Official Super14 2010 Thread

[Kabraal]

We must have watched different games. I still don't get how scoring 50+ tries in 13 games is boring. Probably boring for the opposition.

How can someone defend when the ball is being held by a player who is linked behind several other players in a straight line.

You get your forwards out of the backline (waiting for someone to do the graft for them so they can score pretty tries), bind, and shuve them back.

 

[Sting]

All the law or rule changes were intended to make it a more open and exciting, attack-minded game.

When they were proposed many of the wiser men immediately pointed out the loopholes regarding the rolling maul. It is virtually impossible to counter without giving away a penalty.

Our refs also appear to be too lenient at ruck time, especially in the tackle-ball area. The northern hemisphere games flow as their refs are very strict in these areas and flash cards from early on on the game, i.e. slow the ball down, go to sin bin.

We'll see on Saturday in the Wales test...

 

[Devill]

Oh yay, now we get treated to scenes like this :

Sorry, I could not find one of him being monkey boy on the poles!

Are you not always the one saying personal attacks are only for true blue bull mentally challenged guys? Anything to just have something bad to say about the bulls hay... I am never surprised at you posts any more... I pity you. If it makes you feel better you can take the bulls victory pictures and edit in the sharks players and live in your dream

When did this whole lying down with your foot in the dead ball area, or in touch, become fashionable?

I'm sure law changes did not result in it being the norm, well at least I hope so. I really think the laws need to be changed so that it is no longer allowed. It takes away a great aspect of the game as a spectator where you used to wait in anticipation to see if the ball would stop just inside the dead ball line or whether it'd roll dead. Now some player just spoils all the fun and lies with his foot over the line and grabs the ball which is still over a metre in field!

The only time the ball should be allowed to be fielded in field and then taken out is if you take the player is in the air.

Let me guess it would not have been a problem had the bulls not used it? Shame Lance it must be hard loving rugby but hating the dominating team at the moment. Shame...

Well done Bulls.Pity about some of the calls. Looking objectively, I counted about 10 really bad calls. 8 of those calls went against the Stormers. But the Stormers looked really flat in the 1st quarter, like they were trying to slow the game down when opportunities to score/gain field position were there for the taking.

yeah I mean just look at that Januarie try .... I mean wow that really helped the bulls to a victory....

What does the "Bulls were killing them on the ground" have to do with my post? You sure you reading the correct post?

There were forward passes from both sides, only 1 side was blown. Scrum through 90 degrees twice, not given. There was a classic, player on the ground (in a ruck) with hand on ball, ref shouts: "5, leave the ball, 5 leave the ball" - 5 continues playing the ball for another 4-5 seconds, ref does nothing.

:erm: Scrum time I counted 4 times that the Guthro scrummed the poor stormer called Brok harris so that the bulls should have received a penalty each time.
Ps if the bulls clearly have the upper hand and it swings through 90 degrees the stormers should not get the penalty

All the law or rule changes were intended to make it a more open and exciting, attack-minded game.
When they were proposed many of the wiser men immediately pointed out the loopholes regarding the rolling maul. It is virtually impossible to counter without giving away a penalty.

a) I prefer the Souther hem. play to any northen slow poke style. That is a personal choice though and each to his/her own.
b) As for the rolling maul OFC it can be stopped IF you commit enough players to oppose it. It is obviously made to "help" the attacking team by sucking in defenders else what the fsck would be the point?

 

[Stevie G]

Its a pity the ref fakked a really good final. Why was a neutral ref not chosen for this game. A ref from Australia or New Zealand could have been chosen. A local ref will always have doubters and favourtism. The ref was clearly out of his depth and was overwhelmed by the occasion. He should have been man of the match. He clearly favoured the bulls form the kick-off. It was evident from the start of the match. The game was 50-50.The bulls used the ball better and played on the stormers mistakes. The stormers played with more thrust, but were clearly halted by the refs dillissional decisions right through the game. The game could have gone either way. Out referring standards have dropped badly.

 

[elysian]

yeah I mean just look at that Januarie try .... I mean wow that really helped the bulls to a victory....

That's proof of a shocking call by the ref. There were others too, but not as bad as that.

Ps if the bulls clearly have the upper hand and it swings through 90 degrees the stormers should not get the penalty

Ouch, you don't even know a basic rule of rugby. Penalty?

 

[Devill]

That's proof of a shocking call by the ref. There were others too, but not as bad as that.

Ouch, you don't even know a basic rule of rugby. Penalty?

O please our put in Brok harris getting killed yet you feel it was a penalty for the stormers? You are trying to make it out as if the ref won it for the bulls. It must be sad to every weekend when the bulls win try and show how the ref helped them to a victory.

funny how you have no other comments about how brok harris was only penalized once yet you feel the ref's favour swung in the bulls favour.

I never said the ref was great, I only said his calls did not have an influence on the result. The bulls would have won with any ref handeling the game. (O and iirc this same ref penalized steggman 6 times in one half last time he handled the game... I am sure the bulls must have just paid him more this time hay?)

 

[LancelotSA]

Ouch, you don't even know a basic rule of rugby. Penalty?

Ha ha ha! Nice.

But be careful, he is an "expert" apparently

 

[Devill]

Ha ha ha! Nice.

But be careful, he is an "expert" apparently

O lance I am still waiting for you to tell me who pienaar is better than of the flyhalves in SA.

 

[Sting]

a) I prefer the Souther hem. play to any northen slow poke style. That is a personal choice though and each to his/her own.

Have you been watching the Heineken or Guinness leagues this season? Definitely not slow poke style at the breakdown area!!!

 

[LancelotSA]

O lance I am still waiting for you to tell me who pienaar is better than of the flyhalves in SA.

Unlike you I prefer not to take every thread off topic. As pointed out by another member this discussion has been held in depth on another thread on this forum. Feel free to go and dig it up and read it. It should keep you busy for a while. See you back here on the 15th June. Bye.

EDIT : Oh and while you are at it feel free to go and touch up on the rules of rugby. It may make future discussions on the subject less embarrassing for you.

 

[Devill]

Have you been watching the Heineken or Guinness leagues this season? Definitely not slow poke style at the breakdown area!!!

I refered to the general killing of the pace of play of the game not the breakdowns Sorry if i was not clear. I hear what yor saying I just feel that if you are good enough to get away with it why not? All the greats of the game has toed the line

Ha ha ha! Nice.

But be careful, he is an "expert" apparently

Lance I found a nice little site: http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_20_en.pdf Now go read 20.11 I know most of you shark fans do not fancy reading if it in anyway helps the bulls case but try it.

Then go and read what should happen once a player does not scrum straight or "peddals" backwards as Brok harris did

 

[LancelotSA]

Lance I found a nice little site: http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_20_en.pdf Now go read 20.11 I know most of you shark fans do not fancy reading if it in anyway helps the bulls case but try it.

Then go and read what should happen once a player does not scrum straight or "peddals" backwards as Brok harris did

Perhaps you need to get a few English lessons before we move onto rugby laws!

if the bulls clearly have the upper hand and it swings through 90 degrees the stormers should not get the penalty

Now a person with a decent grasp of the English language would have interpreted that as meaning that you felt that if the scrum goes through 90 degrees a penalty should be given to one of the teams!

And here is a summary of your beloved 20.11 :

20.11 SCRUM WHEELED

(a) If a scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees, so that the middle line has passed beyond a position parallel to the touchline, the referee must stop play and order another scrum.

(b) This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. If neither team win possession, it is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in.

 

[elysian]

O please our put in Brok harris getting killed yet you feel it was a penalty for the stormers? You are trying to make it out as if the ref won it for the bulls. It must be sad to every weekend when the bulls win try and show how the ref helped them to a victory.

funny how you have no other comments about how brok harris was only penalized once yet you feel the ref's favour swung in the bulls favour.

I never said the ref was great, I only said his calls did not have an influence on the result. The bulls would have won with any ref handeling the game. (O and iirc this same ref penalized steggman 6 times in one half last time he handled the game... I am sure the bulls must have just paid him more this time hay?)

I never said it should've been a penalty to the Stormers. Yes, Gurthro was very good. I'm saying there were a few inconsistencies. Even Schalk said there appeared to be different sets of rules at the breakdown for the teams.

Bulls deserved to win, but I feel much of the spectacle was killed.

Hope the Stormers vs Sharks in next year's final is more exciting.

 

[OzzieCapie]

Throughout the series the Stormers have had the best 'against' record because of their ability to defend with discipline ,not give away penalties and then counter attack. This advantage was taken away by the 'show pony' ref who penalised them for dubious stuff in kickable positions. That alters the whole outcome of the match, whether you are a Stormer's fan or Bulls.

The other game changer was of the Stormers' own doing. When it was 6-0 they had a try scoring opportunity. They were very likely to get one with one or two more phases, yet captain Schalk decided he needed to score himself and turned the ball over. 7-6 at that stage would have changed the game. Instead , they got another penalty and it was 9-0. In other words , a 10 point turna-around.

The game was very physical early on, but other than that it wasn't a spectacle.

cheers

 

[Vox Populi Vox Dei]

Now here's a nice news tidbit to shut-up all the Bulls supporters who said it wasn't a try

The South African Rugby Union on Monday confirmed that loose forward Pieter Louw, and not scrumhalf Ricky Januarie, scored the Stormers' second try in their 17-25 loss to the Bulls in the Super 14 Final at the weekend.

http://www.rugby365.com/tournaments/super14/news/2448340.htm

 

[APoc184]

Jean de Villiers and CJ van der Linde both signed with the Stormers for 2011 Super 15.

 

[D3x]

Now here's a nice news tidbit to shut-up all the Bulls supporters who said it wasn't a try



http://www.rugby365.com/tournaments/super14/news/2448340.htm

Let it go man, you guys lost. Where is the sportsmanship?

 

[Devill]

Jean de Villiers and CJ van der Linde both signed with the Stormers for 2011 Super 15.

Hope they do not throw de jong away now But that is great for the stormers as now they have some more depth in those two positions

I never said it should've been a penalty to the Stormers. Yes, Gurthro was very good. I'm saying there were a few inconsistencies. Even Schalk said there appeared to be different sets of rules at the breakdown for the teams.

Bulls deserved to win, but I feel much of the spectacle was killed.

Hope the Stormers vs Sharks in next year's final is more exciting.

See thats the only reason why I reacted so strongly I thought you were claiming the ref won the game for the bulls.

Sorry if i misunderstood.

Throughout the series the Stormers have had the best 'against' record because of their ability to defend with discipline ,not give away penalties and then counter attack. This advantage was taken away by the 'show pony' ref who penalised them for dubious stuff in kickable positions. That alters the whole outcome of the match, whether you are a Stormer's fan or Bulls.

The other game changer was of the Stormers' own doing. When it was 6-0 they had a try scoring opportunity. They were very likely to get one with one or two more phases, yet captain Schalk decided he needed to score himself and turned the ball over. 7-6 at that stage would have changed the game. Instead , they got another penalty and it was 9-0. In other words , a 10 point turna-around.

The game was very physical early on, but other than that it wasn't a spectacle.

cheers

I just want to know if you think the ref won the game for the bulls?

Perhaps you need to get a few English lessons before we move onto rugby laws!



Now a person with a decent grasp of the English language would have interpreted that as meaning that you felt that if the scrum goes through 90 degrees a penalty should be given to one of the teams!

And here is a summary of your beloved 20.11 :

Nice you again fail to read everything. Note I said

Then go and read what should happen once a player does not scrum straight or "peddals" backwards as Brok harris did[/QUOT
That is why the bulls would have won the penalties... but hay I am no expert I am only capable of reading.

 

[elysian]

Now here's a nice news tidbit to shut-up all the Bulls supporters who said it wasn't a try


http://www.rugby365.com/tournaments/super14/news/2448340.htm

Yeah, just watched a replay now and it was definitely a try to P Louw.

 

[Devill]

Yeah, just watched a replay now and it was definitely a try to P Louw.

I can't watch it with sound (my speakers blew out ) Did the wistle not go before Louw dotted it down? (I am not saying it did! It was a comment I read on the rugby365 site).