All Blacks vs Wallabies, August 7th 2010, Fifth Tri Nations Test

[Hurricane Nate]

Good to finally see a game with 15 on 15 for 80mins, although Woodcock was damn lucky not get his marching orders. Great defensive effort by the AB's, the wallabies definitely missing that x-factor on attack. Tri-nations all wrapped up (pretty much) bar a miracle. All playing for pride from here on, be interesting to see what Henry and co come up with selection wise. I'd like to see a full strength AB's take out the Bok's first up over there, then givin some valuable experience to the likes of Vito, Whitelock, Dagg, Cruden etc in the remaining games, why not?.

 

[smartcooky]

i'm not sure of the exact time but i think somewhere mid second half... i swear i heard him say it and that's what he was referring to, however i could be wrong. just a bit disappointed with a lot of the decisions both ways.
(Not a Jonathan kaplin fan)

I think this is the bit you mean



IMO, he shouts "NO" to deter the AB chargers from running before the ball is out.

Only two of them appear to be offside, and those two stop immediately. The other three onside players carry on.

Good call from Kaplan I think, because the two offside players did not influence what happened next.

 

[Explosive]

Good effort from the wallabies, maybe if they had cooper they could of converted their possesion into points with a bit of magic, the all blacks defense was rock solid and wallabies didnt look like getting through any time.

 

[Nubiwan]

As with last week, the disappointing thing for me was the ref. The fiasco at scrum time with his engagement farce. I mean, he gave the ozzies a pen for the first err 'infrignment', thereafter he hardly got the word 'engage' out of his trap before the Abs were driving the wallabies back a meter. That and his hands on the props. Like get the 4ck off me ref, if I am a prop. I'm settng down for a scrum in a top international you twerp. You, ont eh othe hand, are a blouse reffing.

The inconsistency then, to have a fella sent off for handbags last week, making Woodcocks offence this week look like downright manslaughter. We all know it was at least a yellow. Many might not have bated an eyelash over a red. As for the stern lecture, well... stunk of bias I'm afraid. Add to all this Smith almost certainly lost control of the ball for his try, well in my humble opinion he did, and we'd have an even tighter match than it still ended up.

In the end, 14 men NZ for ten minutes was probably the edge they ultimately needed as, let's face it, they could not break down the majestic NZ defence.

For the record, I cannot stand any of the Tri Nations teams winning, least of all teh boks and ozzies, but just love to watch the rugby. Still, a quality game - too bad there was a ref in the mddle at times.

 

[Shaggy]

Hmmn ... that could have been me

Hmmn, well, that could have been me ... not sure if this was the post that's being refered to.

"I'm hoping that we see a 15 V 15 man contest, but I don't think we will - the players are always going to test the referees to the limit of the laws, and the refs themselves are under scrutiny for inclusion in the World Cup"

If it is, i'm more than happy to admit i'm wrong about refs appointments/scrutiny ... and not the first time or the last that i'll be accused of talking through a hole in my arse (no offence taken) ... ignorance is indeed bliss, and I appear to have been very "blissful" on this occassion

Still happy that it was a 15 on 15 contest, but wouldn't have been upset if Woodcock had been removed from the field ... he hasn't done the AB's any favours with all of the talk of biase going around, and intentional dangerous play should alwys be binned in my opinion

Whoever said that is talking through a hole in their arse (no insult intended)

Pretty much who you see on the Elite Panel now is who will be at the RWC.

Only the "fringe" referees will be vying for jobs, and one of those could be Stu Dickinson, who has not been appointed a 6N or 3N match since his train wreck in San Siro last year.

The referees we have had this June Tours & 3N (Joubert, Barnes, Kaplan, the Lawrences, Rolland, Lewis & Clancy etc) are gold plated certainties for RWC duties next year




This point has been raised on the Rugbyrefs message board. Here are some of the comments

My comment was


I agree with Woodward's suggestion that it looked worse in replay than at full speed (i.e. how Kaplan saw it)

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Woodcock Yellow ... Yay or Nay?

​

 

[lynam1104]

Witch haka did the AB's do it was great.

 

[SelimNiai]

Definatley a yellow, dangerous play to a player who wasn't expecting it. Could have caused serious injury.

 

[squirrel]

think if bakkes had done that and the reaction to it

 

[smartcooky]

Nubiwan

I have a couple if issues with what you have said here

As with last week, the disappointing thing for me was the ref. The fiasco at scrum time with his engagement farce. I mean, he gave the ozzies a pen for the first err 'infrignment', thereafter he hardly got the word 'engage' out of his trap before the Abs were driving the wallabies back a meter. That and his hands on the props. Like get the 4ck off me ref, if I am a prop. I'm setting down for a scrum in a top international you twerp. You, ont eh othe hand, are a blouse reffing.

Firstly, it didn't start that way. Referees have been instructed to slow the CPTE sequence down with a longer pause if teams have trouble getting the engage timing right.

Secondly, the hand on the player's shoulder is Kaplan's style and its a management technique. AIUI he does that to have the player realise it is him he is watching. At this level, the players and referee know each other well and the players will be familiar with it. Christophe Berdos (France) is another referee you some times see using the hand on shoulder technique.

The inconsistency then, to have a fella sent off for handbags last week, making Woodcocks offence this week look like downright manslaughter. We all know it was at least a yellow. Many might not have bated an eyelash over a red. As for the stern lecture, well... stunk of bias I'm afraid.

I refuse to accept assertions of bias (i.e. the deliberate and calculated favouring of one team over another) at this level of refereeing.

Yes I agree Woodcock should have been yellow carded, but I can also understand why he might not have been.

Firstly, referees MUST look at every offence on it own merits. They are not to decide on a sanction based on what may or may not have happened in another match. It is the job of the Judiciary to decide the relative values of punishments by precedent and prior disciplinary record.

As I posted earlier (you obviously haven't read through this topic before posting), there are a couple of reasons why he might not have been carded.

This point has been raised on the Rugbyrefs message board. Here are some of the comments

JK lectured him, but only a PK. I thought the game was well managed, and not crying out for cards. Wouldn't have argued either way on it, tbh

not dis-similar to something WB carded in an Wales vs Ireland match a couple of seasons ago.

My comment was

it could also be that he (JK) was under pressure to keep it a 15 v 15 contest given what has happened previously this season.

Regardless of any of that, Woodcock should have been shown the YC


I agree with Woodward's suggestion that it looked worse in replay than at full speed (i.e. how Kaplan saw it)

Add to all this Smith almost certainly lost control of the ball for his try, well in my humble opinion he did, and we'd have an even tighter match than it still ended up.

All I can advise you here is to stop listening to the BS spouted by TV commentators about "downward pressure". The requirement for downward pressure on the ball was removed from that part of the Laws of the Game in the early 1970's. The only requirement to "press down" on the ball is if it is already in the in-goal (say from a kick ahead) and player wishes to ground it.

LAW 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. 'Holding' means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck inclusive.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of top international and ex-international players (Justin Marshall, Phil Kearns) who still believe that a player carrying the ball has to put downward pressure on the ball to score a try. If you still believe that, well all I can say is that you are in good company.

Now to Conrad Smith's try, and it was a try. For Smith to have lost control of the ball, the ball would have to be separated from his hand(s) and touched the ground BEFORE he got his hands back on it, but that is not what happened. His hand was on the side of the ball when he touched the ball in the in-goal. That is a try, and that is why the TMO only took two looks and a couple of seconds to award it.

Take a look at this Rocky Elsom try from the 2006 Tri-Nations.

[video=youtube;DE7FvrKac10&start=108]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE7FvrKac10&start=108[/video]

Many kiwis at the time said that the TMO got this wrong, but I disagreed because I knew what the Law said, and I was sure that George Ayoub would award it.

 

[Nubiwan]

I think this is the bit you mean



IMO, he shouts "NO" to deter the AB chargers from running before the ball is out.

Only two of them appear to be offside, and those two stop immediately. The other three onside players carry on.

Good call from Kaplan I think, because the two offside players did not influence what happened next.

Well if you've ever played outside half or fullback, then you'll indeed know you use your peripheral vision to determine the position of would be tacklers and the speed of your kick to touch. If players are aloud to run offside, then like it or not, it influences any kicker to get rid faster, and with poorer results quite often. ow you can say it mattered not leadds me to believe you are a prop or winger.

 

[hobo]

that's the one, hmmm i'm still a lil unsure if all the players were onside but it was a close call fair enough, i spose it didn't really impact the out come of the game, unless the AB's scored straight after that line out... None the less it was a good game.
Wallabies 2011 World champs

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Woodcock Yellow ... Yay or Nay?

​

A player in Wales died because of resulting injuries to something similar like this. Woodcock was lucky.

 

[Nubiwan]

fair presumption, but the review commitee have not suspended him, maybe it's the fact that he didn't actually do anything and craig joubert is a ******* attention seeking cocksucker.

come on mate. Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Nubiwan]

A player in Wales died because of resulting injuries to something similar like this. Woodcock was lucky.

after that purse of a ref red carded a player for slapping teh ball to the ground, it made Woodcock's 'assault' look downright manslaughter. What's he get? A bit of how your father lip service.

 

[Nubiwan]

I dont know why but your description of Joubert cracks me up lol...its great Mitchell isnt suspended the judicary saw it right IMO. I picked correctly last week so Im gonna go with the All Blacks again this week and Im thinking it might be a close game.

Fancy it would have been reasonably close last week had not the ref flashed his personality and pocket full of cards in the game. Fancy the Wallabies played better with 14 men than did the ABS. Game was effectively over after the ref did his bit to ruin it. Having said all that, Mitchell was a prat for what he did, but was it going to effect the game.

 

[Nubiwan]

Ugh. In honesty, what can any New Zealander offer as evidence?

Like seriously...everything is a conspiracy or unfair or cheating.

Doesn't anyone just want to man up and admit that the All Blacks are winning this Tri Nations, because they are by far the best team? South Africa were last year (there was no where near this amount of crying) and now we've adapted to better suit the new rules. Referee's don't have these kinds of agenda, especially considering they will know they'll be the ones scrutinized if they get it wrong. The last ref was Sotu African for goodness sake, doing the All blacks any favours, will do him no favours in South Africa.

Refs in both the ABS OZ games have been pants in my opinion. I do not think there is any conspiracy, but the decisions have favoured the ABS, and no one can deny it. Sending off in last weeks match was senseless, and a far more hideous attack this week gets a bit of a talking to the offender when, a straight red could well have been issued. Certainly all expected yellow.

Again, as a neutral that prefers the ABS over any southern Hemi team, I am not suggesting favouritism when Conrad Smith dropped his try, but the calls favoured the ABS in both matches.

Reckon I just wanted a tighter tri nations in teh end. Not to be, sadly.

 

[nickdnz]

I think this just proves that South African AND Irish refs have always favoured the All Blacks...South African refs have been helping out the AB's since waaay back.

 

[smartcooky]

Well if you've ever played outside half or fullback, then you'll indeed know you use your peripheral vision to determine the position of would be tacklers and the speed of your kick to touch. If players are aloud to run offside, then like it or not, it influences any kicker to get rid faster, and with poorer results quite often. ow you can say it mattered not leadds me to believe you are a prop or winger.

The offside players were managed and stopped! AT this level players know that the referee will manage those types of things rather than blow the pea out of his whistle. As soon as he yelled "NO" the kicker knows he is protected from offside players charging down his kick.

Any anyway, HOW DARE YOU insult my intelligence by accusing me of being a member of the NANCY BOYS BRIGADE!!!

IMO, the only "real" rugby players have single digits on their backs.... the lower the number the better!!!

From that outburst, you will realise that your first guess was correct. I was a "Lucy"!!!

 

[woodward]

theres always gonna be calls that are wrong even more that are thought to be wrong by one eyed supporters, that doesn't mean you can suggest in the case of the Tri-Nations 2010 that the ref has affected any of the outcomes so far or margins and be taken seriously. I think Robbie Deans has given credibility to such ideas by being just as bad as P'div but inserting "some people might think" in front of his pathetic excuses.