a full autopsy on peypars penalties in the bledisloe 2nd test

after hearing the usual suspects (the majority of the saffas and one saffa wannabe) bitch and moan about the referee again, i watched the game again and went through it with fne tooth comb analysing every single penalty awarded and where it was at.

here are the results i found. i have marked the time the offences took place and where it happened on the field.

i have also made note of things that peyper missed as well as misc offences & possible advantyage which
didnt need to be called for various reasons

penalties
All Blacks
05:41 - off side - red zone
20:56 - (general play) deliberate knock down - ben smith - just outside the ABs 22
23:40 - (breakdown) not releasing tackler - aaron smith - red zone
44:20 - (breakdown) holding onto ball - aaron smith - 15mtrs in the wallabies half
45:40 - (breakdown) off their feet - McCaw - red zone
56:16 - (general play) offside - all defenders on their left - red zone

Wallabies
08:08 - (breakdown) not rolling away - stephen moore - just inside the ABs half
10:00 - (breakdown) off his feet - toomua (was really for not releasing) - red zone
16:10 - (scrum) diving in - slipper - 5 meters from the ABs tryline
17:02 - (breakdown) off his feet not supporting his weight - moore - 4mtrs from ABs 22
30:57 - (friges of ruck) holding back - mowen - just past the ABs 10mtr line - (hore would have penalised in the red zone if not for the touch judges call)
33:26 - (breakdown) not rolling away after ABs turnover - hooper - 15meters in the ABs half
35:18 - (breakdown) not releasing tackler - ben mowen - red zone
37:02 - (general play) in the 10mtr zone while in fornt of the kicker - moore - just past half way
42:23 - (general play) obstruction - hooper - ABs 10mtr line
47:14 - (breakdown) holding onto ball - alexander - ABs tryline
48:03 - (ruck) joinging ruck incorrectly - fardy - ABs 10mtr line
52:03 - (scrum) hands in the scrum - hooper or alexander - 5mtrs insdie the wallabies half
60:00 - (scrum) angling in - kepu - red zone 5mtrs from wallabies tryline
64:09 - (scrum) lost his bind - crockett - 18mtrs in wallabies half
68:41 - (breakdown) not rolling away - simmons - red zone
74:16 - (breakdown) hooper is peanlised & i dont what for, but leilafano should have been penalised in the same ruck for not rolling away - either way red zone (and the 2nd res zone peanlty within 20secs)
79:36 - obstruction - white - just inside ABs half

peypers missed calls
03:54 mogg makes no effort after making tackle on dagg
05:41 should have gone up for a possible try to moore
20:40 - nonus no arms tackle on slipper
32:09 - slippers no arms tackle on woodcock
34:58 - ben mowen delineratley knocks the ball on but retallick regathers - red zone
66:48 - fardy plays the man in the air during the lineout

misc offecnes & advantage which didnt need to be called
39:46 - wallabies offside in general play in the red zone. but smith scored his double from that same phase.
39:50 - leilafano waaaay offside in the red zone- peyper played advantage, but ben smith scored in the corner from the same phase
73:58 - (breakdown) off his feet liam gill red zone 7 mtrs from tryline - peyper called advanatge, but AB continued with their attack and the wallabies ended up conceding another penalty further in

the number of penalties awraded
All Blacks - 6
wallabies - 17

the number of red zone peanties awarded
All Blacks - 4 red zone penalties
wallabies - 5 red zone penalties

the number of red zone penaties that should and or could have been awarded
All Blacks - 1
wallabies - 4

my findings confirmed what i originally thought when i first saw the game, that peyper was ok. but i was pretty pissed and given the outrage by some of the folks here, i investgated like a pro, lolz, :oP

while the All Blacks gave away some clear red zone penalties, the wallabies gave away a lot more and then some. this can easily be verified thanks to the clearly marked time of the infractions.

peypar made a few bluders, like not going up to the TMO for that possible try, it looked like there was no control of the ball and to be fair to peyper, he was in a great position to tell. but going to the TMO would have exonerated him completely, and as he south african, he knows all to well what referee bitching fans are all about, cos his country is full of them.
other blunders also included nonus shoulder tackle which should have been obvious and slippers shoulder tackle, a yellow card could have been very timely then, but while its unacceptable that peyper missed them, at least he was consistent.
all in all it was a decent performance from peypar, the All Blacks especially in the set peice were jsut too dominant.

if there were other infractions that i havent mentioned but any peeps here feel i should have, then please feel free to name them and provide the time they occured in the game for us to check out. i was pretty through with this, but i may have missed something.

Sasuke, I'm guessing that the likes of Baboon-ou and Redschild will dodge this thread because this is exactly what these snivelling crybaby ref-bashers fear most . . . substance!

They love to bleat about alleged refereeing blunders but they can never remember the exact circumstances or the time that these blunders happened, it's always some vague whine about how useless the ref was in general without ever getting into specifics and anyone who disagrees with their laughably stupid conspiracy theories is either blind or doesn't understand the laws of the game. Well, let's see them try dodge this analysis of yours! Should be good for a laugh . . . in the unlikely event they have the guts to front up.

Good work and well done to your All Blacks. They are looking almost invincible . . . emphasis on the "almost"!

 Rooineck, Aka Saffex's Bitch.

When you are not kissing Saffex's arse you are finding anyone not from South Africa to side with. 

You are a cape Crusader that would rather side with other countries. Wanker

 saSUE  thanks for all the hard work but the stats show an overwhelming number of penalties against the abs and I fear your lack of objectivity make your interpretations highly suspect. You can hardly be described as a neutral now can you.

Rooiwit you ab wannabee credentials are unquestioned. Probably sleeps in an ab jersey before any ab test match.  Bwahahahahaha

@rooy,
thanks for that for bro, im expecting the usual suspects to either igonre the thread or come up with a silly comment, oh look beeno1 aka storminged right on que, LMAO, :oP

@sharkbok,
i take it that ur unprovoked attack on rooy and zero comments on the thread at hand means u agree with my assessment, cheers bro, :o)

@beeno1 aka storminged,
ur comment is pretty much what we expected, and for the record its not hard work at all when its a labour of love, :o)
i do love how u question my impartiality as kiwi hating saffa, but what are these so called stats ur belating on about???  the facts as i have stated are irrefutable. unless u have anything u feel should be added or that i might have missed???

and dont say i dont do anything for u
irrefutable means impossible to deny or disprove, :o)

 Your stats are flawed as you don't allow for interpretation involving momentum and context. How can you deny that mores try or nonus shoulder charge wouldn't have changed the game if correctly officiated on. The blatant infringement on th5 meter line by the cheating crusader connection is just unforgivable. The game is not rugby anymore but refby... As they determine games more than the players

Oh, so now Moore scored a try did he Pedsman?......Could have sworn he lost it well before the line and it was in fact so obvious that the ref deemed it unnecessary to refer it! Deal with your losses and stop whingeing like a Pom will you???!!!

@redsneck,

"Your stats are flawed as you don't allow for interpretation involving momentum and context."
the stats are not flawed they are fact. and as i have stated the time and place of all the penalties that peyper awarded, u now nit pick with momentum and context.
so take a look at all the red zone penalties that i mentioned, they are all in bold font. everyone of them both caught by peyper and not were all with the attacking team hot on offense, the time is clearly labelled, so feel free to check it out and dispute those if u can.

" How can you deny that mores try or nonus shoulder charge wouldn't have changed the game if correctly officiated on"
i dont deal in speculation like u and the majority of the folk here do, is it because reality is a lot better with the AB fans then it is our SANZAR bros??? who knows but thats a question for another time.
as i clearly mentioned though, peyper did screw the pooch there, but there was evidence to suggest that moore didnt have control of the ball and i cant help but notice u harp on about me denying the impact of peyper missing nonus tackle on slipper and say nothing about slippers tackle on woody, the time has been provided for easy confirmation on both counts and i need a hypocrisy  filter for ur comments reek of it.

"The blatant infringement on th5 meter line by the cheating crusader connection is just unforgivable."
i love how u say blatant infringement on the 5 meter line with zero examples while i have given a list of all penalties both awarded and missed with a clear time as a point reference.
as the evidence clearly shows,within the redzone the wallabies infringed a shitload more then the All blacks did, yet they didnt even get a warning, o_O

ur lack of education and infatuation with ur sister is the only thing that is unforgivable, :o)

 @Sasuke "i dont deal in speculation like u and the majority of the folk here do"

I clearly remember last year you debating with Beeno about the match vs the Boks in Dunedin.

The premise of Beenos arguement was that if the boks had kicked all their penalties they would have won.

your counter arguement to this was a concept to the effect that if the All Blacks had been behind, it does not mean that the game would not have changed to adapt to the circumstance- i.e. the All Blacks would have changed their game plan to score more points.

Does this qualify as speculation?

What is the concept that you referred to last year to Beenos arguement. Something along the lines of changing behaviour to the context of the situation.

You know the name of this concept. Can you confirm this to the board jury?

The inconsitency of your arguement is pointing to faulty logic, also known as a fallicy.

@sharkbok,

"I clearly remember last year you debating with Beeno about the match vs the Boks in Dunedin.

The premise of Beenos arguement was that if the boks had kicked all their penalties they would have won.

your counter arguement to this was a concept to the effect that if the All Blacks had been behind, it does not mean that the game would not have changed to adapt to the circumstance- i.e. the All Blacks would have changed their game plan to score more points.

Does this qualify as speculation?"

maybe u should find out the definiton of the word clearly???

i know of the thread ur tallking about, but i have no idea how to bring that thread back up and im not going to backtrack, but u need to get ur facts straight.

i merely pointed out hiow futile beenos speculations is, cos had mornes kicks gone over, there was nothing to suggest that the All Blacks wouldnt score more tries.

in short, speculation for any scenario is a two way street and thats why i dont play the specualtion game like u and so many here do which i mentioned at the time.
i cant help but notice this was not mentioned by u, either not clearly remembering or choosing to leave it out.

what i am happy with, is the zero subsatnce that folks here have in regards to peypers B+ perforamnce on sat night, :o)

@sasuke

sharkbok,

"I clearly remember last year you debating with Beeno about the match vs the Boks in Dunedin.

The premise of Beenos arguement was that if the boks had kicked all their penalties they would have won.

your counter arguement to this was a concept to the effect that if the All Blacks had been behind, it does not mean that the game would not have changed to adapt to the circumstance- i.e. the All Blacks would have changed their game plan to score more points.

Does this qualify as speculation?"

maybe u should find out the definiton of the word clearly???

i know of the thread ur tallking about, but i have no idea how to bring that thread back up and im not going to backtrack, but u need to get ur facts straight.

i merely pointed out hiow futile beenos speculations is, cos had mornes kicks gone over, there was nothing to suggest that the All Blacks wouldnt score more tries.

in short, speculation for any scenario is a two way street and thats why i dont play the specualtion game like u and so many here do which i mentioned at the time. 
i cant help but notice this was not mentioned by u, either not clearly remembering or choosing to leave it out.

what i am happy with, is the zero subsatnce that folks here have in regards to peypers B+ perforamnce on sat night, :o)

@Sasuke-

It was a rhetorical question, I know what speculation is.

And that is exactly what you did with your counter argument to Beeno. 

You are saying that you do not speculate, but you have just admitted that you in fact did speculate. 

What Beeno said was factual in that had the Mornes Kicks gone over, the Boks would have scored more points- under the exact same circumstances.

The All Blacks may have then changed the game plan to score more tries, but this is speculation on your part . It may to some degree be warranted, but then again changing the game plan could also have resulted in giving away more penalties. This is the 2 way street of speculation.

 Or is just a case of subjective speculative syndrome?

 If the first of those missed kicks had gone over then everything from that point on changes , the ABS kick off from halfway etc so any other missed kicks after that no longer stay in the equation .

@sharkbok,

i dont speculate, cos anyone can speculate and its a two way street, u can speculate this and on the same topic i can speculate that. u doing ur best to contradict me shows ur a poor troll or theres a clear level of intellect between u and i, feel free to choose which side were on, but the posts here are evident for everyone to see, lolz.

u also clearly dont remember the whole thread, cos i touched on the whole choas theory and butterfly effect the intricacies of which would go way over ur head,

so i will break it down as simply as i possibly can for u, i have little faith u will understand and i know that brother beeno wont, but here goes,,,

morne missed his first penalty goal in the 24th minute. the result All Blacks took a kick of restart from their 22 and the rest as u know is history.

so lets speculate what would have happened if the morne had not missed that kick. Boks would be leading 6-5, but the whole turn of events after this has changed.
All Blacks would reset from halfway kicking into the Boks half and everything that happened originally when morne first missed the goal, is now changed forever and with all the variables involved in rugby, EVERYTHING is speculation after this, especially u thinking the Boks would have had more shots at goal after this.

this is why its wrong to say that the Boks would have won if morne got all his kicks over, cos one kicked would have changed the way the whole game was played out.

kapish??? prob not, but at least u tired.

i know warhammer gets it and im not surpised, but are there any saffas out there who do understand, right now mikey, oimatey, cleancut, spoony and rooy are the only three who IMO would get this and not have to pretend they do, o_O

Wow thanks for this sasuke! 

I had a feeling that the wallies had more red zone infringements. Makes James Horwill look like the biggest cry baby. He was trying to get someone yellow-carded on each of the AB's redzone penalties.... Even on the first penalty he referred to the previous match...

@cloudzter,

hi madame vice prez, :o)

"No mention of the Reid off-side after Peyper had already awarded the penalty to the wallies.  What was your take on that?  The ball was out and the penalty already given."
can u tell me more about this??? what time did this take place do u remember???

also dont forget u can edit ur posts here, hoot hoot, :o)

@wfunston,
thanks bro, :o)
i rate horwil alot, but hes building up a bad rep as the boy who cried ref, look at that lineout where his lifters stumble over each other and he screams to the ref he was interfered with?? the repaly clearly showed he was moaning bitch and if he keeps doing it, the next time he does have a lgetimate claim, its going to end up doing sweet fudge all.

 Red is it that time of the month again?

Coz you sound just like a whinging old washer woman. .

And then you forgot to play yr rugby is a minority sport card. LOL

Looks like Arstralia threw away a good coach and Jake White is looking better all the time...

McKenzie was obviously a wrong choice...

... so the next game is a must win for Colonel CLink or the media will be turning on him like they turned on Deans except the difference is it won't be because he's a Kiwi...

Sasuke You know you are one Kiwi poster who I have a lot of respect for cause your Kiwi blinkers does not block you view but I got to ask. Why are the zone relevant? Nowhere in the laws does it state about the red zone.

That is a common perception created by the Kiwi's to explain why they give so much penalties away year after year without getting binmned. 

This by Andre Watson in thr IN touch mag

‘Red zone’
• The ‘red zone’ has been a creation and
does not exist in Law
• Infringements near the goal line must
be treated as the same as the rest of
the playing area
• Warnings and yellow- and red-card
decisions must be consistent with the
entire field

When England did the same you and your Kiwi mates did the same and whined your head off about them slowing the ball down. It wasn't nice back then why is it good now and suddenly whining? What changed? Cause its the AB and you are viewing everything from a bias view?

Take your head out of your ass. Take a deep breath. Go watch some fucking rugby especially the last two test concentrate on the Kiwi loitering all over the park and come and post some sense 

  Cloudy your last post just show what a flippin idiot you are? Did you have a brain tumor for breakfast. Please show me where in the law book it says Red zone. Cmon show me. I know what the Red Zone is and coaches got fuck all to do with the referee or the laws.

And Watson is the head of the SA referees. How many international games have you refereed? 0? I thought so so I think your bs is the last thing anyone should take note of. Put that in a pipe and smoke or it.... or google it...

@ Spoony

The latest obsession with red zone infringements has come from James Horwill complaining about them despite his own teams higher penalty count. As the attacking team closes in on the tryline the defending team is on the back foot and becoming more desperate to prevent a try. Therefore penalties given away might be perceived as intentional/cynical and deserves more stringent repercussions (according to Horwill). The law is the law but as we all know, it is interpreted differently by each ref

 Cloudy please dont call my good friend Redsman a snivelling little grot for pointing out the obvious. Hahahahahahahaha seems like we have a Wahine on the warpath. She sure is cooking up a mean boil.

James was right to complain - Oz's best scoring chances were ruined by deliberate professional fouls by the wee abs as that lonely  but bright beacon of ethical nz behaviour Justin Marshall said.

Funnystone please accept the obvious. Brycy McKenzie has just taken on the task. I trust you are willing to give him the chances Deans had. More Kiwi bias.

SA and Oz refs must stop bending over backwards to favour nz. 

End of story

 Cloudy to prove my manly credentials I send my warm greetings to all the the nz wahines and of course my condolences for the lack of choice they face in nz. hahahahahahaha

We have no gangs here I trust. Everyone's fair game! Some perhaps more fair than others eg kiw bird brains!

@spoony,

regarding some of ur questions/comments,,,

"Why are the zone relevant? Nowhere in the laws does it state about the red zone."
wfnuston is correct, there has been a lot of talk about the red zone from mackenzie and horwil in the media both last week and now this week. there has also been alot of chatter about it here, and while u didnt make a reference to the red zone in particular, on the thread started by redsneck titled (surprise surprise) disgraceful saffa refs again gifts game to the cheats u made special mention of where the All Blacks were giving away their penalties in the comment posted on August 25, 2013, 09:48:03.
BTW that whole post wast totally void of fact.
its comments like those and from the masses of who can be described as jealous fans which is why i made special note of the red zone penalties in particular.

"That is a common perception created by the Kiwi's to explain why they give so much penalties away year after year without getting binmned."
kiwis created this perception??? o_O
i like ur technical arguments on the game itself, but not ur whack conspiracy theories, guess which one i think this comment comes under???

u also cant take every single penalty a team accumulates in a season and roll it into one lump sump and say they give away so many penalties without getting binned, cos first of all, All Blacks have been yellow carded plenty of time, and secondly penalties have to be taken on its context of the game and not on a basis of quantity as u suggest.

1st beldisloe test - All Blacks conceded 12 penalties, wallabies conceded 6 - All Blacks one yellow card
2nd bledisloe test - All Blacks concede 6 penalties, wallabies concede 17 - no yellow cards
in the two bledisloe tests, just look at the penalty count,
whitelocks yellow card was justified and correctly given, where was the yellow in the 2nd test if quantity of penalties is the bencmark???

"This by Andre Watson in thr IN touch mag
‘Red zone’
• The ‘red zone’ has been a creation and does not exist in Law
• Infringements near the goal line must be treated as the same as the rest of the playing area
• Warnings and yellow- and red-card decisions must be consistent with the entire field"
if watson was to say that to ewen mackenzie, mackenzie would cover him in mayonnaise and seronate his head off, lolz.
all due respect watson, but hes dead wrong. the red zone while not a law is a commonly used term which can take into consideration the level of impact a penalty has depending on where the infraction occurred on the filed.
this is key otherwise the Boks penalty try in the first Bok/puma test would never have been awarded, im sure watsons not suggesting that had guinazu slapped the ball down on the Boks tryline, that a penalty try should be awarded.
impact is the key and IMO u already agreed with this, otherwise u never would have started that reply on rednecks thread with "Check the penalty count for both matches and check where they took place".
red zone penalties are a very real thing and should be considered when refs make their decisions.

"When England did the same you and your Kiwi mates did the same and whined your head off about them slowing the ball down. It wasn't nice back then why is it good now and suddenly whining? What changed? Cause its the AB and you are viewing everything from a bias view?"
what comments were made and where??? the majority of kiwis here posted comments about england being the better team and being the deserved winners, and many saffas commented on that, i remember cos i was thinking at the time thats cos were not saffas, but i didnt post that thought, or did i??? o_O

also are u aware u can slow the ball down legally??? it seems to me that the term slowing the ball down is considered by large an illegal move which it isnt unless its done so in an illegal manner.

"And Watson is the head of the SA referees. How many international games have you refereed? 0?"
i know the last comment wasnt for me, but its stupid to think that just cos watson is the head of SA referees (which according to beeno1 aka storminged is not something one wears as a badge of honour these days) and others are armchair critics, that watsons opinions are more right, case in point watsons take on the red zone.
all of us here have more then a simple understanding of the game and each being is unique with a different perspective which helps shed light on the matter. its why i always scoff at comments like did u ever play at the top level.
i take each posters comments based on what theyre saying and how they roll in the past, and never take into account the fact they dont have the sharingan like i do, LMAO, :oP

 Sasuke, do you consider the Butterfly effect to be speculation or not?

1. Butterfly effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect‎
   •  
   •  
   •  
     In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can ... ‎Chaos theory - ‎Butterfly effect in popular culture - ‎Butterfly effect (disambiguation)

1. The Butterfly Effect:

   Past Modals for Speculation -

   Might/ Must/ Could ...

   moviesegmentstoassessgrammargoals.blogspot.com/

   .../butterfly-effect-pa...‎

   •  
   •  
   •  
    

   5 Jul 2009 - The Butterfly Effect: Past Modals for Speculation - Might/ Must/ Could + Have + Past Part. This is a very popular movie with a creative story.

   --------------------------------

    

   so lets speculate what would have happened if the morne had not missed that kick. Boks would be leading 6-5, but the whole turn of events after this has changed.
   All Blacks would reset from halfway kicking into the Boks half and everything that happened originally when morne first missed the goal, is now changed forever and with all the variables involved in rugby, EVERYTHING is speculation after this, especially u thinking the Boks would have had more shots at goal after this.
   
   this is why its wrong to say that the Boks would have won if morne got all his kicks over, cos one kicked would have changed the way the whole game was played out.

    

   --

    

   I honestly cant understand your position.

   You are condescending speculation- but then allow yourself to do the exact same thing.

   If speculation supports your arguement then its entirely valid.

    

    When you are called up for this basic error you are resorting to questioning the intelligence of others, would it not be better to concede error in this instance?

    

   I am just joking around, but it is getting more funny as

   you either do not see this fact or are just ignoring it.

 the title of thread is "full autopsy", maybe it should read "full speculative autopsy".

@sharkbok,

i love how ur joking around, but still took the time at least u took the time (realllly took ur time) look up what u dont understand, A+ for effort, :o)

but on the matter i dont think i can explain it better then i did at 2:07:13 and like i said, i didnt really think u could understand what many others did.

now if u dont mind, please edit ur comments so that it can fit into the appropriate boxes without distorting the comments up above, im still hoping someone can refute my claims, which its is difficult to do thanks to ur movie comment..

Sasuke let me refresh your memory

New Zealand's coach John Mitchell has warned that this autumn's Rugby World Cup could be ruined as a spectacle if teams such as England are allowed to get away with deliberate spoiling tactics to blunt the attacking ambitions of their opponents.

England, who have won 28 of their last 30 Tests, beat the All Blacks 15-13 in Wellington last Saturday but in doing so had Neil Back and Lawrence Dallaglio sent to the sin-bin for ruck offences, and Mitchell, who was Clive Woodward's assistant until three years ago, has now joined forces with Australia's coach Eddie Jones in calling for stricter policing of the tackle area by referees to improve the flow of the game.

"It was effective that night but I'm sure if that kind of situation occurs in the World Cup, it will be a pretty boring World Cup, won't it?" said Mitchell, who is unlikely to be the last opposing coach to try to ruffle Woodward's feathers between now and the start of the tournament in October. "England were very effective in that area and maybe they've shown us a card or two of what we're to expect in the future."

Reuben Thorne, the All Black captain, has also claimed it would be "a real shame" if England's ball-delaying skills won a World Cup, and the ever-shrewd Jones has been probing away at the same sensitive area before this weekend's England v Australia Test, demanding that the Irish referee David McHugh intervene swiftly if ball-killing starts occurring.

"Hopefully the referee will be very strict on enforcing the tackle and ruck situations," said Jones. "If he does I think there'll be some good, clean ball for both sides. If he doesn't it could be quite an ugly affair."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/jun/19/rugbyunion.robertkitson

As for Andre Watson. Please show me in the law book where the Red Zone is mentioned. Ask any ref if it matters where he penalty took place? No it does not because you can turn over and concede from 90 yards out stopping that is the same as stopping something 5 yards out. Do not confuse red zone with proffesional fouls to stop a try bya knock down which is reason why a penalty try is there. 

Penalties stop teams momentum and the Ab kills the oipposition momentum with illegal spoiling tactics. When they were pinged for it against England they conceded 38 points and their defense look as bad as any side defense against them. Suddenly England looked like the AB. 

But strangely you get the same refs for these games everytime. The SANZAR ones. 

@spoony,

then u should have siad mitchell and thorne, the implication of ur comment was that it was the kiwi bloggers who were complaining about the englsih tactics.
but hey, im sure fans at the time said the same thing, and look, u only had to go back 11 years to find an example, o_O

the professional foul that was committed by guinazu is relevant cos if he had commited it on the Boks tryline, a possible yellow but zero chance of a penalty try, but on the pumas try line, a yellow and a penalty try, whats the differnece??? the area in which the offence was commited, aka the red zone.

like i said many times, its not the law, but there are plenty of penalties that are given in the red zone which has as much of an impact on the game as a professional foul, hence why coaches and players often refer to it as the red zone.

u would have to be one naive person to think the All Blacks do spoiling tactics all the time, not saying that tbhey dont, but not as frequent as u and so many keep harping on about. u make it sound like its only the All Blacks who do it and the rest of the world are bunch of innocent princess fairy dusts.

england beat us fair and squar, their forwards set a brilliant platform and were much hungrier then our forwards. thanks tot them and owens boot, they manage to build a decent lead which in the end proved too much for the All Blacks.
but they were only pinged 13 times in that match, why is it that in other matches where they get pinged a lot more do they still win if its all about them getting penalised???

but strangely u imply as if NZ are in charge of who gets to ref their games, just like all the other times u insinuate that rules were changed to benefit the All Blacks, u really do get some serious mileage from ur tinfoil hats, o_O

 @Sasuke he he. boxes now fixed. bottom line is you do speculate when it supports your arguement. 

@sharkbok,

thanks and no, i speculate when people speculate to show how silly speculation really is, :oP

@cloudzter,

"@naru sorry can't get used to your name in here lol I wiped the game duh but it was towards the end I think the wallies were on attack just out from the try line and abs already were penalised at the ruck Reid came through from an off-side position and caught Genia but the ball was already out "

lolz, no problemo, i dont mind being called naru, especially by u and those in the know, :o)

i think i saw the incident ur talking about, and when i watched the smae incident ur talking about.

IMO read was ok, genia had his hands on the ball and as read was behind the tryline, and genia being no more then a meter away, it was easy for read to pounce on him and wrap him up.
peyper ruled correctly and went back for the advanatage.

not surprised that kearns had  afit, its a common trait he shares with mackenzie, horwill and redsneck.

Hey naru, I can see many Ab.com posters over here. Good to read you
There's one missed call that you didn't note. In the 4th minute Moog kicked the ball, chased it and tackle the receiver, Dagg. He didn't move a finger after the tackle preventing not only Dagg to release the ball but also the other AB to join the ruck. I think it was a clear penalty for not rolling away which led the aussies to regain the ball. This missed call was the beggining of the play which finished with the possible try by Moore

@abasquefan,

hey bro nice to see u up and about, looks like more and more of the old gang are coming here, maybe we can convince sarugby.com to give us our own abs,com section, lolz, :oP
the guys who run this site are pretty meke, alot better then those tools on abs.coms, :o)

but in regards to that mogg and the 4th minute incident, i find myslef a little reluctant to add it in for the following reasons.

mogg didnt roll away, but both the wallabies and All Blacks forward piled into that breakdown instantly making rolling away difficult but not impossible.
however, there was IMO a pretty decent gap between where mogg was and where dagg was and u can even see ample of room with the ball free, but the wallaby forwards got the better of the AB forwards in that exchange and coupled with smiths slow arrival to the breakdown (not that he could have done anything about it had he been on time), wallys won it fair an square.
i also dont think that mogg had much of an effect on the All Blacks not being able to secure the breakdown, it played a role but not a signifcant one IMO and the correct call was made.

in saying that thats just my opinon and had peyper blown the whistle for an All Blacks penalty, i would have a little unlucky but fiar enough.
a 50/50 call that was correctly ruled on, :o)

@naru,

I saw the footage again and even though it's not as clear as I remembered it I think it was penalty. Mogg didn't move a finger and the position he had on the ground totally prevented the AB to move that ball
But the important thing here is that nor this issue neither the whole refereeing had effect on the final result

 Hey there folks ! good to see the mighty black-power ! 

Reds-man ,interpretaion ? what is that like in " Interperative Dance " or summat ? Maybe the wobbles should get flowers after a game !!!!

instead of a beer or 2 

Cos they are pretty much dead on their feet after an ABS floggiing .

Poor wee wallies.

Meh....

i notice there are still some hardout comments being made about the All blacks and their so called infringements in the redzone, yet when i offer this thread up as a platform for some good honest debate, i get the odd comment about im a kiwi so it cant be real, o_O

the reality is people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts, tahts why theres so much noise about the All Blacks red zone penalties and next to nothing about the wallabies own red zone penalties.
wallabies not only gave away more red zone penalties, but the wallabies attempted red zone penalties that was played as advantage plus missed by peyper totaled in more then double of what the All blacks had.

why is it that folks wont comment here??? instead they choose to fill their posts with either blatant lies or ignorant facts and their inability to prove otherwise is the real testament to the All blacks just being that much superior to everyone else.

@abasquefan,
i have gone over that incident time and time again, even showed my boss at work the footage who is an AFL an FTW with everything else type of a guy explaining the law and both ur take on it and mine, and at the end of the day he said well he didnt make any clear attempt to move and thats their in the fine print.

in short i have added moggs penalty to the list, its under the peypers missed calls, :o)

while it dosent really matter cos we got the result we wanted, i had to make sure this thread was very detailed to help counter all the crazy comments im sure u have come across here in ur short time, so thanks, :o)

Springbok scrummies are really dumb. When a Kiwi player is lying in the way of the scrummie holding his head and blatantly infringing in play just throw the ball into him. The ref then has to blow for a penalty to us. Problem solved.

yup just as i thought, very little arguments on the fact, but while this thread might have the masses cowering, the continued chants continue to roll on in other threads, classic denial, :oP