All this hand wringing and cries of foul because the French ref Romain Poite, in this past Saturday’s game, sunk South Africa’s chances of winning in Eden Park Auckland, since 1937 needs a rethink.
As fans whose emotions are fueled by the learned and very emotional commentators and animated in studio television presenters, we need to make a far more calculated observation on this, as South Africa is now playing at the highest level of international sports and all occasions and events need to be anticipated, rehearsed, with a number of options planned to give South Africa the advantage.
I am not so sure the Springbok side does plan for every eventuality and does have options for all scenarios and the fact that Romain Poite erred in his decision making, of that everyone, including the IRB, have made abundantly clear, I blame Heyneke Meyer (Springbok Coach) and Jean de Villiers (Springbok Captain) for allowing this to happen.
What we see on the field, as does the TMO and now with the introduction of the ref on the field being able to review footage on the bigscreen, taken from 18 camera angles during game time, absolutely requires that the Coach & Captain make provision for every eventuality and that means challenging and quering the ref on the field and that, starts before the game with the debriefing and the one-on-one the ref has with each captain before the game.
This is where the psychological gamesmanship starts.
I am not so sure that Jean de Villiers is properly mentored and fully briefed to counter these subtle situations as both he and Heyneke Meyer randomly ad lib before and after the games, trotting out cliches.
Had Jean de Villiers been properly mentored before the NZ game, he should have had a full de-briefing paper on the psychological make up of Romain Poite and made fully aware that this French ref and northern hemisphere refs, especially French refs, have alternative decision making processes and these should have been defined.
Jean de Villiers should have expected alternative rulings and spontaneously responded to the refs whistle and ruling and insisted that the footage be immediately reviewed on the big screen.
This is by no means in defense of Romain Poite other than this was human error and as alternative as the French are, Poite could have been told by Jean de Villiers in the on-on-one briefing before the game, “Monsieur Poite, because we now have the liberty of watching the footage on the big screen together, I wish to advise you that I will be requesting that if there is the possibility of a sin binning or a red card, as Captain, I will be asking that you please confirm this decision by calling for a time-out and a review of the incident on the big screen and to draw off the alternative sightlines of the two assistant referees, as well as the TMO, to ensure that a true and fair decision is made. This is by no means a reflection of your ability to referee, but only to ensure that a just decision is made”.
Our Captain needs to b more assertive and he needs to be properly mentored and debriefed on the personalities blowing the game. A personality profile of each and every ref has to be done as every person, including ourselves, have quirks and foibles and tell tale tics and behavioral markers that can be planned for and anticipated in advance.
Today’s professional sports require alternative thinking and scientifically assessed scenarios and South Africa’s brains trust on and off the field on Saturday were shown to be under prepared.
Personality and psychological profiling has to be done on all the Match Officials, as well as the opposition, down to whether they have a hearing challenge, wearing contact lenses and have a distinctive character that requires a special approach.
And so I hope that the Springbok management set up now do a personality profile on French referee Jérôme Garcès handling the Springboks’ upcoming Test against the Wallabies at Newlands.
Time to ratchet this up a notch off the field and give the Springbok Captain a better service.
I think a few of us , i certainly did, asked questions about the o so holy approach by De Villiers and Meyer. Some called it political correctness. I felt they backed off far too easy. But so we learn, well i hope. The fight we the supporters put up with the help of media must go on until the Laws and Red card protocols are fixed.
ReUnion rugby show from Sky Sport New Zealand
http://youtu.be/RR6KSSPKNlE
Reason: Springboks too nice for their own good
by MARK REASON
It hasn’t always been so, but South Africa’s sportsmanship over the past decade is a remarkable phenomenon in the cynical world of professional sport. The Springboks players and management very rarely criticise refs, they have been known to apologise for violent play and their graciousness in defeat is a lesson to us all. But, with head in hands, I do wonder if this decency is hurting their chances.
A number of instances arose from Saturday’s test between the All Blacks and the Springboks which suggest that the method of smooth diplomacy, so successful at the 2007 World Cup, may no longer be playing out so well. Too often are the Springboks finishing on the wrong end of poor refereeing. It cost them their place at the last World Cup and it might have just cost them this year’s Rugby Championship.
The All Blacks are a very different beast. They let the referee know when sinned against, a tradition most famously marked by Andy Haden’s infamous leap out of the lineout in Cardiff in 1978. Over the years the All Blacks have been serial communicators with the ref. This is not criticism – that really would be the pot calling the kettle black, hush my mouth on a Saturday afternoon – but an observation.
There can be little doubt that New Zealand greatly contributed to Bismarck du Plessis’ sending off and that Springboks captain Jean de Villiers did little to save him. When Dan Carter went down in a heap from du Plessis’ entirely legal tackle, the All Blacks waded in. This inflamed the situation, inflamed the crowd and must have had a subconscious influence on the referee.
In the aftermath Romain Poite got his question hopelessly wrong of the TMO. The Frenchman requested, “I have a decision, but check if there was any foul play afterwards.”
Skipper de Villiers politely enquired what was wrong with the tackle.
“No arms,” said All Blacks captain Kieran Read, quite wrongly.
“High and shoulder and no arms,” added Poite.
As we all now know, not least from Carter’s very decent public statement, Poite was talking tripe, a dish of which the French are particularly fond. But an All Blacks captain in the same situation would have pleaded for him to check the video footage and the ref would have complied.
But we never saw the most conclusive angle until du Plessis had been shown the yellow card. We didn’t see it, because Poite had not requested to see the tackle again, just the ensuing brawl. TMO George Ayoub did not adjudicate on the tackle because he hadn’t been asked to.
superBul wrote:
I wonder what the Water boy added, you could see he also said something.
After the match coach Heyneke Meyer said, “We don’t have any excuses, we wanted it to be a spectacle… I truly believe that guys are well educated so we’ve got a saying that the ref is always right.”
This is the modern Springbok way. Excepting the erratic Peter de Villiers, it has become part of their rugby culture. Jake White was supremely gracious after the Brumbies lost the Super 15 final. Meyer, you may remember, publicly apologised for Dean Greyling’s wretched forearm smash on McCaw last year.
And Jean de Villiers said after this latest defeat, “We’ve seen how far we are behind the All Blacks. They are a fantastic team and we can still learn a lot from them. Defensively we were very poor.”
The Springboks forwards may have wondered about their captain’s words. South Africa’s back three was appalling. Bryan Habana made a costly kicking mistake, Zane Kirchner couldn’t catch the ball and Willie le Roux’s positional naivety was constantly exposed by New Zealand’s clever kicking. But the forwards were smashing New Zealand at the breakdown and winning the set piece battle. They know the loss of du Plessis decided the match.
The hooker was outstanding while he was on the pitch and for the 35 minutes when there was parity in numbers the score was 10-10. For the 40 minutes the All Blacks had an extra man, the score was 19-0. And the Springboks won the five minutes when they were a man up 5-0.
The last piece ….
The second yellow card and sending off of du Plessis was crucial and again it was unsatisfactory. For a start the IRB needs to address this area because nothing in the current laws regarding foul play satisfactorily defines the fend.
Steve Hansen said, in sour contrast to South Africa’s post match dignity, “I don’t think it’s legal putting your elbow in someone’s throat. The second one may have been a red.”
This is drivel and may well be designed to defuse any sympathy ahead of the re-match in South Africa. Du Plessis may have been reckless, but he was turning away, almost stationary and had his eyes shut when he made contact with Liam Messam’s neck.
I found three similar instances later in the half. One was by Owen Franks, off the ball and ahead of play, on Eben Etzebeth, and contributed to Read’s second try. One was by Charles Piutau on Jean de Villiers and the final one was by replacement Jan Serfontein.
The Piutau incident was very similar to du Plessis’. The difference was that de Villiers did not reel away clutching his throat and go down in a heap. I am not saying Messam was play-acting. I am saying the reaction of the player influenced the assistant referee who was decidedly late in signalling any concern.
South Africa may well ponder that in both instances the reaction of the All Blacks exacerbated the situation. They may well ponder that their dignity is not leading to a fair hearing. Sad to say, sportsmanship rarely pays off in the win column.
superBul wrote:
All this was said by n non South African, mr Mark Reason, so the NZ guy who left this site , read your own media and catch a wake up. We are still recognized as the best sportsman. All this comes from a NZ rugby website
In the old days there was a saying:
Nice guys come second.
Let’s face facts, SARU, SANZAR and the IRB are a bunch of amateurish posers trying to be professionals.
There is very little collective will to right the wrongs, and an F You attitude in general towards the players and fans alike.
I doubt very much that the situation will EVER be righted, and predict that after the next RWC we’ll all be commenting on the same type of cr@p as we are now, and as we (SA) did after the RWC 2011 episode with Mr Lawrence, and as the Kiwi’s did after the 2007 episode with Mr Barnes.
Same sh1t, different year, and NOTHING done by the powers that be to rectify anything.
The CEO of SARU can spew forth as much nonsense as he likes, the truth is that SARU just float along with the tide of apathy for the most part and accept the pile of steaming excrement that is served up to them year after year without doing anything concrete to fix the situation.
In fact, they’re like the Oliver Twist of the Rugby Union world, they go back and ask for another plate.
Enough of this nonsense.
Rugby Union needs a makeover IMHO.
@ dWeePer:
Also the title of John Gainsford’s book.
It was blatant cheating – bordering on match-fixing. Started with the half-Aussies’ 1st try and ended with Nonu not receiving a red card. End of story. Jean & Heyneke handled it well, only because they knew they were fighting a losing battle.
@ Scrumdown:
Good Post & right on the button.
There is little to no thinking in SARU controlling their own destiny and instead roll from one monthly meeting to the next.
There is no clear concise 5 year strategic plan and the urge to drive the growth of rugby domestically and internationally with some ballsy initiatives.
SARU should be in both SANZAR and the Northern Hemisphere tournaments – harvesting sponsors and building TV audiences now.
They will never get another chance like this and we don’t hear a boo, peep or hiss on this.
In fact Regan Hoskins can do a magnificent power play now by leading some initiatives that will make this a beauty pageant of note.
SANZAR to keep SA in the loop and ERC/Premiership to get SARU in the mix for their sponsors.
13 @ TonyM:
Truth be told, IMHO a guy like Mark Alexander sums SARU up to a tee.
Ever present, say’s and does nothing of any consequence and doesn’t even look the part.
To be correct SARU has a written document on long term strategy. I have seen it somewhere.
The SARU long term strategy revolves mainly of how to transform rugby (read it as more BLACK players and administrators).
The short coming of it, (my own opinion) there is no real plan how to develop rugby so that SA is the strongest rugby nation in the world. The words or similar words “strongest rugby nation” is nowhere in that document.
The current implementation of their long term strategy revolves around the EP region and more player of colour in the Vodacom Cup.
@ dWeePer:
As a former Chairman of a “coloured” club in greater JHB, based in an area of extreme poverty and high unemployment I can state caragotically that players at development / grass roots clubs don’t give a continental abou “transformation”.
In fact, the word was banned at our club.
What the players want is an equal crack at the whip.
Development and training.
– for players.
– for club managers.
– for groundkeepers.
– for coaches.
Six years at the club – total development budget from either the GLRU or SARU – ZIP, NIL, NADA, ZILCH.
The only development funding in 6 years came from a member of the GLRU Exco who paid the trsnsport bill for ALL of the development clubs’ for ONE season, and a yearly donation from Summit Auto Group who provided 30 clubs and schools in the Lions area with a full set of kit, tog bags, warm up kit etc for ONE team per club / school yearly.
How can anyone expect development to happen when SARU’s points to competitions like the Community Cup as a shining light of Rugby development, contested by teams that have sufficient resources to attend, when clubs at the true grass roots level can’t get their junior players (8 x teams) to a “central venue” to compete on any given Saturday because a single 60 seater bus costs R 2000, and the club’s total income for a season is in the region of R 15 000.
Never mind the problem of getting senior players to league games as well.
SARU can write all of the policies, white papers and action plans they want, the truth is that unless someone carries them to fruition, they may as well use the documentation to wipe their backsided with. That’s about what they are worth.
And if the truth be told, the vast majority of Rugby “supporters” in SA like to make a song and dance about everything that happens on the tv, but don’t really give a damn about the average guy who loves a game at his local club on a Saturday afternoon.
The p1ssed up supporters on the stand at a provincial / international stadium wouldn’t be seen dead painting the lines at a school or club ground at 5 o’clock on a Friday evening in 30km/h winds and 5 deg temperature, so that his son / nephew / whatever can enjoy his game on the weekend.
He just expects it to be all in good order when he arrives and has a thousand words to say when everything’s not to his satifaction.
Now that Mr Skinstad is also a pime example of the 80/20 rule.
20% of the people do 80% of the work so that 80% of the people can moan about the 20% that’s not to their liking.
Time for a bevvy.
Transformation is sold to the people as wealth from the rich to the poor.
In reality transformation ends up with wealth and resources from the poor to the ruling party.
What we actually see in rugby that there is a preferred area to polish the image of transformation. So does the Community Cup.
I myself is looking for performance and not transformation. With performance one expects to grow the player base. To grow your players base requires improved admin and facilities.
Users Online
Total 95 users including 0 member, 95 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,436,356 Page Impressions
_