Sharks Supporters Thread

APoc184

APoc184

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
24,668
cybershark said:
http://www.supersport.com/rugby/art...dden Meyer retirement shocks Sharks&id=332908

:wtf: I can't believe it, he joins the Sharks, now he retires.
Click to expand...

It's quite bad for the Sharks. With Ruan not back yet, they are in tight spot.

But please keep in mind he is retiring for undisclosed personal reasons. Not because he doesn't want to play rugby anymore.
I can only imagine that something is seriously wrong with a close relative, spouse or sibling. In that case I wish him well and hope everything works out.
 
Mephisto_Helix

Mephisto_Helix

Resident Postwhore
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
29,723
Very very suspect this whole Steve Meyer thing eh ..... I can't believe that yet again, we're stuck with flyhalf issues.
 
APoc184

APoc184

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
24,668
15. Stefan Terblanche, 14. Odwa Ndungane, 13. Waylon Murray, 12. Andries Strauss, 11. JP Pietersen, 10. Monty Dumond, 9. Rory Kockott, 8. Ryan Kankowski, 7. Jean Deysel, 6. Keegan Daniel, 5. Johann Muller, 4. Steven Sykes, 3. John Smit (c), 2. Bismarck du Plessis, 1. Tendai Mtawarira.
Subs: 16. Craig Burden, 17. Jannie du Plessis, 18. Gerhard Mostert, 19. Willem Alberts, 20. Jacques Botes, 21. Ruan Pienaar, 22. Adrian Jacobs
 
A

AMG133

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
1,379
WTF! Meyer's retirement was more than a shock, its cocked up everything! something isnt right there
 
M

MielieSpoor

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
1,984
cybershark said:
Who would have thought NZ has a ref worse than our worst AA ref.
Click to expand...

Uhm, no. There was nothing wrong with the ref. I think that the Sharks - but all SA teams in general - should take these law interpretations serious and start to play according to it. Our referees are far too lenient. A well deserved victory by the Chiefs. They wanted to score tries, whereas the Sharks didn't once look like scoring a try.
 
C

cybershark

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
1,319
MielieSpoor said:
Uhm, no. There was nothing wrong with the ref. I think that the Sharks - but all SA teams in general - should take these law interpretations serious and start to play according to it. Our referees are far too lenient. A well deserved victory by the Chiefs. They wanted to score tries, whereas the Sharks didn't once look like scoring a try.
Click to expand...

There was a lot wrong with the referee. Let's start with the fact that rugby is supposed to be about the first infringement, if a referee is not going to consistently blow the first infringement then there is not much point to the game. You must have heard it being said that all the players want from the referee is for him to be consistent. That was certainly not the case last night!

Let me be very clear, I am NOT saying the Sharks played well. All I am saying is SA players continue to get short changed at the rucks, NZ and Aus players are given much more latitude. It's ironic that SA now has a player in Brussouw who was able to beat McCaw and the likes at their own game, only now have the ruck rules been more clearly defined. The players would take a lenient, consistent referee over a strict, inconsistent one any day.

Keith Brown was selectively obsessed with "entering the ruck through the gate." I have watched the game again; every single time the Sharks entered the ruck from the side they were penalised and there were a few occasions where the Chiefs entered the ruck from their side and weren't penalised. Ironically those would all have been kickable penalties.

Now let's look at the game deciding penalty. Rory Kockett was facing his own posts, all three times he tried to play the ball and was tackled, the ball went backwards, so he did not knock the ball on. So when Stephen Sykes decided to pick up the ball he was not offside.

The ELV's introduced last year speeded up the game considerably and now the instruction at the ruck to give the ballcarrier much more opportunity to play and place the ball has made the game even faster. Most of the problems with referees being inconsistent arises from the fact that the increase of speed in the game means that the referees are now getting to the rucks later than they should be and as a result they are not seeing all the infringements being committed. This has made even the good referees look average and the bad referees have been shown up for what they are.
 
K

kaybeach007

Active Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
82
I have to say that after watching the last infringement in slow motion about a dozen times, I can safely say that there was NO infringement. Kockett knocked the ball backwards each time, so Strauss was not playing the ball from an off side position. Poor refereeing, poor decision. Pity that technology does not get a better place in rugby. Like cricket, captains should be able to ask the referee for a referral to the TMO. Last night would have been a perfect example. Sharks robbed by ref!!!!!

As for Bismarck, best to leave things unsaid. Only his mother can love him, STUPID!!!!!!! Sorry just had to say it!
 
Last edited:
Mephisto_Helix

Mephisto_Helix

Resident Postwhore
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
29,723
Basically all I wanted to say has been covered by Cyber and Kay ......... Mieliespoor, you've been known to stick up for shocking refs before, go elsewhere with your ref fanboyism thanks, everyone else can see and tell when refs have shockers.
 
A

alternate

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,739
Yea, I got annoyed watching the game again and with Bob Skinstad not even looking at the screen and just agreeing with the ref. Oh well, I was angry and wet last night and now its time to get over it and hope we beat the Cheetas next week.
 
D

Devill

Damned
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
26,822
Unlucky loss. The sharks did not play well at all but the ref also was a bit "heavy handed" in the first 1/4 of the game and the sharks got the full treatment :(

But like the above poster said it is time to put on your big girl panties and harden the fsck up.

Good luck for next weeks game :)
 
A

alternate

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,739
Best reasoning Ive seen in ages. This is why everybody is so unhappy. Add the frustration from the game, the weather and the ill discipline and you have one big lot of angry supporters.

Eugene Marx (Johannesburg) - Sunday February 14 2010 - 17:20
Hi,

I hope you read this, because in a time where a lot of people claim to be experts it is a shame that nobody could see and know the laws to realise that the last minute penalty against the Sharks was and could be a huge error from the referee that might cost the Sharks dearly in their Super 14 Campaign !

Don't get me wrong the Sharks did not perform to really deserve the victory, but they did score the vital points in order to give them a chance due to their openents lack of diccipline.

It just showed me this weekend why we have a problem with referees, because even the "experts" don't know what they are talking about. I was shocked to hear Garth Wright say on All out Rugby that there was no problem with the final penalty. I hope on Boots and all it is a different story, although Bob could also not see the problem in the match commentary.

Here is how I see it and please feel free to contact me and discuss if you don't ! In the final seconds of the game the Sharks recieved the kick off and set up a phase to keep posession and run out the time to win the game. The ball came out of the scrum because of pressure from the Chiefs to try and regain possession. This put Rory Kocket under presure and he could not gather the ball cleanly, but if you look closely he knocked the ball backwards and never knocked the ball on. Even in his second try he nudged the ball closer to his tryline. The ball never went forward from his hands " look closely at it again and you will see". There was thus no knock on from Rory's side. This makes it open play and there are no offside lines. The Sharks player who came from an "offside" position to play the ball could not be offside because the ball was never knocked on. The law says that if the ball is knocked forward by a player ( does not matter from which part of the body) and a team mate in front of him when this occured plays the ball he is offside and is penalisable if there is no advantage to the attacking team.

You can not be offside if you have to go backwards to play the ball and the reason being is that the ball went backwards after the last touch and had to be gather behind the mark where it was last touched. In other words you had to go further back towards your tryline to play the ball than where it was last touched !

Let me explain what I am saying in another scenario. Say I am playing centre and I go up in defence and the attacking team put a kick through and I fall back to cover. My fullback who is covering the back gets there first with me and the attacking team a few yards away in front of the fullback. He gets a bad bounce and fumbles the ball backwards so there is no knock on, in the process of trying to gather the ball he is tackled with the ball still roling towards our tryline after being knocked back by our fullback. I am the last person there to save the try and run past the spot where the ball was knocked back and before the opponent could gather tha ball and score a try I kick it out on the bounce.

Now could I be penalised for playing in an offside posistion ?? Should I have first run past the ball and turn around and play it ?? The answer is no, unless the referee is as bad as the one who blew the wistle in that Sharks vs Chiefs game. It was open play and I played the ball behind the spot closer to the tryline where it was handled last by our fullback.

Why everybody is also not clever enough to see that the Rory incident was the same as this is that when he last fumbled the ball a great tackle was put in and he finished up still behind the ball. Because the ball was not knocked on but knocked back and then played behind the mark where it was last handled. The player playing the ball, although in front of Rory when the fumble happened, could not be penalised because he gathered the ball even closer to his tryline than where it was last fumbled !

If I confused you, no worries the ref is even more confused about the laws of rugby and I challenge anyone to prove that I am wrong with my explanation. The other scenario could shed some light on the matter because it is the same situation !

Boots and All boys please phone Andre Watson if you are not sure. If by any chance I am off with this one then maybe I opened something to be looked at because that penalty was not fair !

Cheers
Click to expand...
http://www.supersport.com/rugby/columns.aspx?id=8759
 
D

Devill

Damned
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
26,822
but if you look closely he knocked the ball backwards and never knocked the ball on. Even in his second try he nudged the ball closer to his tryline. The ball never went forward from his hands " look closely at it again and you will see".
Click to expand...

Ok so now he says that even if you have a replay to look at you still need to look "closely" to see that the ball did not go forward. This to me shows that the situation was 50/50 not grossly unfair but a close call either way. The ref does not have a playback function... Wake up Mr Eugene Marx if the call went the other way and the Chiefs complained about how they were done in you would have told them that is the way the cookie crumbles.

The answer is no, unless the referee is as bad as the one who blew the wistle in that Sharks vs Chiefs game.
Click to expand...

He starts off by saying: "It just showed me this weekend why we have a problem with referees, because even the "experts" don't know what they are talking about."
Then he goes on to critisize the ref but who the hell is Eugene Marx to think he is that much better and right?

Also by saying it might cost the sharks there whole season is crazy.... is he already looking to make excuses after only the first weekend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top