All Blacks vs Boks
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pukunui said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
Just from an observation common sense POV, why do you think halfback throw the ball to No8 every time a scrum collapses rather than start hunching near the refs feet?
But I'll actually look it up:
21 Penalty and Free Kicks
Definitions21.2 Where penalty and free are taken
DEFINITIONS
Penalty kicks and free kicks are awarded to the non-offending team for infringements by their opponents.
21.1 Where penalty and free kicks are awarded
Unless a Law states otherwise, the mark for a penalty or free kick is at the place of infringement.
21.2 Where penalty and free kicks are taken
(a)
The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b)
When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
(c)
If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.Im assuming you are equally as outraged about penalty kicks for touch being taken a few strides past the mark. That seems to happen more often than a kick being made over the actual mark and results in the gain of a couple of metres every time.
Argueably that has more impact than a tap being taken a couple of metres either side of the mark.I'm not outraged, im irritated.
A punt a few yards past the mark, no I'm not bothered.
A punt 5 yards infield to improve the angle for plugging the corner, yes.
A goal kick 5 yards infield to improve the angle, yes.
If this tap penalty had been 5m out rather than 40m, and Smith had strolled in virtually unopposed I reckon Owens may have had a different interpretation. It's the "may" part that irritates me. We won't know until it happens, and if it's a RWC knockout - which ever way it is ruled shitloads of fans from one of the teams is going to stink out the internet for a month because refs have turned a "will" into a "may" depending on 'game flow', or which way ref was looking when he tapped it.
Just rule it properly. Now, and every time. The players will catch on really quick.
So you have selective irritation? I think it's a bit strange you are ok with a kick not being taken on the mark and the ref giving leeway in policing it but you are so against refs giving leeway in a tap being taken not exactly on the mark. It's that sort of inconsistency that is killing the game not taps being taken off the mark.
To be honest i do agree with your overall point. Just not this situation. The one that shits me is the offside after a knock on which led to the farce of the third Lions test. It should be a penalty every time or a scrum every time not left to some vague interpretation. In fact there were a few in this game that were called scrum only. Similar situation with deliberate knock ons. Maybe these sorts of things should be free kicks instead of penalties (and cards).
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
It Owens. That's what you get with him. He lets stuff go if it leads to a bit of excitement.
Just like how with Barnes you get one major fuck up per game, with Jackson, a weird hometown call etc etcAlthough, I recall in that Irish test when we won that penalty at the death, the ABs took a quick tap penalty and Owens pulled him back and we had to take it again.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido I think you may be getting irritated about nothing.
I have just watched the game again and took notice to check what you are saying.
At most Smith was 2 metres from the centre line of the ruck when his foot tapped the ball. In fact his left foot was only a metre to the side and was the only part of him grounded. He then ran right around Owens and came back to the front of the ruck before kicking. The only reason there was empty space was that the Boks were retreating 10. He could have got to the same place with the same space anyway.
As a reference point the Investec darker part of the logo is 5 metres wide (you can see from the aerial shots compared with the sidelines). The correct place of the penalty is about one metre outside of that space and Smiths left foot is only just on the line as he is moving and tapping. Owens is about 2.5 metres max from the correct place.
Your 5 metres is an exaggeration5m, 4m, or 3m is irrelevant as I already addressed further up. Where he takes it from there is no physical obstruction of the ruck in front of him. I'd actually estimate about 3m to the side and 2m further up the field of where he could have practically tapped it if acting legally.
I don't want Aaron Smith thinking he can take quick taps from anywhere and then one day in a 2019 knockout game he fluffs a golden quick tap opportunity because a ref got up on a different side of bed than what Owens did on Saturday.
Equally if in e.g. the 2015 RWC semi from a 5m scrum the Boks are awarded a free kick for a technical engagement infringement I'd be ropable if Fourie Du Preez just tapped it where he was standing and flopped over the try line in an Aaron Smith ladyboy tackle. I'd expect he would need to have taken it line with the mark.
I expect better. I expect the world's best players and referees to know the rules, and for the rules to be the same regardless of field position.
IMO Smith almost buthchered it like a TJP too flat support line, he put it in the refs hands and got lucky.
-
I note in passing the wikipedia page for History of Rugby Union Matches Between New Zealand and South Africa .... a great page it is I visit it regularly ..... that after 94 matches ABs now lead Boks overall 1920 points to 1458.
I would not have imagined it possible before test no. 94, but the question I know for a fact is lurking in the mind of at least one Bok fan I know: can the ABs hit 2000 points before Boks score 1500?
All Blacks will have to hit 80 pts before Boks tally 42, my Bok-supporter friend is down and thinks they will do it, but I think that's a very big ask and don't think they can do it, but I'll be more than happy for them to prove me wrong.
-
-
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido I think you may be getting irritated about nothing.
I have just watched the game again and took notice to check what you are saying.
At most Smith was 2 metres from the centre line of the ruck when his foot tapped the ball. In fact his left foot was only a metre to the side and was the only part of him grounded. He then ran right around Owens and came back to the front of the ruck before kicking. The only reason there was empty space was that the Boks were retreating 10. He could have got to the same place with the same space anyway.
As a reference point the Investec darker part of the logo is 5 metres wide (you can see from the aerial shots compared with the sidelines). The correct place of the penalty is about one metre outside of that space and Smiths left foot is only just on the line as he is moving and tapping. Owens is about 2.5 metres max from the correct place.
Your 5 metres is an exaggeration5m, 4m, or 3m is irrelevant as I already addressed further up. Where he takes it from there is no physical obstruction of the ruck in front of him. I'd actually estimate about 3m to the side and 2m further up the field of where he could have practically tapped it if acting legally.
I don't want Aaron Smith thinking he can take quick taps from anywhere and then one day in a 2019 knockout game he fluffs a golden quick tap opportunity because a ref got up on a different side of bed than what Owens did on Saturday.
Equally if in e.g. the 2015 RWC semi from a 5m scrum the Boks are awarded a free kick for a technical engagement infringement I'd be ropable if Fourie Du Preez just tapped it where he was standing and flopped over the try line in an Aaron Smith ladyboy tackle. I'd expect he would need to have taken it line with the mark.
I expect better. I expect the world's best players and referees to know the rules, and for the rules to be the same regardless of field position.
IMO Smith almost buthchered it like a TJP too flat support line, he put it in the refs hands and got lucky.
Materiality is the big thing with good refs. I would have been irritated if Owens had blown Smith up for not taking the tap in the perfectly correct place myself.
He took the tap so quickly that the defenders were still retreating. It would have made no material difference if he had done so in the right place and run between the ruck and Owens or going all the way around Owens like he did. He brought a split second extra time by tapping as he was already moving sideways but then lost that time going the long way around.
No material advantage to him and the tap was made with a foot behind the ruck so play on. -
@pakman said in Wallabies v Pumas:
Did you watch AB-SA? Thought Dreyer 'competed' very effectively until Nige cottoned on!
I'll answer that one here:
04:00 First Scrum - Marx's bind on Dreyer involves getting right down to the seam on his jersey - probably because those ridiculous shiny shirts are fucking hard to bind onto. You can see him bunching it up, in order to get maximum grip. Looks like Hames simply missed his bind.
But check Dreyer's back as he goes to set: its a little bent, meaning on the hit he's probably going down a little, then straightening. That is what causes Hames to miss IMHO - a lack of jersey to bind onto doesn't help, but he can adjust to go up over the shoulder if he holds his back straight and then drives up a bit.
Let me also say that if the fucking useless OB director for Sky stopped cutting away to shots of backs doing nothing, that scrum could have had a more thorough analysis.
08:50 Second Scrum no bunching of the shirt this time by Marx. Maybe he forgot. Maybe the shirt isn't so hard to grip. Hames binds on Dreyer's shorts, which is illegal.
Boks drive through using Etzebeth and the flanker to destroy Hames. Whitelock loses his bind. ABs weren't ready for that. They sheared left a little, but nothing illegal when the opposing loosehead side is turning and not retreating.
Shit actually watching the replay on the feed, I think the AB THP got walloped as well - suddenly Retallick's arse is in the air. Coles isn't happy, but after getting buttfucked, you never are.
16:22 Third Scrum - jersey is bunched by Marx. Hames binds the shorts again. Boks try the push, but Retallick and Whitelock are ready this time and the scrum goes up a bit before being called to use. Fact: the Bok 6 is on Dreyer's side (being openside), whereas previous was the big blond unit wearing 7.
Another interesting point: the Boks knock it on in the subsequent play, so its AB advantage and then Owens calls a penalty against the Boks. Not many refs bother going past the knock on as the first offence and would take it back for scrum. Quick tap, kick, try to Ioane.
And fucking hell Jantjies is a liability for that team.
25:38 Fourth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames takes the shorts, and they try to drive but it folds in and collapses as the ball comes out.
Hames is having an unhappy game, generally.
28:00 Fifth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames goes shorts. Smith feeds the second row
and the ABs get a bit of motion on. Boks creak a bit to the left. Ball out.Replay of Squires' head knock - fucking hell that's almost a red card by Mostert. It looked bad at full speed but nothing was done at the time. Hometown director
Jeez Hames gives away a stupid penalty holding a Bok player around the neck.
And Marx has some serious technique issues with his throwing.
31:50 Sixth Scrum - jersey is riding up a little, but plenty to grab. Problem seems to be Hames wants as long a bind as possible, instead of going for any available jersey space. Hoping to use his more compact arms to exert pressure
Can't help but think he'd be better off trying to get up on the back and using it for leverage.Anyway, Dreyer's feet are all over the shop, with his left (inside) boot waaaaay back pre-engage, and he overextends. Owens penalises him for angling down. And fair enough - got one of the strongest locks in the world behind you - don't need to stretch.
Another note: at 39:03 Cane wins a penalty for a turnover despite clearly landing on his elbows past the ball. Jeez Nige... he's got one hand on the fucking ground.
Anyway, that's how I saw the scrums in the first half. It was pretty even overall, with the Boks probably taking a points victory for that massive shove.
-
-
-
@number-10 said in All Blacks vs Boks:
I think it was during 1996 that we finally went ahead of South Africa in terms of wins.
I believe the W-L record P.S. (Post-Suzie) is 39-13, a 75% win ratio. (There was a bad hiccup stretch about a decade ago where Boks beat ABs four-out-of-five which put a serious crimp on the stats, otherwise would have been higher.)
-
@nta said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pakman said in Wallabies v Pumas:
Did you watch AB-SA? Thought Dreyer 'competed' very effectively until Nige cottoned on!
I'll answer that one here:
04:00 First Scrum - Marx's bind on Dreyer involves getting right down to the seam on his jersey - probably because those ridiculous shiny shirts are fucking hard to bind onto. You can see him bunching it up, in order to get maximum grip. Looks like Hames simply missed his bind.
But check Dreyer's back as he goes to set: its a little bent, meaning on the hit he's probably going down a little, then straightening. That is what causes Hames to miss IMHO - a lack of jersey to bind onto doesn't help, but he can adjust to go up over the shoulder if he holds his back straight and then drives up a bit.
Let me also say that if the fucking useless OB director for Sky stopped cutting away to shots of backs doing nothing, that scrum could have had a more thorough analysis.
08:50 Second Scrum no bunching of the shirt this time by Marx. Maybe he forgot. Maybe the shirt isn't so hard to grip. Hames binds on Dreyer's shorts, which is illegal.
Boks drive through using Etzebeth and the flanker to destroy Hames. Whitelock loses his bind. ABs weren't ready for that. They sheared left a little, but nothing illegal when the opposing loosehead side is turning and not retreating.
Shit actually watching the replay on the feed, I think the AB THP got walloped as well - suddenly Retallick's arse is in the air. Coles isn't happy, but after getting buttfucked, you never are.
16:22 Third Scrum - jersey is bunched by Marx. Hames binds the shorts again. Boks try the push, but Retallick and Whitelock are ready this time and the scrum goes up a bit before being called to use. Fact: the Bok 6 is on Dreyer's side (being openside), whereas previous was the big blond unit wearing 7.
Another interesting point: the Boks knock it on in the subsequent play, so its AB advantage and then Owens calls a penalty against the Boks. Not many refs bother going past the knock on as the first offence and would take it back for scrum. Quick tap, kick, try to Ioane.
And fucking hell Jantjies is a liability for that team.
25:38 Fourth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames takes the shorts, and they try to drive but it folds in and collapses as the ball comes out.
Hames is having an unhappy game, generally.
28:00 Fifth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames goes shorts. Smith feeds the second row
and the ABs get a bit of motion on. Boks creak a bit to the left. Ball out.Replay of Squires' head knock - fucking hell that's almost a red card by Mostert. It looked bad at full speed but nothing was done at the time. Hometown director
Jeez Hames gives away a stupid penalty holding a Bok player around the neck.
And Marx has some serious technique issues with his throwing.
31:50 Sixth Scrum - jersey is riding up a little, but plenty to grab. Problem seems to be Hames wants as long a bind as possible, instead of going for any available jersey space. Hoping to use his more compact arms to exert pressure
Can't help but think he'd be better off trying to get up on the back and using it for leverage.Anyway, Dreyer's feet are all over the shop, with his left (inside) boot waaaaay back pre-engage, and he overextends. Owens penalises him for angling down. And fair enough - got one of the strongest locks in the world behind you - don't need to stretch.
Another note: at 39:03 Cane wins a penalty for a turnover despite clearly landing on his elbows past the ball. Jeez Nige... he's got one hand on the fucking ground.
Anyway, that's how I saw the scrums in the first half. It was pretty even overall, with the Boks probably taking a points victory for that massive shove.
Excellent analysis! ABs really disintegrated in second scrum: kudos to Boks. Much better after Coles word to Nige (something like TH [getting] in). Thought Marx was popped in third scrum and Dreyer collapsed fourth.
Like you I thought Laulala looked under pressure in second (and third) scrums.
First half points to Boks.
In second, replacement TH not up to scratch. Three penalties in successive scrums (10/1/12) undermined Boks just when they were starting to compete elsewhere. Clear win for ABs. -
@pakman not surprising when you consider half the starting lineup for the Boks had never faced NZ before. The bench wasnt going to be much better.
As for the whole jersey bind thing: even though Hames bound the shorts, material effect is what the refs are looking for
-
@mimic said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Wow.. I am shocked that we are ahead by 20 wins..
It feels like not long ago that we were neck and neck.. still remember when people reported that the All Blacks finally had a winning record against all test nations..ABs getting awfully close to pulling level for test matches played in SA. Right now W-L record in the Republic is 22-25 w/ 3 draws. Let's hope they inch even closer after Cape Town...
-
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
-
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Info about this game (which wasn't a test): http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/teamsheet.asp?MT_ID=1354
-
@roninwc said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
It's more the decision making from the producer that isn't in tune with the watcher. If the scrum or lineout is developing an interesting battle then you want to see what is going on there (without Marshall rabbitting on about something else). If they are pretty much restarts and the outcome is fairly certain then checking out the wide setup is great.
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better.
History of rugby union matches between New Zealand and South Africa - Wikipedia
