The more accurate headline would be New Zealand didn’t win the inaugural Sydney Sevens at Allianz Stadium last night in a cliffhanger, Australia lost it.
The men in gold showed enormous courage and played some superb rugby to beat England 17-12 in the quarters and South Africa 12-7 in the semis to set up a repeat of the Rugby World Cup final.
On that occasion the All Blacks won 34-17 by being the better side on the night.
Last night, the men in black weren’t the better side.
More sevens:
» Aussie sevens have the right Friend as coach
» Eight-man bungle could hurt 7s: Friend
» Sevens: All the action from Day 2
» Sevens: All the action from Day 1
» WATCH: Aussies robbed by eight-man All Blacks
The likes of Lewis Holland, Cameron Clark and Henry Hutchison played out of their skins, giving the huge number of Australian spectators among the 73,313 who packed Allianz over the two days with plenty to cheer about.
But the Australians found out when push turned to shove that sevens pressure is unlike any other.
With just over a minute left on the final clock, and Australia leading 24-17, Tom Kingston lost possession and Rieko Ioane scored, leaving the men in gold with a two-point lead.
With five seconds left, Henry Speight made high contact with Australia in possession and was penalised.
That was that, Rieko Ioane scored again and New Zealand were 27-24 victors. Ioane, just out of school, was named the player of the tournament.
But the Kingston-Speight mistakes weren’t the only problem, Australia’s defence was lacking at critical times that led to New Zealand tries with Australia in control.
It was a tragic waste of attacking talent.
So to New Zealand went the spoils and the silverware, but the Australians now know they can mix it with the best and have lost their making-up-the-numbers tag.
And congratulations to Sydney, you did the city proud voting with your feet – the Sydney Sevens are here to stay.
The same can’t be said about World Rugby. The governing body did nothing after it was proved New Zealand had eight men on the paddock when they scored a try after the bell to force a 17-all draw with Australia to top Pool A on the opening day.
Try this for a limp-wristed wet lettuce belting to New Zealand.
“World Rugby confirms that it is investigating an apparent breach of Law 3 by the New Zealand Sevens team.
“In accordance with Law 3.2 the result of the match will stand, but World Rugby is currently reviewing the matter to determine if any disciplinary action is warranted.
“No further comment will be made until the outcome of the investigation.”
That was World Rugby’s only written statement, no questions.
“Apparent”? There were television replays immediately available, but World Rugby ignored the evidence.
Gutless, but that’s always been the governing body’s track record. Watch them now try to sweep the mistake under the carpet, they are masters at it.
By the way, what are the disciplinary measures available if World Rugby shows some guts?
New Zealand could face a fine, or a deduction of World Sevens points.
The alternatives are an embarrassment, but that’s normal for World Rugby.
Mr.Media
Roar Rookie
Exactly, and the one-day cricket series in New Zealand is another example, with the Kiwis winning 2-1. So it's better to look ahead to the next tournament which is the USA Sevens. We can't see it here on free-to-air TV in marvellous Queensland, but that's Queensland for you!
Ken
Roar Rookie
Yep that Cosby is a sweater now
kesmcc
Guest
i disagree soapit, the match officials who control the substitutions are ultimately responsible because they are required to inform the ref that all subs have been made and that play can continue. the referee and the assistant referees definitely have enough on their plate not to have this responsibility but at the end of the day its the other officials on the side line who should be keeping track of numbers as players who are coming on and off.
normz11oo
Guest
yep nz should have forfeited the game so aussie could then meet fiji and in all likely hood not have made the final at all
Boomeranga
Guest
Definitely.
soapit
Guest
ultimate responsibility should be on the teams. refs have enough to do.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Yep, Clarke had another look & spotted 5 chasing back on the kick. Mistook him for another player when I was having a look earlier. Agree that he must have stayed on in error. Can't work out why the AR & ref didn't hold play until he was off.
ClarkeG
Guest
I don’t see it that way Shane. NZ 5 is definitely on the field at the time the final penalty is awarded. Referee Joubert is heard to say “hold” while the substitutions are made. Players 1 and 4 are seen running on. Players 5 and 7 are seen to be moving towards the near touchline as if they are leaving the field. 7 can be seen leaving the field but the next time 5 is seen he is joining play down the near side touchline. Did he not leave the field or did he leave the field and return to the field – who knows. Surely part of the refereeing process in regard to substitutions involves a signal from the sideline officials to the referee that the substitutions have been completed and that he can now restart the game. That must have occurred.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
I had a look at the video from the game to see what happened prior. What I think happened was when the final penalty was awarded NZ was looking to bring on number 5. They then changed their mind & put on number 1 instead. I suspect that number 5 didn't know that & the AR & off field officials lost track & both players were allowed on in error (Australia was making a substitution at that time as well to add to the confusion). The only reason I can think for the AR not notifying the ref was that he believed that number 5 didn't effect play before he got him off the field. Personally I think that was an error because the player holds the ultimate responsibility for knowing if he should be on the field or not. Should have been a penalty to Australia to end the game.
ClarkeG
Guest
Immediately prior to the final play which started with a penalty to NZ the players on the field for NZ were 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12. Players subbed on at this point were 1 and 4. No 7 was seen to come off. My guess is that 5 should have been the other player to come off as he is the player the assistant referee is seen to direct towards the sideline - but for whatever reason stayed on the field. This resulted in 8 players being on the field. There are 2 match officials on the sideline. Presumably their responsibility is to manage substitutions. So the question is how NZ could – knowingly or unknowingly – be allowed to continue with an extra player on the field. At some point the referee must have been satisfied that he had the ok to restart the match.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Shane D - OK I see it now. On first glance I thought he was on or about the line and just following play, but yes he has stepped into the field and puts his hand on the no 5. It is not definitive from that he has walked or ushered him off the field. He has kept his eyes on the play and it is not clear whether he has even spoken to him. However I can see how it was construed that he knew at that time there was an extra player and took action to get him off. Perhaps he realised not enough had come off and took action, or someone told him , that is unknown. How long had there been 8 players? And if he was told who told him, and why did it take until so long. This adds a reasonable doubt to my conclusion so that perhaps someone from the NZ did inform them, mind you no proof either than some on NZ side did inform him. I look forward to world rugby's release upon investigation.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Shane D - We must be looking at different clips. I am looking at the one posted by clarkg from world rugby. At the 7 sec mark the ar has his eyes on SBW as the ball carrier and no 5 is behind SBW and to the side. At 8 secs an arm is waved in his direction but the ar keeps his eye on the breakdown. at 14 secs it has moved well past that point into general play. Of course there is blame on the officials (unless they were circumvented which I do not believe). They stuffed up. They made an error as players, coaches everyone does. I do doubt that an AR though knows there is an extra man on the field, does not get him off the field, does not tell the ref over the mike AND does not inform when a try is scored that they had 8 players on for a few phases including the try. I am not saying all the NZ management and coaches knew. Just like in 2003 at the RWC only 1 of the team of management knew. I am saying the one responsible for keeping tabs on replacements knew and that the ref / ar's were not informed (not as fact but as reasoned opinion). So please inform me if the link is the right one or I am looking at the wrong clip.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
The vision of the AR at the 14sec mark of the video approaching black 5 & herding him to the sideline where the 2 off field officials are isn't clear enough? Absolutely he should have advised the ref but he didn't. That would seem an error on his behalf as per my above comments. You have made your mind up about this Peter & I know you aren't going to change your mind that the NZ management was in the wrong but I believe that blame may also lay at the feet of the official for allowing a player onto the field prior to the player being replaced leaving the field.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I looked at the clip that ClarkG posted and no way does it show that an AR clearly knew there was an extra player on the field nor that he was waving for him to get off. The gesture he gave could have been any number of things i.e. get back, or not a gesture at all but moving his arm balancing himself before moving on with play. If he knew there was a 8th man on it is more likely than not that he would have informed the ref on the try (if not earlier on the mike).
Ken
Guest
(Pssssst! Chivas , you used that one only a couple of weeks ago. Good to see you`re still trying. Keep up the average work...
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Thugby Fan. I think that it's not simply a case of NZ sending an 8th player on. The replacement reports to the AR & the AR allows the player on the field. If the NZ replacement just ran on without following that protocol then there is an issue. I think that's what WR is investigating.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
ClarkeG - think that pretty clearly shows that the AR knew there was a player on the field that shouldn't have been there. In my opinion the AR should have gone to the ref after the try & advised there were 8 players on the field for NZ, meaning the try should be disallowed & bought it back for a penalty to Australia. Given the protocols for substitutions though the AR might have been partly at fault as doesn't the AR allow the substitute on only once the replaced player has left the field?
ClarkeG
Guest
Peter this is the clip published by World Rugby on You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EjYi57WjDM&list=PLrqcgJ04rEii86RanwvIJzEypfYorGE9d&index=25
normz11oo
Guest
the better team lost?which game were you watching?i thought the team that scores the most points was always not only the better team but the winner....um shucks you guys must have come up with a better way to judge things,your sevens correspondents are staring to sound like your 15s correspondents and now your cricket lot as well,remember the drama at the waca and the aussie retort,"suck it up princess...stuff happens"well"suck it up australia,stuff happens"
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Peter K - you might want to read comments you posted at 10.33 & 10.46 on the 9th of feb in this thread. You say that the NZ Management did know & did nothing & that it is a fact that officials were not alerted during play. Seems to me like you were stating these things as facts but I digress as I am not too worried about semantics. Look at the video embedded in this story at the 4 to 6 second mark if you have not got access to game video. The sideline officials are visible along with the AR. The last ruck I am referring to is the last ruck of the game prior to the final try being scored. You also get a glimpse of a NZ official appearing to gesture to a player to get off the field. WR releases are very carefully worded for lots of reasons. Little doubt they feel the need to investigate every detail in full before making any decision about what happened or not.