TnT- Springbok Technical Errors against the All Blacks

The guy doing the analysis seems to have a good idea of rugby. 
Some interesting points he raises.
1. If it is uncontested scrums- why bring on a prop? A props main value is in the scrum, so if they cant scrum surely anyone else in the team is better than a prop. They had Adrian Strauss on the bench at the time. 
2. He reads the laws- and it clearly states it is the captains responsibility to decide who is fit to play at prop and who is not fit to play at Prop.

Well they did wake up to bringing Strauss on as a prop eventually  

SB
This a nalysis is spot on and the issue is dealt with comprehensively. 
It is obvious the Nyakane issue was a balls-up and that is a fact.  Meyer made a contrary point in the press interview to what this guy said and I think the Springbok management and the captain jointly made a mess of it. 
Burger's decision to scrum at 8 when Whiteley came on was a real balls-up for which only he should take responsibility.   As Kaplan said he is a nice guy - but is he really a person with captain capacity?

 Well, well, well, were do we begin to address all the misconceptions on this thread? Firstly, I have not watched the video. Will do so later.
"1. If it is uncontested scrums- why bring on a prop? A props main value is in the scrum, so if they cant scrum surely anyone else in the team is better than a prop. They had Adrian Strauss on the bench at the time."
The prop, Nyakane, was already on the field as replacement when the call about the uncontested scrums was made. One other issue that everybody seems to ignore is that the decision was already made by the ref, and could not be reversed. Strauss was brought on in place of the other prop, Mtawarira, eight minutes later.
"2. He reads the laws- and it clearly states it is the captains responsibility to decide who is fit to play at prop and who is not fit to play at Prop."

I had a quick look at Law 3.5 and could not find any mention of the captain deciding who is fit to play. I will have a closer  look again, later.
"Meyer made a contrary point in the press interview to what this guy said and I think the Springbok management and the captain jointly made a mess of it." 

A lot of mention was made about the Bok management/Meyer who should have had a message sent through that Nyakane could play on both sides. Fact is that there is not supposed to be any communication between the ref and the coach/management. Remember the shit Peyper had over this recently? Apart from that, at that stage the ref had made the decision and there was nothing to be done. It is like a try that has been awarded. As for the captain having made a mistake.....? We are not too sure because there is no clarity of the chain of events. Did the ref say that he was considering uncontested scrums? If so, then yes, Schalk should have informed him. Did Schalk tell him that Nyakane can scrum at both sides before he made the final decision? If so, then the ball is back in the ref's court. My issue is that, from what I have seen, the law does not give any clear guidelines as to who decides that a player is suitable to play at loosehead and/or tighthead. I will have a close look at law 3 again. 

Whatever happened, that moment when the scrums went uncontested with the Boks a man up and on the AB tryline was undoubtedly the turning point in the game.

 Ceradunce
You are so stupid that it is hardly believable.  The issue here was a discussion during half time involving the captain of the team and the referee  - the topic was uncertain.   There is no way that Management could not inform the referee of a situation that arose in this case.  It would merely be to appraise the referee of the true situation pertaining to a player from the bench.
Here we have it again - a Village Idiot who have not watched the video and not reading the rules properly - which he obviously not have understood even if he read them, commenting on an issue.  Remember the story about the test window issue a few years ago.   He read - and he did not understand what he read.   What a bloody idiot.          

@Ceradyne

Ceradyne
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 4552RE: TnT- Springbok Technical Errors against the All Blacks
July 28, 2015, 19:11:49

The prop, Nyakane, was already on the field as replacement when the call about the uncontested scrums was made. 
(If Nyakane was on the field- was he playing scrum half? Koch was the replacement tighhead that was replaced and Beast was still on the field at that time.
So if their was allready 2 props on the field- what was Nyakane doing on the field?)
One other issue that everybody seems to ignore is that the decision was already made by the ref, and could not be reversed. 
(If that was the case, it should have been challenged by the Boks. We could not hear what had been said- but surely it should have been challenged- especially if the referee was wrong). 

(If Nyakane was on the field- was he playing scrum half? Koch was the replacement tighhead that was replaced and Beast was still on the field at that time.
So if their was allready 2 props on the field- what was Nyakane doing on the field?)
Koch came on for Jannie. Correct? Koch then got injured and was replaced by Nyakane. Not so?Beats remained on the field and, like I said, was replaced by Strauss eight minutes after Nyakane replaced Koch. I checked before I posted that. They do not mention that Koch replaced Jannie, but that is a known:
40start of second half
JN du Plessis - sub off
- sub on [The name  is not mentioned but that was Koch]
Pollard - sub on
Lambie - sub off
61Nyakane - sub on
- sub off [Koch again]
69Mtawarira - sub off
Strauss - sub on
The reason why I said that Nyakane was already on the field was this. Koch went off and Nyakane was sent on as replacement. After he already took the field and the immediate next action was the scrum, at which point the ref called for uncontested scrums. 
Or do  you think that the following was the chain of events?:
Koch goes off and the ref gets the message that Nyakane is replacing him, at which point the ref said to Schalk: "Listen, mate, you have to bear in mind that, should you bring Nyakane on, then I will order uncontested scrums". Schalk then says, OK, I know that Trevor can play TH, but it is fine. We will take the uncontested scrums". 
In any case, by the time of Koch's  injury the bench was cleared, bar Lambie, Mapoe, Reinach and Strauss.
And just to counter your sarcasm about Beast playing scrumhalf...........
75Pienaar - sub off
Reinach - sub on


(If that was the case, it should have been challenged by the Boks. We could not hear what had been said- but surely it should have been challenged- especially if the referee was wrong). 

You can challenge as much as you like. The ref's  decision is the one that counts. How many times have you seen a ref reverse a decision after a discussion with the ref.  

@Ceradyne. 
I watched the clip again and Schalk does not appear to contest the decision which according to the laws of the game it was his decision to make- as stated by the presenter, 

 Can you quote the specific law that puts the onus on the captain? Forget what the presenter says. What does the law say?

 The rule concerned was quoted 50 times already - but the referee has no responsibility to decide in this case and the decision is to be that Management should ensure that the player is not endangered in this case.   Nowhere in the quoted rules does the referee comes in to make the decision.  The responsibility rests with the team management - who must ensure that the safety measure of uncontested scrums is introduced.  The implication is that the captain must ask for uncontested scrums - not the referee to decide on the issue for him.           

@Mike. Fcuk but you are dim. The issue is not whether the onus is on the referee to make the decision. The issue is that the referee has decided that the scrums were to be uncontested. That was his call and his call to make. That is his job to enforce the laws on the field, and his alone. How many times do you need to hear this. The referee is the sole arbiter. He is assisted by ARs and the TMO but each and every decision is his to make. Even though he sometimes asks the TMO the question: "Try or no try?" that is not in effect the real question. It is just a shortened version of: "Is there any reason why I cannot award the try?". Note "...why I cannot award the try....?". When it is confirmed the TMO always replies with "....you may award the try..." and then the referee, and not the TMO, awards the try. Technically the referee can then still overrule the TMO.
The above was just to try and get to through to you that the referee is the one in charge. Hell, he even has the power to cancel a game. He can even send off a player, after the game has started, for an infringement prior to the start of the game.
@Sharkbok. I have now watched the clip again as well and the presenter is making the same mistake that others are making, which shows that he is not all that clued up on the laws of the game. He asks the question why someone else was not sent on when the ref called for uncontested scrums. Once again, Trevor Nyakane was already on at that stage of the game and Koch has already left the field. There was nothing that could have been done. Remember that this was not the first time that there was this kind of balls-up in a game involving SA and NZ and the team sheet. There was a game where NZ brought on a sub that wasn't even on the team sheet. Remember that incident? 

Now, to get to this incident and the laws. I asked you which law it was that the presenter referred to, to see if you knew. It seems like ou Tokkie also do not know, so let me help you out.
Even though the referee made the call, he was not the one to judge Nyakane's ability to play on both sides of the scrum. [Law 3.5 (m)]"(m) If there are no further front row replacements available when a front row player leaves the field of play, is sent off or temporarily suspended, uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility."
Now, read law 3.5 (g) (i) and (j). In my opinion, this is where the whole saga went wrong......:(g) If a Union or match organiser decides to have 23 players nominated for a team there must be sufficient front row players to play at hooker, tight-head prop and loose-head prop who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement is required in each front row position, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums. If a team is only able to nominate two suitably trained front row players then only 22 players may be nominated for the match.
Law 3.5 (i) and (j) are the ones that have everybody baffled, IMO.
(i) If a team does not have suitably trained front row players prior to the match so that contested scrums cannot take place the referee will order uncontested scrums. The referee will report the matter to the match organiser.(j) A match organiser may decide within the competition rules that a match may or may not commence if suitably trained and experienced front row players are not available so that contested scrums cannot take place.
The above are applicable when it is determined prior to the commencement of the match, that there are not sufficient players. The match organiser then has to decide whether the match can even be started at all. But this is only applicable where there are not and extra TH, Hooker and LH on the bench at all.
Let me say this again. I don't know if Schalk told him that Nyakane can scrum on both sides and I don't think that anybody can without any doubt say that. It is also not clear whether the referee even tried to ascertain whether Nyakane can scrum both sides.
In my opinion, there is a lesson to everybody in this. Make sure that you specify which players can play both on the LH side and  the TH side of  the scrum. I am sure that this has gone through in many games all over the world where props were replaced without the ref even bothering to go to the very letter of the law and  just allowed any prop to scrum on any side of the scrum.

 A long story - but ultimately agreeing with the presenter in the vid eo. 

 I hope that you are not implying that my argument agrees with the presenter. If you are saying that you are in agreement with him.... you have my sympathy.
Unless, of course, you do not understand the long story, which is also quite possible. 
Then there is, of course, the other possibility. It is blowing your efforts of blaming Heyneke Meyer for the entire issue, out of the water.