i think that's true, but I think the impact had worn off by the RWC.I suppose we'll never really know for sure but it's pretty much accepted down here that that video shifted the 2021 Lions tour result.
As your analogy goes, the coin started landing up springbok side up in matches 2 and 3.
Did you actually write that with a straight face?That's true for any nation, I don't think SA is special in pointing out or complaining about referee decisions. They might be more vitriolic in their sentiment but I certainly don't find it unique. Just looking at the Kiwi's, the pity tour and blame the ref brigade are in full force from regular fans to respected journalists and former players. Same happened with France recently, leading to death threats toward a Springbok player and his child. And the Irish have been an absolute joke in thier navel gazing endeavours.
The sports movie narrative said France must win, but reality intervened on that one (un)fortunately!
I'm genuinely interested in the decisions the kiwis want answers on.Did you actually write that with a straight face?
So Thursday has come and gone. Decision tomorrow?i note that Sam Cane's disciplinary is yet to be published. Imagine the impact if they were to dismiss the RC
I agree with you and I stopped watching F1 racing when they moved the finishing line to the courtroomIts no longer a surprise of course, and i appreciate this is a very naïve suggestion, but I recall a time when sport was decided by action on a pitch/court/etc and not a tribunal...
I can see a point of getting a tribunal to overcome a card/ban cos that has a direct effect going forward. But what would be the point of raising issues over a "proven" incorrect decision? Replay the fixture? It just aint gonna happen.
God the elite game gets more up its own 4rse daily
Yes, I know I am in a minority of one.
Of course the kiwis who are fuming that the TMO pointed out the knock ons for the Smith try to Wayne Barnes are the same ones who wanted a TMO to point out a forward pass to Wayne Barnes in 2007.Its no longer a surprise of course, and i appreciate this is a very naïve suggestion, but I recall a time when sport was decided by action on a pitch/court/etc and not a tribunal...
I can see a point of getting a tribunal to overcome a card/ban cos that has a direct effect going forward. But what would be the point of raising issues over a "proven" incorrect decision? Replay the fixture? It just aint gonna happen.
God the elite game gets more up its own 4rse daily
Yes, I know I am in a minority of one.
In response, I'd point to the kicks at goal the ABs missed in the final.Of course the kiwis who are fuming that the TMO pointed out the knock ons for the Smith try to Wayne Barnes are the same ones who wanted a TMO to point out a forward pass to Wayne Barnes in 2007.
Looks like the plate of biscuits was off - only Rich Tea and digestives.So Thursday has come and gone. Decision tomorrow?
This is the slowest process of the whole world cup.. is it possible that something big is happening???
I bet NZ have a good lawyer on it ...
what struck me is that he contended that his actions did not amount to a RC - so they must have thought they had a chance of arguing that.Looks like the plate of biscuits was off - only Rich Tea and digestives.
6 matches minimum entry reduced to 3 due to "the player’s exemplary disciplinary record, his early acknowledgment of foul play and his clear remorse" with a get out clause to just 2 with the Intervention Program (and a promise to tell the team to bring Garibaldis and Jaffa Cakes next time...)
Independent disciplinary update: Sam Cane (New Zealand) | World Rugby
New Zealand's Sam Cane has been suspended for three matches (reduced to two matches subject to completion of the Coaching Intervention Programme) following an independent Disciplinary Committee hearing on 6 November.www.world.rugby
"I didn't do it, but if it turns out that I did do it, then I'm really sorry for doing it"what struck me is that he contended that his actions did not amount to a RC - so they must have thought they had a chance of arguing that.
He admitted foul play and was sorry, but argued that mitigatioj should have been given and it didn't merit a RC"I didn't do it, but if it turns out that I did do it, then I'm really sorry for doing it"
He admitted foul play and was sorry, but argued that mitigatioj should have been given and it didn't merit a RC
Unless I'm misunderstanding things, I don't think that what always illegal meansFor me that's always illegal and no mitigation should be allowed.
Unless I'm misunderstanding things, I don't think that what always illegal means
The argument was probably change of direction by ball carrier, and low speed of impact.I wonder what mitigation he thought should apply for someone who is always upright, clear line of sight, no attempt to lower his height, dynamic and with force, direct contact to the head.
For me that's always illegal and no mitigation should be allowed. I was surprised when Barnsey used the TMO's words of (something like) "always illegal, no mitigation found to apply", when if its always illegal you can't apply mitigation.
Topic title: "The skill and luck of the bokke"Back to the topic title..., "luck".
if someone could actually use the footage, then we could see a chronological analysis of bunker decisions.I am happy that a RC was the decision
But given all the bunker incidents we saw in the RWC I can't understand how anyone can see these things as definitively one type of card or another .
I would not have been unduly surprised had it been a YC.
Don't forget the bunker issued no RC at all after 28 Sept .. until that one.
I just don't think that was the worst tackle in the whole second half of the RWC