2017 Rugby Championship

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
12,337
I'm very indecisive on that try. was a very tough call to make
Every other ref in the world (except maybe Poite) would've said that was a knock on.
I would probably agree with you on that but unfortunately all those referees aren't here to confirm what you assume they would say
However here you had arguably one of the top 5 international rugby referees disagreeing with you
and it took him quite a long time to reach that decision, not a spur of the moment feeling he had
I think the TMO said there was pressure from the "hip", so really it depends on Poite's interpretation of where the hip ends and the waist begins...

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=22&language=EN
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,518
Our first try was scored after 19 phases and our 2nd after 12 phases. There was a lot of box kicking from Ross but to suggest we playing 10 man rugby is disengenious.

Yes we did play some rugby in the build up to those tries. We should have been playing like that all game. We completely dominated possession and territory and the breakdown. Yet we still lost because we gave NZ the space to run with stupid box kicking.
Your stats proof my point 31 kicks and NZ have more running meters with less ball possession. Why? Because we gave the ball to them in space so that they could score easy tries.
The guys were very fired up and determined so we played some great 10 man rugby. That can only happen on special occasions. Expecting them to perform like this every week is unrealistic. Next time in NZ when we try this again and lose 57-0 because the ball didn't bounce quite as kindly don't cry about it because its going to happen with this game plan.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
78,906
I think the TMO said there was pressure from the "hip", so really it depends on Poite's interpretation of where the hip ends and the waist begins...



http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=22&language=EN
problem is, he touched, the ball, where after it went to ground, before his body grounded it again. the tmo adjudicated that the ball, from his hands, went backwards, and that's were the problem is... because that's horse shit.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,518
The ref were equally shıt for both teams. It was a fair game. If you play propper rugby you should never be in a position to blame the ref.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
12,337
problem is, he touched, the ball, where after it went to ground, before his body grounded it again. the tmo adjudicated that the ball, from his hands, went backwards, and that's were the problem is... because that's horse shit.
Totally agree. Also, your hip is lower than your waist, but that's just this man's opinion.
 

sand_man

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
28,359
two very interesting statistics there

Defenders beaten 27 vs 29 not bad at all
with so much possession and territory advantage it means we didn't create or use enough opportunities

secondly, our passing rate was better than NZ??? HOW'S THAT FOR A SHOCKER?

Boks passed the ball every 2.4 m
NZ passed the ball every 3.6 m

Much better performance. this game could have gone our way easily, the margin was that thin. *** blind french referee and bounce of the ball
1 point in it
well done guys I'm proud of you. NZ knew they had a game and was hard rugby
Yeah, fairly accurate analysis.

We missed 1 or 2 opportunities to finish, a missed penalty early on in the match. We worked hard for our tries but they were well taken and for me that's the difference. Think about it for a second. 19 and 12 phases for our first 2 tries? That's outstanding sustained build up and that's what is usually required to break down a world class defense.

NZ on the other hand got their first 2 tries off of our mistakes and the 3rd off the back of some Mackenzie magic! They were unable to break our defenses through phase play and often got beaten at the breakdown by Marx, who on the night, was simply remarkable!!

NZ ability to capitalize on our mistakes was decisive. That's what makes them so difficult to beat for all teams. Play rugby against them IE a running, attacking game but don't mess up cause if they turn you over they going to punish you.
 

sand_man

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
28,359
Yes we did play some rugby in the build up to those tries. We should have been playing like that all game. We completely dominated possession and territory and the breakdown. Yet we still lost because we gave NZ the space to run with stupid box kicking.
Your stats proof my point 31 kicks and NZ have more running meters with less ball possession. Why? Because we gave the ball to them in space so that they could score easy tries.
The guys were very fired up and determined so we played some great 10 man rugby. That can only happen on special occasions. Expecting them to perform like this every week is unrealistic. Next time in NZ when we try this again and lose 57-0 because the ball didn't bounce quite as kindly don't cry about it because its going to happen with this game plan.
Respectfully I disagree. NZ first try was from a charged kick, not a box kick. Poor execution from Elton who thought he had more time, the 2nd an intercept and the 3rd from a box kick where the kick chasers missed their tackles, where all afternoon they had been making them.

We played running rugby in Albany, take a look at the match stats. We tried to take NZ on at their own game and the result is there for all to ponder...

2017-10-08 10.19.12.jpg
 
Last edited:

sand_man

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
28,359
Bok rugby is dead, get used to it.
I would say it's trying to adapt.

We trying to play running rugby or modern era rugby. Provided we can hang onto our stars we should get there.

The question will always be do we have the players to play modern era running rugby? We still looking for the right blend of players who can perform at the highest level, then once we've found them we must not lose them to foreign leagues.

It's quite telling that this years Bok back line is completely different to the one that was playing at the beginning of 2016. How do you think other international teams would fair with a completely new back line? It's incredibly challenging.

There has been a conscious effort at CC level to play running rugby and that is breeding ground for future players equipped to play modern era rugby.

Anyway, SA rugby is faced with a unique set of challenges, quotas, player drain on account of socia-economic and political factors, inefficient and inept management in the form of SARU, an inability to effectively rehabilitate injured players, an inability to grow the sport at grass root level etc etc etc
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
2,669
Yeah, fairly accurate analysis.

We missed 1 or 2 opportunities to finish, a missed penalty early on in the match. We worked hard for our tries but they were well taken and for me that's the difference. Think about it for a second. 19 and 12 phases for our first 2 tries? That's outstanding sustained build up and that's what is usually required to break down a world class defense.

NZ on the other hand got their first 2 tries off of our mistakes and the 3rd off the back of some Mackenzie magic! They were unable to break our defenses through phase play and often got beaten at the breakdown by Marx, who on the night, was simply remarkable!!

NZ ability to capitalize on our mistakes was decisive. That's what makes them so difficult to beat for all teams. Play rugby against them IE a running, attacking game but don't mess up cause if they turn you over they going to punish you.
I'm beginning to think we were actually the better team on the day. we deserved a win more
 
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
2,669
Hold on Garces and Poite were on the field, so nowhere near "top 5" refs. ;)

We've seen some shocking TMO decisions in the recent past and this was no exception.
I think Mallett, I speak under correction, said he contacted Mark Lawrence and he agreed that that was not a try.

I'll say it again, if it was any other team I guarantee you it would've been "a clear knock on".
you made a good point
I'm convinced
"top 5" refs?? :D ok that was a bit off I admit as well
You're right though, it doesn't matter what I think, but everyone -right now- knows the Boks actually won this game
we were the better side on the pitch
 

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,067
you made a good point
I'm convinced
"top 5" refs?? :D ok that was a bit off I admit as well
we were the better side on the pitch
:D

Not to keep beating this dead horse ( *continues to beat dead horse* ), but if Jantjies kicked that one penalty (or conversion, I forget) over we would've also won -regardless of NZs fake try.
Then everybody would've sung our praises and what an amazing performance it would've been...so I think they (Springboks) have much to be proud of today.

And more importantly: The ABs aren't completely invincible! :)
(I'm sure some of the NH teams will be taking the Boks a whole lot more serious now when the end of the year tour comes.)
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
14,014
How the NZ Herald rated us;

Andries Coetzee 6
Lots of energy but it didn't produce an awful lot.

Dillyn Leyds 5
Very ordinary with the ball, poor miss on Havili.

Jesse Kriel 6
Not a lot to report apart form try saving tackle on Ioane.

Jan Serfontein 7
Bruising game, typical Springboks inside back.

Courtnall Skosan 5
Magnificent 'Bok forwards deserved better outside backs. Part of Ioane try bungle.

Elton Janties 6
Should have delivered more behind a rampaging pack. Missed straight early penalty.

Ross Cronje 6
Part of the stuff up which led to Ioane try. Average compared to Springboks halfback lineage.

Francois Louw 6
Lightweight performance from the veteran. Beaten by McKenzie try run.

Pieter-Steph Du Toit 8
Cumbersome customer but he really took it to the All Blacks.

Siya Kolisi 5
Apart from one lovely flick pass aside, very hard to spot.

Lood de Jager 7
Got hands on the ball without making much ground. Plenty of tackling, nifty offload.

Eben Etzebeth 9
Storming game with the ball. Smashed ahead time and time again. Led from the front.

Ruan Dreyer 6
Has obvious scrum issues but busy enough around the field.

Malcolm Marx 10
Magnificent. Loads of brutal runs, turnovers, tackles. Helped make a try, scored another. Unbelievable game - a new world star?

Steven Kitshoff 9
What a game. Endless charges, and almost lasted the full distance. Fantastic.

Reserves
Chilliboy Ralepelle DNP
Trevor Nyakane (Kitshoff, 78m) -

Wilco Louw (Dreyer, 51m) 6
Hardly sighted.

Franco Mostert (de Jager, 56m) 7
Hard working without major impact.

Jean-Luc du Preez (Kolisi, 56m) 8
Also toiled well and loomed up perfectly for a try.

Rudy Paige DNP
Handre Pollard (Jantjies, 56m) 7
Almost turned the game with offload for try.

Damian de Allende (Serfontein, 64m) 4
Stupid late charge on Sopoaga and red card sealed Springboks' fate.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11930755
 

Mephisto_Helix

Resident Postwhore
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
27,258
Pretty much agree but the amount of penalties gets Dreyer a 2 from me. Backline is poor beyond poor and they let the forwards down big time.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,903
problem is, he touched, the ball, where after it went to ground, before his body grounded it again. the tmo adjudicated that the ball, from his hands, went backwards, and that's were the problem is... because that's horse shit.
Yeah, it obviously didn't go backwards, but I don't think it went forwards either. Looked to me like it went straight down and then he fell on it.

The ref was just bad all round, though. Missed/ignored a very clear AB forward pass early in the game. Ignored side entries/tackles beyond the ruck from both sides all the time. Was just a mess at the breakdown.
 
Top