RWC 2011 - Quarter final 3 : Springbokke v. Wallabies CLOSED

[Jay]

Agreed - the ruck was a bit of a free for all. Lots of hands from both sides on numerous occasions.
Still I thought the refereeing was pretty neutral regarding its impact on the game.

Lawrence does miss a fair bit though. (Then again he doesn't have spider cam and slow motion replays etc. )

He's dreadful. Staggers me how he is rated at all.

I agree the reffing didn't decide the outcome - if anything, as I said, I think his reffing style favoured the Boks.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think Bryce would have got a quarter final if a) Steve Walsh was still a Kiwi or b) the RWC wasn't in New Zealand.

 

[pete88]

When are the SF refs announced?

 

[Braveheart81]

I would be highly surprised if it isn't two out of Barnes, Kaplan, Rolland and Poite.

My likely scenario is Barnes and Rolland. I think Kaplan is a good chance at being given the final after not getting a quarter final and reffing a semi last RWC.

 

[Antony]

...is now a symptom not of a love of rugby, but of pathetic cultural neurosis that associates a winning of a RWC as confirmation of a fragile national identity.

Piss off mate. Some dickheads at a rugby game have nothing to do with a 'fragile national identity'. The fact of the matter is, you guys are looking at this from a Waratahs-rugby 'clap-the-opposition' paradigm, which quite simply isn't the case in New Zealand. The thug element in Australia (and probably a lot of the home unions) is predominantly attracted to other codes, whereas in New Zealand they're All Blacks fans. It doesn't say anything about the country generally, and to make a generalisation like that is crap logic, and frankly is a touch offensive.

 

[potjiekos]

....He played the ref brilliantly and slowed down a lot of the Boks ball by getting his hands on it during the ruck.....

My bad. I seem to have missed the memo where playing outside the rules of the
game, under the guise of 'playing the ref', has become an acceptable standard.

What a standard for young schoolboys to aspire to!!

Due to the competitive nature and success of many Aussie teams, I can understand the 'win-at-all-costs' mentality, but when that success is achieved by playing beyond the rules of the game (ie.structured and systematic illegal play ), and coupled with the fact that such play is not only condoned, it is applauded, then IMHO I'm afraid it doesn't bode well for the state of rugby in Aussieland going forward, irrespective of the amount of trophies in the cabinet.

Beyond my allegiance to the boks, I'm also a big fan of 3N and S15 rugby and would hate it implicitly if the international rugby community starts branding the wobs as cheats.

The wallabies are to good of a team to stoop to that level and much rather than concentrating on 'playing the ref', should focus on incorporating a workable defensive pattern to their exsting expansive game while tweaking their set play (scrums and lineouts) along the way. Believe you me, they'll a dominant force in world rugby for years to come!

Btw, I would be just as critical of the boks were the roles revesed!

 

[Braveheart81]

The breakdown is interpreted slightly differently by every single referee. I don't get how having your fetcher play to the limits of what the referee will allow is cheating.

The worst act by far in that game was Danie Rossouw taking out Radike Samo's legs in the air in the lineout. Dangerous and dirty play. The act that effectively cost South Africa the game.

 

[Slim 293]

Blah blah blah...

From my biased viewpoint the Boks were infringing much more at the breakdown and got away with being offside, not releasing the player and playing with the ball on the ground on numerous occasions...

If Brussouw had've stayed on the Boks might've been capable of competing better in that mess...

 

[Bowside]

We just did on the weekend what the all black and other have been doing for nearly 10 years now. I dont agree with how the game is refereed, the ruck is a mess, but at the end of the day if you have to play the ref to win then thats what you do.

 

[pete88]

Gee tell us what you really think Antony... I agree we can't take a moral high ground here (loads of Australians have a massive case of Anglophobia, and if that doesn't count as daddy issues around our national identity I dunno what does) or generalise to the entire Kiwi population in regards to some of the hate sites, facebook and Youtube comments etc., but I don't think it's a minority of Kiwis booing him, and you kind of imply that there.

 

[pete88]

Btw, I would be just as critical of the boks were the roles revesed!

I hope we can hold you to that, next time Brussouw is man of the match for the Boks I would be surprised if he hasn't done the same thing. The issue is not the players, it's the refereeing to be honest, rugby players have ALWAYS played to get away with whatever they can, it's up to the refs to ping people for making an illegal nuisance of themselves at rucks or elsewhere. Lambie knew he'd received a forward pass for his non-try (watch his body language) but he didn't exactly pull an Adam Gilchrist. And I've never seen a player do so.

 

[Brisbok]

Have to disagree with you there, mate. The rules as it pertains to the breakdown, are not that complex.... even my 9 year old son could school you in this regard!

To name but a few....... players not releasing the tackled player after the initial tackle had been made thus preventing him from placing the ball; holding onto the player/ball way after the ruck had formed; players not rolling away; players taking up a positions beyond the initial contact area on the opposition side or even playing the ball on the ground / when off your feet.

When these infractions occur maybe once or twice during the game (remember we are dealing with highly skilled professionals here, not amateur schoolboys!), then one can put it down to an error in judgement perhaps.

However , when constant infringements at the breakdown occurs with alarming regularity, almost as if choreographed, then I'm afraid that play not only moves beyond the point of playing to the refs interpretation of the game, it regresses to a literal breaking of the rules.

Potjiekos - don't fall into the (Australian?) trap of blaming the referee for a loss. We didn't lose because of the ref's decisions. We lost because despite dominating territory and possession for pretty much the whole game, we weren't able to score enough points! With that kind of dominance we should not have allowed refereeing decisions to influence the game. We should have been too far in front on the scoreboard for it to matter.

Smit's decision in the first half to kick for touch rather than take the points when we were attacking in the Wallabies 22? PdV's decision to only give the form hooker in the world (IMO) 30 mins of game time in a RWC QF? Do you think Bismarck would have let James Horwill drive straight through him to score from around 10m out?

Yes, it's a very hard pill to swallow, but I think our boys (incl. management) only have themselves to blame.

 

[cyclopath]

My bad. I seem to have missed the memo where playing outside the rules of the
game, under the guise of 'playing the ref', has become an acceptable standard.

What a standard for young schoolboys to aspire to!!

Due to the competitive nature and success of many Aussie teams, I can understand the 'win-at-all-costs' mentality, but when that success is achieved by playing beyond the rules of the game (ie.structured and systematic illegal play ), and coupled with the fact that such play is not only condoned, it is applauded, then IMHO I'm afraid it doesn't bode well for the state of rugby in Aussieland going forward, irrespective of the amount of trophies in the cabinet.

Beyond my allegiance to the boks, I'm also a big fan of 3N and S15 rugby and would hate it implicitly if the international rugby community starts branding the wobs as cheats.

The wallabies are to good of a team to stoop to that level and much rather than concentrating on 'playing the ref', should focus on incorporating a workable defensive pattern to their exsting expansive game while tweaking their set play (scrums and lineouts) along the way. Believe you me, they'll a dominant force in world rugby for years to come!

Btw, I would be just as critical of the boks were the roles revesed!

Forgive me if I find your last sentence somewhat fanciful. None of us have that objective an eye.
This is the nub of the whole "labelling as cheats" issue that goes on. I have not been a fan of the whole McCaw is a cheat routine that is championed by quite a few here, and this is just why. Great players play at the margins - the nature of Rugby and its laws, which by their complexity, are subject to interpretations all the time ensures this.
Pocock, McCaw, Brussow et al are that much better than others because they do this.
The Sprinboks were offside quite a bit yesterday and not pinged for it, as I'm sure were the Wallabies at times. Does that systematic cheating bother you, I mean they know they're offside? Does Burger trying to remove Pocock from a ruck by his head and neck pass muster?
You are understandably pissed off that the Bokke lost - fair enough, I would be too - but pushing this line as you have in multiple posts now will just end up starting a shitfight, which is unnecessary.
I'm not having a go at you specifically, but you've made the point, move on now.
As should everyone.

 

[Mica]

My bad. I seem to have missed the memo where playing outside the rules of the
game, under the guise of 'playing the ref', has become an acceptable standard.

Btw, I would be just as critical of the boks were the roles revesed!

I think both sides got away with a lot at ruck time, and because this is such a contentious area of the game you have to play to how the referee is policing.

If the referee is letting either one or both sides get away with illegal play, it's up to the referees and their review structures etc. to address.

I agree that it's not in the spirit of the game to blatantly cheat (i.e. If you know that you have dropped the ball over the try line you should not claim a try!) but if the ref is allowing more lattitude at the ruck for either the tackler (holding the ball for longer on the ground) or pilferer you would disadvantage yourself say if you immediately released the ball when you went to ground as per the laws and the opposition are allowed to hang on to it until support arrives.

The question is how much time can you take and since this isn't written into the laws you have to play what the ref is allowing and hope that they apply their interpretation consistently.

 

[potjiekos]

The breakdown is interpreted slightly differently by every single referee. I don't get how having your fetcher play to the limits of what the referee will allow is cheating.

The worst act by far in that game was Danie Rossouw taking out Radike Samo's legs in the air in the lineout. Dangerous and dirty play. The act that effectively cost South Africa the game.

So are you implying that the rulebook be chucked out of the window, in favour of a 'lets-play-what-the-ref-will-allow' strategy?

I dont condone rough and dangerous play and agree that Danie Rossouw's (minimal)contact with Samo at the lineout, resulted in him losing his balance. However, the only reason why it was as prononced, was due to the fact that the assistant referee pointed it out and that it resulted in a pemalty.

Conversly I could mention several instances where Vickerman overstepped his 'enforcer' role and singled out Brussouw, JdP as well as Burger for some personal attention. I could also mention Samo and several others too, but I won't. Catch my drift?

 

[Richo]

My hair turned grey watching that game.

Our defense was absolutely sensational and our attack exactly the reverse. The lack of composure from Cooper, Genia and, at times, Beale was very disturbing. Equally, though, I thought there could have been some more leadership from Horwill on that front. The forwards weren't really there to take the ball up in tight either -- although, to be fair, they didn't have much opportunity with all the aimless kicking. Pocock was absolutely unbelievable, as were the locks in defense.

McCabe had a cracker. As someone who was sceptical about playing him, I'm happy to see him do so well. Great work to set-up the Horwill try. His tackles were fantastic. However, our defense did not decline at all when Barnes came on -- what we lost in physicality we made up for with organisation. Since Cooper won't be dropped, I'm hoping that McCabe's shoulder gets better. It's almost silly to have a player of Barnes calibre on the bench, but this "soften them up then outsmart them" strategy at 12 worked.

No one is really talking about our scrum, but geez I thought it did well. I think it was only penalised once, and that was on a reset after we were unlucky not to get the free kick. We were also unlucky not to win the feed in the second half when we wheeled their scrum quite effectively. That we got through scrum after scrum in our own half without giving away points was absolutely crucial to the win. Shame about the lineouts...

 

[pete88]

I could also mention Samo and several others too, but I won't. Catch my drift?

Oxymoronic statement. Yes I'm a pedant.

So are you saying you're as pissed off with South African rule-breaking as the Wallabies' transgressions? Do you think South Africa stayed on their feet and onside all game, and if they didn't, does it just make you SO mad? Hope so, you seem the principled type that would be enraged by such despicable behaviour no matter the jersey worn.

 

[potjiekos]

I think both sides got away with a lot at ruck time, and because this is such a contentious area of the game you have to play to how the referee is policing.

If the referee is letting either one or both sides get away with illegal play, it's up to the referees and their review structures etc. to address.

I agree that it's not in the spirit of the game to blatantly cheat (i.e. If you know that you have dropped the ball over the try line you should not claim a try!) but if the ref is allowing more lattitude at the ruck for either the tackler (holding the ball for longer on the ground) or pilferer you would disadvantage yourself say if you immediately released the ball when you went to ground as per the laws and the opposition are allowed to hang on to it until support arrives.

The question is how much time can you take and since this isn't written into the laws you have to play what the ref is allowing and hope that they apply their interpretation consistently.

Well said mica!! Point taken.

 

[Jnor]

My hair turned grey watching that game.

Our defense was absolutely sensational and our attack exactly the reverse. The lack of composure from Cooper, Genia and, at times, Beale was very disturbing. Equally, though, I thought there could have been some more leadership from Horwill on that front. The forwards weren't really there to take the ball up in tight either -- although, to be fair, they didn't have much opportunity with all the aimless kicking. Pocock was absolutely unbelievable, as were the locks in defense.

McCabe had a cracker. As someone who was sceptical about playing him, I'm happy to see him do so well. Great work to set-up the Horwill try. His tackles were fantastic. However, our defense did not decline at all when Barnes came on -- what we lost in physicality we made up for with organisation. Since Cooper won't be dropped, I'm hoping that McCabe's shoulder gets better. It's almost silly to have a player of Barnes calibre on the bench, but this "soften them up then outsmart them" strategy at 12 worked.

No one is really talking about our scrum, but geez I thought it did well. I think it was only penalised once, and that was on a reset after we were unlucky not to get the free kick. We were also unlucky not to win the feed in the second half when we wheeled their scrum quite effectively. That we got through scrum after scrum in our own half without giving away points was absolutely crucial to the win. Shame about the lineouts...

Good points Richo, I agree that no-one seems to be talking about the scrum - seems to be enough that we didn't get blown off the park. Watching it though I did have an inkling that Bryce really pulled back when on other occasions he would have penalised our scrum.

The first scrum of the match (on first viewing) seemed to be a legitimate free kick to the Boks for an early engage and other scrums where we did seem to get a good shove the Bok loosies had their heads up like meerkats.

Not to say it wasn't an improved scrum performance but still short of where it needs to be IMO. I will be happy when I no longer shit myself when a scrum is called.

 

[Braveheart81]

Has there ever been a more nervewracking scrum than the last one of the game on the halfway line?

I'm kind of surprised the Springboks didn't collapse it in the hope that a 50/50 call might go their way.