Gary Gold has confirmed four fresh injury concerns for the Sharks after Saturday’s bruising encounter against the Crusaders at Kings Park.
Philip van der Walt was stretchered from the field just short of the hour mark, after taking a shot to the neck. His replacement, Daniel du Preez, lasted just a quarter of an hour himself before sustaining a hip pointer injury. Lock Etienne Oosthuizen, whose work rate in the tight loose has been a big factor so far this season, also took a knock but opted to stay on until the end.
The fourth casualty is Lwazi Mvovo, who sustained a lower back injury.
The Sharks have a bye this week and will be hopeful that all four players are able to recover in time to face the Lions on 9 April.
Tweet
Hope the guys are not to seriously injured and will be back after the off weekend!
Get well soon guys!
Hope Phillip’s knock isnt that bad. Always hard to tell with neck injuries. Mvovo was good before he went off but Odwa was just as good when he came on. I see Sithole warmed up and even sat bench so someone must have carried a niggle into the game
Some critical guys to loose there.
@SheldonK (Comment 2) : did claassens play?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 4) : Yes he came on late in the 2nd half as far as i can recall. Wasnt much game time. Same with April
Where can I get an update on the rest of the injured players and their expected return? I don’t know how up to date the sanzar site is since they still have Renaldo Bothma listed under Sharks.
I’m wondering if Potgieter will be ready to step into lock and Keegan Daniel into nr 8 Sithole into wing?
@coolfusion (Comment 7) : think potgieter will be out till round 8 or therabout.
@coolfusion (Comment 6) : Gold said that nothing has changed since the injury report that was released about a week ago.
we shouldn’t expect to see Pat, Ruan, Pottie or Franna back any time before the team returns from tour
@robdylan (Comment 10) : that’s not good news!
So Keegan Uanivi Sithole?
@coolfusion (Comment 12) : With Hyron as backup and Mjekevu as backup. Bad time to have lost Bothma.
I really hope these guys are ok. We are in for some rough waters. How soon before confirmation?
@coolfusion (Comment 12) : @coolfusion (Comment 13) : think Thomas and “Hulk” Deysel will also be ready soon. Chili would be able to play from 10 April.
@SheldonK (Comment 5) : That was my biggest disappointment about management’s performance on Saturday…why was Reinach still on in the 70th minute when he put in that fateful kick that ended up with the Crusaders scoring. Surely Claassens should have been on by that stage and using his experience to run things…it worked so well in earlier games. Anyway, I digress…
@pastorshark (Comment 16) : Gold was probably afraid that Claassens would mess up the game plan by not kicking everything away.
@pastorshark (Comment 16) : Yeh i actually said to my mate that Claasens should have come on for the last half an hour as the game was in the balance and he could have helped close it out. Also curious why they brought April on for literally the last move of the game pretty much and hoped for a miracle. I still wonder which player had the niggle that required Sithole to warm up
@Spirit of Rugby (Comment 17) : 😀
@pastorshark (Comment 16) : @SheldonK (Comment 18) : @Spirit of Rugby (Comment 17) : reinach won or drew the game for the sharks with his kick that was gathered by willie.ok,the tmo disagreed.gold agrees it was a try so keeping reinach on most probably was the correct decision.with the benefit of hindsight one can then say reinach should have been subbed after that play 😀
I can’t comment on what happened as its in the past. But I wonder what will be done to remedy this in future. I say Reinach should be the sub and Claasens to start. We are letting slip the opportunity to get the most out of Claasens whilst maturing Reinach at a steady pace. They can swop again at CC time.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 20) : I’m not trying to second guess the management after the fact. Although what you say is the case, I still find it strange – especially given our replacement strategies in the season so far – that Reinach was not subbed earlier. I’m confident there would have been reasoning behind it…I just don’t know what it is.
@pastorshark (Comment 22) : the saders had a lot of possession and reinach was doing a lot of work on defence in imo.in the 1st half he made a tackle on nadolo,got up wringing his hand and made a cover tackle on another saders player.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 20) : Interesting take on that.
@SheldonK (Comment 24) : quite sure gold wont just call the tmo decision as incorrect with all the access to match data to his disposal,including 3 angles of every incident they want a stat on.reinach executed the kick that led to willie racing away for what should have been a try.reinach was in a position to execute the kick because he was up with play(working on defence).
@50shadesofshark (Comment 25) : Yeh look that try being disallowed was a bit puzzling, especially for those of us at the stadium as there wasnt much of a reply of it…the game just kinda continued. Reinach does do a lot of good things…i still think he is sometimes in the defensive line when he should be sweeping in behind so tends to get caught up in rucks. Claasens is a good player and consistent, but he is a lot slower around the park than Reinach
How much does the access to this data help “exonerate” a coach (yes,it seems as if the coach is in the dock,with the hangman’s noose already prepared,and the executioners growing impatient with pleas for objectivity)?not just “superficial” stats open to interpretation,but hard facts?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 23) : Fair enough…
@SheldonK (Comment 26) : Did you get to watch the recorded game. There was another incident that had me puzzled – when the Saders scored their winning try Beast queried something with the ref (Idont know what) but there was no review of any sort but yet Peyper said a few times to Beast that “we have checked it” or something to that effect. As a viewer there was nothing to indicate that he had checked anything with anybody and his answer to Beast also did not indicate the outcome of what was supposedly checked by the “we”.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 29) : I dont usually watch the recorded game if i have seen it live. I do recall Beast questioning something with the ref after Read’s try. I cant recall what it was exactly but i do also remember thinking hmm ok he let that go and then well a few phases later they scored. I have a feeling it was a knock on by a Saders player in the tackle..but dont take that as gospel
Did the sharks not perhaps get the short straw after what had gone down in ct the previous weekend in the stormers vs brumbies game?quite sure questions were raised after that game re: officiating?
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 29) : @SheldonK (Comment 30) : one of the saders dropped a high pass.it went through his hands,hit the ground and moved forward.i think that might be the incident.happend between halfway line and 10m if i can remember correctly.dont think the ball went forward from his hands onto the gound.did go forwards once it hit the ground.not sure how the ruling works in such a situation?anyone have an informed answer?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 32) : That sort of rings a bell so could have been that.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 32) : as I have it if the ball falls backwards or straight down it is not a knock on even if the ball move forwards after hitting the ground.
@JD (Comment 34) :that is the way i also understand the rule re: knock-on.so the review will have to be to see if it did go forward from the hands to the ground.dont think it did.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 35) : just watched the game again from about the 57th min.referee peyper made the call to review the line-out incident re : player of saders being played in the air,and not the tmo as i mentioned in an earlier comment on a different thread.correct call.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 35) : @50shadesofshark (Comment 36) : I think a lot of times mistakes are made as it looks as if the ref blows a knock on if a ball falls no matter if it went forward or not. Another thing is a lot of players are
@50shadesofshark (Comment 35) : @50shadesofshark (Comment 36) : I think a lot of times mistakes are made as it looks as if the ref blows a knock on if a ball falls no matter if it went forward or not. Another thing is at line outs a lot of players are being played in the air and nothing is done except when a player falls and gets injured!?!?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 32) : @SheldonK (Comment 33) : At the next ruck there was also what looked like a knock by the Crusaders…
@pastorshark (Comment 39) : Ah ok. All i can recall is Beast querying the ref and i had also thought that he had let something go that i thought could probably have been blown up.
@SheldonK (Comment 40) : bit perplexing that the referee told beast that the incident he was asking to be reviewed had indeed already been checked ?surely would need the tmo to have a look at it?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 41) : Remember the TMO and ref can communicate whilst the game is going on so he could have asked the TMO just to check while play continued. So his explanation to Beast is plausible
@pastorshark (Comment 39) : ah ok.incidents aplenty then 😀 the amount of times the sharks were played around the neck at the breakdown is a stat i would like to see,though.
@SheldonK (Comment 42) : where does the tmo get the replay from?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 44) : From the TV producer. Teh ref will ask him to check something while play continues, TMO asks broadcaster to replay it for him and he then advises the ref
@SheldonK (Comment 45) : to my knowledge the tv producer is busy directing the cameras since it is still live play.asked for a tmo review,there is a look at the available camera footage of the incident.the tv viewer and tmo see the same footage,ie if there is a review shown to the tmo then the tv viewer will also see it,because it is the same link.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 46) : No the viewer and TMO arent on the same link. There are often times now when the ref will ask the TMO to check something while play continues. For tries then play is stopped and we see the whole TMO protocol happen. Im not 100% sure of how it all technically works but the TMO can definitely check will play continues
@SheldonK (Comment 47) : What you refer to as the producer is actually the director,who in simplistic terms sits in the O.B. van in front of a number of screens,each screen is individually dedicated to a different camera man,or in some case drones or spider cams.
The director calls the game live,in other words he calls the cameras by numbers,as well as the edits.e.,cut to 7 ,dissolve to 9.
It is a pretty intense job.But to get back to your point all the cameras are recording non stop for the duration of the game.The TMO has access to all the screens and all the footage.
@The hound (Comment 48) : I knew someone would have the technical lingo 🙂 So the TMO can basically just rewind himself, to put it simply
@SheldonK (Comment 47) : that was a try-scoring incident so they would have to go back to the incident on the review of the try.the referee could well make mention to the tmo of there being an incident he wants to review.this is also for the benefit of the tv producer,who will then know where on timeline to start replay(s).to my knowledge the tmo and tv viewer both see the same footage at all times,but please show me otherwise.the live feed is the tv producer’s primary job.s
Yup,but what you see is decided instantly by the director,you should spend sometime in one of those vans someday to watch these guys operate they are masters of their universe.Imagine the pressure on the guy calling the Super Bowl,knowing he has the biggest audience in world history watching him,
@SheldonK (Comment 49) : @The hound (Comment 48) : no,the tmo cant rewind.he is still dependent on the footage the tv producer finds and shows him.he gets the same footage the tv viewer gets.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 32) : if the ball does not go forward from his hands, then no issue. So it can go straight down, hit the ground and then roll forward and that’s not a knock on.
Problem here is that Peyper lied to Beast when he said “we have checked” because there’s no way they could have.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 52) : Rubbish he has access to all the angles,the viewer only gets one angle live,but there are sometimes 20 cameras on the game.
@The hound (Comment 54) : That is my understanding as well. And ive heard numerous times the TMO tell the ref over the mic that he has checked something and play can go on or not.
@The hound (Comment 51) : yes,that is his primary job,to call the live feed.that is the product the broadcaster is judged on.tmo review is secondary.
@SheldonK (Comment 55) : has he checked a review,or did he view the incident on tv “live” and feel no reason for a review?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 57) : Only he can tell you what he has actually done. But i have definitely heard on numerous occasions the TMO tell the ref i have checked that and either play on or go back.
@SheldonK (Comment 58) :where is the tmo seated?in the tv producer’s van or a booth/cubicle in the stadium?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 59) : At K.P the TMO sits next to the press box,he only has access to one screen live,he is following the game like me and you.TMO is normally a rugby ref not a T.V technician and like most of us has no capacity to watch multiple screens.
He does however have recourse to the entire back up.ON REWIND.
If he said he watched the movement live and saw nothing wrong with it,he saw what you and I did.
@robdylan (Comment 53) : thanks for clearing up 2 issues with one comment 😀
@The hound (Comment 60) : @50shadesofshark (Comment 61) : Well guess that clears up what he means by its been checked.
@The hound (Comment 60) : with as many as 20 cameras at a game,will he not need access to as many camera angles as possible?because what you have just described to me is the function you find on some dstv decoders.
@SheldonK (Comment 62) : tmo has access to same feed as tv viewer,with rewind option.same as you find on some dstv decoders.does not have accesse to all tv cameras.for that ,he is dependent on tv producer.and what the tv producer shows the tmo is what is shown on tv.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 64) : So he could in fact rewind to check something much like we can on tv. So back to what Peyper said to Beast, it seems he was right. Whether the right call was made is a totally different issue though
@SheldonK (Comment 65) : same issue as with the disallowed try of willie: not making use of any other available camera angles to review incident.with access to so many cameras,why rely on one camera angle for rewind/play to make such crucial decisions?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 66) : The LeRoux try was sent to TMO for review so he could view from the angles provided by all the cameras. If he felt he could make the decision after 1 or 2 views well then thats his choice. Trust me its not the first and definitely wont be the last TMO call thats probably not right
The referee also does not have to accept the tmo ruling.he can ask for a review and look at it for himself on the big screen and make his own decision irrespective of ruling the tmo gives.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 68) : Yes of course he can. But only if he has doubt about what the TMO tells him.