Mailbox: The gloves are off!

Three days ago South Africa beat England 15-6 to win the Rugby World Cup. Three days later we are still enjoying reading what you have to say about the game’s events.

It appears the English fans are still convinced it was a try, while losing England loose forward Lawrence Dallaglio seems to have opened a new can of worms with his accusations towards some foul play by the Boks…this is what you had to say about it.

“A lot has been said by English supporters and players about refereeing decisions that didn’t go their way and about the try that was disallowed. Now of course Dallaglio needs to weigh in with something else that no one else seems to have noticed or felt it was important enough to mention. If he wants to talk about dirty play (and he should know) I believe a certain Mr. Flood can be very grateful that he did not get carded for very blatantly playing Percy Montgomery without the ball and very nearly ending his participation in the game.”

– Stephanie Petch

“There seems to be a lot of talk about the try that wasn’t a try and how Dallaglio points a finger at Schalk Burger killing the ball but what about the trip on Butch James by Moody which should have been a red card and should he not be cited for dangerous play. How stupid can you be to blatantly in a trip when you know ever blade of grass on the field is under the camera.”

– Rory Peterson

“I think that the decision was probably just correct but Dickinson today states that Cueto’s foot was 25 to 30 centimeters OVER the line which is absolute rubbish. 30 CENTIMETRES IS ONE FOOT! The human foot barely touched the whitewash and was nowhere near even 5 centimeters ONTO the line.

“There were many more contentious decisions by the ref. on the field. There are far too many grey areas in rugby open to the refs. decision or “preference”. I am a regular watcher at club level and a club patron and many times refs. seem to be watching different games than the spectators but I know it is not easy in the modern game’s speed. In big games touch judges should be given more powers but only when truly neutral.”

– G.H Hellewell

“There was a rub mark on the touch line from Cueto’s boot before he touched down the ball. What is there to dispute? Ball was dead. GET OVER IT!!!!

“Cheers South Africa and Argentina.”

– Davey B (Alberta, Canada)

“Dallaglio, Vickery and Wilkinson are a disgrace and shame their team and their country. How unsportsmanlike to make the remarks that they have. Not one of them can fit into Martin Johnson’s shoes. Martin Johnson looked at the replay of the ‘try’ and quite clearly said that it was not a try. Sorry guys you were way outclassed even with the Boks playing a conservative game. Somehow I wish that the try had been awarded just to shut you up and have it stick in your craw when you look at it again.

“Dallaglio, how can you in all honesty say that decisions went South Africa’s way? Grow up and watch the game – where were when the match was on, what were you looking at? Just a couple for you to cogitate. Lewis Moody – trip that was seen by Rolland – no yellow card. Flood – pushed Monty – no yellow card. You should know the laws, you cannot do either and go unpunished. Hands in the ruck constantly – not mentioned by the referee but mentioned by the English commentators…particularly when it happened time and again including when SA were almost at the tryline and then SA were penalised for ‘knocking on’ when an English hand pushed the ball from inside…What about Cueto running into Smit who turned his back to go after the ball? Who was penalised? Oh, it was Smit. Give me a break you big girls blouse…take it like man and face the truth. You just weren’t good enough.”

– Celia

“Excellent work. Any booing of the non try in the final should have been borne out of disappointment – the foot was in touch before the try. As an English supporter watching on TV, it seemed clear….eventually.”

– Andy Mead

“If Cueto’s foot was in touch before he touched down for the ‘try’ why didn’t the touch judge raise his flag? Is it because it was another example of having ‘referees’ acting as touch judges and ‘ball watching’ instead of doing their job as touch judges?

“Still not convinced that the officials got it right!”

– Tom (Twickenham)

“Congratulations to South Africa on winning the World Cup. They were the best team over the duration of the tournament and deserved to win the final. Forget those journalistic mutterings about foot in touch or whatever – irrelevant.

“However, it’s not really very surprising that Nelson Mandela politely declined the invitation to attend the final. The South African match 22 contained 20 white players, 2 Coloured players (One with the popular Coloured surname, er, Pietersen and the other the product of an affluent middle class/private school background) and, of course, 0 black players.

“Presumably Nelson Mandela hoped that success in 1995, and his overt endorsement, would usher in a new era of “inclusion”.

“Privately, he must have been concerned that his wearing of Pienaar’s No.6 jersey would be used by the cynical Louis Luyt-clones to hide their determination to preserve the status quo. His fears have been fully confirmed.

“It would be wonderful if, one day, a team that was representative of all the peoples of South Africa won the World Cup. Then we could all join in unreserved applause.”

– Tim

“England are only the second team in the World to reach the rugby World Cup final having won it 4 years ago.

“I’m proud to be English, and a permanent England rugby supporter. Had Brian Ashton replaced the departing Clive Woodward, he may have achieved even more.

“Would England’s try through Matthew Tait and Mark Cueto have been given if it had been more convincing?

“England were penalised for obstructing South Africa, yet they did it to us twice while we received no penalties, as the referee and the touch judges gave no reply to South Africa’s dirty tricks.”

– P. S. Gibbs

“Firstly I would like to congratulate South Africa for the consistency they showed through out the cup.

“Well Deserved win.

“Now as a Kiwi supporter, how is it possible that our Team that was on 95 (or so) in the world rankings, lose only two games this year (both away), can now drop behind SA who lost 3 (2 away and 1 at home).

“This system is completely ridiculous.

“This reminds me of Australia’s losing streak and them only losing a couple of places.

“This system needs a rethink.”

– Ben

“I just cannot understand all of this hype about Wilkinson. It’s not even as if the boot of Wilkinson has fired us to the final, his kicking percentage isn’t even that great at all!

“I often think to myself, what if it was someone other than Wilkinson who was missing those kicks. When Hodgson did it a few years ago, the Twickenham crowd booed him. Yet when Wilkinson misses a few, (which could end up costing us a match) then no-one bats an eyelid!
“This is not to say that i’m not fully behind England, I’d love nothing more than to see the boys turn around a shambolic defeat against SA into a mind-blowing win. Lets see some people other than Wilkinson get the praise they deserve for the wins, eh?”

– Jonny E.

“After watching the game live my initial thoughts were as follows:

“SA were disciplined and did enough to win against an opponent that had limitations (no penetration in their back division) and whose strength (their forwards) was nullified in the set pieces.

“England asked questions of SA defence with up and unders and we responded positively.

“We did not impose our way of playing rugby on the game because we were able to win by doing the above in a risk-free manner.

“Interestingly, the comments that I overheard from the other antipodeans were mixed. The Aussies thought that it was a boring “kick and run” game that needed tries while the All Blacks thought that it showed maturity to recognise what was required to win and to execute their tactics with ruthless efficiency.

“I feel that our becoming World Champions is justified by the facts that
* we were the best team at the tournament
* to earn the crown we had to best the erstwhile World Champions

“Lastly, I have to say that to a man the English (players as well as fans) displayed great sportsmanship and composure in their acceptance of defeat. Ashton was trying to keep his job by declaring otherwise.

“After I saw the match on TV I can add the following:

“After the near-miss England effort to score in the corner, South Africa “upped” their intensity so that any encouragement that England could have gained from their line break did not result in an impetus-turning event because it was repelled before it gathered momentum.

“Although the English were retaining the ball and going through their phases they were not going forwards because the ball was not coming out quickly enough to have people running at angles.

“Although the ref could easily have given yellow cards following English indiscretions (killing the ball at end of 1st half; cynical trip by Moody, over-exuberance by Flood in pushing Monty through the hoardings in the touch-in-goal area) I am very pleased that there were 15 vs 15 throughout the contest. To their credit the English commentators mentioned each of these together with the fact that the penalty for obstruction on Smit was harsh and that JP Pietersen and Habana should have each been penalised for accidental off-sides on clearances.

“As to the Tait line break (the only one in the game for England), this arose from a broken play in which the three Boks in the middle seemed indecisive whether to go for the kill – when the ball was bouncing around having been woefully passed from an English set piece – or hold their defensive line. They did neither allowing Tait to go through relatively easily and out-swerved a nearly immobile Montgomery

“Jake White said it perfectly that defence wins World Cups in the playoff stages; his defence was not simply the “rush” that can be broken by a chip or well-placed grubber but they goaded England into situations in which, with ball in hand, they could not launch effective attacks. To wit, South Africa had two versions of kicks that were defensive masterpieces. In the first a kick into touch resulted in an England put-in at the line-out that never amounted to much because of the disruptive tactic of the South African defensive line-out structure. Secondly, they kicked to an isolated receiver on the wings whose only form of retaliation was an up and under (see below) because they did not have the pace or elusiveness to try a dazzling game-changing run.

“Concerning the up and under, these came from two settings. As described above a receiver on the wings having caught a long raking kick then kicked downfield almost immediately thereby becoming the sole challenger as the rest of the England team were in an off sides position. The second type of up and under came from either Catt (Flood) or Wilkinson that has to be accurate to the last centimetre to challenge successfully outside of the 22. Even a Wilkinson of yesteryear would have gotten that right no more than 5/10 and on a dry and relatively windless night the high-leaping Springboks were not likely to spill on each of those occasions when it was centimetre perfect.

“In the end, England did not revert to a plan B when neither their expected forward dominance nor their up and unders were working. Why was this? I got the best insight from the player ratings that I saw in yesterday’s Sunday Times – all the England players (with the sole exception of Wilkinson, who clearly has not lived up to his starring role) received very high scores. They played as well as their individual talents permitted within a structure that best suited their players. Playing a Plan B (expansive game) would have suited SA perfectly because they have the perfect foil – SPEED. You cannot coach speed into a player but you can utilise it or even the mere threat of utilising it is enough.

“Why did South Africa not play an expansive game – because they did not need to take unnecessary risks when they were always ahead. Simply, the knowledge that SA have that ability was the reason that England chose to keep it tight as it was the only way that they could stay within shouting distance and perhaps be handed a miracle at the end of the game. England could not afford otherwise as they would have been beaten by a margin that could have extracted a high attrition for players and administrators. Therefore, you can argue that the speed of Habana, Pietersen, du Preez, Steyn, and Fourie, so evident from other games in the tournament, had a massive tactical effect on the game, even if it was not displayed during this particular contest.

“Now to the pre-match war of words. South Africa rightly pointed out that unlike the earlier contest in the pool stages, they were playing an England team that now contained Wilkinson and that this would result in a different side. They knew that a Wilkinson-containing England team had a more reliable place-kicker than Catt et al from the first contest. The best way to neutralise Wilkinson’s inclusion was to avoid penalties in SA’s third of the field. The two penalties that were conceded (a) the one against Habana for not rolling away from his offensive tackle on Sackey, a little harsh as he was in the midst of a very compact ruck having driven Sackey backwards, and (b) Matfield not rolling away from his try-saving tackle on Tait, were duly punished. However, the supposed ill-disciplined SA forwards (both the tights and the loose forward were outstanding in broken play) responded to the referee’s exhortations to keep their hands out of rucks whereas England did not maintain their discipline (Tait and Corry). What was left unsaid is that South Africa had slaughtered Wilkinson-led teams twice this year. South Africa knew that Wilkinson was no longer an offensive threat – he does not trust himself as a line-breaker and his kicking both out of hand and from the tee is not as it has been in the past. Therefore, SA acknowledged the obvious but this did not dent their confidence as they do not view Wilkinson any differently than a Percy Montgomery + Butch James, ie steady performers without flash but definitely not game-breakers.

“Finally, I think that the SA players were better conditioned than any other team in the tournament. Apart from a 5 min blood-bin replacement, they did not substitute their starting 15 in the final. You can argue that the fall-off in talent of the replacements was the reason and that may be correct. However, England were replacing players at the 50 min mark when they were within 3 points and still definitely in contention. It says a lot about their conditioning that even the replacements had to be replaced (Worsley by Peter Richards??). Jake White said before he sent his 2nd and 3rd stringers to the Tri-Nations contests down-under that he needed to work on the conditioning of his starters and have his replacements get some experience. It was a master-stroke by an exceptional coach he is totally unappreciated in South Africa. England would do well to replace Ashton with a winner but is it too much to expect the RFU to turn to a South African to be in charge of the crown jewels.”

– Mervyn Maze

“First of all, well done to the Springboks, a deserved hard fought victory. It could have gone a different way, but alas wasn’t to be.

“Many teams can be very proud of what they have achieved at this world cup. As for my team, England, I am very proud of what the boys did, they gave a credible defence of the title. The future looks bright.

“Also as an Englishman I think the ‘Try’ call was the right one, a very hard decision to make, the more I saw it the less it looked like a try.

“I was disappointed with the crossing, not given against Habana, but given against Kay, when the Habana one seemed more obvious, but I won’t fault the ref though, as Brian Ashton said, the best team always wins. That what makes them the best team.

“Finally a big shout for Peter Richards, a true team player, playing on the flank in the World Cup final when you are a scrum-half!”

– Matt Davies (England)

“I was fortunate enough to see 4 of the final matches of the World cup 1995 in South Africa, and had to make do with TV for this years.
South Africa have struggled for form over the past few years, but they have come full circle once again. Credit to England, for preventing any tries but, it was the commanding performance of a integrated team and the efforts of Matfield in the lineouts that took the game.

“Well done South Africa!”

– G M Longstaff

“Let us not forget to congratulate the french on doing a superb jog in hosting the RWC. They may not have won the cup, but they have won the hearts, love and respect of millions of people. The venue was great!”

“The best team won. The Springboks did not lose a single game. The Silver Medallists lost only two games, both to the Springboks and the Bronze Medallists lost only one game, also to the Springboks. Pity we could not have the Ozzies for pudding.”

– Frikkie

“On the day and in general for being consistent throughout the tournament SA deserved their win, all the best to them and the England side.”

“As a Scot I have to say I’ amazed that still no one has discussed the obvious? While every one seems to be locked into the debate about the try that was or wasn’t, no one appears to be questioning the curious decision (or lack of it) taken by referee Alain Rolland in not yellow carding Burger and awarding England a penalty try? Watch the video replay at the Tait tackle, especially from behind the ‘in goal’.

“Rolland shouldn’t have even put Dickinson in the position of having to make the call on Cueto’s ‘try’, as soon as he had decided Burger had come in from the wrong side of the tackle and prevented Tait from offloading to Catt, he should have deemed it ‘Unfair Play’, run straight under the posts for the penalty try, and then yellow carded Burger. Wasn’t this why Catt was so furious that only a five yard penalty was eventually awarded? I mean just how many laws did Burger infringe?

“Law 15 The Tackle:
15.6C Enter the tackle situation from the wrong side.
15.7A Preventing the tackled player from passing the ball.
15.7B Preventing the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
15.7C Falling on the on or over the tackled player.

“And how should it have been punished?

“Law 10.2 Unfair Play
A: Intentionally Offending.
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

“Law 22.H Penalty Try
A penalty try is awarded if a try would have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.

“So just how much more obvious did it need to be in this situation, Tait was a meter from the SA line on his back about to legally pass the ball out of the excellent tackle by Matfield. Burger and Catt were coming in at pace to the contact from the England side only for Burger to get there first and fall straight on top of Tait stopping him popping up a try scoring pass to Catt. The latter only had take the pass and use his momentum to fall over the line for the try.

“Pietersen was on his backside having slipped and slid infield past Tait so was out of contention to make any tackle, and Burger himself had he actually done the legal thing and run past the breakdown to turn around and come in from the correct side would have effectively been wrong footed and in no position to effective a tackle. Even if he could have, Catt’s momentum would have carried them both over the line.

“So will the IRB acknowledge and castigate Rolland for his blooper as they did with Barnes? Of course not, unlike New Zealand, England will take it on the chin and won’t put pressure of the IRB to say anything.

“Would it have made a difference, the 9 points difference in the end with 15 men a side says no as SA forced England into giving away possession and penalties. But what if England had been awarded a ‘try’ and then also had the luxury of an extra man for 10 minutes?

“Anyway, it’s history and life goes on, as I said above well done to SA they deserved the win as the most consistent team in the tournament.

“Let’s hope England can move on a do something more constructive over the coming years than they did with the past 4 years?”

– Aitch

“Well Done South Africa!”

“Rather ironic for certain people to congratulate English fans for not whinging about the ref when the mailbox is full of English fans doing just that. Were these the same guys whinging about New Zealand whinging. Well done South Africa but be honest when things haven’t gone your way in games many of your fans have whinged like hell. Look, we all like whinging ok, its a very popular pastime.

South Africa did have a very easy World Cup and with respect to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa the toughest teams they had to play were Argentina and England. It could be said that the Tri nations presents a far harder challenge than that. However that was certainly not South Africa’s fault and they thoroughly deserve to be World Champions.

As rugby is sadly not as popular Worldwide as the dreaded round ball game (and there are some real whingers in that) it is always probable that some team may get an easy ride to the final with the current format as it is. In order for the game to develop more around the world it is vital for the smaller playing nations like Georgia and Portugal to compete in World Cups but then it may be an idea for the pool winners to have more of a round robin series and then a final between the top two or similar.

Another alternative is to have a world championship between the top nations on a round robin basis every four years but spaced two years between world cups or have a play of between the winner of the tri nations and the winner of the six nations so long as Argentina are included in one of the competitions.

– Gareth Williams

I really think that the England team should hold their heads high after the World Cup Final. To have come as far as they did, when almost everyone had written them off, was unbelievable. To have won would have been the icing on a very large cake. The time spent with Andy Robinson at the helm, where he allowed personal feelings to cloud his judgement, is gone. Onward and upward is the way for England now.
To all the boys, well done.

– Sally

“One of the worst moments of my rugby-watching life occurred when Cueto charged into a Springbok who was looking in the direction Cueto was running,(i.e., he had his back to Cueto), in order to seduce the ref into awarding a penalty. Shamefully, the ref obliged.

“To my mind Cueto’s action was the equivalent of the dishonest footballer’s dive. If this sort of cynical cheating becomes standard practice, rugby will become as ugly a game as football already is.”

– Alec Bradley (Cyprus)

“As far as we are concerned England were triumphant in this world cup. The team showed everything about what is good about the English and we are all immensely proud of them. It was not a defeat – it was a victory.
Well done!”

– The Bowells xx

“Congrats to South Africa for their deserved victory! Any other result would have left the world confused, disappointed and destined to set the game back years, not to mention the absence of recruiting potential future talent and enterprise in evolving our sport!

“Only the English team could be down 15-6 with 10 minutes remaining in a RWC final and still be so tactful enough to kick the ball back to the opposition twice! Only the English media can believe their team are really the best! Yes, after several games and years of being thumped by SANZAR opposition, they seem to re-surface upon a 2-point victory off of a freak day and light the headlines of deserved glory; denouncing all previous results. And only the English broadcasters can be so annoying, biased, and completely ‘off-side’ with their assured and advised comments. Yes, the toe was in touch slightly before the ball was grounded — there is clear evidence of that, but with England’s try rate, it is no wonder the announcer’s will be analysing and moaning of that for years to come!

“It is long overdue for reality to set in for England. They need to re-invent the act of ‘Bill’ picking up the ball and running with it! Rugby’s objective requires to be re-defined in their dictionaries from ‘opportunity to kick 3 points’, to scoring a try; preferably from ball in hand; cease rewarding and ‘knighting’ players for kicking would be a step in the right direction. In the last 6 RWC knock-out games, England have scored 3 tries — they must be proud of themselves and excited about the future of their game!”

– The Balls (Canada)

“So, the FINAL was dominated by kicking high and bashing close.It is your words about the Final. What is so interesting in kicking high and bashing close? In the end you say WHAT A FINE END TO A FINE TOURNAMENT!
So it must be FINE to kick high and bash close!? I really do not understand you!! And I think there are millions like me!
And surprise, there are no more forward passes missed by referees after THAT LITLLE FORWARD PASS!!
In the law discussions about that match these are your words…Little forward pass. It was not little, it was HUGE,visible from satellite!
In your laws discussions this is the only mistake Barnes did but surprise again!?

“IRB committee decided that Barnes and fellows touch judges made other several mistakes in the last ten minutes.
In the spirit of FAIR PLAY you have to make detached commentary but how can you criticize your fellow Englishman Barnes!?

“So, the secret for England to be successful in a World Cup is to make sure that they will not meet New Zealand and that what Barnes did. England never beat New Zee land in a World Cup match before so the public enemy no.1 must be out for England to be successful.

“And how convenient for South Africa!

“See J Kaplan and Spreadbury, they were the touch judges – What a coincidence!

“England and South Africa in the Final. Who bash close and kick high…

“It was not a great tournament, it was a SHAME of a TOURNAMENT!

“Let it see if you can do it again on New Zealand ground in 2011? If you have the nerve!?”

– Ciobanu Dan (Just a minnow from Europe – not France)

“I am sick of constantly hearing over and over on Sky News that If Danie Rossouw got the try England would have won. It is in fact incorrect. The best team won fair and square.”

– Jose da Silva