• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

All Blacks v Springboks - Eden Park, Sept 14th 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hughbert

Herbert Moran (7)
Muttonbird said:
Well, he did lose the game for the Boks. That much is true because he got himself sent off for dangerous play.

I honestly believe he is out to maim opposition players, that's why I suggested he's the new SA hard-man. He attacked Messam's head/neck with his elbow. Clearly illegal and a straight red on it's own as far as I'm concerned. He lead with the shoulder high up in the Carter tackle but decided to throw in some arms as an afterthought. Also drove Carter into the ground with the intention of causing as much damage as possible.

Is this what rugby is about?
Click to expand...



uh, what? Making big (legal) dominant tackles is not okay, now?

Maybe if the halfback hadn't dropped carter in it with the biggest hospital pass of all time, he would still have a functioning shoulder.

It's not the tackler's responsibility to avoid "driving people into the ground", that's ridiculous, frankly.

As for the second incident, forearm fends to the neck area are common. The difference yesterday was that Messam was hurt by it. Fair yellow, not a red in any reasonable book unless you're a mother of 5 in Turramurra.
 
Sully

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Offside or not is irrelevant.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4
 
M

Muttonbird

Guest
hughbert said:
He wasn't offside. Have you actually watched the incident?
Click to expand...

I just watched it a couple of times and the online refs are saying because SA let the ball bounce from the 22 restart and none of them got a hand to it, Bismark was allowed to not retire before rejoining play.

That fact that SA let the ball bounce from the DC restart must be a worry.

I know people are getting annoyed with this topic but one final point; if BdP thought a little less about the so-called "dominant tackle" (a RL term, not a rugby term) and a little more about a sensible tackle where he could have got to his feet and regained the ball for his team, then maybe the Boks would have gotten closer.

BdP saw the mist and went out to make a statement and that's why the Boks lost.
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Muttonbird said:
I just watched it a couple of times and the online refs are saying because SA let the ball bounce from the 22 restart and none of them got a hand to it, Bismark was allowed to not retire before rejoining play.

That fact that SA let the ball bounce from the DC restart must be a worry.

I know people are getting annoyed with this topic but one final point; if BdP thought a little less about the so-called "dominant tackle" (a RL term, not a rugby term) and a little more about a sensible tackle where he could have got to his feet and regained the ball for his team, then maybe the Boks would have gotten closer.

BdP saw the mist and went out to make a statement and that's why the Boks lost.
Click to expand...
If he had not been incorrectly penalised, there was a good chance the Boks would have regained possession at the breakdown, or the scrum once the melee settled.
It's all crystal-ball stuff anyway.
Honestly, trying to in any way justify that as a good or reasonable decision, or to say du Plessis was 'at fault' for making a good hard tackle is stretching credulity.
 
H

hughbert

Herbert Moran (7)
Muttonbird said:
I just watched it a couple of times and the online refs are saying because SA let the ball bounce from the 22 restart and none of them got a hand to it, Bismark was allowed to not retire before rejoining play.

That fact that SA let the ball bounce from the DC restart must be a worry.

I know people are getting annoyed with this topic but one final point; if BdP thought a little less about the so-called "dominant tackle" (a RL term, not a rugby term) and a little more about a sensible tackle where he could have got to his feet and regained the ball for his team, then maybe the Boks would have gotten closer.

BdP saw the mist and went out to make a statement and that's why the Boks lost.
Click to expand...


"Dominant tackle" is a term I have used to describe a tackle in which the tackler dominates his opponent. I didn't mean for it to have a technical meaning, and I suspect you knew that but have chosen to be difficult on the matter.

I suspect you are engaging in a bit of trolling now. From having strong views about the incident before actually having understood what happened (red flag) to criticising a player for being physical in the tackle.

If you wish to play the "but-for" game then, the cause of BDP's first yellow is appalling refereeing, not poor tackle choice. It's not reasonable to expect the players to predict refereeing howlers, and it is reasonable to expect that referees won't pull massive howlers.
 
Zander

Zander

Ron Walden (29)
Dominant tackle in rugby is where the defender has won the collision, forcing the attacker behind the advantage line and basically takes him to ground on his terms. Completely stops any attacking momentum and gets the defence on the front foot. Critical core of rugby.
 
Tordah

Tordah

Dave Cowper (27)
1. there's absoultely nothing wrong with Bismarck's tackle that led to the YC.
2. there's a lot wrong when people defend Bismarck's action for the 2nd YC. It wasn't a forearm fend, he went in with the pointy part of the elbow to the collarbone. I don't think it was intentional to the point of wanting to hurt or even injure someone, but I think it was intention to get the tackler to refrain from trying a solid tackle. You don't fend with your elbow.
3. Read's yellow card was just as bad as Bismarck's. He did absolutely nothing and was carded for it. Difference is, it didn't cost the ABs the game because it was already basically over by then.
4. hoping for a less controversial rematch in Joburg. Less food for the Paddy O'Brien / IRB / AB conspiracy trolls.
 
Mank

Mank

Ted Thorn (20)
Muttonbird said:
I honestly believe he is out to maim opposition players
Click to expand...

I believe you do. I also believe you're not correct in the head. I'm sorry about that though, it's not right for me to pick on people with disabilities so I'll leave it at that.
 
PiXeL_Ninja

PiXeL_Ninja

Bill Watson (15)
Sums it up pretty well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...Zealands-29-15-victory-over-South-Africa.html

Dan Carter is untouchable
Well, not quite. But, just like the different breakdown laws that seem to apply to Richie McCaw – who was not playing at Eden Park because of injury – different interpretations apply to contact with Carter.
Click to expand...
Shock and horror when a tackle is made on him. Defending teams should just make way for him. How many times are the Boks going to get absolutely fucked by poor refereeing in crunch matches? Even if the boks werent going to win ( though they were still in it at the time) the Boks surely would have remained within the 7 point bonus point margin! Now the Boks have to legitimately beat the AB's at home by more than 7, and find a bonus point from either the Wallabies or the AB's in order to win the RC.

Somehow I dont think that we will be getting any favours from the referee.
 
Ryphon

Ryphon

Allen Oxlade (6)
The IRB have just issued a formal statement relating to the first yellow card:

Following an initial review, the IRB confirms that it was incorrect for referee Romain Poite to issue a yellow card to Bismarck du Plessis in the 17th minute of The Rugby Championship match between New Zealand and South Africa in Auckland on Saturday.
Just as players and coaches make mistakes, the decision was an unfortunate case of human error by the match officials, who, having reviewed the match, fully recognise and accept that they made a mistake in the application of law.
All match official performances are thoroughly reviewed and assessed by the IRB and are considered when appointments are made for future test matches.

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2068799.html
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Not only has the IRB confirmed that Poite got it wrong, but Dan Carter being a good sport has tweeted:

Nothing wrong with the tackle. Fell awkwardly and popped my AC joint #gutted #smashedembro
Click to expand...
 
PiXeL_Ninja

PiXeL_Ninja

Bill Watson (15)
Mank said:
That's pretty disappointing. Poite made an error. It's a game. Move on. I hope everyone who has signed that 'petition' has also registered for a referees training course.
Click to expand...
Erroneous.

Are you then not allowed to complain about your dentist if he injects you and severs a nerve, resulting in you losing all sense of taste\touch permanently? Do you need to be a dentist to then complain about a legitimate concern?

They are professional referees, and if he had followed reasonable guidelines, which you would image he should have, shows neglect on his part. Clearly the occasion was too big for him.

The real problem though is that the IRB dont fix these problems, and instead choose to shrug and hide the offending Ref behind a generic "referee's are humans too" media statement. If an onfield ref can now ask for replays this was 100% avoidable. And that is my issue with it.

WTF is the role of a TMO now? He is completely defunct? Maybe let him sit and watch the game and only contact the ref when he sees a howler?

Additionally cards have such a negative impact in a game, the "elite" refs need to be 100% sure that the offending player has committed an act that deserves a YC. Maybe mandatory reviews need to be viewed in order to send off a player. The home crowd seems to just have too much impact with a ref which causes them to lose their cool.
 
badabing59

badabing59

Cyril Towers (30)
PiXeL_Ninja said:
Now the Boks have to legitimately beat the AB's at home by more than 7,

Somehow I dont think that we will be getting any favours from the referee.
Click to expand...

Firstly, This may be your achilles heel-winning legitimately. Secondly regarding your comment of favours, you won't be getting any if they read your post.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top