Lineouts: RSA vs ARG (Game 1)

02:11 – Lineout 01: S02: ML: (1.4.6.3.5.8.7) 

03:46 – Lineout 02: S02: OT: (1.4.5.6.5.8.3)

04:36 – Lineout 03: S02: BB: (7.1.5.8)

06:56 – Lineout 04: S02: ML: (1.4.5.8)

18:08 – Lineout 05: S02: PB: (7.4.5.8)

19:49 – Lineout 06: S02: ML: (1.4.6.3.5.8)

23:09 – Lineout 07: S02: OT: (1.4.5.3.6.7.3)

24.05 – Lineout 08: S02: LB: (1.4.5.8.7.3)  *S6 Outside S5

34:37 – Lineout 10: S02: LB: (1.4.6.5.8.7.3)

35:15 – Lineout 11: S02: BB: (7.4.5.8)

48:00 – Lineout 12: S02: ML: (1.4.5.8.3)

51:45 – Lineout 13: S02: RT: (17.4.5.8.3) *S6 Outside S5

52:04 – Lineout 14: S02: ML: (17.4.5.8.3) *S6 Outside S5

59:55 – Lineout 15: S02: BB: (7.4.5.8)

62:24 – Lineout 16: S02: BB: (7.4.5.8)

68:00 – Lineout 17: S02: ML: (17.4.5.20.8.17)

69:06 – Lineout 18: S16: BB: (17.4.5.20.8.17)

73:40 – Lineout 19: S16: ML: (17.4.5.18)

1. BB - Bird Ball (Off Top) 
2. PB - Pop Ball 
3. ML - Maul
4. OT - Overthrow 
5. LB - Lost Ball
6. TO - Turnover 
7. PN - Penalty
8. RT - Retake
9. RN - Run

Why only a 83% success rate when the Line-outs were as good as the results by you indicated?    There was only 15 line outs won by the Springboks on own  throw on Saturday - where did the other four came from?   

And Louw's contribution was zero -neither in jumping or providing support  He happened to receive the ball and pass it.  You indicated that Du Toit wo only three line outs  against Whiteley's 5.   You must e kidding!!!!!!!!!     

These were all the Bok lineouts. Everything as it happened. 

So, the preferred setup was a 4 man lineout. They threw to 4 different targets. 

You indicated that Du Toit wo only three line outs  against Whiteley's 5.

I believe he is simply indicating who the ball was thrown to, not whether the lineout was won or lost.

Then he needs o be clear on what happened and who made the throw-ins and whathappened wth the line outs.

Further Mozart is talking his normal BS again as to the wonderful Mr Louw.  Te ball was not fumbled by Du Toit.  It came from under his arm to the back and Louw was the recipient.   Nothing special in that.  

So, you wanted to know more. You should have just asked. I'll update with more details as time allows. 

Updated. 

Mozart

Stop being making unsubstantial statements and you have no indication that the ball was lost or to be lost.  For once in your life you have seen in practice how balls are moved back in forming of mauls and now suddenly you go ballistic making a BS statement.   You really must see a shrink since there ar e signs of dementia in your case.   

No it wasn't passed back, Steph lost control of the ball. Had Louw not grabbed the ball it would have bobbled long the ground and been gathered by a Puma. Louw grabbed it, passed to Faf and the Boks were able to continue play quickly. Why is this even a debate?