching the etzebeth vs de jager wrestling contest yesterday and couldn't help thinking "Both players deliberately use their hands on each others' eyes area. That is foul play as per the laws of the game." Both were merely told "don't do that again". Once more, deliberately using your hands on an opponents eye area (does not have to be the eye) constitutes foul play (regulation 17, i remember this one from our wc game against the ABs).

Here is a picture. De jager's face and Etzebeth's hand/fingers.

Deliberate use of fingers near the eye and/or eye area. People have been carded, cited and suspended for less.

The frustration comes from the fact in some instances the ref gives out a red card while in others he just calls what the laws of the game describe as foul play "south african fun".
So where you see how strict the refs are with foul play, other people see how refs are very strict with some cases and very lenient with others. Again, consistency.

Another example: Cane's elbow charge against Tetaz Chaparro

http://www.newshub.co.nz/sport/vide...kle-on-jaguares-prop-2016032016#axzz4A7siQcXZ

No red card. From the article:

Upon further review of the match footage, the citing commissioner deemed in his opinion the incident had met the red card threshold for foul play.

So you have two comparable plays:

-A jaguares player clears a ruck with a shoulder charge. He gets red carded, cited and suspended for two games.
-A chief's player elbow charges a jaguares player to clear a ruck. He doesn't get red carded, the citing commissioner says he believes it should have been a red card, he gets cited and does not get suspended.

So when you claim that they've been very strict with foul play i can see how other people might ask, what are you talking about?

One last stat. Lets discount the two red cards from the penalty list as they were rightfully awarded. That's 10 penalties committed by the jaguares to 14 by the kings. Out of those 10, one ended up on a penalty try and another one in a yellow card against us. The kings 14 penalties ended up in nothing of the sort. To add injury to insult, you then had some pundits claiming that the ref lost his temper because of the ridiculous amount of penalties we've committed... That's what frustrates people.

Once more, i believe we have to blame ourselves for this loss, but i can easily see and understand why some people are frustrated.

 

[TRF_heineken]

You put me in a tough spot H. I blame ourselves for the loss but i can easily understand the people's frustration.

I'm not going to quote your whole post, because it's too damn long.

but anyways, here's what my opinion is on the Sam Cane, The 2 red cards of the Jaguares and the Etzebeth/De Jager tickle contest:

The Sam Cane incident
After looking at the footage from the website you provided, most of the replays can't clearly show the point of impact where Cane connects with the opponent, and the other problem is that while Cane is entering the ruck are, other players are joining from the other side which had an effect on the Jaguares' movement towards Cane. There are some mitigating factors to consider here.

Jaguares 2 red cards

Here's a video showing the 2 red cards:
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qw337b1R3Dg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Right at the start of the video is the first incident. no. 5 of the Jaguares can clearly be seen coming to clear out the Blonde fellow of the Kings, and then he comes from a diagonal line of the ruck straight into the player with his shoulder to his face. There is no mitigating factor here.

As for the 2nd red, Why would that prop dive onto a player that is already on the ground and out of the contest and that with his shoulder? This in my view is just cynical thuggish behavior.

Etzebeth/De Jager

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/omOwjU3VHMs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There's no eye gouge! As in neither player is attempting to put their finger in the other's eyes. They are trying to get a better grip, and there's nothing in it really. Glen Jackson's comments was exactly what that was, especially on the day the Springbok squad was to be announced after that match. I don't think any of the players would have smiled afterwards if there was an eye gouge or anything like that.

But I really don't get this "we are the victim" mentality by some Jaguares supporters. Biting, Eye Gouging, and these red card incidents this past weekend has been somewhat of an ongoing trend by the Jaguares players. And they plead guilty nearly everytime at the judicial hearings. There hasn't been an uproar of any of the foul play incidents where there was an outcry like the #Justice4Bakkies campaign a few years ago. So why keep on pointing the finger at officials and/or SANZAAR for having a conspiracy theory against the Jaguares and the ARU.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The Sam Cane incident
After looking at the footage from the website you provided, most of the replays can't clearly show the point of impact where Cane connects with the opponent, and the other problem is that while Cane is entering the ruck are, other players are joining from the other side which had an effect on the Jaguares' movement towards Cane. There are some mitigating factors to consider here.

Looks quite clear to me. Sec 58 of the video in the link. He entered the ruck with his shoulder hitting the neck/head of jaguares' player.

Jaguares 2 red cards

Not sure why you bring this up again. We agree on this. The problem is not that they are being punished for foul play. The problem is that there is quite enough evidence to suggest that other people are not.

There's no eye gouge! As in neither player is attempting to put their finger in the other's eyes.

You are missing the point. The rules have been implemented quite clearly for things like this in the past.

Intention is not relevant and neither is touching the eye itself ("eye area" is enough). WR has sanctioned reckless though unintended actions near the eye area (doesn't have to be the eye) in the past.
Both Etzebeth and de Jager's actions are reckless and against laws of the game.

What they did violates rule 10.4 f and 10.4 m, both foul play. The "eye area" part's relevant part comes from here.

So when you you claim that the refs have been harsh against foul play, i see some evidence to the contrary. And i'm not speculating. I try to eliminate my bias by providing facts and the evidence to support them.

So why keep on pointing the finger at officials and/or SANZAAR for having a conspiracy theory against the Jaguares and the ARU.

I do not believe for a second there is a conspiracy. I do believe we've been unlucky and that is precisely why i understand some people's frustration.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Looks quite clear to me. Sec 58 of the video in the link. He entered the ruck with his shoulder hitting the neck/head of jaguares' player.

I'm not disagreeing with you on where he made contact, I said that the MOST of the footage is unclear. And also I said that there are mitigating circumstances when impact was made. Sure we can all say that it is a red card offence, but if we compare it to the 2 red cards of the Jaguares there is a massive difference in the action by the offender and the position of the victim as well as other factors to take into consideration.

Sam Cane and other players from both sides entered the ruck/maul at the exact same time as Cane did, there was a lot of movement and when he entered, the victim got swiveled into the position he was as he made contact with Cane.

With the 2 Jaguares red cards, both of the Jaguares Players went in onto a Kings player that was alone at the ruck, no other players from either side was involved in the movement of either players, and both the Jaguares players went into the ruck with the intention to clean out the opposing player.

There is a massive difference in the above instances, and I don't think it should really be compared with one another. A better example would have been the Bakkies Botha clean out of Adam Jones during the 2009 B&I Lions series.

Not sure why you bring this up again. We agree on this. The problem is not that they are being punished for foul play. The problem is that there is quite enough evidence to suggest that other people are not.

I bring this up because in my view it was red cards and only red cards. If it was yellow or just a citing, I would have been more aggrieved than what you are now. To blame the ref (not by you, but by others) is in my opinion not the correct way to approach this incident. Blame the players. Senatore, Herrera and Lavanini are the guilty parties here, not the ref or the TMO or the citing commisioners.

You are missing the point. The rules have been implemented quite clearly for things like this in the past.

Intention is not relevant and neither is touching the eye itself ("eye area" is enough). WR has sanctioned reckless though unintended actions near the eye area (doesn't have to be the eye) in the past.
Both Etzebeth and de Jager's actions are reckless and against laws of the game.

What they did violates rule 10.4 f and 10.4 m, both foul play. The "eye area" part's relevant part comes from here.

So when you you claim that the refs have been harsh against foul play, i see some evidence to the contrary. And i'm not speculating. I try to eliminate my bias by providing facts and the evidence to support them.

The ref, the TMO and the citing commisioner looked at the footage, and they all agreed there was no eye gouge or attempted eye gouge by either player, so what's the point of arguing here? They didn't intentionally make contact with the other player's eyes. Should They both have recieved red cards for the handbags stuff that is in every damn match just because they have big hands and it went over an eye?? Come on, don't be petty here...

I do not believe for a second there is a conspiracy. I do believe we've been unlucky and that is precisely why i understand some people's frustration.

Suck it up buttercup. Ask us Saffas, there is no use crying over spilt milk.

 

[FNS]

There´s no discussion about it the reds are reds. Then there is the other things like the scrum try or the yellow.

As many of you here im watching rugby for more than 20/25 years. Arg rugby is always gets the short straw. I thing a lot has to do as how we play rugby here. Same thing happens to Samoans they get always penalty's for high tackles.

Maybe is time to reconsider things about our gameplay to adjust better to outside competition.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I wrote a longer reply but since it appears you're not really interested i'll give you the short version.

Suck it up buttercup. Ask us Saffas, there is no use crying over spilt milk.

This coming from someone who wrote:

when my team played crappy, I tend to blame the referee, most of us saffas do that.

Should we call Merriam Webster and put the above quote next to the definition of irony?

 

[Pampas]

You put me in a tough spot H. I blame ourselves for the loss but i can easily understand the people's frustration.

Post #98 and #76 might help then. The frustration is not about the red cards themselves.

Most people keep saying that the reds were deserved and i agree. The problem is that every other week we see comparable instances (specially for the 1st red) where such plays do not receive a red card. The problem appears to be consistency. The penalty try against us is another crystal clear example. Jaguares' scrum has been collapsed by the opposition over and over again over the season and we were never awarded a penalty try.
We commit one penalty and are punished with a penalty try. The sharks committed 3 on a row against us and no penalty try nor a yellow card was given because of that.


I guess that's more an opinion than a fact.
I was watching the etzebeth vs de jager wrestling contest yesterday and couldn't help thinking "Both players deliberately use their hands on each others' eyes area. That is foul play as per the laws of the game." Both were merely told "don't do that again". Once more, deliberately using your hands on an opponents eye area (does not have to be the eye) constitutes foul play (regulation 17, i remember this one from our wc game against the ABs).

Here is a picture. De jager's face and Etzebeth's hand/fingers.

Deliberate use of fingers near the eye and/or eye area. People have been carded, cited and suspended for less.

The frustration comes from the fact in some instances the ref gives out a red card while in others he just calls what the laws of the game describe as foul play "south african fun".
So where you see how strict the refs are with foul play, other people see how refs are very strict with some cases and very lenient with others. Again, consistency.

Another example: Cane's elbow charge against Tetaz Chaparro

http://www.newshub.co.nz/sport/vide...kle-on-jaguares-prop-2016032016#axzz4A7siQcXZ

No red card. From the article:

Upon further review of the match footage, the citing commissioner deemed in his opinion the incident had met the red card threshold for foul play.

So you have two comparable plays:

-A jaguares player clears a ruck with a shoulder charge. He gets red carded, cited and suspended for two games.
-A chief's player elbow charges a jaguares player to clear a ruck. He doesn't get red carded, the citing commissioner says he believes it should have been a red card, he gets cited and does not get suspended.

So when you claim that they've been very strict with foul play i can see how other people might ask, what are you talking about?

One last stat. Lets discount the two red cards from the penalty list as they were rightfully awarded. That's 10 penalties committed by the jaguares to 14 by the kings. Out of those 10, one ended up on a penalty try and another one in a yellow card against us. The kings 14 penalties ended up in nothing of the sort. To add injury to insult, you then had some pundits claiming that the ref lost his temper because of the ridiculous amount of penalties we've committed... That's what frustrates people.

Once more, i believe we have to blame ourselves for this loss, but i can easily see and understand why some people are frustrated.

I couldnt have said it better. Consistency on the application of the law by Refs and citing commissioners is the issue on debate. The Penalty Try + yellow was the best example of that.

Nonetheless, among many problems we need to address, I think that Jaguares management should start penalizing our players with fines for each indiscipline.

 

[Durbanite]

I wrote a longer reply but since it appears you're not really interested i'll give you the short version.


This coming from someone who wrote:



Should we call Merriam Webster and put the above quote next to the definition of irony?

Lemme get this straight, you're saying that Jaguars are being targeted by SANZAR, the citing commission, certain refs and their review panel? Maybe i'm reading this thread wrong but you guys are starting to overlook or atleast choose to ignore the fact that this is a fresh team in a well established contest, or prehaps that the Jags are horribly ill-disciplined and terribly coached? I understand frustrations but it seems that you're unwilling to accept that your teams toughest opponents are not the refs but infact themselves. If not, I do not understand what you're hoping to achieve with your "I know we did, but look! they did too in a different game and didn't get punished" arguement, that's just how the game works atm folks (and until the rules are less open to interpretation, it'll stay that way.) There is not a vendetta against the Argies, and there are many checks and balances in place to ensure that. Seriously now, either it was your team or the ref, and if you insist that the ref screwed your team out of a win then you should also consider your teams other losses and realise that new teams face new challanges. Lastly, your jab at Heineken was a beaut, but as I recall was said in the spirit of a national team losing a game, which I consider to be leagues more important and emotionally charged then my SR team losing to the kings, perhaps you do not. We all blame the ref, but I sense a pattern forming here with your criticisms eg: we played soo bad, but what about the ref guys? Suck it up, your team will improve and probably comfortably beat alot of the SR teams in the seasons to come. /rant

 

[WaterboySA]

Durbanite, I agree 100%.

Pampas, so you say that you think the ref was unfair, but the Jaguares Management should fine the guys those unfair decisions went against? How's that for common sense??

 

[Durbanite]

I couldnt have said it better. Consistency on the application of the law by Refs and citing commissioners is the issue on debate. The Penalty Try + yellow was the best example of that.

Nonetheless, among many problems we need to address, I think that Jaguares management should start penalizing our players with fines for each indiscipline.

I agree that refs are inconsistant, and they always have been, even in making simple calls like putting the damn ball in straight at the scrums. Unfortunately rugby is a game of extremely fine margins, and when a ref seems to think a team is ill-disciplined they'll pick on them accordingly. My issue with both your arguements is that you're seemingly trying to justify the Jag's dangerous play by showing dangerous play that was not caught the other ref. My point is, the ref caught those 2 reds and acted in accordance with the rules, not so in the other games, but that changes nothing in regards to the legallity of the Jag's play on the day.

 

[unrated]

South Africans has also in the past complained about the ref when we play New Zealand teams. I very often feel hard done by especially when we play in New Zealand. The ball always seems to bounce in New Zealands favour. Richie McCaw was world renowned for being able to break the law so efficiently and covert that he got away with infringements time after time. In this regard i can emphasize with the Jaguares supporters. After a Springbok game were we lose, the management usually analyses their interpretation on the laws and consults with referees on how to better adapt in the next game. Usually when the Boks go to the northern hemisphere they also try to adapt their game to adjust to the slight variations in the adaptation of the law this especially true regarding scrum time. On one hand i agree the refs have been bad but the Jags are probably getting used to interpretation of the laws and as a result concede large amounts of penalties. (FYI im not touching on the subject of the two red cards, just the general penalty count of the Jags)

 

[TRF_heineken]

I wrote a longer reply but since it appears you're not really interested i'll give you the short version.


This coming from someone who wrote:



Should we call Merriam Webster and put the above quote next to the definition of irony?

Perhaps I emphasized it wrongly. And as my fellow saffas have stated that we do blame the referee for a loss, but we always man-up and move on. Sure there are the odd instances where we hold grudges like with Bryce Lawrence, but then again that is a once in a lifetime sort of situation, and not a week-in, week-out sort of problem like the Jaguares seem to have with all the officials in Super Rugby. (I'm generalizing of course)...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Lemme get this straight, you're saying that Jaguars are being targeted by SANZAR, the citing commission, certain refs and their review panel?

No i am not. Absolutely not.

Maybe i'm reading this thread wrong but you guys are starting to overlook or atleast choose to ignore the fact that this is a fresh team in a well established contest, or prehaps that the Jags are horribly ill-disciplined and terribly coached?

I think you are reading this wrong (or maybe i'm not expressing myself eloquently enough. Apologies if that is the case).
I just find it hard to believe that you would think that someone who wrote (post #72)

The ref made a LOT of mistakes, most of them against us, but to be completely honest, i thought he got the two reds and the yellow right.

is overlooking our lack of discipline.
@unrated: thanks for being honest.

--------------------

when my team played crappy, I tend to blame the referee, most of us saffas do that.

South Africans has also in the past complained about the ref when we play New Zealand teams. I very often feel hard done by especially when we play in New Zealand. The ball always seems to bounce in New Zealands favour. Richie McCaw was world renowned for being able to break the law so efficiently and covert that he got away with infringements time after time.

And as my fellow saffas have stated that we do blame the referee for a loss, but we always man-up and move on.

If you can't see the (huge) inconsistencies between those three posts, then i can't help you. I have nothing but respect for you and i generally agree with the overwhelming majority of what you post but i must admit it seems like you've lost the plot here.

Perhaps I emphasized it wrongly.

I mean no disrespect, but i do not believe you. It's just too convenient.
I believe you meant what you said back then (which is kinda supported by the quote from another RSA poster i quoted above) and you are changing the tune to fit your argument now.
Hope you do not take this personally.
Cheers

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think you are reading this wrong (or maybe i'm not expressing myself eloquently enough. Apologies if that is the case).
I just find it hard to believe that you would think that someone who wrote (post #72)

How is this not exactly the same as what I stated in the post just above your post??!!

I mean no disrespect, but i do not believe you. It's just too convenient.
I believe you meant what you said back then (which is kinda supported by the quote from another RSA poster i quoted above) and you are changing the tune to fit your argument now.
Hope you do not take this personally.
Cheers

lol, I never take things personally on this forum. Just chillax

 

[petite]

guys i´m gonna be completely truthfull about how i feel about this game. the reff **** us up!!. but its normal to every team now and then. agree completely with cruz de sur interpretation. no conspiration againts us. its more an adaptation thing. the reff are targeting us as newcomers nothing more. lavanini is an imbecil a strong one we all know it. he is young and he ll learn i hope
the reds where ok to me besides same cane´s affaire. not so sure about the yellow.
i think its normal for jags fans to complain, anyone would compalin in this situration. and guys you did complain a lot.
its normal too that everybody else will go: noooo you lost bescause of your indisipline noo the reff wasent biased etc etc..
just think about the suzie affair, we are still talking about it 20 years after.

 

[Pampas]

Pampas, so you say that you think the ref was unfair, but the Jaguares Management should fine the guys those unfair decisions went against? How's that for common sense??

The reds were reds, the problem is that those plays should always be red, and they are not, except when Jaguares are involved, in which case is straight red. Sam Cane's play was the best example, and he was even cleared of charged by the citing commission.
Its different the case with the yellow for one scrum penalty, after Kings made 14 penalties. Thats comical to say the least. Moreover when a few weeks back we suffered 3 scrum penalties in Sharks 22 with no PT nor yellow, and we actually ended up losing the ball by a knock on.
Im not denying that Jaguares players and management are doing plenty of mistakes, and specially having very bad discipline that are costing us the games. Thats why we should start giving fines for indiscipline. But this doesnt change the fact the Refs have labeled Jaguares as a team with bad reputation, and have a preconceived idea that Jaguares are going to make penalties, and in case of doubt they penalize us. Agaisnt Sharks, for example, we were penalized several times for non existant off sides. There is no conspiracy, its just that Jaguares are suffering the consequences of the bad reputation they created, and this situation is harming us bad.

 

[Five Meters Out]

The reds were reds, the problem is that those plays should always be red, and they are not, except when Jaguares are involved, in which case is straight red. Sam Cane's play was the best example, and he was even cleared of charged by the citing commission.
Its different the case with the yellow for one scrum penalty, after Kings made 14 penalties. Thats comical to say the least. Moreover when a few weeks back we suffered 3 scrum penalties in Sharks 22 with no PT nor yellow, and we actually ended up losing the ball by a knock on.
Im not denying that Jaguares players and management are doing plenty of mistakes, and specially having very bad discipline that are costing us the games. Thats why we should start giving fines for indiscipline. But this doesnt change the fact the Refs have labeled Jaguares as a team with bad reputation, and have a preconceived idea that Jaguares are going to make penalties, and in case of doubt they penalize us. Agaisnt Sharks, for example, we were penalized several times for non existant off sides. There is no conspiracy, its just that Jaguares are suffering the consequences of the bad reputation they created, and this situation is harming us bad.

This is spot on Pampas. The Jaguares have got a bad rep and are being policed extra hard by the Refs. It'll do the Jags good in the long term as they will stop the ****le and learn to play to their strengths.

 

[WaterboySA]

This is spot on Pampas. The Jaguares have got a bad rep and are being policed extra hard by the Refs. It'll do the Jags good in the long term as they will stop the ****le and learn to play to their strengths.

I can't agree with either of you. They don't have a bad reputation, they have absolutely the worst discipline I've ever seen in a rugby team. Why does this not happen when almost all those players play for the national team?

 

[Dark Horse]

I can't agree with either of you. They don't have a bad reputation, they have absolutely the worst discipline I've ever seen in a rugby team. Why does this not happen when almost all those players play for the national team?

Not sure but it extends to everything they do on the field. As an example, the repeated dropping of balls is a form of ill discipline. It's difficult to believe these guys can't catch a ball. When the Jags/Pumas get repeated scrum penalties near the opposition line it's interesting that they will push the other team back towards their line but not actually score the try. It's astounding to me that in an area in which they are supposedly strong they find it difficult to deliver when the pressure is on. This seeps into every element of their game and has got nothing to do with talent. They have plenty of that but their inability to stay cool and calm under pressure is the common denominator in my opinion. I don't personally think that Herrera or Lavannini should have been red carded (or even sin binned). Players plough into rucks to clear it out without really thinking. However their high aggression could have been the result of general frustration at their team's form and a desire to do something about it.