NZ v. SA, match preview & thread, Sat 14 Sep, 0835 Irish time

P.Walnuts

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Your opinion, my opinion is that you are incorrect.

Fair enough

P.Walnuts

Rightwing wrote: »

2 words: different class.

So in other words you can't explain it.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

2 words: different class.

Klunk_NZ

From the 4th minute to the 80th minute the AB's were winning. One bad call from Poite can't hide that fact. How many weeks will the foul play Bismark get for his antics? I'd say 3-4 and out for the rest of the RC

Howard Juneau

Rightwing wrote: »

2 words: different class.

2 words Kieran Read

Rightwing

P.Walnuts wrote: »

So in other words you can't explain it.

Let's just say the bookies and myself are in agreement, chuckle chuckle .

New Zealand
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]1/5[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
South Africa
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]6[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
Argentina
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]83[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
Australia
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]187[/URL]

irishbucsfan

The bookies would be able to explain themselves though.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

From the 4th minute to the 80th minute the AB's were winning. One bad call from Poite can't hide that fact. How many weeks will the foul play Bismark get for his antics? I'd say 3-4 and out for the rest of the RC

It would have been a hell of a lot closer had the boks not had to play 50 minutes with 14 players because of an awful call from Poite

it will be very close in the return fixture

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

Let's just say the bookies and myself are in agreement, chuckle chuckle .

New Zealand
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]1/5[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
South Africa
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]6[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
Argentina
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]83[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
Australia
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]187[/URL]

Stage two of the rightwing climbdown, next comes the soccer analogies

Klunk_NZ

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

It would have been a hell of a lot closer had the boks not had to play 50 minutes with 14 players because of an awful call from Poite

it will be very close in the return fixture

With Carter and Sir Richard GOAT McCaw out SA are a good chance.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Am I right in saying that the Boks need a bonus point against Australia to send to a winner takes all clash in SA? (Assuming the AB's beat Argentina and get 4)

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

Let's just say the bookies and myself are in agreement, chuckle chuckle .

New Zealand
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]1/5[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
South Africa
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]6[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
Argentina
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]83[/URL]
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]
Australia
[URL="javascript:void(0);"]187[/URL]

If it was done and dusted, the odds wouldn't be as high as 1/5.

Klunk_NZ

The Aus v SA and NZ v Pumas games become competition defining.

thomond2006

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

The Aus v SA and NZ v Pumas games become competition defining.

NZ four points ahead with two away matches and no Carter and McCaw. They are favourites to win the title but it's by no means over.

pickarooney

It was Romain Poite's birthday today.

Rightwing

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

The Aus v SA and NZ v Pumas games become competition defining.

NZ are so far ahead of the everyone else it's almost embarrassing.

Getting a losing bonus point against the ABs seems to be the best they can hope for.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

NZ are so far ahead of the everyone else it's almost embarrassing.

Getting a losing bonus point against the ABs seems to be the best they can hope for.

NZ are the best side in the world, but that's a ridiculous statement.

Klunk_NZ

With dry tracks I would expect the AB's to put 4 tries on Arg regardless of country played in. But my god McCaw being out is huge.

[Jackass]

I didn't see the game (and given Poite was ref, not regrets), but what do people make of the hit on DC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J9ZDN82giw

I can see the logic behind the yellow, but anyone else think he wrapped, or at least made an attempt to wrap his right arm when going into the tackle? I've seen them being judged as perfectly legal before.

Howard Juneau

[Jackass] wrote: »

I didn't see the game (and given Poite was ref, not regrets), but what do people make of the hit on DC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J9ZDN82giw

I can see the logic behind the yellow, but anyone else think he wrapped, or at least made an attempt to wrap his right arm when going into the tackle? I've seen them being judged as perfectly legal before.

The general consensus on here was that it was a good tackle & a bs call by Monsieur Poite

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

[Jackass] wrote: »

I didn't see the game (and given Poite was ref, not regrets), but what do people make of the hit on DC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J9ZDN82giw

I can see the logic behind the yellow, but anyone else think he wrapped, or at least made an attempt to wrap his right arm when going into the tackle? I've seen them being judged as perfectly legal before.

It was a perfectly legal tackle, absolutely nothing wrong with it

Klunk_NZ

Bleed for the cause

Klunk_NZ

General consensus is NH refs impede on perfectly good rugby.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

General conses is NH refs impede on perfectly good rugby.

plenty of ****e SH refs too

Klunk_NZ

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

plenty of ****e SH refs too

I think South Africans have the best Reffs on top of being the 2nd best rugby nation. Real strong contributors to the game.

.ak

Which team were better on the day? Hard to say. I couldn't clearly call it either way. I think saying Poite had no bearing on which side was better is a bit naive though. I don't buy into the whole NZ at home get lenient calls thing, but there's no doubt a lot of calls gave NZ the advantage, specifically numerically but also at scrum time.

One particular incident caught my eye. The scrum where he penalised SA for pushing early before the ball was fed. A few scrums later and SA have the feed but this time NZ push early, before the ball is fed in, and yet again SA are pinged. The call? Not taking the hit. What hit Monsieur Poite? There is no hit anymore, and NZ can't hit and push before the ball is fed. This was directly after poite had to reset the scrum because he was using the old scrum calls. We're all human, but my conclusion here is that this guy should not be refing scrums at this level.

The BDP incidents will be done to death, so I'll be brief here - the elbow YC isn't so clear cut to me, but that's just opinion, what isn't opinion however is the first yellow card - we know thanks to the technology that showed us a replay that Poite got this call wrong, and that's a fact. Now that's fine, again we all make mistakes and refs must make split decisions, right? Wrong. A year ago, fine I'd accept that, but now with the TMO rules he could've checked it. What's even more amazing is the fact he asked the TMO to check the whole passage that lead after the incident, yet refused to ask the TMO to check the incident that set it off. Further to this he would've seen the tackle on the big screen prior to his final decision. He had made up his mind and that was that, nothing would change it.

Controversy follows this guy around for a reason. I don't say this lightly, but the guy just isn't up to this level. He disguises incompetence and a faulted thought process with confidence and demeanour.

Now, back to my original point - which team were the better side? To be honest I'm not sure, what I do know is that after poite unfairly reduced he visiting team to 14 men in the first half the contest was always going to be skewed.

I will say this though, NZ are still the best counter attacking team on the planet, to quote another poster: a different class. However, if I were on the NZ coaching panel I'd be very concerned with how easily SA made ground with ball in hand, and at how undisciplined NZ got when they started to get a bit bullied around the park.

Klunk_NZ

Ritchie could be right for the SA game, there will be no easy ground round the fringes (= .
Barret shows soo much promise, he really impressed.

Klunk_NZ

More bad news for South Africa :
http://m.news24.com/channel24/Music/News/Nickelback-heading-to-SA-20130914

Judgement Day

Great game, great result and the Boks' overly physical game caught up with them again. Perhaps Nonu could sign up with them as he's playing himself out of the All Blacks set up. A great advertisement for the SH game compared to the bore fest played out between Australia and Argentina.

And didn't Sam Cane do well for himself?

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

Which team were better on the day? Hard to say. I couldn't clearly call it either way. I think saying Poite had no bearing on which side was better is a bit naive though. I don't buy into the whole NZ at home get lenient calls thing, but there's no doubt a lot of calls gave NZ the advantage, specifically numerically but also at scrum time.

One particular incident caught my eye. The scrum where he penalised SA for pushing early before the ball was fed. A few scrums later and SA have the feed but this time NZ push early, before the ball is fed in, and yet again SA are pinged. The call? Not taking the hit. What hit Monsieur Poite? There is no hit anymore, and NZ can't hit and push before the ball is fed. This was directly after poite had to reset the scrum because he was using the old scrum calls. We're all human, but my conclusion here is that this guy should not be refing scrums at this level.

The BDP incidents will be done to death, so I'll be brief here - the elbow YC isn't so clear cut to me, but that's just opinion, what isn't opinion however is the first yellow card - we know thanks to the technology that showed us a replay that Poite got this call wrong, and that's a fact. Now that's fine, again we all make mistakes and refs must make split decisions, right? Wrong. A year ago, fine I'd accept that, but now with the TMO rules he could've checked it. What's even more amazing is the fact he asked the TMO to check the whole passage that lead after the incident, yet refused to ask the TMO to check the incident that set it off. Further to this he would've seen the tackle on the big screen prior to his final decision. He had made up his mind and that was that, nothing would change it.

Controversy follows this guy around for a reason. I don't say this lightly, but the guy just isn't up to this level. He disguises incompetence and a faulted thought process with confidence and demeanour.

Now, back to my original point - which team were the better side? To be honest I'm not sure, what I do know is that after poite unfairly reduced he visiting team to 14 men in the first half the contest was always going to be skewed.

I will say this though, NZ are still the best counter attacking team on the planet, to quote another poster: a different class. However, if I were on the NZ coaching panel I'd be very concerned with how easily SA made ground with ball in hand, and at how undisciplined NZ got when they started to get a bit bullied around the park.

The other thing is the TMO George Ayoub. He has always been what I would call deferential/wishy-washy/imprecise. He could just have said, look Romain, that was a legit tackle. Personally, I found this just as annoying as Alain Rolland decision to send off Warburton in the RWC 1/4 final, which also ruined that game, even if technically correct. At times, I would almost prefer the Rugby League policy of referring such matters to the citing commissioner and keeping the game at 15 v15.

One thing I will say, if NZ win in SA then SA fans will just have to take it on the chin and accept NZ is currently better. What better place for a grudge match than the scene of the '95 final, and the time zone means there will NO EXCUSE for anyone on this forum not to watch it

.ak

Swiwi. wrote: »

The other thing is the TMO George Ayoub. He has always been what I would call deferential/wishy-washy/imprecise. He could just have said, look Romain, that was a legit tackle. Personally, I found this just as annoying as Alain Rolland decision to send off Warburton in the RWC 1/4 final, which also ruined that game, even if technically correct. At times, I would almost prefer the Rugby League policy of referring such matters to the citing commissioner and keeping the game at 15 v15.

One thing I will say, if NZ win in SA then SA fans will just have to take it on the chin and accept NZ is currently better. What better place for a grudge match than the scene of the '95 final, and the time zone means there will NO EXCUSE for anyone on this forum not to watch it

I've seen a few people compare the Warburton incident, but for me there's no comparison. One was a correct call on the hump of a pretty clear memo from the IRB, the other was a ref not using the rules to back up his decision.

Also the TMO couldn't offer info on something he wasn't asked about. Maybe that rule needs to be looked at.

Not sure I'd like the idea of the league style after game sanctions. As JdV put it to Steve Walsh a few weeks ago 'We want the benefit of the decision now Sir, not next week'.

For me there's no doubt who the better team is. There's a reason why NZ is ranked no. 1. But I didn't, or couldn't, come to that conclusion from watching this game.

danthefan

.ak wrote: »

I've seen a few people compare the Warburton incident, but for me there's no comparison. One was a correct call on the hump of a pretty clear memo from the IRB, the other was a ref not using the rules to back up his decision.

Absolutely. It's not even close to being the same thing imo. There was nothing wrong with the tackle today.

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

I've seen a few people compare the Warburton incident, but for me there's no comparison. One was a correct call on the hump of a pretty clear memo from the IRB, the other was a ref not using the rules to back up his decision.

Also the TMO couldn't offer info on something he wasn't asked about. Maybe that rule needs to be looked at.

Not sure I'd like the idea of the league style after game sanctions. As JdV put it to Steve Walsh a few weeks ago 'We want the benefit of the decision now Sir, not next week'.

For me there's no doubt who the better team is. There's a reason why NZ is ranked no. 1. But I didn't, or couldn't, come to that conclusion from watching this game.

Yeah, although if SA had won, they would have taken the top spot. I agree you can read nothing into this result, I wouldn't go to the other extreme though, and suggest SA would have definitely won if they'd kept 15 men. You can sense the frustration on the internet blogs, a ton of Kiwi fans having a go at Poite, you can tell they are not happy with the hollow victory. Fairplay to them.

Jacovs

Swiwi. wrote: »

and the time zone means there will NO EXCUSE for anyone on this forum not to watch it

Couldnt watch the game today cos of work, but im usually on early shifts so heres to hoping. If its the deciding game of the championship and I have to work I will be looking for a shift swap.
I couldnt really tell from the first 18 pages, what did you guys make of that first yellow? :pac:

twinytwo

Rightwing wrote: »

NZ are so far ahead of the everyone else it's almost embarrassing.

Getting a losing bonus point against the ABs seems to be the best they can hope for.

Tbf, how many times have seen(especially when the abs are defending) repeatedly infringe and they are let away with it when any other team would get a yellow.

It like trying to walk up the down escalator. So while yes they are teh best attacking team in the world some of the games should be a lot closer than they are.

Swiwi.

Jacovs wrote: »

Couldnt watch the game today cos of work, but im usually on early shifts so heres to hoping. If its the deciding game of the championship and I have to work I will be looking for a shift swap.
I couldnt really tell from the first 18 pages, what did you guys make of that first yellow? :pac:

Sums up NZ's feelings

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/9166936/Its-still-the-Garden-of-Eden-for-All-Blacks

Jacovs

Im just wondering what would any of us have done if we were Heyneke Meyer at half time.
Replace Bismarck with Adriaan, who isnt as physical or prominent at the break downs, but makes up for it elsewhere.
Or do what he done and go with the "Bismarck is having a great game, whats the chance he will get another yellow?" route.
Hind sight and what ifs, right.

Hagz

In fairness, two yellow cards is a very rare thing.

Jacovs

I dont think it even crossed his mind, and dont think anyone else wouldve done any differently, but im sure some will say they wouldve made the change.
Probably was a better chance of anyone else getting a straight red than him getting another yellow.

Shelflife

I can't understand how anyone can't see that playing a match at this level for nearly 40 mins (50mins in total) with a man extra is a huge advantage.

For me the Bdp yellow was wrong, understandable if your reffing a j1 game but not with two international refs as ARs and a Tmo, and Esp with the new Tmo rules.

Aside from the yellow , SA lost great field position in that instance as the AB got a relieving pen instead of a SA turnover.

The second incident shortly afterwards when the AB got a free kick. He started his run then stopped, the SA charged and were stopped by RP. This should have been another turnover and good field position for SA.

I thought SA did really well to keep the score down and keep their heads after the red card. Could have been an absolute cracker of a game, pity really.

matthew8

That's a very good point about Strauss, especially with a ref like Poite at the helm. Double yellows are so rare because refs don't typically card players early in games. Obviously in this case he had a huge amount of time to get a second one.

For Paws

Swiwi. wrote: »

Look I agree. What gets my rag though is the idea that the IRB has a conspiracy theory, and that every ref systematically favours NZ on pain of death. As was pointed out above, Poite made his mind up instantly that it was a YC, therefore saw no need to consult TMO, and was not influenced by the crowd. It's nearly impossible to get any sort of fair hearing on this forum when NZ play, as virtually everyone wants NZ to lose, and any decision that is wrong gets magnified X times.

While the YC was wrong, SA should have looked to keep it tight in the forwards and wind the clock down, and 14 men or not, letting BB get 60m+ upfield, and then a few other players hardly have a hand laid on them was poor defense by the Boks.

In fairness, the NZ commentators agree it was a wrong decision.

I think compared to many Kiwi supporters I try and be unbiased (not always with success), but I must admit it's hard work when you know most people are wearing anti-NZ glasses.[/QUOTE]

Laughable

.ak

I don't think either of those points are true. I think most people are on the fence, and most Irish posters would have no love for SA rugby - infact, most posters would probably be AB fans here! However, we're all just spectators with no real chips in the pot here, and most people just wanted to see a game that was billed to be the big one, unfortunately it was ruined by the officiating.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

n other news, IRB have issued a statement saying Romain Poite was wrong to issue first yellow card to South Africa's Bismarck du Plessis

duckysauce

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

n other news, IRB have issued a statement saying Romain Poite was wrong to issue first yellow card to South Africa's Bismarck du Plessis

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2068799.html

Should suspend him for a couple of weeks might keep the rest of them on their toes.

astonaidan

Just getting around to watching the game now, cant for the life of me understand why Bismark got yellow for tackle on Carter

Howard Juneau

astonaidan wrote: »

Just getting around to watching the game now, cant for the life of me understand why Bismark got yellow for tackle on Carter

Did he get a yellow for that? Christ! And to think nobody on this thread spotted it or mentioned it yesterday

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

I don't think either of those points are true. I think most people are on the fence, and most Irish posters would have no love for SA rugby - infact, most posters would probably be AB fans here! However, we're all just spectators with no real chips in the pot here, and most people just wanted to see a game that was billed to be the big one, unfortunately it was ruined by the officiating.

Yeah, OK, hands up from me.

The NZ style of rugby is what is predominating in Ireland at present, successfully at Leinster under Schmidt, Munster so far this season under Penney, and we hope internationally under Schmidt. I'm sure most Irish fans would prefer Ireland to be successful with a NZ style of gameplan, rather than a SA one - certainly I don't think Ireland produce players of the physicality of SA to go down their route. I think there is still some ill-feeling about BOD/Mealamu/Umaga, with which I 100% symphathise, and I wish NZ had blown France off the park in 2011, but it didn't happen. I've said already I have no issue with NZ's somewhat dubious victory, as France were otherwise awful in the 2011 tournament, even if that is not how RWC tournaments work.

I think SA have done themselves credit by refusing to comment specifically on Poite, the IRB statement speaks volumes. I hope Ayoub gets some sort of reprimand as well. I'm not sure SA were physically dominating NZ - there is no doubt BDP was having a stormer, and along with Ezebeth was the pick of the Boks on display, but for NZ Read & Retallik were also outstanding.

It should be a great game at Ellis Park, I'm delighted we're heading back there, that Soweto Stadium with all the vuvezelas is terrible for rugby. I used to fear the altitude, but with Dagg having a great punt on him, it's less an issue. Morne will probably attempt penalties from 60m out though. If NZ can win without McCaw & Carter it will a great effort - TBH I'm not certain Carter makes 2015, he's always getting injured, and his sabbatical can't come soon enough. Luckily Cruden, Barrett & Taylor all seem decent replacements.

Will leave it at that.

Morf

Watch the game earlier.

Few thoughts:

Scrum is a total mess. If it keeps being reffed like Poite did and Hodges did the Leinster game then we will go to a League scrum. I'm not blaming the refs totally either but if they can't force both teams to scrum less cynically then the new rules will fail.

Poite was awful. I don't think he was even that unusually awful. I did notice he warned then penalised the Boks for screening at uncontested rucks. 30 seconds later NZ did the exact same and nothing.

The Boks had a ruck 5m from the NZ line and although the Bok player was slightly isolated the NZ player wasn't ever on his feet. Poite waited about 10 seconds for the ball to come back on the NZ side and they cleared.

Oh and Smith should have been yellow carded but Nonu's stupid charge. JdV quite reasonably questioned it.

NZ were the better team. The first two NZ tries were from poor kicking then poor defence/about 5 misses tackles.

I imagine the NZ fans are irate that they had their captain and another player yellow carded. Must be near the anger at when McCaw was carded by Alan Lewis (we all know what happened to him . . . ).

My opinion seems to vary about NZ. Some times I like them but I'm often annoyed when it seems like they get the rub of the green a lot more than they should. I mean realistically the best team in the world doesn't need institutional favouritism. I'm sure non-Manchester United fans could've said the same.

Wrap up: NZ were ok, below par. SA were poor and make a lot of stupid decisions at crucial points. Poite was Poite.

Swiwi.

Morf wrote: »

Watch the game earlier.

Few thoughts:

Scrum is a total mess. If it keeps being reffed like Poite did and Hodges did the Leinster game then we will go to a League scrum. I'm not blaming the refs totally either but if they can't force both teams to scrum less cynically then the new rules will fail.

Poite was awful. I don't think he was even that unusually awful. I did notice he warned then penalised the Boks for screening at uncontested rucks. 30 seconds later NZ did the exact same and nothing.

The Boks had a ruck 5m from the NZ line and although the Bok player was slightly isolated the NZ player wasn't ever on his feet. Poite waited about 10 seconds for the ball to come back on the NZ side and they cleared.

Oh and Smith should have been yellow carded but Nonu's stupid charge. JdV quite reasonably questioned it.

NZ were the better team. The first two NZ tries were from poor kicking then poor defence/about 5 misses tackles.

I imagine the NZ fans are irate that they had their captain and another player yellow carded. Must be near the anger at when McCaw was carded by Alan Lewis (we all know what happened to him . . . ).

My opinion seems to vary about NZ. Some times I like them but I'm often annoyed when it seems like they get the rub of the green a lot more than they should. I mean realistically the best team in the world doesn't need institutional favouritism. I'm sure non-Manchester United fans could've said the same.

Wrap up: NZ were ok, below par. SA were poor and make a lot of stupid decisions at crucial points. Poite was Poite.

Barely mentioned in the press. All the talk is about BDP cards. This illustrates my point about anti-NZ bias. Why don't you read the NZ press, instead of imagining things? Or if you don't want to do that, at least don't surmise. NZ fans are just as annoyed as anyone else that the game was ruined as a spectacle.