@Victor-Meldrew said in Springboks v Italy II:

Hate to think what they'd do to the French team currently in NZ.

Lose horribly.

Who are the new players?

@Bones said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Springboks v Italy II:

Hate to think what they'd do to the French team currently in NZ.

Lose horribly.

Who are the new players?

I heard the Saffa commentators talking about 4 debutants.

Strikes me SA are years ahead of us player-pool/development wise

@Victor-Meldrew said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Bones said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Springboks v Italy II:

Hate to think what they'd do to the French team currently in NZ.

Lose horribly.

Who are the new players?

I heard the Saffa commentators talking about 4 debutants.

Strikes me SA are years ahead of us player-pool/development wise

By playing 4 debutants against what appears to be a weakened Italy?

I can't tell if you're taking the piss or angling on a foster defence.

Norris, Holland, Kirifi, Tavatavanawai....

I'm thinking I've been whooshed

@Bones

Thinking more about how much better SA are at developing players.

And playing for 80 minutes...

EDIT: The Barrett Conglomerate make up for stupid cards though.....

@Victor-Meldrew said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Bones

Thinking more about how much better SA are at developing players.

And playing for 80 minutes...

Their depth is scary good atm. They do have the massive advantage of having 4x the registered players that we do and they pick from overseas. We also lose plenty of our schoolboy talent to the NRL, something that they don't have to worry about.

@Victor-Meldrew they have a clear way of playing. It helps. Quite a lot of change coming in the next 2-3 years as their squad changes.

They have an insane amount of talent, but SA always has. Rassie is adept at selecting the right players for how he wants to play. They still bleed when you cut them though

@stodders

Like the French team. Was more commenting about how much more clinical SA are for 80 mins and how much depth they have.

@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Victor-Meldrew they have a clear way of playing. It helps. Quite a lot of change coming in the next 2-3 years as their squad changes.

They have an insane amount of talent, but SA always has. Rassie is adept at selecting the right players for how he wants to play. They still bleed when you cut them though

Hope so. Want to roll them over in the RC.

@Victor-Meldrew said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Bones

Thinking more about how much better SA are at developing players.

And playing for 80 minutes...

EDIT: The Barrett Conglomerate make up for stupid cards though.....

I'm just at a bit of a loss comparing Italy development team to France development team. And the bit about 4 debutants really made my whoosh alert spin.

@Victor-Meldrew maybe. But the Boks have 11 reasonably experienced players playing alongside the rookies. And none of the rookies are playing in combos with other rookies.

Whereas the French forward pack today was green and got dealt to (as they should) until the experience rolled off the bench.

@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:

But the Boks have 11 reasonably experienced players playing alongside the rookies. And none of the rookies are playing in combos with other rookies.

Guess that's kinda my point. We aren't in that position with settled combos quite yet. Good progress though.

SA approach is one we should look at

@Victor-Meldrew why? ABs were doing it 20 years ago with Henry, Smith and Hansen with their rest and rotation strategy. This isn’t new. NZ just haven’t been as good at exposing enough up and coming talent to test match rugby because the team has been struggling and winning has been the focus.

@stodders I'm tempted to side with Victor having too much red and eyeing up a shark jump.

@Bones best have a wash too

@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:

@Bones best have a wash too

Let's not get carried away

Rassie has been watching Paul Roos tactics.

@OomPB jumping into the tackle and obstruction.

Absolutely fucking destroyed

By 14 men, 13 for 10 mins

@booboo

Law 12.8(d):
“If the kicker's team is not behind the ball when it is kicked, a free-kick is awarded to the opposing team at the centre of the half-way line.”

@Bones said in Springboks v Italy II:

@OomPB jumping into the tackle and obstruction.

A case of rejecting reality, to substitute your own Bones. The Copium is real.

Law 9.26
In open play, any player may lift or support a player from the same team. Players who support or lift a teammate must lower the player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team.

@PN said in Springboks v Italy II:

@booboo

Law 12.8(d):
“If the kicker's team is not behind the ball when it is kicked, a free-kick is awarded to the opposing team at the centre of the half-way line.”

View embedded content

So the ref cocked up and it should have been a free kick at least?

I'm pretty sure the drafting of the Law assumes the transgression is unintentional.

Will have to check out Laws around intentional transgression of the Laws.

A bit of waffle in the preamble to the Law book:

SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and
within the spirit of the laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

@booboo welcome to professionalism.

Rassie is innovative and seeks any advantage within the laws. It isn’t what I call within the spirit of the game. But that is a throwback to the amateur era.

Winning is all that counts now. Any which way.

Under Law 9 Foul Play

UNFAIR PLAY
7. A player must not:
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game

@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:

@booboo welcome to professionalism.

Rassie is innovative and seeks any advantage within the laws. It isn’t what I call within the spirit of the game. But that is a throwback to the amateur era.

Winning is all that counts now. Any which way.

See above.

He got away with that one through a reffing error.

@booboo sanction at a kick off is a scrum to the opposition. Rassie will have done his homework.

It isn’t a penalty or a FK. Look how fast the SA props arrived for the scrum. They knew.

The ball must reach the 10-metre line.
Sanction:The non-kicking team has the option of the kick being retaken or a scrum.

But 12.5 applies as it's the first offence?

When the ball is kicked:

a. Team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball.
Sanction:Scrum.

@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:

@booboo sanction at a kick off is a scrum to the opposition. Rassie will have done his homework.

It isn’t a penalty or a FK. Look how fast the SA props arrived for the scrum. They knew.

If the ruling under 12.5(a) was correct I'd agree.

But because they deliberately infringed 9.7(a) should apply.

UNFAIR PLAY
7. A player must not:
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from
the playing area.
c. Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed an infringement.
Sanction: Penalty

Agree about the FK though: I was quoting @PN but am not sure where he got his law from(12.8(d) is quick throw)? Is that maybe a SVNS variant?

A smart coach would point the cynicism of the play to whoever runs the refs, to WR, and go on record in the media to pressure refs to see it their way in future. Even if you weren't involved in the game

@canefan said in Springboks v Italy II:

A smart coach would point the cynicism of the play to whoever runs the refs, to WR, and go on record in the media to pressure refs to see it their way in future. Even if you weren't involved in the game

I suspect (hope) there'll be clarification at WR level.

@booboo said in Springboks v Italy II:

@canefan said in Springboks v Italy II:

A smart coach would point the cynicism of the play to whoever runs the refs, to WR, and go on record in the media to pressure refs to see it their way in future. Even if you weren't involved in the game

I suspect (hope) there'll be clarification at WR level.

At least they didn't try that shit on us

@PN said in Springboks v Italy II:

The Copium is real.

Lace bugs are real? No way!

Glad I got at least one bite, surprised anyone was sensitive enough to take that rancid bait seriously.

By the way, might wanna check the ABs v France score, I didn't suffer a loss

@booboo said in Springboks v Italy II:

But because they deliberately infringed 9.7(a) should apply.

That was exactly my thoughts, same deal as intentional knock on. Except quite a bit worse as it's so deliberate and obviously cooked up by the coach with the whole team involved.

Gives Rassie something to cry about when they do it next time and get penalised.