The final

[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?

[cashead]

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

Looks direct enough to me. It certainly has just as much, if not more force behind it than Cane's effort and the fact that it glanced on Savea's shoulder is more a matter of happenstance rather than intent. As I said earlier, I look forward to someone getting red carded for the same thing in the next 6 months, either during one of the domestic games or the 6Ns or Super Rugby or any of the other multitude of competitions out there - just like it was with Vunipola ramming his shoulder into Beauden Barrett's head during the 2017 Lions series only to get a yellow and no further sanction, and then for Sekope Kepu to do the exact same thing to a Scottish player during the Autumn internationals that very year, and get red carded and cop an 8 week ban.

And as pointed out earlier, there really should be questions about how when it was certain things, which coincidentally involved the team in black, it was all "Leglolas, what do your elf eyes see?" whereas when it was stuff involving the team in green, it often seemed like the TMO was Mr fucking Magoo.

[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.

[canta_brian]

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

Looks direct enough to me. It certainly has just as much, if not more force behind it than Cane's effort and the fact that it glanced on Savea's shoulder is more a matter of happenstance rather than intent. As I said earlier, I look forward to someone getting red carded for the same thing in the next 6 months, either during one of the domestic games or the 6Ns or Super Rugby or any of the other multitude of competitions out there - just like it was with Vunipola ramming his shoulder into Beauden Barrett's head during the 2017 Lions series only to get a yellow and no further sanction, and then for Sekope Kepu to do the exact same thing to a Scottish player during the Autumn internationals that very year, and get red carded and cop an 8 week ban.

And as pointed out earlier, there really should be questions about how when it was certain things, which coincidentally involved the team in black, it was all "Leglolas, what do your elf eyes see?" whereas when it was stuff involving the team in green, it often seemed like the TMO was Mr fucking Magoo.

Yep

The chalked off try for the knock on. It ended up being a penalty to NZ for the intentional knock down at the line out. Now you’d never give a penalty try in the situation as it wasn’t a try scoring opportunity. Except of course NZ scored a try from the line out. If the penalty knock down hadn’t occurred neither would the knock on. The play continues and NZ score. But no, let’s come back all those phases and rewrite history.

De Klerk on the other hand is allowed to drop the ball cold at the base of a stable scrum, have it shown on a replay, and still the TMO didn’t appear to notice.

[J Dory]

Frizell yellow seemed harsh, falls over at the ruck basically. Whatever. We lost. FU SA, FU, FU, FU very much.

[Spiffy]

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.

I did mean winning strategy in the literal sense. SA played the way they did and won the game. You make it sound that SA were quite lucky to win. I'd say, overall, that they deserved the victory, however narrowly. It was not a classic game of rugby. But the Bok defence was very tight and did not let NZ run as freely on the counter as they normally do. Perhaps the NZ red and yellow cars played a part, but that's how the game works. If you don't want the cards don't commit the offences.
There has been much talk about the relative Cane/Kilosi red/yellow cards, but hardly any comment about Bongi M, a very influential Bok forward, being injured out of the game after just a few minutes as the result of a pretty reckless tackle. He was then gone for the entire game, whereas his tackler spent only 10 min in the bin. Not a bad balance sheet for NZ.

[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.

I did mean winning strategy in the literal sense. SA played the way they did and won the game. You make it sound that SA were quite lucky to win. I'd say, overall, that they deserved the victory, however narrowly. It was not a classic game of rugby. But the Bok defence was very tight and did not let NZ run as freely on the counter as they normally do. Perhaps the NZ red and yellow cars played a part, but that's how the game works. If you don't want the cards don't commit the offences.
There has been much talk about the relative Cane/Kilosi red/yellow cards, but hardly any comment about Bongi M, a very influential Bok forward, being injured out of the game after just a few minutes as the result of a pretty reckless tackle. He was then gone for the entire game, whereas his tackler spent only 10 min in the bin. Not a bad balance sheet for NZ.

I think when looking at a strategy you look at whether it made them more or less likely to win. I think refusing to play any rugby reduced SA's chance of winning. Those chances were still high as the conditions were in their favour and NZ were a man down, and they ultimately won, but I don't think that makes the strategy the right one. To me, it gave NZ a good chance of winning, when they shouldn't have had one.

Can't decide on the Frizell tackle. I can see how it could be seen as reckless and I can also see how it could just been seen as a very unlucky accident. I don't mind the yellow decision but I also wouldn't have been outraged if they had just said play on.

As I said somewhere above, I don't have massive complaints about the reffing of this match (though I do have issues with the TMO protocols being thrown out the window). The main issue I had was that World Rugby/refs need to find an effective way of dealing with time wasting. Stopping the clock is not enough.

[Beasties]

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

Portugal were an absolute joy to watch. Fabulous first WC win was the icing on their cake. Right up there along with the two quarter-final games as the highlight of the tournament.

[Mikey Brown]

The main issue I had was that World Rugby/refs need to find an effective way of dealing with time wasting. Stopping the clock is not enough.

Yeah this will be interesting as SA (in particular) manage to find so many different ways to do this. Things like them making single subs every time the other team have momentum would be very hard to enforce and you can't really get around the safety concerns of hurrying along players that conveniently take a knee.

[cashead]

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

Looks direct enough to me. It certainly has just as much, if not more force behind it than Cane's effort and the fact that it glanced on Savea's shoulder is more a matter of happenstance rather than intent. As I said earlier, I look forward to someone getting red carded for the same thing in the next 6 months, either during one of the domestic games or the 6Ns or Super Rugby or any of the other multitude of competitions out there - just like it was with Vunipola ramming his shoulder into Beauden Barrett's head during the 2017 Lions series only to get a yellow and no further sanction, and then for Sekope Kepu to do the exact same thing to a Scottish player during the Autumn internationals that very year, and get red carded and cop an 8 week ban.

And as pointed out earlier, there really should be questions about how when it was certain things, which coincidentally involved the team in black, it was all "Leglolas, what do your elf eyes see?" whereas when it was stuff involving the team in green, it often seemed like the TMO was Mr fucking Magoo.

Yep

The chalked off try for the knock on. It ended up being a penalty to NZ for the intentional knock down at the line out. Now you’d never give a penalty try in the situation as it wasn’t a try scoring opportunity. Except of course NZ scored a try from the line out. If the penalty knock down hadn’t occurred neither would the knock on. The play continues and NZ score. But no, let’s come back all those phases and rewrite history.

De Klerk on the other hand is allowed to drop the ball cold at the base of a stable scrum, have it shown on a replay, and still the TMO didn’t appear to notice.

This shit is pretty indefensible too.



Fucking Mr Magoo.

[Puja]

This shit is pretty indefensible too.



Fucking Mr Magoo.

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

[Numbers]

It's a real shame the SA national team can't play the same brand as their provinces who play some great rugby, maybe just a change of coach needed there, the most striking reason for the drop in expansive play from the semi final stage was the weather, it seems only the ABs are capable/willing of trying to play in these conditions whereas other teams try to go for the more conservative approach, as soon as Pollard was picked at 10 for SA it was obvious that the ball wouldn't be going much further past De Allende at best.

[Sourdust]

The main issue I had was that World Rugby/refs need to find an effective way of dealing with time wasting. Stopping the clock is not enough.

Yeah this will be interesting as SA (in particular) manage to find so many different ways to do this. Things like them making single subs every time the other team have momentum would be very hard to enforce and you can't really get around the safety concerns of hurrying along players that conveniently take a knee.

I guess you can by being a little hard-nosed about it. You train for 10 minute periods a man down; if a player is genuinely concerned about an injury, and requires treatment, then - so long as that can happen at the touchline or otherwise out of harm's way - surely you can afford to play a couple of phases without them?

[Sourdust]

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

Thoughts:

* I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. After a few watches I can't decide if the arm extension starts before or after contact. It looks pretty bad though and definitely should have been reviewed.

* These video compilations, as well-evidenced as they sometimes are, ALWAYS focus on one team from a position of obvious bias.

* NZ fans implying that refs have an agenda of ignoring infringements against them, is not going to stop being funny for a while yet.

That last one is childish, but I guess I shouldn't call bias without acknowledging my own...

[oldbackrow]

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

At the time I was screaming at the TV that it was a leading forearm and he should be off but to be honest the more I've looked at it the less insistent that it is deliberate, the same as the Argentinian one on Farrell.

[Puja]

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

Thoughts:

* I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. After a few watches I can't decide if the arm extension starts before or after contact. It looks pretty bad though and definitely should have been reviewed.

* These video compilations, as well-evidenced as they sometimes are, ALWAYS focus on one team from a position of obvious bias.

* NZ fans implying that refs have an agenda of ignoring infringements against them, is not going to stop being funny for a while yet.

That last one is childish, but I guess I shouldn't call bias without acknowledging my own...

I'd say the arm starts away from his body - it's got to be properly tucked against his body (like the Argentine fella on Farrell) in order for it to be okay, so I'm still saying red. No issues with the ref and TMO not spotting it though - they're not going to see everything.

I think the only reason we are being spared a cavalcade of South African fan compilations of video evidence of being robbed is because they eked out the victory. I've never known whining like that produced by this current generation of South African fans, convinced there's a worldwide conspiracy against their poor innocent Bokke.

I don't like that we've stopped assuming the refs are human and that things will be missed. Wayne Barnes has apparently received death threats this RWC, he's previously been the subject of one of Rassie's helpful Twitter rants (which is an gilded invitation for the Bok fans to leap in with both feet), his wife hates him refereeing (more accurately the abuse that he gets), and he's a partner in a law firm which would be willing to have him full-time, any time. Now that he's achieved being a RWC final ref (possibly the only Englishman cheering for South Africa in the semi-finals), I wouldn't be surprised if he packed it in, reducing the quality of refs available in the international game significantly, just because fans are being whining dickbags.

That's how we get Karl Dickson refereeing big games people. No-one wants that to happen.

Puja

[16th man]

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

Thoughts:

* I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. After a few watches I can't decide if the arm extension starts before or after contact. It looks pretty bad though and definitely should have been reviewed.

* These video compilations, as well-evidenced as they sometimes are, ALWAYS focus on one team from a position of obvious bias.

* NZ fans implying that refs have an agenda of ignoring infringements against them, is not going to stop being funny for a while yet.

That last one is childish, but I guess I shouldn't call bias without acknowledging my own...

Not quite 2007 forward pass levels of lack of self awareness yet, but not far off.

[canta_brian]

This shit is pretty indefensible too.



Fucking Mr Magoo.

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

A, yes. I moaned at the time.

B. We don’t need to spot it live, there is a TMO who should be able to review it. If a drunk bloke in a pub can see it on the TV coverage surely someone being paid to notice this sort of thing with access to every tv camera angle can manage it?

[cashead]

This shit is pretty indefensible too.



Fucking Mr Magoo.

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

I had taken note at the time that Sam Cane bounced off a tackle - which doesn't happen very often.

And secondly, that's not particularly relevant, when that's the TMO's job. Which takes me back to my original point - when it came to one team, apparently we had Mr Magoo working the TMO's box.

[cashead]

I mean, that is a clear red card and obviously not great that it wasn't picked up, but did you spot it live?

Puja

At the time I was screaming at the TV that it was a leading forearm and he should be off but to be honest the more I've looked at it the less insistent that it is deliberate, the same as the Argentinian one on Farrell.

Deliberate or not, it's direct contact to the head, and would likely meet the red card threshold. Which begs the question, what was the TMO doing during all this? Was he away from his seat, having a big ol' shit? Was he distracted by something shiny nearby?

[Mr Mwenda]

Some of this is hilarious.