RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
-
@nzzp said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Fuck it I'm drinking
We were robbed
Better team lost
We didn't take our chances, but SA burgled another one. They can't beat us at full strength. Like Australia and the lions, need a red card to get over the lineFuck you haters. Black is the new black.
Drinking NZZP is my favourite NZZP
-
@nzzp said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Fuck it I'm drinking
We were robbed
Better team lost
We didn't take our chances, but SA burgled another one. They can't beat us at full strength. Like Australia and the lions, need a red card to get over the lineFuck you haters. Black is the new black.
i find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
-
Yeah fuck it, I'm being too diplomatic as well. The TMO didn't stop us from telling who would have won had it stayed 15v15, the TMO stopped us from knowing how much the men in black would have won by without arbitrary cards. I'd say 20+ if I'm being honest.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@nzzp said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Fuck it I'm drinking
We were robbed
Better team lost
We didn't take our chances, but SA burgled another one. They can't beat us at full strength. Like Australia and the lions, need a red card to get over the lineFuck you haters. Black is the new black.
i find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
it's onlyfans. Free sample below for you and @Bones
-
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
In fact NZ gave away far fewer penalties than SA. And in terms of player safety Kolisi's tackle, which was was always going to involve head contact with Savea, was no better than Cane's. Without his reappearance Boks were finished.
We can argue till the cows come home, but it's pretty clear that arbitrary TMO decisions decided the final, and faulty reffing decisions ended the run of France. I thought England were desparately unlucky with a couple of scrum calls, but it was apparent that Boks finishers were too hot for theirs to handle.
Perhaps the common ground is that, if we're having the premier event in the rugby calendar we need to find a way to ensure that dodgy decisions don't alter the final result.
IMO the TMO was a blight on the tournament and the fans would have been better without it.
Should the TMO be involved as much? Not sure to be honest. I prefer accurate decisions to obvious mistakes being waived on because the ref missed them, I accept that a balance is tough to strike though.
It’s not pretty clear to me that refereeing decisions DECIDED the final, affected it sure, but decided it? Not for me, we can disagree on that if you like but it strikes me a strange position to take given you missed a penalty in the last few minutes.
I think the decison were worth, say, eight points. That ABs got to within one tells you everything about the true merits of the teams.
-
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
TMO intervening on penalties for holding on not relesding etc is not in their remit. Nor should it be.
Time to close the thread methinks. No amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth is going to change the result.
-
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
In fact NZ gave away far fewer penalties than SA. And in terms of player safety Kolisi's tackle, which was was always going to involve head contact with Savea, was no better than Cane's. Without his reappearance Boks were finished.
We can argue till the cows come home, but it's pretty clear that arbitrary TMO decisions decided the final, and faulty reffing decisions ended the run of France. I thought England were desparately unlucky with a couple of scrum calls, but it was apparent that Boks finishers were too hot for theirs to handle.
Perhaps the common ground is that, if we're having the premier event in the rugby calendar we need to find a way to ensure that dodgy decisions don't alter the final result.
IMO the TMO was a blight on the tournament and the fans would have been better without it.
Should the TMO be involved as much? Not sure to be honest. I prefer accurate decisions to obvious mistakes being waived on because the ref missed them, I accept that a balance is tough to strike though.
It’s not pretty clear to me that refereeing decisions DECIDED the final, affected it sure, but decided it? Not for me, we can disagree on that if you like but it strikes me a strange position to take given you missed a penalty in the last few minutes.
I think the decison were worth, say, eight points. That ABs got to within one tells you everything about the true merits of the teams.
I mean that's just silly, one thing changes, everything changes. You play the game as it stands throughout the game, you don't play it based on things that could have happened. South Africa played rugby the way they did because they were infront. We have literally no idea how they would have played otherwise.
-
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
The TMO can't rule on more than 2 phases before a try is scored, but that didn't stop him. What a farce rugby is right now
This was mentioned on the Aotearoa Rugby Pod that it is a guideline, not a rule, the 2 phase thing
-
@Unite said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
The TMO can't rule on more than 2 phases before a try is scored, but that didn't stop him. What a farce rugby is right now
This was mentioned on the Aotearoa Rugby Pod that it is a guideline, not a rule, the 2 phase thing
A guideline? FFS, talk about giving the little man in the booth ultimate power. As Shag said, time to restore the balance of power. The ref should be the top dog, the TMO subservient to him and only there to do his/her bidding
-
@Dodge yes! Which is exactly why the TMO intervention ruined it! We don't know what would have happened had they not completely fucked up, intervening constantly, and then gotten some of their crucial decisions 100% wrong. In a WC final no less! That's just not good enough and it ruined the game completely.
Yes we can't say the ABs would have won if they didn't get those bad calls, as you say everything changes. But surely we can all agree that the TMO had a bigger impact on that game than any of the players, despite the herculean efforts of PSDT and Ardie. That's so wrong.
-
@Billy-Tell said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
Time to close the thread methinks. No amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth is going to change the result.
Quitter
-
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
In fact NZ gave away far fewer penalties than SA. And in terms of player safety Kolisi's tackle, which was was always going to involve head contact with Savea, was no better than Cane's. Without his reappearance Boks were finished.
We can argue till the cows come home, but it's pretty clear that arbitrary TMO decisions decided the final, and faulty reffing decisions ended the run of France. I thought England were desparately unlucky with a couple of scrum calls, but it was apparent that Boks finishers were too hot for theirs to handle.
Perhaps the common ground is that, if we're having the premier event in the rugby calendar we need to find a way to ensure that dodgy decisions don't alter the final result.
IMO the TMO was a blight on the tournament and the fans would have been better without it.
Should the TMO be involved as much? Not sure to be honest. I prefer accurate decisions to obvious mistakes being waived on because the ref missed them, I accept that a balance is tough to strike though.
It’s not pretty clear to me that refereeing decisions DECIDED the final, affected it sure, but decided it? Not for me, we can disagree on that if you like but it strikes me a strange position to take given you missed a penalty in the last few minutes.
I think the decison were worth, say, eight points. That ABs got to within one tells you everything about the true merits of the teams.
I mean that's just silly, one thing changes, everything changes. You play the game as it stands throughout the game, you don't play it based on things that could have happened. South Africa played rugby the way they did because they were infront. We have literally no idea how they would have played otherwise.
um they have been behind in other games before so yes I think we do know how they play.
-
Probably mentioned, but it's bloody ridiculous they still show replays on the big screens at the ground. The local producers looking for anything to rile up the crowd.
Just use the TMO for 2 phases before a try or to check grounding. Suspected foul play can be placed on report and subject to heavy bans.
-
@voodoo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
But what of the next sentence Booboo?
"Ardie then says "so that was alright" and Barnes goes "yep"
He's clearly seen a replay at this point.
So that was alright (as in your ruling)
Yep -
@MiketheSnow said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@voodoo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
But what of the next sentence Booboo?
"Ardie then says "so that was alright" and Barnes goes "yep"
He's clearly seen a replay at this point.
So that was alright (as in your ruling)
YepBrooooo
-
Call me a chippy kiwi, one-eyed, sore loser etc, but it really winds me up that we seem to be constantly on the wrong side of some really dubious refereeing decisions over the years.
Yes, we are the most carded international team, but (hear me out) might that be because we are just subconsciously looked at differently than other sides? Don't know why, maybe because we dominated 2004-2017?
Off the top of my head, in rough chronological ordrer:
-
Poite's "deal" to decide the 2017 Lions, exact replica of the (correct) call Joubert was pilloried for in the 2015 RWC QF Scot vs Aus. Poite rules it correctly, then has an off-mike conversation with Garces, IN FRENCH, then downgrades the penalty to scrum, presumably to be less controversial. Wtf?
-
Lions Test 2, after playing most of the game with 14 we lost it to a penalty at the death, where Sinckler jumped into a tackle to collect an errant pass, and we got penalized. Never seen that before or since in a rugby game. I think there's now a rule that awards a free kick to the defending side if the attacker attempts to jump clean over NFL-style?
-
Jordie Barrett's red card vs Aus, where he jumped high to catch a kick and someone just ran into his foot. Not seen that before or since either?
-
The stitch up last year vs the Irish, Ta'avo gets done for a red, but a near-identical shot from Porter on Rettalick gets let off with "absorbing soak tackle" - never heard that language before or since!
-
Aki high shot vs the Irish not looked at.
-
Scott Barrett's yellow against Argentina for batting the ball from the halfback's hands. Stupid move, but would a ref really card any other team that deep in opposition territory?
-
The Final: EDG forearm to the face, not looked at. Etzebeth leading forearm to Cane's head, not looked at despite right in front of the ref. Frizzell carded for being cleaned out onto a random leg he wouldn't have even seen.
-
Cane's upgraded to red, harsh for me given Kriel changed direction so suddenly, but fair enough under the current protocols. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander when Kolisi lines up Ardie from 10m back and smokes him head-to-head. Nope, stays yellow. Bad luck guys, 4 more years.
Thank you for indulging me, rant over.
-
-
@nostrildamus said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
In fact NZ gave away far fewer penalties than SA. And in terms of player safety Kolisi's tackle, which was was always going to involve head contact with Savea, was no better than Cane's. Without his reappearance Boks were finished.
We can argue till the cows come home, but it's pretty clear that arbitrary TMO decisions decided the final, and faulty reffing decisions ended the run of France. I thought England were desparately unlucky with a couple of scrum calls, but it was apparent that Boks finishers were too hot for theirs to handle.
Perhaps the common ground is that, if we're having the premier event in the rugby calendar we need to find a way to ensure that dodgy decisions don't alter the final result.
IMO the TMO was a blight on the tournament and the fans would have been better without it.
Should the TMO be involved as much? Not sure to be honest. I prefer accurate decisions to obvious mistakes being waived on because the ref missed them, I accept that a balance is tough to strike though.
It’s not pretty clear to me that refereeing decisions DECIDED the final, affected it sure, but decided it? Not for me, we can disagree on that if you like but it strikes me a strange position to take given you missed a penalty in the last few minutes.
I think the decison were worth, say, eight points. That ABs got to within one tells you everything about the true merits of the teams.
I mean that's just silly, one thing changes, everything changes. You play the game as it stands throughout the game, you don't play it based on things that could have happened. South Africa played rugby the way they did because they were infront. We have literally no idea how they would have played otherwise.
um they have been behind in other games before so yes I think we do know how they play.
i can't work out if you're being obtuse or you don't understand a very simple point.
