The Sharks' 3-try defensive booboos

01:39 Vermeulen shifts too wide and Hegarty simply slips into that gap as Coenie isn't quick enough to cover it from the inside. Probably Vermeulen's fault as the ball carrier was attacking the space he was supposed to be covering.

18:50 Kerevi gets a simple pass from the scrumhalf from the ruck. Robert for all money has him covered but Kerevi simply breaks his tackle, offloads to Feauai-Sautia and it's a try.

58:54 Kerevi breaks Fassi's tackle. He now runs into Van Wyk and takes him for a 5m jog. Louw has to assist Van Wyk in dragging Kerevi down, but he still gets the offload away out of the double tackle to Feauai-Sautia. Now Feauai-Sautia hands off Schreuder when a proper tackle there could have stopped the Reds' momentum. Feauai-Sautia is now away for the try but for Esterhuizen bringing him down. Feauai-Sautia may actually have played the ball on the ground here as he releases it and then plays it again without ever getting to his feet. Those with better technical understanding of the rules can chime in please. Fassi, Van Wyk and Schreuder's comedic tackling attempts made the try possible.

Dimness

What the hell has Du Toit got to do with your comments,   I much rather have a player who makes 24 tackles in a game missing 3 than having a player making 7 tackles missing none.    Comprehende???????????    

What the hell is a process tackle?  You have referred to that idiocy before and has yet got to get out of the simple question - what is the difference between a  normal tackle and a "process tackle."?

The only discernable difference is - the players you don't like make process tackles and those you like make normal tackles.   That is done to hide the low tackle count of your favourites and is consequently fraudulent,  

Balls galore - you use low tackle counts as "tackles that count"  - count for what?   I want to say that you are talking tripe.    Every tackle in reality "counts".    What a farce!!!!!!!!!!!        

They were on route to winning the SR title with their brilliant coach ... and having super stars like Am and Bosch was key. Legends in the making.

Then the wheels fell off.

I no longer see posts haling these boys as potential greats. Apart from a few excuses, it's gone all quiet. LMAO!!

Thrashed twice at home ...  a question one has to ask ... do they belong in the competition?

What an embarrassment to SA rugby.

Back to the incident around 59:02.

Frame 1, Esterhuizen brings down Feauai-Sautia.

Frame 2, Feauai-Sautia releases the ball briefly.

Frame 3, Feauai-Sautia plays the ball again to feed R9, never regaining his feet after the tackle.

Found this on a referees forum about playing the ball on the ground:

Was there a tackle?

If so, clearly the player must release and cannot play the ball until he has regained his feet.

If not, the player must immediately get up with, or pass, or release, the ball.

There was a tackle. Player released, then played the ball without regaining his feet. If I understand the law correctly, the final Reds try should not have been allowed and it should have been a Sharks penalty instead.

Pake

Any tackled player -  even if lying on the ground  - can pass a ball without getting up at all.   Alternative if there is no maul yet he can roll the ball out to the supporting players on his side.   There is no problem with that tackle,  

The problem was earlier when a Red player just had Esterhuizen standing without a tackle attempt and then passed the ball to Feauai- Sautia,   The latter was going forward when Esterhuiszen made a poor tackle - not pinning down his arms and he was able to react as he did.   

100% legal try I am afraid.   No excuse - but Esterhuizen had a bi negative impact when it comes to the scoring of the try.       

CC

You identified excuses by Mozart and Pakie,   Now suddenly the excuse about that Reds third try - reality Esterhuizen buggered up and now an excuse must be found for the try being questionable. 

Although Am did not play - they carry on regardless about the Esterhuizen story,   He did not dtop a ball when the Sharks was on attack and he did not hang on to a ball in breakwown situation when the Sharks were in the Reds 22.

So let me summarize the reasons for the Sharks loss is as follows:-

*    Poor captaincy - no leadership and encouraging of players - no real strategy 

*    Prop weaknesses - maybe Beast is OK, but the rest substandard

*    Poor lock combination

*    Poor backline play - mostly unimaginative and ineffective -  poor ball skills by both the flyhalf and the centers,*

*    Poor defense - especially in the backline - coupled to poor discipline.

*    In general - there is no real team play and players are not supporting each other and play as individuals.  

Pakie

Your photos seem to be misleading.   Photo I showed him being tackled - phto 2 showed the ball not touching the ground and it may be on its way to the recipient,   Fact is there is no photo showing he put down the ball,  picked it up  and then passed it.    . 

So watch the video. The highlights reel is on Youtube and I have provided a precise time stamp. You can clearly spot it's a deliberate release by the way he clears his arms to the side away from the ball before playing it again. Commentator on the replay also clearly says "releases, gets the pass out". Why do you always insist on being spoon fed?

And this from the rule book applies:

14.1
(a)
A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things: Get up with the ball, Pass the ball or Release the ball.
(b)
A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once.

In this case, the player released the ball. That was his first action. He now needs to either get up before he can play it again, or move away from the ball. He cannot play it again while still on the ground.

Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting point of law discussion, especially given that it allowed a try that decided the match.