Tri Nations: Springboks - All Blacks @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (20-8-2011, 15:05)

[smartcooky]

Another classic example, Donald Was never afforded this leeway when he was Dan's backup. So philosophical all of a sudden. And people call me bias.

You think 22 tests, is not enough leeway?

He's had enough chances, and when he had the brain fart in Hong Kong last year, enough was enough!

 

[LittleGuy]

I didn't do a lot of trawling in the thread(about 5-6 pgs.) but I think Morne Steyn should be given credit for a great comeback performance this week, other then the missed drop goal at the end of the first half(which was the right option) he looked composed and effective. I think there shouldn't be much more debate who starts at fly-half for the Boks come the opening fixture of the RWC. Especially after Butch James underwhelming efforts versus the Wallabies.

I really think there is an underating of kicking fly-halfs in the game today, the hate for players like Morne Steyn perplexes me. Yes these guys don't produce the most attractive to watch brand of rugby but they do deliver wins which is what really counts. Playing for penalties, drop goals and tactical kicking are legitimate and frequently effective strategies.

 

[Larksea]

You think 22 tests, is not enough leeway?

He's had enough chances, and when he had the brain fart in Hong Kong last year, enough was enough!

Come on cookie, you know what I mean. Donald was crucified from his first mistake in test rugby and even in his good games and was never given a chance by most of the NZ public. Hong kong last year was the end of Donalds test carrier but the reality is he wasn't the only All Black that made major mistakes in the last 1/4 of the game that contributed to the final result and another reality is that Slade or Cruden would likely have not done any better than Donald did anyway. Donald getting selected did slade and Cruden a favour. Australia were Red hot at the end of that game any player coming in off only a few NPC games would have struggled.

And it's not like Donald played 22 bad tests. It's arguable but only about 4-5 of those test caps weren't up to standard and people need to also realise that he had some match winning performances for the All Blacks in those 22 tests and many more good games than bad. And that was his first and only bad game against Aussie for the All Blacks.

 

[Larksea]

I didn't do a lot of trawling in the thread(about 5-6 pgs.) but I think Morne Steyn should be given credit for a great comeback performance this week, other then the missed drop goal at the end of the first half(which was the right option) he looked composed and effective. I think there shouldn't be much more debate who starts at fly-half for the Boks come the opening fixture of the RWC. Especially after Butch James underwhelming efforts versus the Wallabies.

I really think there is an underating of kicking fly-halfs in the game today, the hate for players like Morne Steyn perplexes me. Yes these guys don't produce the most attractive to watch brand of rugby but they do deliver wins which is what really counts. Playing for penalties, drop goals and tactical kicking are legitimate and frequently effective strategies.

Yeah as per my initial post I agree, I honetly don't understand all the talk about james being a better option. Or lambie... The boks aren't going to start playing open rugby all of a sudden overnight. And if they dont have Morne in their side they aren't in the best position to capitalise on their strengths or get the field position they need.

 

[Black Heart]

Come on cookie, you know what I mean. Donald was crucified from his first mistake in test rugby and even in his good games and was never given a chance by most of the NZ public. Hong kong last year was the end of Donalds test carrier but the reality is he wasn't the only All Black that made major mistakes in the last 1/4 of the game that contributed to the final result and another reality is that Slade or Cruden would likely have not done any better than Donald did anyway. Donald getting selected did slade and Cruden a favour. Australia were Red hot at the end of that game any player coming in off only a few NPC games would have struggled.

double post.

 

[Black Heart]

Come on cookie, you know what I mean. Donald was crucified from his first mistake in test rugby and even in his good games and was never given a chance by most of the NZ public. Hong kong last year was the end of Donalds test carrier but the reality is he wasn't the only All Black that made major mistakes in the last 1/4 of the game that contributed to the final result and another reality is that Slade or Cruden would likely have not done any better than Donald did anyway. Donald getting selected did slade and Cruden a favour. Australia were Red hot at the end of that game any player coming in off only a few NPC games would have struggled.

Name 1 of those 22 test where he's played remotely well.

Donald is the personification of a brain explosion.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Name 1 of those 22 test where he's played remotely well.

Donald is the personification of a brain explosion.

http://allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=displayNews&newsArticle=8756

 

[Black Heart]

http://allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=displayNews&newsArticle=8756

Interesting. So in his best test Donald scored no points, he played no part in scoring any points and Dan Carter who won the match.

But fair enough, I'll give you it, he didn't play as poorly in that game I guess.

 

[antipodean]

Which New Zealand supporters are ******? ... I think most are okay with the call ... even Graham Henry's okay with it - the whole TMO thing just highlights another area that the IRB should have sorted out a long time ago, and that is, that the TMO should be able to rule on the phases immediately leading up to a try being scored, and if it's OBVIOUS that a forward pass has occurred, a defending player has been taken out, a knock on has occurred, they should be able to rule on it.

... If it leads to more consistent and better/more accurate calls being made, then most NZers would be right behind it

How many phases would you permit?



Dollars to cents whatever arbitrary line is made, a glaring transgression will be noticed but out of the adjudicator's bounds. People will then call for change.

As it stands, the right decision was made, but the process was abused.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Interesting. So in his best test Donald scored no points, he played no part in scoring any points and Dan Carter who won the match.

But fair enough, I'll give you it, he didn't play as poorly in that game I guess.

Sounds like a completely objective assessment - not by an educated person, mind you, but definitely objective. Nice work!

 

[Black Heart]

Sounds like a completely objective assessment - not by an educated person, mind you, but definitely objective. Nice work!

I said I'll give you it. Please read.

- was just disappointing that in the one example you came up with he didn't actually do anything.

But I'll give you it

 

[TRF_heineken]

oh FFS you guys are full of it!!

the boks played to their strengths, our traditional type of rugby won it for us at the end of the day, so what if it's boring (according to you guys). I thoroughly enjoyed the game, was on the edge of my seat most parts.

even if the try was allowed, it wasn't enough for the AB's winning, and Slade wouldn't have slotted the conversion either, so by legality it would've been 18-10.

last week we were ranting about Jaque Fourie's disallowed try, get over it, we did. if your national coach has no problem with it, why do you? you don't know the rules better than him. i just actually wish those old farts of the IRB take a note of that call and ammend the laws accordingly so that it can be included, because it's necessary.

 

[Darwin]

oh FFS you guys are full of it!!

the boks played to their strengths, our traditional type of rugby won it for us at the end of the day, so what if it's boring (according to you guys). I thoroughly enjoyed the game, was on the edge of my seat most parts.

even if the try was allowed, it wasn't enough for the AB's winning, and Slade wouldn't have slotted the conversion either, so by legality it would've been 18-10.

last week we were ranting about Jaque Fourie's disallowed try, get over it, we did. if your national coach has no problem with it, why do you? you don't know the rules better than him. i just actually wish those old farts of the IRB take a note of that call and ammend the laws accordingly so that it can be included, because it's necessary.

I'm confused - which posters do you think have a problem with the Cowan no try? The vast majority of New Zealand poster have conceded that in the end the right decision was made (as it was clearly a forward pass), they have simply stated that what the TMO and the ref did was completely against IRB protocols. What the TMO can do is outlined in law 6.A.6 (b) below (and as you can clearly see it does not say the TMO can adjudicate on forward passes before the try line )

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
(b)
-A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is
unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that
official may be consulted.

-The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal
with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been
involved.

-The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.

-The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was
or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.

-The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a
decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have
occurred.

 

[Black Heart]

We actually thrashed your'll 3 times that year not twice and we beat the British & Irish Lions......

Yes I know you did, my mistake. I forgot to type the last part of that sentence "it was the first time in over a decade the Boks had beaten the All Blacks twice in a season and the first time since the 1940s that they had won 3 tests in a row."

I'm clearly not disputing the Boks played some very good rugby in 2009 so don't mistake me on that. The point I'm making is that noone (not even the Boks) beats the All Blacks three times in a row (and in a single season) if the All Blacks are playing well. Evidently they weren't.

and at 1st u said you have a new loose forward combo,whch is the same as in 2009 when I look at it(Kaino,Mccaw and Reid) and u said a new midfield combo whch was(Nonu and Smith) in 2009 also and the back three included Muliaina and Sivivatu...with those new guys that u mentioning now being the new to come up since then.

I was making reference to the team who played in Port Elizabeth. That was a different conversation.

(additional point) Kieran Read was total mud when he first started playing for the All Blacks. Most people wanted him dropped. Thank goodness he made the step up last year.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What the TMO can do is outlined in law 6.A.6 (b) below (and as you can clearly see it does not say the TMO can adjudicate on forward passes before the try line )

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
(b)
-A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is
unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that
official may be consulted.

-The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal
with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been
involved.

-The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.

-The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was
or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.

-The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a
decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have
occurred.

So is there a law which say he can't adjudicate on a forward pass prior to the try being scored?

if not, then it's an error in omission and then it's pretty much go with the flow i guess...

 

[Black Heart]

So is there a law which say he can't adjudicate on a forward pass prior to the try being scored?

I think the key word is "in-goal"

 

[Darwin]

So is there a law which say he can't adjudicate on a forward pass prior to the try being scored?

if not, then it's an error in omission and then it's pretty much go with the flow i guess...

No. There are clear protocols as to what a TMO can adjudicate on (all clearly listed)... a forward pass prior the try is not one of them. I don't know what is hard to understand about that? There is nothing written stating that the TMO can't award a 25 point try, or run naked onto the field and stab the ref with a wet banana, but common sense dictates that he can't do these things either :lol:

Some exerts about the incident from IRB Referee boss Paddy O'Brien (courtesy of the NZ Herald):
"The referee and the television match official were operating outside our agreed protocol,"
"That will be addressed with George [Clancy] in our review of the game. It was disappointing and will form part of our discussions when we next meet."
"They will be told there should not be any breach of protocol as there was on this occasion."
"They made a call they were not entitled to make. If that means referees miss a knock-on or something else in the leadup to a try, then that's the way it is. This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision"

 

[TRF_heineken]

Fair enough Darwin, but from a legal perspective, there is nothing which dictates that he CAN'T do as he did. if it's not in the laws, then how can it be illegal?

if I f**k your mother, does that constitute you to kill me, because according to you, it's illegal.

 

[ranger]

Fair enough Darwin, but from a legal perspective, there is nothing which dictates that he CAN'T do as he did. if it's not in the laws, then how can it be illegal?

if I f**k your mother, does that constitute you to kill me, because according to you, it's illegal.

If ever a facepalm picture was called for, this is the situation.

 

[Jer1cho]

I don't think a facepalm would be suitable. That has to be the worst metaphor i have ever read.