I sure hope that Andrew Brace does not referee next week.

That was shockingly poor.

No I am not saying the Boks would not have won - They did well to come back.

The the referee was piss poor.

This is becoming far to regular in international rugby.

The most controversial moment was the try by Bongi.

Bongi did lose control of the ball when Barret tried the rip the ball out of his hands, and it left his hands before touching the ground. 

However it did not appear to go forward. It just seemed to drop directly down or even go a little backwards, then sit on the ground, and Bongi fell over the ball with the forward momentum.

If their is no knock on, it is play on. Bongi might have knocked on but Barret's knee or hand would have prevented the ball going forward, and it was arguably a knock on from Barret, because the ball actually seemed to go backwards.

That is debatable...

Very debatable at the very least.

All other referees - NO TRY.

A few questions though:

1. Did the ball go forward?
2. Did he ground the ball 
3. Was the ball over the line? 

The try scorer usually gets the benefit of the doubt, because there is no reason to not award the try.
It seems as long as the ball did not go forward it was a try.
 

Here is Perplexity AI's response:

B ased on the available information and your additional input, let's fact-check the situation:

Possibility of Forward Movement:
You're correct in noting that Barrett's knee and hand might have prevented the ball from moving forward. This is a crucial detail that complicates the decision. In rugby, if a defending player causes the ball to move backwards out of an attacking player's hands, it's not considered a knock-on.

Loss of Control:
Television replays clearly showed that Mbonambi lost control of the ball on the try-line following Barrett's tackle. This loss of control is not disputed and is the primary source of the controversy.

Grounding of the Ball:
There are conflicting reports regarding whether the ball was grounded short of the try line or directly on it. Some sources suggest it was initially grounded short, but momentum may have carried it onto the line.

Referee's Decision:
The try was awarded without any review by the referee or the TMO. This absence of a review has been a significant point of contention.

Interpretation of the Laws:
Some argue that as long as contact was maintained with the arm or chest and downward pressure was applied, it should be considered a try. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted.

Precedent:
Many observers have pointed out that similar situations have typically been ruled as knock-ons in the past.

Your assessment that the ball might not have moved forward due to Barrett's positioning is a valid point and reflects the complexity of the situation. The controversy arises from Mbonambi losing control and the challenge of determining the ball's exact movement in real-time.

Given the conflicting viewpoints and the lack of a clear consensus, it's fair to say this try remains highly controversial, with valid arguments on both sides of the debate.

Consistency non-existent with rugby referees. 99 times out of 100 that try gets chalked off but these clowns not only allow it, they don’t even go back and have a detailed look at it! The fact that Bongi is charging for the line would suggest that when he loses control of it, in the absence of a slap back of the ball, it had to be travelling forward! Conveniently I notice with all the replays they put up, none were shown from the goal line view which would’ve clearly shown what occurred. Strange that from SA television…..

Bizarre call...can understand the NZders being unhappy about it...tough when these poor calls go against your team...reffing has improved drastically over the years but will unfortunately never be perfect.

Mebbe the TMO decided that JB stripped the ball which Bongi instantly fell on.

Possibly Blob but there again, most refs still rule a knock-on when the ball’s stripped as it still goes forward out of the player’s hands. Only very occasionally a ref will call out “stripped” and allow play to go on. That’s what I mean about consistency! If that was the ruling then it goes against what usually happens and would’ve definitely required closer inspection.

Hahahahahahaha. Sorry Kiwis we have HD the short draw countless times from bent Miw and Oz refs all out to get the Japie. 

I have no sympathy with you. A marginal call went the way of the Boks for a change. 

What about the tackle on Kidi that fractured his cheek bone. It was a red. 

What about repeated Ed infringement by the wee abs when we were near their line. Eventually resulting in a yellow ref was late in acting. 

One eyed KBBS ignore all this. 

It's hilarious the way they go on. 

I felt in the end the score flattered the battered wee abs. 

Short draw????

You’ve always been a sore loser Hasbeeno but that pales into comparison when you win….

Rassie tried to save you from this kak reffing ages ago...

...but nooooooo!!!

I had my grizzle.

Well done to the Boks for winning.

And really - That is the only thing that matters  when the Boks and AB's meet.

The ball was not stripped…Bongi‘s arm  couldn’t continue downward because is made contact with Barrett’s knee and the ball came free and down short of the line…calling this a try is weird on many dimensions.

This article makes the case Barrett knocked the ball on. But all Barrett did was try to get his hands under the ball. The ball came loose because Bongi’s arm couldn’t continue down and the way he was carrying the ball, to ground it, if his arm was stopped the ball was likely to come out.

Roll this video forward slowly and see Bongi’s elbow rise back up as he is thwarted by contact with Barrett.The only reason the ball doesn’t go forward is contact with Barrett. That happens instantly, but it doesn’t matter,  millimeter or meter it’s a knock on.

It’s the right  video, but as is so often the case with these rugby dullards, the wrong interpretation. Barrett’s action was not to strip the ball….Bongi lost possession.

https://www.planetrugby.com/news/law-discussion-springboks-controversial-bongi-mbonambi-try-was-the-correct-decision-heres-why

The sound that the commentator makes on the video cracks me up :) sounds like he is pushing out a turd :)

Bongi does loose possession/control of the ball over the line first and then his arm comes down on it … no try.

The rule is that if an opposition player rips or dislodges the ball it’s not deemed to have been dropped or knocked on

It’s a pretty grey area and given it was not reviewed we will never know

Much like the NZ try from the line out that included double banking by the Kiwi’s - that to was not reviewed or checked

As were all the kicking clocks - they all seemed all out of place

If you have a look at the side on view (which I now have done), Bongi has huge forward momentum so there’s no way that ball could be lost and go straight down! And Barrett gets his hand on the ball dislodging it. No way can you call that a strip!

Barrett gets his hand on the ball dislodging it. No way can you call that a strip!

then its, or is it ........................... no way you can call it a knock on by Bongi  ?

That shouldn't have been a try...it is what it is, but it leaves a bad taste...and the AB 1st try was also dodgy...a few poor calls in a high stake match ...pity.

Well done, chaps.

For as crazy as Bok fans are, most of us do have a good sense of objectivity when it comes to fairness.

I think they gave the try because there was confusion with the replays, timing and communication.

And once they realised the mistake it was too late.

Honestly, I can't see that try standing if it went through a proper review.

It's strange how all the footage from the front angle I've seen so far keeps cutting off before the actual grounding of the ball over the line is shown. Did the camera suddenly break? What's going on? So we can't see what happened after he lost control of it. 

What we can see is that all his momentum was arrested by the time the ball was dislodged short of the line, so he was only going to get over with a double movement. His right arm flops out so he is not placing the ball, he had to push it over with his body/left arm.

and the AB 1st try was also dodgy

I don't understand maul laws very well. I questioned a similar try scored by Ireland against us a while back and was told as long as everyone is bound they can stay bound, and that seems to be the case with the NZ try. The maul by its very nature is a vehicle for creating legal obstruction.

I agree, I thought it was no try

The other issue is he lost the ball, and he is on the ground. He surely can't be allowed to regain possession and play the ball again while he is on the ground? See b below:

13.3 A player on the ground in the field of play, without the ball is out of the game and must:

a. Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball. Sanction: Penalty.

b. Not play the ball. Sanction: Penalty.

c. Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent. Sanction: Penalty.

Poor wee abs So lb Sob. Couldn't happen to a more honest bunch. So unjust.  

Listen to Dave, he makes some very interesting points. 

Mooooooo LA LA says I am a sore loser. Right now I don't know how I could be sore after ANOTHER RWC win and no losses in this Rugby Championship. Bwahahahahaha

And yes the same loons having a breakdown over the Bongi try were the same loons wailing about Rassie pointing out all the  errors made when the Boks lost that test against the Lions. We had supposedly Bok supporters having a full go at Rassie. The usual anti Bok culprits like mozzietard and Doos etc. 

BUT if the wee abs get one wrong call in a match they burst into tears. Further, these same fake Bok supporters fail to point out the things the wee abs got away with. 

One expects the one eyed wee a supporters to whine away but to see the fake Bok supporters doing the same is cringe worthy. 

Forgive me but I can only laugh at how these biased nutjobs carrying on!!! 

What name is Plum posting under - President o f "home"? 

It's called a discussion, Beeno. Try it some time.

Hasbeeno, I have been putting up with your bleating about refs since the RWC 2011, so you have a rather defective memory methinks! And I’m complaining about ONE incident unlike Rassie who picked apart an entire game with his diatribe against the ref! Hardly the same is it??

I've now seen a video that explains the "double banking". So the issue was not how the maul was used to score the try, the issue was the All Blacks shielding the lineout catcher. Again, no TMO involvement? They'll call back 2 minutes of play for a knock on 50 meters up the field to disallow a try, but can't for a lineout infringement 5 seconds before? The TMO is fast becoming some kind of weird white elephant.

...and Kolisi did complain about it to the ref...

...having said all that, it was still a great contest, pity for the controversy...

Ja I'm not too fussed about things like that. It's interesting to speculate about but you have to accept the score at the end of the game because that's all that's going to matter. Rugby is a fast game and the rules are extremely technical and even convoluted. Escaping errors is a pipe dream. 

I do have a beef with the TMO though as I think has been pretty clear for a long time now. It's like they can't decide what to do with it. Sometimes they drag a game out to 100 minutes with 5 minute reviews, and then like Saturday they barely get used. There were the two dodgy tries, and then the hit on Kolisi by Cane which by every definition should have been a card - it was worse than the World Cup hit as this time around he had time and opportunity to line up a lower tackle - there was no mitigation that I could see. If you're going to have a TMO, commit to using him. Otherwise scrap him and let the onfield refs handle things.

Excellent post Pakie

The TMO's are complete failure.

They have ruined Rugby.

They are pathetic little worms who think the game is about them.

They are control freaks - Not unlike Hitler

It's much less the TMOs and much more the production team.

The failure on Saturday was 100% down to production. One could tell that the images were taking long to get through...either by design or by mistake, but I don't think TMOs had what they needed, on time, to make a call.

That's why SFM got timed out of his clock. I believe there was confusion between the TMO and the ref, likely with them waiting for images and then not getting them in time and the ref not being sure if a message to halt for intervention was coming or not.

It was a shit show and that try should never have stood.

But let's be honest, the production teams in Oz and NZ have been doing similar for a very long time.