Wallabies wilt under All Blacks pressure

Get rid of Dean and return Jones and Evans. Given the record of the St Joseph's brothers they could coach a Wallaby side. I'm not kidding Sorry but deans isn't working out. Dunning should return, that take no nonsense attitude is required

Hemjay, You need have no fear that Australia beating NZ would have been trumpeted as a great victory - ABs aren't that good. You will note from my posts prior to this test, I said we had to move on to the stage of beating ABs with McCaw (a truly great player) but this was just part of a process. The Bokke are a much greater challenge, and of course the World cup in two years times is much greater still. If Australia had won this last test in face of a hostile and incompetent referee, that would indeed have been an achievement. Losing it doesn't mean much. Its a shame for the ABs, who played reasonably well (and that is not meant to be a back-hander - I think both teams would agree that they didn't play their best, lots of mistakes, but ABs made less). I can also assure you that nothing has been "shot to pieces" except the myth that Baxter can't scrummage!

Your team loses because of the ref first. Now that argument has been shot to pieces the quality of the tournament is at question. For petes sake give it a rest. The lack of tries could be put down to the Australians and Kiwis having good defence could it not? Isn't the game of rugby not only to score tries but also to prevent your opponents from scoring them also? I could guarantee Mike that had Australia won it would have been one of the greatest victories of all time against a star studded All Blacks team playing at their peak in the toughest rugby competition on the planet.

Hemjay, I agree entirely that the Wallabies lost, and that nothing will change that. The significance of the win is another matter entirely. Its significance, and that of 3N and Bledisloe, have taken a powerful hit - there was a time when these would have been seen as the premier rugby international series in the world. Barnes and breakdown, well we don't have too much disagreement there, although I am not saying that Barnes is a bad player!

Mike, Breathe buddy breathe, Your team lost end of story you can sing your shoulda coulda wouldas all bloody day and still won't get anywhere nor will it change the result. Tony woodcock is one of if not the best tighthead in the world and I don't think you'll find too many people who would argue that fact. If your beloved Wallabies were good enough they would've won but they didn't like I said to you earlier if Barnes had actually passed the ball it could've been a very different story. But oh no he wanted to be a superstar and got all greedy and decided when realizing he simply wasn't going to make it that he better pass the ball. But the idiot threw it at Smiths head... yup thats real smart rugby. Also the Wallabies failed to muscle up at the breakdown didn't want to get too dirty maybe. I look forward to your comments over the next few months especially should Australia lose in Sydney

Dean, I understand your embarrassment - I would be too in your position. From the point where you adopted an untenable position, that was inevitable. 1. You write: "Refer to ruling 3: 2008 from the IRB." Go back, and read the ruling again, slowly, especially this bit: "Players must therefore conform to the Laws from the time that the scrum is awarded including Law 20.3". You have cited the very ruling which makes my point. 2. "Woodcock does bind. End of discussion. I’m not going to entertain your assumptions about what constitutes a bind." Of course you aren't going to entertain it - you know you don't have a case, so better to say nothing, I agree. Binding means gripping. Its set out very clearly in the Laws and everyone knows it. Woodcock did not bind - he failed to carry out the most basic action required of the front-rower. 3. "Baxter folds at the first engagement" - no, he didn't. Sorry but its that clear. Whereas Woodcock does - very poor scrummaging by the loosehead. He was trying to milk a penalty, and succeeded, as he has no doubt done before when playing Baxter.

1) Baxter folds at the first engagement of the first scrum approximately 11:10 into the match. 2) Woodcock does bind. End of discussion. I'm not going to entertain your assumptions about what constitutes a bind. 3) Refer to ruling 3: 2008 from the IRB. 4) Don't be ridiculous. 5) You're wrong and this is becoming embarrassing.

OJ, Agreed on the line-out. And certainly the scrums were only one aspect of the game. And normally I would agree with you that the pack just has to adapt to the ref's idiosyncrasies. But this was blatant. There are some things that have to be stamped out. Suspending Bakkies for charging was a long overdue move - the IRB finally lost patience and moved itself over that one, much to SARU's dismay. Getting rid of rubbish refereeing like this episode from Joubert is another. Until these things are sorted out, the credibility of Bledisloe and 3N as top-level competition will suffer.

Dean, Please do not waste my time by making up fantasies that are simply not there. Nor by drivel that is contrary to the laws of rugby. 1. Baxter at no time folds. Woodcock does fold. 2. Woodcock does not bind. You have to grip to bind. He doesn't even attempt to do it. And despite your bizarre assertion, merely placing your hand on an opponent is in no sense a bind. 3. "They only have to be bound correctly in accordance with Law 20.3 when the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands - not before." ???? Utter rubbish. You are confusing "play in the scrum" with the start of the scrum. In any case, the issue here is whether he bound correctly, not when it occurred. 4. Woodcock is not "one of the world's premier looseheads". Whatever claim he had to that title disappeared with his performance in this game. 5. I will write it again, so you can follow it: Woodcock collapsed the scrum because he didn't even attempt to bind, and because he backed out and down. Baxter did his best to bind. Joubert had no idea what he was doing and awarded the penalty to the wrong pack.

Mike - You can clearly see Woodcock binding on Baxter's jersey in both those first two scrums, what are you on about?

That was really insightful stuff from Ben Darwin. Honestly, Mike -- it was three seconds of an eighty minute game. If the Wallabies think it was Joubert who cost them the game, they'll never learn to beat the All Blacks. New Zealand had the same amount of overthrown lineouts, which led to the Wallabies 10-0 lead and they made the necessary adjustments. All Baxter had to do was bind properly in the eyes of the ref. Just like players have to adjust to the ref's calls at the breakdown.

I have previously, but I'll reiterate them for you: It’s the requirement of a prop to stabilise their own scrum and disrupt the oppositions. In this scenario you have one of the world’s premier loosheads up against a tighthead with a reputation over years of playing as being a bunny in the scrum. What did you think would happen? Baxter folds quicker than an origami speed champion if he doesn’t get the hit. He also kept binding illegally on Woodcock’s arm in contravention of Law 20.3 (d). Joubert told him to stop doing it. Contrary to your opinion; Woodcock clearly binds onto Baxter's side as required by Law 20.3 (c) regardless of whether you think he's "placing [his] hand lightly on the opposing tighthead’s rib-cage". So you maintain that Woodcock doesn't bind, probably in ignorance of Law 20.7, and then attempt to tap dance by the ludicrous claim that he is resting his hand. They only have to be bound correctly in accordance with Law 20.3 when the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands - not before. Law 20.7 heading states “WHEN THE SCRUM BEGINS” whilst 20.7 (a) states: “Play in the scrum begins when the ball leaves the hands of the scrum half” The word “play” is within the body of the Law indicates the start of the contest for the ball rather than the engagement process. From your link: "Darwin said it never mattered where a player bound in the scrum, the most important aspect being the position of his elbow." Ben Darwin is wrong. The Law is clear about binding. There's an entire section about it. Stop blaming the ref for the player’s inadequacies. The evidence is undeniable; you don't know the Laws, Woodcock monstered Baxter and Joubert is much better placed than you to make judgement.

Yes, but the question is whether the loss really means much, in view of the circumstances. I note Ben Darwin has now joined those who question Joubert's refereeing and support Baxter: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25809848-23217,00.html

Mike give it a rest champ, Your team lost for the 4th time in a row against the All Blacks. If Barnes had passed the ball then maybe it would've been a different story.

Good to see you can't answer any of the points I made Dean.

I get it Mike; you're a wind up merchant.

"When the All Blacks won at Eden Park last year it was because of Mark Lawerence. When they won in Brisbane it was because of Kaplan. When they won in Hong Kong it was because of Lewis. When they suffered the worst reffing performance of all-time at the 2007 World Cup, Wallaby fans told us to take it on the chin. Well, fall on your swords Wallaby fans." OJ, that is exactly right. The refereeing performance on Saturday night was the worst I have ever seen, at any level. It is simply not possible to say that it did not influence the result. Here is a useful link to a summary of the low-lights of Joubert's non-refereeing: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spotlight+on+joubert&search_type=&aq=f There is no doubt that Woodcock failed to bind (at all) for the first two penalties, yet the referee with full view of it penalised Baxter. This is what has been going on for the past two years, where Bokke and AB front-rowers fail to bind, in the hope (often realised) that incompetents like Joubert or Lewis will take the easy way out and penalise Baxter. The evidence is undeniable: Al Baxter is a competent and skilled tighthead, he is the one who is playing by the rules. It is difficult to see why 3N should be taken seriously as a top-level competition if this is the standard that it reaches. The Bakkies suspension illustrates the same point - get a referee who properly polices the rucks and the Bokke suddenly look like a different team.

thanks Bonza and Jerry, i get it now

Does it really matter where the franks boys were born they were raised in New Zealand. It's like Sekope Kepu he was born in Australia went to school in NZ played New Zealand schoolboys then went on to play for Australia. I see James O'Conner was elegible to represent all three SANZAR nations due to his Parents and Grandmother and the most obvious fact he lives in Australia. Reality is he was born to New Zealand parents and no matter how hard anyone tries they will never be able to take that Kiwi blood out of him even though he was born in Australia his parents are still New Zealanders which makes him a 1st generation Kwozzie he grew up Australian and it is right that he plays there and for Australia. Now I'm not too sure what the story is with Steve Devine someone may be able to tell us but I am of the understanding he had to go through the residency thing.

Yeah, Ben was born in Melbourne but, as the family were back in NZ by the time Owen was born (3 years after Ben) I think it's a bit of a reach to claim Ben as an Aussie either.