RWC 15 - Pool B - South Africa, Scotland, Samoa, Japan, USA

First topic message reminder :

    
The pool with all the Ss - well three of them.

Teams:

South Africa (3) [13/2]
Scotland (10) [250/1]
Samoa (12) [500/1]
Japan (13) [2500/1]
USA (15) [5000/1]

Fixtures:

19 Sep South Africa v Japan
20 Sep Samoa v USA
23 Sep Scotland v Japan
26 Sep South Africa v Samoa
27 Sep Scotland v USA
3 Oct Samoa v Japan
3 Oct South Africa v Scotland
7 Oct South Africa v USA
10 Oct Samoa v Scotland
11 Oct USA v Japan


South Africa have to back up 4 days between their last last two matches against Scotland and USA but you have to back the two-time winners to manage the games and performances to take out the pool.   It's the match seven days before their Scottish encounter that might take its heaviest toll going up against Samoa gunning for second spot from this pool.  

All eyes will be on the match between Scotland and Samoa in the final round on 10 Oct which will likely decide who emerges from this group behind South Africa.   Should be a raw encounter.

What price the Japanese causing an upset to any of these three?  Possibly their second match against Scotland in their first run-out, or Samoa caught cold in trying to rest players in between their matches against SA and Scotland?

Is there an upset in this pool?  And who will be upset?

I'm not suggesting that work today is boring or anything, but quite a nice anagram of 'Vern Cotter is bloody scary' is 'retroactively dry boss con'.

Or, as a homage to RDW 'contradictory, sly, verbose'.

Do you not think that it will come down to the old formula RWC game kick for territory/garryowens.Drive/rolling mauls,milk penalties and drop goals?
NH refs,Hawkeye,Scrums that favour non feeding side[effectively 8 v 7 trying to hook]
In my opinion SA will win this one easily without scoring a try in the final.

You come across as quite dismissive of competition rugby emack; why so? Also as someone who's been around a little while quite critical of refs.

Since 1995

ENG 2 finals, 1 try. 1 trophy.
NZ 2 finals, 1 try. 1 trophy.
SA 2 finals, 0 tries. 2 trophies.
AUS 2 finals, 3 tries, 1 trophy.
FRA, 2 finals, 1 try. 0 trophies.

Whilst SA are the only ones who haven't scored a try in their final appearances, no one can be said to be prolific.

RDW_Scotland wrote:I think the Boks are going to be very strong and will win the group with relative ease - I think they will beat Australa or Wales in the QF, but don't think they would get past England at Twickenham.  It would be close though and with a bit of luck they could feasibly win that too.

As has been said - the RC performance doesn't mean they are suddenly a bad team.

If its England you think will win their group, they can't meet England until the Final. If they win their group and beat a team from Englands group their semi-final will be against the winner of New Zealands group or the runner up of the Ireland-France group. So if they meet England it'll be in the quarters or the Final.

Dismissive of RWCs yes I am,because 1 there are seeds,2 each sideknows exactly what
is required to proceed 4 years in advance.3 OTHER Comps are sacrificed for it a Cap
is often given and experimental sides tried.I`m old fashioned EVERY test match is that
you field your strongest side and develop from the bench
Compare it for example with the FA cup ,first two rounds amateur ,Div 3 and 4
fight it out.[or modern equivalents].THEN a blind draw from round 3 on etc.
Use the Group stage to sort out the qualifiers then a blind draw a REAL Cup competion
an extra round where top 8 sides go in the hat with the survivors,and a blind draw at
every stage there after.
Refs decisions have been talked about at some stage in most RWCs and
despite the laws NH/SH use different criteria or styles.
Only really 1987 was relatively a lot of tries scored and the trainspotters here don`t
count that one.
Goal kicking is vital and a drop goal specialist useful so SA,France Argentina have the right
credentials

There's only the world cup warm ups which are treated as less than tests though but you have those sort of games every year the Baas Baas etc.

Refs are talked about as it's useful to deflect from teams normally. They'll always make mistakes they'll always have less influence on a match than the players and coaches; and people will always talk about moments that affected their teams and not when they get the rub of the green!

You could use the FA cup but we could end up with all the good sides out early doors which would be a commercial disaster.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's only the world cup warm ups which are treated as less than tests though but you have those sort of games every year the Baas Baas etc.

Refs are talked about as it's useful to deflect from teams normally. They'll always make mistakes they'll always have less influence on a match than the players and coaches; and people will always talk about moments that affected their teams and not when they get the rub of the green!

You could use the FA cup but we could end up with all the good sides out early doors which would be a commercial disaster.

That is true 99% Of the time, referees don't want to influence the outcome of matches, they don't want to influence the course of a match.

Unfortunately it happens, we often hear someone say a team should have adapted, and although it carries weight when you consider unterpretations of scrum and breakdown, it carries no weight when a referee wrongly denies or award a try, call a flat pass forward, sends off a player etc.

We often hear "your team was just not good enough"

When you consider how tight matches are, probably half the test marches played are within a score in the end.

It only takes one major error to influence the outcome

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's only the world cup warm ups which are treated as less than tests though but you have those sort of games every year the Baas Baas etc.

Refs are talked about as it's useful to deflect from teams normally. They'll always make mistakes they'll always have less influence on a match than the players and coaches; and people will always talk about moments that affected their teams and not when they get the rub of the green!

You could use the FA cup but we could end up with all the good sides out early doors which would be a commercial disaster.

That is true 99% Of the time, referees don't want to influence the outcome of matches, they don't want to influence the course of a match.

Unfortunately it happens, we often hear someone say a team should have adapted, and although it carries weight when you consider unterpretations of scrum and breakdown, it carries no weight when a referee wrongly denies or award a try, call a flat pass forward, sends off a player etc.

We often hear "your team was just not good enough"

When you consider how tight matches are, probably half the test marches played are within a score in the end.

It only takes one major error to influence the outcome

Can you think of an example biltong?

More than the many mistakes from players and coaches during the game? No I don't think so. There have been 2 high profile mistakes from refs recently through not knowing the rules (SA NZ and Eng France), that's nearly unforgivable but most of the time when people moan the 2 sides have a pretty decent argument.

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's only the world cup warm ups which are treated as less than tests though but you have those sort of games every year the Baas Baas etc.

Refs are talked about as it's useful to deflect from teams normally. They'll always make mistakes they'll always have less influence on a match than the players and coaches; and people will always talk about moments that affected their teams and not when they get the rub of the green!

You could use the FA cup but we could end up with all the good sides out early doors which would be a commercial disaster.

That is true 99% Of the time, referees don't want to influence the outcome of matches, they don't want to influence the course of a match.

Unfortunately it happens, we often hear someone say a team should have adapted, and although it carries weight when you consider unterpretations of scrum and breakdown, it carries no weight when a referee wrongly denies or award a try, call a flat pass forward, sends off a player etc.

We often hear "your team was just not good enough"

When you consider how tight matches are, probably half the test marches played are within a score in the end.

It only takes one major error to influence the outcome

Can you think of an example biltong?

Wales cs Ireland a few years ago when the wrong ball was used to make a quick throw.

OZ vs NZ in 2010 when Mitchell was incorrectly carded a first time, and then copped a ligitimate card which turned into a red card during the Trinations

Bismarck du Plessis carded by Poite incorrectly then carded again

There are plenty such examples

No 7&1/2 wrote:More than the many mistakes from players and coaches during the game? No I don't think so. There have been 2 high profile mistakes from refs recently through not knowing the rules (SA NZ and Eng France), that's nearly unforgivable but most of the time when people moan the 2 sides have a pretty decent argument.

Does it matter whether it is less?

A mistake by a player does not necessarily influence the outcome of a match, where as a red card make a massive impact on a match.

BdP was as much at fault with the 2nd you know that. Good to be able to blame someone other than your team but at the time there were people here who said he was stupid.

Right so what you've identified is that all teams are subject to referee (human) error

I think you are confusing 'wanting' to influence a game with the inevitable inherent flaw of having a human being being  a referee.

I dont think refs are corrupt in that they want to influence outcome, do you?

If not i think it is just a fact that refs make the wrong decision, promulgating that to them making a decision that actually effects the outcome seems a stretch to me and hard to demonstrate reliably

(except for the #$%^&* Rolland in 2011 obviously! ;-))

No, I did not suggest they are corrupt, hence me saying they don't want to influence a match, but like you say, they are human.

Look referee interpretations at ruck time is a losing battle, they have 15 things or so to assess at the breakdown, so they are never going to get it right, I was chatting to my son's coach a few years ago and he was doing the courses for becoming a provincial referee.

He told me that when in class they have a video session of the breakdown, none of them can come to a consensus over transgressions, as there are so many.

So what you might see at the breakdown, the referee is looking at something else.

But like I say, some errors are far more influencial than just a different interpretation at a breakdown

No 7&1/2 wrote:BdP was as much at fault with the 2nd you know that. Good to be able to blame someone other than your team but at the time there were people here who said he was stupid.

You are completely missing the point.

Forget it was Bismarck and forget I am a springbok supporter, the same as Drew Mitchells first card being incorrectly issued, so was Bismarcks.

But they are down to how they see them. You may not like them but that's how they see it. To many people mistakes you see are the correct decision. You can point to errors freely like the ball boy incident, Lacey ignoring foul play as the ball was out and SA getting to play on with 15 men when they should have had 14 as they look to be incorrect use of the rules (forgetting them!) but things like the infamous NZ France Barnes forward pass no, he affected that result far less than NZ not taking a drop kick etc.

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:BdP was as much at fault with the 2nd you know that. Good to be able to blame someone other than your team but at the time there were people here who said he was stupid.

You are completely missing the point.

Forget it was Bismarck and forget I am a springbok supporter, the same as Drew Mitchells first card being incorrectly issued, so was Bismarcks.

Yes and that's 1 10 min incident out of 80 plus min. It's an easy excuse. And some people backed the decision, crazy as it was.

Biltong wrote:No, I did not suggest they are corrupt, hence me saying they don't want to influence a match, but like you say, they are human.

Look referee interpretations at ruck time is a losing battle, they have 15 things or so to assess at the breakdown, so they are never going to get it right, I was chatting to my son's coach a few years ago and he was doing the courses for becoming a provincial referee.

He told me that when in class they have a video session of the breakdown, none of them can come to a consensus over transgressions, as there are so many.

So what you might see at the breakdown, the referee is looking at something else.

But like I say, some errors are far more influencial than just a different interpretation at a breakdown

I see what you're saying but based on us not believing refs are corrupt, you just have to accept that some decisions go with you and some against you; rugby being about 2 teams and a ref's interpretation of the game and QED ALL his decisions are influential on the outcome. Picking ones that you think actually directly affect it suggests an element of partisanship doesn't it?

Biltong wrote:RDW, but surely Scotland has improved their depth, ............

Not really - scotland have a first team to match most sides - but the quality drop off after that is like plummetting off a cliff in most positions. This is why Scotland will not get far in the WC. Yes we should get out of the group but the inevitable injuries will mean a much weaker team after the group.

I think its unlikely there will be upsets in this group although Scotland can and have beaten SA and Samoa can beat Scotland - but I would put both down as highly unlikely.  USA and Japan should be well beaten by the top 3 teams.  Scotland got very lucky with the draw for sure as they were a 3rd round pick.  could have been a much tougher team than Samoa in the group

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:BdP was as much at fault with the 2nd you know that. Good to be able to blame someone other than your team but at the time there were people here who said he was stupid.

You are completely missing the point.

Forget it was Bismarck and forget I am a springbok supporter, the same as Drew Mitchells first card being incorrectly issued, so was Bismarcks.

Yes and that's 1 10 min incident out of 80 plus min. It's an easy excuse. And some people backed the decision, crazy as it was.

Again, missing the point, firstly it isn't an excuse, we are talking on how referees can influence a match, Gwlad asked for examples, I provide three and the one you pick up is the Bismarck incident.

The incorrect card caused a second card that became red, so instead of SA playing with 15 men for 70 minutes they played with 15 for 30 minutes.

In this example as the one with Mitchell in 2010, it is the cumulative effect.

Gwlad wrote:

Biltong wrote:No, I did not suggest they are corrupt, hence me saying they don't want to influence a match, but like you say, they are human.

Look referee interpretations at ruck time is a losing battle, they have 15 things or so to assess at the breakdown, so they are never going to get it right, I was chatting to my son's coach a few years ago and he was doing the courses for becoming a provincial referee.

He told me that when in class they have a video session of the breakdown, none of them can come to a consensus over transgressions, as there are so many.

So what you might see at the breakdown, the referee is looking at something else.

But like I say, some errors are far more influencial than just a different interpretation at a breakdown

I see what you're saying but based on us not believing refs are corrupt, you just have to accept that some decisions go with you and some against you; rugby being about 2 teams and a ref's interpretation of the game and QED  ALL his decisions are influential on the outcome. Picking ones that you think actually directly affect it suggests an element of partisanship doesn't it?

Correct, acceptance is key, of course partisanship is going to influence you, but then there are also neutrals who would watch a match and point to the same errors.

I don't think everyone pointing to a particular incident is always just looking for excuses, but as we have now seen with 7 and a half, the perception does run strongly.

Apologies biltong I'd accept their interpretations affect the match how you can go into breakdowns, quickness of rolling away. They don't influence the outcome though. I've said the ball boy one and the 2 recent ones were just incorrect use or knowledge of the rules. Don't remember the Mitchell one and the ref just thought he was right on the dP one and then dP makes a bigger mistake which more affected the match.

It is a fact that the REF can Penalize EITHER side at EVERY Scrum or Breakdown for some
offence.Corrupt Refs?oh yes there have been them politically motivated BUT not really in
Pro Era.[it was common in France who were suspended for it just pre 1945].But it`s human
error you can forgive,Refs do give the home side the 50/50`s they don`t see but are influenced by crowd,big screen etc.
As to commercial suicide the chances of a pool of death under what I`ve suggested is
minimal.More exciting too as that way in theory no soft side of draw or NH/Sh Final
may get Nh v Nh etc.
New laws being trialed don`t seem to simplify them and reducing penalties a retrograde
step.The Corollary being a yellow for a first offence Sam Whitelock Brisbane Test?game
over.
Also it isn`t a case of just warm ups being conceded RC has been diminished since Jake
White 2007.
As an example with a normal RC this year and home legs too come Nz 5-1,SA 2-4 would
have been expected.
Which areas will be targeted on IRB instructions,Squint feeds?players in the air,Offside?
all will have an effect.
The idea that the RWC is the be all and end all is ludicrous,just as a great side winning
one just?then spending the following 8years being kicked by every one is.
Nz are vilified because by the record they are best side in pro era but only won 1 that
at home disputed.At least they have defended it 3 losses,2 draws since 2011 better
than most.

emack2 wrote:It is a fact that the REF can Penalize EITHER side at EVERY Scrum or Breakdown for some
offence.Corrupt Refs?oh yes there have been them politically motivated BUT not really in
Pro Era.[it was common in France who were suspended for it just pre 1945].But it`s human
error you can forgive,Refs do give the home side the 50/50`s they don`t see but are influenced by crowd,big screen etc.
As to commercial suicide the chances of a pool of death under what I`ve suggested is
minimal.More exciting too as that way in theory no soft side of draw or NH/Sh Final
may get Nh v Nh etc.
New laws being trialed don`t seem to simplify them and reducing penalties a retrograde
step.The Corollary being a yellow for a first offence Sam Whitelock Brisbane Test?game
over.
Also it isn`t a case of just warm ups being conceded RC has been diminished since Jake
White 2007.
As an example with a normal RC this year and home legs too come Nz 5-1,SA 2-4 would
have been expected.
Which areas will be targeted on IRB instructions,Squint feeds?players in the air,Offside?
all will have an effect.
The idea that the RWC is the be all and end all is ludicrous,just as a great side winning
one just?then spending the following 8years being kicked by every one is.
Nz are vilified because by the record they are best side in pro era but only won 1 that
at home disputed.At least they have defended it 3 losses,2 draws since 2011 better
than most.

RC was not deminished because of Jake White... because of idiot SANZAR thinking that players should travel across the globe and smash themselves up 1 month before the most important tournament in rugby.

Jake White understood something the brainless acountants didn't... sport conditioning.

HE set the precedent after losing the home game 2007 and probably realized the RC was
gone.In 2011 BOTH Nz and Sa sacrificed it the RC finishing only 2weeks before RWC this
year there is a gap for SH.
BUT what does NH do a series of Friendlies for want of a better word where injuries
occurred to me was just plain STUPID!!!

Fine line isn't it. You can't go into the WC undercooked and the NH are all coming into a new season without any games, it's basically preseason, not even any club games.

emack2 wrote:HE set the precedent after losing the home game 2007 and probably realized the RC was
gone.In 2011 BOTH Nz and Sa sacrificed it the RC finishing only 2weeks before RWC this
year there is a gap for SH.
BUT what does NH do a series of Friendlies for want of a better word where injuries
occurred to me was just plain STUPID!!!

Its a long SR season, where teams clock up thousands of miles... unlike the NH competitions, the RC is simply an extension of this. It all adds up. Teams prioritise, players need to be managed.

Whilst I know Alan that you believe in league systems as the way to define who the best sides are, most outside of NZ don't and NZ only did when they couldn't win the RWC.

I was answering an question by 7 -1/2,my opinions are well known that's what this
Forum is all about.Define who the best sides are? check the record 1992-2015 since
SA returned to answer that win/losses all countries WHOEVER holds the RWC Pot.
NZ,Australia probably then a toss up between SA/England/France.
NZ have a huge weakness for knockout Rugby since Andrew Merthens the drop goal
has gone from there armoury.
I mentioned it pre 2011,Justin Marshall repeats it in NZ Herald today,really want
an outsider to win this one IF NZ fail.

South Africa have named their team to face Japan on Saturday:

Looks like most of the big guns are in there for the first game.

SOUTH AFRICA: Zane Kirchner; Lwazi Mvovo, Jesse Kriel, Jean de Villiers (captain), Bryan Habana; Pat Lambie, Ruan Pienaar; Tendai Mtawarira, Bismarck du Plessis, Jannie du Plessis; Lood de Jager, Victor Matfield; Francois Louw, Willem Alberts, Schalk Burger.
Replacements: Adriaan Strauss, Trevor Nyakane, Coenie Oosthuizen, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Siya Kolisi, Fourie du Preez, Handre Pollard, JP Pietersen.

Who will kick for the boks tonight????

Lambie will kick for the posts...and everyone else will kick everything else when ever given the ball...

For all my talk about how heavy favourites South Africa were to top this group, it would now be fair to say the bookies are worried.

The boks are not a bad side, they were leading the ABs a few months ago until the 65th min. They lost to AUS in AUS on the final play.

The very best teams go through matches like this... but they tend to pull through. 10 players over 30 in the starting XV, everyone knows how to play the boks now.... run them ragged.

The boks are not a bad side.

No they are not a bad side. it is simply that they totaly underestimated Japan today.
Is that because they have never lost to Japan before?

I've no idea whether that is a good or bad result for Scotland.

On the one hand it throws the pool wide open, but on the other it shows Japan are a match for anybody and SA will be hurting bad. With Samoa also in the mix who knows how this will end up.

Really interesting group now, especially in terms of who will end up facing the qualifiers from Group A 

It means Scotland have a real chance to top the pool. I'm sure Samoa think the same. I think Scotland have the better of it with them playing Japan sooner while they're knackered.

Just reading the BBC pages, I have just realised that not only have Japan got 4 points but, even in defeat, SA got 2. At the risk of being a glass half-empty pessimist, that means that it makes it harder for us to qualify as the other teams have more points than I would like them to have

This changes nothing for Scotland, 4 wins we definitely qualify, 3 we almost definitely, 2 probably not, anything else a national disgrace. Japan could go one of a few ways now, either they will struggle with the emotional hangover and play badly, continue to play very well and put us to the sword or thirdly, and I believe most likely Scotland will beat Japan by the expected 10-20 points. It could be a decent result for Scotland if only it means there is not even a hint of complacency enters the Scotland team.

Next match in this pool should be a cracker with Samoa taking on Japan who'll have had the benefit of a week's rest compared to the beat-up Samoans from their South African pasting. If Japan can pull this one out of the hat whilst Scotland try to overcome the Boks on the same day, things might get interesting in the second qualification spot.

Japan play the last match of the pool stages against the USA.

And Japan showed that their win over South Africa was not just a flash in the pan with a resounding win over Samoa.

Unfortunately, even though they might win against USA next weekend, they probably won't make it through.

The prospect of winning 3 of your four matches and not qualifying seems unjust - particularly for a Tier Two country that could potentially finish on 12/13 points in 3rd spot.