Saturday, September 14, 2013

Bismarck Du Plessis controversially yellow carded for huge hit on Dan Carter

Former Italy and Springbok coach Nick Mallett shares his thoughts on Romain Poite's decision to yellow card Bismarck Du Plessis for the tackle on Dan Carter. Mallett argues that Poite had technology, as well as his touch judges, at his disposal so should have made use of them.

Page: 123View All

Posted by Rugbydump at 9:29 am | View Comments (191)

Posted in The Rugby Championship, Big Hits & Dirty Play

Viewing 191 comments

EyeMacHunt September 14, 2013 11:40 am

This is the single worst refereeing decision I've ever seen

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 14, 2013 7:39 pm

No, decisions like this are the worst:

In these situations the referees just plain get the rules wrong, and should know better.

I agree that the decision to give him the first yellow was a shocker, and it was appalling he didn't make use of available technology, but it isn't as bad as all that.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 14, 2013 7:48 pm

Just so I'm clear, Poite's decision was terrible, and poor management of the TMO by him (he made it clear he only wanted to be told about what happened after the tackle) really made it worse.

When I say it was as bad as 'all that' I've got the example of the quick throw in mind, when the referee just got the rules wrong. In this clip the referee just sees it wrong, which is a terrible shame, but not as bad.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Thomas September 15, 2013 1:06 am

About not knowing the rules, he did the same thing with Pienaar's charging of a free kick. So together it was a pretty horrible performance, and the yellows on NZ at the end didn't make up for it.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 6:30 am

Ref got it completely right. B du P saw an opportunity to hit and hurt an unaware DC and he took it rather than drop his tackle into the breadbasket or lower. Also he was quite aware that a head clash could result and that's why he turns his melon to the left just before impact so his own face would not make contact. However in this case it backfired on him as even though he was able to remove a key player for more than just this match, but by the same stupidity' breached the rules of fair play again, resulting in him letting his team down by forcing them to play against a team with superior skills with only 14 men.
Karma has an uncanny knack of making you pay when you endeavour to smash a player out of the game just because the opportunity presents.
n.b. Quade Cooper
Have a look at the Rooster's enforcer Jared Warea-Hargreaves who when a two man tackle went wrong and there was a risk of the player landing on his head/neck and doing damage, went all out to get his arm under the player to stop any damage. Now there's a gutsy player with integrity.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 15, 2013 10:03 am

Hitting a player hard, and hurting them, is an essential part of the game - as long as it is done legally. Intending to hurt a player and make them scared to spend time on the ball is one thing, but aiming to injure a player is another.

Hitting Carter high on his chest means the ball gets wrapped up and he can't distribute it. Nothing wrong with this as a goal. If Carter gets winded, fine. Du Plessis is a monster and this is part of his game.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

matt September 15, 2013 2:22 pm

You're an idiot nathanherewini, the player's intentions are irrelevant, and we can never know what he intended anyway. So long as the tackle is legal, and in this case it absolutely was, it doesn't matter what he was aiming to do.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 8:19 pm

Well the tackle was not legal, as judged by the ref. He then asked the TMO about foul play after the high shot and I daresay, if there had been any by the ABs, he would have reversed the penalty, but as you may have noticed, the ABs predominantly don't have that aspect to their play, they are too busy putting on moves and split second timed passes. That's why they get intercepted a bit by skilful opposition backs, but generally their good enough to absorb those intercepts.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Jimothy September 15, 2013 9:27 pm

Actually there was nothing wrong with the first tackle and if you need proof check these links out!

Nothing wrong with the tackle. Fell awkwardly and popped my AC joint #gutted #smashedembro

— Dan Carter (@DanCarter) September 14, 2013

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Full Back September 16, 2013 11:26 am

I notice how he's gone silent now...

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

neutralAussie September 16, 2013 10:29 am

nathanherewini - I think you're more stupid than the two people you mentioned (Quade Cooper & Jared Warea-Hargreaves).

There is nothing illegal with hitting a player hard, whether or not you hope to injure them. The tackle was perfectly legal and a fantastically executed and timed hit. It was unfortunate Dan Carter got injured but that should be irrelevant in the refs decision.

Now stop saying the tackle was not legal when it clearly was. Even the IRB has acknowledge it was legal and has since issued an apology.

From a neutral point of view this ruined an amazing game of rugby, one of the best I've seen in a longtime. It's likely nz would have gone on to win without the appalling ref decisions but it would've been a contest and great to watch.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

ciaranbrk September 15, 2013 11:38 pm

What? That was just a hell of a hit. Nothing wrong with that at all. The IRB agree and have said as much that the decision to sin bin him for that was wrong and I'm a neutral. Nothing in that.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Ho3n3r September 16, 2013 11:29 am

Oh yes, because we're playing tiddlywinks. Oh no, wait, we're not. Remove your head from your arse before commenting next time.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

kevin November 26, 2013 10:29 am

you're an idiot.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

IanBru September 14, 2013 11:46 am

This is up there with the red-carding of Scott Murray against Wales in 2006 for me, in terms of sheer heinous, mindless refereeing.

At some point referees have to be told that THEY are not the centre of the game, and we don't want to spend ten minutes every week watching them ponce about.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Swing September 15, 2013 12:38 am

Totally agree. Du Plessis' completely legitimate tackle is utterly comparable to Scott Murray lashing out feet first into the face of a marginally late tackler.

Oh, hang on...

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

suntzu September 15, 2013 11:56 pm

you are comparing the above to this red card?

I don't know how you can possible say that both Murray's red card is an act of mindless refereeing, I thought it was spot on...

View Video

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

amos87 September 14, 2013 11:47 am

Ref in some sort of dream world, if anything some Kiwi's should be in the bin for kicking off after the tackle! the second yellow, if it hadn't hit the collarbone and he recoiled from the pain would he have even taken a second glance?

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 14, 2013 7:41 pm

Yeah, I agree that if the player hadn't been hurt he wouldn't have been carded, but it is a dangerous technique to fend a player off with the elbow. To get a yellow card for a fend (with the elbow) into another player's sternum isn't that bad. The first yellow was far worse.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

matt September 15, 2013 2:24 pm

I just worry that now refs are going to have to card every player who puts a forearm up in front of them when carrying the ball, and if there are things our game doesn't need, it's more penalties and teams being even more afraid to run with the ball.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

tezca September 16, 2013 2:38 pm

to fend off with the forearm is forbidden... Do you mean that you expect the refs not to punish the dangerous forbidden plays? BTW, it was not with the forearm but with the elbow, which is even more dangerous.
A French player, Rougerie, playing with his club vs the the London Wasps in 2002 got his larynx crushed by exactly the same move than Du Plessis. The result was several weeks in hospital, 3 surgeries, respiratory problems, feeding with nasogastric probe, 5 months without playing rugby. And the tribunal punished Greenwood to a 40 000 euros fine.
That fend off was not a fend off, it was a hit in the throat with the elbow. You can kill somebody with that kind of hit... So a yellow card is not bad...
If the players fend off like it's said in the rules of this game, with the hand, under the shoulders, then no penalty, no cards. Respect the rules, respect the game, respect your opponent, and nobody will see anything wrong in this. Don't do it, and you'll get penalties and cards. As simple as that...

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 17, 2013 7:08 am

I don't think they'll spot it that much, but unfortunately for the tackled player if you've stuck your elbow up and a man is injured trying to legitimately tackle you, you're probably going to have your actions looked at more closely. It's just human nature.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DaveW September 14, 2013 11:48 am

Hopefully this leads to Poite not being given a (big) game ever again. I'm sick of him.

It won't though.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

stroudos September 14, 2013 9:56 pm

Got this wrong but usually one of the best refs IMO.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

matt September 15, 2013 2:25 pm

This was a shocker, but he did single handedly save the Lions series from being a joke

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

seismicshed September 14, 2013 11:49 am

Saw the first "incident" live and thought it was a harsh card - saw second "incident" on here and thought it even more so. Appaling decisions from the ref.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

CanCanRugby September 14, 2013 11:56 am

Didn't see the game, this is the only clip I've seen.

Seriously, what on earth was wrong with that?!

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

TechnoMouse September 14, 2013 11:56 am

I see plenty of forwards leading with the elbow/forearm into contact these days, and are not penalised. I can perhaps see this one being a penalty as it's more clear that the elbow is leading, and the point of contact with the other player is slightly higher.

The tackle, on the other hand, is a great hit! Nowhere near a penalty, let alone a card.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

CambridgeshireKid September 14, 2013 11:57 am

Shocking decision for the first yellow, but why then lead with your Elbow knowing that if you get pinged you are off the pitch?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

FoXtroT September 14, 2013 12:44 pm

That is Bismarks trademark move going into contact. He leads with the forearm and has (as far as I can remember) not been penalized for it before. The problem with this one is that Messam had bad tackle technique, went high and Bismarks elbow hit him. He clearly was not intentionally leading with the elbow aiming for Messam's throat.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Guest September 14, 2013 5:43 pm

Law 10.4 - Dangerous Play and Misconduct clearly states: (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s). (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.

Going in with an elbow is dangerous and stupid. Equally stupid is to say that Messam had "a bad tackling technique" by coming in "too high". It would be equal to say that John Smit had "bad landing technique" back in 2008 when Brad Thorn put him on his fat ass.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

FoXtroT September 14, 2013 9:11 pm

He did not strike Messam with his arm all he did was have it infront of the rest of his body. Its like say a hand-off is a strike!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

FoXtroT September 14, 2013 9:30 pm

Why was he not carded in any of these games, he was doing the exact same thing. Just because this time someone gets hit in the throat its a yellow? What if Messam went low and Bismark's knee hit him in the throat, would it be a yellow then?

View Video

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

hayden September 14, 2013 11:01 pm

Foxtrot, I hate the fact that the game is effected by these shit calls. But Bismarck did lead into that contact with a high arm/elbow regardless of messams tackling technique he can't do that. If his knee hit him and it was in a striking movement like that Fijian did for otago v brumbies years ago he would have been carded.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Guest September 15, 2013 11:08 am

Look at the replay again - he did raise his elbow with an intent towards Messam at the very moment prior to contact, that can be qualified as striking. That is NOT a fend. Player safety and all that. The fact he was not sent off before is irrelevant.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

FoXtroT September 15, 2013 11:47 am

Are you high? What in your view is a fend then?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Guest September 15, 2013 7:24 pm

quoting from

IRB Ruling: The Hand-off or Fending
Posted by IRB Laws on December 1st, 2010

Hand Off An action taken by a ball carrier to fend off an opponent by using the palm of the hand.

PALM OF THE HAND. Not edge of the elbow.

I'm sorry if this would sound insulting, mate but it seems you have to go back to studying the Law book...

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 8:21 am

How do you know that it was not intentional? If Messam had bad tackle technique, what say you of Bismark's tackle technique on Carter where, not only does he go high when he had every opportunity to tackle legitimately and hard, but by turning his head just before impact he shows he is completely aware of the possibility of his head also smashing into DC's head. It's not leading with the forearm that's a problem, it's cocking the elbow and directing it to the head/neck area either intentionally or not. It's a legitimate penalty to a good player who in this case is playing like a loose cannon, and a goose to his team.
I thought he was better than that.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

newfie September 15, 2013 4:16 pm

look at the picture above us, if you honestly think that hitting a player who cant see you deserves a card then go play soccer, it was a clean hit you can even see his arms wrapping and him below the shoulders, its only becasue it was a 10 that it was called like it was, if he hit a prop like that it wouldnt have been carded but glory boy carter needed to be protected

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

XonMeerKat September 14, 2013 11:58 am

Another great match ruined by yellow and red cards...

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 14, 2013 12:01 pm

I really don't want to sound like sour grapes but that wrecked what was a great contest up till then. If carter did not get injured I think the outcome may have been different. (Barrett was very good once he came on).
Messam also got "hurt" and the second card.
Since the 2007 WC game I don't think a ref decision has gone against the AB's and the 40 year record at Eden park will never be broken if the REF get swayed by the home side (WC 11 final) ...
well, maybe this one is only on the ref and NZ just happened to benefit.
Really wish it ended more competitively.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Jonboy September 14, 2013 2:42 pm

It does sound a bit like sour grapes though, you were outplayed fair and square, it's rugby mate not soccer, referees' decision is final, first one was certainly high and the second clumsy, but still leading with the elbow. Stop whining and get over it!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Eddie-g September 14, 2013 3:16 pm

If you think the "first one was certainly high" you are in a minority of 1 here. And the bottom line is SA's best player was sent off for the sin of being too physical, it's not whining to point that out, and you clearly know little about the game if you don't think this decision affected the result.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Ruggernut Top Comment | September 14, 2013 4:41 pm

Have to say Jonboy, you are the only one who feels that way. I don't see how you can think the first one was high when it was around the chest. It wasn't even a penalty. It was an absolute beast putting on a massive shot on a fly half who unfortunately was injured. Otherwise, absolutely nothing wrong. The second incident was debatable.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 10:25 am

To "bleed green and gold SOUR GRAPES"

So if you are to be believed, the All Blacks have not had a penalty against them since 2007.
That's a pretty impressive record. I don't think any other team will come close to breaking that one,............... what do you think?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 15, 2013 7:00 pm

I did not mean that they have not been penalized... I am saying that since then they have not had a ref make a decision against them that completely took away the contest. The first card was a mistake on the ref. the second was just dumb on Bismark. ( I am not justifying his fend technique but he has never been penalized for his initial contact and has been running the same way for years. )

I just enjoy good rugby. The emotion is different if you lose a great contest vs getting robbed by the ref. This one has the same feeling I guess that the AB's were feeling when they got knocked out the 07 world cup.. similarly, when the Boks got knocked out the 11 wc against Australia, Warberton's red in WC11 and of course when France Lost the final due to terrible officiating. (there are instances of a simple mistake such as a missed forward or a wrong penalty but for many of these cases it appeared to be blatant officiating error)
My initial reaction was one of shock (as was many other peoples) at the decision, but If you want to be the best you have to be able to win when the decisions are going against you.
I think JDV and Heineke Meyer said it best. We were not at the same level as the AB's yet and they beat us on the day. I think we will get there by the end of the year, we have a good formula for enjoyable winning rugby.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 14, 2013 12:36 pm

1 more thing..
what is the point of referring to the TMO if you dont actually care what their opinion is? With all the technology it does not make sense to place all the responsibility in the on field ref. I think Walsh does this too. There seems to be a bit of incompetence with the refs in general. when they refer the TMO sometimes gets it wrong. other times they refer and dont do a thing about it. This is crazy....
OK, i need to get over this and move on to the next game.. hopefully the next time we meet will be a more favourable result.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Ruggernut September 14, 2013 4:43 pm

I actually re watched it and the reason for him going to the TMO was to see if there was any foul play afterwards. I'm not saying it should have been yellow because it 100% should NOT have been. I'm simply saying the the ref had already made his mind up about Bismark and was checking for any off the ball stuff afterwards.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

cheyanqui September 14, 2013 7:51 pm

yeah -- if the referee:

1. is going to the TMO for all the afterwards stuff
2. already believes the original foul is a card-worthy foul

How on earth would a reasonable human being not expect that he should confirm with the TMO his proposed penalty and Yellow card?

Poite's call up to the TMO was "I've already made my original decision" -- seems he's got quite a bit of hubris, no?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Johnston September 14, 2013 9:03 pm

I agree, the ref ruined the game but don't try to find a trend where there isn't one. You may not remember any decisions going against the ABs since 2007 but i can think of plenty. Only difference is we tend to win so no one makes much of it after the fact. Here are a few in case you care to check them on youtube

Hartley's elbow drop on McCaw - no penalty
Powell's high stiff arm on McCaw - no penalty
Higgenbotham's knee to head and headbutt on McCaw - no penalty
Irish lock (forget his name) attacking MCCaw's eyes repeatedly - no penalty
Rougerie headbutt and gouge on McCaw - no penalty
Cooper knee to head on McCaw - no penalty
Bismarck gouge on Thomson - no penalty

A pity today's game was turned into a no-contest but bad refing happens to all teams

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 15, 2013 7:06 pm

There must have been a lot of communication errors between the ref and TMO because from the replays which were being shown (I am guessing are the ones the TMO is looking at) were of the tackle and not too much on the after incident scuffle. If the ref was watching the Big screen he may have seen where the TMO was looking for foul play, or if the ref asked for recommendation.
It is just a bad decision that was compounded by a second incident (poor player judgement).
On to the next game:) Still hoping the Argies can pull out a win.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Andy September 14, 2013 12:36 pm

Bismark's tackle itself was fine but was he offside? Certainly not worthy of a yellow card.
Ref must be held accountable for an abysmal performance.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Reality September 14, 2013 12:59 pm

Second yellow is completely justified and you'd have to be a complete fool to blatantly stick your elbow into someone's head area if you've already been yellow-carded. The first yellow was just bad refereeing.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Rod Cafer September 14, 2013 1:07 pm

Don't think there is a team that can beat the Boks legally these days.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Chef September 14, 2013 2:48 pm

That's a stupid comment rod,the all blacks didn't make the stupid decision! The ruined a great game ,bdp is a great player,was a shame this happened,but what happens on the field!!

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 10:53 am

Yes, stupid comment Rod. The All Blacks have been consistently beating the Boks both at home and in South Africa ever since the introduction of independent referees.
Actually I think the first time they won a series in SA was the very first time they used independent referees. Funny that !

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

fastmongrel September 14, 2013 1:13 pm

By gum the ABs do get some dodgy ref decisions go for them at home. I know home usually gets a slight advantage but is there something in the water in NZ that makes refs and citing committees lose the plot slightly. Always thought Poite was a decent ref not the best but no way the worst.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Eddie-g September 14, 2013 1:16 pm

Now there's a way to spoil a weekend.

Someone explain this to me. He ref sees a big hit on Carter. He goes upstairs to ask if there has been any foul play. He is told, no, no foul play. He then sin bins the tackler for foul play. Seriously, WTF? I understand refs can make errors, but this is completely insane.

The second incident was nothing either. Bismarck goes for a fend, at full speed, and in close quarters, it was entirely incidental and there was zero intent about elbowing n the head. Contact of this sort happens in every game, it should never be a penalty. Slowed down, it looks worse, but never in a million years is that a card.

Romain Poite, go get a room with Bryce Lawrence and leave refereeing to men with an ounce of common sense.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

JackSavage September 14, 2013 1:25 pm

He is asking about foul play after the tackle which showed a lot of handbags. He had already made his mind up (incorrectly) about the tackle. I think the video ref should have the power to step in and say the tackle was legit. South Africa had the measure on the ABs in scrubs and at the breakdown and could've won this game.
Aside from some p*ss poor refereeing decisions, this was a great game and the South Africans should be extremely proud of their performance. Their defence and play at the breakdown was exceptional. It's great to see a real competitive game between two brilliant sides. Shame the ref ruined the contest.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 8:59 pm

He's looking for foul play AFTER what he is convinced is a high, dangerous shot. If he finds it he will reverse the penalty. Try listening to what he says and then maybe you won't need to have it explained to you.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Irish_jimmy September 14, 2013 1:21 pm

A great contest ruined by a referee once again pussy footing around New Zealand.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Ruggernut September 14, 2013 1:24 pm

What makes the first one worse is that the TMO said that he could see nothing wrong so for Poite to go with his ORIGINAL decision where he had said 'I haven't seen any foul play but will check. All in all, a bad way to ruin what was going to be one of the greatest test matches in a long time.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 14, 2013 7:51 pm

He made it clear he was referring to foul play after the tackle, and that he'd seen the tackle. The rules regarding the TMO meant that the TMO couldn't comment on the original offence (or lack of).

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Ruggernut September 14, 2013 10:23 pm

Yeah I re watched that and saw afterwards. Still a terrible call though.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 15, 2013 10:11 am

I'm so torn. My previous comments were along the lines of 'he should have made full use of the TMO to review the tackle, before sending a player from the field' but on reflection I don't know if I want the game to become a constant stream of TMOing.

I want the right decision to be made, but likewise I don't want it to become cricket where the umpire's decision is so routinely challenged just because technology is available.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Ruggernut September 15, 2013 3:16 pm

I know what you mean, but I would rather they use the TMO for things like this instead of giving a bad decision and then ruining what would have been a great game. I think they should tone down the TMO usage though.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 17, 2013 7:12 am

Compare it to the Wood stamping video RD has posted. Wayne Barnes makes a really quick call with no referral to the TMO. In my opinion, he dealt with it perfectly. Although in this instance Poite made a mistake, I actually think referees should go with their gut instinct if they think they've seen it clearly.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

EatMyRugbyShorts September 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Got to agree. I also want the right call but don't want every potentially high tackle sent to the TMO. Comes down to ref's judgement I suppose and unfortunately in this case he's got it wrong.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 15, 2013 7:09 pm

I dont think it was that clear. (see my previous comment) the TMO was replaying the tackle from every angle to look for foul play.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

juan September 14, 2013 1:25 pm

unvelievable.... that was a perfect timing tackle! this ref and nigel owens, they really needs some credit for being the worst refs ever.....
nigel owens, dude, you are a disgrace for the sport! and this ref is even worst

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

juan September 14, 2013 1:28 pm

nigel owens did it again against argentina!!!
i cant forget british lions vs pumas in 2005....10 minutes extra time!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Guy September 14, 2013 1:38 pm

Not that it had anything to do with the ref's decision but:
a) he looked suspiciously offside (which made it hard for Carter to brace for the impact);
b) he should have let go before he went for the ball (which is a penalty offense, no more).

I did not see the match but I am quite curious how it looked from different angles. Too bad the ref is not wearing a camera in this instance, I wonder what he saw from his position.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

JackSavage September 14, 2013 1:57 pm

Not offside. It was open play once Tony Woodcock touched the ball who offloaded to Aaron Smith who then passed to Carter... Who got smashed in a great tackle!

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

45678 September 14, 2013 6:05 pm

There was no offside line. No ruck or tackle made from the ko. He could have stood next to carter and still have been onside. Shocking decision and worse management from poite following the whistle.

Can a captain ask for the tackle to be reviewed as well?

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Tommy89 September 14, 2013 2:03 pm

Next time you get a set of size 14s stud side down to the chin come back to us and say how delighted you are the ref showed some good ol' common sense and didn't send the guy off!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Computer says no September 14, 2013 2:13 pm

I don't think you were sober when you posted this. No one got size 14 studs in the face. Stop smoking wakkie tabakkie while surfing the internet.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Stubby September 14, 2013 2:16 pm

I agree the yellow for the carter hit is disgraceful.
The second is legitimate.
Every player is responsible for their bodies. If you are playing in a way where your actions can, even accidentally, to seriously hurt another player then you are doing it WRONG.
Intent do not enter in to it until deciding punishment.

It was definitely a foul play but whether penalty or yellow card worthy...
I am inclined to say give a penalty and get on with the game. This results in loss of possession or 3 points.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

45678 September 14, 2013 6:09 pm

You're watching the wrong sport mate! Rugby is a contact sport. No one wants to see players get injured, but if you want to stop physical elements of the game for fear of injuring others, go watch tiddly winks. Although, I hear that tiddly winks has a high thumb blister rate, so lets just ban everything. Moron

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Stubby September 15, 2013 4:08 am

If a defender goes in to a tackle high and gets his arm around the ball carrier's neck, would you be ok with no penalty for that?
because if not i believe the same rule should apply to the ball carrier. If his fend, in this case his elbow, strikes someone above the shoulders, in this case in the neck, then he should be accountable. An elbow/forearm strike to the throat is potential lethal.

and to look at it another way, what if the fend was a hand to the face of the defender and the defender's eyes got gouged, would you be ok with that?

I would rather we not wait for a broken larynx or a fatality for you to realize your callousness.
We have had 2 fatalities here in Canada in recent years amongst teenage players.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

45678 September 15, 2013 4:41 pm

You're getting confused between accidents and malicious intent.

An open handed hand off is a legal facet of the game, if a finger accidentally goes in someone's eye, it is an accident. If someone is gouging, then its a different thing altogether. You're suggesting that you cannot allow facets of the game that could potentially injure someone else. You wouldn't be able to play the game if that is the case

There is a responsibility of every player to conduct themselves in a professional manner and serious foul play should and 90% of the time is picked up. So I don't really understand what else you want

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Stubby September 16, 2013 1:00 am

No I am not.
Intent versus accident only goes to the level of punishment. Making contact above the shoulders is dangerous.
I am sure most high tackles are accidents and yet they are still punished. The tackler is supposed to control his body into contact.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Tyrone September 14, 2013 2:16 pm

Make no mistake I think the ABs would have still won. They ref stole a spectacle of world rugby away from the fans.mthat was num 1 vs num 2 with both teams on form. Very disappointing from a sporting point of view

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Computer says no September 14, 2013 2:22 pm

Make no mistake I think the Springboks would have won! That was the beauty of this game, it was 2 awesome teams against each other and it could have gone either way. Too bad we got a French palooka who decided to steal the show.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Andrew September 14, 2013 3:13 pm

I don't think the Boks would've won with the 'bomb it up and hope the other team drops the ball' game plan. They were missing tackles (16) left right and center and failed to threaten the All Black defense with the ball in hand. They were getting stopped in their tracks most of the game. But yes, the officiating in this game was a bloody shambles.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Tyrone September 14, 2013 9:42 pm

I think that just dictates the potential of the game. Noe we will never know.i think they were thrown off heavily by the officiating. The first tem minutes of the game made me believe that we had a cracking game on our hands. Had that first yellow card not happen I think the Boks would have had a much better game. Whether or not that was good enough we'll never know

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

finedisregard September 14, 2013 2:34 pm

Gentleman, overzealous referees and citing commissions are ruining our great game.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

browner September 14, 2013 11:06 pm

do something positive about it then.....idea's ?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Andrew September 14, 2013 3:30 pm

Ref stuffs up the game and yet the All Blacks get the blame for it.. hilarious! Also sad to see Liam Messam getting abuse from SA supporters on twitter. Disgusting behavior.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

EyeMacHunt September 14, 2013 6:40 pm

sorry to break the news to you but kiwi fans are the worst on the planet. They're comparable to Jets fans, and that is really saying something. Ask anyone who went to the 2011 WC and got spat on

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Andrew September 14, 2013 9:44 pm

Pathetic for you to paint every NZ rugby fan on the planet with the same brush, you get idiots in every country. You're probably one of them.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Colombes September 14, 2013 3:34 pm

As a french fan
I generally tend to like Poite way to ref in top14, Hcup, 6N or tests... but sorry for him, his first decision was absolutely wrong! Never an high tackle, and his tmo also confirmed there was nothing...
Got it right on the elbow on Messam

It seems that refs often lose the plot when AB's are playing in the Eden Park ;)

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Pedro September 14, 2013 9:01 pm

Nice wink ;-)

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

fantasticbarnsmell September 14, 2013 4:06 pm

The first decision is without doubt incorrect. The second in my opinion is a fend gone wrong, du Plessis is stationary when the contact occurs and you can see from his face that he was bracing himself for the hit. I guess a yellow isn't out of the question, but a penalty would probably be more deserving of the offence.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

jay September 14, 2013 4:21 pm

being Welsh i am impartial but watching the 1st tackle over and over there is no way it is even a penalty just a great hit not high at all and holding on with his right hand ...ref originally stated he saw no foul play in the tackle and asked the TMO to check what happened AFTER the tackle the TMO checked what happened after the tackle and said he saw no foul so recommended the ref goes with his original decision at which point the ref changes his mind ???? if he had looked at the big screen he would of seen a great well timed tackle ...maybe its time to start punishing the referees for making the wrong descisions??

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

browner September 14, 2013 10:53 pm

How? , demote him & bring forward the ref that has never made an error? that means .....uuuuhhh no-one. Active assessment programmes are in place - trust the system ............ punish all players for all the errors they make, most matches would be 2 a-side !

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Stefan September 14, 2013 4:37 pm

As a Bok fan I agree. The first was not a penalty. Insane decision. I thought at the time it was the result of miscommunication between the officials. I think the elbow was probably unintentional. But definitely stupid and deserved a yellow. I left and went to work after that. What is the point in watching a gutted contest? Would have done the same if the shoe had been on the other foot.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

jon September 14, 2013 4:39 pm

poite needs to be punished for this. He has to go.
Absolute bullshit.
What a shit decision.
These refs are ruining the game.
Player get dropped when they don't preform.
The same standards need to apply to res. Poite has made a lot of these kind of shitty soft decisions.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 15, 2013 10:33 am

Players usually only get dropped when they consistently don't perform. Very few players get dropped when they make one high-profile mistake, even if it costs them the game. I can think of many occasions when players have cost my team the game through mistakes, but you forgive them because they're your team.

Referees are not ruining the game, the game is probably at its most exciting for years. Players are capable of playing at a fantastic pace and are hugely skillful, and are using those skills to win the game - legally and illegally. Referees are now professional, fitter, and are analysing their decisions after the game. It's just that when they make mistakes they get blamed and nobody takes their side or forgives them. I'd hate to think how many mistakes I'd make if I was forced to referee a club match, let alone an international.

Poite's decision wasn't a 'soft' decision. He thought he had seen it, backed himself, but made the wrong call. The only reason we're discussing it at length is that later on Du Plessis got himself a second yellow, which resulted in a red. That was a valid decision because it was dangerous play. I'm gutted he got the call wrong, I was hoping the SAs would do the ABs, but it wasn't the turning point of the match.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

jason September 14, 2013 5:30 pm

Totally unjustified yellow. good hard hit yes players will get hurt. hey lets not ruin our game by turning it into a non contact sport ref got it totally wrong but without them there would be no game

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

miguel September 14, 2013 5:31 pm

Not that I think it rights, but the ref had actually decided in his mind that the tackle was dangerous. Thats what he said- don't check the tackle i've already made up my mind. At that point I think that if the TMO had started insisted that there was no penalty in the tackle, that the TMO would've been correct about the action on the field but incorrect in his procedure. Essentially the ref had dug into a position and wasn't going to change.

I think this is the by product of the "ref is always right mentality". Its one thing for coaches and players to accept that the ref's decision is final on the field, but there should be accountability for Refs and such obviously wrong decisions as the first yellow card (for which there is no room for debate as its just a bad call).

Refs should be given the benefit of the doubt afterwards when they miss something (ala Barnes and the forward pass in the 1/4 final) or make a decision around a truly gray area (Steve Walsh and Ashley-Cooper's disallowed try for the brumbies) but should be punished with bans the same as players when they make affirmative actions which are objectively wrong.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

guedaumbr September 14, 2013 6:14 pm

Two words for him: Courtney Lawes.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Facundo September 14, 2013 6:25 pm

I woke up at 4 AM to watch the match and then this idiot calls that a yellow card offence... c´mon!! 4AM!!!!!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Yep: 3:30 here... gutted and couldent go back to sleep

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

This comment has been removed

avesse September 14, 2013 7:06 pm

I am so, so disappointed. I was looking forward to this game like few others.

To be fair to the ABs, they played very well, and probably were the better team on the day. I was especially disappointed at how the Boks lost their composure and started making unforced errors after the red card.

But that's what disappoints me most: That the ABs were "probably" the better team. We'll never know. We were robbed. Nick Mallet's use of the word "disgrace" is appropriate, if not a euphemism.

Credit to the ABs and credit to HM and JdV for being diplomatic after the game. Looking forward to the Ellis Park clash.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

cheyanqui September 14, 2013 7:55 pm

raising a glass to Roman Poite refereeing in the Federale 1 for the rest of the decade.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

This comment has been removed

This comment has been removed

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 7:45 pm

No need to pay the ref off when you have guys willing to play like dickheads.

Lift your game South Africa and stop trying to emulate these turkeys who attack the man illegally and not the ball. WAKE UP !!!!!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Guest 1 September 14, 2013 8:39 pm

ok Frenchy. go play touch

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Johnston September 14, 2013 9:00 pm

I agree, the ref ruined the game but don't try to find a trend where there isn't one. You may not remember any decisions going against the ABs since 2007 but i can think of plenty. Only difference is we tend to win so no one makes much of it after the fact. Here are a few in case you care to check them on youtube

Hartley's elbow drop on McCaw - no penalty
Powell's high stiff arm on McCaw - no penalty
Higgenbotham's knee to head and headbutt on McCaw - no penalty
Irish lock (forget his name) attacking MCCaw's eyes repeatedly - no penalty
Rougerie headbutt and gouge on McCaw - no penalty
Cooper knee to head on McCaw - no penalty
Bismarck gouge on Thomson - no penalty

A pity today's game was turned into a no-contest but bad refing happens to all teams

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Johnston September 14, 2013 9:03 pm

well, that didn't work...meant to be a reply to someone above

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Well, mccaw seems to be the common denominator in many of those instances.... he is a great player but does find himself in very questionable situations. I am not justifying foul play at all. I dont think any of those items you mentioned were game changes. This decision destroyed the contest. 7 man scrum. Taking away all the bok strengths... granted many other aspects of our game were off bit it was much more competative when we were full strength.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 5:10 am

Obviously there are many jealous and vindictive bleaters out there who like to call McCaw a cheat to try to discredit him for there own reasons. The current Bok coach said his son, 10 at the time was a huge fan of McCaw who when told, spent ten minutes talking to him b4 test in SA, then after the match presented him with his boots.
George Smith when asked said "I wouldn't call him a cheat" so I think he has a bit more credibility than these bleaters who don't understand rugby.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Reality September 15, 2013 9:43 am

He is a cheat though. You can say that cheating is part of the game and that he's right to do what he does and that it's his job to play that way, but the stone-cold fact is that he is a massive cheat. It's not like giving presents changes that (even if it is very thoughtful of him).

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 11:39 am

Well bleated, turkeybrain-Reality. Everyone in sport pushes to the limits of the rules, and when they overstep those limits, they get penalised, and when judged to be guilty of dangerous play a la Bismark du Goosey, they leave their their team short staffed, in this case against superior opposition, which whatever way you look at it, is a pretty stupid thing to do if you're trying to win the game. But then obviously McCaw made him do it and it"s all his fault.
Anyway if the Boks don't deal with it, they'll just end up losers like the Wallabies who's pin-up boy, QuadeCooper is now just a ball
distributor whose overall effect is to slow down the backline.
That's why the coaching staff said nothing because I believe coach Meyer has heaps of integrity and he won't be happy with the stupidity shown by his "loose cannon" Bismark

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Johnston September 15, 2013 11:36 am

Not game changers? The result could have been very different if those guys spent ten in the bin. Consider the BdP gouge, NZ lost by 2, ruining Henry's perfect home record. The Higgenbotham knee/headbutt resulted in a draw, ruining NZ's attempt at the winning streak record. The Rougerie gouge was in the RWC final that we almost lost (I didn't even mention Dusautoir's stamp on Woodcock earlier in the game when a scrum collapsed). The Irish gouge was a game when NZ very nearly lost to Irelenad for the first time in history. The Cooper knee to the head was in the game when NZ lost and consequently lost the 3N and lost momentum going into the RWC.

Not game changers?

These guys don't just target McCaw because he's a cheat. It's because he's the best and they want to rattle him and the team. Many of these incidents were after the whistle so don't give me the offside excuse.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

I_bleed_green_and_gold September 15, 2013 10:43 pm

I did not say he was a cheat. What I said was he gets in "questionable situations. " yes, he is the best number 7 and plays so close to the line that many of the things he does is deemed illegal. Can you honestly say that when watching McCaw play you are surprised by the amount of times he does something and you really think he was going to get penalized and he did not? I really wish he was on our team and so he could bring his luck/skill with when it comes to 50/50 decisions. Many of these players may not know how to beat him at the breakdown or get so frustrated by what they think are unpunished indiscretions that they take the law into their own hands.
there is a whole lot of almost losses, or perfect records. I am sure those were very dark days so I apologize for my initial statement.
The instances you mentioned are when you think ( probably correctly) that a penalty and cards should have gone in your favour . If every county that plays writes a list of instances where they think the AB's were not penalized or given cards when they should have been you would be reading for quite some time.

It is difficult to watch a game neutrally when you are passionate about your team. But surely, you have to ask yourself "how did he get away with that" ?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Tyrone September 14, 2013 9:47 pm

It's not about which team it happened to. It's about the game. The decisions ruined the best fixture in world rugby when both teams were on top form. The ABs were also robbed of the opportunity to show why they are the best team in the world against their fiercest foe and second ranked side the springboks

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Rod Cafer September 14, 2013 9:01 pm

South Island mate.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

biadek September 14, 2013 9:45 pm

todays game showed that modern rugby suffers not because of collapsing scrums, kicking the ball but disgraceful refereeing. scrum laws have evolved in the past few years but inconsistency and ignorance of match officials continues. how many more games must they ruin to have somebody finally do something about it. I hope Mr Poite will have a huge hangover after todays game. Since when a legitimate tackle is punishable,especially after TMO clearly said : no foul play. shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

browner September 14, 2013 10:14 pm

biadek, so the referee made a mistake .......whoopybloodydo , 30+ players all trying to play beyond the law [cheat] in well over 1000 law area's ..... testosterone flying, players moving at speed, this a cocktail for perfection that only a complete prat would expect !! I referee & it's damn difficult, anyone who doesn't believe me TRY IT........ Granted RP didn't use the tools available to him, but Mallett's use of the word disgrace makes him a prat too. 'Disgrace' is some of the tactics & illegal & dangerous things that he's presided over in recent years ,,,, Ref Bashers R.I.P.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

biadek September 14, 2013 10:26 pm

browner,ok if a player plays beyond the law or as you say cheat and gets caught, then what? arent they punished? yellow, red carded. sinbinned then banned for weeks. but when a ref makes mistakes then what happens??? let`s see..... nothing. gets away with point is that refereeing isnt improving and the guy in the middle is supposed to be top of the range,especially in a game like that

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

DanKnapp September 17, 2013 7:21 am

When a player cheats or plays beyond the laws, they get punished. When a player makes a mistake in a match they don't. Nobody gets a two game ban for a forward pass. Nobody gets a ten minute break in the sin bin for missing a tackle.

If a referee cheats, let him face the full punishment available. But until then, can we show a bit more damn respect for these guys, without whom we would have a game to play in.

If you're suggesting that we drop referees who make mistakes then you maybe we should drop players who make mistakes, commentators who get it wrong, fans who think that their team never cheat... what would be left?

Referees are getting far better, but the game gets harder to referee every year. Browner is completely right.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Computer says no September 14, 2013 10:34 pm

Sorry to say but this ref deserved to be bashed. To make such a massive decision without using the tools available to you is not professional. And the big question is, why wasn't he watching the replay on the big screen like the rest of the crowd? What on earth was he doing that was more important?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Jack September 14, 2013 10:43 pm

The TMO was asked if there was any foul play after the tackle therefore thats all he could and did comment on. the referees original call was a penalty for the tackle that in his view was high and did not use arms. The TMO said there was no foul play and to go with the original decision (Dangerous Tackle, penalty to New Zealand).

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 14, 2013 11:26 pm

Bismark obviously saw an opportunity to hit an unaware DC high and hard. He also knew there was about to be a head clash, that's why he turns his head to the left just before impact.
Sometimes when you try to take someone out, which is quite easy to do - it's just a matter of timing, it can backfire on you and you get taken out yourself, in this case by the ref.

When you're playing a team with higher skill level, it is often better to develop your
skills more, rather than take advantage of the opportunities which invariably come your way, to smash a key player high in order to take them out of the game.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Jimothy September 15, 2013 9:45 pm

Of course Bismark saw an opportunity you idiot! He had the best 10 in the world lined up and he smashed him legally! Carter has the decency to admit it was a good tackle and the IRB admit the ref got it wrong so take your head out of your own arse and go back to training! If you play that is? I don't know a single player at my club (we put out 4 sides every Sat) who wouldn't have loved to be in this situation!

You talk about intent in one of your earlier posts which means you must be able to read minds! What am I thinking then???? Yes that's right you are a .....

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

XonMeerKat September 14, 2013 11:34 pm

Well done ABs. Boks: keep on growing and don't let Paddy's poodles stop you from playing great rugby!

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

mickee_p September 15, 2013 12:01 am

Referees need to understand they are there to adjudicate on the laws of the game, not decide who will win it.
As someone who has been involved in subbies rugby in Australia as a player, ref and coach, the quality of refs gets worse every season.
Why?? Because they are a protected species and cannot be questioned. It's time they were made accountable for bad decisions, just like players. But that would mean those higher in the food chain would become accountable and the "old boys" brigade won't have a bar of that..

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

AK-NZ September 15, 2013 4:11 am

I have been a die-hard All Blacks supporter for my entire life. And when they aren't playing the ABs, I support the Boks passionately as my adopted team. The match last night for me (and thousands of other fans and supporters) was supposed to be a showcase of the two best teams in test history playing some great rugby on my favourite ground in my home town of Auckland. What we got treated to was an appalling display of incompetency and poor judgment by the match official mixed in with some mostly stellar football.

What many people have already noted is that there is more than enough technology to utilise in international rugby fixtures to avoid the kinds of decisions that marred what should have been an epic match up with The Old Foe. Bismarck's tackle on Dan Carter was in my opinion one of the finest so far this international season. I was absolutely bemused when the ref carded him for it. The second incident was marginal, but in no way merited a card. I recall seeing Hosea Gear fend off Keith Earls in similar fashion last year - by the logic of consistency, should he not have been carded? Or Bismarck's fend been deemed legitimate?

I guess what I'm rambling on about is a huge lack of both consistency and logic to many refereeing decisions in the international game. I am of the firm belief that cards should only be given in clear and certain instances of foul play or misconduct - use the available technology to determine what is and is not legitimate, because a number of refs can't seem to do it properly themselves. Rugby is not endearing itself to new fans with the kinds of decisions that were made last night. It is frustrating for players, coaches and more significantly, the fans who just want to see their sides playing rugby the way it is meant to be played, without unnecessary interference from the match officials.

Whew. Rant over.

p.s. Cheers RD for the timely clip upload, you guys do a great job.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Arno Joubert September 15, 2013 7:53 am

It's time that the world realises that SA is the largest rugby watching nation in the world (compare India in cricket) and that the IRB, by imposing egotistical yellow card loving Northern Hemisphere refs, are losing literally hundreds of millions of advertising rands due to Bok supporters switching off the televisions sets or leaving the pubs. NZ are good, but the SARB need to start throwing their weight around to bring back a modicum of fairness back into the game. Watch out IRB, these incidents are coming back to bite you in the @ss, and as a SA rugby supporter, I'm getting sick of the unfairness of it all. You've cost us a RWC Bryce, and now all clear-headed rugby supporters know that the Eden Park "fortress" is a sham.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 15, 2013 12:08 pm

Instead of trying to smash opposition players out of the game and then starting a fight afterwards to prove how tough they are, maybe SA should start improving their skills. The All Blacks consistently breach the Boks defences with brilliant split second passing and subtle footwork yet mostly the Bok's backline moves peter out. A heavier set of forwards is just not enough.
Wake up or you'll forever be playing the Pumas and the Wallabies for 2nd spot.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

FoXtroT September 15, 2013 2:31 pm

Maybe you should look again as to who started the fight.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 16, 2013 1:23 am

sure I take back my comments on the Bok players, most of whom showed admirable restraint except for the No 3 who was trying to be the big man pulling a guy out and keeping on with it till he got him to the ground for doing nothing more than he was doing himself. To tell the truth I don't know who started the fight - maybe it was just a bit of push and shove -I will have another look

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Pete Top Comment | September 15, 2013 11:51 am

There is a lot of bull being posted on here.

First card was a wrong decision, that is clear but sometimes referees see things wrongly. It happens to every team, get over it and stop turning every discussion of a rugby match into a discussion about refereeing decisions (that goes for the team too, I think it's a real shame that we see increasingly many 'controversial decisions' posts on here now and those often long before any of the play is posted).

The only time I have ever seen a player actually die from a rugby injury was from an elbow to the throat received whilst tacklling an opponent. in a schoolboy game aged 16 It is extremely dangerous to lead with your elbow into someone's throat and has been listed as dangerous play since long before all the silly tip-tackle bollocks of recent years. Your throat is pretty much the only essential part of your body which is brittle and has zero protection (bone, muscle etc) and even a relatively light blow there can have extreme consequences. Of course the second card was the correct application of a very sensible and long-standing law, the only issue is that it followed a bad first call.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

rememberthemer September 15, 2013 3:26 pm

That post is entirely too rational. Bull spraying and righteous indignation are a lot more fun.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Guest September 15, 2013 12:53 pm

Re: BdP's Tackle on DC.
It was HIGH - in the replay from behind + to the side you can quite clearly see BdP's AC Joint being higher than DC's - as well as the fact that the line of drive is above horizontal.

Please refresh on the Laws below:

Law 10.4 - Dangerous Play and Misconduct clearly states: (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, SHOULDER, head or knee(s). (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent ABOVE THE LINE OF THE SHOULDERS EVEN IF THE TACKLE STARTS BELOW THE LINE OF THE SHOULDERS.

Note also how BdP keeps well away from the post infraction ruckus, NOT the usual BdP at all!?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

browner September 16, 2013 12:52 pm

As with much of LAW, if referees applied law absolutely as written, you & every player in the game wouldn't likely enjoy the outcome, whistle-kick-card, whistle-kick-card etc

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

EatMyRugbyShorts September 15, 2013 4:33 pm

On first viewing at normal speed I thought it was a high shoulder charge & definite yellow card. However the reverse angle conclusively shows its a 100% fair tackle. DC's just been blindsided and isn't braced for the contact and that's why he goes down so dramatically. Now if the TMO had seen the reverse angle whilst checking for any foul play afterwards....

Surprised one of the touch judges didn't tell the ref he needed to take another look.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Dane September 15, 2013 5:31 pm

The hit is dirty because he is off-side not giving the offensive player the opportunity to brace for impact. Nothing wrong with the physicality of the tackle, but tackler can't give himself an advantage by being
that far off-side. Pretty simple call viewing the totality of the play; the ref just screwed up his explanation.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Computer says no September 15, 2013 6:24 pm

Did you read any of the comments before going keyboard warrior on us? It was open play, there is no off-side line. The IRB already released a statement to say Poite made an error in the call. The tackle was perfectly legal.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

browner September 16, 2013 2:16 pm

Offside from where? Learn the laws b4 commenting

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

jaded forward September 15, 2013 7:56 pm

To rephrase the headline:
"Referee makes shocking error by uncharacteristically penalizing a player in a top-level sport for getting the best of the sport's most photogenic high-scoring superstar."

"Business as usual in the sports world as goldenboy athlete on the world's most popular team is helped out by his extra teammate (the one with the whistle)."

I guess I'm still a little bitter about the Miami Heat winning the NBA championship.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

DrG September 15, 2013 10:46 pm

This is disgraceful, how dare anyone put in a big hit on Dan Carter! Doesn't the world know that him and Richie McCaw should come out of a game without a fleck of dirt on their kit, and DEFINITELY no bruises!!!!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DrG September 15, 2013 10:52 pm

Being a cock aside, (having just actually WATCHED the video), I think it's ridiculous.

I can understand how referee's can make incorrect decisions in the quick heat of the moment, but when you have the assistance of a video referee is disgraceful.

"no arms"? ... forgetting the law jargon etc, he actually had BOTH arms involved, his right was wrapped round DC and his left was closer in but still involved... Pathetic.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

DrG September 15, 2013 10:53 pm

(really should have waited before posting)... the second yellow was fairly justified..

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

riccardo September 16, 2013 1:12 am

Morning everyone.

Consider this. For the Carter tackle Bismarck was off-side, clearly. It was a big hit, but there is no argument that the arms were used. The tackle itself was not innocuous in that Carter was blind-sided where if Bismarck had come from an on-side position Carter would have had time and vision to "prepare" to be hit. My view, penalty and warning. The 2nd yellow card was a no brainer from the big man and almost a mandatory red. Use the palm Bismarck; it will have a similar effect.

What was really disappointing about this game was that the Boks moved away from what was making them successful this year under Meyer. Recently we have seen a slight expansion in their game. The same robust set-piece expertise is there. Recycled possession, narrow and tight, still there. Brutal break-down contention also still there. Territorial kicking still there. But the ball has been moving through a pretty decent back-line. Tries have been scored. Morne taking it to the line and getting his outsiders away.

There was almost no sign of that at Eden Park. Very little enterprise. It was as though the Boks had come to man-handle the All Blacks rather than concentrate on the successful rugby they have recently played. This physicality tactic was never going to work and it is notable that the points scored by the All Blacks came generally from well created tries.

As an All Black fanatic I cherish our friendship/emnity with South Africa and enjoy rugby and good times with some South African friends. We recently had a night on the Klippas in front of a Test. We want to see the Boks continue down the Meyer's recent path of broader rugby and width. It's good for the game.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Computer says no September 16, 2013 7:08 am

Please just stop. It was open play and Bismarck was not off-side. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the tackle and it should not have been a penalty at all. Go watch the full match before making more silly comments.

An official statement has already been released by the IRB because of the backlash. Bismarck did nothing wrong - he did everything right. Poite screwed up big time.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

riccardo September 17, 2013 12:18 am

Gidday Computer.

I have seen that too. Open play and therefore just a brutal (but legal) tackle.

The elbow wasn't deliberate either, just unfortunate but definitely a card offence.

Poite made a glaring error. That said, I stand by my original post in that the Boks desire to overcome the All Blacks physically contributed more to their loss than Bismarck's absence.

I guess we'll never know. One thing you can count on though is that the All Blacks will be entering a flaming cauldron at Ellis Park in a couple of weeks.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Badge September 16, 2013 3:33 am

Nathan if you could stop attacking just about every single person posting here, we might enjoy the discussions a tad more. I'm beginning to think you might actually be Romain Poite.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

nathanherewini September 17, 2013 1:13 pm

Badge I'm willing to concede that I got it wrong re the yellow for the DC tackle and then consequently for the sending off and I shouldn't be handing out gratuitous advice to the Boks who played really well and are 50% responsible for giving me/us a great spectacle which I agree would have been fairer 15 on 15.
Upon reflection, it's shown me how biassed I also can be. Cheers for going easy on me.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Badge September 18, 2013 4:09 am

No hard feelings mate. You support the best team in the world (coming from a Bok fan) and we're all looking forward to a great match in Ellis Park this weekend. Hopefully we'll get the match we've all be waiting for this year.

Go Bokkies

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Isaac September 16, 2013 6:43 am

Maybe they should bring in the 'On report' system that they use in League. These yellow cards are getting out of hand. It seems now that if the tackle looked like it hurt, you get put in the bin for it.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

beast4president September 16, 2013 9:00 am

Reading the comments it's fair to say that the majority believe that the tackle was OK on DC (except for some die Hard NZ supporters who are clearly looking at it through Black tinted glasses).
It's not sour grapes to say that the contest was ruined after BdP (and consequently Willem Alberts) had to leave the field. I won't even say South Africa would've won, but what I will say is that they did pretty well facing an in form AB's team with 14 men. Also as soon as SA had the advantage of an extra man, they scored (Same as NZ). As for the comments about the SA team having to improve their skills and play more expansive rugby - it's pretty hard to do that with 14 men against the All Blacks at home.
Now the second yellow card: Justified. BUT everything does look at lot worse in slow motion and it may have gone unnoticed if no one was injure. I want to add that I dont think there was intent to injure as everything happened so quickly in normal time.

I'm not pissed off cos we lost, I'm a bit annoyed that we weren't allowed to play. See you at Ellis Park All Blacks, Let's hope it's a fair contest for both teams on that day.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Guest September 16, 2013 10:03 am

What people are missing is the bigger picture on the effects of the refs mistake for SA in the rest of the tournament. SA did not need to win away in NZ to have a good chance of winning overall. A non-bonus point win for the AB's would have been fine and a losing bonus-point for SA would have been a success. The idiotic ref messed those chances up and with it seriously affected SA's chance of winning the tournament. boo hiss!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Wessel van Rensburg September 16, 2013 11:15 am

I think on balance the All blacks would still have won. Pienaar was having a nightmare of a game, and reed was sublime.

Still very disappointing that the contest was ruined this way.

Re the second incident. If you watch in real time, and then watch slow mo, I don't think it's intentional. Du Plessis is standing still, and it looks like he is expecting to be tackled, thus a fend that's gone wrong.

Still, it was against the rules. But a penalty, not a card - in my admittedly biased opinion.

Nonu's charge on de Villiers on the other hand, was clearly intended, unless the man suffers from serious delayed reactions.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

katman September 16, 2013 3:04 pm

Nonu's third blatant shoulder charge this year, let's not forget.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Roger_Rave September 16, 2013 11:49 am



By SANZAR News Service & IRB

Your recent 'excuse' on the above appears to give the impression that you are saying that since players and coaches make mistakes it is excusable !?

Do PLAYERS and COACHES have two additional 'assistants' on the field PLUS a Television Match Official who can review the incident in question in Slow Motion / Frame by Frame from 8 different Angles and view it on a Big Screen ?

Can Players and coaches stop the game to review all of the above over & over again until an accurate and correct decision is made ? Do the errors of players and coaches affect the viewing pleasure of millions of people or the outcome in such a drastic way that the Officials error did, and the history of such a result, the World Rankings and more, not to mention the massive monetary impact ... No !

So why did you even bother to mention it ? The fact that you employed the services of a French Ref ( & touch judge, sorry excuse me, Assistant Referee ) for a Southern Hemisphere Clash is not a mistake, it is pure ignorance !

Why do we have to walk on egg shells when it comes to speaking out about Referees and treat them like demi gods !!!

You make a mistake like that and you are OUT period - fired - sacked - you are incompetent to do the job and thats it - that is the real world.

Incidentally, why did the Officials 'mistake' not be discussed / reviewed / brought to his attention at half time and when the second incident occurred a final warning given to Bismarck Du Plessis in light of the first error ?

However, the question now is will you have the balls to take decisive action on the above and ensure that Romain Poite is held accountable for his inexcusable mistake and does not referee an official test Match again ?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.


 ·  Reply  ·  Report

browner September 16, 2013 12:47 pm

If Burger's Eye Gouge on Fitzgerald had resulted in similar 'never play again' sanctions then you'd have more of a point ...........

Seriously though, if you demote or strike off all referees who make errors, then you'll soon have no matches being played, or matches being self refereed by the players...... now that would be a 80min scrap involving 46 players worth watching !!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Eddie-g September 16, 2013 1:08 pm

The first clip RD posted here of the incident did not include Poite's commentary. Hence my post. The longer clip only confirms what a shocker this decision was.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

tezca September 16, 2013 2:18 pm

The point is: it was not legal... Du Plessis was offside by 3m, which is not allowed.
So consider this: the tackle itself was allowed, but the player was clearly offside and didn't have the right to tackle Carter, plus the intention was clearly to injure a key player. An offside can be punished by a yellow card, and the will to injure a player can be punished. There's nothing wrong to me that this player, known to be very brutal, was sent off for that tackle. He was offside, the tackle was then not legal, and he sent Carter off for a year with this illegal tackle. So a yellow card is okay.
The ref was wrong, the tackle was illegal only because Du Plessis was offside, but it was still illegal, with health consequencies...
And look at Habana hitting Dagg in the legs 20m in front of the landing zone of a Sprongbok kick... The Boks clearly wanted to injure the NZ key players during this game, as they do each time they're afraid of their opponent...

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Wessel van Rensburg September 16, 2013 3:10 pm

Sigh, for the up-teeth time he was **not** offside, since there was no ruck.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

tezca September 16, 2013 3:46 pm

he was offside because he was in front of the ball when the AB makes his pass to Carter.
Listen to the comments on the clip, the guys agree, he's offside.
I saw it on French TV, and the comments were the same.
He's offside because he was not behind the line described by the ball when the AB makes the pass. You don't need a ruck to be offside...
Learn the rules...

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Wessel van Rensburg September 16, 2013 3:53 pm

With all due respect sir, **you** need to learn rugby basics as stop making an ass of yourself in public.

In ***open*** play I can tackle you from behind, regardless the position of the player that made the pass. Kapish?

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Reality September 16, 2013 4:00 pm

Are you having a bloody laugh? You don't need a ruck to be offside, but if it's not a ruck that makes you offside it has to be something else. What was that in this case? A Springbok knock-on would have put him offside if he had been in front of it, a Springbok kick would have put him offside if he had been in front of it, but in this case it was open play. The All Blacks kicked, so none of the Springboks could have been offside, the All Blacks passed it back without it touching a Springbok player; it's quite simply and utterly not offside. Offside lines are NOT formed whenever a player passes the ball. Jesus - how do you think intercepts happen? The commentators didn't know if a Bok player had touched it, and that's why they thought it might have been offside. The French commentators must have thought the same thing.

And it had health consequences? I'm sorry Carter got injured, but if someone gets injured by a legitimate tackle, that just unfortunate and part of the game.

And you have the nerve to tell Wessel to learn the rules when you're obviously not an expert yourself? Dear God!

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

tezca September 16, 2013 5:10 pm

How do I think intercepts happen? Simply by being behind the ball, not in front of. when you intercept, you're not between the ball and the guy who intends to receive it. You're coming from your side, staying on "your side" of the ball...
So according to you, in open play I could stand between 2 of my opponents, in the line of attack? Nobody never taught me that...

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

katman September 16, 2013 4:33 pm

"He's offside because he was not behind the line described by the ball when the AB makes the pass."

Really? Is this your understanding of the offside rule? Well no wonder you got the tackle thing wrong then. You're describing an entirely different game.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

tezca September 16, 2013 5:03 pm

Then former international players from different countries are all wrong concerning this offside thing, as well as the guy who coached the french team during the last world cup. Okay.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Computer says no September 16, 2013 6:31 pm

Tezca you are completely lost. Take the following situation; say there is a line break in open play and the player that made the break passes the ball to someone in his team. According to your rule book the opposing team cant tackle that player as they are all offside. Maybe the fullback can because he's not "offside". LOL?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

katman September 16, 2013 9:06 pm

You are most amusing on this subject. But just for clarity - you are saying that once someone has made a linebreak, no one can touch him because they are all no longer on "their side" of the ball? Do I understand you correctly?

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Computer says no September 17, 2013 1:47 am

Katman that is what I meant to show how ridiculous Tezca's understanding of the offside rule is.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

katman September 16, 2013 2:59 pm

Bismarck's mistake wasn't that he tackled high or without arms or from an offside position. His mistake was that he tackled Dan Carter, hard. Refs like Poite are so star struck by the likes of Carter and McCaw that they cannot make fair and objective decisions anymore. If that had been Morne Steyn or Quade Cooper, nothing would have come of it. Of that I'm pretty sure. I mean, even Andrew Hore asked a referee in a Hurricanes Crusaders game a while back whether they're not allowed to tackle Carter anymore. Now add a partisan All Black crowd baying for blood, and Poite's hands are just about tied. It's crazy but it's true.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

katman September 16, 2013 9:06 pm

Ha ha, yes that's the one.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Frenchie September 17, 2013 9:25 am

@ katman: who does?

Poite got it wrong but i believe it's getting tough now for the ref having the video ref option available for foul play and stuff: at full speed and on the instant that tackle seemed to me high and not legal. I believe that a lot of ref who have made the same call.
Now with this new rule every single "hard tackle" could be called off for a video ref. Rugby is becoming like American football and THAT SUCKS.

Some could Bismark played border line and got it wrong the 2nd time.

@ Roger_Rave

Sure the SA fans were pissed off by the Poite mistake but saying that a French ref has nothing to do with this tournament is pure rubbish. The laws are the same for all refs. refs make mistakes; fortunately they will get better using the new rules.

In response to the SANZAR team i'd would remind them of the SA ref Joubert during the last WC and again during the last 6 Nations game England vs France where he blatantly refused to hear the assistant coach who told him about a foul play committed by an English player and which led to an English try...SELECTIVE MEMORY i guess...

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Tiju September 17, 2013 10:42 am

Poite refereeing best of the Lions series, C Joubert on the other hand being given the Super Rugby final despite his dreadful (and I remain nice) WC final... I pick my battles, and I'm sure a single error (opposite to a few entire shocker games) should not jeopardize his carreer!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Rhys September 17, 2013 8:58 pm

I think the only good thing to come out of this is Du Plessis' conduct upon receiving both cards. Having been on the receiving end of two tough calls (particularly the first, which is a joke) he accepts it and walks off the field. True professionalism. Respect.

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

Sean Annigans September 17, 2013 9:22 pm

dont normally agree with him, but do here,,12062_8924780,00.html

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Ho3n3r September 18, 2013 9:57 am

The second yellow reminded me of this exact incident, posted here on RD:

I still remember it very well, but I do not recall any Sharks, or indeed SA rugby supporters who even thought that it was nearly foul play, yet you got this excuse of a reporter that goes by the name of Gregor Paul who calls for it to be worthy of a red.

The guy's credentials seem to be laughable at best, and he has posted numerous articles in the past that were equally ridiculous. Why anybody at the New Zealand Herald took him seriously enough to give him a job which requires him to write articles to people who actually understand and love rugby, is anybody's guess.

Regarding the game itself, yes, it was very wrong, but not for one moment were we criticising New Zealand's public, but rather guys like Hansen with his silly comments after the game, as well as Romain Poite, and the IRB themselves for appointing a wholly incompetent referee for such a massive match.

Big ups for Dan Carter immediately saying there was nothing illegal in the hit. Classy man.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Frenchie September 18, 2013 3:37 pm

@ Sean Annigans: some say the rules themselves are helping the game play by the AB; but in general the quick paced game played by the Southern Hemisphere teams. I don't know.
All the changes made around the scrum, mauls are going in this sense i think.
I am not yet up to speed with this year rules but so far i don't like them: 3 refs on the pitch should be enough to spot any offense .

·   ·  Reply  ·  Report

rugbygods September 18, 2013 9:46 pm

what a stupid french c$nt!

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Kiwi In Germany September 19, 2013 5:32 pm

Wow a lot of comments and many of them very narrow minded. I was gutted that the game wasn't a true contest. I was really looking forward to it with a mixture of anxiousness and excitement that no other fixtures have brought to me this year. Now I'm looking forward to the next SA vs ABs match. Which hopefully won't be impeded by bad decisions by either the ref or ill discipline from the players and will just be an all out true contest of strength fitness and skills.

For all those who are really laying into the ref. Maybe you should put yourself in his place. He knows his job has been doing it a long time. Its a hard job much harder than playing. He's under more scrutiny than any other on the pitch. Very few refs are paid to do the job and normally not paid anywhere near the top players. The do this job because like us they are passionate about rugby. They want to make every game they ref the best game they have refereed. Yes he stuffed up. A lot of people stuffed up that night too. Players paid a lot more than he is. So I hope poor old Poite bounces back from this as he has been mostly good from what I have seen of his other matches.

If people are interested there is an interesting article on Poite and on refereeing in general it clears up a few misconceptions that a few on here seem to be holding on to.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

katman September 26, 2013 8:57 pm

Not only did he have the option to check the replay, he DID. And he still carded the player because he had made up his mind already. And he had made up his mind because the "victim" was Carter, and Poite, like so many officials, is star struck by Carter and McCaw. And that's why Poite is a terrible referee, regardless of how sorry you feel for him and his financial situation.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

katman September 26, 2013 8:57 pm

Not only did he have the option to check the replay, he DID. And he still carded the player because he had made up his mind already. And he had made up his mind because the "victim" was Carter, and Poite, like so many officials, is star struck by Carter and McCaw. And that's why Poite is a terrible referee, regardless of how sorry you feel for him and his financial situation.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

ChillDoubt October 01, 2013 4:46 pm

That's a shocker by Poite and just goes to show, when it comes to tackling Dan Carter, international teams are (still) just not allowed to do it.
The reaction of the AB's made it worse, but that's nothing new.
Dish it out but can't take it.

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

wolonel October 09, 2013 2:09 am

Poite has got to go. Forever

 ·  Reply  ·  Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.