The final

[paddy no 11]

Also wtf was chritie doing getting blocked down by faf, ran 2 minutes off the clock - not good enough

[canta_brian]

Come off it. As I said earlier I didn't even think Kolisis was a penalty. It was a tight game between two good teams that cancelled each other out to some degree.

New to the game are you?

Come on mate. All the English and French can empathise with how frustrating it is to just be unable to get that last score to overtake them and then watch as a last lost ball robs your chance and sends them gamboling and celebrating away, acting like they've got even a tenth of a joy that Ben Earl gets from the award of a regulation penalty. It's tough and I appreciate that it's easy to fixate on moments where the game could've turned.

But seriously, it wasn't a red. It's not direct contact to the head, cause it's shoulder on shoulder first. Take a break, come back in the morning when it's less emotional, and you'll agree with everyone else.

Puja

We will have to see in the morning. I might agree by then.

For now, let’s take something less controversial than cards.
How is it that the TMO can notice an AB knock on at a line out and chalk off a try but completely miss Faf dropping the ball at the base of the scrum a few minutes earlier?

[morepork]

Fuck. Kok. Damn. Drunk my weight in Guinness for nothing. Nighty bilnkums now. 4 more years.

[Cameo]

Well that was pretty dreadful.

I take the point about negative rugby, but that was hardly circus entertainers vs farm labourers, was it? NZ had more going forward perhaps, but not ENOUGH more to have any complaints IMO. They were the better side in the 2nd half, but only 5 points better when they needed 7. It's still a problem for the game's evolution IMO, that a team who can be so dazzlingly entertaining one week, can be so utterly nullified once they meet another team at their physical level. And that goes for both sides today, really. It's why France going out was a bad thing not just for France.

I think you are glossing over the fact NZ had 14 men for most of that.

Considering, I thought NZ were mightily impressive to create the chances they did. They will be frustrated by a few dropped balls under not that much pressure (though PTSD should take some credit for making everyone feel under pressure the whole time) and the two kicks, but they gave that a good go. I also don't agree with the criticism about not 'taking' three. They scored off a decision to do so (albeit after winning another penalty). It's a judgment call but I think the 'always take 3' brigade look at it a bit simplisticly.

Foe the boks, they are an impressive machine and deserve credit but I find them really annoying. I don't mind a team trying to get away with stuff at the breakdown, that's part of the game. I do mind the style of play, but they're entitled to it and contrasts of style have their place. What I mind and think they need to do something about is the timewasting. Whether it is constantly needing to be told where to stand at the line-out or the going down every breakdown. As someone said, they are not injured, they are just tired. It is so hard for a ref to deal with, but I don't think 'don't worry, clock is stopped' is enough. One it is boring. Two it gives them a rest. Three it kills momentum for the other team. I would like a rule that if the game has to stop three times for you to get treatment, you have to get subbed. They should also be stricter about playing on unless there is a scrum and it is a front five player.

On the reffing controversies, I think the Cane red and Kolisi yellow looked fair enough (though I would like to see more angles on Kolisi's). The penalty against Savea in the first half was wrong and arguable costly, but we can't expect a ref to get everything right. I liked how he dealt with the scrum but NZ might be frustrated as with another ref on another day they may have got more benefit from being slightly on top.

One thing though, it's noticeable that in big games the TMO protocol goes out the window. The knock on before Smith's try looked more than two phases back, the penalty Savea ended up getting near the line when Barnes had originally given a knock on was not foul play or in the act of scoring, there were several other examples and often are in finals or near the end of tight big matches. I see why they do it as it wouldn't be a good look if a massive call was obviously wrong but couldn't be fixed, but it is a whole can of worms. It means every decision becomes contestable amd leaves open the question of why others weren't looked at.

Trying not to focus on that kind if stuff, but the way SA played, they were barely looking to make linebreaks or score tries so the focus always ends up on the ref. It's one of the reasons I don't like it.

[Cameo]

On the reffing, this seems broadly fair:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby-world ... -the-final

[canta_brian]

Yeah, that looked a red when I first saw it. New Zealand really behind the 8-ball now.

Puja

I’m surprised they didn’t card Taylor for letting his cheekbone hit the Saffers shoulder as well.

My bad. This was De Groot wasn’t it.

[UKHamlet]

Why NZ persist eith Mo'unga as a kicker completely escapes me.

Mo’unga had a fantastic game. NZ’s intensity dropped when he and Smith went off. Savea mighty. B Barrett was poor in comparison. The ABs can hold their heads up, that SA steamroller is mighty, as they’ve proved over and over all through the tournament.

I’m baffled by the negativity on here. As a neutral that was fantastically intense. In the rain after all, and 14 v 15. Barnes was very good too.

He's still a below international standard kicker, despite being a superb player in other respects.

As for the game itself, I dislike the kind of spoiling rugby that South Africa have deployed so effectively. The game is about scoring tries and low scoring games aren't a good watch for me unless there is the added elixir of vested interest. The beauty is in great passing movements, brilliant stepping, glorious chips over the defence, not smash them into the ground and wait for the penalty. South Africa brought the game down to their level.

[Puja]

I also don't agree with the criticism about not 'taking' three. They scored off a decision to do so (albeit after winning another penalty). It's a judgment call but I think the 'always take 3' brigade look at it a bit simplisticly.

Agreed. In addition, the decision to take that long-range, wide out penalty was one that looked like a mistake at the time - it was always a low-percentage shot and, had they drilled it to the corner instead, they stood a better than average chance of forcing a penalty in a much more kickable position. As it was JBarrett missed a difficult shot, SA cleared from the drop-out, and NZ never had any kind of field position again.

So "just take 3" is not always the right answer.

Puja

[Puja]

Kolisi not getting a red is straight up bullshit.

I don't see it. The first contact is with the shoulder, so it's not direct.

Puja

He runs in from a distance, and there is direct head-on-head contact.

I look forward to seeing someone else get a direct red for doing the same thing within the next 6 months.

There is indirect head-on-head. The first contact is to the shoulder, then there is head to head, meaning that Savea is not getting the full force of the running in from a distance in the head on head.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

I also don't agree with the criticism about not 'taking' three. They scored off a decision to do so (albeit after winning another penalty). It's a judgment call but I think the 'always take 3' brigade look at it a bit simplisticly.

Agreed. In addition, the decision to take that long-range, wide out penalty was one that looked like a mistake at the time - it was always a low-percentage shot and, had they drilled it to the corner instead, they stood a better than average chance of forcing a penalty in a much more kickable position. As it was JBarrett missed a difficult shot, SA cleared from the drop-out, and NZ never had any kind of field position again.

So "just take 3" is not always the right answer.

Puja

There is no way that nz should have not taken the easy 3 points on 50 minutes, can't turn down gimmes in a tight game especially with 30 mins on the clock and down to 14

[p/d]

Cards aside, the lack of intensity of NZ in the first half was palpable compared to SA.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Two teams playing different strategies at a very high level. For me, the better team lost - NZ were so much more positive, (they actually scored a try!!), and were just let down by a couple of kicks that went wide. Their choices when chasing the game to go for tries rather than 'easy' 3-pointers were were understandable.

What I think this game illustrates (and what really swung the match) is the difference between the punishment for a yellow and a red card. I agree that Kolisi's was yellow and Cane's red, but I don't agree that Cane's foul was 5.1 times as bad as Kolisi's (ie 51 minutes vs 10). And this difference certainly shouldn't depend on a factor which is nothing to do with the foul itself. There needs to be a set time for a red, whether that's 20, 25, 30, whatever, so matches don't get so dramatically and arbitrarily affected.

[Mikey Brown]

Well at least we don’t get sir Shannon Frizzell.

[p/d]

I wouldn’t argue the best team lost, just the team we like to watch the most.

SA hammered them in the first 40, tactical kicking wise and physically. They were almost unplayable, NZ doing well to still being in touch.

The 7;1 split gave them the foundations to defend that lead and bore the feck out of rugby purists.

PSDT was a one man wrecking machine. How he kept that up for 80 I shall never know.

[Sandydragon]

Two teams playing different strategies at a very high level. For me, the better team lost - NZ were so much more positive, (they actually scored a try!!), and were just let down by a couple of kicks that went wide. Their choices when chasing the game to go for tries rather than 'easy' 3-pointers were were understandable.

What I think this game illustrates (and what really swung the match) is the difference between the punishment for a yellow and a red card. I agree that Kolisi's was yellow and Cane's red, but I don't agree that Cane's foul was 5.1 times as bad as Kolisi's (ie 51 minutes vs 10). And this difference certainly shouldn't depend on a factor which is nothing to do with the foul itself. There needs to be a set time for a red, whether that's 20, 25, 30, whatever, so matches don't get so dramatically and arbitrarily affected.

The orange card? I think that would need to be very specific. Canes tackle was worthy of a red but I don’t think he deliberately set out to hurt his opponent. Potentially an orange then. But there are some instances where a player does something very reckless or sets out to deliberately jet an opponent. How do you set the criteria for that difference? Proving that actual physical act is hard enough sometimes without discussing intent. The existing situation isn’t perfect but it could be far worse.

[Spiffy]

Why NZ persist eith Mo'unga as a kicker completely escapes me.

Mo’unga had a fantastic game. NZ’s intensity dropped when he and Smith went off. Savea mighty. B Barrett was poor in comparison. The ABs can hold their heads up, that SA steamroller is mighty, as they’ve proved over and over all through the tournament.

I’m baffled by the negativity on here. As a neutral that was fantastically intense. In the rain after all, and 14 v 15. Barnes was very good too.

He's still a below international standard kicker, despite being a superb player in other respects.

As for the game itself, I dislike the kind of spoiling rugby that South Africa have deployed so effectively. The game is about scoring tries and low scoring games aren't a good watch for me unless there is the added elixir of vested interest. The beauty is in great passing movements, brilliant stepping, glorious chips over the defence, not smash them into the ground and wait for the penalty. South Africa brought the game down to their level.

You're right. But NZ did not seem to be able to do much about it and SA played the game on their terms. It was not pretty but you could hardly blame them for employing a winning strategy that worked. The irony of it is that SA themselves have a handy set of three quarters well capable of scoring tries.

[switchskier]

Mo’unga had a fantastic game. NZ’s intensity dropped when he and Smith went off. Savea mighty. B Barrett was poor in comparison. The ABs can hold their heads up, that SA steamroller is mighty, as they’ve proved over and over all through the tournament.

I’m baffled by the negativity on here. As a neutral that was fantastically intense. In the rain after all, and 14 v 15. Barnes was very good too.

He's still a below international standard kicker, despite being a superb player in other respects.

As for the game itself, I dislike the kind of spoiling rugby that South Africa have deployed so effectively. The game is about scoring tries and low scoring games aren't a good watch for me unless there is the added elixir of vested interest. The beauty is in great passing movements, brilliant stepping, glorious chips over the defence, not smash them into the ground and wait for the penalty. South Africa brought the game down to their level.

You're right. But NZ did not seem to be able to do much about it and SA played the game on their terms. It was not pretty but you could hardly blame them for employing a winning strategy that worked. The irony of it is that SA themselves have a handy set of three quarters well capable of scoring tries.

I actually think that's what's so frustrating about SA. You can hardly blame them for employing a winning strategy, though it will be interesting to see if that changes with the team getting pretty old. But it's not as if they don't have two of the most exciting wingers in the world. If they had two big, slowish lumps out there it would be more understandable, but playing with a man advantage there was so little intention to seek the extra space, it was infuriating.

[morepork]

I wish the Smiling Rapier (DMac) had started at 15 and Roigard was the replacement 9. It's a complicated game rendered winnable by penalties and I just hope ambition hasn't been chased under a rock by this cycle.

[canta_brian]

Mo’unga had a fantastic game. NZ’s intensity dropped when he and Smith went off. Savea mighty. B Barrett was poor in comparison. The ABs can hold their heads up, that SA steamroller is mighty, as they’ve proved over and over all through the tournament.

I’m baffled by the negativity on here. As a neutral that was fantastically intense. In the rain after all, and 14 v 15. Barnes was very good too.

He's still a below international standard kicker, despite being a superb player in other respects.

As for the game itself, I dislike the kind of spoiling rugby that South Africa have deployed so effectively. The game is about scoring tries and low scoring games aren't a good watch for me unless there is the added elixir of vested interest. The beauty is in great passing movements, brilliant stepping, glorious chips over the defence, not smash them into the ground and wait for the penalty. South Africa brought the game down to their level.

You're right. But NZ did not seem to be able to do much about it and SA played the game on their terms. It was not pretty but you could hardly blame them for employing a winning strategy that worked. The irony of it is that SA themselves have a handy set of three quarters well capable of scoring tries.

Maybe NZ would have been able to do more about had numbers been even? Certainly NZ looked the better team when it was 14 players each.

[Puja]

I wish the Smiling Rapier (DMac) had started at 15 and Roigard was the replacement 9. It's a complicated game rendered winnable by penalties and I just hope ambition hasn't been chased under a rock by this cycle.

I'm hopeful that the lowering of tackle height to sternum will be applied throughout the game in the next year. That'll make it significantly harder to defend and significantly easier to offload, meaning the value ratio of having-the-ball vs not-having-the-ball will be shifted by a large amount.

That, and ban box-kicking by saying no kicking within a 2 metre radius of a tackle area, ruck, or maul. If sides want to kick the leather off it, at least make them pass it to someone who might see another option/can be legally run down and tackled.

Puja

[Spiffy]

He's still a below international standard kicker, despite being a superb player in other respects.

As for the game itself, I dislike the kind of spoiling rugby that South Africa have deployed so effectively. The game is about scoring tries and low scoring games aren't a good watch for me unless there is the added elixir of vested interest. The beauty is in great passing movements, brilliant stepping, glorious chips over the defence, not smash them into the ground and wait for the penalty. South Africa brought the game down to their level.

You're right. But NZ did not seem to be able to do much about it and SA played the game on their terms. It was not pretty but you could hardly blame them for employing a winning strategy that worked. The irony of it is that SA themselves have a handy set of three quarters well capable of scoring tries.

Maybe NZ would have been able to do more about had numbers been even? Certainly NZ looked the better team when it was 14 players each.

Maybe. Who knows what may have happened if Cane hadn't got himself red carded. Not sure that NZ got their selections/positions right with Barrett/Mo'unga/McKenzie. DMac might have made a bigger impression with more game time and playing at FB.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Two teams playing different strategies at a very high level. For me, the better team lost - NZ were so much more positive, (they actually scored a try!!), and were just let down by a couple of kicks that went wide. Their choices when chasing the game to go for tries rather than 'easy' 3-pointers were were understandable.

What I think this game illustrates (and what really swung the match) is the difference between the punishment for a yellow and a red card. I agree that Kolisi's was yellow and Cane's red, but I don't agree that Cane's foul was 5.1 times as bad as Kolisi's (ie 51 minutes vs 10). And this difference certainly shouldn't depend on a factor which is nothing to do with the foul itself. There needs to be a set time for a red, whether that's 20, 25, 30, whatever, so matches don't get so dramatically and arbitrarily affected.

The orange card? I think that would need to be very specific. Canes tackle was worthy of a red but I don’t think he deliberately set out to hurt his opponent. Potentially an orange then. But there are some instances where a player does something very reckless or sets out to deliberately jet an opponent. How do you set the criteria for that difference? Proving that actual physical act is hard enough sometimes without discussing intent. The existing situation isn’t perfect but it could be far worse.

An extra card could be introduced but I'm not arguing for making the system more complicated. I'm arguing for the red with a substitution after 20 minutes as we have seen trialled. We should have punishment decided by the severity of the foul, not the time on the clock.

I mean, for the case in point, how do you think Cane's infringement compares with Kolisi's? Do you think it was the equivalent of 5 fouls like Kolisi's?

[Donny osmond]

SA play shit rugby, the only kudos due is that they've found a way to exploit how the game is refereed and use it to drag opponents into the gutter. Congratulations on winning the World Cup, genuinely I mean that, the players seem to be a great bunch of lads, I'm not being sarcastic there. But absolutely no one outside of SA is being attracted to or inspired by that rugby; I'd rather support a team that loses by trying and failing than one that plays that antirugby crap.

For me, Kolisi's should've been red.

I can understand a lot of the frustration directed at the officials, across this whole tournament the refereeing has not been consistent. I would just point out that it's the players who are cheating, quite deliberately, and focussing frustration on the officials is kinda missing the wood for the trees.

[paddy no 11]

The last 2 rounds of the tournament left a lot to be desired for supporters

Results based business etc do coaches follow the England and South Africa blueprint? Hopefully not, Portugal were outstanding and competitive playing attractive rugby

[Cameo]

You're right. But NZ did not seem to be able to do much about it and SA played the game on their terms. It was not pretty but you could hardly blame them for employing a winning strategy that worked. The irony of it is that SA themselves have a handy set of three quarters well capable of scoring tries.

The strange thing though is I'm not sure it was a winning strategy (except in the most literal sense). They are supremely successful but I think they make things harder for themselves than they have to. They seem to aim to play to their oppositions standard and do just enough.

If you had said before the game that it would be wet and that NZ would have a yellow and a red within the first 30, you would have said SA should cruise to victory. Instead, they relied on NZ missing a couple of tricky, but gettable, kicks.