RWC QF: France v South Africa
-
@MiketheSnow Now do one focusing solely on the French. Given the possession/territory stats, I'd wager there were fewer incidents, but I bet there were some.
Big calls were:
-
Etzebeth knock down - debatable. If forward, penalty try and yellow card
-
Etzebeth head contact - BOK did his part, the bunker decided it wasn't a red
The Boks gave the French a taste of their lazy rolling, ruck flopping medicine. I'm not feeling much sympathy for them given how often they get away with it themselves
-
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@MiketheSnow Now do one focusing solely on the French. Given the possession/territory stats, I'd wager there were fewer incidents, but I bet there were some.
Big calls were:
-
Etzebeth knock down - debatable. If forward, penalty try and yellow card
-
Etzebeth head contact - BOK did his part, the bunker decided it wasn't a red
The Boks gave the French a taste of their lazy rolling, ruck flopping medicine. I'm not feeling much sympathy for them given how often they get away with it themselves
this is exactly the point i've made elsewhere. The winners very rarely bother...
-
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@MiketheSnow Now do one focusing solely on the French. Given the possession/territory stats, I'd wager there were fewer incidents, but I bet there were some.
Big calls were:
-
Etzebeth knock down - debatable. If forward, penalty try and yellow card
-
Etzebeth head contact - BOK did his part, the bunker decided it wasn't a red
The Boks gave the French a taste of their lazy rolling, ruck flopping medicine. I'm not feeling much sympathy for them given how often they get away with it themselves
Oh absolutely
I'm sure there are plenty
-
-
@MiketheSnow BOK gave the French plenty of chances to play. He gave them some of the rub of the green too. As he did the Boks. He didn't knock the ball on or drop the expected barrage of high kicks, last time i checked.
If France had caught the ball twice and the prop had not tried to flick the ball that was bobbling on the ground (dive on it!), SA would not have had the chance to score the first 3 of their tries. Unfortunately for them, they did and they SA were good enough to capitalise.
Ireland said NZ sucker punched them with their 3rd try on Saturday from first phase. The first 3 SA tries were a trio of sucker punches lovingly gift wrapped by the French through high ball ineptitude. I mean, they must have known the kicks were going to come, no?
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@MiketheSnow BOK gave the French plenty of chances to play. He gave them some of the rub of the green too. As he did the Boks. He didn't knock the ball on or drop the expected barrage of high kicks, last time i checked.
If France had caught the ball twice and the prop had not tried to flick the ball that was bobbling on the ground (dive on it!), SA would not have had the chance to score the first 3 of their tries. Unfortunately for them, they did and they SA were good enough to capitalise.
Ireland said NZ sucker punched them with their 3rd try on Saturday from first phase. The first 3 SA tries were a trio of sucker punches lovingly gift wrapped by the French through high ball ineptitude. I mean, they must have known the kicks were going to come, no?
Oh I know
We gifted Argentina the match so know how that goes
France, like Ireland, didnāt know how to chase the game
Been a while since they had to
-
@pakman said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Lots of French whinging but in the sequences several clear misses by BOK. What it explains is how Bok breakdown work was so effective in last 25. Suspect a NH ref would have killed them.
That's just made me happy that France lost.
Some long long bows being drawn.
Getting grief for TMO decisions.
Some not penalties. (I reckon both of Kriel's raised elbows were fine.)
Some decisions have no immediate effect as a penalty is awarded immediately thereafter.
Kolbeās charge down was fine.
Etsebeth's "knock on" wasn't, but even if it did go marginally forward he tried to knock it back, so how in the hell can it be a deliberate knock forward?
I bet if some tinfoil wearing Saffer wanted to troll through the match video they'd find enough evidence to BryceLawrence-afy BOK if they had lost.
So fuck off du Pont and French whingers.
Expectation obviously weighs heavy on the European teams who aren't used to it. Or are they millennial wooses that believe their own sense of entitlement and it's all someone else's fault?
-
@booboo said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@pakman said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Lots of French whinging but in the sequences several clear misses by BOK. What it explains is how Bok breakdown work was so effective in last 25. Suspect a NH ref would have killed them.
That's just made me happy that France lost.
Some long long bows being drawn.
Getting grief for TMO decisions.
Some not penalties. (I reckon both of Kriel's raised elbows were fine.)
Some decisions have no immediate effect as a penalty is awarded immediately thereafter.
Kolbeās charge down was fine.
Etsebeth's "knock on" wasn't, but even if it did go marginally forward he tried to knock it back, so how in the hell can it be a deliberate knock forward?
I bet if some tinfoil wearing Saffer wanted to troll through the match video they'd find enough evidence to BryceLawrence-afy BOK if they had lost.
So fuck off du Pont and French whingers.
Expectation obviously weighs heavy on the European teams who aren't used to it. Or are they millennial wooses that believe their own sense of entitlement and it's all someone else's fault?
Can only speak for Wales, but the inconsistency of the decision (not the actual letter of the law) was justifiably questioned in our match against Argentina
-
To be honest, apart from the Smith call, I think the only one I was very uncertain about was a ruck after the French broke out and marched them about 40 metres up field, with a few minutes to go. Bok player went over the ball and wasnāt supporting and I think knocked it on as well (I only saw it in real time). The French didnāt get the call and that was basically the game - the Boks basically kept them back down there till the end. I feel like that non-call was very impactful - if like to see it on replay.
In saying that, you cant argue that or even Smithās turnover as the key moment when the French spilled so much ball and ruined attacking chances. If they had been pretty flawless until then, perhaps some grumbling would be ok, but that game was not lost due to refereeing - they gave the Boks too many opportunities and the ball fell/bounced for green on three (ie, pretty much all) of them.
-
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
I thought he was brilliant in the first half, seemed to tire in the second.
Given the way the French attack, there is a huge amount of pressure on him being at every ruck so quickly. France tend to not commit numbers so him being able to be present and clear ball is so critical. The kid covers huge amount of ground Iām surprised they play him for 80.
-
@gt12 you donāt think the Eztebeth no call knock on was big? Sure he was trying to knock it back, but the ball actually went forward. For me that should have been at least an attacking scrum 5m out. If not more.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@gt12 you donāt think the Eztebeth no call knock on was big? Sure he was trying to knock it back, but the ball actually went forward. For me that should have been at least an attacking scrum 5m out. If not more.
honest question did it go forward? I saw it a couple of times and it looked backwards to me; pretty important factual question to align on!
Anyone got a slo-mo replay handy?
-
@nzzp although, ACT says he was trying to knock it back, but went forward...end result is moot to me.
did he have a chance to get it?
Yes
Did he?
No
Did he knock it down?
No
Did it go forward?I'm not best person to get into this, as my view is if you get a finger to it, and your action is anyway but downward, you have a shot at it, however small, so scrum only.
-
-
It would be so much easier if we just ditched the intentional knock-on rule. If you can get to the ball from an onside position, good for you. Most likely you're probably going to try and catch it, but if you can't catch it you can disrupt the play by knocking the ball down - if it goes forward, attacking scrum awarded.
Easy
-
I see Nigel Owens has come out to clarify that a players hands can be on the ground as long as the ref does not think that hand is supporting the players weight. So BOK may have thought that Smith was supporting his own bodyweight even though his hand was on the ground.
Just another level of nuance the ref has to deal with, but not such an obvious error that everyone is calling out.
-
-
@Toddy said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Why else would you put your hand on the ground? Surely using two hands to pilfer is better than using one. Unless you need to use one to keep balance
Exactly. I read that Nigel tweet exchange and heās technically right about what the penalty can be called for ānot supporting weightā, but as a ref youād have to be a mind reader to know that a player who physically has their hand on the ground is not using it to support their weight in the body position they use to compete for the ball.
