All Blacks vs Springboks, July 17th 2010, Second Tri Nations Test

[smartcooky]

Iron Mike; De Villiers did not "spear tackel" Ranger.

Oh yes he did. If de Villiers put him down safely, how come Ranger's head hit the ground and he needed medical attention. I am sure de Villiers will be cited for this. EDIT: I see he has been cited.

Read the attached memorandum, which concludes

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:
► The player is lifted and then forced or "speared" into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

► The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

► For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.

Jane fell over as Kirchner made the tackel, it certainly was not on purpose.

► Whether it was on purpose or not is of no consequence
► The fact that Jane was falling into the tackle was of no consequence.

The onus is on the tackler to ensure that they keep their contact below the line of the shoulders. Ask any certified referee and they will tell you the same thing. The ball carrier ducking into or falling into a tackle is not taken into consideration.

By the way, Law 15 says nothing about wrapping arms in a tackle. In fact, the word "wrap" does not appear anywhere in the Laws of the Game; "wrapping arms" is a bullshit term invented by the media to explain what they don't understand.

Dangerous tackles are covered in Law 10.4, not 15.

LAW 10.4
(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(this is the bit about high tackles. Nothing about ball carriers falling or ducking)
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(and this is the most misundrstood bit. A player does not have to wrap arms; but he must attempt to grasp. Big difference)
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the
ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

I expect Kirchner may be cited for that tackle.

 

[Shark Bait]

Slapped? Kicked? Maybe I was on the wrong channel, because the commentators on the game I watched were even in agreeance it was a rubbish call not even worth a penalty... Kiwi commentators it is to be noted.

I said compare, "compare the impact to roussow getting sent off." I didnt ask wether or not it was relevant. So, ironically, your comment about relevance is irrelevant

oh and btw. the lead at half time was 6 points... So obviously you were not watching the same game. Hope you enjoyed yours.

 

[Shark Bait]

I am going to reveal a revalation now. Ref's Discretion!!!!! OMG....

Oh yes he did. If de Villiers put him down safely, how come Ranger's head hit the ground and he needed medical attention. I am sure de Villiers will be cited for this.

Read the attached memorandum, which concludes



► Whether it was on purpose or not is of no consequence
► The fact that Jane was falling into the tackle was of on consequence.

The onus is on the tackled player to ensure that they keep their contact below the line of the shoulders. Ask any certified referee and they will tell you the same thing. The ball carrier ducking into or falling into a tackle is not taken into consideration.

By the way, Law 15 says nothing about wrapping arms in a tackle. In fact, the word "wrap" does not appear anywhere in the Laws of the Game; "wrapping arms" is a bullshit term invented by the media to explain what they don't understand.

Dangerous tackles are covered in Law 10.4, not 15.

LAW 10.4
(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(this is the bit about high tackles. Nothing about ball carriers falling or ducking)
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(and this is the most misundrstood bit. A player does not have to wrap arms; but he must attempt to grasp. Big difference)
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the
ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

I expect Kirchner may be cited for that tackle.

 

[nickdnz]

I am going to reveal a revalation now. Ref's Discretion!!!!! OMG....

Are you an idiot? I said for a start, there was a point in the second half, when there was a gap of 3 points. It was befiore Rene Ranger scored in the 47th minute. My point being, during the second half, the momentum was swinging South Africa's way, and it was almost even on 3 points, yet the Springboks still lost by 14 points.

JDV has already been cited for a dangerous tackle on JDV.

The NZ commentators got it wrong. They're not gods, and when the match is recapped they may have had a closer look to change their minds.

I suspect you are Peter de Villiers.

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/ne...gbyu-defeated-springbok-coach-lashes-referees

WELLINGTON, July 17, 2010 (AFP) - - Springboks coach Peter de Villiers lashed out at the standard of rugby Test referees Saturday and suggested cheating may be the only way to beat diverse law interpretations.
His outburst came after the Springboks suffered a second successive hiding from the All Blacks, losing the second Tri-Nations Test 31-17 after being beaten the previous week 32-12.
All Blacks coach Graham Henry was full of praise for new law interpretations which allowed the team in possession to win quick ruck ball and play an expansive, running game. As a result they scored eight tries in the two Tests.
But de Villiers was clearly not happy with the way his side had been hammered in the two Tests which were controlled by northern hemisphere referees.
"I'm frustrated at the moment," he said, denying his side had lost the form that won them the Tri-Nations championship last year and saw South African sides dominate the last two Super 14 competitions under southern hemisphere referees.
"We've played now six (Tests this year) and in six games we've had six different types of plays on the ground.
"We've got the same skills as last year when we won the Tri-Nations, we're used to playing with the new interpretations in the Super 14 and now in the six games we've played the law was a bit different on the ground."
De Villiers said he wanted a definitive answer from the powers who control the game on how to prepare for situations when the ball is on the ground.
"Because I don't like to prepare guys to cheat and it seems to me that's the only way going forward if you want to be on top of those kind of things and that's 70 percent of your game."
Springbok captain John Smit was more circumspect when questioned how he felt about All Blacks captain Richie McCaw escaping with repeated warnings but no yellow card for ruck infringements when the Springboks were on attack.
"I suppose if it had been my first year of playing against the All Blacks I'd be surprised, but it's not my first year."
But McCaw, often accused by visiting teams of getting lenient treatment from referees, defended Irish referee Alain Rolland.
"The ref allowed a good contest which was good and when we got under pressure I was guilty of giving away a couple of penalties," he said.
"I guess when you're under pressure like that you've got to try and get the decisions right and I thought the ref was pretty good.
"We knew where we stood. If you held your feet and got over the ball you got rewarded but if you got it wrong he was pretty hard on you. You've got to adjust as you go."
Victorious All Blacks coach Graham Henry, in contrast to de Villiers, also praised the way referees are officiating the new interpretations.
"The new interpretation of the tackle law has changed the game a lot. It allows you to get continuity of possession and to build to score points and the guys did that exceptionally well," he said.
"There were a couple of tries tonight that went through several phases and so it's been a major influence on how the game's being played now."

 

[Shark Bait]

Shark Bait, Rossouw slapped and then kicked McCaw. It wasn't hard, but it was stupid, and if you mees up in front of the ref like that, you run the risk of getting sent off. That simple. Stop having a cry because your team loss. You claim that that 10min was what destroyed the Boks, but they were down by 3 points with 15 men on the field at one point in the FIRST HALF so your point about momentum after he came back on is rubbish lost. There were times when South Africa cheated and got away with it, Dannie Roussow just wasn't lucky. Starting *****ing sessions about Roland being bias and being the 16th man just shows your a bad loser. Now, argue further or continue to throw away what little dignity you have so far?

So let me get this straight... I am an idiot because YOU said in there was a gap of three points in the FIRST as a rebuttle to my comment about the springboks not being allowed to build momentum? The springboks trailed by 13 points after conceding a yellow card which was wrong in the first three mins.

as for the citing. Innocent until proven guilty, the old cliche'. agreed? If he is found guilty, I will admit to being wrong about that, only if you agree to admit to being wrong if he is found innocent?

 

[smartcooky]

I am going to reveal a revalation now. Ref's Discretion!!!!! OMG....

And that is supposed to mean.... what exactly?

 

[Shark Bait]

you pointed out the laws... but you didnt seem to have thought of refs discretion... refs dont always apply the laws exactly as they r written.

 

[nickdnz]

So let me get this straight... I am an idiot because YOU said in there was a gap of three points in the FIRST as a rebuttle to my comment about the springboks not being allowed to build momentum? The springboks trailed by 13 points after conceding a yellow card which was wrong in the first three mins.

as for the citing. Innocent until proven guilty, the old cliche'. agreed? If he is found guilty, I will admit to being wrong about that, only if you agree to admit to being wrong if he is found innocent?

Crap, meant second half, good call. Still my point about the Springboks down 3 points with 38 minutes to play, and still losing by 14 points, shows that momentum really shouldn't be taken as an issue, especially when JDV should probably have been yellow carded, and he was let off, which meant the referee obviously didn't have an agenda, and the call on Roussow really had little to do with the out come of the match. Or do you think that the AB's weren't the better team tonight?

 

[smartcooky]

you pointed out the laws... but you didnt seem to have thought of refs discretion... refs dont always apply the laws exactly as they r written.

There is no such thing as "refs discretion". We don't have freedom to unilaterally choose which Laws we apply and which we don't.

Sometimes, we may not apply a Law due to materiality (or lack of) or because applying a Law may disadvantage the non-offending side, but we have no discretion outside those narrow confines.

Also, when we receive a memo from the iRB, such as the one I attached, (which I bet you have not even read), that DIRECTS us to apply a particular Law EXACTLY as it says, then materiality and discretion goes out the window, or it had better if we expect to get good assessments.

 

[Charles]

This, my friends, is the AB peaking to early. Again.





Excellent

 

[TRF_Cymro]

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

This, my friends, is the AB peaking to early. Again.




Excellent

The All Blacks tend to peak for 18months in a 4 year cycle. That's plenty.

 

[Charles]

Haha we'll see. I don't think we can make it to the final but if we do and you guys too, it's anybody's game. My kiwi mate here in Tokyo is convinced that you guys are gonna choke again in the semi...

 

[veux]

The Boks would have made a better show of it with better selection, imo. There really isn't much point in playing perhaps the best inside centre in the world on the wing, especially when the guy you play at inside centre seems so poor. Steyn instead of Kirschner would have been better as well. The Boks seemed terrible compared to the ABs at moving the ball to the wings, instead doing lots of useless crash balls or up and unders (which sometimes worked). Fourie seemed anonymous at 13 and Steyn didn't look as good as he did last year.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

50s in, it shows the claw at the eye, then the kick. Neither are particularly bad (not a bad gouge, and the kick was barely anything) but rules are rules, as smartcooky said (i think?), both are yellow offences

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Said earlier there was a glance to the eye ... therefore Rolland was correct in his issue of the yellow. End of really.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

What a disappointing match again from the Springboks. Rossouw gets a harsh but justifiable yellow card. So stupid! Jaque Fourie was definitely the worst. What a complete moron that guy. Running into the centre of the field when you are a man down (which lead to the second try) was the most stupid decision made this year by a Springbok. Does that girl ever think before he starts running? Forward passing, letting the ball slip from his hands... Can anyone tell me why this Barbie Girl is still in the Springbok squad?

I am happy Rossouw scored the try just before half-time because it gave me a better feeling during half-time and gave me hope for a good second half.

Bringing on Gio Aplon was amazing. Aplon should have been in the starting line-up though.

What really surprised me is the number of warnings McCaw got without even getting a yellow card when the card for Rossouw was given so easily. I'm not saying Rossouw shouldn't have gotten the card but if you give one player a yellow card so easily, you have to do it on both ends.

All in all a deserved win once again for the All Blacks and a very very very disappointing performance from the Springboks. I really hope PdV wakes up before the World Cup otherwise it will be a very nasty tournament for the Springboks. What a complete lack of communication in the team. It's unbelievable. Januarie is over the hill and I hope a better backup for du Preez will present itself very soon. With this squad, we won't have a chance next year.

Kiwi's, congratulations on this amazing victory once again.

 

[Amobokoboko]

True and I don't think the sin bin would have had a huge impact as the AB's were on a roll anyway.

 

[Prestwick]

My friends, there is no finer reminder of Britain's grand heritage of Empire when you see at 7am UK time five New Zealanders (New Zealand) each gripping half empty cans of Red Stripe lager (Jamaica) wearing Marks & Spencer shorts and dunlop sneakers (UK) asbolutely wasted and desperately trying to find a Walkabout bar (Australia) to watch the rugby.

Stirs the cockles of my soul that. Honestly. I didn't laugh if thats what you think!!!

The game however seems to reflect my belief that the game seems to have left South Africa behind in the last 12 months somewhat. New Zealand running from deep whatever the weather and South Africa putting boot to ball in the (obselete) belief that they can force a turnover despite the new interpretation at the breakdown.

What happened in English rugby between January and May should have served ample warning that the game had changed in favour of the attacking team. Sides can and have adjusted to the new interpretation without leaking more points than they did before.

New Zealand astutely followed suit while South Africa stayed put. Simple as that.

 

[QKXV]

...and South Africa putting boot to ball in the (obselete) belief that they can force a turnover despite the new interpretation at the breakdown.
.

Hang on, Pres my old mate, this is exactly what NZ did on more than 1 occasion, put boot to ball and then promptly took it back from either JDV, Kirschner or Habana, like nicking kisses from a cocktail waitress.

The only difference between the Kiwi kicking game and the Boks kicking game at the moment is purpose. The boks showed glimpses of what they can do with ball around the 60 minute mark when the two step king January was finally replaced by a real scrumhalf. Once the distribution became crisper phases were beginning to build.

The biggest problem the boks have is not a second rate game plan, or the whole of the IRB conspiring to card at every possible oppertunitym on account of the sins of all of our previous and present "thuggish" players. Our biggest problem is selection. JDV on wing for example. January. John Smith. etc