South Africa… 12
New Zealand… 11
To a one-eyed fella sitting in a wheelchair thousands of miles away, it was blatantly obvious Ardie Savea had locked onto the ball, so how Wayne Barnes couldn’t see it from a foot away defies logic. Now read on…
Furthermore, a squirming, half arsed apology in such a situation is about as useful as a chocolate fire guard. For all rugby’s self proclaiming pomposity, to be unable to rectify such a hideous, embarrassing error during what is the most important event staged by those governing the sport would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.
Rugby aficionados, or some of them at least, would look down their duffle coated noses at the likes of GAA and soccer. Remember, this is in an arena where points of governance are referred to as ‘Laws’ rather than rules with any other sport. Yet for all they might sneer at the other sports, at least if there has been a foul in the build up to a score, VAR can call the referee’s attention to same and, if merited, the score can then be chalked off.
So why in the name of God the TMO couln’t have alerted Barnes to his cock up is beyond me. In no way am I making myself out to be an expert pundit or anything but a basic outline of the the incident which basically cost New Zealand the game is as follows, as best I can put it.
When a player is tackled, and held in the tackle, they must release the ball. Usually, this takes the form of possession being navigated to the scrum half, or whoever happens to be at the back of the ruck. Whereafter the process is repeated through as many phases of pick and drive as a team can muster.
The general principle is that the attacking team are afforded the advantage in these situations. However, there are exceptions to that rule of thumb also.
Such as when the tackled player is deemed to have not released – basically the equivalent of overholding in GAA. Or if the attacking team mess up themselves. This ususlly means the clearout at the ruck is either too slow being presented at the base of the ruck. Or – as was the case in Paris on Saturday – South Africa lost control of possession.
Therefore, the ball becomes contestable and, put simply, it’s up to each side to fight for it. Which is essentially what happened on Saturday.
The Boks coughed up possession, Savea locked onto it – in layman’s terms – got both hands on the ball, thus securing it for his team. Therefore, if there was a penalty, it should have been TO New Zealand, because the opposing player involved in the phase of play didn’t roll out of the tackle once Savea had effected the turnover.
Ultimately, Handre Pollard’s execution of the kick which never should have been was the deciding factor, but the vanqiished corner could justifiably zero in on a number of dubious – to put it very, very midly – decisions by the English whistler.
Not least the fact that South Africa captain Siya Kolisi didn’t follow his counterpart Sam Cane in being sent off. Nobody wants to see anybody sent off. Especially not in a World Cup Final and absolutely not a team Captain.
But, and I tell this at my own expense, since becoming properly attuned to the playing rules of the oval ball code, not only had blundering Barnes and his team of officials no option but to put Cane off, how they managed to differentiate between that and Kolisi incident needs more in depth scrutiny.
Right, so the official line was that the NZ player involved in the Kolisi incident took most of the impact of the hit on his shoulder, whereas the South African hooker took the full force of Cane’s bone cruncher to the neck and/or head area.
Now, I would have absolutely no issue with the summtions in either case but for one issue – intent. The view in this seat always has been that surely the question of intent has to be taken into account.
That is not to suggest, in any way, that any player ever goes out to purposely injure another. However, as one vastly experienced former player and now coach of both GAA and rugby recently educated yours truly, the prevailing principal is that each player has a duty of care to their fellow combatants. Therefore, it’s up to each individual to ensure that, when tackling, they stay within the boundaries of acceptability.
Cane certainly wasn’t but how the distinction could be made that he was and Kolisi wasn’t is a curious one. Ironically, having said all of the above, to my mind at least, Rassie Erasmuss’s charges were the better team throughout the 80-plus minutes. Yes, open, expansive rugby is what we’d all love to see but, perhaps predictably, so many games are decided by the functionality or otherwise of a team’s set piece.
On that score, even if the All Blacks had had their full compliment of players, such were the imperious performances of Pieter Steph Du Troit and Faf de Klerk and Kolise at the scrum and breakdown, I still don’t believe they would have overhauled those in green and gold. Unfortunately, mind you, it’s an occasion which is likely to be recalled for everything bar the rugby itself played therein.
