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

[Horacito]

Still not seeing anything wrong here? Kolbe is lightning, Ramos has a slow action.

Yeah I shared because it shows how well timed is Kolbe: the moment Ramos starts moving, he runs like.... well, like a springbock

I am more interested in how the saffas slowed the ball in the second half

 

[ncurd]

Where; is that in the rules ? And here lies the issue. It's not actually in the rule book. Perhaps they need to change the rule that you can't go after an intercepted pass with one hand. This would then not allow any slap back and clear up any ref/tmo interpretation.

Some posters seemingly think it's an actual rule it isn't. Others posters were earlier suggesting it should of been a penalty try as he no chance of regathering the ball. The problem with that position is that he doesn't need too, as he is entitled to swat or slap back the intercepted pass.

God this is simple are your just arguing things that don't exist in interpretation of the laws.

Did the move go forwards? Debatable, if it did Knock On move to next question.
Does he have an oustretched hand? Yes, this is widely interpreted as a deliberate knock on. Any attempt or motion clearly had no chance of working so the player has committed a deliberate act and trued to hide it. Deliberate Knock On, Penalty Given,
Was this a clear try saving opportunity? Yes, YC given.
Would this of stopped a certain try? Yes, Penalty Try given. Etzebeth through the YC has to be regarded as not being there.

You keep talking about the slap back but it just irrelevant the ball has to go backwards, nothing more.

 

[Batsumy]

Where; is that in the rules ? And here lies the issue. It's not actually in the rule book. Perhaps they need to change the rule that you can't go after an intercepted pass with one hand. This would then not allow any slap back and clear up any ref/tmo interpretation.

Some posters seemingly think it's an actual rule it isn't. Others posters were earlier suggesting it should of been a penalty try as he no chance of regathering the ball. The problem with that position is that he doesn't need too, as he is entitled to swat or slap back the intercepted pass.

I think we have already all cleared that issue, it is now clear with everybody that effectively, Etzebeth can slap the ball backward with one hand but if the ball goes forward, then it is a deliberate knock-on because he has no chance to retrieve the ball with his 2 hands, this is in general a yellow card and then there would be a look at if the french winger receives the ball, would it be in position to score the try ? if he is then there is a possible penalty try for France, all clear now ?

Now I'm wondering if we will ever see another angle on that action, not that it would change anything but it would be interesting to put this to bed

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

More than 2k tickets for the Arg ABs are now available...demand has really disappeared and people are dumping their tickets after Ireland and France failed to reach the semi...

SE have the best teams, but NE crowd makes the experience way more enjoyable when you are in the stadium. NZ and SA have pretty average supporters, almost no chants whatsoever. I guess Argentinas and English will be the ones creating a good atmosphere.

I don't disagree sad to say.

Kinda related but nothing to do with your post but it keeps popping up elsewhere- this kinda puts to bed any chance that WR were out to "get" NH sides. It actually hurts their bottom line.

 

[Gray_Mouser]

Again, you lost by one point. Ramos singlehandedly threw away 5. Why blame it on the ref when you've got a much simpler explanation at hand?

Did he? I think we scored a try after the missed penalty. Not right afterwards, but still, no missed penalty, no try (unless my memory fails me).

FFS, let's stop bickering, we're being as bad as Erasmus. As someone mentioned earlier, this forum is very good because a lot of neutrals give their point of view. And the most popular opinion seems to be that SA may have benefited from BOK's decisions very slightly. Possibly. Maybe. Or not.

We were not robbed, we lost. Let's move on!

 

[Atmavictu]

I don't disagree sad to say.

Kinda related but nothing to do with your post but it keeps popping up elsewhere- this kinda puts to bed any chance that WR were out to "get" NH sides. It actually hurts their bottom line.

More like their image. They get a 10% commission on those tickets to be resold (so extra money after the first sale), so in a way it is good for them that many people are reselling their tickets. But the problem there are no buyers right now so many empty seats are very likely.
Hell I am not even sure I am going to the final, I just don't feel the excitement right now.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

God this is simple are your just arguing things that don't exist in interpretation of the laws.

Did the move go forwards? Debatable, if it did Knock On move to next question.
Does he have an oustretched hand? Yes, this is widely interpreted as a deliberate knock on. Any attempt or motion clearly had no chance of working so the player has committed a deliberate act and trued to hide it. Deliberate Knock On, Penalty Given,
Was this a clear try saving opportunity? Yes, YC given.
Would this of stopped a certain try? Yes, Penalty Try given. Etzebeth through the YC has to be regarded as not being there.

You keep talking about the slap back but it just irrelevant the ball has to go backwards, nothing more.

I think you and the poster are arguing past each other with the sticking point being the question whether the ball goes forward or not and it was clear the ref believed it to have gone backwards.

So in reality the ref believes the ball to have gone backwards and has made the correct call in that regard. You say the ball has clearly gone forwards and that is the actual reality in which case the ref is incorrect and it is indeed a penalty try and a YC. So I guess I am saying you are both correct but are arguing from different bases- you saying the ball has gone forwards and arguing from tehre, him saying Etzebeth has every right to have a go at the ball in he way he did. Your both right. I'm sure we'll get a conclusive angle at some stage much as with the charge down.

 

[ncurd]

I think you and the poster are arguing past each other with the sticking point being the question whether the ball goes forward or not and it was clear the ref believed it to have gone backwards.

I'd agree he's mudying the waters with a lot of other stuff. Its a simple question of does the ball go backwards or forwards. And I'm happy with people having their view on that. My main gripe is it wasn't checked even thought the TMO tried to intervene.

 

[BrokenWing]

I think you and the poster are arguing past each other with the sticking point being the question whether the ball goes forward or not and it was clear the ref believed it to have gone backwards.

I think the point that some are trying to make was that whatever the correct decision was warranted more scrutiny than it got in the situation.

 

[Where's my lost flair]

This was my first viewing as well on a lot of french breaks, off feet jackalling was causing havoc to French ball in areas where Dupont normally finds massive space and the French capitalise. Vermeulen was a key culprit, but that's years of experience

This is indeed a big issue. Look at the stats : 82 carries over gainline against 36, 43 (!!) defenders beaten against 12, 13 offloads against 2. 43 tackles out of 158 (29%!!) missed by SA. How on earth can it be possible to be put so many times out of position and still manage to slow down rucks.

 

[Batsumy]

I'd agree he's mudying the waters with a lot of other stuff. Its a simple question of does the ball go backwards or forwards. And I'm happy with people having their view on that. My main gripe is it wasn't checked even thought the TMO tried to intervene.

A better quality video of it, most of the comments seem to acknowledge the knock on

A slow mo of it:



As some comments says, etzebeth plays it very well as he launched himself forward to give the impression ball is backward but it seems that there is few doubt about the knock on. It should have been checked in any case.

And the camera angle is rather favorable to Etzebeth

 

[Batsumy]

This is indeed a big issue. Look at the stats : 82 carries over gainline against 36, 43 (!!) defenders beaten against 12, 13 offloads against 2. 43 tackles out of 158 (29%!!) missed by SA. How on earth can it be possible to be put so many times out of position and still manage to slow down rucks.

I let you guess haha

 

[Horacito]

Exactly,

This is indeed a big issue. Look at the stats : 82 carries over gainline against 36, 43 (!!) defenders beaten against 12, 13 offloads against 2. 43 tackles out of 158 (29%!!) missed by SA. How on earth can it be possible to be put so many times out of position and still manage to slow down rucks.

This is indeed a big issue. Look at the stats : 82 carries over gainline against 36, 43 (!!) defenders beaten against 12, 13 offloads against 2. 43 tackles out of 158 (29%!!) missed by SA. How on earth can it be possible to be put so many times out of position and still manage to slow down rucks.

Exactly, that's the match right there. It's about the breakdown

 

[Glassjaw]

Seems slightly foreward. The fact he didn't check it is the most annoying thing.

 

[ncurd]

A better quality video of it, most of the comments seem to acknowledge the knock on

A slow mo of it:

As some comments says, etzebeth plays it very well as he launched himself forward to give the impression ball is backward but it seems that there is few doubt about the knock on. It should have been checked in any case.

And the camera angle is rather favorable to Etzebeth

That angle is way too hard to make a determinative judgement. IMHO

 

[Batsumy]

That angle is way too hard to make a determinative judgement. IMHO

yep not the best but still you can imagine that the penaud ball is level with the 5 meter line and clearly it finished half a meter behind when it touches the ground after etzebeth interception

If I want to be picky Du Toit is also offside, he crossed the line before the ball is out, quite clear on the slow mo

Anyway, it should have been obviously checked by the ref and video

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

That angle is way too hard to make a determinative judgement. IMHO

With the caveat that there is probably no determinative angle available to us, it does look pretty clear to me

 

[ncurd]

With the caveat that there is probably no determinative angle available to us, it does look pretty clear to me

I still think it went forward, I'm just not prepared to say BOK **** the bed on his on field decision based on it.

He should of reviewed it though.

 

[Batsumy]

I think BOK knew how massive a decision it was and he decided not to go for the review, thats pretty damning for me

 

[Atmavictu]

I think BOK knew how massive a decision it was and he decided not to go for the review, thats pretty damning for me

It is almost always the same, very early in the game no ref has the balls to make a call than can decide the game.

But as a neutral (Italian) I felt he was very biased against France.