RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks

[_Os_]

How the fuck is Klitshoff not obstructing there.

Yes... jesus

He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...

WTF?

He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.

[_Os_]

For those criticising De Allende, you maybe need to look at oom's analysis. In his words "and that is why they have centres who can tackle locks". Rassnaber probably settled on De Allende/Am, because of their defence.

The Boks won this one, because as I've posted the key to stopping Scotland is the close in defence and preventing their momentum. No use having some fancy play maker at 12 if you've lost the match because he was unable to stop all carrying in his channel, De Allende's carrying is just game plan anyway whoever replaces him will be expected to carry too. I'm not sure Esterhuizen would've been an upgrade on defence, maybe he would've been, if he played instead and wasn't potentially the Boks lose.

Nienaber has already said the 13 order with Am out is Kriel/De Allende/Moodie. If he's not playing 12 he'll be playing 13.

[_Os_]

Scotland had to keep ball in hand to try and get scores back but it played into SA hands. I'd expect the ball to spend a lot of time in the air in the SA-Ireland match.

Nowhere near enough pressure on Libbock either. He is about as flakey as they come so how he wasn't a blubbering mess by the end is weird

He's erratic because he tries stuff and doesn't have enough option taking experience at the highest level to know what to leave. He's not erratic because of mental weakness, he's a yster. He'll make an error and then continue as if it hadn't happened. It reminds me a lot of Le Roux when he first appeared in provincial rugby.

If runners are sent on him, he'll enjoy it I expect. It's normal in SA to enjoy tackling and he's the norm not the exception. His tackle on Graham was massive, went for the arm to prevent the offload, didn't allow the tackle to be broken and took him down.

[Sandstorm]

I look forward to some loosie targeting Libbok, then ending up clutching air as Manie steps him and takes off down the pitch.

[Blackmac]

Yes... jesus

He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...

WTF?

He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.

No one in a million years is calling that a maul.

[Sandstorm]

He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...

WTF?

He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.

No one in a million years is calling that a maul.

Shithouse Irish ref did.

[Chilli]

Who do the cvnts moaning about Money Libbok want to play at 10?
Pollard hadn't recovered enough.
Boeta Depinnar?
Curwin Fucking Bosch?
Morning Steyn?
Derek Hougaard?

He is a dodgy kicker, but Faf or Kolbe can kick for poles

Money is the best optionavailableat 10.

Now get the fuck over yourselves.

[boere wors]

i havent watched the full game... somebody remembers how many kicks for goal were missed by manie and by faf?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...

WTF?

He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.

No one in a million years is calling that a maul.

Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)

[Sandstorm]

i havent watched the full game... somebody remembers how many kicks for goal were missed by manie and by faf?

Manie 3, Faf 1

Scotland could have been 26 behind, not just 15 at the end. A REAL caning.

[_Os_]

He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...

WTF?

He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.

No one in a million years is calling that a maul.

[boere wors]

i havent watched the full game... somebody remembers how many kicks for goal were missed by manie and by faf?

Manie 3, Faf 1

Scotland could have been 26 behind, not just 15 at the end. A REAL caning.

thx

[_Os_]

Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)

I've posted the video, run it at x0.25 speed. Kitshoff comes from directly behind Du Toit, he doesn't "rejoin" anything and doesn't change his bind.

The lesson here is make the tackle, don't set up a maul on your line against Du Toit/Mostert/Kitshoff with so few defenders Kitshoff can walk the whole way through.

[Tichtheid]

Os, nah, Kitshoff joined in front of the ball, he was offside. I'm not going in to it any further because I just see no reason to, it won't change the result.

Similarly Sandstorm, if penalties were missed the games restarts from a completely different place on the pitch, so it's a different game - not so for conversions of course but there were only two of them and I think one was converted - what I'm saying is that you can't add mythical points and assume nothing else changes.

You won, let that be enough.

[_Os_]

Os, nah, Kitshoff joined in front of the ball, he was offside. I'm not going in to it any further because I just see no reason to, it won't change the result.

He joins behind Du Toit when the maul is formed, that is when he's bound. He moves ahead of the ball after he's bound already because there's no Scottish player stopping him, until he makes contact with Schoeman.

Could be a tactic because the carry directly before by Marx there was an attempt to turn it into a maul too. Risks a turnover if it fails..

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)

I've posted the video, run it at x0.25 speed. Kitshoff comes from directly behind Du Toit, he doesn't "rejoin" anything and doesn't change his bind.

The lesson here is make the tackle, don't set up a maul on your line against Du Toit/Mostert/Kitshoff with so few defenders Kitshoff can walk the whole way through.

I'll have whatever you've been smoking.

Kitshoff joins in front of the ball carrier, never binds, runs straight round the front and drags Tuipulotu out of the way.

[Blackmac]

Os, nah, Kitshoff joined in front of the ball, he was offside. I'm not going in to it any further because I just see no reason to, it won't change the result.

He joins behind Du Toit when the maul is formed, that is when he's bound. He moves ahead of the ball after he's bound already because there's no Scottish player stopping him, until he makes contact with Schoeman.

Could be a tactic because the carry directly before by Marx there was an attempt to turn it into a maul too. Risks a turnover if it fails..

No he bloody doesn't, he joins in front before 5 binds and is obstructing Schoeman and Jones. Your picture proves nothing. As Tichtheid says, it's not worth arguing about but you are really stretching credibility with your description.

[_Os_]

Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)

I've posted the video, run it at x0.25 speed. Kitshoff comes from directly behind Du Toit, he doesn't "rejoin" anything and doesn't change his bind.

The lesson here is make the tackle, don't set up a maul on your line against Du Toit/Mostert/Kitshoff with so few defenders Kitshoff can walk the whole way through.

I'll have whatever you've been smoking.

Kitshoff joins in front of the ball carrier, never binds, runs straight round the front and drags Tuipulotu out of the way.

[_Os_]

Your picture proves nothing. .

I thought it would be helpful to provide you an example picture of a maul.

[_Os_]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.

Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

[Guy Smiley]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.

Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

We do.

Kitshoff doesn't.

[_Os_]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.

Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

We do.

Kitshoff doesn't.

Hilarious. Literally a screencap with a massive red arrow showing the bind.

[Guy Smiley]

Stills are great, unless you’re serious about illustrating the entire sequence of events.

He’s bound initially. He has to stay bound.

[topofthemoon]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.

Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

You're lacking one crucial element for a maul there - a Scotland player bound in. Tuipulotu is bounced off in his attempted tackle (perfectly clear on the reverse angle) and before he can engage du Toit again, Kitshoff has stepped in front of the ball carrier and continues in that position across the line.

I'd be annoyed if a Scotland try was chalked off for something like that but we needed a decent bit of luck to have a chance of winning so things like that and the Kriel (non-)decision really needed to go in our favour.

[_Os_]

Stills are great, unless you’re serious about illustrating the entire sequence of events.

He’s bound initially. He has to stay bound.

You will not be able to find a frame where his right hand isn't bound near Du Toit's right armpit/back, or even a frame where the hand isn't visible but his body is positioned in such a way the hand couldn't be there.

[_Os_]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.

Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

You're lacking one crucial element for a maul there - a Scotland player bound in. Tuipulotu is bounced off in his attempted tackle (perfectly clear on the reverse angle) and before he can engage du Toit again, Kitshoff has stepped in front of the ball carrier and continues in that position across the line.

I'd be annoyed if a Scotland try was chalked off for something like that but we needed a decent bit of luck to have a chance of winning so things like that and the Kriel (non-)decision really needed to go in our favour.

Finally a good point. This one is a maybe for me. The tackler is bounced but does bind immediately and is never off his feet. His right arm goes limp, but his left arm goes up and grabs the lifting tape on Du Toit's right leg at the same time Kitshoff binds, Scottish player then loses that bind and immediately rebinds but when that happens is obscured. Where this becomes a maybe for me, is it's impossible to tell the order with the quality of footage I have (the next frame is the one with the red arrow I've posted already, and Faf's elbow is obscuring Du Toit's leg in that one). The tackler and Kitshoff are both bound to Du Toit within a split second.

What's for sure is all the stuff about Kitshoff not being bound is a load of kak. Ref was right there, he obviously decided it was a maul and was looking at Kitshoff's bind the entire time.

[Sards]

This is where I start losing interest

[Guy Smiley]

I found a highlights clip on Youtube and yeah, he stays bound... albeit by the slimmest of margins. Easy to miss that in real time which is what I was going by.

Those last few stills though, they certainly don't confirm the Scottish player remains bound.

So, the Bokke cheated. Clearly.

[_Os_]

In an effort to end this.

It could be reffed that the bind is broken because the whole arm isn't in contact, but that's not often given (there's plenty of times at the front of mauls when players end up only gripping a jersey, much like Kitshoff ends up doing). Usually it's only strictly policed on the tail gunner. But the ref could say the bind is broken because it's not full arm contact, I would be a bit annoyed by that, but it could be given.

Thinking about it more it's likely there was no Scottish player bound and moon is correct, it happens in a second, but the Scottish player can't bind to the leg so any grab on lifting tape doesn't matter when he rebinds legally (although this is obscured) Kitshoff is likely ahead of the ball carrier. If a TMO called that, I would be less likely to be annoyed.

[Chilli]

I found a highlights clip on Youtube and yeah, he stays bound... albeit by the slimmest of margins. Easy to miss that in real time which is what I was going by.

Those last few stills though, they certainly don't confirm the Scottish player remains bound.

So, the Bokke cheated. Clearly.

New Zealanders obsession with the Boks is a bit unhealthy.

[Guy Smiley]

In an effort to end this.

It could be reffed that the bind is broken because the whole arm isn't in contact, but that's not often given (there's plenty of times at the front of mauls when players end up only gripping a jersey, much like Kitshoff ends up doing). Usually it's only strictly policed on the tail gunner. But the ref could say the bind is broken because it's not full arm contact, I would be a bit annoyed by that, but it could be given.

Thinking about it more it's likely there was no Scottish player bound and moon is correct, it happens in a second, but the Scottish player can't bind to the leg so any grab on lifting tape doesn't matter when he rebinds legally (although this is obscured) Kitshoff is likely ahead of the ball carrier. If a TMO called that, I would be less likely to be annoyed.

I was thinking the same... technically Kitshoff is bound as he maintains contact, but it's a sketchy call and could easily be penalised. 50/50 call on that and the grey area on this play is around his moving to the front.

Didn't influence the result though, it's just another of those myriad situations that excite debate.

[assfly]

I think the real question is whether Kitshoff's additional hydration illegally helped him.

[Slick]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.

Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

Your still above shows no Scottish player involved in the imaginary maul which kind of invalidates your whole premise. Keep up the good work

[_Os_]

In an effort to end this.

It could be reffed that the bind is broken because the whole arm isn't in contact, but that's not often given (there's plenty of times at the front of mauls when players end up only gripping a jersey, much like Kitshoff ends up doing). Usually it's only strictly policed on the tail gunner. But the ref could say the bind is broken because it's not full arm contact, I would be a bit annoyed by that, but it could be given.

Thinking about it more it's likely there was no Scottish player bound and moon is correct, it happens in a second, but the Scottish player can't bind to the leg so any grab on lifting tape doesn't matter when he rebinds legally (although this is obscured) Kitshoff is likely ahead of the ball carrier. If a TMO called that, I would be less likely to be annoyed.

I was thinking the same... technically Kitshoff is bound as he maintains contact, but it's a sketchy call and could easily be penalised. 50/50 call on that and the grey area on this play is around his moving to the front.

Didn't influence the result though, it's just another of those myriad situations that excite debate.

It all influences the result. No use pretending it doesn't.

Quite a lot depends on something looking right to the ref, shit but that's the truth of it. Forward passes are the obvious example, it's all about the passer's hands going backwards, until that doesn't matter because the ball travelled forward in a way which looks bad.

[_Os_]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.

Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

Your still above shows no Scottish player involved in the imaginary maul which kind of invalidates your whole premise. Keep up the good work

You agree Kitshoff was bound then?

[average joe]

He was hiding a bottle of Aquafina in his pocketses.

[Slick]

I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.


https://passport.world.rugby/injury-pre ... /the-maul/


Hopefully you now understand what a maul is.

Your still above shows no Scottish player involved in the imaginary maul which kind of invalidates your whole premise. Keep up the good work

You agree Kitshoff was bound then?

Bound to what? You’re the one showing us a still with no maul to illustrate a maul

[assfly]

Do we have to put up this moaning for another 4 years?

[Guy Smiley]

Do we have to put up this moaning for another 4 years?

Try 100 years of it.

Now harden the fuck up and stop crying, little girl.

[assfly]

Try 100 years of it.

Now harden the fuck up and stop crying, little girl.

we're marching our way to the quarter finals, I've been smiling since Sunday night.

What's your excuse?