Rugby

That first disallowed try was a deliberate scottish tactic, by never contesting the maul it meant that it was never formed, according to the rules both teams are required to form mauls. Without the maul formed the SA ball carrier had men between the defenders and himself, an obstruction. This is why the try was disallowed and Scotland were awarded a penalty. The second time it happened, Scotland did the exact same thing which is frustrating as the ref awarded a try, no consistency, not completely his fault as we were exploiting a fairly obscure part of the rules but he did get it right the first time. It is a very clever way to defend a maul I wouldn't be surprised to see it more often in the future, especially as you are not (technically) allowed to collapsed the fuckers now.

In the second half SA did defend very well but we never gave the ball to our danger men where they could use it. Visser who is a country mile our best offensive runner never saw the ball.

Up here the refs paick a couple of rules each year, and focus insanely on them.

Last year it was that the maul had to move (no pause for more than 5? seconds). Otherwise its a turnover.

This meant that in 7s you just had to hold someone up, wait for them to get help. Then shout 'the mauls not moving sir'. Then the oposition had to choose between over committing or risking losing the ball.

I've been penalised after a number 9 counted to 5 loudly, despite our maul moving.

Gah. Fecking loopholes.