Official Tri-Nations 2009 Thread

[Good Life]

Well done South Africa, for winning the Tri-Nations, and almost giving us a heart attack in the process.

It just goes to show again, that SA is far from being a complete unit. They again failed to put opposition away once in front.

Pathetic to see such rugby. However, congrats on winning nonetheless.

 

[sand_man]

Where was Mcaw when that ball was kicked?

Clearly off sides, he barely needed to move!!!! But Pierre Spies kicks up field from inside his 22 and players 40metres from where the ball has landed are penalized for being in front of the kicker. Is Pierre not able to run them on sides? Commentators pointed that out too...

There was also a moment when Cowan's kick was charged down by Habana I think, or was it Bismarck? deep inside the AB 22, Cowan regathered under pressure and we drove over him with Brussouw winning the ball on the ground but penalty AB's for Boks diving over the ball, yet the AB's were doing that all evening and getting away with it un-penalized!!!

I hate to always be criticizing the ref but you know he's not being all that objective when the commentators are analyzing the calls too...

 

[sand_man]

Pathetic to see such rugby.

Hell, there's no satisfying you is there?

 

[Kilgore_Trout_Redux]

Once you learn to know Lance you will understand, I wanted to tell you Lance is going to be on your case with that innocent comment but allas he DID beat me to it as expected so I cancelled my post.

Lance is a filthy collaborator *spit*.

But seriously, that was a great game. I loved the way Smit destroyed his critics and the New Zealand scrum.

 

[feo]

Well done South Africa, for winning the Tri-Nations, and almost giving us a heart attack in the process.

It just goes to show again, that SA is far from being a complete unit. They again failed to put opposition away once in front.

Pathetic to see such rugby. However, congrats on winning nonetheless.

Far from being a complete unit??

What exactly do the Boks have to do to make them a "complete unit"?

I would've thought that winning the World Cup and taking the Tri Nations almost by a clean sweep qualifies them.

 

[sand_man]

Far from being a complete unit??

What exactly do the Boks have to do to make them a "complete unit"?

I would've thought that winning the World Cup and taking the Tri Nations almost by a clean sweep qualifies them.

They need to win every match for the next 20 years by at least 50 points or more!!!!

 

[The_Techie]

But Pierre Spies kicks up field from inside his 22 and players 40metres from where the ball has landed are penalized for being in front of the kicker. Is Pierre not able to run them on sides? Commentators pointed that out too...

(c) Offside and moving forward. When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside

Source

If they stood still or waited for him to run them onside before advancing there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[I am Penguin]

Far from being a complete unit??

What exactly do the Boks have to do to make them a "complete unit"?

I would've thought that winning the World Cup and taking the Tri Nations almost by a clean sweep qualifies them.

Nah, those moments when we are far ahead and always seem to give away point closer to the end where we should be making more points to put them away, thats the problem area to be worked on seriously, need some analysis but I think most of our losses is due to giving away far to many points in the last quarter.

 

[sand_man]

Source

If they stood still or waited for him to run them onside before advancing there wouldn't have been a problem.

Owens blew it immediately!!! Didn't scream to the advancing players to hold, just blew it!!! Penalty AB, 3 points thanks for coming...

 

[I am Penguin]

Source

If they stood still or waited for him to run them onside before advancing there wouldn't have been a problem.

or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside

There is the problem, he caught the ball where it landed, how did he get there?v He also briefly stopped before diving/falling over.

 

[The_Techie]

Owens blew it immediately!!! Didn't scream to the advancing players to hold, just blew it!!! Penalty AB, 3 points thanks for coming...

Well a referee isn't there to coach the players but to enforce the laws of the game.

I'm inclined to agree with you but according to the letter of the law there was nothing wrong with awarding that penalty. But in the so-called "spirit of the game" it was a bit harsh

There is the problem, he caught the ball where it landed, how did he get there?v He also briefly stopped before diving/falling over.

I'm confused, to whom are you referring? I'm referring to the incident where Pierre Spies kicked the ball and players that were in front of him (offside) advanced towards the ball.

 

[sand_man]

Nah, those moments when we are far ahead and always seem to give away point closer to the end where we should be making more points to put them away, thats the problem area to be worked on seriously, need some analysis but I think most of our losses is due to giving away far to many points in the last quarter.

Perhaps lack the killer instinct...Been a long season though, lads must be finished!!!!

 

[LancelotSA]

Source

If they stood still or waited for him to run them onside before advancing there wouldn't have been a problem.

As the resident Techie you have quoted the technical law but in practice most referees only penalise the kicking team if the players are within 10 metres and don't retreat or they interfere with play... in this case they had absolutely no bearing on play and by the time they reached where the ball had landed Spies would have no doubt put them on side.

It is like with most rules in rugby... if you blow it to the letter of the law you would not have any rugby played.

Besides this was only one instance in which the ref was extremely harsh on the Boks.... we could just as well name the very first Kiwi penalty in which Smit was penalised, or many others....

 

[feo]

Nah, those moments when we are far ahead and always seem to give away point closer to the end where we should be making more points to put them away, thats the problem area to be worked on seriously, need some analysis but I think most of our losses is due to giving away far to many points in the last quarter.

That seems to be a South African problem across most of our sporting codes...in cricket I think the term coined was "chokers".

Although the rugby team are far from being chokers, they do occassionally take their foot off the gas when they're in a good position and often give the opposition a sniff. If there's anything we can learn from our opposition, it's the lesson of how to be ruthless for the full duration of the match.

 

[I am Penguin]

Well a referee isn't there to coach the players but to enforce the laws of the game.

I'm inclined to agree with you but according to the letter of the law there was nothing wrong with awarding that penalty. But in the so-called "spirit of the game" it was a bit harsh



I'm confused, to whom are you referring? I'm referring to the incident where Pierre Spies kicked the ball and players that were in front of him (offside) advanced towards the ball.

Sorry, Yeah true but the fact that those players could not at all influence the game from where they ran (on far left) made it a bit harsh.

I used that same argument to stress that how come the All Blacks was not blown for offside during the Carter sidekick that produced a try, I wonder how did Mcaw get there? That seemed to be offside to me.

 

[The_Techie]

As the resident Techie you have quoted the technical law but in practice most referees only penalise the kicking team if the players are within 10 metres and don't retreat or they interfere with play... in this case they had absolutely no bearing on play and by the time they reached where the ball had landed Spies would have no doubt put them on side.

It is like with most rules in rugby... if you blow it to the letter of the law you would not have any rugby played.

Besides this was only one instance in which the ref was extremely harsh on the Boks.... we could just as well name the very first Kiwi penalty in which Smit was penalised, or many others....

I'm inclined to agree with you but according to the letter of the law there was nothing wrong with awarding that penalty. But in the so-called "spirit of the game" it was a bit harsh

As you can see I already said that I understand that the laws are not always applied to the letter so that we might have a decent, fluid game of rugby but I just had to point out that he applied the law absolutely correctly there. I also felt hard done by with regards to that call (I also expected him to be lenient) but I can hardly justify blaming the ref for enforcing the laws of the game.

Sorry, Yeah true but the fact that those players could not at all influence the game from where they ran (on far left) made it a bit harsh.

I used that same argument to stress that how come the All Blacks was not blown for offside during the Carter sidekick that produced a try, I wonder how did Mcaw get there? That seemed to be offside to me.

Certainly. Pity that law does not make allowances for influence or not, as that's entirely up to the referee's discretion.

 

[LancelotSA]

Lance is a filthy collaborator *spit*.

But seriously, that was a great game. I loved the way Smit destroyed his critics and the New Zealand scrum.

Nice of you to come and add such value to this thread. I look forward to further inciteful (yes, a deliberate spelling error!) comments from you...

Perhaps lack the killer instinct...Been a long season though, lads must be finished!!!!

I think we also need to realise that once you get a substantial lead opposition like NZ and Aus have nothing to lose so they throw everything at you. Because they are fairly classy units that usually comes off and they end up clawing closer. This has happened in the last few games and probably has less to do with us slacking off and more with them starting to throw the ball around expansively, and it comes off.

 

[sand_man]

He didn't blow it to the letter of the law as he didn't give the kicking player time to put the other players onside. I think that's the point!!!!! Usually the ref will shout at the advancing player and say something like "hold 6 hold 6.... okay.... "...

 

[I am Penguin]

Certainly. Pity that law does not make allowances for influence or not, as that's entirely up to the referee's discretion.

Agreed but then why not enforce the same law with the Dan Carter side kicks?

 

[The_Techie]

He didn't blow it to the letter of the law as he didn't give the kicking player time to put the other players onside. I think that's the point!!!!! Usually the ref will shout at the advancing player and say something like "hold 6 hold 6.... okay.... "...

If the players did not advance then Pierre Spies would've been eligible to run them onside. They advanced before being run onside and as such they conceded a penalty. And that's nice of the referees to shout at them to not advance, but as I said it's not their job to coach the players but to enforce the laws on the field during game time.

Like I said, according to IRB rugby laws he was 100% correct. However, in the "spirit of the game" he could've let it slide.

Agreed but then why not enforce the same law with the Dan Carter side kicks?

Agreed, Nigel Owens was very inconsistent today.