All Blacks vs Springboks, Wellington

[barbarian]

OK guys, think your points have been made.

I think the thing that got me the most about the AB performance was their ability to score 4 tries whilst not playing scintillatingly well. They had good passages but nothing that made me stand up and clap, they still made a fair few simple errors as well. We have to play the house down to get 4 tries, yet the ABs seem to do it so easily.

 

[Lee Grant]

That was a commanding victory by the All Blacks and had we not seen the win at Eden Park 7 days earlier we could have said it was astonishing.

The Blacks do not seem to be the same team as this time last year and nor do the Boks. In 2009 the Kiwis had no answer to the territory kick and chase game of the Boks followed by attack when they were in the right real estate. It was predictable but that didn't help the Kiwis.

Before the Super14 this year I thought there would be a change in the 3N pecking order as the law crackdown in the Super14 would help to generate quick ball and surely this would help the Kiwi teams and the All Blacks later – and I had a sneaky thought that the Wallabies would benefit also. I was surprised that it was Stormers and Bulls that thrived in the S14 and that the Bulls scored so many tries. For them, the Kiwi teams were ordinary.

So, I didn't know what to think as the European teams came to the SH in June. The Boks looked a bit off-colour in the first test against the Italians and ditto for the Kiwis against Wales, but in the end the visiting teams succumbed to the S14 type up tempo game.

I didn't think that the Boks with all their Stormers and Bulls players plus those from the Sharks, who finished well, would not be able to keep up with the tempo of the All Blacks when 3N started. The Boks still had power, but it got diluted when players got run around so much.

Looking at the Kiwis in the two tests was reminiscent of watching the 2002 Auckland NPC team whose attributes spilled over to the 2003 Blues S12 team. For those outfits turnover ball was like a set piece where players sprinted back, to get into position and they had to get there quickly because the mantra was to dish the pill out at all costs and they had to be there. It was the same for ill-directed kicks: players would swarm back into position and be there just in time.

That's how the All Blacks looked to me at the Cake Tin on Saturday night. Sure, it was more than just turnover stuff. I said after the EOYT that flanker Read was turning into a very useful international no.8. Faint praise: now he looks world class. He and Kaino and McCaw outplayed the Bok backrow and you go through just about every other unit and come up with the same opinion.

Over the two games there have been grand performances by some Kiwis who looked like they were on the last chance for the RWC next year. Muliaina is playing like a young pup, Mealamu is thriving in the absence of Hore, and Weepu had his best test match in years – almost his best game at any level in years. And Brad Thorn is just like the Mississippi even though he's 48 years old.

It wasn't so good for the Boks at the Cake Tin but at least they got their lineouts right and their scrums looked a bit more scary. Jacque Fourie looked like he was slummimg in that backline and Ruan Pienaar had a mini blinder that will make their fans at home think what might have been.

The yellow card to Rossouw was a rough call for the Boks but it was their karma: Bakkies should have got a red one at Eden Park. Bok fans will be totting up the points against them in those minutes and think that therefore the two tests weren't a train crash, and maybe it wasn't, but there was a bit of blood and guts all the same.

The officiating was poor and it concerns me that NH referees are not applying the law crackdown as strictly as it was in the Super14. Rolland allowed defending players to go off their feet in the northern style and attackers had to follow suit. He also allowed defensive pillars to drive from their side position into their ruck if it was being threatened.

Lewis was better in Auckland on the law crackdown, but he was not to the general standard of the S14 refs in that area either.

You there Paddy?

.

 

[Scarfman]

Forget it, Lee. Paddy only pays any attention to what Henry says.

 

[cyclopath]

And Brad Thorn is just like the Mississippi even though he's 48 years old.
.

Brown and smelly before he runs into the sea?
And I agree with the rest righteously.

 

[chief]

Those games were Alan Lewis and Alain Rolland's first games under the new interpretation. It seemed both teams would have been better served having these refs excluded from the Tri-Nations, or done some Aus Baba games, and NZ Maori games rather than just throw them into the new interpretations or even thrown some of them our way to do a Super Rugby match. This is Tri-Nations Rugby, it is the hardest Rugby competition in the world.

John Smit really isn't up to Tri-Nations Rugby either. He certainly needs to up his game to be a proven starter as well as captain. If the Springboks campaign continues like this, PDV's position won't be the only one up for grabs. We know how intolerant SA Rugby is.

 

[PaarlBok]

Not surprised with the scoreline and expected. Did not watched the first half but hopefull we'll see some changes for Brisbane. Pretty frustrating for a Stormers supporter like myself to still see Januarie playing. Luckily when I got at the TV he was gone already and Ruaan way better in 9. Hope they'll twist and fine tune the team now. The Meisiekind Mossie midfield pair simply dont work and as a combination. The scrums and line outs look a bit better, probably the most important ones. We need to get opur first phase sorted first, our defensive structure in place and the rest will follow. Hard work ahead.

Usually when the Bokke are kak and desperate it brings out the best in them and they simply have to produce this weekend.

 

[Thomond78]

More that I can't be fucked with the depth of it. Ref was there, we weren't, no ref's have special love for AB's, unless you wear a tin hat and exist on twinkies in a caravan. Plenty of calls go the other way, it generally evens out, and the losers bleat. NZers are just as guilty of that latter trait too.

Yeah we are precious abut McCaw. So what? Something wrong with being proud of a player? You would be too if you had him, he's fucking great. Luckily for us he's a Kiwi, so we get to watch him and cheer for him while everyone else whinges and gets shat on by the AB's.

BTW he was warned in the red zone, his next warning was for the rest of the park.

Actually, at the moment, they do. It's just over a year from the RWC, and the refs want the final. So, Barnes, Rolland et al are playing the political game and delivering what PO'B wants - or what they feel he wants. And the problem is, after the spray Dickinson got for reffing the scrums correctly when the Italians scrummaged like heroes - so slap-dash a spray that O'Braindead had to apologise to Dickheadson afterwards - the message has gone out that you don't piss off the ABs or you piss off Paddy - and if you do that, bang goes your golden whistle.

McCaw and Henry are more than cute enough to have worked this out and push it all the way. Good luck to them; that's their job. The problem is, the refs aren't doing theirs. But it doesn't help the ABs long-term, because in the RWC, the chances are they'll get someone pre-final who's not getting the final, doesn't give a shit and who'll ref it - and bin people - as he sees it. If the ABs get that when they've become used to the current, political, comfort zone, then they're in trouble. Take, for example, Garcés, a very good ref who doesn't give a shit who he offends; get him cracking down, and it will be a right shock to the system, because with him, a final warning means next penalty is in the bin, whoever it is.

Incidentally, the laws specifically require that after a player has been warned, he must be sent off or temporarily sent off for the next offence. Law 10 (3):

10.3 REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant. Sanction: Penalty kick
A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily suspended.

(b) Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s). If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s). Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

(c) Repeated infringements: standard applied by referee. When the referee decides how many offences constitute repeated infringement, the referee must always apply a strict standard in representative and senior matches. When a player offends three times the referee must caution that player.

The referee may relax this standard in junior or minor matches, where infringements may be the result of poor knowledge of the Laws or lack of skill.

So, once McCaw was warned, he had to be binned for his next offence of any kind. Once the team was warned, the next AB penalised for that offence had to be binned. Didn't happen in either case.

 

[Blue]

John Smit really isn't up to Tri-Nations Rugby either. He certainly needs to up his game to be a proven starter as well as captain. If the Springboks campaign continues like this, PDV's position won't be the only one up for grabs. We know how intolerant SA Rugby is.

All the SA media and fans share your views on Smit.

PdV inherited a great team which with its leaders all firing was able to just keep going. Few injuries, few law changes and we can now see that this coaching staff has not shown the ability to adapt.

We don't yet know how SARU will react but remember PdV was an acknowledged affirmative action appointment (they said as much). HE will get a lot more slack than previous coaches.

I actually think he needs a backline coach. Muir coaches the Lions to a record points difference in Super rugby this year. What does that tell you?

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Actually, at the moment, they do. It's just over a year from the RWC, and the refs want the final. So, Barnes, Rolland et al are playing the political game and delivering what PO'B wants - or what they feel he wants. And the problem is, after the spray Dickinson got for reffing the scrums correctly when the Italians scrummaged like heroes - so slap-dash a spray that O'Braindead had to apologise to Dickheadson afterwards - the message has gone out that you don't piss off the ABs or you piss off Paddy - and if you do that, bang goes your golden whistle.

McCaw and Henry are more than cute enough to have worked this out and push it all the way. Good luck to them; that's their job. The problem is, the refs aren't doing theirs. But it doesn't help the ABs long-term, because in the RWC, the chances are they'll get someone pre-final who's not getting the final, doesn't give a shit and who'll ref it - and bin people - as he sees it. If the ABs get that when they've become used to the current, political, comfort zone, then they're in trouble. Take, for example, Garcés, a very good ref who doesn't give a shit who he offends; get him cracking down, and it will be a right shock to the system, because with him, a final warning means next penalty is in the bin, whoever it is.

Incidentally, the laws specifically require that after a player has been warned, he must be sent off or temporarily sent off for the next offence. Law 10 (3):

So, once McCaw was warned, he had to be binned for his next offence of any kind. Once the team was warned, the next AB penalised for that offence had to be binned. Didn't happen in either case.

Even by your standards, this post is ridiculous! Have you even looked at the penalty count in any of the recent games? I'm starting to wonder if your tin foil hat is getting a bit too tight for you.

Now, given that NZ has had the bulk of the run of play in their 5 tests so far this year, we'd expect them to be on the right side of the ledger on penalties right, as the penalties are more likely to be awarded to the attacking team, right?

SA 31-17 ... penalty count 10-9 to NZ. More or less even.
SA 32-12 ... penalty count 12-5 to SA! Despite NZ clearly dominating... they many more penalties... hmmmm..
Wales 42-9 ... penalty count 8-8. Evens. Despite NZ dominating.
Ireland 66-28 ... 10-6 to NZ. An all out thumping, where for the only time so far this year, NZ has had much more luck on the penalty

for some reason scrum.com doesn't have the other Wales game, but looking at the sample above, that's 1 game out of 4 where the AB's have had the rub of the green, yet you continue to go on and on about favouritism, pleasing Paddy etc etc. This is the same Paddy that came out in support of Barnes after the RWC knockout and said NZers needed to grow up. Oh sure, you can harp on back to the Italy game as much as you want, but politically that seemed like a move to quell the RWC qtr final - evening up the ledger a bit.

Also, why have you highlighted the bold bit about infringing 3 times - McCaw didn't infringe 3 times. The team may have, but McCaw didn't. He did once in the red zone, the team did again - warning. And then the next one was about 40 metres out after Rolland had warned taht anymore in "the red zone" and he was gone. So in fact, Rolland was consistent (feel free to correct me here, thats the way I remember it after seeing it once, I haven't recorded teh game so I can post-analyse it to the death).

Until the AB's start consistently being on the right side of 12-5 penalty counts, its' hard to really put down any of these ref bias arguments has anything other than sour grapes.

 

[Scarfman]

MR, without reference to T78's post, which I kind of agree with and kind of don't, I have no confidence in Paddy O'Brien, and believe he should have been removed for Stu-gate.

I'm going to have a close look at the breakdown in NZL v RSA II and post something on the blog.

Victor Matfield isn't a known whinger, unlike DeV and Smit, but he did say: "It seems as if they are untouchable. The refs allow them to get away with murder. ... I cannot say much about the ref (Alain Rolland), because I will get into trouble. But there were a few times on attack when we struggled to play because our ball was deliberately slowed down. ... I felt we couldn't get quick ball. In the Super 14 they got the tackler away much quicker and that's not happening at the moment. But again we want to adapt to the referee and we didn't do it. We've had them [northern hemisphere referees] two weeks now and in the Super 14 it was definitely quicker."

McCaw had a pretty quiet S14 season and it might have been because the flop wasn't allowed. Rolland turned a blind eye to the flop on the weekend and it really helped the Blacks. Is that something you can agree with? Or is suggesting that McCaw deliberately falls in-between the tackled player and his support some kind of Kiwi treason?

 

[fatprop]

I just loved the Ab's cleanout, they had units hitting rucks low and driving up and back giving great clean ball for Wepu

 

[cyclopath]

Only treason if you are a Kiwi, Scarfy? Invercargill via Belfast??

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

MR, without reference to T78's post, which I kind of agree with and kind of don't, I have no confidence in Paddy O'Brien, and believe he should have been removed for Stu-gate.

I'm going to have a close look at the breakdown in NZL v RSA II and post something on the blog.

Victor Matfield isn't a known whinger, unlike DeV and Smit, but he did say: "It seems as if they are untouchable. The refs allow them to get away with murder. ... I cannot say much about the ref (Alain Rolland), because I will get into trouble. But there were a few times on attack when we struggled to play because our ball was deliberately slowed down. ... I felt we couldn't get quick ball. In the Super 14 they got the tackler away much quicker and that's not happening at the moment. But again we want to adapt to the referee and we didn't do it. We've had them [northern hemisphere referees] two weeks now and in the Super 14 it was definitely quicker."

McCaw had a pretty quiet S14 season and it might have been because the flop wasn't allowed. Rolland turned a blind eye to the flop on the weekend and it really helped the Blacks. Is that something you can agree with? Or is suggesting that McCaw deliberately falls in-between the tackled player and his support some kind of Kiwi treason?

Don't get me wrong - I don't have confidence in Paddy either. He should never have awarded Barnes the quarter final & then Stu-gate was certainly something the IRB should have investigated deeper and probably fired Paddy over. If they had any balls, i'm sure they would have.

Your right - Matfield isn't a known whinger, but after getting beaten all over the park, it's an easy diversionary tactic to bring referee's into the equation to quell the masses of SA fans frothing at the mouth over the piss poor play of their team in the first 2 games, when the expectations on them were extremely high. I don't think anybody from anywhere predicted the 3N ledger to stand at 10pts to NZ, 0 to SA after the 2 games.

About Richie - nobody deny's he plays right on the edge of the law & often over. I don't think it's fair to call it a "blind eye" though, as that suggests Rolland delibrately chose to ignore, which sounds ver T78 ish. From 3ft out, I think he simply saw a breakdown being dominated by the guys in Black and gave the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. I certainly don't think the application of laws is behind Richie's increase in form. The breakdown is always contentious but his improvement has been across the board - support play, link man, tackling, organising defence has all been a notch up.

I would honestly guess that some of our older players are done with the S14 and struggle to get motivated for it anymore - look at the form of Dan, Richie, Mils, Woodcock in the test arena & then compare it to their S14 form. They don't even look like the same players!

As always, look forward to your analysis & whatever video's you choose to post. Although I suspect these ones are going to be so against the AB's they are going to do little more than piss me off, it's always interesting to see another perspective.

 

[cyclopath]

I think Matfield makes a valid point - there has clearly been a difference in the focus of the reffing since the S14 ended, and it may well be suiting the ABs better. To my eye there has been a lot more off feet play tolerated all round, not just from the ABs. The breakdown play seems to have gone back a few years - tackled players not really being released quickly, the tackled player being pinged more for holding on, the pillars driving through (good counter-ruck) but then standing around unbound beyond the actual breakdown and ball, players bridging and straight-out flopping over the tackled player and so on.
Henry and Mccaw have adapted much better to this. Other teams must try to keep up. Unless of course the refs change they way they are officiating.
To that end I agree in part with Thomo - I have no doubt many refs are trying to line themselves up to appointed as Prefects for the RWC, not by showing bias to NZ, but by pandering to Paddy and perhaps a more northern hemisphere style of reffing.
As always, the biggest deficiency is consistency. Bias is grossly overstated by some, and even more grossly detected by some fans.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Maybe true to a point Cyclo, but not the off feet play. See McCaw's comments regarding that

The ref allowed a good contest which was good and when we got under pressure I was guilty of giving away a couple of penalties," said McCaw.

"I guess when you're under pressure like that you've got to try and get the decisions right and I thought the ref was pretty good.

"We knew where we stood. If you held your feet and got over the ball you got rewarded but if you got it wrong he was pretty hard on you. You've got to adjust as you go.

 

[cyclopath]

With all due respect to Richie, there was plenty of off the feet stuff - maybe not trying to contest while off their feet (to which I think he was referring, and fair point he made), but people sealing off / flopping / bridging type of stuff.

 

[Thomond78]

MR, once McCaw was warned, he had to go to the bin for his next offence, wherever committed. That's what the laws say, in black and white. He wasn't binned for it. Once a team warning was given, the next AB to commit that offence had to be binned for it, wherever committed. They weren't. The laws state what had to be done. It wasn't done. Simply, there's no getting around the fact that Rolland didn't apply the laws to the ABs.

By the way, the 12-5 figure you're so reliant on just proves my point. If a team commits two and half times as many penalties as the opposition, but doesn't get someone binned whereas the team who commit just five penalties does get someone binned, then there's clearly something off in the reffing.

 

[Scotty]

ABs won because they played better. A LOT better. I doubt that a law 'interpretation' suits them more than another team, particularly when that slows the play down.

However, I completely disagree with having NH referees for the 3N. It doesn't really make any sense, and it is annoying that they aren't applying the laws the same way that the S14 refs did. The amount of time the tackler didn't release the player before having a go at the ball was astounding, and would have resulted in a penalty in the S14. In saying that the refs also got a bit lazy on this as the S14 went on.

 

[PaarlBok]

McAwe only plays the ref and correctly so. Wish our lot will just get out there and do the same and stop whining, thats the basic rule from U6 to test level rugby. T78 I see we have another Irish one this weekend? George Clancy.

 

[Thomond78]

ABs won because they played better. A LOT better. I doubt that a law 'interpretation' suits them more than another team, particularly when that slows the play down.

However, I completely disagree with having NH referees for the 3N. It doesn't really make any sense, and it is annoying that they aren't applying the laws the same way that the S14 refs did. The amount of time the tackler didn't release the player before having a go at the ball was astounding, and would have resulted in a penalty in the S14. In saying that the refs also got a bit lazy on this as the S14 went on.

Boys, with the greatest of respect; cry me a fucking river. We had SH refs coming up, in the middle of the 6N, applying, mid-tournament, not just a completely different interpretation at the breakdown but an entirely new ruling. We got on with it. You can. The alternative is not only completely different interpretations between the hemispheres and an even worse problem come tours/RWC, but also that you get Bryce Lawrence doing SA-Aus games for the rest of eternity; and are you sure you want that...?

But what I will agree with, alas, is that refs tend to get lazy on any crackdown. They're human (no, really, they are. Well, maybe not Barnes and McHugh, but the rest are...), and bitching from commentators about "pedantic" - i.e. correct and accurate - refereeing will have its effect on them as it would on anyone. It's why I like Garcés so much; he really could not give a shit what the commentators say, and will just ref away strong as the laws say. And more power to him.