All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face.
Should be a red card just on account of all that hybrid bogan-hipster grease.
You might take from this I am not a fan of MH. True, I think he is on the verge of flat track bullyism and isn't that effective against top sides, he is fast but too busy running into people to set up strategic team ploys.
I might risk the neoliberal wrath of the collective TSF fratpack but I prefer Pocock, he runs as fast and as agile as a concrete hippo and he might be a one trick pony but he is so good at that one trick and sch a team player that you could build a side around his steals. Surprised he isn't called Arnie the jackal.and apologies I am still learming this new formating system. Should read as
--"It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face."
Should be a red card just on account of all that hybrid bogan-hipster grease.
You might take from this I am not a fan of MH. True, I think he is on the verge of flat track bullyism and isn't that effective against top sides, he is fast but too busy running into people to set up strategic team ploys.
I might risk the neoliberal wrath of the collective TSF fratpack but I prefer Pocock, he runs as fast and as agile as a concrete hippo and he might be a one trick pony but he is so good at that one trick and sch a team player that you could build a side around his steals. Surprised he isn't called Arnie the jackal. -
@pukunui said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The headbutt was at 62:50 on the game clock just after the penalty for the ABs gets blown. Cheap and after the whistle. Im surprised there isn't an international outcry like there was after the Owen Franks face rub.
It never happened, unless I see the frame by frame analysis
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@pukunui said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The headbutt was at 62:50 on the game clock just after the penalty for the ABs gets blown. Cheap and after the whistle. Im surprised there isn't an international outcry like there was after the Owen Franks face rub.
It never happened, unless I see the frame by frame analysis
Woth voice over and helpful arrows
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@pukunui said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The headbutt was at 62:50 on the game clock just after the penalty for the ABs gets blown. Cheap and after the whistle. Im surprised there isn't an international outcry like there was after the Owen Franks face rub.
It never happened, unless I see the frame by frame analysis
Woth voice over and helpful arrows
@mariner4life would expect nothing less.
-
I have now watched the replay 38 times on my ultra high definition 75" TV, with super slow motion pausing it every 100th of a second and I can conclude that there was no headbutt
-
@pukunui said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The headbutt was at 62:50 on the game clock just after the penalty for the ABs gets blown. Cheap and after the whistle. Im surprised there isn't an international outcry like there was after the Owen Franks face rub.
On second viewing the Wallabies 6 coming straight in the side in the final ruck before the Wallabies try is about as obvious as they get. WE WERE ROBBED! Should have been 50-0.
I've checked out the "head butt" here:
Puku is right 62:50 on the game clock.
It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face.
However if an AB had done it I expect there would be demands for the death penalty.
@booboo said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@pukunui said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The headbutt was at 62:50 on the game clock just after the penalty for the ABs gets blown. Cheap and after the whistle. Im surprised there isn't an international outcry like there was after the Owen Franks face rub.
On second viewing the Wallabies 6 coming straight in the side in the final ruck before the Wallabies try is about as obvious as they get. WE WERE ROBBED! Should have been 50-0.
I've checked out the "head butt" here:
Puku is right 62:50 on the game clock.
It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face.
However if an AB had done it I expect there would be demands for the death penalty.
At 1:28:10 in that video you can clearly see it is both a headbutt and eyegouge.......well it would be if it was an AB on a Wallaby.
Actually surprised that didn't get a citing before the Mumm elbow. Even more surprised neither got a check during the game. Local TV producers not doing their job well enough i guess. -
I recall watching the replays, thinking that if Owens acted consistently it would be a penalty try and hoping he didn't. I presume he must have thought about it and concluded that whilst consistent such an approach would have grievously unbalanced things in favour of ABs.
My view for what it's worth is that the rules OUGHT to be such that Speight would be awarded try and Coles not. As is there is sufficient discretion that four outcomes were possible and we got one of the two middle case ones of the undesirable three.@pakman said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
My view for what it's worth is that the rules OUGHT to be such that Speight would be awarded try and Coles not.
That's fucking idiotic. Your approach would mean that a defender can tackle someone without the ball and an attacker without the ball can take out defenders. I suggest watching NFL.
-
and apologies I am still learming this new formating system. Should read as
--"It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face."
Should be a red card just on account of all that hybrid bogan-hipster grease.
You might take from this I am not a fan of MH. True, I think he is on the verge of flat track bullyism and isn't that effective against top sides, he is fast but too busy running into people to set up strategic team ploys.
I might risk the neoliberal wrath of the collective TSF fratpack but I prefer Pocock, he runs as fast and as agile as a concrete hippo and he might be a one trick pony but he is so good at that one trick and sch a team player that you could build a side around his steals. Surprised he isn't called Arnie the jackal.@nostrildamus said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
and apologies I am still learming this new formating system. Should read as
--"It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face."
Should be a red card just on account of all that hybrid bogan-hipster grease.
You might take from this I am not a fan of MH. True, I think he is on the verge of flat track bullyism and isn't that effective against top sides, he is fast but too busy running into people to set up strategic team ploys.
I might risk the neoliberal wrath of the collective TSF fratpack but I prefer Pocock, he runs as fast and as agile as a concrete hippo and he might be a one trick pony but he is so good at that one trick and sch a team player that you could build a side around his steals. Surprised he isn't called Arnie the jackal.This is up there with the Savea is shit talk (and has been done to death as much). He's not even that effective at stealing and even if he was, what good does it really do his team?
-
The call on DHP seemed a little harsh but correct to the letter of law. I always tell my son to take the referee out of the game a team just must beat the opposition by enough so that those calls do not matter. That's why I find Rod Kaefer' s comments in particular hugely irresponsible and disappointing. As a commentator , ambassador of the game and former international what kind of example is he trying to set?
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
My view for what it's worth is that the rules OUGHT to be such that Speight would be awarded try and Coles not.
That's fucking idiotic. Your approach would mean that a defender can tackle someone without the ball and an attacker without the ball can take out defenders. I suggest watching NFL.
@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 -
@nostrildamus said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
and apologies I am still learming this new formating system. Should read as
--"It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face."
Should be a red card just on account of all that hybrid bogan-hipster grease.
You might take from this I am not a fan of MH. True, I think he is on the verge of flat track bullyism and isn't that effective against top sides, he is fast but too busy running into people to set up strategic team ploys.
I might risk the neoliberal wrath of the collective TSF fratpack but I prefer Pocock, he runs as fast and as agile as a concrete hippo and he might be a one trick pony but he is so good at that one trick and sch a team player that you could build a side around his steals. Surprised he isn't called Arnie the jackal.This is up there with the Savea is shit talk (and has been done to death as much). He's not even that effective at stealing and even if he was, what good does it really do his team?
-
The call on DHP seemed a little harsh but correct to the letter of law. I always tell my son to take the referee out of the game a team just must beat the opposition by enough so that those calls do not matter. That's why I find Rod Kaefer' s comments in particular hugely irresponsible and disappointing. As a commentator , ambassador of the game and former international what kind of example is he trying to set?
@DMX said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
As a commentator , ambassador of the game and former international what kind of example is he trying to set?
He's a cheerleader paid to say shit while the average Aussie fan sits home & shout "Yeah! fucking-A Kaf!!"
And he pretty much nailed it. Same way Fitzy is a laughable excuse for a comentator / analyst of the game, but awesome at saying bullshit his audience will lap up. Ditto Ian Smith or Clive Woodward.
-
@Bones I am sorry, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? I think he is an ok 7, and good off the bench against tiring teams but I prefer Pocock.
@nostrildamus I was talking about Pocock.
@pakman the way I understand it, that pretty much is the law. It's not obstruction unless the referee deems it so (I.e. a defender is taken out). If you've no chance of making a tackle or a play at the player with the ball, you're not really a would be tackler are you.
-
@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 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. -
I'm still amazed how in a game where Aussie were awarded a conversion they missed AND were given a penalty immediately following that for some innocuous push and shove following the try - they are still the victims.
Huge mental issues for Aussie - the biggest concern of the whole press performance was how Cheika said he would only let the team use the (correct) TMO decision as an excuse if they lost by a try. Not exactly the "no excuses" mentality you want your team to have.
-
I'm still amazed how in a game where Aussie were awarded a conversion they missed AND were given a penalty immediately following that for some innocuous push and shove following the try - they are still the victims.
Huge mental issues for Aussie - the biggest concern of the whole press performance was how Cheika said he would only let the team use the (correct) TMO decision as an excuse if they lost by a try. Not exactly the "no excuses" mentality you want your team to have.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@rotated i can't remember seeing the post conversion penalty before. Bizarre
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/video/news/video.cfm?c_id=1501138&gal_cid=1501138&gallery_id=166902
-
I'm still amazed how in a game where Aussie were awarded a conversion they missed AND were given a penalty immediately following that for some innocuous push and shove following the try - they are still the victims.
Huge mental issues for Aussie - the biggest concern of the whole press performance was how Cheika said he would only let the team use the (correct) TMO decision as an excuse if they lost by a try. Not exactly the "no excuses" mentality you want your team to have.
@rotated said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Huge mental issues for Aussie - the biggest concern of the whole press performance was how Cheika said he would only let the team use the (correct) TMO decision as an excuse if they lost by a try. Not exactly the "no excuses" mentality you want your team to have.
Which he didn't actually say. He was asked if it was a turning point, and he said words to the effect of:
"It's only a turning point we lose by a score, perhaps... "
Again, he was up front about the team owning their mistakes and turning over too much ball. So was Moore. Even stated they'd been beaten thoroughly and the ABs had played well.
Don't let that get the way of your rhetoric, though.
-
@nostrildamus said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
and apologies I am still learming this new formating system. Should read as
--"It's not really a head butt. More Hoopah waving his hair in the opposition's face."
Should be a red card just on account of all that hybrid bogan-hipster grease.
You might take from this I am not a fan of MH. True, I think he is on the verge of flat track bullyism and isn't that effective against top sides, he is fast but too busy running into people to set up strategic team ploys.
I might risk the neoliberal wrath of the collective TSF fratpack but I prefer Pocock, he runs as fast and as agile as a concrete hippo and he might be a one trick pony but he is so good at that one trick and sch a team player that you could build a side around his steals. Surprised he isn't called Arnie the jackal.This is up there with the Savea is shit talk (and has been done to death as much). He's not even that effective at stealing and even if he was, what good does it really do his team?
@Bones said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
He's not even that effective at stealingthis is such bullshit bones. it is a simple fact that he gets more turnovers than anyone else. and he has done for years, in any competition he has played in. how is that 'not even that effective'?
seems to me that there are just a heap of people on here struggling to deal with the fact that an aussie can be better at something than our guys. so we get:
'yeah but he's shit at other things',
'yeah but our fellas could do it if they wanted to',
'yeah but turnovers don't even matter'
'yeah but his teams don't win so overall he must be shit' etc etc.and now: 'he's not even that good at stealing'. it's crap, why can't you guys just show a tiny bit of objectivity and give the preaching idiot some credit where it's due - so i can stop defending the fucker.
-
I'm still amazed how in a game where Aussie were awarded a conversion they missed AND were given a penalty immediately following that for some innocuous push and shove following the try - they are still the victims.
Huge mental issues for Aussie - the biggest concern of the whole press performance was how Cheika said he would only let the team use the (correct) TMO decision as an excuse if they lost by a try. Not exactly the "no excuses" mentality you want your team to have.
@rotated said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I'm still amazed how in a game where Aussie were awarded a conversion they missed AND were given a penalty immediately following that for some innocuous push and shove following the try - they are still the victims.
Huge mental issues for Aussie - the biggest concern of the whole press performance was how Cheika said he would only let the team use the (correct) TMO decision as an excuse if they lost by a try. Not exactly the "no excuses" mentality you want your team to have.
Visited GAGR yesterday....never again. Most on there are stilll whingeing, playing the victims and are actually defending Cheika's rant.
I used to be a fan of their podcasts, but there's a guy on there called Matt Rowley (owns the website I think) who's obviously got plenty of issues on anything to do with NZ rugby. Decided to check his twitter feed, and the guy is just a bully who leads with the anti kiwi vitriol and a lot of the posters follow suit. It's a shame because guys like Barbarian etc appear to be decent blokes.
-
@rotated said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I'm still amazed how in a game where Aussie were awarded a conversion they missed AND were given a penalty immediately following that for some innocuous push and shove following the try - they are still the victims.
Huge mental issues for Aussie - the biggest concern of the whole press performance was how Cheika said he would only let the team use the (correct) TMO decision as an excuse if they lost by a try. Not exactly the "no excuses" mentality you want your team to have.
Visited GAGR yesterday....never again. Most on there are stilll whingeing, playing the victims and are actually defending Cheika's rant.
I used to be a fan of their podcasts, but there's a guy on there called Matt Rowley (owns the website I think) who's obviously got plenty of issues on anything to do with NZ rugby. Decided to check his twitter feed, and the guy is just a bully who leads with the anti kiwi vitriol and a lot of the posters follow suit. It's a shame because guys like Barbarian etc appear to be decent blokes.
@akan004 He's the one that does the videos isn't he? He's unhinged.
