Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Arlecchino

June Internationals

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Judging by one match is a bit tough. More so, when it is against a French team. And even more so when it is against a French B+ team (or A- team). The French made so many mistakes that a decent high school team could have looked good against them. The French threw this one away. Not by fielding a weak side, but by playing so poorly.

That said, there was improvement in the Boks, but how do you judge the specific improvement, if you got 30+ balls gifted to you from handling errors and an additional 11 from turnovers. There were little glimpses of structure, but I have to add that those were only glimpses. Too soon to judge.

So, let's stick to individuals, starting at the captain. You need a decent captain and Whiteley is a huge improvement over Strauss. Whiteley may not be the world's best in his position, but the same applied to Francois Pienaar (who was actually a KUK player), Teichman and Smit. So, that's a clear improvement.

Marx is a much better hooker than Strauss, who became fat and slow. So, Strauss getting rid of himself gives us two positives!!!

Cronje had a good game, but was under no pressure. Same applies to Jantjies. When Jantjies actually dropped that one kick, you could see he was rattled. The watermelons dropped from his armpits and he walked normally for a change. Lucky for him others saved the day. I don't get the praises he received, because he was not an architect of anything or a play maker. Tries were scored off a break by Coetzee, a lucky penalty try, a line-out move with no full-back on the field and a break by Hougaard and Coetzee, all with no Jantjies in sight, or involved. Seems the team does better when they avoid playing to him...

Centres: Serfontein and Kriel played better than at the Bulls.

Back 3: Is a concern for me. Coetzee is a good attacking player, but the back 3 weren't tested on defence on the day.

Loose-trio: Unbalanced. A little more pressure from a decent team and they'll disappear.

Locks were fine

Props: Lucky to get away with collapsing and early shoves. Unclear how two of our worst props in Super Rugby can get the benefit of calls in the scrums, when it was clear that the collapses occurred, every time they were under a bit of pressure.

I am not yet convinced.

The loose forwards are one of my greatest concerns. I have no clue how people thought Kolisi and Oupa had outstanding games. Kolisis threw a certain try away by passing too soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, taipan said:

The loose forwards are one of my greatest concerns. I have no clue how people thought Kolisi and Oupa had outstanding games. Kolisis threw a certain try away by passing too soon.

He never played that very well, definitely could have drawn the tackler, NZ would have finished that off, but, it will all help them learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and can we stop the crap about Marx being the new Bismarck. Barring injury he will be a far better player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, supersupporter said:

Why was it a lucky penalty try?

If the Frenchie never played Skosan's arm he would have had 2 hands to catch the ball and score the try, nothing lucky about that..

1. Two players chasing the ball and in close proximity to each other do make contact with each other. The contact before the touch had zero effect on Skosan.

2. After Skosan touched the ball, the French player in fact had the right to tackle the crap out of Skosan, without any sanction, as he already played the ball by that time. He only held Skosan's arm after Skosan made contact with the ball, which is fair game...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law states that as soon as you commit an act of foul play you are removed from the equation, therefore Skosan was by himself.

We saw this law used when SA played Wales 2 years ago and the Welsh shoulder charge I think it was Willie, we were given a penalty try as the player used his shoulder, therefore he is removed from the play and thus SA would have scored.

Plus it was not just contact, he impeded Skosan, played his arm and made contact. It was enough IMO to cause Skosan to lose control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He only played Skosan's arm AFTER Skosan touched the ball...

 

And what "foul play"????

Edited by Barnacle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barnacle said:

He only played Skosan's arm AFTER Skosan touched the ball...

 

And what "foul play"????

Hy het hom gespeel sonder die bal. Kyk weer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical South African victim"hood". If there was an Olympic Sport called victim, South Africa would be assured of the Gold Medal 'till the end of time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say, but I am just GATVOL of us playing the victim all the time. It's a South African disease. We are slapgat! South African teams generally (yes, a generalisation) are unable to win a match without an opposition player getting a yellow or a red card. Our commentators continuously plead for a card, even when normal everyday collision (inevitable and part of the game) occur on the field. Rugby is a sport of collisions. Two players running different lines may collide unintentionally at times. Shit happens.

The French player only attempted to play (intention) Skosan after Skosan touch the ball overhead. Before that it was a normal race for the ball and the players made contact (unintentionally) a fraction of a second before Skosan touched the ball as happens thousands of times in thousands of other matches without any sanction. After Skosan touched the ball the defensive player is in fact even allowed to perform a full tackle on Skosan (without the ball), as he already played it. (Example: Murray Mexted tackled without the ball after he touched it when Naas Botha scored his famous try...)

But taking into account your interpretation of the laws, I will look out in future for the yellow card EVERY TIME two players chasing the ball make contact with the other. Just wondering will they flip a coin to determine who gets the card when the players run shoulder to shoulder... or must the yellow card always go against the visiting side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Sorry to say, but I am just GATVOL of us playing the victim all the time. It's a South African disease. We are slapgat! South African teams generally (yes, a generalisation) are unable to win a match without an opposition player getting a yellow or a red card. Our commentators continuously plead for a card, even when normal everyday collision (inevitable and part of the game) occur on the field. Rugby is a sport of collisions. Two players running different lines may collide unintentionally at times. Shit happens.

The French player only attempted to play (intention) Skosan after Skosan touch the ball overhead. Before that it was a normal race for the ball and the players made contact (unintentionally) a fraction of a second before Skosan touched the ball as happens thousands of times in thousands of other matches without any sanction. After Skosan touched the ball the defensive player is in fact even allowed to perform a full tackle on Skosan (without the ball), as he already played it. (Example: Murray Mexted tackled without the ball after he touched it when Naas Botha scored his famous try...)

But taking into account your interpretation of the laws, I will look out in future for the yellow card EVERY TIME two players chasing the ball make contact with the other. Just wondering will they flip a coin to determine who gets the card when the players run shoulder to shoulder... or must the yellow card always go against the visiting side?

That wasn't coincidental contact. Lesser contact has resulted in the same sanction...AGAINST us. Lucky break, I'll take that thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All over the world commentators refer to cards, not just SA.

The player had his arm around Skosan prior to Skosan playing the ball. Even in these screengrabs you can see him holding one arm down preventing that arm from being used to gather the ball and then he wraps his other arm pushing Skosan off balance. This is such an obvious decision by the ref, and i never heard the fans shouting.."Off, Off,Off" so not sure where the entire Victim comment comes in. 

Capture.PNGCapture2.PNG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Barnacle said:

Typical South African victim"hood". If there was an Olympic Sport called victim, South Africa would be assured of the Gold Medal 'till the end of time....

Gooi meer coke by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Barnacle said:

Typical South African victim"hood". If there was an Olympic Sport called victim, South Africa would be assured of the Gold Medal 'till the end of time....

There is some truth here. The number of whines I hear about the referee when we lose, but this could just be a WP thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sometimes we do complain, and so do other countries, when I watch rugby in the UK, especially Wales vs other countries, you only need to listen to the commies how they are urging for a card for anything, even minor issues, then the stadium is chanting for a card. SA has some very valid arguments over the years and the last Lions series was not exception, but that is not what we are discussing.

The Skosan one was as clear as any interference can be and had that been reversed it would have been the same outcome. The fans never chanted to sway the referees decision, That was the right call IMHO and I think had the French man left him alone, it is very possible he may not have scored, but, he did not leave him alone and thus is removed from the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a matter of fact, I downloaded the clip and did a frame by frame analysis... which I always do before posting an opinion... The Frenchman was looking at the ball the whole time before Skosan touched it. The two players made contact as both went for the ball. You will see his arm never closes around Skosan, because he is NOT trying to play Skosan at that time.

Only after Skosan touches the ball, he changes his focus to the player.... which is allowed.

As I said in a previous post. From now on I will expect to see a yellow card EVERY TIME two players touch each other when they chase a ball close to goal line. Every time!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Bitch, moan, whine.... therefore South African,.

MiLud may I call the first prosecution witness to the stand.

 

Call Beeno to the stand.

Edited by taipan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, supersupporter said:

All over the world commentators refer to cards, not just SA.

The player had his arm around Skosan prior to Skosan playing the ball. Even in these screengrabs you can see him holding one arm down preventing that arm from being used to gather the ball and then he wraps his other arm pushing Skosan off balance. This is such an obvious decision by the ref, and i never heard the fans shouting.."Off, Off,Off" so not sure where the entire Victim comment comes in. 

Capture.PNGCapture2.PNG

 

Duidelik het hy nie gegaan vir die bal nie of het hy dalk vergeet om te spring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how I saw it as well Barns. I expressed that on Facebook and got shot down by my mate Bill van Zyl. I saw it as a fair contest and that Skosan touched the ball. 

Imagine a similar case where a player is chasing a ball on the ground in defense. he touches the ball whilst trying to get it under control and is nailed by an attacker. He is playing the ball and is fair game for the tackler.

As for a penalty try and yellow card - Glen Jackson playing to the home officials.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I thought Jackson reffed the game well. The decision was referred to the TMO who called the early contact. Once the penalty try was given the yellow was mandatory in terms of the Laws.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it a fair contest, one player is in the air with his hand on the ball...almost, the other is holding his arm down and pushing him off balance, fair contest..NOT..I do not need a frame by frame analysis to realise Skosan was played without the ball.

So as long as he is watching the ball then it is OK, well that does not fly when there is an up and under and the player watching the ball runs under the other guy who has jumped for the ball. Watching the ball does not amount to a fair contest, a fair contest means both players are up in the air competing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 22 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Forum Statistics

    11,664
    Total Topics
    396,062
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    20
    Total Members
    2,160
    Most Online
    TheDuke
    Newest Member
    TheDuke
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...