All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.
-
This thread, jesus
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
This thread, jesus
What's bugging you tonight dildo gobbler?
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@antipodean Got a bite! To expand: I have no desire for rugby to turn into some sort of second rate NFL. My view is rule ought to be that if interference on balance of probabilities wasn't going to prevent a try it ought to be ignored and the try given.
To me, Speight was 90% likely to have scored with no boneheaded interference from DHP, and under such a rule try would have been awarded.
Likewise, IMO Coles missed try because of his choice not to dive early and the bounce of the ball, and interference didn't alter this, so under such rule no penalty try.
That said, the rules are the rules, and the Speight non try unquestionably CAN be justified as a valid application of the current ones -- as could a try!
italicised text@pakman you are ignoring the fact that the ref has to manage the whole game with the same set of laws and the same application, not just try scoring movements. Let's say for example the DHP/Savea incident happens at the Wallabies 22 and Speight is tackled at the ABs 22 after a chase down from another player. Lets also say that the AR picked it up from the sideline and asks the ref to check it.
Owens still applies the same logic and says the action materially affected the game.
Now lets try another piece of foul play. Let's say at the ruck before Foley made his line break Hooper head butted an AB (also seen by the AR). Even if DHP let Savea chase Speight and it was unsuccessful the try would still be rubbed out because of earlier foul play even though Hooper's headbutt had no bearing on Speight scoring.
The question was never 'was Speight going to score regardless' it was always 'did DHPs action have a material effect on play' which it did because Savea was denied the opportunity to possibly do the incredible just as BB did against South Africa.
You can't guess outcomes but you can see opportunities taken away.
Even a straight forward 'blocking' call from a back line move doesn't assume the blocked carrier would make the tackle, just that he would be in a position to attempt it.@Crucial Take the point. I don't think it's at all contentious that foul play can invalidate a try (or droppie I suppose) and I wasn't advocating that. And agree that the 'Rules' need to be applied throughout the game. But why not add something similar to what I propose to the try related TMO 'protocols' -- or whatever they're called? That way (in the actual game) Speight scores (I acknowledge that Barrett miraculously thwarted Le Roux but I don't think it's right to be influenced by remote possibilities). However, in your Hooper butt scenario foul play invalidates.
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@reprobate Yeah, nah. If he was so good at stealing, he'd be able to do it alongside all the other great stuff he does... except he doesn't. If Read or Cane set about only looking to try and get steals throughout a match and not be good at or do much else, I'd imagine they'd be just great for Australia too.
To me, I'd liken your argument to saying you'd rather have Steyn than Barrett, because wow what a great kicker!
bro, the real parallel would be you telling me that steyn isn't a good goal-kicker - because he doesn't do anything else - and anyone could be that good if they didn't have to do other things too. there are probably a dozen guys in world rugby i'd pick ahead of steyn to play 10 - but that doesn't mean he's not good at kicking goals.
as far as selection goes, the strongest thing i've said is that i think he'd be picked in an anzac squad ahead of savea or todd - but not cane. that's largely based on experience at this stage, given those other guys have only started a couple of tests each, and most of the rugby world outside of nz would agree with me.
My point exactly.
I said kicking, not goal-kicking. Steyn is a great kicker - because that's all he fucken does. If all our 10 did was kick, I'm sure he'd be deemed to be a great kicker too.
-
@Bones No great fan of Steyn. But I seem to recall he was the tactical ticker in 2009 when the Bokke's excellent kick chase under the then rules meant they owned us on the scoreboard.
@pakman said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Bones No great fan of Steyn. But I seem to recall he was the tactical ticker in 2009 when the Bokke's excellent kick chase under the then rules meant they owned us on the scoreboard.
Not sure what you're getting at?
-
Perhaps it's because he was away from rugby for 2 years or perhaps the game has moved on, but Pocock's deficiencies have been quite critically exposed this year. I mean the Wallaby props have better ball skills than he does which is pretty shocking for a modern day 7 or 8. What I don't get is how he gets ragdolled so much and can't seem to win a single metre of ground. On the weekend he grabbed the ball and was pushed back further than the Italians in North Africa. I know he isn't tall but he's built like a farking tank and you'd think he could break a tackle now and then.
Sure he steals pills better than a druggo, but it seems incredible that he hasn't developed his running game in all these years as an international player.
@Rancid-Schnitzel For a shithouse Pocock has zero go forward, and I suspect my old man (who's 86) could run him down -- did he have a serious knee problem?!
But I saw an article in The Roar, I think, a few years ago comparing McGod, Hooper and Pocock (who was out for a while then with injury) as 7s. The gist was that although Hooper was up there or ahead of Ritchie in turnovers, he paled into insignificance in terms of 'involvements' -- which I suppose is defined as being in the right place at the right time doing the right thing. Pocock was up there with Hooper on turnovers, but a long way towards Ritchie in involvements.
Would be interesting to what I trio of Pocock, Fardy and Timani could achieve with Hooper playing the 'Savea' role. -
@pakman said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Bones No great fan of Steyn. But I seem to recall he was the tactical ticker in 2009 when the Bokke's excellent kick chase under the then rules meant they owned us on the scoreboard.
Not sure what you're getting at?
-
@Bones That he has two dimensions -- goalkicking and Garryowens! But not in the same league as any of our 10s. Jantjes and Pollard are the only two recnt Bok 10s who have worried me at all.
@pakman said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Bones That he has two dimensions -- goalkicking and Garryowens! But not in the same league as any of our 10s. Jantjes and Pollard are the only two recnt Bok 10s who have worried me at all.
Yep I don't disagree!
-
What about the blatant elbow to Retailicks head which has left him out with concussion. That's been missed from what I can see by everybody. Around the 50 minute mark watch the Aussie number 6
-
What about the blatant elbow to Retailicks head which has left him out with concussion. That's been missed from what I can see by everybody. Around the 50 minute mark watch the Aussie number 6
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
What about the blatant elbow to Retailicks head which has left him out with concussion. That's been missed from what I can see by everybody. Around the 50 minute mark watch the Aussie number 6
No way? I'm sure the offender would've received a ban if that's true.
-
What about the blatant elbow to Retailicks head which has left him out with concussion. That's been missed from what I can see by everybody. Around the 50 minute mark watch the Aussie number 6
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
What about the blatant elbow to Retailicks head which has left him out with concussion. That's been missed from what I can see by everybody. Around the 50 minute mark watch the Aussie number 6
-
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
What about the blatant elbow to Retailicks head which has left him out with concussion. That's been missed from what I can see by everybody. Around the 50 minute mark watch the Aussie number 6
@Voltron cool I'm glad that got picked up. I was a sleep at wheel.
-
I see from the article that their clown of a coach is blaming Retallick. Eddie Jones is going to have a field day with this dick head
-
I see from the article that their clown of a coach is blaming Retallick. Eddie Jones is going to have a field day with this dick head
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I see from the article that their clown of a coach is blaming Retallick. Eddie Jones is going to have a field day with this dick head
He was, and he wasn't. Read the quote carefully, and ignore the creative editing that puts it at the bottom of the article:
Michael Cheika earlier defended Mumm and said Retallick was hardly an innocent bystander.
"I don't want to talk about it too much because there's a hearing to go but he [the citing commissioner] is not looking at all the action," Cheika said on Sunday. "He [Mumm] is trying to get back from being held illegally."
So he was asked about it before the hearing and had a made the point that the "elbow" - which had been painted as some calculated attack - was the result of illegal play from both parties. Have they asked him since? Probably not.
The citing commissioner took that into account when sentencing. Mumm takes the smart option of an early guilty plea, probably with Wallaby management, realising it was the quickest way to get it off the table.
The comments were funny. Some people even saying Brodie got what he deserved. Some getting all lit up that the off the ball shit from the Wallabies was somehow dirty, when that is exactly what Retallick was doing.
If Mumm managed to aim for, and hit, Retallick in the head, he's some kind of blind fighting, fucking ninja master.
-
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I see from the article that their clown of a coach is blaming Retallick. Eddie Jones is going to have a field day with this dick head
He was, and he wasn't. Read the quote carefully, and ignore the creative editing that puts it at the bottom of the article:
Michael Cheika earlier defended Mumm and said Retallick was hardly an innocent bystander.
"I don't want to talk about it too much because there's a hearing to go but he [the citing commissioner] is not looking at all the action," Cheika said on Sunday. "He [Mumm] is trying to get back from being held illegally."
So he was asked about it before the hearing and had a made the point that the "elbow" - which had been painted as some calculated attack - was the result of illegal play from both parties. Have they asked him since? Probably not.
The citing commissioner took that into account when sentencing. Mumm takes the smart option of an early guilty plea, probably with Wallaby management, realising it was the quickest way to get it off the table.
The comments were funny. Some people even saying Brodie got what he deserved. Some getting all lit up that the off the ball shit from the Wallabies was somehow dirty, when that is exactly what Retallick was doing.
If Mumm managed to aim for, and hit, Retallick in the head, he's some kind of blind fighting, fucking ninja master.
-
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I see from the article that their clown of a coach is blaming Retallick. Eddie Jones is going to have a field day with this dick head
He was, and he wasn't. Read the quote carefully, and ignore the creative editing that puts it at the bottom of the article:
Michael Cheika earlier defended Mumm and said Retallick was hardly an innocent bystander.
"I don't want to talk about it too much because there's a hearing to go but he [the citing commissioner] is not looking at all the action," Cheika said on Sunday. "He [Mumm] is trying to get back from being held illegally."
So he was asked about it before the hearing and had a made the point that the "elbow" - which had been painted as some calculated attack - was the result of illegal play from both parties. Have they asked him since? Probably not.
The citing commissioner took that into account when sentencing. Mumm takes the smart option of an early guilty plea, probably with Wallaby management, realising it was the quickest way to get it off the table.
The comments were funny. Some people even saying Brodie got what he deserved. Some getting all lit up that the off the ball shit from the Wallabies was somehow dirty, when that is exactly what Retallick was doing.
If Mumm managed to aim for, and hit, Retallick in the head, he's some kind of blind fighting, fucking ninja master.
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
If Mumm managed to aim for, and hit, Retallick in the head, he's some kind of blind fighting, fucking ninja master.
He's nothing like Daredevil, he's more like M4L's kid
-
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I see from the article that their clown of a coach is blaming Retallick. Eddie Jones is going to have a field day with this dick head
He was, and he wasn't. Read the quote carefully, and ignore the creative editing that puts it at the bottom of the article:
Michael Cheika earlier defended Mumm and said Retallick was hardly an innocent bystander.
"I don't want to talk about it too much because there's a hearing to go but he [the citing commissioner] is not looking at all the action," Cheika said on Sunday. "He [Mumm] is trying to get back from being held illegally."
So he was asked about it before the hearing and had a made the point that the "elbow" - which had been painted as some calculated attack - was the result of illegal play from both parties. Have they asked him since? Probably not.
The citing commissioner took that into account when sentencing. Mumm takes the smart option of an early guilty plea, probably with Wallaby management, realising it was the quickest way to get it off the table.
The comments were funny. Some people even saying Brodie got what he deserved. Some getting all lit up that the off the ball shit from the Wallabies was somehow dirty, when that is exactly what Retallick was doing.
If Mumm managed to aim for, and hit, Retallick in the head, he's some kind of blind fighting, fucking ninja master.
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Wreck-Diver said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I see from the article that their clown of a coach is blaming Retallick. Eddie Jones is going to have a field day with this dick head
He was, and he wasn't. Read the quote carefully, and ignore the creative editing that puts it at the bottom of the article:
Michael Cheika earlier defended Mumm and said Retallick was hardly an innocent bystander.
"I don't want to talk about it too much because there's a hearing to go but he [the citing commissioner] is not looking at all the action," Cheika said on Sunday. "He [Mumm] is trying to get back from being held illegally."
So he was asked about it before the hearing and had a made the point that the "elbow" - which had been painted as some calculated attack - was the result of illegal play from both parties. Have they asked him since? Probably not.
The citing commissioner took that into account when sentencing. Mumm takes the smart option of an early guilty plea, probably with Wallaby management, realising it was the quickest way to get it off the table.
The comments were funny. Some people even saying Brodie got what he deserved. Some getting all lit up that the off the ball shit from the Wallabies was somehow dirty, when that is exactly what Retallick was doing.
If Mumm managed to aim for, and hit, Retallick in the head, he's some kind of blind fighting, fucking ninja master.
Good post till that last paragraph
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
If Mumm managed to aim for, and hit, Retallick in the head, he's some kind of blind fighting, fucking ninja master.
He's nothing like Daredevil, he's more like M4L's kid
@taniwharugby oi that's a bit far
