New Zealand v Wallabies, Eden Park, Sat 22nd October

[liquor box]

Tbh I'm more pissed off with DHP. What was the point of that? Your (actual) winger (i.e. the fast guy) is flying off with no one in front of him. If Savea was actually going to catch up to Speight then DHP should have been ready in support for the offload and certain try.

Stupid stuff from DHP.

Honestly I was not too fussed, this decision did not cost us the game.

I actually think it could be argued that DHP was attempting to provide support but on the sideline and was attempting to get through the gap to get to the wing.

 

[smartcooky]

Cheika's main problem is that he can dish it out but he can't take it!

 

[liquor box]

I having trouble seeing where it says it has to be in front on this law!! c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

how does a rolling maul work under that definition?

 

[Grant NZ]

how does a rolling maul work under that definition?

Is that a serious question? The obstruction law is the reason truck and trailer is illegal and why the ball carrier must be at the front of any pod that rolls off a maul. It's 10.1 (b) in play usually though.

 

[KOB1987]

I'm actually going to leave it alone now. I'm pretty sure WR (World Rugby) will come out with a ruling on this one so we can let them adjudicate on it. IMO it didn't affect who won but it was a very significant turning point which killed our momentum and took us out of the game.

And smartcooky, if Shaun Veldsman is seriously the #1 TMO in the world then they need to change their selection criteria.

 

[Quick Hands]

Seriously? Do you actually not think DHP impeded Savea? I thought he did and fairly deliberately too.

I can see the argument that Savea was beaten, but that was a pretty obvious offence for me.

In over 40 years of watching rugby I have never ever seen a player penalised in that situation - ever. The law has never been applied in that way.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm actually going to leave it alone now. I'm pretty sure WR (World Rugby) will come out with a ruling on this one so we can let them adjudicate on it. IMO it didn't affect who won but it was a very significant turning point which killed our momentum and took us out of the game.

And smartcooky, if Shaun Veldsman is seriously the #1 TMO in the world then they need to change their selection criteria.

Veldsman is only an official because of the SA governments quota policy. He's so incompetant with the whistle and the flag that they made he a TMO.

 

[All Black Magic]

Honestly I was not too fussed, this decision did not cost us the game.

I actually think it could be argued that DHP was attempting to provide support but on the sideline and was attempting to get through the gap to get to the wing.

Attempting to get to the wing!?
That's laughable

 

[Quick Hands]

Or to quote an e-mail I received from my 'French mate (in broken English):

I thought to you during the bledisloe cup in Auckland.
Australia played very well and NZ was under pressure. The video referee decides to change the match, unfortunately for the aussies. For me, it's a hold up!

 

[KAOPointman]

What a garbage test match.
Folou gets a clear intercept and pulled back for offside.......rewinding CLEARLY shows he was WELL onside! Reff brainfart!
Saveas try on the left was 1000% a forward pass....once again replays show this!
And the big one.....you guys sprouting for and against unclear rules and so on.....how about when your not even close enough to tackle a player, PLUS your behind the player......maybe just maybe there are other players on the field trying to get into position for a pass. There is ZERO rule that states DHP can't compete shoulder to shoulder to support the runner! If Choo Choo had tripped or been caught.....then DHP could argue the Bus slowed him down aswell.....preventing him from getting on DHPs outside for support. The rights are NOT all in the favour of the defending player unless your offside!

Add in the scrum debacle.......multiple times and I'd be happy to never see that guy Reff again! Useless. Didn't even know the rules on how to end the game.....WOW! Smacks forehead!!!!!

 

[KAOPointman]

Attempting to get to the wing!?
That's laughable

If you look at it that's exactly what I could you see DHP doing. He's heading to support his outside in case the sweeping cover catches him.....but he quickly finds Savea competing for the same hallowed turf! Maybe DHP should have just chucked his arms up in the air...milking it for the star struck Reff!

 

[Pfitzy]

Go back and penalise Read or Savea for impending Aussie support players if you want to apply letter of the law. Or any number of players for doing the same thing during the game. Both back lines sent dummy runners into each other with the aim of creating half a yard of space.

The material effect on the try is roughly the same. Savea was, in all probability, NOT catching Speight with a metre or two deficit.

BUT when it's a scoring opportunity, the focus changes. That's all it was.

The ludicrous part is actually the TMO ruling process: If we spent less time celebrating, and Foley quickly had a pop at a drop goal conversion, the TMO can't pull it back.

 

[Grant NZ]

In over 40 years of watching rugby I have never ever seen a player penalised in that situation - ever. The law has never been applied in that way.

If the exact same thing happened with Savea and DHP tracking back for a kick, it would be a penalty. No different to the call against Foley (I think) on Farrell in the England series. You can't alter your line by that much to impede.

 

[KOB1987]

I think it's telling that a heap of Kiwis have jumped on here to attempt to defend the crap ruling, no-one else is going to do it for them. It's probably because they realise that we were at least a threat if that try stood and so it's important to them that the ruling is seen as correct.

 

[Grant NZ]

I think it's telling that a heap of Kiwis have jumped on here to attempt to defend the crap ruling, no-one else is going to do it for them. It's probably because they realise that we were at least a threat if that try stood and so it's important to them that the ruling is seen as correct.

Just bantz, bro.

 

[KOB1987]

I'm watching the replay now and 'the incident' just happened. Savea was no chance whatsoever of catching Speight, DHP was trying to get to the outside, and it had as much impact on the try as Retallick or Mumm or anyone else in the middle of the field did. I had the same gutted feeling that I had when I watched it live, it was disgraceful and clearly biased. The All Blacks make several more serious impediments to that almost every phase. Ridiculous and no matter how much you try and swing me you won't. Not at all in the spirit of the game, not one iota.

 

[Quick Hands]

If the exact same thing happened with Savea and DHP tracking back for a kick, it would be a penalty. No different to the call against Foley (I think) on Farrell in the England series. You can't alter your line by that much to impede.

Completely different chasing a ball to supporting a player in an onside position - as you yourself pointed out earlier.

 

[Dan54]

In over 40 years of watching rugby I have never ever seen a player penalised in that situation - ever. The law has never been applied in that way.

If you watched a game in SA just 2 years ago you would of seen it QHs, Dan Carter was penalised after he passed ball and was behind his fellow Crusader.
Perhaps you need to watch more rugby mate

 

[KOB1987]

Does anyone know what Kerevi injured?

 

[KOB1987]

If you watched a game in SA just 2 years ago you would of seen it QHs, Dan Carter was penalised after he passed ball and was behind his fellow Crusader.
Perhaps you need to watch more rugby mate

Was Veldsman the referee?