When the choke gets beyond a joke

[Athilnaur]

Ah, harsh!Q

I'm willing to almost agree with you on 07, but that was more the caes of us not giving the Poms due respect and getting spanked for it up front. Not a choke so much as a lesson.

As for 03, well, the Poms were the favourites going in to the RWC and the Wobs were never meant to get to the final. I think we punched above our weight that tournament (a certain semi-final we were never supposed to win, if you recall...), but while "that drop goal that shall not be named" was as inevitable as it was painful, it was not a choke.

The Poms are our kryptonite. Pure and simple. We need to deal with that one way or another.

yup harsh, but come the game I genuinely felt we clammed up and shouldn't have. That's a choke for me. 07 same.

Maybe I just hate losing to the Poms in any sport. Who doesn't?!

 

[exISA]

For it to be a choke - doesnt said team have to be considered the best in their field consistently but can't pull off the big one? If thats the case - when has (appart from probably 1999 - 2001) the wallabies ever considered to be the best? The kiwis have the choke tag because they have dominated the game pretty much since the wheel was invented.

 

[antipodean]

Its like a stuck record...............................................................

I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up am I? And if you're selective enough in your quoting, you could possibly make it look like someone is whinging...

if they were good enough, they would have negated the impact of the ref.

Just how good do you have to be to negate a poor performance? How bad can a ref be before it's impossible for humans to counter?

As I said: It's not the fault of Les Bleus that Barnes was inept. They defended within the scope the ref permitted and took their two chances. As such they are to be applauded.

But for anyone to suggest that the refereeing can't be discussed is out of their mind.

The kiwis have the choke tag because they have dominated the game pretty much since the wheel was invented.

That's neither true nor accurate. The South Africans had a winning percentage over the All Blacks for decades. The only people who genuinely believe the All Blacks are the favourite for every RWC are blow ins or idiots. What should be expected is that they will be in a semi-final unless the draw pits them against a team that can beat them (e.g. 2007).

 

[Mica]

Hey Antipodean, I definitely agree that the choker tag has been over used.
Like any team who is recognised as the team to beat in any kind of sport, the opposition will always turn up with increased motivation to knock them off their pedastal.
I think that always using the throw away line of choke doesn't pay credit to how well the opposition plays and equally how well they allowed the Blacks to play.
A good example of this is the RWC 2003. Saying the Blacks choked devalues the Wallabies tenacious defence and hanging on to the grim death attitude.

Also I am interested to see your take on Baldrics earlier point about the Blacks second try though.
Do you agree with his stipulation that this was a bad decision that went the Blacks way?

Cheers

Mica

 

[RedsHappy]

yup harsh, but come the game I genuinely felt we clammed up and shouldn't have. That's a choke for me. 07 same.....

Athilnaur, wasn't the flaw in 2003 in those final minutes the Wallabies letting England get into a near-perfect drop goal position which our on-field leaders would have known was surely their plan in that kill or be killed moment? Would we have been better to have taken a penalty minutes earlier at the very outer edge of Wilko's range (before England could move further towards our line) and then risk that he'd miss a longer kick? Like you, I always felt that we just lost concentration and tactical nous in those final few minutes and thus let England play the card that was screaming at us well in advance of it being played.

2007 was surely a combination of exceptionally poor game preparation (psychologically and physically) coupled with the great, long-standing Wallaby disease: poor technique, skill, intensity, numbers, force etc at the breakdown thus letting England blow us off our ball time and time again.

 

[Jay]

For it to be a choke - doesnt said team have to be considered the best in their field consistently but can't pull off the big one? If thats the case - when has (appart from probably 1999 - 2001) the wallabies ever considered to be the best? The kiwis have the choke tag because they have dominated the game pretty much since the wheel was invented.

No, a choke can also be either:

A team losing to a vastly inferior side they were favoured to beat (eg Aus in 07) or a team/player throwing away a winning position (eg NZ in 99).

 

[Mica]

Athilnaur, wasn't the flaw in 2003 in those final minutes the Wallabies letting England get into a near-perfect drop goal position which our on-field leaders would have known was surely their plan in that kill or be killed moment? Would we have been better to have taken a penalty minutes earlier at the very outer edge of Wilko's range (before England could move further towards our line) and then risk that he'd miss a longer kick? Like you, I always felt that we just lost concentration and tactical nous in those final few minutes and thus let England play the card that was screaming at us well in advance of it being played.

To me the biggest mistake (and really quite unfathomable) was why the Wallabies didn't just rinse and repeat the play for the first Wallaby try??
The cross kick to Tuquiri's wing was always a good bet when you consider the physical height advantage and Tuquiri's ability under the high ball.
Don't get me wrong, Robinson was a fantastic player, but this kind of play was always going to be hard to defend against!!
It worked for the first try so why leave it at 1 from 1?
I still shake my head when I think about it.

 

[Jay]

Any close loss can usually be blamed on decisions made by the referee.

Was the pass forward? Maybe.

If NZ had thrown it for the winning try would you have said so? Maybe?

Was it an obvious bad decision by the ref?
I don't think so based on where he is on the ground when the pass was thrown it would have been impossible for him to call it forward.

Was it actually forward?
At first inspection it looks suspect/border line.
When I slow it down frame by frame it looks like Michalak is behind Traille when the ball is released and it is passed backward.

So in my opinion a fifty/fifty call went against the Blacks and that ended up being the difference.

How is that even remotely backward? Ball goes forward, hands go forward.

 

[Mica]

How is that even remotely backward? Ball goes forward, hands go forward.

Hi Jay,

In my view there is the need to also consider that he is being tackled at the same time.

So this means two things.
His forward momentum is now slower than the ball (i.e. he is decelerating and the ball has the momentum that he carried at release)
Also his arms are going forward as is the normal reflex when you are falling forward.

I don't think it is definitive either way and especially not definitive to the ref who is about 5 meters away and a couple of meters behind the play.
This is why I say it's a fifty/fifty.

Below is the ref position just prior.

 

[antipodean]

Hi Jay,

In my view there is the need to also consider that he is being tackled at the same time.

So this means two things.
His forward momentum is now slower than the ball (i.e. he is decelerating and the ball has the momentum that he carried at release)
Also his arms are going forward as is the normal reflex when you are falling forward.

The first point is often mistaken for forward passes for the very reason you point out - conservation of momentum. The second is a forward pass. Of all the constituent elements, the ball being projected forward as a result of the vector of the player's arms is a tell tale sign that the pass is forward. That pass is definitely not coming out the back of hands moving in a rearward direction.

 

[Jay]

Hi Jay,

In my view there is the need to also consider that he is being tackled at the same time.

So this means two things.
His forward momentum is now slower than the ball (i.e. he is decelerating and the ball has the momentum that he carried at release)
Also his arms are going forward as is the normal reflex when you are falling forward.

I don't think it is definitive either way and especially not definitive to the ref who is about 5 meters away and a couple of meters behind the play.
This is why I say it's a fifty/fifty.

Except he was actually partly tackled well before he passes the ball - any reduction in momentum (such as it was - the full speed replay shows he wasn't actually stopped much at all) would have also occurred to the ball prior to it being passed.

To be honest, I think it's a bit of a cop out pointing to that one call. There's no doubt in my mind that it was a wrong call, but an understandable one and hardly unique.

And, quite frankly, in the context of Barnes over-all performance it was secondary to his complete refusal to make any kind of call against the French. I suspect he was wary of making a controversial penalty call that would be seen to be deciding the match and instead simply allowed open slather for the French defence. It's been said time and time again, but it's simply beyond plausible that the French could defend with such an unprecedented level of discipline in the face of that overwhelming territorial & possession deficit.

Which doesn't explain the loss entirely - it was a perfect storm of fired up opposition, poor tactics, injuries, poor selection and bad decision making under pressure. And crap reffing.

 

[antipodean]

Also I am interested to see your take on Baldrics earlier point about the Blacks second try though.
Do you agree with his stipulation that this was a bad decision that went the Blacks way?

Is this whether McCaw came from behind the last feet? From the footage I don't think he did, it looks like he attached himself on the All Black half of the ruck, but from the side. Hence a penalty.

This happens after Dusatoir assists in the tackle and doesn't release, not that I'd expect a flanker to worry about that on his try line.

Of course, by after I'm talking milliseconds. So with all that is happening at the breakdown, what is the ref to look for? I'd suggest that with the All Blacks playing most of the rugby in that match and Les Bleus doing a lot of defending, Barnes was watching the attacking team more than the defenders.

 

[exISA]

To me the biggest mistake (and really quite unfathomable) was why the Wallabies didn't just rinse and repeat the play for the first Wallaby try??
The cross kick to Tuquiri's wing was always a good bet when you consider the physical height advantage and Tuquiri's ability under the high ball.
Don't get me wrong, Robinson was a fantastic player, but this kind of play was always going to be hard to defend against!!
It worked for the first try so why leave it at 1 from 1?
I still shake my head when I think about it.

I think where we lost the game was in the last 1 or 2 min of play when Mat Rogers kicked the ball back to England for possession. Thats where they should have shut up shop, held onto the ball and ground out down the field. Kicking the ball back just gave England the game. The ball didnt even go out which made it even worse.

Antipodean - you don't happen to be the same Antipodean from rugbyheaven?

 

[antipodean]

I can't recall posting on RugbyHeaven, but I'm fairly active on rugby websites.

 

[exISA]

ah ok - must be someone else using the same name.

 

[yourmatesam]

Below is the ref position just prior.

The touchie on the open side should have called that as forward. It's his job to call on that.

 

[tblackadder]

the choking thing is massively overblown...

in the world cup games where the abs were knocked out the opponents brought their A games.. aussies in 91, french in 99, aussies in 03 and french in 07....and in all those games the team which beat the abs then played worse in the next game (england played all the rugby on 91 final but couldnt execute and missed heaps of kicks = aussie win/french were flat in 99 final/aussies did pretty well in 03 but still their defence was not as good as it was against the abs in the semis/ in 07 french went on to fall over against a limited english team)......abs played ok in those world cup losses but not at their peak (especially when the pressure comes on).......

 

[Mica]

The touchie on the open side should have called that as forward. It's his job to call on that.

Yeah I often wonder why the touchies don't get more involved.
Either he left it for the ref to make a call or thought it was line ball?

Did touchies have microphones then? I think that they did but I can't remember.

 

[Baldric]

Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s

Then see if the pass was forward or not.

 

[Jay]

Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s

Then see if the pass was forward or not.

I've seen that dozens of times and it it's not particularly relevant. The pass went forward from the hands and forward relative to both the passer & the receiver.