The truth about the Matfield penalty.... from Simon Borchardt

 Law 10: Foul Play10.4 Dangerous play and misconductA 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 or head is dangerous play.Law Application GuidelinesDangerous tackles (high tackles)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 or head is dangerous play. A stiff-arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.

Thanks JW and please ignore these pathetic little crybabies blubbering about the Springboks not getting a fair deal. They're not representative of true South African rugby supporters.

No dumb Vlag fuck.....I cant be asked because its so bloody obvious......idiot  

JW has posted the relevant law above. Can't believe some of these blowhards who post day in and day out on a rugby message board need someone to show them these law basics.

 Matfield shocked by the call - see it in his face  Mozart?   I saw nothing in his face - other than shame for being stupid.   I like the following:-
"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."  
Now answer me one serious question - if what happened in the case of Matfield happened in the case of De Jager would you try and find an excuse like you did in this case?   The answer is most certainly not - you will condemn De Jager for the next two to three years or longer.
So please - do us all a favour and practice what you preach in all applicable cases.                

 Well then we have 12 recorded instances of being tackled round the neck....two of which were called. Any law that is being invoked 16% of the time is no law at all. This was a political call by a bent TMO. Period.

 Answer my question please and be honest about the answer.  

 Correct JW. That is the relevant law concerning tackling around the opponents neck or head. The one that is missing though, is Dave's mysterious law prohibiting "...you (to) may not make contact with a players neck....".

No I wouldn't try and find an excuse. That's not what I  am trying to do. I'm trying to point out that an incident none of the commentators, or the ref, or the players registered...was raised by the TMO and used to call a foul when none existed.
If a similar incident occurred to de Jager I would do the same, because my focus is on the Springboks....which is not to say I wouldn't miss a similar thing that happened to our opponents. Not because I want to, but we don' t watch rugby matches as impartial observers.

Glad to see Beeno has matured & now defends Matfield (even if he is wrong).

Mozart
Hope you keep to your response - but I have reason to doubt the same attitude from you iro players you do not like.
     

 Stop yapping Dave, I am no turncoat like you. Perv I would commend Beano's attitude to you. He is no Matfield fan, but can clearly see the bias in this call.

 Saffex
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 14168RE: The truth about the Matfield penalty.... from Simon Borchardt
October 27, 2015, 15:57:03

Moz stop lying.....if Lood had committed the Matfield error, you would have been all over him like a rash.

 

•  0 Likes

Then again, if it was Matfield who missed that tackle on Kaino..............

 Ceradunce
I have previously asked you not to interfere when adults discuss issues by coming up with infantile comments.  Please adhere to that request - since your latest comment was even more stupid than your comments normally are.
   

 FO. 

 Saffex
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 14170RE: The truth about the Matfield penalty.... from Simon Borchardt
October 27, 2015, 17:51:14

I don't even bother with Vlagpiss......he is like a blue arse fly......has nothing to contribute, just tries to butt in all the time......a [removed]ing nuisance with no substance.

He probably thinks Matfields attempted clear-out was both legal and a good bit of work from old Vic 

Not what I have said but unlike you, I do understand what the issue is and I can put it into context. For a so-called legal eagle you are amazingly ignorant and for some reason cannot add up two and two. Quite often seem to get anything but four.

What issue do you understand dimwit?  

 Dave forget about Ceradunce and what he can put into context.  He does not understand even the most basic of rugby issues and then makes an utter fool of himself when he tries to make a coherent comment.  
What he comes up with is about as clueless as they come.   I think the best thing is to ignore his infantile idiocies.      

 Ou Tokkie, If I were you I would just sneak away and disappear. Your problem is that you always, without any exception, break down an entire game into little compartments in an effort to find a crack in the game  of one or more of your pet hates. The moment that you think you have something your p!ssing and moaning starts. In this case the penalty against Matfield.
Your problem is that you do not have the will to put the entire game and all the defining moments into context, purely because it would not suit your agenda. I could go and talk about all the defining moments in the game but I would not want to confuse you and your gabba, ou Dawie, any more. You do not have the ability to assess an entire game in any case, hence your monotonous breaking down of the game into little compartments. 
Some of the defining moments/incidences in that game were:

1. Lood's missed tackle on Kaino - 7 points gone.
   
2. Pollard's missed tackles. You like to p!ss about Morne Steyn's missed tackles in this, that and the other game. Pollard missed five in this case. That is 25% of the total  number of missed tackles.
   
3. Bryan Habana's yellow. 
   

None of the above had any bearing on the game. I was Matfield's penalty that cost us the game.
Unbelievable.

Hey dumbass there is a huge difference between missing a tackle or kick and committing a mindless act that has a penalty reversed when you knew full well the penalty was coming your way.
Does being a thick prick explain your inability to comprehend this very fact...how fucking stupid are you.
Missing tackles, dropping balls or missing kicks that cost you points are excusable as they are part of the game. Being stupid and costing you points and ultimately the semi can never be excused.
You work the difference out you dunce 

Being called Matfield also doesn't help. If your name was something like, say, De Jager or Etzebeth or Vermeulen, and you committed the same indiscretion, you wouldn't be blamed at all.

 Unless you happened to be Moz or Vlagshit or DumbFox

This is getting funnier and funnier. It's obvious this was a marginal call. Sapp asks why an experienced player would clean out when a penalty has been called.  The answer  is obvious Einstein ....because as about our most experienced Bok ever, he thought there was no issue with what he was doing. Nor do I. Nor did the commentators, the linesmen or the ref.
Your support for this TMO rat just to get Matfield  is really so transparent.

Ceradunce
Talking of yourself again - Doffies.   I always said that you cannot form an opinion of one incident or one match.   That I leave to you ad his idiot sidekick,   Tendencies comes to the fore though a series or more.
Matfield had been a flop throughout the past year and I can quote many examples.  There were a series of deficiencies that in turn showed up his weaknesses  Yopu lot were too dim to even look out for it properly and even when warned stuck wit him through thick and thin.  The moonlighting in the backline and consequential substantial number of weak tackles was in evidence.   Lack on contribution to Tight 5 performance was always in evidence.   Losing balls on own throw or fumbling of line-outs became obvious in a number of tests,   Inability to carry balls in traffic was clear as daylight.   Poor support in scrumming as well.
The man is physically deficient,  I clearly warned last week that f he plays we are going to lose the semi because of Matfield and we did.  Showed all the deficiencies evident from the above, so be sure he is happy in Northampton - we do not want him anywjere in SA,  He is a bad flop at present  

Weak tackles....did you watch the game again. I did. Lomp was knocked back regularly....on the run and in the tackle. Matfield was strong in his tackles, and the only player who put SBW down first time, no problem. You are simply lying again Tok  

No Moz it's just the laws of the game....you are not allowed to make contact with a players neck....nothing marginal about that. ...so this fool with all his experience decided to take it upon himself to jeopardise that advantage with an unnecessary clean out....wow....and you support this old man and blame the TMO....classic stuff.
Why not just admit useless Matfield fucked up and put paid to the crap that experience counts in knock out games.
Vic lost us the semi 

As Robert Browning said " a lion may die of an ass' kick". NZ has a huge advantage over us in fan intelligence. The collective impact of stupid fans, stupid commentators and stupid journalists in South Africa is a big negative for Bok rugby. Heed this warning Sapp.

 I can imagine this MB if it was Matfield who attempted such a p!sspoor tackle on Kaino.

Ceradunce
Missed tackles are atrocious and not acceptable - but that remark about missed tackles as quoted hereunder is just pure BS:-
"Pollard's missed tackles. You like to p!ss about Morne Steyn's missed tackles in this, that and the other game. Pollard missed five in this case. That is 25% of the total  number of missed tackles."
So lets compare the reason why I wrote about Morne's missed tackles.  In his last starting test in Perth Morne missed 7 tackles out of 15 attempted tackles - that is a missed tackle ratio of 46,3%.   In the case of Pollard on Saturday Pollard missed 5 out of 16 attempts - for a missed tackle ratio of  31,25%.  Sure - both were unacceptable - but to even compare the two players in that case is absolute BS.  Morne is and always was a worse defender than Pollard could ever be.  
Incidentally in both the Perth test and the test on Saturday Habana got yellow-carded.  Granted the Perth test yellow card was an abortion and not really on - but why should a player with his massive experience get yellow-carded?   His yellow on Saturday was fully justified.  However, Mozart will get you for this one - he got a smack in the face in this case ads h always prats about experience - which always counts and in Habana's case his advocacy of experienced players got dented omnce again.           

 Mozart
I was talking about all the games Matfield played in over the last 16 months - not only the test on Saturday.   But you like to refer always to one incident in a single game and use that as a defining incident.  
There was no way that over a period of 14 months the tackle quality of Matfield could even be remotely compared with that of De Jager.  In the present tournament De Jager has the highest tackle count of any forward in the tournament - he made 74 tackles and missed 3 attempts for a missed tackle ratio of 3,9% - that is missed out comprehensively in any discussion of De Jager.  He is blamed for 1 missed tackle in the series.  
Then to compare the quality of De Jager's tackles with the tackles Matfield made is just another piece of BS.  De Jager routinely tackles players back and is often putting opposing players on the back foot - Matfoield's tackles are always poor quality with players going forward  in tackles.   So Matfield made a tackle on SBW when the latter was tractoring - huge achievement, but what was the quality of the tackle like?  SBW still went forward in the tackle.


         

Look clueless did you watch Lomp trying make that tackle on Keino, a slow fellow exposed in space. Matfield is an athlete ...watch how he gathers in SBW. Superb. It reminds one of his WC saving tackle on Tait. Lomp can do the process tackles around the mauls. Victor is like a fourth loosie out there , an athlete not just a big lump of lard. 

 It does not help to raise anything about the bloody useless Matfield - he is a superb athlete who buggers up more than anything ever imaginable.  SBW was in your terminology tractoring when Matfield tackled him.  Supreme athlete is a joke.  Sure Matfoe;d is supreme athlete =- a fourth loosie - a moonlighter in the backline - everything bar the lock he is supposed to be.  
I said he is a handicap and despite the process tackle on SBW he fouled up so badly in the rest of the game - he was the actual handicap that cost us the loss on Saturday.
         

Lood-footed de Jager should've been horizontal, a Brian Lima styled missile driving Kaino across the chalk instead of that woeful attempt up high . Here's hoping Matfield gets some gametime on Friday .

 
Desperate Mozart grasping at straws ... as he usually does these days to vindicate the old and the tired.

Beeno doing a 180 on Matfield merely to continue his childish attack on the All Blacks.

Poor losers ... the both of them.

 Yes CleanCut, I never thought I would see the day when Beeno supported Matfield. Some would say he has an "agile mind" others would say he has no mind at all. I of course will not comment

 Its all to clear that this is all part of the get the jarpy conspiracy deisned always to ensure that Oz and Nz are left to fiught for the spoils.I do apoogise to Scotland that our own Craig Joubert looks to be implicated.The facts are simple and there for all to see - neither Oz nor NZ should have made the final. The RWC has been burgalled again.
JW how cam matter (you) intepret mind (Beeno)
Wee cc's ignorant comments can safely be ignored as this complete twit has been calling the Boks goats and supporting the opposition. Will he ever live this disgraceful behaviour down.
Time to walk the plank CC.  

Matfiled is as useless a lock as there ever was one. What is amusing to see is ou maaaikie and snapster trying to pretend matfiled was once a good lock. This is because they were so badly conned by matfiled. Poor snapster though victor was a115 kg lock. Bwahahahahhahahaha. However it is very obvious that matfiled's style of play has always been to be a backline wannabee. He has always shirked his tight five work and he has always had a serious lack of grunt - it is doubtful he could hold his own playing in a domestic club game. 
Away with the show pony he has ruined our pack for a decade and its so great to have two superb players like Lood and Eben who already constitute the best locking combo in world rugby.(AND we have oither great lock possibilities in Steph and Willemse etc)Lood amazing pace in getting over to almost catch cained ou was tremendous. Cained ou RWC came close to ending right there. 
So enough of thsi nonses the documeneted get the Japrpy campaign script was adherred too. If matfield hade not have been pinged the wee abs would have got a penalty for something and  win handed to them per usual. Its so consistent you can set you watch by it.

 I'll be happy to continue with Bruno & Leadbelly next year, although both of em were a disappointment in the semi . A reminder perhaps why Heineken kept Matfield in the mix ?