All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider
-
Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)
As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.
-
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)
As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.
@Bones said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)
As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.
He's a miles better ref than in 2007, although I find he tends to be fairly vigilant in the first half then fairly laissez-faire in the 2nd.
I really didn't get this call though - it was a carbon copy of the week before, and this notion of Porter "absorbing" the tackle was absurd.
I would have been annoyed if the ABs required 15 vs 14 to win though, you can't be building a team around that.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)
As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.
He's a miles better ref than in 2007, although I find he tends to be fairly vigilant in the first half then fairly laissez-faire in the 2nd.
I really didn't get this call though - it was a carbon copy of the week before, and this notion of Porter "absorbing" the tackle was absurd.
I would have been annoyed if the ABs required 15 vs 14 to win though, you can't be building a team around that.
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Bones said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)
As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.
He's a miles better ref than in 2007, although I find he tends to be fairly vigilant in the first half then fairly laissez-faire in the 2nd.
I really didn't get this call though - it was a carbon copy of the week before, and this notion of Porter "absorbing" the tackle was absurd.
I would have been annoyed if the ABs required 15 vs 14 to win though, you can't be building a team around that.
He has a history of these non-calls. Didn't he do something similar in the Premiership final by not sending off the Saracens scrumhalf for a shoulder to the head?
-
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
-
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
We want cards or no cards and clarity.
Right now we get cards one week, and no cards the next week. That's the complaint
-
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
Yellows, not reds except for genuine nasty filth.
dish out further punishment later on when there isn't time pressure and you can have the same people making every decision, and therefore consistency is more likely to be achievable (and you're not slowing the game down). -
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
Yeah that's a shit call, what most want is the systems changed, with less cards and more post match punishment. But until that case we want it applied evenly. Porter's hit was a obvious red under the current shit system, in fact it was worse than Ofa. Yet he gets yellow for breaking Brodie's cheek.
It's a shit process and is unevenly applied
-
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
Just the laws applied consistently will be fine. So if a challenge is a red one week, it should be a red the next week if a similar situation arises.
No mitigation for "soaking" the tackle to get out of giving the red
Personally, I'd prefer obvious filth and clear stiff arm tackles or shoulders directly to the head to be red cards. Any doubt from the ref, yellow card and leave it to the citing process. To do otherwise means the in-game process is ultimately decided by the individual ref, which means their own biases get in the way. Not good for them, not good for the game.
-
Barnes was effectively saying that he disagreed with the call the week before even though it had been ratified by the judiciary.
The 'passive' thing was given much more weight and that was the difference in colour.
To answer your question @MiketheSnow it's consistency that we want first and foremost.Ideally (and it is an impractical ideal) I would like to see reciprocity in foul play. eg if your act of foul play makes the recipient leave the field you have to leave the field for the same duration. If they fail an HIA or are broken then you stay off but are replaced just as they are.
In Porter's case he is replaced for the rest of the game and a post game review decides if there is further punishment. -
While piling in on Foster (who is also very fat) I realise I didn't even mention the Irish. Regardless of our issues, Farrell has done a great job with that side. Schmidt drilled them well but that ridiculously attritional gameplan did them in the end. Now they're playing with enterprise and creativity and aren't just a battering ram that recycles possession for hours. They are an excellent team now and deservedly won the series.
-
BBC News - Eddie O'Sullivan: Ireland 'now better than All Blacks - but a long way to World Cup'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/62207583 -
Barnes was effectively saying that he disagreed with the call the week before even though it had been ratified by the judiciary.
The 'passive' thing was given much more weight and that was the difference in colour.
To answer your question @MiketheSnow it's consistency that we want first and foremost.Ideally (and it is an impractical ideal) I would like to see reciprocity in foul play. eg if your act of foul play makes the recipient leave the field you have to leave the field for the same duration. If they fail an HIA or are broken then you stay off but are replaced just as they are.
In Porter's case he is replaced for the rest of the game and a post game review decides if there is further punishment. -
While piling in on Foster (who is also very fat) I realise I didn't even mention the Irish. Regardless of our issues, Farrell has done a great job with that side. Schmidt drilled them well but that ridiculously attritional gameplan did them in the end. Now they're playing with enterprise and creativity and aren't just a battering ram that recycles possession for hours. They are an excellent team now and deservedly won the series.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel spot on. The backline moves they ran were the sort of way I'd like the ABs to play. The way they thundered into rucks and tackles and made great decisions on attacking the ball was the way I'd like ABs to play.
@nzzp said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Rancid-Schnitzel spot on. The backline moves they ran were the sort of way I'd like the ABs to play. The way they thundered into rucks and tackles and made great decisions on attacking the ball was the way I'd like ABs to play.
That's the way we used to play
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Crucial I know it is only the words used, but I hate those accidental collisions being described as 'foul play'
I agree. It is the part of the framework that is either most understood or redundant.
The framework has two separate questions at the start. 'Has head contact occurred?' then, if so, 'Is there foul play?'. Foul Play considerations are Intentional, Avoidable, Reckless.
Too often refs going through the process say 'head contact has occurred so it is foul play' then move on to degree, mitigations etc.
I know you have a clear idea what constitutes reckless from insurance work but here is a dictionary definition.
-heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.
This is why the AT card didn't pass the second question in most eyes and I can't understand why the legal bunch conceded that there was foul play.
-it obviously wasn't intentional (he even came off worse
-the players themselves said it was unavoidableThat leaves reckless. Did he act recklessly? Given that it wasn't intentional or avoidable it is pretty difficult to class as reckless by definition.
In Porters case 'avoidable' doesn't figure as he had clear sight of the charging Retallick from 5 metres away.
Barnes call of 'absorbing' was absolute nonsense unless you only watch the last 0.001 of a second as this shows. Porter ran forward into contact. -
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Crucial I know it is only the words used, but I hate those accidental collisions being described as 'foul play'
I agree. It is the part of the framework that is either most understood or redundant.
The framework has two separate questions at the start. 'Has head contact occurred?' then, if so, 'Is there foul play?'. Foul Play considerations are Intentional, Avoidable, Reckless.
Too often refs going through the process say 'head contact has occurred so it is foul play' then move on to degree, mitigations etc.
I know you have a clear idea what constitutes reckless from insurance work but here is a dictionary definition.
-heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.
This is why the AT card didn't pass the second question in most eyes and I can't understand why the legal bunch conceded that there was foul play.
-it obviously wasn't intentional (he even came off worse
-the players themselves said it was unavoidableThat leaves reckless. Did he act recklessly? Given that it wasn't intentional or avoidable it is pretty difficult to class as reckless by definition.
In Porters case 'avoidable' doesn't figure as he had clear sight of the charging Retallick from 5 metres away.
Barnes call of 'absorbing' was absolute nonsense unless you only watch the last 0.001 of a second as this shows. Porter ran forward into contact.@Crucial and he actually starts to straighten to take the impact...raising his head and contact point higher still.
That and the Ta'avao one should have had the same end result...both players off for HIA, penalty for the ball carrying team.
-
Great little analysis, I think
Key point on coaching
Differences in attacking shape were apparent; the All Blacks switching from side to side, looking in vain for a hole, almost hoping to find one rather than creating one through incursions closer to the ruck.
By contrast, Ireland was far more creative, playing off 10 with higher levels of deception. And they were far more cohesive, and clinical in their execution.
He also agreed both head contacts were worthy of higher sanction
-
Had a few days to digest not just this last game but the entire series..
Full credit to Ireland, some of the best Rugby from a touring team i have seen since the 1986 Australian team that won the 3 match series and 1994 French team that won 2 tests
Simplistic in much of their processes , deadly accurate in terms of the activation
I would pay money to watch these guys very exciting brand of footy.
The other novel idea is playing specialists in their rightful positions ,not one player playing out their playing position ..think about that when you transition that same thought process to the All Blacks .We shouldânt be surprised by this train wreck ,its been in the making for around 4 years,how often have we watched the All Blacks play 10-15 minutes of outragesously good rugby to take a game away from the opposition ..?, much of it individual brilliance as opposed to anything constructive only to watch them stumble through the next 65 minutes with poor handling ,indiscipline and poor defence , leaking points late in games .
My last salvo is for the coaches and selectors , they have known for a while that the tight five in and around workrate ,ball handling and discipline and the fall off in form of Rettalick was an issue ..but stood by and not addressed it , i thpugh late last year their was an opportunity to say , hey lets give Josh Lord one of the tests against either Wales,Ireland or France and again in this series an opprtunity to bring in Fletcher Newall and Callum Grace both to me have skill sets taylor made for international rugby .
As for playing 3 or 4 players
out of position,when has that ever worked at any level of rugby .?Just before i sign off ,Dave Rennie selected a whole lot of young guys when he took over the Wallabies , they are nowhere near the finished article , but think about where they will be post world cup compared to the All Blacks when many senior guys would have moved on
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Crucial I know it is only the words used, but I hate those accidental collisions being described as 'foul play'
I agree. It is the part of the framework that is either most understood or redundant.
The framework has two separate questions at the start. 'Has head contact occurred?' then, if so, 'Is there foul play?'. Foul Play considerations are Intentional, Avoidable, Reckless.
Too often refs going through the process say 'head contact has occurred so it is foul play' then move on to degree, mitigations etc.
I know you have a clear idea what constitutes reckless from insurance work but here is a dictionary definition.
-heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.
This is why the AT card didn't pass the second question in most eyes and I can't understand why the legal bunch conceded that there was foul play.
-it obviously wasn't intentional (he even came off worse
-the players themselves said it was unavoidableThat leaves reckless. Did he act recklessly? Given that it wasn't intentional or avoidable it is pretty difficult to class as reckless by definition.
In Porters case 'avoidable' doesn't figure as he had clear sight of the charging Retallick from 5 metres away.
Barnes call of 'absorbing' was absolute nonsense unless you only watch the last 0.001 of a second as this shows. Porter ran forward into contact.@Crucial just another example I'll bank whenever someone tries to tell me Wayne is a good ref.
-
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Which is if fellas?
Cards or no cards?
You canât have both, and moan when it suits you
Consistency at a minimum. Ffs.
How is that difficult to comprehend?
