Pakie perhaps you could clear this up for Mike and Dave

I have posted that Etzebeth out jumped Loop twice just before the half...and that Lomp in turn twice took the ball off du Toit. Denied by Mike and Dave. The defence was that Lood never jumped against Etzebeth....not true because Lood and the Cheeters 4changed positions for some lineouts.
Just before the half at about minute 39 several of these lineouts were shown. Could you as a frequent Board truth sayer take a look and examine the facts as I have described them.  Or better yet give us one of those freeze frame shots of the action....with Lood and Etzebeth competing.
Sorry to be a bother, but I think there was actually a lot of information in this clash, which goes a long way towards explaining our poor lineout in the WCQF.

 Mozart
Please go back to the article on the issue posted under your original post and see what Etzebeth says on the issue.   See also the article on News 24 and the photo,  Etzebeth says the reason why the run-outs run so well is due to Du Toit running the line-outs - but you will never admits it.  
You talk about poor line-outs - but the poorest line-outs in the WC was by Matfield - not De Jager.     

I don't have to Tokkie....minute 39 of the game tells it all.  

 S o you do not want to see the truth?

Well sure. It's been a while since I've had the pleasure of Dave rejecting my opinions and telling me how little I know about rugby and I happen to be suffering a bout of nostalgia. I'll have a look later tonight (possibly) and provide what I can and then you guys can continue the punch-up.

 Thanks Pakie, very kind.

 Watched the TMO program where the issue of the line outs was dealt with and they never came up with what Mozart came up with.   They mention that the battle was between De Jager and Du Toit - not a word about the issue of Etzebeth ag ainst De Jager. 
And then Mozart did not want to read the comments of Etzebeth himself because it punched holes in his story.  Very funny indeed.    

L ink to the game please? I can't find the channel with the full games on Youtube.

Its simple Lood was the forward who operated at 4 in the line-outs for the Cheetahs, the guy with 5 on his back......his opponent was PSDT who also had 5 on his back.
Etzebeth with 4 on his back operated at 2 in the line-outs, his opponent was Carl Wegner.
Yes there was some movement in the line-outs but predominantly it was as all line-outs are, with the locks operating in their standard positions.
There was nothing in it......Etzebeth and PSDT stole 3 each, Lood stole 2.
Most of the steals were slap downs, which can be attributed to poor throws by the hookers.
But line-outs aside, the real point of the whole saga is how good the 3 locks were. We all agreed that Etzebeth was the best of the 3, but that was very marginal......all 3 had good games as they did the week before.....all 3 making the TOW with Lood bubbling under behind PSDT at 5. 
A pretty good indicator that all 3 had good games, which is exactly what they did do.
What is really sad about all of this is just how desperate Moz is to discredit Lood and PSDT.......the question that needs to be asked, is why on earth is Moz so consumed by prejudice
Why on earth can he not just acknowledge that these guys had good games. Hell PSDT had a fantastic debut for the Stormers the week before and all we had was Moz's predictable garbage about how average he was.
Its sooooooooooo fucking boring

Sorry Pakie, I watch these matches on ESPN, which you probably  won't get in RSA. Perhaps somebody else has a link.

Dave
Mozart's whole issue with Du Toit and De Jager all stemmed from the competition these two players posed to Matfield.  Mozart's story about the failure of Du Toit in the WC stemmed from one match he played in - namely the game against Japan - where Du Toit was played out of position at 7 and had to fulfill the role of both lock and blindsider -since Matfield never was seen in the Tight 5 - he was standing around in the backline most of the time.
Incidentally there was as CC claimed a nasty breakdown in coherence in that test - for which Matfield in fact was responsible.  Bismarck was kept out of selection for the succeeding test because of that breakdown - a fact widely reported in the SA media. 
The problem is that Mozart consistently makes claims about Du Toit and De Jager, which at best are the result of his prejudice against the two players.  Most other people make objective assessments of the performance abilities of the two players - Mozart never does.    

As long as that prejudice against those two players persists - Mozarrt will never assess objectively their performances and come up with what basically can at best be regarded as fairy tales to justify his standpoint.   

 Yes I know....Eben never ripped the ball off Lomp three times and Lomp never ripped the ball off Stephanie twice. What I see on my screen is static, but of course there is the inconvenient fact that the cheaters lost 7 lineouts....which of course included the three where Eben bested Lomp.

Lets just wait for Pakie's verdict shall we.

Paskie's verdict counts - everybody else's verdict counts for nothing.  The picture in the newspaper counts for nothing - neither does Etzebeth's own remarks on the issue.   Funny stuff - this one.    

 Maaik, the truth is somewhere in betwixt all this posts. The Stormers took the Cheetahs to the cleaners in the lineout. Lood was very frustrated and could do absolutely nothing. Eben played a huge role. That does not mean Lood is suddenly bad and out of Bok contention. ..it means he had one bad match and was bested by real good opposition. It happens. He'll be back. Except it and move on.

 So you saw the three lineouts Etzebeth took from Lomp. Did you see the 2 lineouts Lomp took from Stephanie?

Draad
The real situation is that Etzebeth was superb in the line-outs - but also that in the main Du Toit was jumping against De Jager and that Etzebeth was the front jumper in line-outs against Wegner - not against De Jager.  He at times did take balls seemingly aimed at De Jager - but the balls never reached  De Jager due to questionable throw-ins, so to claim that De Jager was contesting jumping against Etzebeth is a joke.
That is the main issue here.   All the panel members I listened to stated that Du Toit - who was running the line-outs was slightly better than De Jager - and that is also acceptable.  
What is evident is that the combination of Etzebeth and Du Toit is a massive factor in line-outs and already feared by opposition teams.   However - I still rate De Jager as a test material level player and I think you agree with me there.   
      

 I agree that Lood is very much in the running for Bok honours. ..as does Moz...he even punted Lood as a possible Bok skipper. That does not mean we can't criticise Lood. The first step in fixing problems is acknowledging them. Eben read Loods LO calls and put pressure on him from the front of the LO. I don't see many other locks disrupting opposition lineouts like that, especially not Loods lineouts.

As I see it Etzebeth and Lomp are the likely lock partnership. But if Lomp is going to call the lineouts, he needs to stop calling himself as much. It was frankly embarrassing when he switched with the Cheetahs 4 lock, called the ball on himself...and got plucked.
Eben was clearly motivated, in part I believe because he wasn't used fully in the WC when Lomp made  the calls. That's also why he made a big deal of how well Stephanie ran the lineouts on Saturday is my guess.
So Lomp needs to learn a bit of subtlety. 

The third lock is less clear. Much has been made of Stephanie's play so far....but in truth it hasn't been that convincing. To me he doesn't look super strong like the other two or a chap like Willemse. And for all the talk about mobility he isn't much of a factor in open field defence, the way Victor was at his best.
So thanks Draad. We do need to get past blind loyalty to these players and see their pluses and minuses. Victor was a spectacular lock, but balanced by a guy like Alberts. Nobody is perfect.

 Since 2011 Victor never was at best as a lock - he was a serious flop because he was physically to weak as a lock and he was turning the Springbok Tight 5 to a Tight 4.  He may have been at one stage - but in 2014 and 2015 his ball carries and speed was equivalent to zero.
Best advice = forget about the flop Matfield was in 2014 and 2015 and start thinking of the future.  Your constant reference t o Matfield is in fact embarrassing yourself.          

 Now if only that gym session you are going to could exercise your brain Tokkie you would see the value of a superb athlete like Victor.

 Mozart is as fit as is to be expected from a 45 year old - but at his ag e he is NOT a superb athlete

 Yes indeed Mike I'm fit as a 45 year old and my swing speed puts many to shame. Very kind of you to say so.

 Mozart
Happy to hear that about you.  Now back to Matfield - as a rugby player he also is as fit as to be expected from a 45 year old - Not a superb athlete at all anymore.  

All the lineouts from the Stormers/Cheetahs game here 

 So at minute 16 Lomp's throw is almost taken by Stephanie
At minute 23 Lomp beats Carr for Carr's ball
At minute 25 Stephanie is stripped of his ball at the back
At minute 29...the Cheeters 4 steps out and Etzebeth out times Lomp to take Lomp's ball
At minute 37 Lomp is positioned inside the Cheaters 4...and Etzebeth dispossessed him off Lomp's ball and is pushed into touch
At minute 37 in the follow up lineout Lomp is beaten cleanly by Etzebeth for great Stormers ball
The reprise before half time shows a non time stamped lineout where Lomp strips Stephanie on Stephanie's ball.
At minute 59 the Cheeters overthrow Lomp and Stephanie steals
At minute 72 Stephanie strips a Cheeters loosie
At minute 77 Etzebeth soars up to take Lomp's ball yet again
At minute 78 Schickerling takes Lomp's ball effortlessly.
So let's summarize. Etzebeth took Lomp's ball 4 times. All clear cases of Etzebeth reading the Lomp jump. Etzebeth was lined up on Lomp because the Cheeters 4 lock rotated back or out, just as I reported before.
Schickerling took Lomp's ball once.
Stephanie took Lomp's ball once....Lomp took Stephanie's ball once.
Stephanie took one ball against a loosie and lost one against a loosie

So Etzebeth was 4 lineouts positive. Schickerling 1 positive. Stephanie even and Lomp down by 4. He lost 6 of his line out balls and picked up 2. Exactly as described earlier by yours truly. 
Thanks for that data Matey, Lomp had a disastrous day in the lineouts. I can't frankly remember a worse humiliation for a Bok lock.

 Mozart
What is clear is that unlike you mentioned De Jager did not take up the line-out position opposite Etzebeth and in some cases of the Etzebeth steals the ball could have been thrown in aimed at De Jager, the ball never reached him and was taken by Etzebeth before it reached De Jager - that means that the throw-in was rather inaccurate and Wegner - who jumped opposite Etzebeth was not competing.  .
Your whole description remains utter BS.  Nobody disputes the fact that Etzebeth was super in the line-outs - but that is where it ends.   He did not compete with De Jager as stated by you - so the story you try to describe is totally inaccurate .   

It never reached de Jager because Etzebeth got up before him..not because the throw was short. Wegner moved to the 5 lock position so that Lomp could jump at 4....it's clear as crystal in the tape...once he stood outside the lineout....both cases leading to direct Etzebeth/Lomp competition
You don't have a leg to stand on, it's all there for anybody to see. Just apologize for accusing me of lying and we'll move on.

 ozar5t
Not  once in that line-outs showed by oimatey did what you said actually happened.  What you are saying is absolute tripe and you should be honest enough to admit it.