Springboks v All Blacks, Ellis Park 25/7/2015

[Grant NZ]

Well it's a stupid one at pro level, a props a prop, he might not be as apt on one side than the other, but he can surely hold his side up. Never thought I'd see a uncontested scrum between the ABs and the Bok.

Seems absurd given they allowed one guy - often a loosened - to cover two positions up until recently.

 

[Blue]

Even more absurd that Nyakane who came on actually plays on both sides...

 

[Hawko]

"According to World Rugby regulations, a team must name their loosehead and tighthead props before kick-off and if both players in a position are injured, scrums are no longer contested."

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_65451,00.html

So no provision for a reserve THP to play LH if both TH's have gone off.

Can't recall ever seeing a team lose both their designated tight- or loose-head props so it's not a conspiracy, nor a cock-up, no-one "asked" for them, it's just one of those freak occurrences that happen.

I've now seen the 30-min highlights package & get the feeling AB were possibly ever so slightly the better side. Full replay at 1830 should confirm.....

For the first 60 SA was clearly the better side but just couldn't get the points gap their play deserved. Then the scrum debacle gave NZ an edge because they got more feeds in the last 20. NZ finished a bit stronger but will know they were lucky to snag a win.

 

[TahDan]

Very strange end to the game, but that's two weeks in a row where the Boks have managed to lose the lead and then game in the final 10 minutes. That's a worry.

 

[da_grubster]

Boks have more improvement in them with Vermuelen, Coetze and some better leadership from either De Villiers or Matfield.

Their physicality at the breakdown is far better than either NZ or Aussie.

the AB breakdown strategy i a little frustrating. Absolute minimum nubers go into a breakdown allows a team like the boks an easy ride and they can flood the breakdown and get numerous turnovers as we saw last night.

Our approach relies on the breakdown being policed correctly. the french refs like to allow the team with momentum as the legal side and we didnt change our strategy to counter this.

it's a big concern going into the RWC.

Yeah, we won and the bokke threw the kitchen sink at us as well as the braai. the uncontested scrums gave us the match in my opinion.

we won but it wasn't pretty but let's not forget that any win at ellis park needs to be savoured.

Oh well, thats the toughest game out of the way.

 

[da_grubster]

For the first 60 SA was clearly the better side but just couldn't get the points gap their play deserved. Then the scrum debacle gave NZ an edge because they got more feeds in the last 20. NZ finished a bit stronger but will know they were lucky to snag a win.

you dont deserve a lead you go out there and earn it.

 

[Pauly]

Oh well, thats the toughest game out of the way.

Surely you guys will be trembling at the thought of facing the Wallabies ....?

 

[Blue]

Very strange end to the game, but that's two weeks in a row where the Boks have managed to lose the lead and then game in the final 10 minutes. That's a worry.

Thats a trend. We did it last year as well.

 

[Shelts89]

They did not. Them's the rules in test rugby. If both TH props go its uncontested.

Meyer after the game:
‘It doesn’t matter whether Trevor can or has played tighthead before [for the Bulls at Super Rugby level],’ said Meyer. ‘Once the two [designated] tightheads in a match 23 are off, the ref then rules that there are uncontested scrums. That’s the law.’

Ah ok, still a real shame since common sense could have said that he has played TH to a high standard so could handle it, but thems the rules. Real shame for the boks as it robbed them of a weapon I feel. Especially as it occurred on a 5m scrum.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Fair bit of debate on some ref forums elsewhere about this one, because there is nothing in the "laws" about nominating replacement props, though there may be in some SANZAR or WR (World Rugby) regulations - at the very least there are a few interesting parts in Law 3.5 which seem to have been missed.........

(m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.

(k) When 23 players are nominated for a match, or if the Union having jurisdiction over a match or a match organiser decides that where uncontested scrums are ordered as a result of there being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason the team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.

 

[Brumby Runner]

"According to World Rugby regulations, a team must name their loosehead and tighthead props before kick-off and if both players in a position are injured, scrums are no longer contested."

That being so, it must just about mean the end of the prop who can just adequately play both sides while there are better specialists available.

 

[ChargerWA]

That being so, it must just about mean the end of the prop who can just adequately play both sides while there are better specialists available.

That's pretty much been dead since the introduction of the 23 player team. I can't remember a prop switching sides in the last 2 years mid game. Maybe Alexander once for the Brumbies?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Do people actually think golden oldies made that much of a difference? Sure as a spectacle you want to see the 'contest', but up until that point Boks won all their scrum ball and so did the ABs. There had only been two scrum full arm penalties against Franks at that point, one which I thought was dodgy because the Bok props looked to be wheeling it and we got pinged?

Other than that one SA dominant scrum in the first half that the ABs were rightly penalised for, the scrum battle seemed to have little bearing on the game.

I was very surprised by some of the comments online that were quick to criticise the Boks and Meyer, when the laws are so clear. The starting and replacement props that were named and played the same side got injured. rarely happens, but it did, so we had this situation.

If say Woody and Crockett got hurt, we would've had Ben Franks who has played LH at International level. But last week say without B. Franks on the bench we wouldn't have had that option should such an irregular situation arise. Our hand would've been forced as well.

 

[Brumby Runner]

That's pretty much been dead since the introduction of the 23 player team. I can't remember a prop switching sides in the last 2 years mid game. Maybe Alexander once for the Brumbies?

True, but many posters still support their preferences by noting particular players'abilities to play both sides, viz Faulkner and Alexander, but has also been mentioned many times in relation to Slipper and Kepu.

 

[Highlander35]

The advantage in a switching prop is in the greater squad, so both players on one side don't have to play every game.

 

[Grant NZ]

Do people actually think golden oldies made that much of a difference? Sure as a spectacle you want to see the 'contest', but up until that point Boks won all their scrum ball and so did the ABs. There had only been two scrum full arm penalties against Franks at that point, one which I thought was dodgy because the Bok props looked to be wheeling it and we got pinged?

Given the AB's were about to clear their line from a 5m scrum with 7 men, I'd have to say yes. The previous scrum with Whitelock off got shoved back a fair way.

They may have cleared that ball anyway, we don't know. But doing it with golden oldie scrums made it a piece of cake.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I was very surprised by some of the comments online that were quick to criticise the Boks and Meyer, when the laws are so clear. The starting and replacement props that were named and played the same side got injured. rarely happens, but it did, so we had this situation.

Are the laws that clear?
Meyer and the referee clearly think so but it seems to be not in line with the official Laws of the Game (part 3.5).

Anyone seen the regulations which must refer to this?

I also haven't seen a good explanation of why if uncontested scrums were ordered, South Africa was allowed to replace the injured prop. That seems to be directly against the laws of the game (3.5 - k).

 

[Blue]

Other than that one SA dominant scrum in the first half that the ABs were rightly penalised for, the scrum battle seemed to have little bearing on the game

I seem to recall that were camped on the AB line, and were going for the third scrum in a row when he called uncontested (one had resulted in a penalty already) . There are at least three more scrums while your lot were down to 14.

Nobody knows for sure but there was a good chance of another penalty, and a real chance of a card.

A bearing? Quite probably.

The problem is that when he called uncontested we didn't change the plan and we lost the initiative. Our own fault.

 

[Blue]

Ah ok, still a real shame since common sense could have said that he has played TH to a high standard so could handle it, but thems the rules. Real shame for the boks as it robbed them of a weapon I feel. Especially as it occurred on a 5m scrum.

We have moved well beyond common sense when it comes to rugby games being officiated.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Blue, was the previous scrum with the two TH's packing down though?