PDA

View Full Version : South Africa v NZ



leaguerefaus
05-10-14, 02:10
A South African player is offside at the penalty kick which won South Africa the game...

21.4
h. Behind the ball. All the kicker's team at a penalty or free kick must be behind the ball until it has been kicked, except the placer for a place kick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm7wgsRT_O4 (about 5:45)

The Fat
05-10-14, 04:10
A South African player is offside at the penalty kick which won South Africa the game...

21.4
h. Behind the ball. All the kicker's team at a penalty or free kick must be behind the ball until it has been kicked, except the placer for a place kick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm7wgsRT_O4 (about 5:45)

If you're talking about the player standing beside Wayne Barnes, I don't think there would be an elite panel referee anywhere in the world who would pull that back

menace
05-10-14, 04:10
You're not seriously thinking that half-metre in front should have been called and the kick disallowed?

Remember materiality! (Exactly what impact did he have on the play)

The Fat
05-10-14, 04:10
On a side note, the SA captain is a class act. His team had just pulled off a win against the ABs (a very rare feat) but he still didn't forget to mention RMC's milestone or the fact that the crowd should give the ABs a round of applause as they needed to remember that the ABs did win the championship.

Ian_Cook
05-10-14, 05:10
I didn't have any concerns about the offside as it wasn't material IMO.

As for the match itself, while I can't say I'm ever happy when the All Blacks lose, this one doesn't bother me all that much. South Africa had everything stacked in their favour; second week at home while the ABs had to travel from Argentina, home advantage, Ellis Park and the altitude, and in the end, the only difference between the two teams was... one conversion!

One thing does concern me with the NH elite referees and that is they seem to continually ignore the requirement for the jacklers to jackle for the ball on their feet and unsupported. Several times in this match WB (and in the Argentina v Australia match, St Nige) allowed jacklers (from both sides) to either place their hands beyond the ball, and "sweep back", to rest their elbows on the ground or to lean their knees on the body of the tackled player. This is illegal and the NH referees need to start penalising it.

As for WB, I thought he had a good game and allowed it to flow, and I could not find fault with any of his decisions. He contributed to the excellent spectacle that it was. It seems he has even learned that it is acceptable to award a match-winning PK in the last couple of minutes of a match. Pity it took him nearly seven years grow the pair he needed to do so!:biggrin:

talbazar
05-10-14, 05:10
A South African player is offside at the penalty kick which won South Africa the game...

21.4
h. Behind the ball. All the kicker's team at a penalty or free kick must be behind the ball until it has been kicked, except the placer for a place kick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm7wgsRT_O4 (about 5:45)

11.1 Offside in general play
(a)
A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
Interferes with play or,
Moves forward, towards the ball or
Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.

damo
05-10-14, 08:10
I think the last penalty was a bit dubious. Green 20 is in the side and blocking the cleanout, and the tackler doesn't make much of a release before going back on the ball. Link I came across on another site:

http://www.gfycat.com/PettyUnfortunateHagfish#

Ronald
05-10-14, 08:10
I didn't have any concerns about the offside as it wasn't material IMO.


One thing does concern me with the NH elite referees and that is they seem to continually ignore the requirement for the jacklers to jackle for the ball on their feet and unsupported. Several times in this match WB (and in the Argentina v Australia match, St Nige) allowed jacklers (from both sides) to either place their hands beyond the ball, and "sweep back", to rest their elbows on the ground or to lean their knees on the body of the tackled player. This is illegal and the NH referees need to start penalising it.

I was going to ask exactly the same question...in South Africa we are taught as soon as the 1st arriving player places his hands on the ground past the ball, he is not supporting his body weight. He either has to reload or get out of the way, or I will ping him.

Taff
05-10-14, 09:10
A South African player is offside at the penalty kick which won South Africa the game.
Technically yes, but it's totally immaterial.


... Green 20 is in the side and blocking the cleanout
If I was the SA coach I would be having a stern word with Green 20 at 6 mins 9 seconds into that clip. His side are 2 points ahead of the ABs in injury time and he's coming in from the side, just outside his 22. Would anyone have been surprised if WB had penalised his for side entry - and for the ABs to win the game with the last kick?

menace
05-10-14, 12:10
I didn't have any concerns about the offside as it wasn't material IMO.

As for the match itself, while I can't say I'm ever happy when the All Blacks lose, this one doesn't bother me all that much. South Africa had everything stacked in their favour; second week at home while the ABs had to travel from Argentina, home advantage, Ellis Park and the altitude, and in the end, the only difference between the two teams was... one conversion!

One thing does concern me with the NH elite referees and that is they seem to continually ignore the requirement for the jacklers to jackle for the ball on their feet and unsupported. Several times in this match WB (and in the Argentina v Australia match, St Nige) allowed jacklers (from both sides) to either place their hands beyond the ball, and "sweep back", to rest their elbows on the ground or to lean their knees on the body of the tackled player. This is illegal and the NH referees need to start penalising it.

As for WB, I thought he had a good game and allowed it to flow, and I could not find fault with any of his decisions. He contributed to the excellent spectacle that it was. It seems he has even learned that it is acceptable to award a match-winning PK in the last couple of minutes of a match. Pity it took him nearly seven years grow the pair he needed to do so!:biggrin:

Bwaaa haaa haa...that's like saying we Wallabies fans didn't mind being embarrassed by pumas! BULLSH!T! We hated that! Aussies were soft and their own worst enemies giving away breakdown PKs!

Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post ianC. My 16yo son and I were regularly yelling at the TV set that the jackler was 'OFF HIS FEET NIGEL!!' And if a 16 yo can spot it then why the hell couldn't NO!

On another note, Puma players would surely be ashamed of their fan base for shining lazers in the eyes of Aussie kickers to put him off (not yo mention the jeering). Though the effin coaches box seemed pleased and relished the fact that it worked).

OB..
05-10-14, 13:10
And if a 16 yo can spot it then why the hell couldn't NO!
Is that really a compelling argument? :biggrin:

Ian_Cook
05-10-14, 19:10
Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post ianC. My 16yo son and I were regularly yelling at the TV set that the jackler was 'OFF HIS FEET NIGEL!!' And if a 16 yo can spot it then why the hell couldn't NO!

I don't think its a matter of not being able to spot it menace. I just think they (NH elite referees) don't care.

If you watch AP/Pro12 you'll see this all the time; players placing their hands on the ground beyond the ball and "sweeping" backwards to scoop up the ball, and players leaning their forearms on the ground while trying to jackle. It almost looks like a coached technique.

I'll bet the NH grassroots referees on this forum don't allow it


On another note, Puma players would surely be ashamed of their fan base for shining lazers in the eyes of Aussie kickers to put him off (not yo mention the jeering). Though the effin coaches box seemed pleased and relished the fact that it worked).

100%. It happened to Beauden Barrett last week too.

The UAR need to address this and find the people responsible. The trouble is that it is damned difficult to do. A laser beam is invisible until it hits a target and its source is pretty much invisible for anyone who isn't within a small fraction of a degree out to about 10 degrees either side of its path, depending on the type of laser.

I think what needs to happen is a pre-arrangement to have the kicker to note the approximate area of the crowd they see the laser in and to tell the referee who then relays that information to the authorities. All the ground cameras except one to look at the crowd at that end of the ground while the kick is being taken and the subsequent video is searched for someone pointing a laser.

Another way might be to put a bounty on the laser user; broadcast a ground announcement before the match that there is a reward of US$5000 for anyone who catches a person using a laser, and a lifetime ban from all grounds for the person so caught. If the local fan who does this knows that people are now actively watching for him every time the opposition kicks for goal, it might act as a deterrent.

Crucial
05-10-14, 22:10
While we are talking about 'fans' influencing the game, there needs to be stricter protocols on what the ground screen operator shows as replays.
With the Messam penalty (which I have no issue with at all) the home ground advantage came into play hugely with the screen producer showing the incident repeatedly until the crowd was incensed, the officials alterted and the Bok Captain able to point it out to WB.
WB had no option other than to come to the decision he did, which was the correct one IMO.
The issue I have is that earlier in the game Keiran Read was taken out with head contact at a ruck possibly in a penalisable incident and not one single replay was shown even during the time the game was stopped while he was being treated. McCaw even asked WB to review and was turned down. I'm sure the incident would have warranted a closer look had WB seen a replay. Instead WB had the option to decide it wasn't too bad from what he saw originally and carry on.

menace
06-10-14, 00:10
I don't think its a matter of not being able to spot it menace. I just think they (NH elite referees) don't care.

If you watch AP/Pro12 you'll see this all the time; players placing their hands on the ground beyond the ball and "sweeping" backwards to scoop up the ball, and players leaning their forearms on the ground while trying to jackle. It almost looks like a coached technique.

I'll bet the NH grassroots referees on this forum don't allow it



100%. It happened to Beauden Barrett last week too.

The UAR need to address this and find the people responsible. The trouble is that it is damned difficult to do. A laser beam is invisible until it hits a target and its source is pretty much invisible for anyone who isn't within a small fraction of a degree out to about 10 degrees either side of its path, depending on the type of laser.

I think what needs to happen is a pre-arrangement to have the kicker to note the approximate area of the crowd they see the laser in and to tell the referee who then relays that information to the authorities. All the ground cameras except one to look at the crowd at that end of the ground while the kick is being taken and the subsequent video is searched for someone pointing a laser.

Another way might be to put a bounty on the laser user; broadcast a ground announcement before the match that there is a reward of US$5000 for anyone who catches a person using a laser, and a lifetime ban from all grounds for the person so caught. If the local fan who does this knows that people are now actively watching for him every time the opposition kicks for goal, it might act as a deterrent.

That and IRB introduce a law that says if player (or ball) is shone on by a laser light then the kick is to be retaken and players not permitted to charge. I reckon that will soon stop it.

Ian_Cook
06-10-14, 02:10
While we are talking about 'fans' influencing the game, there needs to be stricter protocols on what the ground screen operator shows as replays.
With the Messam penalty (which I have no issue with at all) the home ground advantage came into play hugely with the screen producer showing the incident repeatedly until the crowd was incensed, the officials alterted and the Bok Captain able to point it out to WB.
WB had no option other than to come to the decision he did, which was the correct one IMO.
The issue I have is that earlier in the game Keiran Read was taken out with head contact at a ruck possibly in a penalisable incident and not one single replay was shown even during the time the game was stopped while he was being treated. McCaw even asked WB to review and was turned down. I'm sure the incident would have warranted a closer look had WB seen a replay. Instead WB had the option to decide it wasn't too bad from what he saw originally and carry on.


^^^THIS!!!

Baylion
06-10-14, 09:10
While we are talking about 'fans' influencing the game, there needs to be stricter protocols on what the ground screen operator shows as replays.
With the Messam penalty (which I have no issue with at all) the home ground advantage came into play hugely with the screen producer showing the incident repeatedly until the crowd was incensed, the officials alterted and the Bok Captain able to point it out to WB.
WB had no option other than to come to the decision he did, which was the correct one IMO.
The issue I have is that earlier in the game Keiran Read was taken out with head contact at a ruck possibly in a penalisable incident and not one single replay was shown even during the time the game was stopped while he was being treated. McCaw even asked WB to review and was turned down. I'm sure the incident would have warranted a closer look had WB seen a replay. Instead WB had the option to decide it wasn't too bad from what he saw originally and carry on.

I cannot understand how a ref can decide not to review any incident where a player gets injured. Even a quick review should show whether there is something there to be looked at in depth or not. Normally this won't take up any time as the player is being treated.

This as an incident in a junior match in SA where a player fractured his neck vertebrae and even though there was approx a 10 min delay where the player was being stabilised and taken off the field the ref refused his captain's request for a review
http://youtu.be/5La8BUctrks

crossref
06-10-14, 09:10
That and IRB introduce a law that says if player (or ball) is shone on by a laser light then the kick is to be retaken and players not permitted to charge. I reckon that will soon stop it.

it might encourage it -- shine a light on your own kicker and he gets two bites at the cherry.

menace
06-10-14, 15:10
Fair point crossref...but if that happened then I'm sure the oppo fan base will see him/it and point him out to the appropriate authorities or deal with him backyard style, either way the laser is soon vanquished!

Shane D
07-10-14, 13:10
How about the kicker makes the ref aware of it & the ref stops play until the laser stops. A pre-arrangement with the ground announcer to advise the crowd that play will not restart until the laser stops might also have an effect.

Shane D
07-10-14, 13:10
surely the TMO can be given the authority to check any possible act of foul play as the game continues or at the next stoppage & then let the ref know that there is something for him to review. The camera often picks up things the ref misses in the flow of play & the TMO can quickly check these.

didds
07-10-14, 16:10
Another way might be to put a bounty on the laser user; broadcast a ground announcement before the match that there is a reward of US$5000 for anyone who catches a person using a laser, and a lifetime ban from all grounds for the person so caught. If the local fan who does this knows that people are now actively watching for him every time the opposition kicks for goal, it might act as a deterrent.

I sympathise entirely, and have no other ideas... but that just seems an easy way for 2 mates to get $5K dollars to split between them.

didds

didds
07-10-14, 16:10
How about the kicker makes the ref aware of it & the ref stops play until the laser stops. A pre-arrangement with the ground announcer to advise the crowd that play will not restart until the laser stops might also have an effect.

Arg 1 point up. PK to oppo last minute. the lasers start. 3 hours later we are still waiting to take the final kick.

didds

crossref
07-10-14, 16:10
Arg 1 point up. PK to oppo last minute. the lasers start. 3 hours later we are still waiting to take the final kick.

didds

exactly. At grass roots level stopping the game until the miscreant is deralt with would mosat likely work. In a stadium of 70,000 people I don't think it would.
And the TV broadcasters would go nuts.

Browner
07-10-14, 17:10
Arg 1 point up. PK to oppo last minute. the lasers start. 3 hours later we are still waiting to take the final kick.

didds

Ahha , a circle of laser deflecting screens held by the replacements of the kicking team , my patent is now pending ......

didds
07-10-14, 17:10
That and IRB introduce a law that says if player (or ball) is shone on by a laser light then the kick is to be retaken and players not permitted to charge. I reckon that will soon stop it.

Laws that are based on external influences are open to abuse.

Arg 1 point up. Oppo have a conversion kick in the last few minutes.

Oppo fan now uses laser pen to get Arg players to not be permitted to charge.

not what the intention of the law was to be I would suggest.

didds

Ian_Cook
07-10-14, 19:10
I sympathise entirely, and have no other ideas... but that just seems an easy way for 2 mates to get $5K dollars to split between them.

didds

And one of them ends up with a lifetime ban from all sports grounds

Using a laser in such a fashion can be prosecuted under Public Nuisance so one of them ends up with a criminal record, a hefty fine (sure to be more than the $5000) and perhaps jail time. If it can be proved that both were in cahoots, then if become "Conspiracy to commit a Public Nuisance" and they both end up in the slammer.

Not such easy money after all, is it?

didds
07-10-14, 20:10
And one of them ends up with a lifetime ban from all sports grounds
...



maybe they aren't sports fans? just two blokes looking for 5K?







Not such easy money after all, is it?

dunno. all that other guff wasn't in the original suggestion. maybe they wouldn't get put in the slammer. As for public nuisance - that depends on the country/jurisdiction presumably. I'd agree that it wouldn't be worth 5K - to me. Never underestimate people's stupidity however... so congratulations they don't get 5K but we've created a scenario where some chumps will try it cos they think they will get 5K from it and we've still had a laser pen scenario.

like I said I don;t have any answers... but creating scenarios where people can get cash is likely to attract the wrong attention at some juncture I would fear.

didds

Ian_Cook
07-10-14, 21:10
Never underestimate people's stupidity however...

You can say that again!

http://www.justice.gov/usao/paw/news/2012/2012_february/2012_02_27_01.html

Between September 2009 and the present (Feb 2012), more than 75 aircraft laser events occurred within the Allegheny Flight Standards District Office. 38 % affected Airline aircraft operations on final approach to Pittsburgh International Airport;
36% affected helicopter Emergency Medical Service patient transport operations;
16% affected charter operations;
6% affected general aviation aircraft operations; and
4% affected public use government aircraft operations.




http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39A

Crucial
07-10-14, 23:10
Kaplan's comments regarding the TV producer influencing the game..


In the end, the game came down to a decision by the TV producer to highlight a misdemeanor by Liam Messam on Schalk Burger, which all the officials missed in real time. After finding the clip, and then replaying it over and over, eventually the match officials decided it was worthy of review, and correctly awarded a penalty to the Boks which Pat Lambie (who has oodles of BMT) converted to win the game. The TMO himself seemed a bit confused by referring to the fact that he thought perhaps arms were used in the tackle which was hardly the point. It was a swinging arm and a dangerous tackle.


If you are a Bok supporter, you will be saying we deserved it, and how many times it happened against us. The protocol and process will mean nothing. But there is an important point to make here. I doubt (very much) whether that clip would have been brought up on the screen by producers in Aus or NZ and replayed over and over. Is it right that someone outside of the domain of the match officials can affect the outcome of a major test match? And how neutral is he? In the end, it was his alertness that drew the attention of the crowd to the high tackle, they got into it, the officials then decided to take a look, and the resultant penalty determined the outcome.

RobLev
08-10-14, 13:10
Kaplan's comments regarding the TV producer influencing the game..

The problem, as I see it, isn't so much the away team offences that the home ground TV producer replays over and over so as to force the on-field officials to take action. It's the home team offences that the same TV producer will fail to replay over and over, because s/he didn't see them (because s/he wasn't looking for them). One answer is that unless and until replays at the ground are controlled by neutral officials appointed by the IRB (as if that's ever going to happen!), the on-field officials are prevented from taking account of replays that either they or the TMO didn't initially request.

crossref
08-10-14, 13:10
the on-field officials are prevented from taking account of replays that either they or the TMO didn't initially request.

which sounds OK - but in practice can that really be managed? Leaving aside the specific case here, imagine if the incident being shown again and again was a completely clear and obvious unequivocal stamp on the head.

Could we really say that becauase the TV producer got there first, the referee must ignore it?

(And it might just be timing, after all, the TV producer may be just seconds ahead of a TMO, who did think he noticed something, but was still finding the right place on the video, and looking at it twice as he should before rasing alarm, meanwhile it's on the big screen and now its out of bounds? )

It's really tricky.

RobLev
08-10-14, 13:10
which sounds OK - but in practice can that really be managed? Leaving aside the specific case here, imagine if the incident being shown again and again was a completely clear and obvious unequivocal stamp on the head.

Could we really say that becauase the TV producer got there first, the referee must ignore it?

(And it might just be timing, after all, the TV producer may be just seconds ahead of a TMO, who did think he noticed something, but was still finding the right place on the video, and looking at it twice as he should before rasing alarm, meanwhile it's on the big screen and now its out of bounds? )

It's really tricky.

Agree with your last comment; but I think the point of such a provision would be to ensure that the home team TV producer didn't get there first. If s/he did, thereby preventing the To4 from looking at it - dem's da breaks. It's simply evening things up, because one thing we do know is that the home team producer won't highlight a completely clear and obvious unequivocal home stamp on an away head. The problem is that home TV producers can't at present be trusted to be even-handed, so allowing the To4 to take account of their output puts a massive advantage in the hands of the home team - as we saw in this incident.

Crucial
08-10-14, 20:10
This match is a good example of what RobLev mentions.

In the first half Keiran Read was over a tackle contesting the ball when an incoming SA player made hard contact shoulder on head that had Read sent flying backwards and out of the game for a few minutes.

It was one of those situations that would entirely be refs decision. A good argument could be made for a reckless entry/ dangerous play/ reckless contact with the head or it could have been deemed accidental.

I'm pretty sure though, that a slo-mo of the shoulder making contact an sending him reeling backwards would have looked dire given the Sam Peckinpah treatment and attracted scrutiny from the ref.

Home town advantage will always be a factor with ground knowledge and crowd support. Stats back this up. Crowd reaction alone is enough of a pressure on the ref who is trying his best to be impartial. Adding biased replays in to incense the crowd takes it to another level though.

I would assume that there are some protocols in place for the broadcaster, but just how enforced they are or toothless the possible sanction is (given that the broadcaster is the main source of income), I don't know. We have also seen inconclusive footage supplied to TMOs and Refs only for conclusive footage to be 'discovered' shortly after the decision.

Ian_Cook
08-10-14, 20:10
Probably, the easiest solution would be to adopt FIFA's stance on the issue; to ban the broadcasters from showing replays on the big screen at the ground. Replays on TV only. If people want a replay, they will have to wait till they get home.

The other side of the coin is that with the rapid advance of technology, people can have their own screen. At Trafalgar Park in Nelson, we do not have an in ground screen; there was one for RWC2011 but that was a temporary arrangement. However, that hasn't stopped people from bringing their iPads, having it showing the game live from Sky Sport using SkyGo's internet broadcast, and watching the replay that way.

RobLev
09-10-14, 13:10
Probably, the easiest solution would be to adopt FIFA's stance on the issue; to ban the broadcasters from showing replays on the big screen at the ground. Replays on TV only. If people want a replay, they will have to wait till they get home.

The other side of the coin is that with the rapid advance of technology, people can have their own screen. At Trafalgar Park in Nelson, we do not have an in ground screen; there was one for RWC2011 but that was a temporary arrangement. However, that hasn't stopped people from bringing their iPads, having it showing the game live from Sky Sport using SkyGo's internet broadcast, and watching the replay that way.

Agreed.

The latter wouldn't be so much of a problem if the screens at the ground weren't showing it - no-one expects the referee to watch the game on iPad.

RoadHog
10-10-14, 02:10
Looking through the threads here I agree with a couple of them, also have no problems with a reality check for the All Blacks to lose on occasions (at least they put the silverware away before going down by only a small margin). Also the Last Penalty was correct. The problem I would like to raise from firstly the Ref, Wayne Barnes, on the ground and the TMO. Defensive Lineout to SA 5m out from their line. They retain the ball from the line and bring it down, now it is either from the ruck that forms or a subsequent ruck goes to ground and the Tackled Player, SA, Place the ball over the Try Line placing it down. 1. Tackled Player must use the ball as soon as possible, NZ gave him the chance to play it before the ruck formed. 2. Ruck Formed and NZ Claim try. 3. Wayne sends a request upstairs to the TMO. ******** My problem is why was a 5m Scrum Awarded to NZ?? SA Player need to play the ball without delay, he PLAYED THE BALL ON THE GROUND After a Ruck had formed. Yes he put the ball over the line, taken back, but he should not of played the ball again after being tackled. How after reviewing this by Wayne looking at the big screen or the TMO this was not the conclusion??