Let's not forget the ref

 I thought there were alot of decisions and indecisions at the breakdown that favoured the homeside

Will we ever see a game where there aren't contentious decisions at the breakdown?

Hakwa, could it have been a RAW? One has to ask such questions

Ha the raw. There were a few calls which may have been the other way but that's rugby. I think the refs was good and let an open running game be played.

Someone please tell me how Hougaard was not sent off. For me that was as straight a red card as I have ever seen.
Serioualy, apart from death, a broken neck is about the worst injury one could pick up in a rugby. And that could very easily have resulted in a broken neck. One of the most dangerous tackles I have ever seen. The it in Serfontein was not eve nearly as bad.
And lets not say that Houaard's tackle slipped up...it was just plain high and extremely dangerous.
Serious lack of consistency in the reffing this weekend. Comparing the two games, it's like the refs were working from different textbooks.
I so wish this could be sorted out.

 Dont worry Meester Plum ,I am CERTAIN that Beanhead will have something to say about any RAW by the boks ! Wont he ? I dont care to say anything much about reffing but beandork is keen on getting stuck into any hint of a RAW no matter which side it favours !

Plum, I was just provoking Beeno with my comment on RAW, lol
No yellow cards this weekend so maybe refs were told to be more cautious in dishing them out. 

Plum, in fairness I agree with you, both Hougaard and Horne's tackles were probably card offenses. The rule says if you pick someone up you are responsible for putting them down safely, and Horne just let Serfontein go at the top to find his own way down. I guess after all the bullsh!t cards that were handed out recently, it was just refreshing to get through a game without any.

 @plum,
you are very right. That was a very dangerous tackle and what I cannot understand is the argument used by N. Owens (and used by other refs also) according to which if AAC didn't get the try it would have been a yellow but as AAC got the try then everything is OK.
The tackle was very dangerous and could have caused a serious injury no matter the try was obtained or not and IMO it should be a yellow in both cases.

Pakie gets it right and the kbbs and plum pudding get it wrong. Both the Hougaard tackle and the dumping of Serfontein might have been yellows. The worst of the two was clearly the Serfontein issue. Hogaards tackle was never likely to cause any damage.
Beeno noted objectivity contrasting dramatically with the bent and biased views of the kbbs especially warped DUD and the obsequious, ingratiating plum pudding.

I had no issue with either tackle not being carded. Would have been rough if only one had been. Surely would have been a penalty try if AAC didn't score. Beeno I don't think the tackle on Serfontain was clearly worse. You may need to clean the single lens of your glasses or glass as the case seems to be.

 I'm watching again the boks-wallies match (waiting for the AB match to be avalaible) and didn't watch yet the tackle to Serfontein but H ougard's was a red card offense and he should be cited.

Objetivity? Mr. Been? you can't be more ridiculous, really hilarious
but keep on man, you brighten up my sad sunday morning at home

 

ABasquefan

Status: Squad member
Posts: 451 RE: Let's not forget the ref
September 28, 2014, 12:30:34  @plum,
you are very right. That was a very dangerous tackle and what I cannot understand is the argument used by N. Owens (and used by other refs also) according to which if AAC didn't get the try it would have been a yellow but as AAC got the try then everything is OK.
The tackle was very dangerous and could have caused a serious injury no matter the try was obtained or not and IMO it should be a yellow in both cases.
I am sure that he said that it would have been a penalty had the try not been scored.

ABasquefan

Status: Squad member
Posts: 451 RE: Let's not forget the ref
September 28, 2014, 14:45:52  I'm watching again the boks-wallies match (waiting for the AB match to be avalaible) and didn't watch yet the tackle to Serfontein but Hougard's was a red card offense and he should be cited.

Objetivity? Mr. Been? you can't be more ridiculous, really hilarious
but keep on man, you brighten up my sad sunday morning at home

There is no such thing as a "red card offence" any where in the law book. If you have to go by the IRB Law Clarifications, the only "red card" offence would have been the one on Sefontein which, in a way, was similar to Sam Warburton's one in the 2011RWC.

 Lets not forget the yellow Bissie got last year for a perfectly legal hit on the golden boy. 
Had this been an away game, I assure you Hougard would have been yellowed. The best for me is that a slap to the face is a straight red, yet coming very close to breaking somebody's neck is a maybe penalty.
Also, the penalty try awarded to the Boks when we played against Wales for the tackle on Hendricks in the dying minutes. Does anyone remember if a yellow card was given to the tackler. I think, but I really could be wrong, that he was yellowed. And that was literally in the dying moments of the game. Consistency?
Yeah Beeno, of course nothing could have come from that hit. That's why high tackles are perfectly legal...because they are so very very safe. Comon dude!
One of the Bok's tries also had a huge knock on by Bakkies and Owens totally missed that.
That's your problem Beeno, you do take a very subjective view. Quick to blame refs when the Boks lose but when dodge calls go our way then you make ridiculous arguments to justify the calls. Call me crazy but I think that goes a long way to explaining why you are not taken seriously.
As for Joubert in the ABs Vs Pumas game...lol. At one lineout an AB jumper literally wrapped his arms around the puma's jumper just before he caught the ball. They were the only two players in the air and the AB player had the puma guy wrapped up all the way from the air to the ground. If Joubert did not see that then I have to ask...WHERE THE FU.K WAS HE LOOKING? At his shoes?
I love rugby but damn I hate the way it's officiated. 

Those tackles were both bad. If you look at intent, my guess is Hougaard went high to try and prevent the try. Horne's tackle was a straight tip tackle, seconds after Serf had passed the ball.....it's intent could only have been to hurt. 

 I thought that the ref did an excellent job in the SA-Aussie test.
Just shows you how an experienced ref should handle the game without influencing the outcome.
Excellent performance Mr Owens.

 @ceradyne,
your points are completely irrelevant.
I wanted to say that Hougaard's action deserved a red card and you know it. Pointing at technical terms of language has no sense, mainly when I'm not a native English speaker.
Do you like to argue just for arguing? I don't.

Oh, and for the next time, please, verify what you are going to say before making such a blunder.




Owens clearly said that "I'm not gonna yellow card you because the try was good", even I could understand it.
And the comentator highlighted that Owens said it

 @ABesquefan. I am not argue just for arguing.  I like to debate and discuss. I was putting forward a fact and an opinion. Feel free to debate it with me. I am also not a native English speaker, but that aside.

I am not merely pointing out a "technical term of language". I am actually pointing out a plain and simple fact. There is no single on-field and in-play infringement in the entire law-book that has a prescribed sanction of a red or a yellow card. Not one. I am not saying that I am an expert of the Laws of The Game but I have been through the laws a few times and one of the points that I have made sure of a number of times, due to debate, was the issue of the use of cards. Yellow and red cards are only mentioned twice in the entire law-book. The only instance where a send-off (red card) is prescribed is technically for an infringement before the game has even started. That is for an infringement of Law 4.5 (c).

4.5 INSPECTION OF PLAYERS’ CLOTHING
(c) If, at an inspection before the match, the referee or a touch judge tells a player that an item
banned under this Law is being worn, and the player is subsequently found to be wearing
that item on the playing area, that player is sent off for misconduct.
Sanction: A penalty kick is awarded at the place where play is restarted.

Apart from the above, there are only two other instances as I have said.

The first being in the definitions.
"Yellow card: A card, yellow in colour shown to a player who has been cautioned and
temporarily suspended for 10 minutes playing time."
"Red Card: A card, red in colour shown to a player who has been sent off for contravening Law 10 - Foul Play, Law 4.5(c) [Referred to above.]"

The second is where it is described what the two cards mean.
10.6 YELLOW AND RED CARDS
(a) When a player has been cautioned and temporarily suspended in an International match the referee will show that player a yellow card.
(b) When a player has been sent off in an International match, the referee will show that player a red card.
(c) For other matches the Match Organiser or Union having jurisdiction over the match may decide upon the use of yellow and red cards.

You can have a look at Law 10, refered to above and you will see that the sanction is a penalty at the most, for every infringement. It does not say that the infringements carries a sanction of a send-off (red card). Not even a suspension (yellow card). The ref has to decide whether an infringement is serious enough to warrant a red or yellow card. It only ever mentions three things that can happen with a player making himself guilty of foul play, apart from the penalty:

1. Repremand, or
2. Caution and temporary suspension (yellow card), or
3. Send off (red card)

The particular incident, with Hougaard is covered by Law 10.4 (e):

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(e) Dangerous tackling.

  A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick
 
  A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck orhead is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
 
  A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiffarm to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

  A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick


As far as Owens' remark goes. I have listened carefully and he did not say: "I'm not gonna yellow card you because the try was good"

He actually says : "I'm not gonna yellow card you but the try was scored. Be very careful please." Listen carefully. The commentator got it wrong. F rom 24s in.

 Ceradyne I think he did say I am not going to yellow card you because the try was scored. Aus would have been better off not scoring. Penalty try and 14 players in opposition for 10 minutes. Good to see AAC just got up and moved on. Plenty of players would have stayed down trying to milk the card. Like I said I am happy with him staying on the field. Would always prefer an even contest.

 Plum, a red for a slap is to keep thuggery out of the game plain and simple. It's what should be done in football if a player dives or acts.

Beeno is strangely silent on this thread - only one measly post. What does that tell us?

 @Claydog. I beg to differ. I have put the sound clip through an audio editor and slowed it down. You can clearly hear Owens saying "but I will not yellow card you....". I will upload it to sound cloud later and post link.

 I was watching the highlights and Hougaard had his head taken of by an Oz player and was lying on the ground. Nothing happened. Why no mention of that.
The more dagerous tackle was definitely on Serfontein as even the plum pudding observes. Hence if youwant to talk yeloows two to Oz one to Boks.Oz can be thankful ref wasnt going to dish out yellows.
But of course we havea player out for month with a kneck injury due to a cheap mcaaaw shot. Outcome nothing. mcaaaw gets off scott free - bit liek wee brad thorn on smit punishment did not fit the crime - does it ever where the precious wee abs are concenred.But why no citing after the match of mcaaaaaaw. Our guys are fast asleeep. - or are they - would we want mcaaaw out of the ab team - of course not! Bwahhahahahahahahahaha

 I would like it if all cards got reviewed by the TMO directly after the incident. Players should be substituted from the bench with heavier punishment for cards, but 15 players should remain on the field at all times.

 Nigel Owen did actually say he would have yellow carded Hougard if the try hadn't been scored so ABasquefan is right.

 Try or no try, Owens should've yellow carded Hougaard immediately. Owens got that completely wrong in an obvious hometown decision for the Boks. Yet another RAW to the men in green....

 Try or no try, Owens should've yellow carded Hougaard immediately. Owens got that completely wrong in an obvious hometown decision for the Boks. Yet another RAW to the men in green....

And Horne not being carded for what many players have been red carded for in the past? That also part of the RAW?

 Was that the tackle on Serfontein? If it was then that was a definite yellow as well. Again Owens stuffed up; sounds like he knew he'd erred in the Hougaard incident and was evening things up.

I will post that sound bite as soon as I can get it uploaded to sound cloud. He definitely did not say that he would have carded Hougaard, had the try not been sored and neither did he say that he did not card him because the try was scored.

Once again, there is no law defining the instances where a player has to be carded.

The role of the TMO, at this stage does not allow for him to review any of the decisions made by a referee, let alone change any of his decisions.

It is no wonder there are so many BS arguments. A lot of arguments would come to nothing if we knew the laws.

 LOL i don't how he decided not to card him because a try had been scored. 
What is the reasoning?
Had a look and Liam Williams wasn't carded for the shoulder charge to the head of Hendricks in the dying moments of the Boks vs Wales game earlier this year either. Boks were awarded a penalty try though.
So why did Owens says he'd have carded him had a try not been scored? Since in the Wales game a try was not scored, then a penalty try was awarded and no card was given? Both hits were illegal, dangerous and worthy of a yellow. The only difference being that one culminated in a pe nalty try.
I really don't understand. 
Surely it's not that difficult to apply laws evenly. And if it is not possible to do so with the current laws then they should be amended so as to make it possible. I firmly believe that saying "It's how it's always been done" is simply not an excuse to keep doing it that way. Else, where would progress come from? 

 Ceradyne let it go.

Nigel Owne to Hougard,"The tackle was high. I am not gonna yellow card you but the try was scored"

Confirmed by Bob "...because if he (Ashley Cooper) hadn't (scored that try), he would have yellow carded him"

Heard loud and clear by ALL of us.

  no change of subject please and trying to find fault elsewhere (unless your name is Beanhead) - Hougard was caught with his hand in the cookie jar

 This is my first time that I uploaded something to Soundcloud, so let's hope that this has worked:

https://soundcloud.com/mrtzgr/hougaards-tackle-1

Something like a high tackle is always going to be subjective. When do you card it and when do you not? I maintain my stance that no card should be given to a player for a first high tackle, unless there is clear malicious intent. If he does it again, fine, card him.

The only way you will get perfect consistency is to card every illegal tackle, which will probably end up being a mess.

"I'm not going to card you but the try was scored. (Be) very careful please". That's what I hear.

 You are right Pakie.

Nigel Owne to Hougard,"The tackle was high. I am not gonna yellow card you but the try was scored"

What a dilemma - in conclusion if the try hadn't been scored, Hougard would have been yellow carded and a penalty try under the posts would have been awarded