Wallabies v Lions I
-
@Canes4life said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@brodean said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Canes4life said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Canes4life said in Wallabies v Lions I:
McDermott should be starting all day long
Yeah no. His kicking game ain't good enough. Best suited to the bench
Disagree, he's been the best halfback in Aus by some distance this year IMO, I thought his kicking improved quite a lot this year compared to previous seasons. Him starting alongside Lynagh who is a rookie in such a big test would have been the better way to go. Gordon is very hit and miss.
Overall, I think the Wallabies look very disjointed. Pollard and Bell should be starting, and I'd argue Skelton's size in the pack would have helped them muscle up. I just can't see them winning but hopefully I'm proven wrong.
They probably want Gordon to control the game with his boot like Roigard did in the first half last week.
Fair to say Gordon did not control the game well. He was woeful. Tate offered so much more coming off the bench.
At the same time: our forwards were giving us really shit and/or slow ball, and the Lions were camping in our backline all day.
I'd rather BOK actually watch the last feet than twist himself into knots trying to find reasons not to award penalties at ruck time.
-
@NTA fuck that's right, the blatant offside was ridiculous and lions took the piss more and more towards the end of the game.
@Bones they've been like that from the moment they landed here. A slightly competent AR would make a dramatic difference to the quality of rugby on display.
I suggest penalize them off the park in the first 10mins. Then both teams might have some room to play rugby.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
Friends who went said it was a great evening with a tremendous atmosphere
Farrell totally vindicated with his selections of Beirne and Curry in the back row
Beirne got MOTM but I would have given it to Curry
Excellent, dominant first half from the Lions and should have kicked on to give the Wallabies a real pasting in the second half
But personnel changes gave the Aussies a sniff and they were like 50 year olds at the Oasis reunion gigs, didn’t need a second invitation to have a go
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Earl had arms in that tackle
Should have been Penalty (possibly Penalty Try) and YC
12-24 with Earl in the bin from the 60th - 70th minutes is a very different game
Lowe, Keenan, and Freeman the only realistic changes for the second test
With possibly Morgan or Pollock on the bench instead of Earl
If Schmidt has his thinking cap on this week and the Italian ref wants to penalise the Lions offsides and repeated killing of the ball in their own 22 it could be a very interesting second match
Back three all had pretty average games which there’s no real excuse for when your forwards are that dominant.
As for the Earl tackle, surprised he got away with it but wouldn’t necessarily blame BOK, the TMO was categorical that there were arms in the tackle and it was fine, BOK checked on a number of occasions but was shut down.
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
Friends who went said it was a great evening with a tremendous atmosphere
Farrell totally vindicated with his selections of Beirne and Curry in the back row
Beirne got MOTM but I would have given it to Curry
Excellent, dominant first half from the Lions and should have kicked on to give the Wallabies a real pasting in the second half
But personnel changes gave the Aussies a sniff and they were like 50 year olds at the Oasis reunion gigs, didn’t need a second invitation to have a go
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Earl had arms in that tackle
Should have been Penalty (possibly Penalty Try) and YC
12-24 with Earl in the bin from the 60th - 70th minutes is a very different game
Lowe, Keenan, and Freeman the only realistic changes for the second test
With possibly Morgan or Pollock on the bench instead of Earl
If Schmidt has his thinking cap on this week and the Italian ref wants to penalise the Lions offsides and repeated killing of the ball in their own 22 it could be a very interesting second match
Back three all had pretty average games which there’s no real excuse for when your forwards are that dominant.
As for the Earl tackle, surprised he got away with it but wouldn’t necessarily blame BOK, the TMO was categorical that there were arms in the tackle and it was fine, BOK checked on a number of occasions but was shut down.
That was my recollection but on watching again, when BoK goes to the TMO for checking the try, he says firstly that he wants to check for foul play by red in the lead up to the try AND states that he feels that there was an attempt to wrap using both arms. The TMO agreed with that.
-
@Bones said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Dan54 arms don't matter, can't target the knee.
That makes sense although I couldn't see it anywhere in the laws. Mind you there are the laws and then there is interpretation of the laws. Is it specifically the knee or are you suggesting that below the knees is also illegal? If not that is a hell of a difficult margin to police accurately.
What I did find, although not on the World Rugby list of laws, was that if, in going for the chop tackle the tackler has one hand on the ground then it is illegal as he cannot be wrapping with both arms. Again makes sense. On that basis, Earl just about gets away with it.
I'm in the same camp as @Dan54 in that it looked wrong in real time but with slow-mo and different angles it just about cuts it.
-
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
Friends who went said it was a great evening with a tremendous atmosphere
Farrell totally vindicated with his selections of Beirne and Curry in the back row
Beirne got MOTM but I would have given it to Curry
Excellent, dominant first half from the Lions and should have kicked on to give the Wallabies a real pasting in the second half
But personnel changes gave the Aussies a sniff and they were like 50 year olds at the Oasis reunion gigs, didn’t need a second invitation to have a go
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Earl had arms in that tackle
Should have been Penalty (possibly Penalty Try) and YC
12-24 with Earl in the bin from the 60th - 70th minutes is a very different game
Lowe, Keenan, and Freeman the only realistic changes for the second test
With possibly Morgan or Pollock on the bench instead of Earl
If Schmidt has his thinking cap on this week and the Italian ref wants to penalise the Lions offsides and repeated killing of the ball in their own 22 it could be a very interesting second match
Back three all had pretty average games which there’s no real excuse for when your forwards are that dominant.
As for the Earl tackle, surprised he got away with it but wouldn’t necessarily blame BOK, the TMO was categorical that there were arms in the tackle and it was fine, BOK checked on a number of occasions but was shut down.
That was my recollection but on watching again, when BoK goes to the TMO for checking the try, he says firstly that he wants to check for foul play by red in the lead up to the try AND states that he feels that there was an attempt to wrap using both arms. The TMO agreed with that.
@Catogrande said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
Friends who went said it was a great evening with a tremendous atmosphere
Farrell totally vindicated with his selections of Beirne and Curry in the back row
Beirne got MOTM but I would have given it to Curry
Excellent, dominant first half from the Lions and should have kicked on to give the Wallabies a real pasting in the second half
But personnel changes gave the Aussies a sniff and they were like 50 year olds at the Oasis reunion gigs, didn’t need a second invitation to have a go
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Earl had arms in that tackle
Should have been Penalty (possibly Penalty Try) and YC
12-24 with Earl in the bin from the 60th - 70th minutes is a very different game
Lowe, Keenan, and Freeman the only realistic changes for the second test
With possibly Morgan or Pollock on the bench instead of Earl
If Schmidt has his thinking cap on this week and the Italian ref wants to penalise the Lions offsides and repeated killing of the ball in their own 22 it could be a very interesting second match
Back three all had pretty average games which there’s no real excuse for when your forwards are that dominant.
As for the Earl tackle, surprised he got away with it but wouldn’t necessarily blame BOK, the TMO was categorical that there were arms in the tackle and it was fine, BOK checked on a number of occasions but was shut down.
That was my recollection but on watching again, when BoK goes to the TMO for checking the try, he says firstly that he wants to check for foul play by red in the lead up to the try AND states that he feels that there was an attempt to wrap using both arms. The TMO agreed with that.
And even with slow mo they were both wrong IMHO
-
@Catogrande said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
Friends who went said it was a great evening with a tremendous atmosphere
Farrell totally vindicated with his selections of Beirne and Curry in the back row
Beirne got MOTM but I would have given it to Curry
Excellent, dominant first half from the Lions and should have kicked on to give the Wallabies a real pasting in the second half
But personnel changes gave the Aussies a sniff and they were like 50 year olds at the Oasis reunion gigs, didn’t need a second invitation to have a go
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Earl had arms in that tackle
Should have been Penalty (possibly Penalty Try) and YC
12-24 with Earl in the bin from the 60th - 70th minutes is a very different game
Lowe, Keenan, and Freeman the only realistic changes for the second test
With possibly Morgan or Pollock on the bench instead of Earl
If Schmidt has his thinking cap on this week and the Italian ref wants to penalise the Lions offsides and repeated killing of the ball in their own 22 it could be a very interesting second match
Back three all had pretty average games which there’s no real excuse for when your forwards are that dominant.
As for the Earl tackle, surprised he got away with it but wouldn’t necessarily blame BOK, the TMO was categorical that there were arms in the tackle and it was fine, BOK checked on a number of occasions but was shut down.
That was my recollection but on watching again, when BoK goes to the TMO for checking the try, he says firstly that he wants to check for foul play by red in the lead up to the try AND states that he feels that there was an attempt to wrap using both arms. The TMO agreed with that.
And even with slow mo they were both wrong IMHO
@MiketheSnow A very close call either way for sure.
-
in the spirit of offside not being spotted, it is driving me nuts at the moment how refs seem to have stopped watching for people swimming up the side of a ruck and interfering with the 9 or slowing the ball down - happened numerous times in this game, obvs I notice the Wallabies more but would assume the Lions do it too.
-
in the spirit of offside not being spotted, it is driving me nuts at the moment how refs seem to have stopped watching for people swimming up the side of a ruck and interfering with the 9 or slowing the ball down - happened numerous times in this game, obvs I notice the Wallabies more but would assume the Lions do it too.
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions I:
in the spirit of offside not being spotted, it is driving me nuts at the moment how refs seem to have stopped watching for people swimming up the side of a ruck and interfering with the 9 or slowing the ball down - happened numerous times in this game, obvs I notice the Wallabies more but would assume the Lions do it too.
There are five refs now, it's amazing what is not spotted.
Just keep teams onside, stop coaching them. If they fuck up, penalise them. If they wait to be told, they achieved their goal of slowing it down.
-
Saw an article praising Lions for pawing the ball, but making eye contact with ref as they did so. If he says ‘Leave it 7’ they let go with a flourish.
The correct action is a penalty against red.
Instead we get, ‘Thank you, seven’!
As Kirwan says, the second gained makes a huge difference. Itoje did it for years before he started to get pinged for it. -
Saw an article praising Lions for pawing the ball, but making eye contact with ref as they did so. If he says ‘Leave it 7’ they let go with a flourish.
The correct action is a penalty against red.
Instead we get, ‘Thank you, seven’!
As Kirwan says, the second gained makes a huge difference. Itoje did it for years before he started to get pinged for it. -
You would clean up the game in a month if the refs stopped coaching and starting penalising.
It also rewards players that know the laws and back themselves to take a risk.
@Kirwan said in Wallabies v Lions I:
You would clean up the game in a month if the refs stopped coaching and starting penalising.
It also rewards players that know the laws and back themselves to take a risk.
Probably in that month you would lose half your viewers too though. It's a no win, do you blow whistle every time there something slightly out (and against team we support too) or do you say get back on side. Even when I played 40 odd years ago the refs especially the good ones told you to stay onside, or get back etc.
-
@Kirwan said in Wallabies v Lions I:
You would clean up the game in a month if the refs stopped coaching and starting penalising.
It also rewards players that know the laws and back themselves to take a risk.
Probably in that month you would lose half your viewers too though. It's a no win, do you blow whistle every time there something slightly out (and against team we support too) or do you say get back on side. Even when I played 40 odd years ago the refs especially the good ones told you to stay onside, or get back etc.
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Kirwan said in Wallabies v Lions I:
You would clean up the game in a month if the refs stopped coaching and starting penalising.
It also rewards players that know the laws and back themselves to take a risk.
Probably in that month you would lose half your viewers too though. It's a no win, do you blow whistle every time there something slightly out (and against team we support too) or do you say get back on side. Even when I played 40 odd years ago the refs especially the good ones told you to stay onside, or get back etc.
The players would very quickly adapt and there would be more backline action.
So more viewers?!
-
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Kirwan said in Wallabies v Lions I:
You would clean up the game in a month if the refs stopped coaching and starting penalising.
It also rewards players that know the laws and back themselves to take a risk.
Probably in that month you would lose half your viewers too though. It's a no win, do you blow whistle every time there something slightly out (and against team we support too) or do you say get back on side. Even when I played 40 odd years ago the refs especially the good ones told you to stay onside, or get back etc.
The players would very quickly adapt and there would be more backline action.
So more viewers?!
@pakman said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Kirwan said in Wallabies v Lions I:
You would clean up the game in a month if the refs stopped coaching and starting penalising.
It also rewards players that know the laws and back themselves to take a risk.
Probably in that month you would lose half your viewers too though. It's a no win, do you blow whistle every time there something slightly out (and against team we support too) or do you say get back on side. Even when I played 40 odd years ago the refs especially the good ones told you to stay onside, or get back etc.
The players would very quickly adapt and there would be more backline action.
So more viewers?!
I don't believe that would happen, the game would become incredibly boring if players didn't push as hard as they could on all things. Well in my opinion, I not into watching what looks like training runs, I actually enjoy a bit of chaos. But we all like differnt things I know.
-
It's pretty much how the game used to be reffed. It was clear when a player was offside, and the ref just called it. You saw players making sure they were onside, instead of what we have now, which is a line of offside players and only really obviously offside being called.
The defensive line is standing half a yard off side at every ruck, but in a co-ordinated team pattern.
If the ref sees a hand in the ruck, it should be just called. If players knew they wouldn't get away with it, they would stop.
And the outcome would be the finding alternatives, like binding and driving over the ruck. Result? More space for the backs.
-
It's pretty much how the game used to be reffed. It was clear when a player was offside, and the ref just called it. You saw players making sure they were onside, instead of what we have now, which is a line of offside players and only really obviously offside being called.
The defensive line is standing half a yard off side at every ruck, but in a co-ordinated team pattern.
If the ref sees a hand in the ruck, it should be just called. If players knew they wouldn't get away with it, they would stop.
And the outcome would be the finding alternatives, like binding and driving over the ruck. Result? More space for the backs.
@Kirwan said in Wallabies v Lions I:
It's pretty much how the game used to be reffed. It was clear when a player was offside, and the ref just called it. You saw players making sure they were onside, instead of what we have now, which is a line of offside players and only really obviously offside being called.
The defensive line is standing half a yard off side at every ruck, but in a co-ordinated team pattern.
If the ref sees a hand in the ruck, it should be just called. If players knew they wouldn't get away with it, they would stop.
And the outcome would be the finding alternatives, like binding and driving over the ruck. Result? More space for the backs.
Exactly. And of course it doesn't have to be a given penalty, it can be advantage and if the player persists after being told then penalty and yellow card.
-
@Catogrande said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
Friends who went said it was a great evening with a tremendous atmosphere
Farrell totally vindicated with his selections of Beirne and Curry in the back row
Beirne got MOTM but I would have given it to Curry
Excellent, dominant first half from the Lions and should have kicked on to give the Wallabies a real pasting in the second half
But personnel changes gave the Aussies a sniff and they were like 50 year olds at the Oasis reunion gigs, didn’t need a second invitation to have a go
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Earl had arms in that tackle
Should have been Penalty (possibly Penalty Try) and YC
12-24 with Earl in the bin from the 60th - 70th minutes is a very different game
Lowe, Keenan, and Freeman the only realistic changes for the second test
With possibly Morgan or Pollock on the bench instead of Earl
If Schmidt has his thinking cap on this week and the Italian ref wants to penalise the Lions offsides and repeated killing of the ball in their own 22 it could be a very interesting second match
Back three all had pretty average games which there’s no real excuse for when your forwards are that dominant.
As for the Earl tackle, surprised he got away with it but wouldn’t necessarily blame BOK, the TMO was categorical that there were arms in the tackle and it was fine, BOK checked on a number of occasions but was shut down.
That was my recollection but on watching again, when BoK goes to the TMO for checking the try, he says firstly that he wants to check for foul play by red in the lead up to the try AND states that he feels that there was an attempt to wrap using both arms. The TMO agreed with that.
And even with slow mo they were both wrong IMHO
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Catogrande said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions I:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions I:
Friends who went said it was a great evening with a tremendous atmosphere
Farrell totally vindicated with his selections of Beirne and Curry in the back row
Beirne got MOTM but I would have given it to Curry
Excellent, dominant first half from the Lions and should have kicked on to give the Wallabies a real pasting in the second half
But personnel changes gave the Aussies a sniff and they were like 50 year olds at the Oasis reunion gigs, didn’t need a second invitation to have a go
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Earl had arms in that tackle
Should have been Penalty (possibly Penalty Try) and YC
12-24 with Earl in the bin from the 60th - 70th minutes is a very different game
Lowe, Keenan, and Freeman the only realistic changes for the second test
With possibly Morgan or Pollock on the bench instead of Earl
If Schmidt has his thinking cap on this week and the Italian ref wants to penalise the Lions offsides and repeated killing of the ball in their own 22 it could be a very interesting second match
Back three all had pretty average games which there’s no real excuse for when your forwards are that dominant.
As for the Earl tackle, surprised he got away with it but wouldn’t necessarily blame BOK, the TMO was categorical that there were arms in the tackle and it was fine, BOK checked on a number of occasions but was shut down.
That was my recollection but on watching again, when BoK goes to the TMO for checking the try, he says firstly that he wants to check for foul play by red in the lead up to the try AND states that he feels that there was an attempt to wrap using both arms. The TMO agreed with that.
And even with slow mo they were both wrong IMHO
I think the discussions between the refs should not be broadcast. It discourages debate and disagreement.
