Donald's kick was wide...

.ak

wixfjord wrote: »

Mac eh? Niceeeeee

Mmhmm, recently switched to the darkside.

argosy2006

.ak wrote: »

Here's a screenshot of what I saw. I'm totally open to correction, but in this screen grab you can clearly see the ball is behind the post, you can see the edge of the ball sticking out, and the post clearly obstructing view... Wide, no?

Attachment not found.

P.S: Yes, I'm a mac n00b and didn't know how to print screen.

Doesn't seem to prove anything other than you're a nerd
LOL JK!

durkadurka

Ok I've watched it six times now and I'm convinced it went over now.

Managed to pause it and could clearly see the ball in front of the post.

Photographed it but it's overexposed.

irishh_bob

saw it in slow motion on the rte highlights , it was clearly a good kick , a sideshow

Crazy Horse 6

Looks wide in every video i've seen so far.

.ak

Hrmm, the jury seems to be out on it - 50/50 judging by people's opinions on the thread.


Well, you know what this means... It's up to the IRB to "prove" there was no match fixing!!

:rolleyes:

durkadurka

http://twitter.com/BrendanKelly33/status/128216839854632960/photo/1

http://twitter.com/BrendanKelly33/status/128216945215553539/photo/1

.ak

durkadurka wrote: »

http://twitter.com/BrendanKelly33/status/128216839854632960/photo/1

http://twitter.com/BrendanKelly33/status/128216945215553539/photo/1

That shows even less. Totally contoured image.

durkadurka

What does contoured mean?

.ak

Distorted.

But actually he has another pic which is better:



So if that is Donald's kick, I'd change my mind and say it was in... Unless that's Yachvilli's kick! :eek:

MyKeyG

Try this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACy2AAG5xuU&feature=shareWatch it all the way through.

durkadurka

I can assure you it's donalds kick. The bright light in the back is the flash from the camera.

The picture is unequivocal in my book. And I originally thought it was wide.

wixfjord

Was definitely over IMO.

ironingbored

.ak wrote: »

Distorted.

But actually he has another pic which is better:



So if that is Donald's kick, I'd change my mind and say it was in... Unless that's Yachvilli's kick! :eek:

That looks like a still from Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

.ak

MyKeyG wrote: »

Try this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACy2AAG5xuU&feature=shareWatch it all the way through.

Agh, watching that one makes it look like it goes wide but curls around behind the posts, which would give everyone the impression it was over when it wasn't. I'm still on the fence on this one until we see definitive replays.

durkadurka

.ak wrote: »

Agh, watching that one makes it look like it goes wide but curls around behind the posts, which would give everyone the impression it was over when it wasn't. I'm still on the fence on this one until we see definitive replays.

Ah come off it! The photo is compelling.

.ak

durkadurka wrote: »

Ah come off it! The photo is compelling.

Hrmm. Compelling is a harsh word in these times. You think the photo proves it 100%? I agree it could be in going on that picture, but it's still not 100% clear. In all the video's I've watched in HD I can't see the ball infront of the post... So all I'm saying is I'm not 100% convinced until I see other video angles. Of which there must be many....

durkadurka

.ak wrote: »

Hrmm. Compelling is a harsh word in these times. You think the photo proves it 100%? I agree it could be in going on that picture, but it's still not 100% clear. In all the video's I've watched in HD I can't see the ball infront of the post... So all I'm saying is I'm not 100% convinced until I see other video angles. Of which there must be many....

You just need to develop your skills with the pause button.:p I managed it with standard definition and an iPhone.

fryup

i have it on good authority that the all blacks are actually lizard people who are part of the new world order

durkadurka

fryup wrote: »

i have it on good authority that the all blacks are actually lizard people who are part of the new world order

Nobody denies that , but the kick was defo over!

.ak

Crab People.

Hugh_C

My first reaction while watching the match was wide. Haven't seen any video or still to convince me otherwise. It's unthinkable though that the match result was wrong as a result of it.

shuffol

Wide.

Turtwig

Nobody here has mentioned the fact that once Donald takes the kick the camera begins to move meaning all those camera shots are going to be useless. You need a camera behind the posts to be definitive. The touch jugs were in the best position to see it and I can't see how'd they'd get it wrong given how low the ball was compared to the height of the posts.

Fergus_Nash

MyKeyG wrote: »

Try this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACy2AAG5xuU&feature=shareWatch it all the way through.

Look at the position of the linesman behind the goal. I think it's Rolland. He is in perfect position. Also the French players on the 22 with a perfect view also. It was over. No doubt.

Teg Veece

Anyone looking for a HD clip of the kick go find it here:
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/video/index.html

It's definitely over.

The decision to award a penalty to New Zealand in the first place however, is questionable.
Nonu is clearly isolated and is about to get the ball stripped from him when McCaw just joins the ruck from the side and the ref awards the penalty to the All Blacks when it should have been the other way around.

Yuri

I was going to post the video Teg Veece did, if you watch it start at 3:04 minutes and play/pause it until you can see the ball go in front of the post.

If still in doubt wait until RTE Player have their rugby highlights video from yesterday up, they played it in slow mo and you can see the shadow of the ball cross the front of the post.

MLMwatch

You are all forgetting that there is one guy who opinion counts. For those few seconds all he has to do is watch the ball and raise his flag if the ball is within the post.

He raised his flag.

As has been correctly pointed out the French reluctantly agree.

Not sure why all the begrudgery.

An expat Kiwi.

Bigcheeze

MLMwatch wrote: »

Not sure why all the begrudgery.

An expat Kiwi.

Not sure why the chip on your shoulder.

Why would posters on an Irish forum begrudge the Kiwis anything against the French ?

MLMwatch

Bigcheeze wrote: »

Why would posters on an Irish forum begrudge the Kiwis anything against the French ?

Exactly what I was wondering.

I checked out the French media. Apart from a few digs at Joubert there was no controversy.
The kick is not being queried over there at all.

GerM

MLMwatch wrote: »

Exactly what I was wondering.

I checked out the French media. Apart from a few digs at Joubert there was no controversy.
The kick is not being queried over there at all.

In fairness, several of the French players have come out and hammered Joubert in public for his performance. Mermoz, Parra and Szarzewski have all made comments in relation to how the game was officiated.

Deliverance XXV

Hardly conclusive or decisive evidence but after a bit of editing to bring out the outlines it looks like it was okay. Open to interpretation though, of course.

Monty Burnz

That's actually quite artistic. Bravo sir.

Peter B

Malty_T wrote: »

...... touch jugs ......

HaHa :pac::pac::pac::D

ScissorPaperRock

MLMwatch wrote: »

You are all forgetting that there is one guy who opinion counts. For those few seconds all he has to do is watch the ball and raise his flag if the ball is within the post.

He raised his flag.

As has been correctly pointed out the French reluctantly agree.

Not sure why all the begrudgery.

An expat Kiwi.

No begrudgery. I was hoping for the All Blacks win, but my reaction was that that kick was wide and was surprised when it was awarded. I'm still glad that the team that played well throughout the tournament won.

conneem-TT

Yuri wrote: »

I was going to post the video Teg Veece did, if you watch it start at 3:04 minutes and play/pause it until you can see the ball go in front of the post.

If still in doubt wait until RTE Player have their rugby highlights video from yesterday up, they played it in slow mo and you can see the shadow of the ball cross the front of the post.

I was beginning to question myself after looking at some of the YouTube vids but the official vid that Teg posted shows the ball cross infront of the post celarly, if you pause at the right time.

daveharnett

MLMwatch wrote: »

You are all forgetting that there is one guy who opinion counts. For those few seconds all he has to do is watch the ball and raise his flag if the ball is within the post.

He raised his flag.

Indeed. Two of them in fact. One of whom was recently outed as a blatant Frenchist . And a referee. All with working binocular vision, and freedom to pick the ideal angles to observe. And who could have referred to a fourth guy if any of them were in doubt.

This must be among the least disputable decisions in the game.

Yuri

This video proves the kick went over without any doubt, you can clearly see the ball block out the post. Click on the first video of the three.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/10/2216/richie-mccaw-knee-on-morgan-parra-donald-kick-rougerie-eye-gouge-and-more


Also Rougerie deserves a long ban.

Turtwig

Yuri wrote: »

This video proves the kick went over without any doubt, you can clearly see the ball block out the post. Click on the first video of the three.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/10/2216/richie-mccaw-knee-on-morgan-parra-donald-kick-rougerie-eye-gouge-and-more


Also Rougerie deserves a long ban.

Only learnt about that Rougerie thing just there, thanks, defo deserves a ban!!

Judgement Day

So now that there's more or less agreement that the wretched kick went between the posts we change the argument http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75098373&postcount=77 :rolleyes:

wixfjord

Judgement Day wrote: »

So now that there's more or less agreement that the wretched kick went between the posts we change the argument http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75098373&postcount=77 :rolleyes:

What is your problem JD?
Seriously, you've been moaning about boards giving out about NZ, and not put any reasoned analysis forward as far as I've seen as to how NZ won the game, which, in my and others opinion, was mainly down to bad reffing.

What do you think about the Kaino incident for example?
What about reffing inconsistencies?

Take the win and by all means treasure it, but don't taint it by moaning about us pointing out obviously poor reffing in the biggest rugby game in four years!

Judgement Day

My problem is that I was subjected to a Forum ban a couple of days before the game as I was going to start a thread as to why the ABs won the RWC along the lines of:
1) The Haka
2) Bad reffing
3) Richie McCaw cheating

you get the idea. Anyway the after match posting is absolutely nauseating for the most part and the only reason that I keep replying is that it shouldn't all go unchallenged. I agree that there were some questionable decisions but some people here seem to have watched the game purely looking for reffing errors and AB transgressions rather than watching it as a game. Much has been made of Donald's penalty not going between the posts and when that was disproved one poster started on that it shouldn't have been a penalty at all. Richie McCaw's contact with Parra - innocent to me - has also been made out as a deliberate attack by some. However, the quite deliberate attempted eye gouge on McCaw is passed over by many. Then the crap over the Haka - when clearly it was the IRB ruling on where the team(s) should stand that was the problem not the Haka or French response. I didn't enjoy the match. I didn't enjoy the financial loss. I haven't enjoyed the post mortem. I wanted the ABs to run away with the game but it wasn't to be - end of. I just think that the level of animosity shown towards the ABs - clearly the best team in the tournament - is atrocious. God help us, it would really have been a travesty if France having lost two pool games had won. Anyway, I've said too much and must now return to the serious business of bashing Sean Gallagher as much as possible in the next few hours.

CatFromHue

wixfjord wrote: »

I've seen as to how NZ won the game, which, in my and others opinion, was mainly down to bad reffing.

What do you think about the Kaino incident for example?
What about reffing inconsistencies?

DO you honestly believe the main reason NZ won the game was due to bad reffing?

In the Setanta clip there are 7 main points.

1) Palisson not releasing. Watch were Woodcocks left arm is. Matt Williams says it's nowhere near the ball. I beg to differ.
2) McCaw in from the side and off his feet. The ref is in a bad position to see this as he is on the other side of the ruck and McCaw is hidden by two French players. I don't know what the touch judge is doing.
3) Read goes off side and retreats, Parra goes offside and retreats. Parra influences play alot more than Read though and also doesn't go back onside. He retreats but doesnt get back onside. In the move NZ were doing here this is key if you ask me.
4) High tackle on Trinh Duc. It is yeah.
5) McCaw off his feet clearing out Dusatoir. Watch it again and you see the only part of McCaw's body on the ground are his feet. He has not technically gone off his feet.
6) McCaw playing the ball on the ground. Penalty to France. This was given though.
7) The Kaino incident. Ref messed this up. Kaino was on his feet when he ripped the ball but then knocked it on. It should have been a scrum at least to France as I'm not sure if Kaino should have been allowed rip the ball in the first place.

In my opinion on closer examination the 7 points are not as exact as what Williams and Francis say. Certainly the Kaino incident, the high tackle on Trinh Duc, and McCaw in from the side were wrong decisions by the ref.

So yeah the ref made mistakes. Not the amount that Setanta said though, and refs do make mistakes in every game. That's life! Until Apple bring out the iRef who can assimilate all camera angles and their own viewpoint at once there will always be reffing errors.

I find it hard to say that NZ won cos of those 3 mistakes. Weepu missed three kicks too after all.

.ak

The problem was the Kaino incident was right infront of him. That's not a mistake, that just turning a blind eye.

Also the Para/Read offside thing was ridiculous. You honestly think the ref was thinking who's more influential in this situation? Para made an attempt to get back onside, as did Read, but Para was penalized. This is the essence of the bad calls from the game, it's literally 50/50 and France got penalized.

Teg Veece

CatFromHue wrote: »

6) McCaw playing the ball on the ground. Penalty to France. This was given though.

No it wasn't. And I think the reasons why so many people are annoyed about the ref is because of decisions like this. Clearly McCaw was playing the ball on the ground, like you said. But instead of giving a penalty, the ref calls a scrum.

I feel sorry for the French players because they weren't given the opportunity to win the match due to the ref abdicating his responsibilities.
But I also feel sorry for the All Blacks. They've been consistently the best team in world rugby since it turned professional. They'd waited 24 years to win the world cup and when they finally did, it's something of a hollow victory because they were the weaker team in the finally but the trophy was basically handed to them by the ref. Bit of an anti-climax after such a long wait.

CatFromHue

.ak wrote: »

The problem was the Kaino incident was right infront of him. That's not a mistake, that just turning a blind eye.

Also the Para/Read offside thing was ridiculous. You honestly think the ref was thinking who's more influential in this situation? Para made an attempt to get back onside, as did Read, but Para was penalized. This is the essence of the bad calls from the game, it's literally 50/50 and France got penalized.

While they may look similar in the context of play they are different. Parra while he retreats is still in a more favourable position to make a tackle than if he were onside. Read while he retreats doesn't influnence the scrum halves decision to box kick.

Teg Veece wrote: »

No it wasn't. And I think the reasons why so many people are annoyed about the ref is because of decisions like this. Clearly McCaw was playing the ball on the ground, like you said. But instead of giving a penalty, the ref calls a scrum.

I feel sorry for the French players because they weren't given the opportunity to win the match due to the ref abdicating his responsibilities.
But I also feel sorry for the All Blacks. They've been consistently the best team in world rugby since it turned professional. They'd waited 24 years to win the world cup and when they finally did, it's something of a hollow victory because they were the weaker team in the finally but the trophy was basically handed to them by the ref. Bit of an anti-climax after such a long wait.

Is it not a penalty? I don't have sound on the computer here to check but I thought the Ref signals a penalty to France.

Gelio

I agree, NZ are the best team in the world and I believe that they would have won with a fair ref but that doesn't excuse the matter. They are capable of winning on an even surface so keep it even. If anything the ref should be tougher on the favorites.

iroced

Judgement Day wrote: »

Anyway the after match posting is absolutely nauseating for the most

I think you're misinterpreting most of the posting.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Much has been made of Donald's penalty not going between the posts and when that was disproved one poster started on that it shouldn't have been a penalty at all.

I'm pretty sure that was said in the main "WC Final" thread before this "Donald's kick" thread was open from reacting to live impression (which many people said to accept of being wrong) and low quality youtube video (which many people agreed to be deceptive).

Judgement Day wrote: »

Richie McCaw's contact with Parra - innocent to me - has also been made out as a deliberate attack by some. However, the quite deliberate attempted eye gouge on McCaw is passed over by many.

No. But yourself are taking a very disputable position in here. Basically, you're doing what you're accusing people in here of doing.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Then the crap over the Haka - when clearly it was the IRB ruling on where the team(s) should stand that was the problem not the Haka or French response.

I can't talk for everyone but again you're being a little parano I think. From everything I read, people were complaining against the IRB killing the spirit of the game. Not against its most iconic team, the ABs that I'm pretty sure everyone respect.

Judgement Day wrote: »

I just think that the level of animosity shown towards the ABs [...] is atrocious.

Again, I honestly can't understand how you can get to that conclusion. I mean, I'm French, I admire the ABs for their consistency at top level. They are the reference team of this game. But I'm convinced that such a win is as bad for the ABs as it is for the French. The given impression that they can do what they want on the picth (I know I'm exagerating the facts ) is not good at all and not deserved considering everything they brought to this game. So I'm just criticising the refereeing of the final, which was appalling. I'm not blaming the ABs. The players are not responsible for the ref decisions. The only critic I formulated against the ABs is the immediate post-game reactions which were neither fair-play nor class at all. But they "corrected" that in their next comments.

Judgement Day wrote: »

the ABs - clearly the best team in the tournament -. God help us, it would really have been a travesty if France having lost two pool games had won.

If I follow this reasoning, the final shouldn't have been played. They should have given the trophy to NZ after the semi and like that there will be no controversy about the final.

.ak

Judgement Day wrote: »

I just think that the level of animosity shown towards the ABs - clearly the best team in the tournament - is atrocious.

So, we're not allowed criticize the precious ABs?

Also, how do you class 'animosity'? Most people are annoyed at how the game played out and how it was ref'd. You're also talking about people on a forum who are largely unbiased and were neutral fans. Although if there was any bias it would probably be against the French who have cost us many a championship/grandslam.

I think you're being far too over the top and maybe even a little precious? Take a deep breath, sit back and look at what's being said. The idea of this thread for example was to find out if the kick went over. Why? Because at first glance it looked incredibly close to not being over. Not because someone has it in for the ABs.

Just to note, I was actually supporting the ABs going into the final. But I feel quite badly for France now as they lost the match because the ref either had a shocker, or was influencing one side. Either way is a poor way to go out.

Nermal

CatFromHue wrote: »

Watch it again and you see the only part of McCaw's body on the ground are his feet. He has not technically gone off his feet.

I may be wrong, but that's not correct, don't you have to be supporting your weight on your feet?