[2018 Rugby Championship] Round 4: New Zealand v South Africa (15/09/2018)

[User1245]

N

Nah. If there is a penalty in the lead up to the try then they score the try under advantage. If they score a try, they've gained an advantage. Just as if they had made 10 metres of territory.

I tend to agree with Bull for penalties like that which are a result of foul play. It can't be all gloves are off because a try is on. Obviously wouldn't apply to an offside infringement.

 

[Derpus]

I tend to agree with Bull for penalties like that which are a result of foul play. It can't be all gloves are off because a try is on. Obviously wouldn't apply to an offside infringement.

Well, if it was sufficiently dangerous then they should still get carded but the idea that they would get a penalty shot straight after a try is a bit nonsensical.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i'm pretty sure it is a rule though, restart with a penalty on half way, i imagine it was instigated in a time before guys we're kicking from halfway on the regular

 

[TRF_heineken]

i'm pretty sure it is a rule though, restart with a penalty on half way, i imagine it was instigated in a time before guys we're kicking from halfway on the regular

I also have it that it is a rule. I remember it once happened in a Super Rugby game. The Bulls scored a try, and then someone from the opposition dived with their knees late onto the try scorer, the player got a yellow, and then after the conversion, the Bulls got a penalty on the half way line, which Morne Steyn slotted over for 3 points...

 

[Derpus]

I also have it that it is a rule. I remember it once happened in a Super Rugby game. The Bulls scored a try, and then someone from the opposition dived with their knees late onto the try scorer, the player got a yellow, and then after the conversion, the Bulls got a penalty on the half way line, which Morne Steyn slotted over for 3 points...

I think the difference here is that the penalty offence occurred after the try was scored.

 

[petite]

I also have it that it is a rule. I remember it once happened in a Super Rugby game. The Bulls scored a try, and then someone from the opposition dived with their knees late onto the try scorer, the player got a yellow, and then after the conversion, the Bulls got a penalty on the half way line, which Morne Steyn slotted over for 3 points...

must have been lavanini!

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Full agreed. Hansen thinks he has it all work out and is over-confident. He said "He said Richie Mo'unga's is playing behind a Rolls-Royce pack in Crusaders in Super Ruby. So if I applied the same logic Barret is playing well because the ALL BLACKS a Rolls-Royce pack. "

The Barret brothers caused the ABs to lose the game today. No 10 & 15

Hansen has limited money to play with. He didn't entice crude to stay because he couldn't afford both cruden and barret so had to make a choice. i'm not saying he made the right one, but his situation isn't as simple as you suggest. Sopoaga wasn't enticed to stay, because he was seen as the fourth best when he left (behind barret then mckenzie/mounga); he's hardly going to fork out money for a 4th choice instead of ensuring first choice players in other positions stay.

In terms of the comment about mounga playing behind a rolls royce pack, hansen was not discrediting mounga, just saying he is unproven in situations where the packs are more evenly matched (last year the crusaders lost against the lions for instance. beaten, on the other hand, often makes things happen out of nothing, not just from front ball).

 

[Umaga's Witness]

The abs consistently enter from the side of rucks, removing opponents, and refs are to afraid to penalize it. You are correct about Reads infringement.

yep, since playing under the new ruck rules what used to be called in form the side is rarely being called as such. The all blacks, more than most, have certainly cottoned on to it not being flavour of the month for referees at the moment. I don't mind it though as, in the past, most calls were quite ridiculous and way too subjective. How wide is the gate? how far back is it? i think you should just have to have come form an onside position (i.e. gotten behind the hindmost foot or, if the ruck is yet to form, the ball), and drive in the direction of the opposition goal post.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I think alot of the inconsistency can be attributed to rotation...with away games up next Hansen has tried to manage players workloads...so it would be safe to say that the team we used against SA was'nt our A team which also highlights the fact that our depth is'nt as great as we first thought...
Not to take away anything from SA as they rose to the occasion and defended like demons , made the most of limited opportunities and thoroughly deserved the win..

it was what the selectors thought was the top team, given injuries and other circumstances, or at least what they thought will be the top team with time (i'm mainly talking about jordie here, who isn't good enough to start for the all blacks but is seen as the future and is getting better with more time in the jersey). Goodhue would have started with ALB on the bench (because he's seen mainly as a bench player) had goodhue been training with the team that week, but he hadn't because SBW was expected to play so goodhue wasn't expected to be in the 23.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

If that was the case Jordie Barret would therefore be NZ's #1 fullback....but it's not and he is'nt.
Centre pairing was also a rotation..Hansen is quoted as saying he was giving players experience .

just saw this after my previous reply. see my previous reply as it addresses both those areas mentioned here. to elaborate on jordie though, he is still first choice at the moment, as in he will be selected for the majority of the top games, even if he's not good enough yet to deserve it.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Gents, I find this a bit exaggeration to call for Barrett's head at 10. This guy won the last 2 IRB World Player of The Year Awards on the back of many magnificent performances showcasing his talent at first-five. Do you guys even realise how this over-reaction is coming off

it's generally people that didn't like beauden beforehand, not people changing their minds after a defeat. and there are more anti-beauden people in NZ than elsewhere; because we care when players we think are better are not getting a shot. And Sure, he got world player of the year twice, but that doesn't mean the all blacks wouldn't have done better without a different player. We always have more than one excellent first five, and it's hard to choose between them.

If i were the selectors, i would have a tough time picking a first five. We have had some amazing options, all with very different characteristics. Cruden was better than beauden in almost every aspect, and by a very long way, but he din't have that same individual x-factor that could break open a game out of nowhere.

Beauden needs his midfield to stand up to help him with his shortcomings. It's like carter before, he was very good at everything, but there were a lot of players better at running a backline on attack. If it weren't for nonu and smith, mauger and umaga beforehand, all brilliant playmakers, carter's shortcomings would have prevented him playing first five for the ABs (he just would have been second five instead). We now don't have midfielders even close to the quality of the four i just mentioned ( i highly rate our current midfielders, don't get me wrong, but we've been blessed in recent times with some of the best ever). Given that, I often wonder whether someone else would do better than beauden. But every time I have serious doubt about Beauden he does some magical things.

Selecting is not an easy job.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

If New Zealand wallop a team 50-20, then few will comment about some earlier key decisions that went their way, as in the end they simply ran away with it. Fewer will complain the refereeing decisions had much influence on the outcome. From a refereeing perspective therefore, and rather my point, it is always safe to side with the perceived dominant team.

interesting point, are you suggesting refs are doing this consciously or unconsciously? If consciously is your answer I will suggest you are deluded.

Certainly the large majority of gripes people have with ref's giving the all blacks preferential treatment is coming from confirmation bias; simply, people see patterns when they aren't there, people notice the evidence that supports their point and not the evidence against it.

But I'm not dismissing some not insignificant unconscious bias toward the ABs on behalf of the ref's, perhaps simply because they unconsciously interpret wrong-doings from lesser teams as them resorting to cheating out of desperation. I'd be interested in your thoughts of how this bias comes about.

 

[Immenso]

I wasn't even going to make the point on this thread, but having seen some of the in match commentary, and posts on here, it appears I was not alone on my opinion on the ref.

I can only imagine the surprise you must have had when you opened an NZ match thread and found it full of ref whinging. No wonder you took this unexpected opportunity.

 

[Derpus]

interesting point, are you suggesting refs are doing this consciously or unconsciously? If consciously is your answer I will suggest you are deluded.

Certainly the large majority of gripes people have with ref's giving the all blacks preferential treatment is coming from confirmation bias; simply, people see patterns when they aren't there, people notice the evidence that supports their point and not the evidence against it.

But I'm not dismissing some not insignificant unconscious bias toward the ABs on behalf of the ref's, perhaps simply because they unconsciously interpret wrong-doings from lesser teams as them resorting to cheating out of desperation. I'd be interested in your thoughts of how this bias comes about.

Maybe, but you have less evidence for this than the people claiming the refs favoured the All Blacks. It's pretty easy to point to a series of decisions and wonder what the **** is going on, much harder to gauge the mental state of the people making the judgment on the refeering performance beforehand. Unless, of course, you just assume all viewers are bias against the All Blacks, but that would be ridiculous.

No, it is far more likely that, if after a game the consensus is that the referee favoured the All Blacks, that he actually did and we don't all suffer mass delusion. Although mass delusion probably makes you feel more comfortable as an All Blacks fan.

Refs favouring the dominant team happens all the time in rugby, and not just where the All Blacks are involved. It's common knowledge that if you win the early scrums the ref will be far more likely to side with you for the rest of the match. This is because so much of rugby is based on subjectivity. This is also part of the reason why people prefer simpler games with less room for interpretation such as league or soccer.

Of course, you cover your bases by stating that even if there is some unconcious bias towards the dominant team, which there usually is, its insignificant. Even if only one decision (such as the 30 meter advantage) goes your way and arises out of unconcious bias, then it's already significant. Particularly in test match rugby where the margins are often very slim.

I'll grant you though, that the only reason the All Blacks in particular get hit with the accusation of refereeing bias is because they are so often dominant, and refs tend to favour the dominant side. Makes sense really.

 

[Immenso]

As we get all Pysch 101 and confirmation bias on this ... people see patterns when they aren't there, etc etc

Is the "30 meter advantage" even an evidence of a decision going anyone's way? Did South Africa have an advantage but it was called advantage over within 30 metres? Maybe that's just the way Nige rolls.

It's a pedantic point, but a 30m gain isn't actually an advantage compared to a potential penalty goal or plugging an attacking 5m lineout.

By convention, advantage is called as approximately 50% of an audience gets frustrated if it goes too long with a team playing in hiatus. Not because of a hard rule say an x metre gain = advantage over.

For the record, I thought it was a decision that went NZ's way. But it wasn't wrong and the opposite didn't occur in the reverse.

It's all subjective.

 

[Immenso]

Statistically. This game reminded me a lot of the NZ v Ireland game in Dublin 2016.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/matchstats?gameId=281645&league=281633

The dominant team on the day (by the traditional statistical measures) ending up losing the match.

POSSESSION: IRE 66%, NZL 34%
TERRITORY: IRE 70%, NZL 30%
PENALTIES CONCEDED: IRE 4, NZL 14

 

[Derpus]

As we get all Pysch 101 and confirmation bias on this ... people see patterns when they aren't there, etc etc

Is the "30 meter advantage" even an evidence of a decision going anyone's way? Did South Africa have an advantage but it was called advantage over within 30 metres? Maybe that's just the way Nige rolls.

It's a pedantic point, but a 30m gain isn't actually an advantage compared to a potential penalty goal or plugging an attacking 5m lineout.

By convention, advantage is called as approximately 50% of an audience gets frustrated if it goes too long with a team playing in hiatus. Not because of a hard rule say an x metre gain = advantage over.

For the record, I thought it was a decision that went NZ's way. But it wasn't wrong and the opposite didn't occur in the reverse.

It's all subjective.

I was always under the impression the rule of thumb was roughly 10 metres. You certainly don't see territorial gains of 30 metres called back very often (or ever).

You might be right technically but it's not convention. This brings me back to the point about subjectivity but probably a conversation for another time.

 

[Immenso]

Penalty advantage of roughly 10 metres is convention? no way.

A knock-on advantage of roughly 10 metres? yes.

 

[Derpus]

Penalty advantage of roughly 10 metres is convention? no way.

A knock-on advantage of roughly 10 metres? yes.

Well it's definitely not 30.

 

[George Ford]

Beauden needs his midfield to stand up to help him with his shortcomings. It's like carter before, he was very good at everything, but there were a lot of players better at running a backline on attack. If it weren't for nonu and smith, mauger and umaga beforehand, all brilliant playmakers, carter's shortcomings would have prevented him playing first five for the ABs (he just would have been second five instead). We now don't have midfielders even close to the quality of the four i just mentioned ( i highly rate our current midfielders, don't get me wrong, but we've been blessed in recent times with some of the best ever). Given that, I often wonder whether someone else would do better than beauden. But every time I have serious doubt about Beauden he does some magical things.

Selecting is not an easy job.

This is very true. Carter was destined to be great and playing with those guys (and Marshall & Mehrtens) certainly primed him for the call.

It begs the question, who is the ABs first-choice midfield? The past eludes me to think Hansen & co regards it as SBW & Crotty, albeit the former being a bit injury-prone, not to mention letting them down last year. For me it should be Goodhue instead. Other guys like ALB, Laumape, Moala & to a lesser extent J. Barrett (don't curse me lol) are exciting options, especially Laumape for his game-breaking abilities.

I do agree that Beauden wasn't his imposing-self in this test and for that credit must go to the Boks for making sure his impact was limited, but you can expect the guy to come out better off it and ditto for the rest.