[RWC2023 QF4] France vs South Africa (15/10/2023)

[Wichita]

I understand you are mourning and upset. Re-read this in a month. Hopefully, you will realize by then that mentioning all and only the ref's mistakes that went against you doesnt demonstrate bias against France. It only demonstrates refs make mistakes.

Ref make mistakes, we all do. And I am not suggesting that Ben O'Keefe was dumped by his French girlfriend when he was 18 and that he swore to wipe out everything French from the surface of the earth
Still, we all know that in a 50/50 situation, you are better off in an AB, Bok or English Jersey than in a Chilean, Romanian or Namibian one. Even though I'm doing my best to dismiss it, I still think there are better Jerseys than one with a cockerel on it to get some decisions your way.

 

[ncurd]

Your confusing two different things. Etsebeth did not attempt to catch the ball or knock it forward. This is what us fans are used to seeing 99% of these matters. If he had just stuck an arm or attempted to catch it. You and others post are quite right it's a penality and possible a yellow card.
Your also confusing the term motion. I'm not talking about the motion of the ball but the motion of the arm. If the motion was forward i.e to catch or intentionally knock the ball on that is a penality and yellow. Instead the motion of the hand was backwards IE to slap the pass backwards. It's incredibly rare in games and that's why everyone is confused.

What was clear to the ref is that he legally intercepted a pass by making a backwards slapping motion. Unless the law has changed he does not need to make any attempt to catch it.
I would agree it's a silly rule, however the rules around knock ons generally are silly imo

Can you cite this obscure law only you are referring to?

 

[Horacito]

It would be nice to get some actual analysys and thought.

why didn't the french keep up the tempo in the second half?
what kind of impact did the bench have? Kwagga just murdered
why wasn't there a second plan, once your attack becomes ineffective/ less effective?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Can you cite this obscure law only you are referring to?

he seems to be blending the forward pass interpretation of the motion of the arms mattering with the knock on law of the direction of the ball mattering.

The only thing that matters is what direction the ball went. If you try to swipe it backwards but it goes forwards it's an intentional knock on, end of story.

 

[ncurd]

he seems to be blending the forward pass interpretation of the motion of the arms mattering with the knock on law of the direction of the ball mattering.

The only thing that matters is what direction the ball went. If you try to swipe it backwards but it goes forwards it's an intentional knock on, end of story.

Yup there's no such thing as a slap back or intentional interception (the only time an interception is interpreted as intentional is if you actually do it).

 

[Jimbo]

Whilst I agree there is no conspiracy there were clearly a few things there for them to be aggrieved at, not least the Etzebeth knock back / forward. This doesn't mean the boks weren't worthy of getting a result - what a side and a performance - but these are big calls which they have a right to question.

I'd also have to point out that this overt level of questioning of refereeing has not been helped by precedents set (and broken) by Rassie Erasmus in his post match rants and video analysis. He's normalised some of this.
I think that before people come down too hard on the french criticising some decisions, they should ask "what would Rassie be doing and saying now if the boks had lost in reverse fashion?"

I think the point is that this in part maybe led to the officiating being lenient towards SA.

 

[Wichita]

It would be nice to get some actual analysys and thought.

why didn't the french keep up the tempo in the second half?
what kind of impact did the bench have? Kwagga just murdered
why wasn't there a second plan, once your attack becomes ineffective/ less effective?

Everyone would agree that the Bok bench brought a lot and the French one much less, and that the French team were getting tired in the last 20 minutes. But imagine they had a 10-12 points lead at that time, it would have changed the momentum of both teams drastically.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

he seems to be blending the forward pass interpretation of the motion of the arms mattering with the knock on law of the direction of the ball mattering.

The only thing that matters is what direction the ball went. If you try to swipe it backwards but it goes forwards it's an intentional knock on, end of story.

That's what he said essentially.

He only mentioned the motion of the hands as something - and he did state this- that perhaps might have influenced the decision of the ref in that the motion of the hands clearly intended to slap it backwards as he would be allowed to do. Whether or not the ball actually went forwards or backwards I've not seen. In real time I can't recall thinking much of it.

 

[ncurd]

That's what he said essentially.

He only mentioned the motion of the hands as something - and he did state this- that perhaps might have influenced the decision of the ref in that the motion of the hands clearly intended to slap it backwards as he would be allowed to do. Whether or not the ball actually went forwards or backwards I've not seen. In real time I can't recall thinking much of it.

But that doesn't matter there is no slap backwards in rugby. It's not a pass so motion of his hands are completely inconsequential to the decisions making process. Only the direction of the travel of the ball.

The motion of Etzebeth's hands are indicator that the ball may have gone backwards. But its not evidence that it did or a factor into any decision if its a penalty or not.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Sorry, I just had a look at the action you mentioned, I do not see why you object to Jelonch binding to Danty in this situation (this seems perfectly OK to me) and the Reinach obstruction by Jelonch is very dubious, it happens 50 times in every rugby match and the ref has already seen SA 1 and 2 offside tackling Danty before the Jelonch-Reinach contact ...
I took me all of 2 minutes to rule out your ruling this out, mind...

Looking up the actual law I was referring to I do see it states specifically three players prebinding as illegal. This was brought into play alongside the new 50:22 law among others. So I am wrong there as this is just two players in this case. Block on Reinach I also wouldn't call but then again, I've seen less called. I suppose just goes to show that the laws need streamlining. I've always felt myself somewhat clued up. Can't imagine what a mess this looks like to a casual viewer.

But that doesn't matter there is no slap backwards in rugby. It's not a pass so motion of his hands are completely inconsequential to the decisions making process. Only the direction of the travel of the ball.

The motion of Etzebeth's hands are indicator that the ball may have gone backwards. But its not evidence that it did or a factor into any decision if its a penalty or not.

Yes, I don't see how we are not in agreement but your tone suggest you believe we aren't?

zEdit, let me just merge my posts quick..

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Still, we all know that in a 50/50 situation, you are better off in an AB, Bok or English Jersey than in a Chilean, Romanian or Namibian one. Even though I'm doing my best to dismiss it, I still think there are better Jerseys than one with a cockerel on it to get some decisions your way.

Are you suggesting that THIS French team, playing a WC in France gets a treatment from the refs that is closer to the one Namibia or Chile get than the one England gets?
Do i understand your argument correctly?
England received a red card on the first quarter of their opening game against their (arguably) toughest group rival.

I think we both agree that refs make mistakes. I see no evidence whatsoever that leads me to believe there is a bias against France.

 

[saulan]

Yeah, I think that's what Saulan was saying - I'd have to watch it again to see if I agree, but it's a very reasonable interpretation.

Yea that was me. Is it the letter of the law, no. But it's consistent with how he generally has been refereeing this World Cup. It was like this in the Ireland vs SA game and I do believe Rassie and their team specifically decided that they were going to target it - make things as messy as possible to stop any French ball given that they knew O'Keeffe doesn't ref it strictly. This way of refereeing will result in more free flowing games, but also means there is a lot of risk of the (fair) discourse of how the laws weren't specifically followed properly.

I went into this game with the expectation that the breakdown would not be reffed and it made the game much more enjoyable to watch. If you went into that game expecting the laws to be followed to the letter in the breakdown then you were going to have a bad time.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Does it result in more free flowing games? Ever ruck taking four seconds to get the ball out is not exactly my interpretation of lekker flow. Whereas New Zealand vs Ireland actually had quick ball.

 

[ncurd]

Yes, I don't see how we are not in agreement but your tone suggest you believe we aren't?

I think we are it's LionsXV I'm struggling with.

 

[ncurd]

Does it result in more free flowing games? Ever ruck taking four seconds to get the ball out is not exactly my interpretation of lekker flow. Whereas New Zealand vs Ireland actually had quick ball.

This is my point if your allowing a French player to make 60 meters and you allow illegal defensive rucking when he has proper support. Your not creating a free flowing game. Your just not reffing it.

 

[Horacito]

found this

kolbe charge

 

[saulan]

Does it result in more free flowing games? Ever ruck taking four seconds to get the ball out is not exactly my interpretation of lekker flow. Whereas New Zealand vs Ireland actually had quick ball.

Fair point, poor choice of words on my end. It results in a less stop start game of blowing each infringement as there are so many infringements that happen, which raises the point of where do you draw the line. Raynal and O'Keeffe decided to draw the line by not reffing it and providing coaching lessons to players.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't like this type of refereeing. It defeats the point having laws that aren't followed by refs and creates so much frustration to fans. Ref things properly, but I'd love to see what happens if we go to just allowing hands in ruck to try to make the breakdown easier to manage. No ambiguity then.

 

[Reiser99]

At this stage if everyone starts combing every bit of footage for an infringement we will never stop. Was the ref perfect, no? Was the ref biased? Also no.

In the end it won't change the result.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't like this type of refereeing. It defeats the point having laws that aren't followed by refs and creates so much frustration to fans. Ref things properly, but I'd love to see what happens if we go to just allowing hands in ruck to try to make the breakdown easier to manage. No ambiguity then.

they tried that at stellenbosch uni during the law trials. It was one they liked cause it made attacking teams play the ball quicker and forced 9s to be at rucks quicker.

 

[Wichita]

Are you suggesting that THIS French team, playing a WC in France gets a treatment from the refs that is closer to the one Namibia or Chile get than the one England gets?
Do i understand your argument correctly?
England received a red card on the first quarter of their opening game against their (arguably) toughest group rival.

I think we both agree that refs make mistakes. I see no evidence whatsoever that leads me to believe there is a bias against France.

Not against France per se. But yes, to some extent, reputation gets you some 50/50 calls. And I have not seen much home bias either in this WC.
I am ready to accept some teams play the ref better than others. But it seems to be an ongoing tradition for some of them, from fathers to sons, and in some cases, the refs are playing some teams better than others