Du Preez named SA’s best
3 Nov 2009
Fourie du Preez won the SA Player of the Year award while Springbok halfback partner Morne Steyn captured three accolades at the annual banquet in Johannesburg.
Du Preez beat Bok skipper John Smit, Victor Matfield, Heinrich Brussow and Steyn himself to claim the coveted title. Du Preez is a previous winner of the trophy, having walked away with the award in 2007.
Steyn was considered the best Test player in the British & Irish Lions series, the player of the Super 14 tournament and the Players’ Player of the Year.
Brussow was named the Young Player of the Year and the best provincial player to face the Lions.
Predictably, the Springboks won Team of the Year and Peter de Villiers Coach of the Year.
2009 SA Rugby awards:
Club Champs Player of the Year – Dustin Jinka (Hamiltons)
Women’s Rugby Achiever of the Year – Saloma Booysen
Refereeing Achievement of the Year – Jonathan Kaplan
Craven Week Player of the Tournament – Andile Jho (Border)
Vodacom Cup Player of the Year – Jonathan Mokuena
SA U20 Player of the Year – Lionel Cronje
SA Sevens Player of the Year – Frankie Horne
Try of the Year – Jaque Fourie (vs British & Irish Lions in second Test)
First Division Player of the Year – Allistair Kettledas
Currie Cup Player of the Year – Luke Watson
Super 14 Player of the Year – Morne Steyn
Coach of the Year – Peter de Villiers
Team of the Year – Springboks
Best provincial player against B & I Lions – Heinrich Brussow
Best Test player against B & I Lions – Morne Steyn
Young Player of the Year – Heinrich Brussow
Players’ Player of the Year – Morne Steyn
Player of the Year – Fourie du Preez
103 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
3 Nov 2009, 09:40 am
#50 justrugby:
Look at it again.
3 Nov 2009, 09:45 am
If there’s one thing about Habana that has irritated me for years, it’s his habit of diving onto players at the end of a kick and chase.
He has NEVER been able to shake this habit. On Saturday, it probably cost us another try.
Ah well, long may it continue at WP.
3 Nov 2009, 10:13 am
#47 Tacitus: I’m sorry, but that’s a bullsh!t tweak of an age-old rule of rugby that’s crept into the game in recent years. Because how do you determine “direction out of hand”? That’s like asking a ref to make a call on the passer’s intent. Forward is forward – anything between the 0 and 180 degree lines when you face the opponent’s tryline.
In the old days there was no less momentum carrying a pass forward than today. Players had to simply compensate for this when flinging the ball while moving at speed. This was simply another skill they had to acquire – a bit like a direct hit in cricket, where the fielder is running across the line of stumps.
And god, do I cringe when I hear that intellectual giant, Doctor Brosnihan, giving us his take on momentum and relativity whenever a blatant forward pass needs to be explained away by the gutless SuperSport studio goons.
In the ideal world of the katman, that rule would change, along with the 10 meter retreat rule on a quickly taken tap-and-go and the inability to collapse the 5-man obstruction affectionately known as a rolling maul.
3 Nov 2009, 10:13 am
#51 Tacitus:
No need it’s obvious, if by your defintion then Mapoe’s pass to Uys which he went on to score should stand ??
But all irrelevant actually !!
3 Nov 2009, 10:25 am
#53 katman: Meneer, check the score board. The pass might have been marginal, but its done. At least someone else was at the receiving end of Kaplan’s inconsistancies for a change. In 2005 the Bulls were told not to be cry-babies when Kaplan decided to send Habana off. Same applies here. Lump it, and try again next year!
3 Nov 2009, 10:26 am
#53 katman:
I agree with you.
My view was always that you mark the spot where the guy passed the ball, mark the spot where the second guy caught the ball, and if the second spot was 1mm in front of the 1st, then it is a forward pass.
But the IRB coaching vid turned my entire understanding of rugby on its head.
I think its ridiculous, but that’s the law as it stands.
Basically, they’re saying that if you’re running forward at pace, (say at 8m p/s) and pass the ball out wide, with an airtime of 1 second, then effectively the forward momentum will cause the ball to travel forward for 8m (less wind resistance) before the next guy cathes it.
My advice is, well then make sure the next guy is 8m behind you before you throw such a long pass to him, but that’s not the IRB’s view.
They like the new league type of stuff. Those damn Aussies and Kiwi’s again.
3 Nov 2009, 10:28 am
#53 katman:
You against rolling mauls???
Sacrilege!
3 Nov 2009, 10:30 am
#48 Tacitus: Then in that case do you agree that in 1998 the try of Chester Williams is legit ? If memory serves me right Paulse passed the ball to Chester for what would have been the winning try and it was called forward , the pass was not forward though.
Can we then say WP won the 98 CC ?? LOL , thought so.
3 Nov 2009, 10:31 am
#55 Beast: Relax buddy, I’m not disputing the outcome of the game. I couldn’t give two hoots who won. You should calm down and read the comment with a clear mind before you start defending left, right and centre. I’m stating my view on a very silly rule interpretation, whether it involves the Bulls, the Boks or the Laerskool Pampoenvlei under 9′s.
3 Nov 2009, 10:34 am
#56 Tacitus: That’s just because you’re easily brainwashed. That IRB video would do nothing for me.
3 Nov 2009, 10:34 am
#53 Tacitus: Bwaa haa haa , u really a prat hey , u just cannot see that Habana is a great signing by WP , all you have to say is negative things anything WP , you remind me of GG13 , another sad sack LOL . All I remember from Habana in the final is the 2 tries he scored , then again you have Watson’s ***** Van Der Heever and Wacko Jacko as his replacements so you should be ok.
3 Nov 2009, 10:35 am
#60 katman:
Err??
That’s what the refs base their decisions on. So that kind of makes it relevent, wouldn’t you say?
3 Nov 2009, 10:37 am
#61 sparticus:
Time to change your underpants, lad.
Habana will be greatly missed at the Bulls. All I’m saying is that his propensity to dive onto players cost us another try on Saturday, which would have turned the 12 point thrashing into an absolute hammering by 19.
3 Nov 2009, 10:37 am
#56 Beast: Maybe but in 2007 the bulls scored a try after a blatant infringement at the ruck , So I guess next time a decision will go against them and they will lose because of it. Karma I would say.
3 Nov 2009, 10:38 am
#64 Tacitus: I dont wear underpants !!……………….grin
3 Nov 2009, 10:39 am
Oh and PS – Victor Matfield also jumped on a player after he scored , in fact in the pic I saw he elbows the guy as he falls on him. Only diffs is Matfield has not signed for WP.
3 Nov 2009, 10:40 am
#65 sparticus:
You and Dawn should chat.
3 Nov 2009, 10:44 am
#62 Tacitus: Just pointing out that you seemed to have strong opinions about the rule until you saw some IRB infomercial. I’m guessing that cupboard under your stairs is full of Verimark ab-flex machines, vacuum cleaners and hot air clothes dryers.
3 Nov 2009, 10:46 am
#64 sparticus: Sorry mate, proven fact, the Bulls never loose, they get cheated, or devine intervention takes place!!! LOL
3 Nov 2009, 10:48 am
#68 katman:
You’re not making sense today.
You can have strong opinions about the speeding limit, until you get a fine, after which you can either accept reality, or live in denial.
The IRB make the rules. You can choose to disagree with them, but you cannot ignore them.
3 Nov 2009, 10:54 am
#70 Tacitus: Okay, but then I’m going to insist that you accept and embrace Affirmative Action and the Ministerial Handbook on government spending as reality.
3 Nov 2009, 10:56 am
Fabien Juries try was better, but Fourie Du Preez is the best player SA has this year, and probably the best in the world.
3 Nov 2009, 10:57 am
Are people arguing that the was won illegally by a marginally forward pass?
Habana will be with us next year. The prospect is rather delightful, plus the Bulls will likely replace him with the utterly useless van den Poof or whatever or hopefully even Delport.
#68 katman: Ahoo ha ha hee hee aha aha ha
#61 sparticus: I quite enjoy Tacitus insulting everything about WP including the our people. Gives me a license to dive in, and of course the people of Tshwane make it oh so easy for me. Unfortunately their team is rather brilliant at the moment. But that will change, you know what they say about change…
3 Nov 2009, 10:59 am
#68 Tacitus: True , she is a wonderful person from what I gather here at Keo over the years. I guess she is like the opposite of you , maybe she is your nemesis ? You know like everything there must be balance ? Good vs bad , pretty vs ugly etc etc.
Anyway , what do you think about Matfield jumping on the cheetahs player with his elbow after he scored ?
3 Nov 2009, 11:04 am
#71 katman:
You’re worrying me. You’re not your normal self this morning.
I already said I don’t agree with this interpretation of the forward pass law.
And I already said that like me, you don’t have to agree with it either.
But I acknowledged that this is indeed the interpretation of the law that is currently being applied.
Nowhere did I say anything about embracing it. However, by understanding this interpretation, you might prevent some permanent perplexed frownlines on your forehead resulting from “the darn ref for some reason never blowing a forward pass when you were convinced he should have”.
Knowledge is power.
What’s with you today? A bit under the weather?
3 Nov 2009, 11:15 am
#75 Tacitus: Well I’ll just put that down to the difference between you and me, old chap. If I disagree with something, I voice my objection and stick to my guns, believing that I might just help change things. You, on the other hand, seem to shrug your shoulders and accept whatever is handed down to you in a video. Which is also cool.
3 Nov 2009, 11:23 am
#76 katman:
No use talking to you today, it seems. You simply selectively ignore portions of my comments.
Like the ELV’s which I DISAGREED with, I still had to accept that during the trial period the Bulls could not use rolling mauls, that free kicks were awarded for many transgressions etc. etc.
Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere.
You’ll probably think about it a bit, and once you’re back to your normal, clear thinking self, you’ll acknowledge that you were talking a bit of twaddle today.
3 Nov 2009, 11:31 am
#53 katman:
Whew…!!
Thought it was just me who cringed at Brosnihan… How the hell did he get the job in the first place????
#63 Tacitus:
The propensity for diving onto players is not that of Habana alone… a lot of the Bulls do it… drives me nuts… vdHeever, Olivier, Pedri, Morne, Danie and more… have seen them all do it…
I wish refs would tighten up on it… it ‘used’ to be illegal to dive on a guy after he has scored the try… but players do it anyway… I reckon if there is no chance of the player affecting or stopping the scoring of the try he should be pinged…
3 Nov 2009, 11:31 am
This is so retarded. A pass must go flat or behind a player.
Only time a pass is forward is if the ball goes forward out of the players hands. Does not matter if the player is running or walking if the pass direction is forward it is forward. If the pas is passed flat then running fast won’t make it a forward pass. Jeez, you guys are confusing yourselves.
3 Nov 2009, 11:40 am
#79 Breakdown Boy:
So if you are running at top speed, and pass a flat ball EXACTLY on the 22 metre line, are you saying that ball is going to travel flat, parralel to the 22 metre line for its entire trajectory until it lands in the hands of the receiving player, who will also be on the 22 metre line?
If so, then you don’t understand physics, my friend. That “flat” ball is travelling forward as fast as the guy who passed it was running.
3 Nov 2009, 11:49 am
#79 Breakdown Boy: Try tossing a tennis ball “flat” from a car’s window while traveling at speed. Your idea of how the universe works might change.
3 Nov 2009, 11:57 am
#79 Breakdown Boy: Hahahahaha, go back to School dude.
3 Nov 2009, 11:58 am
#80 Tacitus:
yet… when a skydiver holding a basketball in his hands… ie travelling at the same speed… lets it go… the ball disappears as the diver plummets and the ball seems to stay where it was let go…
strange thing this physics…
3 Nov 2009, 12:01 pm
#83 ufo:
Nothing strange about that.
The basketball’s density is much lower, and therefore the air resistance affects it to a much greater extent than it does the plummeting skydiver.
Do that experiment in a vacuum, and the two will drop at exactly the same speed.
3 Nov 2009, 12:04 pm
#83 ufo:
air resistance.
if it was done in a vacuum, both would carry on at the same speed.
remember a physics lesson at school eons ago.
a feather and a solid object dropped in a vacuum both hit the bottom together.
3 Nov 2009, 12:05 pm
#84 Tacitus:
aw gee – you beat me to it
3 Nov 2009, 12:08 pm
#83 ufo: Physics is not strange, man must never find what he doesn’t understand strange. Then we start making up a whole lot of rubbish to justify our ignorance. Still so much of that in the World today, even with Scientific breakthroughs.
3 Nov 2009, 12:09 pm
#84 Tacitus:
sure they will… but we don’t play rugby in a vacuum… even if some players appear to be quite vacuous between the ears…
my point is that the density of a rugby ball is much lower too… the speed of skydiving amplifies the disparity in speeds… or another way… because the rugby player doesn’t run as fast as a diver can fall it appears the ball leaving his hands is moving at the same speed as the player but atmospheric friction means it slows down immediately it leaves his hands and continues to do so until caught or being overcome by gravity…
3 Nov 2009, 12:09 pm
Even a dense Bulls fan would hit the deck the same time as a Province fairy in a vacuum.
Would be fun to see this. How do I get hold of Mythbusters?
3 Nov 2009, 12:10 pm
#85 charo:
yeah yeah… read above… but we don’t play rugby in a vacuum…
3 Nov 2009, 12:12 pm
#87 Bagel:
quite right… bad choice of words… wasn’t actually meaning physics itself was strange but that our perception of it can be…
3 Nov 2009, 12:16 pm
durely the tutu on the province fairy would offer more resistance than the horns on the bulls supporter…
3 Nov 2009, 12:19 pm
#80 Tacitus:
“That “flat” ball is travelling forward as fast as the guy who passed it was running.”
so that’s not quite true…
Just nitpicking bud…
3 Nov 2009, 12:25 pm
#90 ufo:
yeah, boring subject anyway
#89 katman:
3 Nov 2009, 12:26 pm
#89 katman: Ahoo ha ha aha aha ahee hoo ha. We could do the same with a Lions fan, would have to find one though? Perhaps you could volunteer?
#92 gunther: The sheer girth of the bloated obese Bulls supporter would counter that.
3 Nov 2009, 12:27 pm
Physics – clearly none of you had it:
The Forward Pass
If a ball is thrown diagonally backwards by a stationary player, the ball has actually got two speeds, one directly backwards, and one towards the touch-line. This means it travels across the field of play (from touch-line to touch-line) at a speed U and backwards (away from the opponents dead ball line) at a speed V. Put another way, a spectator standing on the touch-line would see the ball travelling backwards at V, whilst a spectator standing behind the uprights would see the ball traveling across the field at U.
Consider a player, P, running at speed S towards the opponents’ goal-line with the ball. The instant he passes the ball, it also has speed S forwards
Now consider two players, A and B, with B 1m behind and 6m across the field from A. Assume also that they are facing the opponents’ dead-ball line. If they are both standing still, and A passes the ball to B in 1 sec, then its speed backwards is 1 m/s and 6 m/s across the field of play.
Now assume that both players are walking forward at 1 m/s, and A again passes the ball to B in 1 sec. As the ball leaves A’s hands, it has a speed of 1 m/s backwards, as before, but because A is moving forward at 1 m/s the ball also has this speed. This means the ball has zero speed in the forward direction and it actually travels directly across the field of play and does not go forward. However players A and B and the referee (a good one who keeps up with play!) are all moving at 1 m/s, so to the referee the ball is passed backwards as before, but the spectator sees the ball moving directly across the field of play.
Let’s now assume that the players and the referee are moving forward at 3 m/s, and the ball is again passed from A to B in 1 sec. As the ball leaves A’s hands it has a forward speed of 2 m/s (3 – 1) m/s. The referee sees the ball passing backwards from A to B, as before, because he is moving with the players. But the spectator cries foul: he sees the ball moving forwards across the field of play at 2 m/s!
For the spectator to see a pass which he judges not to be travelling forward, the ball must at least have a backward component of 3 m/s (the ball would then travel directly across the field of play). This means it covers the back distance of 1 m between A and B in 1/3 sec. In turn this means the ball reaches B, covers the 6 m across the field in 1/3 sec and so the speed across the field is now 18 m/s (6 divided by 1/3). Passing a ball at this speed whilst running at 3m/s (11 km/h) is not easy! And 11 km/h is not fast.
Normally a wing, or other back, running at a fair speed, say 5 m/s (18 km/h or running 100m dash in 20 secs) would need to pass the ball to B at over 130 km/h for the pass not to travel forward. The ball would need a backward component of 6 m/s, and so the back time would be 1/6th sec and the speed across would be 36 m/s. Of course if B were to move further back, then the passing speed would decrease, but then it would have to be increased if B moved away (across) from A. A really fast back, probably running at say 8 – 9 m/s (or a 100 m dash in 11 – 12 sec) would have to pass the ball to his team-mate at nearly 220 km/h for the pass not to travel forward.
These things become particularly clear to spectators when the ball is passed between running players as they cross the 10 m, centre or 22 m line. It is fair to say that virtually all passes between running players will travel forward since the balls travels towards the opponents dead ball-line during the pass. This is what is seen by stationary observers, spectators, but not be the referee who is running with the players.
3 Nov 2009, 12:29 pm
#94 charo:
yeah…
but it wasn’t boring when you took my sucker punch hey?
86. charo :
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
#84 Tacitus:
aw gee – you beat me to it
3 Nov 2009, 12:33 pm
#96 RulesLawyer:
sheesh..
who said rugby players were dumb…?
think of all those calculations they have to make just to pass the ball…!!!
3 Nov 2009, 12:45 pm
#96 RulesLawyer: Well that’s certainly put a damper on this thread.
3 Nov 2009, 13:20 pm
#96 RulesLawyer: talk k@k man
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.