The Springboks are hot, but referee Barnes is not

I have to say that I thought Wayne did an excellent job in this match, as much as it burns me to say it. He appeared to be clear and reasonably quiet. I should also add that I could not work out which rules it was been played under, I ended up assuming it was the old rules. There you go! He did a good enough job in the AB/SA game too. Perhaps the RWC he was guilty of nerves which lead him to not make a call for fear of making a wrong call, which is of course in its own right a wrong call...who knows.

Dave, if Hernandez rarey passed, which he didn't, and often kicked erratically or ran, then I think it is accurate to call him a headless chicken. That was more my point than yours. I agreed with your assertion that Spiro was daydreaming. Argentina's WC journey was indeed a fine adventure but people seem to remember them playing this wonderful corinthian game of beauty whereas they actually played some hideous rugby. Hernandez could not usurp Skrela, who is a journeyman if ever there was, simply because he is not actually a good fly half, and he does not fulfill the basic conditions of that position. He may be a fine player but he is not a fine fly half. I would also prefer Corleto at full back than Hernandez. Incidentally, Skrela is moving to Toulouse so we'll have to see if McKenzie gives him a game at 10.

Benjamin My point wasn't that Hernandez is a headless chicken. On the contrary, I think he's a fine player. But where is the evidence that he's a running/passing fly half? Certainly not from the last world cup and I think there's precious little from club rugby. He plays mainly at full back for his club, Stade Francais. Largely due to the fact that the French number 10 plays for them. Argentina's Odyssey was one of the great stories from the last world cup. But why can't people accept it for what it was, not for what they pretend it was?

Dave, I completely agree. People seem to have forgotten just how ordinary Hernandez looked in the previous WC. Corleto was the real star. Hernandez was by and large a headless chicken. Spiro, Hernandez is nowhere near the player Carter is. Apart from occasional moments of class in the WC he was largely inneffective and erratic. Has anybody forgotten his awful drop goal attempts from all over the pitch? Carter has confirmed his class with 4 years of excellent international performances. Hernandez has not. I guess you don't watch much Top 14. That Stade Francais have for years continuously selected the journeyman Skrela ahead of Hernandez suggests that he isn't quite top-tier fly half material. That the scrum looked powerful was quite clearly because Argentina were forced to play a loosehead in the 3 jersey for basically the whole game. 'Beast', oh those quirky Springboks, will find he gets considerable less purchase off Somerville.

Spiro This statement: "If Juan Hernandez, the wonderful five-eights (arguably as good a player as Daniel Carter) had been playing the Pumas would have certainly scored a couple of tries during their period of dominance. But the stand-in five-eight, Felipe Contemponi, passed the ball only once in the first half and the break-outs were not capitalised on in the way they might have been." is complete and utter cobblers. I didn't see this match so I can't comment on it specifically but I did see most of Argentina's matches in the last world cup, including all of the ones featuring the first choice team, in which Hernandez played at number 10. In every one of those games--bar one--his first instinct was to kick. As befits the nephew of a soccer player who was only kept out of Argentina's World Cup team by a certain Diego Maradonna, Hernandez has a wonderful kicking boot. Perhaps two. Argentina's game plan in 2007 was admirably astute. It was to play to their strengths; to compete for everything up front; to deny the opposition any chance to attack through their own backs. And to capitalise on any errors that a more expansive team might make. They did have some pace in their backs, notably through Carleto at full back, but an all passing all dancing team they most certainly were not. The only exception to this general rule was their semifinal against South Africa when they changed their tactics and ran the ball willy nilly, presumably because they thought they could not match an Afrikaner pack up front. They got cuffed. Hernandez was the tactical lynch pin of all this. It was he who executed the strategy. Boot the ball downfield and let the opposition make the mistakes. Once the mistakes arose, Argentina capitalised on them but they were ruthless about choosing when to run and when to kick or play it tight. If you want flashy excitement, they might have said, go to a tango bar. In that, they were just like Munster, the European champions who won that title this year against all the odds, coming out of a viciously competitive qualifying group and playing all their knockout matches away from home. They too, know exactly when to use the rapier and when to use the battering ram. What pisses me off about this is your falsification of the facts to support a greater truth. You don't need to, but you do it anyway to support your own agenda as encapsulated in such rubbish as "The British (sic) don't understand rugby" You and I would probably agree that Argentina's story was the highlight of the last world cup. In the way they upset the odds and gatecrashed the semi finals. In the way they defeated (twice) the host nation France, where most of them earn their living. In the way they nosed ahead of Ireland, with whom they had been neck and neck for the past two world cups. (Something which admittedly I concede through grated teeth) But the truth is that they did this by good old fashioned tactical astuteness, not through seeking first and foremost to run the ball. This is where you are being disingenuous. By spinning the line that "If Hernandez had played, Argentina would have spun the ball more" you're falsifying the record. Show me, if you can, some footage of Hernandez passing the ball in the last world cup. In fact count up all the times he did so, semi final excepted. You will not need more than the fingers of one hand. In fact, Felipe Contepomi is a wonderful passing out half, well able to get a talented back line moving. Look at this clip for an example of his ability to spot a break from an unlikely position. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzW5KlXF5d8) There is a stark contrast in the way in which the achievements of Argentina and Munster last season are presented here. Argentina are held up as the shining beacon for the future of international rugby, if only they could professionalise their domestic game; Munster are held up as the purveyors of dinosaur rugby which must be legislated out of existence. This attitude comes not just from deliciously one-eyed bloggers but also from the likes of Matt Burke in his video interview last week. The truth is, they both played almost exactly the same type of game. And the facts support that.

According to what we have been told, the ELV's are to be trialled world wide as of this month, August, and teh whole ggame will play teh same ELV's, which do not include the short arm, so Barnes was right in his interpretation of the laws.

well that leads me to ask the question, why on earth was the game played under the rules about to be trialled in the NH ? SA have been playing under the more expansive rules in the S14 and Tri-nations, the game was played in SA and the last time I looked Argentina wasnt in the northern hemisphere. Why would you play the game under the rules being tirlled in the NH ? talk about confusing especially for the players. Why are there even different rules for the S14 and Tri nations ?...well i know the answer but to that but when it comes down to it, I agree with Bradley, the whole ELV trial situation is a complete farce. The IRB is a complete shambles.

Paddy O'Brien himself had an absolute shocker in the 99 World Cup basically costing Fiji a huge upset against France in the group stages (denying one legitimate try and giving a very dodgy penalty try against Fiji). I imagine that, while he'll not publicly criticise Barnes poor 1/4 final performance, in private he'll be telling him to put it behind him and move on. And to be honest, I think Barnes will have no problem doing so. Ref's tend to have that sort of mind-set and I don't think Barnes would have got where he is without it.

If NZ fans can end up singing Kaplan's praises then there's hope for Barnes yet!

Whilst I may never ever forgive Wayne Barnes for THAT quarter final performance (someone please pass me the tissues) I actually do think he has a bright future as an international ref. He's still very green, probably just needs a little time to mature.

The IRB is really clueless, the ELV's evaluation and testing process is a farce and its as if thyey make up new rules before every game. Spiro could you maybe get hold of their ELV trial implementation plan. They should have known last year wich games will be playing wich rules from 2007 - 2008, At what level the rules will be implemented AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WORLD WIDE!!!!!!!!!!!. If this ELV project was in the corporate world heads would have rolled by now. ON the referees, a ref has complete freedom to mess up without any repercussions. Wayne barnes can do as he pleases. Whats worse if refs can give short arms or full penalties for the same offence then games can very easily swing based solely on the ref as was seen in France even the best teams can be crushed by the ref

By the way, does anybody here see any similarities between this game and the game between Australia and South Africa in 1997 where Australia got completely burnt off after being in reasonable shape at half-time? It was the same game that spelled the end for Greg Smith's coaching career, bless him.

I think Barnes is up to the international standard, but one has to question what all the media scrutiny would have done to his confidence. You would almost think he'll be scrutinized for the rest of his career. Then again Gert Bezuidenhout is arguably the best ref rugby has ever had and he came under scrutiny a few times. Maybe Barnes can improve.

Spiro - I think the game was probably played under the ELVs without the sanctions (ie. short arms) as that is how they are being trialled in Europe...

Spiro - five-eight? You're obviously not with the IRB inc ways, I thought the position was fly-half.