MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 20:40#1
I said the Matfield penalty wasn't justified when no one else made a peep. The anti Matfield brigade was so delighted they could pin something on the great lock....they went bananas. Raving Sapp even said it lost the game, despite the fact that a penalty was kicked minutes later and we had 12 minutes to win the game. Now Simon, consistently one of the smartest writers out there, opines it was unfair.
In fact examples of the same "offence" were disregarded in the ABs game. And I saw many examples in the Bargie game....no penalty, no TMO intervention. This was Ayoub trying to stamp his name on proceedings for an "offence" that looked nothing like the one leading to the AB penalty. Here's Simon:
"The TMO should only alert the referee to clear and obvious acts of foul playBoth TMOs for the World Cup semi-finals made controversial calls that may have influenced the outcome. In the second half of Saturday's match, Australian George Ayoub alerted referee Jérôme Garcès to a 'neck roll' by Victor Matfield that resulted in a kickable Springbok penalty being reversed. And in the first half of Sunday's match, New Zealander Ben Skeen alerted Wayne Barnes to a 'dangerous' tackle by Tomás Lavanini on Israel Folau. After initially saying that he was inclined to give the Pumas lock ‘the benefit of the doubt’, the referee changed his mind after watching the slow-motion replays and agreed with the TMO that no arms had been used in the tackle. Lavanini was yellow-carded and the Wallabies scored their third try while he was off. Lavanini did, however, use his right arm when attempting to tackle Folau around the legs, so at the most, it should have just been a penalty. Barnes should have stuck with his initial impression of the incident instead of allowing himself to be influenced by the TMO and slow-motion replays, which made the tackle look a lot worse than it actually was. And as for Ayoub, well, he can't seem to get through a game without inserting himself into it. The decision to penalise Matfield was harsh and it cost the Boks three points in a game they would lose by two."
JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
26 Oct 2015, 20:58#2
It was the correct call, Matfield had him by the neck. The TMO is supposed to draw foul play to the attention of the ref, he did that & the ref made his call based on the evidence.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
26 Oct 2015, 21:01#3
I haven't had a chance to look at the incident again since the live game. Should be interesting to do so. Nothing new from Ayoub though - who can forget how he harassed Owens into another look into the JP tackle against Scotland despite Owens repeatedly telling him he was happy with it.
AJArthur John
Pro1,748 posts
AJArthur JohnPro1,748 posts
26 Oct 2015, 21:09#4
JW you are correct about the TMO alerting the ref to illegal or dangerous play.
If you check the replay if u have it recorded, it is obvious to all except Mozzie and Simple Borchardt that it was a high tackle.
Now lets not waste time on excusing old Greybeard for his screw ups.
He should not even have been at the WC as a player he should have been in the stands as a spectator.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 21:16#5
It wasn't a tackle at all Fartur...it was a clean out. You are obviously looking at the wrong incident. One has to love these Bok fans that are so happy to "get" Matfield, they never give a moment to consider whether it was a reasonable call.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 21:21#6
Mozart obviously forget about two instructions given before the tournament where the TC monitor is not the only person dealing with illegal and dangerous play - there is another committee watching the games as well monitoring the situation as well. They are in contact with the TV monitors as well - so they could also - with their caries channels available could have advised the TV monitor to inform the ref of what happened and have a further look at the incident involving Matfield. .
Mozart is obviously grabbing at straws to save face for his hero Matfield - but what is clear is that Matfield has made a ghastly mistake in that case and probably was a major reason for what followed. He can argue until he is blue in the face - the penalty was reversed and only Matfield was responsible for that.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 21:30#7
One example...go to minute 17.08 you will see the AB number 3 take Pollard around the neck at the clean out and continue to try and control him via a neck grip....far, far more egregious than Matfield....no Aboob.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 21:41#8
Minute 25.16 McCaw rips Allende off the ball with what is almost certainly a neck grip, aided by Conrad Smith who has entered the ruck from completely the wrong side.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 21:56#9
Minute 38.05 Pollard takes Carter out completely by the neck and twists him round....no Aboob....no turn around of the Keino penalty ....despite the TMO review that send s Keino to the bin.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 22:33#10
It was no review that send Kaino to the bin - that decision was taken by the referee. Mozart - plain and simple - two wrongs do not make a right. Matfield was incredibly stupid after a penalty was already indicated and did something that damage the team performance. End of story.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 22:37#11
Mozart
You can quote minutes till you are blue in the face - I will never be interested to watch that abortion dished up as a game of rugby again. Anybody watching that game again must be a masochist.
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
26 Oct 2015, 23:11#12
Mozm trying to polish a turd.....again?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 00:24#13
Minute 47.03 Franks takes Louw by the neck
Minute 50 Bismarck has Savea round the neck.
Minute 50.28 Burger taken round the neck by Carter....leads in part to the lost ball and a try
Minute 61.42 Fauimina has Jannie by the neck.
Minute 61.59 Keino wraps his arm around Louw's neck.
Minute 62.44 the Matfield incident. Matfield brings his torso down on top of the fetcher's back and gets his arms through the gap into the upper chest region and lifts....not by the neck....there is no way you have any leverage on the neck at that angle. It was milk toast....not nearly as clear as other incidents which were ignored.
Minute 71.14 Vermeulen does exactly the same thing as Matfield...no call.
Minute 74.38 Nyakani stops Savea by the neck.
Minute 79.57 Whitelock briefly has Bok with the same grip.
27 Oct 2015, 00:27#14
The penalty was fair ,same as the one handed to to the ABS .You guys spend too much time poring over minutiae with remote in hand finger hovering over the pause button instead of just enjoying whats on show .
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 00:30#15
There were many instances where players had others gripped by the neck in and around the rucks and mauls. In the case of the Matfield incidident he was trying to lift the player by the torso. From that vertical angle if it was the neck the ABs head would have been pushed back....it wasn't. Ther might have been momentary contact with the neck....hard to tell. But none of this was targeted at the neck or at all dangerous. It was milk toast compared to Pollard's twist on Carter at minute 38 or the AB number 3's neck twist at minute 17.
My initial impression was it was a BS call....and Borchardt has it right it was very harsh.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Oct 2015, 01:25#16
Mozart
You cannot deny that a pebalty was reversed caused by Matfield - tht iu inb the history books. You cannot deny that Matfield was involved.
All these dramatic stories are meaningless - what happened did happen and the result was a disaster for the Springboks. All this is what Draad called "polishing of the turd".
Your determined effort to try and exonerate Matfield is useless and a waste of time. Matfield was wrong - whether you like it or not, It would not have happened if De Jager was not subbed a minute earlier and disaster brought onto the field of play.
I warned before that Matfield should not have been anywhere near the squad for the day and my warning was fully justified. What happened is in the history books and all your prima donna musings will not correct the situation. Accept it - Matfield was a disaster for the Springbok team on a regular basis since 2014 as was proved again on Saturday.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 01:34#17
They are not dramatic stories. They are simple statements of fact....there were many instances around the rucks and mauls where the neck was involved. The fact that Aboob pulled this TMO reversal for one of the less clear cases speaks of an agenda.
I don't care what you think Pervert.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Oct 2015, 01:40#18
You do not care about reality - and that is factual. You do not accept that Matfield was liable for anything - everybody else is wrong - you are correct. What a farce.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 02:17#19
On the contrary, I hold him responsible for missing the lineout. I think the penalty was a nonsense and the turnover at the end was going to happen given we were penned down deep in our22.
CLClaydog
Club Pro691 posts
27 Oct 2015, 02:44#20
I have to admit to thinking that the penalty against Matfield was harsh and after the replay thinking it was not as severe as the one given against the ABs. I understand they are trying to take neck grabbing out of the game but there would be few rucks that would not result in that penalty if looked at. I imagine it was only looked at because the TMO was checking the original penalty given then picked up the neck grabs and reversed the penalty. There were plenty of neck holds in other rucks not picked up.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Oct 2015, 03:04#21
Polishing of the turd in full operation. Whatever was said above is meaningless. Fct is a penalty was reversed because of actions by Matfield. The main problem remains grabbing of a player around the neck after a penalty was indicated represented rank stupidity on the part of Matfield.
This after we were told time and again what a brilliant strategist he is and why because of that he is superior to any other lock in SA. Farcical it is irrespective how much the turd is polished.
MOMonsterBok
Club Pro442 posts
MOMonsterBokClub Pro442 posts
27 Oct 2015, 03:12#22
Claydog,I totally agree, there were a number of plays that contributed to the demise of the Boks. Irrespective of who did what and when doesn't change the fact that The Springbok style of play is a BIG PILE OF
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 03:23#23
I appreciate that measured response Clayhound. I am not for one moment suggesting that the Boks would have won if Matfield wasn't penalized. I am saying he was not unusual in that clean out, and when things are only penalized some of the time, it's harsh on the players.
We now have TMOs trolling through footage to find non obvious examples of foul play....whereas obvious examples are often disregarded.
I'm pretty sure this wasn't what officials had in mind when the TMOs were unleashed on foul play.
BObobbok...
Captain10,129 posts
BObobbok...Captain10,129 posts
27 Oct 2015, 07:50#24
Oumaaik as you well know the arms are aimed at the upper chest area & more often than not, in a blink of an eye, ends up around the neck looking far more culpable with the slow motion replays .
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Oct 2015, 08:32#25
blobbok
That is what happens frequently in normal tackle situations. However, in this case it was cleariong out a player from the ruck where slipping upwards rarely occurred and where the players are targeted while virtually immobile.
Despite all Mozart's efforts to exonerate Matfield - what happened did happen and if Matfield did not do what he tried to do the penalty in favour of SA would have stood. It is unfortunate that most people would remember Matfield not for his heroics when he was in top form, but that incident on Saturday. That is an unfortunate thing with players at the end of their careers - what they foul up is what is remembered - what they did well earlier in their careers is forgotten.
27 Oct 2015, 08:52#27
Mozart, Mozart, Mozart ... take a pill and calm yourself.
We all saw what happened. Your desperate attempt to vindicate the elderly Matfield is laughable.
He transgressed the law and cost the Boks their one lonely opportunity to win the match and that against the run of play.
It's therefore only fair that he be held responsible for the loss.
Yes the team contributed to it as well ... but he and he alone had the penalty reversed through foolish play and that I'm afraid is all she wrote.
In the end it was the most costly error of the several he had made in the short time he was on.
Your support of this elderly chump has come back to bite you. It was always going to happen.
The tired and the old do not belong on a rugby field and that much has been proven time and time again.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Oct 2015, 08:54#28
Lets hope now that meyer will finally let go of the show pony who has cost us so dear over the last decade.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Oct 2015, 10:08#29
Beeno
I do not care about b eing crooked out - I care about the fact that our players - like Matfield did on Saturday and Rossouw did in the quarter-final in 2011 - should not give an opening for such crookery.
What those two players did was at best insane and cost us dearly. What is also insane that those two were highly-experienced players - not the rookies Mozart constantly heap abuse on. If De Jager did what Matfield did there would be all-out attack on him and he would be blamed on the most abusive manner imaginable. Because it happened with Matfield being involved - the whitewashing campaign is in full swing. Draad even went so far as calling it "polishing of the turd" .
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Oct 2015, 11:26#30
If you dont care about being crooked out youare as daft as a hatter.We were crooked out and its on crook in an endless line. Time ou maaaikie to wake up and smell the pong emmanationg from down under!
Now these two crooked sides are contesting th e RWC final. Wonder if Oz will try walking the scrum agaisnt the kiwis who cant scrum in any case!
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Oct 2015, 11:34#31
Why after missing all thoise high shots does ou A YOB suddenly jump into the picture ona very dubious case at best. Beacuse ou maaaikie something had to be done. The wee abs who apparently so wonderful9and the Boks so frot) were about to be booted out the RWC. he had to act.Wake up to the FACT the get the jarpy conspiracy is alive and well as match after match testifies too.You have to be a complete halfwit not tyo see this.
Our style of play has ZERO to edo with our getting a fair deal. A YOB waw merely acting out the script. I can only hope our Craig Joubert has not been conscripted. Oz also should have lost to Scotland but for ref error. Go figure.
Neither they wee abs nor Oz should be in the final. FACT
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Oct 2015, 11:55#33
snapster you halfwit why did A YOB suddenly jump into the picture after ignoring all those other head tackles?? Answer that. The TV commentatorts mentioned this during the game.
You know darn well why he did. The wee bas were gooing to lose. He had to act.
Matfield remains a uselless lock gulity or not. But here it apepars there was more down under conniving to get rid of us.BUT note a mistake by Craig got rid of Sctoalnd and kept Oz in the picture. Oz would have lost that game. LAst RWC Craig handed RWC to wee abs and left france fuming.This world cup he keeps Oz in the game.
So we see that two ref blunders see Oz and Nz get into the final
The competiton has been compromised again. Same culprits also . What is alarming is that one of our refs appears to be involved again.
Given the repeated incidents of bent reffing at tests and super 15 level it is impossible to sweep this under the carpet. The get the japry campaign is alive and well as it was 4 years ago with bryce lawrence and before that. Nothing has changed.Serious question marks hang over Joubert and I just hope he is clean! Its so embarassing to be involved in anyt hing like this!
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Oct 2015, 11:59#36
Lets hear from you snapster!
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Oct 2015, 12:01#37
No I don't care to quote the particular rule......I just know that it is a FACT that you may not make contact with a players neck, its common sense more than anything.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Oct 2015, 12:05#38
The reversal was because of a head hold snapster. Its appears the ref, guided suddenly and strangely by A YOB of OZ, got it wrong. Pure case of get the Jarpy agenda.
It was always going to happen if the wee abs were in danger of loosing.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 12:49#40
It was a rip by another anonymous man in the box.....made at a crucial point in the game....designed to influence events. While I was watching the Bargie game I paid particular attention to the cleanouts.....arms around necks as often as not. And I still don't believe Matfield ever exerted pressure on the AB's neck.....he was shocked by the call, you could see it in his face.
What was really illuminating is there are some on this Board who are more interested in being right about their player calls, than wanting a level playing field for the Boks.
