ABs v Scotland
-
@hydro11 I don't think Read is a patch on the captain McCaw became.
I was impressed with Sam Whitelock this year.
@antipodean Big challenge for Read definitely, although with getting away with shit like that he's showing promise, many years to go yet, Read's good but not quite the best cheat ever.
-
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Technically he doesn't have the ball unless it leaves the turf. Annoys me a lot as many 9s are taking the piss with their new found freedom. Crockett had to go, that was blatant
-
@mick-gold-coast-qld said in ABs v Scotland:
Rolled gold rubbish, talisker, you are making it up.
The term is as old as "Pom" and maybe older, it has been around as long as "Kiwi" and "Mick" (for Catholics) and "Frog".
Do keep updating your records, though, on raaaacist, hurty terminology. It must be a fascinating obsession to be sure, it will keep you indoors and at a good distance from normal society.I've been wondering whether or not to bother replying, but it was niggling at me, so I'll give it a go.
The antiquity of an epithet doesn't make it valid, there are some very old words that are now illegal and using them in a place of work would get you sacked. So I refute that point completely.
Second, it's not about being over sensitive or being a "snowflake", it's about being a grown man in the 21st century and acting like it.
Words carry all sorts of baggage with them, it's not for those punching down to "mansplain" to someone that they shouldn't take offence at a lazy slur.I don't know if you are aware of a newspaper called the Daily Mail, but it's basically a daily newsletter for the Anglo-centric, borderline racist, homophobic culturally stunted wingnuts who hark back to some mythical time from the 1950s where everything was better (I won't go too far into this, but it's a myth, that time never existed).
Anyway, that paper is often found waling about political correctness and why can't I be an ignorant fuckwit any more?
Any defence of stereotypes and slurs can be found in places like the Daily Mail, it's 70 years out of date.I'll conclude by saying that we in Scotland have our own problems regarding bigotry between two sections of the community, but we don't have an epithet for English people (don't let anyone tell you Sassenach is an insult, no one has used that for decades and it means Saxon, there are variants of the same word in Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Breton).
The dismissive one-word put down works one way, that's why I and most Scots reject it. There might have been one or some, but I don't know of any Scot who would refer to "us Jocks", that alone should be enough to act like an adult and accept it as a thing of the past.@talisker I take on board your reply to Mick's post and respect same. Though I would argue that the term Jock is, the same as Paddy, Taffy not used as an insult, certainly less so than say Frog or Yank. Neither is the rhyming slang variants such as Sweaty or Septic. However I can appreciate that the perception could easily be different dependant upon whether you are on the receiving end or not. However the example that I would cite comes from probably the biggest melting pot in UK society, the armed forces. Here, where you get guys from all over the British Isles being flung in together, casual nicknames based on where you are from or what your surname is are virtually de rigeur and not an insult.
But as you find the term offensive, I will not call you by that term and I will endeavour not to use it in threads you are commenting on. Not trying to be a prick here, just showing respect.
-
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Technically he doesn't have the ball unless it leaves the turf. Annoys me a lot as many 9s are taking the piss with their new found freedom. Crockett had to go, that was blatant
@kiwipie Yeah that was MvJ's sentiment, I was incensed but even though his hands were on it he didn't pick it up. And I quote
"Yes, bit of a tough one because the halfback perhaps could have played the ball the first time but fumbled on someone's boot as he went to pick it up. But it is not like he dummied or anything. Crockett is a penalty magnet.
Any competent referee would penalise that.
The halfback gets the benefit of the doubt there, remembering the referee doesn't have slow motion replays. With those things (ditto clear releases etc) then the approach is "if I'd have to watch in slow motion to see if what you did might actually be OK, then it's not OK."
I reckon Crockett would have been fine if the other Scotsman's boot wasn't there.
edit emebed wont star at 38:39 for some reason... -
Have people seen the Read incident? Seriously what an idiot. He should have gone to the bin as well. You need a lot better from a captain in those circumstances.
-
Well well, good on the Scots for taking it to us. And boy, did they take it to us. Reality is that we played as well as we could, and we struggled to get into the game. They just wouldn't let us, they were smart, fast, intense and only the final execution let them down. We took more of our chances than they did, and hence we won. I also think that the measure of a game in inches these days, is very accurate ... if Taylors pass had gone to hand, and not been intercepted, it would have been game over, shut the gate and probably ended a 25-15 sort of scoreline ... not indicative of the game, but typical of the way we have toured up north recently.
I must say though, we look absolutely buggered and ready for a break. It's been a huge season. IF you think back to the Lions test 1, that's 5 months ago, and it's been intense rugby ever since. It's been Lions, Lions, Lions, super rugby finals, 6 games of RC (including round the world travel), another game vs ozz, fly around the world, baaabaas, france, france, scotland ... - thats a lot to take, and I think the guys are done. There's a huge window for the Welsh this weekend if our execution isn't spot on - and I've no reason to think it will be honestly. Read looks poked - lots of talk about his form, but blimey, read the above and you an see why!!
Another interesting stat ... 4 games played up north so far, 4 wins, and 4 MOTM Going to the opposition team. A sign of blinkered NH commentary, a sign of the AB's being a sum of their parts > players, or a sign of the (begrudgingly high) pedestal the AB's are put on that anybody who plays decent against is immediately MOTM?
probably a combo of all 4, but and interesting stat, none the less.
-
@stargazer said in ABs v Scotland:
Scotland in. WTF Why didn't Rieko tackle?
Rieko was a passenger in the last 10 mins as he seemed to be favouring his right arm.
@bovidae said in ABs v Scotland:
@stargazer said in ABs v Scotland:
Scotland in. WTF Why didn't Rieko tackle?
Rieko was a passenger in the last 10 mins as he seemed to be favouring his right arm.
I've had that injury. Couldn't even brush my hair. No wonder he wasn't tackling.
-
Have people seen the Read incident? Seriously what an idiot. He should have gone to the bin as well. You need a lot better from a captain in those circumstances.
@hydro11 said in ABs v Scotland:
Have people seen the Read incident? Seriously what an idiot. He should have gone to the bin as well. You need a lot better from a captain in those circumstances.
Ref was an idiot: the Scotties scored then. A microsecond of further advantage ...
Also Barrett was not off side at that scrum.
-
@talisker I take on board your reply to Mick's post and respect same. Though I would argue that the term Jock is, the same as Paddy, Taffy not used as an insult, certainly less so than say Frog or Yank. Neither is the rhyming slang variants such as Sweaty or Septic. However I can appreciate that the perception could easily be different dependant upon whether you are on the receiving end or not. However the example that I would cite comes from probably the biggest melting pot in UK society, the armed forces. Here, where you get guys from all over the British Isles being flung in together, casual nicknames based on where you are from or what your surname is are virtually de rigeur and not an insult.
But as you find the term offensive, I will not call you by that term and I will endeavour not to use it in threads you are commenting on. Not trying to be a prick here, just showing respect.
I don't want to be a dick about this either, and this will be my last on the subject, the term itself is irritating rather than offensive, I'm speaking for myself, there are others who feel more strongly than I do.
What is offensive is to be told to suck it up.
-
@majorrage Agree about Read. Compare him on Saturday with the first Lions test, and it's clear he's beat up with little left in tank. Trouble is he's captain and the alternatives are a notch below (when Read's fit).
-
@pakman I don't see why he should be beat up. He had half the year off with his late start to Super Rugby and the subsequent thumb injury so there is really no reason for him to be burnt out. He's had a relatively easy workload this year.
@akan004 said in ABs v Scotland:
@pakman I don't see why he should be beat up. He had half the year off with his late start to Super Rugby and the subsequent thumb injury so there is really no reason for him to be burnt out. He's had a relatively easy workload this year.
Can't help you on the why, but I can tell you my 87 year old dad gets down the stairs faster than he did yesterday.
-
@hydro11 said in ABs v Scotland:
Have people seen the Read incident? Seriously what an idiot. He should have gone to the bin as well. You need a lot better from a captain in those circumstances.
Ref was an idiot: the Scotties scored then. A microsecond of further advantage ...
Also Barrett was not off side at that scrum.
@booboo said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 said in ABs v Scotland:
Have people seen the Read incident? Seriously what an idiot. He should have gone to the bin as well. You need a lot better from a captain in those circumstances.
Ref was an idiot: the Scotties scored then. A microsecond of further advantage ...
Also Barrett was not off side at that scrum.
Ref thought the Scot knocked it on. Wrongly, but explains it. Thought the ref was very good overall. Can't see it all!
-
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Technically he doesn't have the ball unless it leaves the turf. Annoys me a lot as many 9s are taking the piss with their new found freedom. Crockett had to go, that was blatant
@kiwipie yeah I know that, but the words used by the ref for the offence are wrong...should be just playing the 9, rather than without the ball.
I mean the French 9 got away with a dummy pass against the ABs and the Comms guy was lauding it like it was genius.
Is definitely an area where the NH and SH see it or is ref fed differently.
-
Some random thoughts, was at Murrayfield for the first time.
We were in corporate hosting, Doddie Weir was our MC, he was absolutely hilarious. Very moving when he went onto the field before kickoff. Justin Marshall also present, dull by comparison.
Battling win, probably deserved, with about 7 minutes to go the ABs were up by 12. I think Hansen emptied the bench too early. He was basically saying with 10 minutes to go it was all over.
Thought the ref was very good, he seemed to rule absolutely everything, probably better than the other way and allowing a free for all. Did think he got the Naholo situation wrong, yellow card all day for me, massive benefit of doubt there.
Taylor was very good and a credible replacement for Coles as starter which is a good thing. Should have dummied Russell when try butchered!
Romano from the replay poor, needs to get lower on the carry, but was on his own once at least surrounded by four Scots, need your teammates there to help you out sometimes.
Read must be running on empty, thought he had a very, very quiet game, apart from lineout.
Fifita got through a lot of work, mostly good.
Big fan of Liam Squire, massive potential. Should have passed when he made the big break but I guess he thought Sopoaga would get tackled. He did pick the ball off that scrum in preference to Kieran Reid.
Echo what others have said about Edinburgh, great city to go for a test match.
Pakman seems you went to the Hilton buffet so you could rub shoulders with Kane Hames and Crockett, love your work.
-
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
I've already said I think it was refereed perfectly. ('Mist of war' cause by the obstruction plus the fact he was t tipped over).
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Should Faumuina have been carded for his tackle on Sinkler in Lions Test 3?
Hogg was making an incredible horizontal distance with his leap. Which made his bump look fairly spectacular.
I know we've had the lawmakers turn the World upside down the last few years. Probably need to separate those who think lucky not carded because the laws get interpreted badly recently, from this who think he's lucky as they genuinely think all tackles in the air should be an automatic card.
-
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
I've already said I think it was refereed perfectly. ('Mist of war' cause by the obstruction plus the fact he was t tipped over).
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Should Faumuina have been carded for his tackle on Sinkler in Lions Test 3?
Hogg was making an incredible horizontal distance with his leap. Which made his bump look fairly spectacular.
I know we've had the lawmakers turn the World upside down the last few years. Probably need to separate those who think lucky not carded because the laws get interpreted badly recently, from this who think he's lucky as they genuinely think all tackles in the air should be an automatic card.
@rapido said in ABs v Scotland:
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Yes, every tackle in the air is a cardable offence AFAIK. If not it should be, to remove any doubt, of which there seems to be plenty in officiating the game currently.
Not sure what the letter of the law is, but my understanding is the guy who catches the ball in the air has all the rights, not the first time Naholo has done similar, he and all others need to err on the side of caution when going for a high ball.
-
@rapido said in ABs v Scotland:
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Yes, every tackle in the air is a cardable offence AFAIK. If not it should be, to remove any doubt, of which there seems to be plenty in officiating the game currently.
Not sure what the letter of the law is, but my understanding is the guy who catches the ball in the air has all the rights, not the first time Naholo has done similar, he and all others need to err on the side of caution when going for a high ball.
@infidel
the letter of the law.10 Foul Play.
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick10.5 Sanctions
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.So in summary.
Penalty, with the option to either admonish him or yellow card him. -
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
I've already said I think it was refereed perfectly. ('Mist of war' cause by the obstruction plus the fact he was t tipped over).
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Should Faumuina have been carded for his tackle on Sinkler in Lions Test 3?
Hogg was making an incredible horizontal distance with his leap. Which made his bump look fairly spectacular.
I know we've had the lawmakers turn the World upside down the last few years. Probably need to separate those who think lucky not carded because the laws get interpreted badly recently, from this who think he's lucky as they genuinely think all tackles in the air should be an automatic card.
-
Just to add, I think if Naholo hadn't been aided by the apparent obstruction by the Scottish defender, he would have hit Hogg much earlier in mid air, so more reason for the yellow card.
The fact that Naholo had to avoid the Scottish defender, and still managed to get by said defender and tackle Hogg before he landed, in mid-air, doesn't help Naholo in his defence, your honour.
Reading the laws above Rapido, I am not sure how they decide between a penalty or a yellow card or worse?
-
Just to add, I think if Naholo hadn't been aided by the apparent obstruction by the Scottish defender, he would have hit Hogg much earlier in mid air, so more reason for the yellow card.
The fact that Naholo had to avoid the Scottish defender, and still managed to get by said defender and tackle Hogg before he landed, in mid-air, doesn't help Naholo in his defence, your honour.
Reading the laws above Rapido, I am not sure how they decide between a penalty or a yellow card or worse?
@infidel Quite the opposite; if he could see Hogg he could have taken action to avoid it.
As it was, Hogg was barely above the ground and got laid out like a great tackle.
If he landed on his upper back/ neck I'd be singing a different tune.
