RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2)
-
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.
I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.
Or are you saying that defenders have an obligation to let a player attempt to place the ball and score a try? Because I missed that law change and so has everybody else who tries to hold up the ball and prevent a score, like in every game ever.
As you’ll have gathered, I’m not accepting it’s obvious and uncontroversial just because you say so.
Of course I could be wrong but you’ll need to cite your source.
@JC said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.
I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.
Or are you saying that defenders have an obligation to let a player attempt to place the ball and score a try? Because I missed that law change and so has everybody else who tries to hold up the ball and prevent a score, like in every game ever.
As you’ll have gathered, I’m not accepting it’s obvious and uncontroversial just because you say so.
Of course I could be wrong but you’ll need to cite your source.
So much more eloquent than me
-
An honest question but you often hear people say the ABs are fitter, and sides slow the game down when playing us.
How in the professional era with fitness coaches and state of the art gyms, nutritionists etc can any side be that much fitter than another?
@chimoaus said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
An honest question but you often hear people say the ABs are fitter, and sides slow the game down when playing us.
How in the professional era with fitness coaches and state of the art gyms, nutritionists etc can any side be that much fitter than another?
Some of it is just lazy analysis. More then half the team gets replaced by about 60m. If you have the better depth/bench then you will likely pull away.
-
Just spotted an interesting stat
NZ Wingers 26 carries for 171 metres run, 12 defenders beaten.
Ireland Wingers 7 carries for 34 metres run, 3 defenders beaten.
England Wingers 13 carries for 102 metres run, 6 defenders beaten.
Wales Wingers 12 carries for 30 metres run, 2 defenders beaten.
SA Wingers 13 carries for 128 metres run, 6 defenders beaten.
Japan Wingers 25 carries for 113 metres run, 3 defenders beaten.NZ clearly playing with lots of width and space, Ireland and Wales not so much.
-
Just spotted an interesting stat
NZ Wingers 26 carries for 171 metres run, 12 defenders beaten.
Ireland Wingers 7 carries for 34 metres run, 3 defenders beaten.
England Wingers 13 carries for 102 metres run, 6 defenders beaten.
Wales Wingers 12 carries for 30 metres run, 2 defenders beaten.
SA Wingers 13 carries for 128 metres run, 6 defenders beaten.
Japan Wingers 25 carries for 113 metres run, 3 defenders beaten.NZ clearly playing with lots of width and space, Ireland and Wales not so much.
@chimoaus said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
NZ clearly playing with lots of width and space, Ireland and Wales not so much.
Ireland have wingers? Fake news.
-
@chimoaus said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
NZ clearly playing with lots of width and space, Ireland and Wales not so much.
Ireland have wingers? Fake news.
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@chimoaus said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
NZ clearly playing with lots of width and space, Ireland and Wales not so much.
Ireland have wingers? Fake news.
Typo , he meant whingers
-
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
-
@NTA said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
It seems a complete luxury to win by 30 and bitch about the ref, I must say.
If you're asking for consistency, you're obviously watching the wrong sport.
Wouldn't it be the best time? We won, we won handily, most of us like Owens as a ref, we thought he made some poor decisions. Let's not pretend he had a perfect game.
@Nepia said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@NTA said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
It seems a complete luxury to win by 30 and bitch about the ref, I must say.
If you're asking for consistency, you're obviously watching the wrong sport.
Wouldn't it be the best time? We won, we won handily, most of us like Owens as a ref, we thought he made some poor decisions. Let's not pretend he had a perfect game.
-
I actually think NO had created that scenario in his head whereby he had imagined that in order to stop a try against the posts someone would do exactly what Todd did and block off the post. He probably sees that as 'unfair' even though not covered exactly under the laws and concluded that there is technically a high likelihood that the player was offside to get in that position.
It sounds a weird explanation but then I am struggling for another one. -
@Nepia said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@NTA said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
It seems a complete luxury to win by 30 and bitch about the ref, I must say.
If you're asking for consistency, you're obviously watching the wrong sport.
Wouldn't it be the best time? We won, we won handily, most of us like Owens as a ref, we thought he made some poor decisions. Let's not pretend he had a perfect game.
@Machpants said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Nepia said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@NTA said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
It seems a complete luxury to win by 30 and bitch about the ref, I must say.
If you're asking for consistency, you're obviously watching the wrong sport.
Wouldn't it be the best time? We won, we won handily, most of us like Owens as a ref, we thought he made some poor decisions. Let's not pretend he had a perfect game.
We still want him for the SF instead of Garces. I'm ok with Peyper
-
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
-
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.) -
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)You were also allowed to defend mauls (and rucks) by swimming up the side and pushing sideways. Which was valuable for defending your line.
Now defenders aren't allowed on the edges of mauls, but attackers can swim wherever they want.
The pad is half a metre thick and pokes out in front of the line. It was borderline sensible back in the day, now it is just stupid. Attackers should aim for the other 69m of tryline and not be rewarded for banging into a post like a drunk unco.
-
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
it just didn't look right.
Agree that it didn't look right, but which law did it contravene? I would dispute that was dangerous like a cannonball.
Also agree that the base of the posts thing is daft.
A rugby field is supposed to be 100m, not 99.4 ish for some of it.@Crucial has the solution (goal kickers may disagree).
-
@chimoaus said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
An honest question but you often hear people say the ABs are fitter, and sides slow the game down when playing us.
How in the professional era with fitness coaches and state of the art gyms, nutritionists etc can any side be that much fitter than another?
Playing style? We regularly play at a higher pace, across multiple teams.
Also, I guess not all fitness training is equal either. Some teams seem to prefer bulk, which has a cost.
@Kirwan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@chimoaus said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
An honest question but you often hear people say the ABs are fitter, and sides slow the game down when playing us.
How in the professional era with fitness coaches and state of the art gyms, nutritionists etc can any side be that much fitter than another?
Playing style? We regularly play at a higher pace, across multiple teams.
Also, I guess not all fitness training is equal either. Some teams seem to prefer bulk, which has a cost.
I think we definitely upped the accuracy at pace to another level. I think we have been trying this for the past 7 seasons or so with mixed success but it feels like the accuracy is going up another level therefore we can sustain the pace for much longer periods.
-
