Tri Nations Game 5 - Springboks vs All Blacks

[whatty]

People of Serbian & Croatian ancestry who were born & raised in Australia, know very little of the issues or facts about the 'old country' but acting as if they are citizens of those countries & not Australia. We get them at the tennis & soccer a lot. I'm sure it probably doesnt reflect the SA issue on every aspect but it is very similar. Identity is certainly a subjective and complicated thing I'll say that.

100% understood but this has no relevance whatsoever to the Cape Crusaders who are exclusively from the Cape Coulourd race who are descendants of Malaysia and surrounds from 1700 until 1890' or so and mixed with what was the Cape Hottentots who are no more.

As I posted before there hate for the current Black led government is even more so than what it was for the White led government. Under apartheid they were perceived as second tier behind the whites they now see themselves as third rate behind the Blacks and whites.
They are a very proud and are what makes the Western Cape what it is. But understandably VERY bitter as to how they have and are been treated.
So it is far deeper than SARFU.

 

[daz]

Wat se jy nou...?

Umm, 9:21pm. Give or take a few minutes.

 

[da_grubster]

I have formed the view that, with a literal and perhaps even purposive reading of the laws, without any extrinsic material that may be available, the TMO did NOT act outside his authority and nor did the ref by acting on his advice.

The IRB head of refs said it was a serious breach of protocol. I would rather take his words than your interpretation!

 

[AngrySeahorse]

100% understood but this has no relevance whatsoever to the Cape Crusaders who are exclusively from the Cape Coulourd race who are descendants of Malaysia and surrounds from 1700 until 1890' or so and mixed with what was the Cape Hottentots who are no more.

As I posted before there hate for the current Black led government is even more so than what it was for the White led government. Under apartheid they were perceived as second tier behind the whites they now see themselves as third rate behind the Blacks and whites.
They are a very proud and are what makes the Western Cape what it is. But understandably VERY bitter as to how they have and are been treated.
So it is far deeper than SARFU.

Yeah, I was just making a very general comparison in terms of people who live in a country but dont really identify with it. But the cape situation you describe is quite a lot of levels up in seriousness than the example I gave. A real cocktail of racial and socioeconomic issues going on there. If they really are that marginalised then I'd say empathy is warranted.

 

[PaarlBok]

The IRB head of refs said it was a serious breach of protocol. I would rather take his words than your interpretation!

You lot are pretty disappointing. Vok me take the loss, its the best medicine at this stage of the proceedings. You were chasing the test since minute 18 when the differense was more then 7. Sound like a bunch of whiners.

 

[Richo]

Yeah, it must be really galling to have your illegally scored try disallowed via a breach of protocol.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

You lot are pretty disappointing. Vok me take the loss, its the best medicine at this stage of the proceedings. You were chasing the test since minute 18 when the differense was more then 7. Sound like a bunch of whiners.

Which lot? Da Grubster is saying it was a breach of protocol ... which it was. It wasn't why we lost, but it's still something worthy of discussion isn't it?

Can you imagine the outcry from if this was in NZ, & a young no-name kiwi TMO got all excited & offered information which he isn't allowed to offer which denied the boks / aussies a try? Paddy conspiracy, kiwi ref bias etc etc from media all over the show, new videos offering insight etc etc, threads about new refereeing styles to "suit NZ" - bloody hell the mind boggles.

It's a discussion point opening if ever there was one, and the vast vast majority of what I've seen accept the ruling as the try wasn't legit due to the fwd pass. Then one bloke opens up the discussion on the protocol and suddenly us lot are a disappoiting bunch of whiners.

Fuck. That.

 

[Bullrush]

Which lot? Da Grubster is saying it was a breach of protocol ... which it was. It wasn't why we lost, but it's still something worthy of discussion isn't it?

Can you imagine the outcry from if this was in NZ, & a young no-name kiwi TMO got all excited & offered information which he isn't allowed to offer which denied the boks / aussies a try? Paddy conspiracy, kiwi ref bias etc etc from media all over the show, new videos offering insight etc etc, threads about new refereeing styles to "suit NZ" - bloody hell the mind boggles.

It's a discussion point opening if ever there was one, and the vast vast majority of what I've seen accept the ruling as the try wasn't legit due to the fwd pass. Then one bloke opens up the discussion on the protocol and suddenly us lot are a disappoiting bunch of whiners.

Fuck. That.

Word.

 

[Dan54]

I would never expect an immigrant to support the Wallabies, because in the reverse situation I couldn't support anyone but Australia. Cultural identity is very important. But it is nice to see provincial support.

My good mate who I go to the Force games with is a Kiwi who would never support anyone but the AB's, yet he supports the Force as he realises the importance of supporting the local team, espescially in a marginal market such as WA.

I got a mate who is same Charger, a real passionate Reds supporter, but also just as passionate AB supporter. I tend to support Reds also.

 

[wikman]

Yeah, it must be really galling to have your illegally scored try disallowed via a breach of protocol.

It does not matter if the try was illegal or not, the video ref has no right to rule on anything outside the in-goal area which he did. If the touch judges or ref did not pick this infringement up then its not illegal. The same could be said when the ref missed numerous penalty's against the Boks.

 

[barbarian]

It does not matter if the try was illegal or not, the video ref has no right to rule on anything outside the in-goal area which he did. If the touch judges or ref did not pick this infringement up then its not illegal. The same could be said when the ref missed numerous penalty's against the Boks.

Wait what?

It's like saying you can murder someone, and if the police don't catch you then it's not illegal.

And yes, forward passes that lead to tries are equal to murder in my eyes. Both heinous crimes.

 

[Groucho]

Wait what?

It's like saying you can murder someone, and if the police don't catch you then it's not illegal.

And yes, forward passes that lead to tries are equal to murder in my eyes. Both heinous crimes.

Most All Black tries result from forward passes. I can see why they're upset by this.

 

[Bullrush]

Wait what?

It's like saying you can murder someone, and if the police don't catch you then it's not illegal.

And yes, forward passes that lead to tries are equal to murder in my eyes. Both heinous crimes.

So we're saying that France illegally beat the All Blacks 2007?

I'M SUING!! lol

 

[antipodean]

Wait what?

It's like saying you can murder someone, and if the police don't catch you then it's not illegal.

And yes, forward passes that lead to tries are equal to murder in my eyes. Both heinous crimes.

You must hate the Reds.

 

[Richo]

It does not matter if the try was illegal or not, the video ref has no right to rule on anything outside the in-goal area which he did. If the touch judges or ref did not pick this infringement up then its not illegal. The same could be said when the ref missed numerous penalty's against the Boks.

Champ, the point is that it's pretty lame to keep complaining about not being allowed an illegal try.

 

[Brisbok]

I got a mate who is same Charger, a real passionate Reds supporter, but also just as passionate AB supporter. I tend to support Reds also.

That's interesting Dan. I have found that in most sports that I watch, I tend to dislike the best players in the opposition teams. Simply because they are a usually a threat to my team! Eg. Most Springbok or Wallaby fans tend to dislike Richie McCaw because he seems to get away with murder at the breakdowns, but at the same time they have a healthy respect for his ability. Another examply may be Bakkies Botha. He is generally hated by supporters in most other countries. I, like most other South Africans, can see exactly why that would be. Yet we are all more than happy to see an in-form Bakkies in our starting team!

My point is that I would struggle to support a group of players in Super Rugby, when I have developed a strong disliking (almost hatred!) for those exact same players in Test rugby! I'm from South Africa, living in Brisbane, but I struggle to see myself ever being able to bring myself to support the Reds!

 

[jay-c]

bribok the reds are poetry in motion>>
put aside ur differences and appreciate true beauty
(im from nsw)

 

[Brisbok]

bribok the reds are poetry in motion>>
put aside ur differences and appreciate true beauty
(im from nsw)

Jay-C - In my opinion the Crusaders were by far the best team in the competition this year and would have been deserving winners. The odds were heavily stacked against them though. But that's besides the point.

 

[PaarlBok]

Which lot? Da Grubster is saying it was a breach of protocol ... which it was. It wasn't why we lost, but it's still something worthy of discussion isn't it?

Can you imagine the outcry from if this was in NZ, & a young no-name kiwi TMO got all excited & offered information which he isn't allowed to offer which denied the boks / aussies a try? Paddy conspiracy, kiwi ref bias etc etc from media all over the show, new videos offering insight etc etc, threads about new refereeing styles to "suit NZ" - bloody hell the mind boggles.

It's a discussion point opening if ever there was one, and the vast vast majority of what I've seen accept the ruling as the try wasn't legit due to the fwd pass. Then one bloke opens up the discussion on the protocol and suddenly us lot are a disappoiting bunch of whiners.

Fuck. That.

Vokket what a precious lot you have become. You still bitch about a forward pass that happened in 2007 and now the boot is on the other foot and now its all admin and protocol shite. Always thought MR is the only one with some spine but now he get sucked in the precious of deepness. Like you have qouted many a time, refs make mistakes like all humans and nothing will change the scoreline , nothing. This leave us supporters with 2 things:
1. Moan and groan and bitch and act like sorry sour whiners or
2. Take it on the chin and move on.

You call the TMO a young no name ? Hats off to him for justify what really happened out there and the ref Clansy act the right way.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2774244.htm

The pass, the TMO, the protocol
Sun, 21 Aug 2011 09:08


Brave call by George Clancy. (c) Gallo The advice of the television match official at the Tri-Nations match between South Africa and New Zealand on Saturday has evoked some questioning.

Israel Dagg of New Zealand broke in spectacular fashion near the half-way line and headed for the South African line. About two metres from the goal-line François Hougaard of South Africa brought Dagg to ground. Brought to ground, Dagg passed to Jimmy Cowan who went over in Bryan Habana's tackle.

The referee then consulted the television match official, saying: "Johan, is this a try - yes or no?"

The TMO looked at the incident in slow motion and reported to the referee: "There is no problem with the grounding. Do you require any information before the goal-line?"

The referee said: "Yes."

The TMO said: "It was a forward pass."

The referee signalled that a try had not been scored and awarded a five-metre scrum to South Africa.

Later, unofficially, there were queries about all of this. Was such a decision within the TMO's jurisdiction.

The International Rugby Board has a protocol for how the TMO may or may not be used. The protocol states:

The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
Try No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
Touch down by a defender In touch – line-out
Touch-in-goal Ball dead on or over the dead ball line Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball). The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed. The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).

It is clear from the protocol that in this case the TMO was acting out of protocol - and yet the just result was obtained.

The pass was forward and for a forward pass a scrum is awarded, which is what happened.

If you watch the action, the referee and his assistant are left about 20 metres behind Dagg as he raced for the line. In fact all the players were left well behind Dagg except for Hougaard. That they were left behind is not surprising, for Dagg sped away.

From their position it was not possible for the referee or his assistant to judge the validity of a short pass. But the TMO could do so. It seems eminently sensible and fair to consult the TMO. It is not taking matters way back but is close to the line and part of the act of scoring - as a foot in touch would be.

Interestingly, the New Zealand coach, Graham Henry had no problem with the decision, saying in his dry way: "If it was a forward pass, it shouldn't have been a try. If the officials can make good decisions on the evidence they have got, why not? I know it's outside the laws of the game - they should only adjudicate over the goal line. But I haven't got a problem with it.

"That was the reality - it wasn't awarded. I don't know if it was a forward pass or not. I asked Israel Dagg after the game and he reckoned it was 50-50. If we were on the receiving end and South Africa were disallowed a try because it was a forward pass, we would be happy about that."André Watson,

South Africa's refereeing boss, supported the decision. He said: "What we want is the right decision. It was clear that the pass was forward and if the try had been allowed we [referees] would have looked a bunch of fools.

"Protocols are important and we should try to stick to them but they are essentially guidelines and I'd rather apologise for what happened than get the wrong answer."

The protocol is not a part of the Laws of the Game, just a regulation of a process of applying the laws.

 

[antipodean]

Vokket what a precious lot you have become. You still bitch about a forward pass that happened in 2007 and now the boot is on the other foot and now its all admin and protocol shite. Always thought MR is the only one with some spine but now he get sucked in the precious of deepness. Like you have qouted many a time, refs make mistakes like all humans and nothing will change the scoreline , nothing. This leave us supporters with 2 things:
1. Moan and groan and bitch and act like sorry sour whiners or
2. Take it on the chin and move on.

You call the TMO a young no name ? Hats off to him for justify what really happened out there and the ref Clansy act the right way.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2774244.htm

FFS this again?

The forward pass in 2007 is merely the catch cry of an exceptionally poor refereeing performance. Anyone who seriously believes otherwise has seen less rugby than Helen Keller. Nor is there anything wrong with pointing out that both the TMO and the referee last weekend deliberately violated the TMO procedure.

Only the dimwitted try to obfuscate the fact that how the TMO may be applied and which laws he may adjudicate on is regulated, the same as the referee and his assistants. Using synonyms in describing the process doesn't change that.

I'm yet to see a Kiwi who thinks that this fuckup cost them the match. The problem is how blatant it was and the mystifying fog of shit that descended on Clancy's brain.

The funniest part of all this is the moral outrage coming from a noisy minority in the "justice armband" nation. Guarantee you'd be screaming about the assistant ref and George if the TMO had done his job as he is required to.