Springboks v Wallabies, Newlands, September 28 2013

[Shiggins]

Our bench made a huge impact. Immense

 

[Woodenspoon]

Our bench made a huge impact. Immense

That's because our bench players should be our first string ones.

 

[Braveheart81]

Obviously another disappointing game by the Wallabies. The second half was greatly improved but we were well and truly out of the match by that point.

My observations:

The forwards just got smashed in the first half. We were losing almost every collision.

Out of the forwards it's hard to pick who actually played well. Fardy was alright but not as strong as previous games (still close to our best forward though). Mowen played his best game of the Rugby Championship so far but I felt that he did some of his best work once he moved to 6.

Alexander and Slipper both struggled. Alexander in particular. Stephen Moore improved as the game went on but he too was getting smashed in contact in the first half.

Horwill and Simmons were passengers for much of the game. The South African locks were dictating the physicality on the field (sometimes with the help of an elbow/forearm) and our locks just didn't compete in that regard. We need more out of these players. Our locks are getting seriously outplayed in every single test. This has to change.

Hooper struggled for physicality. One of his weaker tests although the stats suggest he still got through a lot of work. His yellow card was unlucky. Etzebeth lauched himself into the tackle and his thigh colliding with Hooper's shoulder was always going to send him cartwheeling. The yellow card was on the harsh side but realistically you're going to get carded for that more times than not.

Ben McCalman had a big impact when he came on. He really provided us with go forward and took the ball at pace every time. He is making a really strong case for a start. If we're looking at removing the weakest link, we have to give McCalman a go at 8 and move Mowen to 6 and Fardy to lock at the expense of Simmons.

Saia Fainga'a had to get his lineouts right from the start and he stuffed that up completely. This has to improve. If you're the bench hooker you have to be able to get your lineouts right otherwise there's no point putting you on the field.

Sitaleki Timani put on one massive hit when he came on and then got a very soft but equally stupid yellow card. His physicality is needed though. Maybe he needs to start a game and try and assert some physicality. We're not going to win many tests if the only portion of the game we win the contact zone in is in the last 20 minutes.

Benn Robinson made an impact when he came on. The scrum was much stronger (apart from one Alexander penalty) and he secured one penalty at the ruck. He still looks like he should be a starting prop.

In the backs, Nic White was disappointing. There was obviously a game plan of kicking the ball downfield to get out of trouble but what we did in the first half was headless chicken stuff. Too much aimless kicking under pressure from the base of the ruck. Will Genia greatly improved our game when he came on. He should start next week.

Cooper was so so. He made a shocking defensive error on Strauss for the first try by just running out of the line. After that his defence was greatly improved. He made some strong tackles. What concerns me most about his game right now is how deep he is standing when we actually have decent ball. This is exactly what Barnes was doing last year that everyone was so critical of. Our backline is never going to threaten the line if the first receiver is 10+ metres behind the advantage line.

Kuridrani had easily his best test although he still needs to improve his ball control in contact. He was our best player though.

It was good to see CFS score a try on debut but he also gave one up. There was no reason Willie Le Roux should have had the space to score in the corner that he did.

 

[Braveheart81]

Also, I didn't get the tactics of continually turning down shots at goal. I agree that had we got closer, the Springboks would have probably given up on going for the four try bonus point and kicked some penalties but we should have forced them to do that.

We are struggling to score tries yet we still turn down fairly easy shots at goal on a regular basis.

Take for example just before half time when van der Merwe got sin binned. We were down 23-3 with 30 seconds left in the half. Take the easy shot at goal then to make it 23-6 at halftime. We've got the last points of the half and then start the second half with 9 minutes of having an extra player. If you can score a try in that period you are right back in the game.

We need to play a lot more percentage rugby to try and remain in the contest. When you are still in the first half of a game I don't think you should be turning down 3 points because you are losing. There is a lot of time to go.

 

[Blue]

Might not have been a gouge but pretty obvious there was some raking which could have lead to eye damage.

Do you want to follow a game that allows that sort of thing?

I want a game where everyone looks at an incident and go shit, that almost looked like a gouge but we can see it was not because the initial target of the player was clearly not the eyes but the subject moved and unfortunately the hand moved across the face.

I am happy we are watching a game where Moore and Horwill probably discussed the issue with their management after the game and agreed that there was no grounds for making a complaint. Or are you suggesting that Moore and Horwill were not in the best position to make this call? Why would they not ask for a citing?

I did not see intent in Jannie's actions. Unfortunately these was brief contact with the eye area and that's unfortunate but it happens.

I do not condone any of this and I have been a very big critic of Jannie in the past. He has done some stupid shit and I have always felt his net contribution was in the red because of his losing his head from time to time.

However this time the only stupid thing he did was to get involved in the first place but did he go in there thinking that he is going for the eyes? No, I don't think so.

But Aus fans are boiling and frothing right now so I kind of understand that the smallest thing will become an outcry.

The forearm from Flip was clearly intentional and there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves a ban. I hope it spells the end of him starting for the Boks for good because he is a big dumb lump.

 

[Blue]

Come now Blue. Normally you are very impartial and I have respect for your point of view, that was clearly a hand raked across Moore's face at eye level.

It's pretty clear that he didn't actually insert his finger into an eye socket and it was a brushing action across the face at the eye area, but even that's enough. The eyes are sacred and the good doctor should be on a 4 week holiday.

So now I am no longer impartial because I disagree with you?

 

[Baldric]

The forearm from Flip was clearly intentional and there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves a ban.

Funnily, I see the Flip incident differently. I thought he was going for the ball and in doing so made contact with the forearm. Not saying he did not make contact, but I think his intention was to strip the ball.

The Jannie incident to me looked far worse, and my observation is that if Moore had been gouged, apart from some finger pointing and asking about Jannie's mother, he did not give any indication that contact had been made with his eyes. It was more of a facial, which is also not OK, and he should have been cited.

I am also happy with the way the refs are referring to incidents during the game. It will take a while for players to adjust to it and it will improve the game and further cut down on foul play. I would like to see more incidents reported by the assistant refs though, they still stand like statues while incidents happen in front of them.

 

[terry j]

I did not see intent in Jannie's actions. Unfortunately these was brief contact with the eye area and that's unfortunate but it happens.

I'm not entirely sure whether I agree or disagree with the intent part, for mine that his hand was not flat is damning (ie fingers arched, the ONLY reason we do that is so that the fingertips make more direct contact with the surface) but leaving that question aside I think that the thrust of many of these type of laws is that 'intent is not even part of the equation'.

"Did the player make contact with the head in the tackle or not?" Yeah, many times it is clear that it was NOT intended, but you simply cannot tackle someone in the head region. THAT it made contact with the head is what is penalised, not the intent. (we can go as far as 'did he roll away?' Well there might have been five blokes on top so he physically could not, but he gets penalised anyway)

In this case, not only did he come running in (was the last in?), leave aside whether or not his arched fingers have any hidden intent, the fact is he deliberately placed his hands on another players head and it was not even a static placement, he deliberately moved his hand across that face in a lateral motion. He may not have raked his face, but equally moore may have instinctively resisted that motion and for all we know he may have cricked moore's neck, a la pocock. And possibly a thousand different permutations. ALL stemming from the basic deliberate act of engaging contact with a forbidden area of the body.

I mean no-one is surely going to try and argue that it was accidental? That his hand slipped up from the shoulders to make accidental contact as it might in a tackle situation? Even if that were true in a tackle situation it is NOT a factor in whether he get's penalised, the mere act of contact with the head is the determining factor, accidental or otherwise.

I realise we are talking post match sanctions in this case rather than on field penalties, and leaving aside the arched fingers, that he aimed for, and contacted, the 'head' (or worse, 'face' or 'area of the eyes') is sufficient grounds for sanctions.

You simply cannot aim for that part of the body.

 

[Quick Hands]

Watched the replay yesterday afternoon. We didn't achieve parity, let alone dominance in any aspect of the game.

 

[BPC]

Who would want to be a selector (or National Coach)?

Jake?

 

[BPC]

Given the last few performances, maybe Jake quit the Ponies because he has been tipped off that a more senior coaching role may become available very soon.

 

[hughbert]

Funnily, I see the Flip incident differently. I thought he was going for the ball and in doing so made contact with the forearm. Not saying he did not make contact, but I think his intention was to strip the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

I have also found that smashing someone in the face with my elbow and forearm is a pretty effective method at making them drop whatever they're carrying.

Another good one is to just shoot them. That works pretty much every time and is less likely to cause injury to your elbow.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Elbows are friggin elbows - the use of them is abhorant to me.

A lot of this discussion makes excuses - that is bullshit.

Hoopers tackle was a bit reckless but ABSOLUTELY no intention there.

 

[ChargerWA]

It's going to be an uncomfortable watch of this game in the team room this week. The way the Boks hit the line at pace with space was furious. We were so poor in contrast they better be squirming in their seats.

 

[Dan54]

Scrubber as a neutral, while I believe dangerous tackle is a dangerous tackle regardless of intent, I just didn't think it was dangerous or even reckless at all, he never actually lifted the player, the player jumped.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's going to be an uncomfortable watch of this game in the team room this week. The way the Boks hit the line at pace with space was furious. We were so poor in contrast they better be squirming in their seats.

One thing I would be interested in is if the Wallabies Players' Player votes would change much if they did it after rewatching the game.

I was genuinely surprised they picked Cooper as their best player. His defence in the second half was really strong but his non attempt at a tackle on Strauss was absolutely awful.

I agree that the rest of his 'highlights reel' was pretty good. Some strong tackles and the cross field kick to CFS for our only try.

That said, I had great difficulty picking our MOTM. I just didn't think it was Cooper. His player rating on the front page was certainly too low though. He wasn't our worst player.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Scrubber as a neutral, while I believe dangerous tackle is a dangerous tackle regardless of intent, I just didn't think it was dangerous or even reckless at all, he never actually lifted the player, the player jumped.

Dan54 Agree really but I was just trying to explain the difference between the 2 yellows
If Hoopers was a yellow then the other a red.- Hoopers should have maybe at best or worse a penalty and the other a yellow. Again , lack of consistency

 

[Blue]

I'm not entirely sure whether I agree or disagree with the intent part, for mine that his hand was not flat is damning (ie fingers arched, the ONLY reason we do that is so that the fingertips make more direct contact with the surface) but leaving that question aside I think that the thrust of many of these type of laws is that 'intent is not even part of the equation'.

"Did the player make contact with the head in the tackle or not?" Yeah, many times it is clear that it was NOT intended, but you simply cannot tackle someone in the head region. THAT it made contact with the head is what is penalised, not the intent. (we can go as far as 'did he roll away?' Well there might have been five blokes on top so he physically could not, but he gets penalised anyway)

In this case, not only did he come running in (was the last in?), leave aside whether or not his arched fingers have any hidden intent, the fact is he deliberately placed his hands on another players head and it was not even a static placement, he deliberately moved his hand across that face in a lateral motion. He may not have raked his face, but equally moore may have instinctively resisted that motion and for all we know he may have cricked moore's neck, a la pocock. And possibly a thousand different permutations. ALL stemming from the basic deliberate act of engaging contact with a forbidden area of the body.

I mean no-one is surely going to try and argue that it was accidental? That his hand slipped up from the shoulders to make accidental contact as it might in a tackle situation? Even if that were true in a tackle situation it is NOT a factor in whether he get's penalised, the mere act of contact with the head is the determining factor, accidental or otherwise.

I realise we are talking post match sanctions in this case rather than on field penalties, and leaving aside the arched fingers, that he aimed for, and contacted, the 'head' (or worse, 'face' or 'area of the eyes') is sufficient grounds for sanctions.

You simply cannot aim for that part of the body.

Why is there no citing or at least reports of complaints from the Wallaby camp?

Why???????

I tell you why. Moore and Horwill both felt there was no reason to take it further.

It was reckless. It should have been blown up and probably even resulted in a card. Bit I still maintain there was no intent. And it appears so do your hooker and his captain.

So the refs missed it. Hooper also had no intent. But he tackled a player who flipped over. It has been clarified many times by the IRB that any players who goes through the 180 in a tackle will be deemed reckless. There is no room for the ref to asses circumstantial evidence in split seconds and hence it is clear. A card. No ifs buts or maybe. Difference is that the ref saw the Hooper incident.

Same with the Timani card. A player who storms into a ruck shoulder first is straight yellow. It does NOT matter who was hit, ot in fact if anything as hit. There was CLEAR intent in Timani's case. The rules are clear, No shoulder charges.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Hooper's Card
The interesting technical aspect of the Hooper tackle was that he made contact while the player was in the air, and we all know that you can not tackle a player in the air.

Taking this to the logical conclusion, will we see jumping being used by the attacking runners as a tactic to avoid getting tackled, or to draw a penalty against the defender for tackling a player while in the air?

Moore vs JdPlessis
Moore was not involved in the initial discussions after the Hooper tackle. He actually came charging in from some distance away to get involved in the discussion on handbag capacities IIRC.

Not excusing what JdP did, but if Moore hadn't gatecrashed the meeting of the debating Society, then the good Dr du Plessis would not have been in a position to be able to inspect his face. With all the cameras around today, and a fairly aggressive judiciary towards foul play, AND "third man in" actions being punished rather harshly, the quasi-honourable old excuse of getting involved in a fight to protect my mate can get the "third Men in" into a lot of strife.

Gouge or no gouge, what JdP did was equally as silly, unnecessary, and a bit cowardly. If you want to belt someone, then do it to them from in front of them, man to man, not from behind like a sneaky pickpocket. Leave the sneaky attacks from behind to other games.

More discipline please Mr Moore.