Tri-Nations latest (Thurs)
22 Jul 2010
Keo.co.za brings you the news from the Tri-Nations.
Monty wants to bin the boot
Springboks kicking coach Percy Montgomery has called for a more ball in hand approach against Australia.
‘I want us to kick less against the Wallabies and carry the ball more. The kicks will also have to be a lot better than has been the case up to now,’ said Montgomery.
‘The second week [in Wellington] was much better. We pointed it out to the players after the Test in Auckland and the statistics from the second Test shows how much better we were. The last thing the players should have done was to kick the ball away. And that’s precisely what we did.’
‘The chase of the kick is just as important and that is another area in which I expect a major improvement. It cannot be measured by statistics. It’s an attitude and I’m happy that we are improving. We could get away with it against Italy, but not against the All Blacks. We have to go back to the basics.’
Wallabies make late change
Matt Hodgson will miss the Wallabies’ Tri-Nations opener against the Springboks in Brisbane on Saturday because of a groin injury.
The Western Force flanker, who was named on the bench, suffered a minor groin strain in training on Tuesday and was ruled out after the injury worsened on Thursday. Hodgson will be replaced by Force team-mate Ben McCalman amongst the reserves.
Boks take ref frustrations to Sanzar
South African Rugby Union president Oregan Hoskins has instructed the Springboks’ representative on the SANZAR legal committee, Judge Lex Mpati, to look into the matter of perceived inconsistencies in the application of the laws.
‘A number of stakeholders have complained to me about the lack of consistency in the rulings of the judicial officials in rugby,’ Hoskins said.
‘I have stressed to Judge Mpati the seriousness of the matter, and he has promised that he will come back to me in writing hopefully by next week. I don’t want to say too much further, as previously I have spoken about the issue in the media and nothing has been done about it.’
Tickets to go on sale in Soweto
Tickets for the historic Tri-Nations clash at the National Stadium will go on sale in Soweto on Monday.
The Golden Lions Rugby Union are the official hosts for the South Africa vs New Zealand fixture, which was originally planned to take place at Ellis Park. 5 000 tickets will be available from 09:00 on Monday, 26 July, sold for R100 on a first-come-first-served basis.
Buyers will be limited to four tickets per customer. These tickets will only be available at Sowetan outlets.
186 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
22 Jul 2010, 09:58 am
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-97: But it’s fun to look back. I like the one where Matfield took out Kelleher with a shoulder charge late, high, and with a swinging armband that knocked Kelleher out (it is available on youtube). That is when the SA citing commissioner set the gold standard for the level of shoulder charge that is acceptable without being cited.
22 Jul 2010, 09:58 am
Here’s my perspective, the laws are not above the horizontal. Its a citing offense. Ioane did the same tackle and got 4 weeks in the super14, check the two vids and tell me what the difference is please. I recon both are the same, jeans is at a slower pace and therefore not as dangerous, half the intensity and so half the penalty seem fair.
No Conspiracy.
Get on with it and quit whinging
youtube.com/watch?v=YCV_rRiCHvU
youtube.com/watch?v=_YlcJ_1qXA0
22 Jul 2010, 09:59 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-99:
Who’s Prince Charming?
22 Jul 2010, 10:00 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-94:
Are you high?
Let me break this down in simple terms for you.
During play, when play is active, getting yourself in a position to defend at times result that you get it wrong through body positioning, movement of the offensive player and your own movement going into the tackle.
Momentum in the tackle plays a massive part and there will always be momentum in play. The fact that he got it wrong is no question, however did it sanction a possible red card?
Now consider the Thorne incident.
Number one it was OFF THE BALL.
So it was not a defender trying to tackle an attacker.
Secondly it was AFTER THE WHISTLE, meaning play had come to a stop.
There can be no excuse therefore of momentum, wrong body position or wrong tackle technique.
It was malicious with intent, no other excuse.
22 Jul 2010, 10:05 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-104: you’re wasting your time with this one pissant, he is the kiwi equivalent of alucard…
22 Jul 2010, 10:08 am
@Dawn(Dawn)-103:
Have you seen Shrek, Peaches ?
read this article again, figure it out.
22 Jul 2010, 10:09 am
Its quite clear SANZAR saw this as the perfect time to strike SA because they know die Snor is all ready messing JDV around and a ban would go down nicely in upsetting him further..
It was a strategically calculated attack I tell you!!
:O
:O
22 Jul 2010, 10:09 am
@Transformation(Transformation)-105:
Okay then, another one to go onto the ignore list.
22 Jul 2010, 10:09 am
@Transformation(Transformation)-105:
That he is, nogal.
22 Jul 2010, 10:09 am
Pissant & Black Panther
I do not agree with either of you, but in my opinion!
Thorn was provoked
Thorn did not drive Smit
Smit was at no point beyond horizontal
Thorn dropped Smit on his ar$e he did not drive
Smit also played with a previous groin injury as he was kept on the bench during his French sojourn… True.
I see no point in comparing the Thorn and PdV tackles as one was at a ruck (stationary) and the other in flight. Not comparable at all.
Was bad and the referee should have seen it.
22 Jul 2010, 10:12 am
@muffy(muffy)-102:
I agree.
and the problem is??
22 Jul 2010, 10:12 am
Referees on both occasions should have carded.
What the heck are the Assistant Referees for?
22 Jul 2010, 10:15 am
@RugbyRulz(RugbyRulz)-110:
Youtube it.
Bakkies was also provoked.
No excuse.
It was 5 seconds after the whistle.
Legs definately way over the horizontal and dumped on his back.
Now tell me again what you think…
22 Jul 2010, 10:19 am
@David(David)-85: Then, of course, the spotlight would shine upon Butch’s “tackling” technique if and when he takes the field next.
22 Jul 2010, 10:20 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-113:
So we have someone defending what Bakkies did?
Who honestly cares. Bakkies has made the refs look at SA again and their foul play. Dont blame the refs but blame yourselves.
Even the coach dosnt mind the odd eye gouge as he has commented.
22 Jul 2010, 10:22 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-104:
malicious, with intent……
oh please, talk to someone who hasnt spent years studying and practising ‘intent’.
It was a reaction to provocation. Murder requires ‘intent’, manslaughter does not. There is still a dead body on the ground for both offences.
Thorn lifted Smit. Thorn then dropped Smit. Yes, still dangerous. But clearly a case of ‘manslaughter’, not ‘murder’.
Murder is closer to what Mealamu did to BOD. He lifted, retained control, drove the player downward without releasing. INTENT. Look at Tuqiri on McCaw if you want to see the hand still holding the bloodied-knife.
JdV – whilst not as serious as Mealamu – lifted and retained control as Ranger hit the ground. At no stage did he release Ranger – therefore more intent than Thorn.
22 Jul 2010, 10:24 am
@RugbyRulz(RugbyRulz)-110:
I think you mean that we agree 100%.
22 Jul 2010, 10:30 am
@Hurricane(Hurricane)-115:
Are all Kiwi supporters ******* high today?
The point was provocation – even if provoked it serves as no excuse for the action.
And the full comments of the coach was posted on this site ad nauseum.
And if referees are influenced by reputation they should not carry a whistle. To take any preconceived ideas into any game removes any possibility of a fair contest out of rugby and we might as well stop playing.
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-116:
There was intent to harm the player. If not, it would not have happened after the whistle. He retaliated with the intent to inflict harm so take whatever you practice and keep ******* practicing.
And youtube the JDV incident. He fell backwards with the player so I fail to see how the hell he can drive a player into the ground doing it which could even be argued bring the player down safely otherwise your definition of ‘driving’ is as good as your practice.
22 Jul 2010, 10:35 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-118:
its the word ‘retaliation’ that makes a complete mockery of your whole argument.
To continue the ‘murder’ theme, think ‘self defense’ and youre half way there.
Thorn received a ban, JdV a ban. JdVs was 1 week more because he didnt release whereas Thorn did. Watch the replays – Im not making it up. I didnt say ‘driving’ because he didnt. I said he ‘retained control’ because he did.
Neither got a YC when they should have.
Therefore – consistent.
22 Jul 2010, 10:37 am
Black Pant
You are reaching.
The de villiers incident took place in open play him not releasing had more to do with the momentum of the collision than any intent.
The same cannot he said for thorne. There was no momentum it was after the whistle. He picked smit up and dumped him.
For you to argue lack of intent is, frankly, laughable.
Probably a good thing you don’t practice law anymore?
22 Jul 2010, 10:39 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-119:
Self-defense?
That would assume his safety was in danger in any way?
Please explain that one to me.
And the point about the citing and ban is quite simple, for the citing commissioner to cite the incident needed to be of such a nature that it may well have resulted in a RED CARD on the field if picked up by the officials.
The Thorne and De Villiers issues are so far removed it is not even worth comparing. The only similarity was it resulted in an illegal tackler or spear.
The one was on the ball, in play, the other was off the ball, not in play.
Foul play OFF THE BALL and AFTER THE WHISTLE is much more serious than those in play. It borders on thuggery not rugby.
22 Jul 2010, 10:40 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-119:
And go watch the incident, even the commentators said Thorne reacted through retaliation.
22 Jul 2010, 10:44 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-120: @Black Panther(Black Panther)-121: Off the ball and after the whistle makes no difference. Next time Carter lines up a penalty kick I reckon Bakkies should run 20m and smash him. Injures Carter, but since it is a legal tackle he shouldn’t be sanctioned.
22 Jul 2010, 10:46 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-122:
yes – we agree. Retaliation. Thorn reacted, ie retaliated, to Smit elbowing him in the neck. Smit himself admitted that he targeted Thorn due to some perceived illegality entering the ruck.
JdV was completely unprovoked. More mitigating circumstances.
My advice to you going forward is to pick a fight with someone that you CAN win. Neither you or Smit seem to grasp this basic principle.
22 Jul 2010, 10:52 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-126: By your reasoning, Bakkies headbutt was less serious because Jimmy provoked him? That’s stupid. You’re confusing yourself.
22 Jul 2010, 10:53 am
@Ratel Brussow(Morne Steyn is under-rated)-123:
JUSTICE4 BaXXies !
22 Jul 2010, 10:54 am
Retaliation makes no difference.
In fact it proves intent.
22 Jul 2010, 10:57 am
It was a tackle to horizontal and more..the tackler is in complete control when they lift…its not by accident.
JDV tackle had intent all the way. To lift a player is intent in its self. Thorn and JDV had intent.
Regardless of how anyone sees it the IRB want to stamp it out.
Player goes horizontal then all IRB eyes become wide open.
22 Jul 2010, 10:59 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-124:
My suggestion to you is that you keep practicing or direct your potential clients here so they can judge for themselves if they in fact want you to represent them…
Or simply get to know your rugby laws a bit better.
Retaliation is far more serious in rugby than any other foul play incidents.
JDV’s actions was simple bad technique in the tackle, he did not dump the player in mid air who has no control over his body and fall, neither did he drive the player into the ground.
Thorne’s actions had asbolutely nothing to do with the game, or any techniques he got wrong.
It was thuggery, off the ball out of play (after the whistle) foul play.
But it is quite obvious you are starting to grasp at straws now, so I will take Trans’ advice and simply ignore any further posts on this matter, got better things to read.
22 Jul 2010, 10:59 am
Fark.
Do we have a bunch of erectile dysfunctions around after the past two weeks’ games.
NZCHINA
BLACK PANTHER
BLACK POWER
HURRICANE
22 Jul 2010, 11:00 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-126: I’m out of this thread. Geniuses really.
Provocation lessens the crime? Your “but the poodle shouldn’t flaunt itself at me” defense is better suited to a Cape flats tik addict than an insightful rugby supporter.
Off the ball and after the whistle counts for nothing, its only the danger of the tackle. I mean do you know how retarded you sound? What’s the point of the whistle?
I know you are probably loving winding us up, but you are just making yourself sound stupid and at time your knowledge and insight have been impressive, you’re losing credibility.
22 Jul 2010, 11:01 am
Ranger is bigger than Jean.
No fair.
22 Jul 2010, 11:01 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-121:
Foul play on the ball and within the whistle…is thuggery!!
what you getting to!
JDV was intent all the way!!
22 Jul 2010, 11:05 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-124:
so what you’re saying is its only ok for ABs to retaliate then?
22 Jul 2010, 11:07 am
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-133:
Rubbish. Was the tackle dangerous? Yes. Was it intentionally dangerous and designed to illegally hurt the player? No.
22 Jul 2010, 11:11 am
@gunther(gunther)-127:
O
M
G
yes, youre right and every legal precedent known to man is wrong.
Arise Lord Justice Gunther, Master of the Rolls.
22 Jul 2010, 11:12 am
JDV deserved his ban he did the crime albeit through recklessness rather than intent, however trying to compare it to Thorn’s way off the ball actions which sparked a brawl (for which he received a meagre one week ban) is a joke.
22 Jul 2010, 11:15 am
@munkiboi(munkiboi)-134:
and where did I say that, Einstein ?
Please refer, firstly, to my example of INTENT by Mr Mealamu on BOD. Unless Im mistaken, Mealamu is an……..er…….um…….’AB’.
What you numbskulls completely fail to do is make a distinction between National Interests (“look at me, Im a more passionate Bok supporter than anyone !”) and the application of the Rules of Rugby.
They are different; quite different. One does not equal the other. Never will.
22 Jul 2010, 11:15 am
talking of dumps
i think i need to take one
after reading all this cr ap from pantie and wannabie
22 Jul 2010, 11:16 am
Latest reported comments from PdV is that the AB’s winning the 2 games is part of a larger conspiracy to promote the 2011 WC and attract people to the games. No shame this man. He is doing nothing for his, or SA’s, reputation on the worlds sports fields.
22 Jul 2010, 11:16 am
@Dawn(Dawn)-130:
No problem here, Peaches. Cant talk for you tho.
22 Jul 2010, 11:17 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-138:
Stop calling us names man.
Ugly.
22 Jul 2010, 11:18 am
@David(David)-135:
I did not say it was intentionally dangerous…I said there was intent to lift in the tackle. That in itself risks being dangerous.
As a rugby player one can say that we are all in control of how we tackle or how we tackled.
22 Jul 2010, 11:19 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-141:
Me?
22 Jul 2010, 11:19 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-113: I just youtubed it.
My opinion has not changed. The Assistant Ref should have been more forceful in his determination to the Referee, if he thought it dangerous. The Ref changed his original penalty against Thompson (high tackle) to a penalty against Thorn for dropping a player (Smit). The Ref said to both Captains, “Hope we’ve got that out of our/your system now, penalty is going against you black.” Smit asked if it was a card and the Ref told him they (the refs) were not sure.
Seems obvious from that comment the incident was always going to be revisited. Indeed it was and Thorn was cited.
Bakkies… arrg this guy is a walking card/suspension. There is way too many reasons/excuses for this guy. Sorry but on Botha – NO comment.
PDV went in with a great shot, it was instantaneous, no malice… but it went wrong. He should have been carded. The citing was justified and suspension about right. At speed, big hit was ok but the guy landed on his neck/shoulder. That was where danger/carelessness came into it, his exemplary record and guilty plea had him land a 2 week suspension. Fair in my opinion.
Ranger… In my opinion skated very close with his hit. There were arms and only just. His shoulder definitely hit first but his arms were there. Intent to use arms was his only saving grace.
Kirchner… His shot on Jane was high too, I know Jane tried to duck and weave but the shot was high. Jane if not coat-hangered would more than likely have scored. This guy is like a slippery eel.
22 Jul 2010, 11:23 am
@Dawn(Dawn)-130: It’s because there are so many immigrant South Africans in NZ now with more arriving every day and they, of course, aren’t shy about rubbing in perceived Bok superiority and that can rankle.
22 Jul 2010, 11:26 am
@RugbyRulz(RugbyRulz)-145: ‘Ref told him they (the refs) were not sure.’
Dickinson told them ‘he didn’t see it’ Wenger-style
22 Jul 2010, 11:26 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-138: What the heck are they feeding Keven? He is playing like a 26 year old.
I know this may sound crazy, but if I had to choose between all the NZ hookers, when 100% fit, I would choose Keven 1st and Hore 2nd. I like Flynn, he is dynamic but feel he has bones of balsa.
Keven has fine tuned his weakness (throwing) and is looking like a man possessed. I reckon Auckland 2011 is screaming to the man.
22 Jul 2010, 11:27 am
There was nothing wrong with Rangers Tackle should not have been penalized…It was bloody brilliant….Boks wouldn’t have scored.
Boks can only score close to the 22 anyway…have no imagination at the moment…Its obvious as day that PDV is looking for excuses…but to call other teams cheaters is really sad…
Yes Boks you walked through RWC…won TN 3-0 last year we had Donald (Henry should have been shot)in there for you..haha…..Reality is that your team is the ones that were average…which has now been proven…even if we don’t win WC it will be because better team won on the day not because you are so great..lol
22 Jul 2010, 11:29 am
@Big Hit(Big Hit)-147: Hi Big, well there you go. I saw it, you saw it, how did the ref not? Perhaps he didn’t see it as a carding offense. Dunno.
Who is Wenger? Excuse my ignorance please.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.