Watched the Bok game again

Dave 

How dare you write drivel (LOL) like that - Mozart aka Strzok  and Pakie aka Comey wrote3 on site that the -

*   scrumming of the Springboks was inferior;

*   Du Toit was to blame for the one try;

*   it was impossible for Mostert to make the tackle you refer to; and 

*   the drop in form of Marx resulted from  his disappointment in Coetzee being fired as coach   

Other of their classics were that Mostert was outstanding in the line-outs - the best line-out jumper in the game - that the ref was good in reffing the scrumming and that the neck high  Read "tackle" on Du Toit did not warrant a penalty,     

One has to wonder how they can write what they do - if one looks at what happened there is actually no relation between between what actually happened and what they write on site.   But then Mozart claims on site at one stage  that he,  AO (aka Liza Page) and Pakie are the best performance evaluators i n the world since they see things that nobody else comments on/      

I posted a video highlights package earlier in the week that clearly shows Malherbe had his knee on the ground before Franks put his hand on the ground. 

It was hard to notice watching at a standard pace, but this video was slowed down- and the first 2 scrums, there is no doubt Malherbe had his knee on the ground about 2 seconds before Franks used his hand support to support himself. 

The video is now removed, but Paki has some images showing this

The Boks were dominant early on in the scrum, and surprising that Malherbe would have his knee on the ground. 

Garces is a crap referee, but Flab Malberbe was to blame in the scrums

Sane as Du Toit was blamed for one of the AB tries?

Sane as Du Toit was blamed for one of the AB tries?

Scrum 2: Knee down, then elbow down, then knee up, then elbow up, then elbow down, then knee down.

But bickering about a few incidents aside, I also had the impression on my second viewing that there was much less between the two sides than initially thought. We didn't take our big chance with the Willie/Kolbe pass, and the final 3 point penalty we gave away for offside was disappointing as well - our line was miles offside. Just poor awareness.

In close games like these, the winner is most often the team who take their chances and make the fewest mistakes. AB got two big chances and nailed them both.

Our performance in the air was weak as well - a Pollard knock of an AB high ball that went right into his breadbasket on the jump kicked off the AB second try.

Well done Pakster to at last arriving at my conclusion after the game. Thought you would never get there!

You're a tough act to follow Beeno, but I do my best.

Yes indeed Pakster we just need to get Dr Mozzzzzz up to speed.

Will never get Strzok up to anything other than BS and self-importance.  The press is wrong - he is right - the fans are wrong - he is right - the clubs the coaches and experts are wrong - he is right,  To get him anywhere means he will have to get out of his prejudice  and pet hatred - his self-importance wil never allow that,     

Strzok

He and his associates must be crazy,   According to them Proudfoot is a fool who  knows nothing about scrumming which is why the issue ibn a press interview process that, ,  They ignore the press release by World Rugby - after all that was also in the media who is always wrong, 

Erasmus was firm and it was clear that his standpoint prevailed - hence the World Rugby press release.      

Phil Kearns, a neutral, said in his post-match commentary that the ABs got the benefit of the 50/50 calls.

This is the same video I posted the other day, but the other one was removed for copyright content. At first, I was convinced that it was Moody's fault and the ref was blind, but watch the knee of Malherbe touch the ground. The 1st one is unclear, that either touches or is very close to the ground first. The second one is certainly Malherbe's knee in the ground fir st, before the elbow of Moody. The third one looks about the same time for both props.

Not sure what happened, as the Boks were certainly dominated the first few scrums. Maybe Moody has just turned Malherbe when he saw his own scrum was being dominated.

The Boks had a shyte day at the office but still looked like the more dominant of the two teams.

A few better calls from the ref and a handful less errors from the Boks could easily have seen a different result.

That was my feeling immediately after the game.

Strzok

Lies lies and more lies - the stupid idiot is a self-possessed BSter.  Malherbe never belly flopped and the idiot missed the fact that Moody lost his bind before his elbow hits  the ground.   We have it all the time - Mostert missed routine tackles and Du Toi gets the blame or it.   Whenever Strzok makes any statement except that it will always be lies protecting his favourites and attacking his pet hate players.       

A few better calls from the ref and a handful less errors from the Boks could easily have seen a different result.

Plum, sure, but you can say that after any close loss. There are usually opportunities left on the table. Last year when we beat NZ away they were a simple pass from Crotty (I think it was) away from a winning try but he chose to hold on. 

The Boks' main problem is that we're losing the battle in the air. Against the ABs we had a negative result on about 70-80% of the kicks we sent high. Conversely the ABs had about that percentage in success with the bombs they launched on us (with only Kolbe's catch and breakaway where he almost scored backfiring on them). In other words, we are employing a strategy that targets our own biggest weakness. 

To keep the Boks on the back foot our opponents needn't figure out how to beat the rush defense, they simply need to bomb the hell out of us with high balls and laugh while we do that to ourselves, handing over possession time and again. We can probably expect a lot of high ones coming our way at the business end of the tournament because we have been shit in the air, to put it bluntly. Kolbe, the smallest guy on the field, was the only one who looked remotely capable under the high ball.

Pakie

Indeed. I 100% agree.

Guess I should have clarified. 

The point being, There's not much between the ABs and Boks presently. So we shouldn't be too concerned. 

T hose that think the Boks are poor, should reserve judgement until the two SH teams have met the two top NH teams.

A family friend and I were discussing Malherbe's knee. He rates that if the prop's knee touches the ground immediately after the scrum starts but comes up quickly and doesn't go back down again, then most refs will let it go.

Any view on this?

Gotcha.

I won't even pretend to be able to accurately read scrums. To me it looked like Moody was boring in as well in some of the scrums, but what do I know, and I mean that seriously. In my playing days I used to be behind the scrum listening to the grunting and hoping that the guys in front know what they're doing. Then I'd do an impressive dive pass over the flyhalf's head , wink to the girls in the stands and my work was done for few phases until an annoyed shout of "scrummie!" echoed across the field.

Refs do let a lot go - we've already seen collapsed scrums in the WC where the ref just says "get the ball out and play" instead of blowing it up. And I think that's okay for letting the game flow, because some of the scrums in the Bok/AB game for example took up 2 or 3 minutes just to get set properly. As long as it doesn't create an injury risk, I'd say if a knee or hand pops down and back up, let it go. But again, not an area of the game I feel qualified to comment on.

Pakie

Rugby Legend

4554 posts

"The Boks' main problem is that we're losing the battle in the air.  "

That is a far bigger issue than the ref. A ref may influence one game her and there but losing the battle in the air is a consistent problem in every game. Willie le Roux used to be the master of the high ball but he has become the palooka of the high ball. The others in the back line have remained average under the high ball. 

What is also worrying is that we are nowadays vulnerable under the "attacking high ball", if we could call it that, as well. I am referring to our ability to chase down our own high balls launched on the opposition. We always used to have someone who could chase down our own high balls and stand a good chance of winning them back as well. 

But no. We would rather piss about the ref and blame him for our losses.

Vlag, I don't think anyone is blaming the ref for the loss, but IMO rugby can do a lot better...and should. South Africans are not the only ones complaining about poor refs either.

When making crap posts about scrums and elbows, please refer to the law referring to elbows touching the ground. I can't seem to find it anywhere...

I did however find the following...

Dangerous play in a scrum includes:
-    A front-row charging against the opposition.
-    Pulling an opponent.
-    Intentionally lifting an opponent off their feet or forcing them upwards out of the scrum.
-    Intentionally collapsing a scrum.
-    Intentionally falling or kneeling.

Also note the intentionally...

Added to that... Logical Argument... What is the purpose of a scrum.

As I have it, it is to restart play with a contest for the ball after a minor infringement.

So, if you won the ball, the scrum served its purpose. There are too many unnecessary penalties at the scrums in any case.

The stupid idiot cannot read English and understand what implies when rules 3 and 4 is applicable.    Stupid - but the Trooth Fairy does not know anything.  LMAO

Hall Of Fame

37880 posts

Sep 27, 2019, 12:50

The stupid idiot cannot read English and understand what implies when rules 3 and 4 is applicable.    Stupid - but the Trooth Fairy does not know anything.  LMAO"

"....stupid idiot..." We read. OK, so I tried to figure out who is the stupid idiot here.

First of all, rugby is a game where there are no rules. We have laws which are taken up in a law book. So let's give our esteemed rugby learned friend the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to refer to law 3 and 4. Should this be the case, then I'm afraid, our learned friend have the wrong laws, since Law 3 is about the makeup of the team. Law 4 handles the clothing of the players.

Clearly, since none of these two laws deals with the scrum, our esteemed rugby learned friend is either a stupid idiot who misunderstand the laws of the game or he has unintentionally made some other mistake.

I will once again grant him the benefit of the doubt and consider the latter, rather than the first possibility.

That would mean that he could have been referring to The Truth's third and fourth points in his post. That, unfortunately,  poses another problem. Although The Truth's fourth point deals with collapsing the scrum, his third point refers to lifting upwards in the scrum and not falling, kneeling or collapsing downwards. Once again the term "stupid idiot" seems rather to be moving away from The Truth and more towards our esteemed rugby learned friend.

However - and whenever there is a "however", things always tend to get interesting - The Truth has quoted from "Law 19: The Scrum" very accurately. Nowhere indeed does Paragraph 37 of Law 19 actually address anything regarding an elbow touching the ground, as The Truth rightfully pointed out.

However - once again  -  I do recall that somewhere along the line, in the past, there was a law that prohibited a prop forward from putting his outer (non-binding) hand on the ground  to support his body weight thus preventing the scrum from collapsing. Once again, let me be uncharacteristically kind to our esteemed rugby learned friend and assume that he had that, now redundant, law in mind. Unfortunately, had that been the case, he would be highly likely to have the appearance of a stupid idiot, all over again. 

Being done with all the above banter, I am wondering if a law change wouldn't solve the problem. Using the same situation above and, instead of banning a prop from putting his hand on the ground to prevent him from going down, shouldn't they actually allow him to do just that, in order to reduce the number of collapsed scrums?

interesting read thru - in short, the ref was biased... I think most have consensus on that..

Certainly was my opinion watching it once live... frankly the knock on not called by aaron smith on nz 5m line was the game changer for me...

those couple of missed tackles leading up to kiwis tries too hurt... 

And.. pollard missin that 2nd penalty kcik that bounced off post would have given him more confidence..

so many variables and agree in that the reffing did a lot to decide outcome of that game... 

As usual, Dave sees what he wants to see ... and the things he doesn't want to see he ignores ... and doesn't mention.

Um ... that game wasn't up for the taking ... Dave. It was never in our means to win the match. We never came close to challenging them for the win.

You harp on and on about our dominant scrum. Really? We were slightly dominant at that set piece but by no means as dominant as you want us to believe.

In short ... you are talking shit, Dave ... as usual.

The Goats were out played.

They cleaned us up 17 - 3 in the first half ... (with our slightly dominant scrum) and they match us with a good 6 points to our 10 in the second.

Do us a favour next time ... Dave ... shut the fuck up.

Thanks a lot.