NH International Rugby
-
So given that the 6 nations is now over*, who's in your Lions XV (or XXIII, if you prefer)?
*ok, there's one postponed match left, but that doesn't involve teams who contribute players to the Lions
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
So given that the 6 nations is now over*, who's in your Lions XV (or XXIII, if you prefer)?
*ok, there's one postponed match left, but that doesn't involve teams who contribute players to the Lions
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/3619/2021-british-irish-lions-tour-to-sa/139
-
Watched the last 20 back
Pivac got some of his substitutions and timing of the substitutions wrong this week, which ultimately cost us the match.
@mikethesnow said in NH International Rugby:
Watched the last 20 back
Pivac got some of his substitutions and timing of the substitutions wrong this week, which ultimately cost us the match.
Yeah agree. I've grown accustomed to Wales being very good at managing the last quarter - fitness, belief, discipline, smart substitutions - which should have been enough to see us home yesterday. Two critical penalties conceded by players who should have fresh legs and fresh heads (Hill and Haloholo)
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
So given that the 6 nations is now over*, who's in your Lions XV (or XXIII, if you prefer)?
*ok, there's one postponed match left, but that doesn't involve teams who contribute players to the Lions
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/3619/2021-british-irish-lions-tour-to-sa/139
@mikethesnow said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
So given that the 6 nations is now over*, who's in your Lions XV (or XXIII, if you prefer)?
*ok, there's one postponed match left, but that doesn't involve teams who contribute players to the Lions
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/3619/2021-british-irish-lions-tour-to-sa/139
Ah, thanks. Although if they relocate it to UK&I then the tour will technically be northern hemisphere rugby...
-
Fabien Galthue:
"I don't think he deserves a heavy sanction. There is clearly no contact, or if there is it's very limited. It's absolutely not voluntary. If you really watch the reaction of the Welsh players, they specialise in making the opponents get red cards. Their body language is quite clear. I hope the referee takes that into consideration."
So the villain here is not Willemse, or even the ref or the TMO, it's Wynne Jones for interfering with Willemse's thumb with his eyeball.
What an absolute tool.
-
Fabien Galthue:
"I don't think he deserves a heavy sanction. There is clearly no contact, or if there is it's very limited. It's absolutely not voluntary. If you really watch the reaction of the Welsh players, they specialise in making the opponents get red cards. Their body language is quite clear. I hope the referee takes that into consideration."
So the villain here is not Willemse, or even the ref or the TMO, it's Wynne Jones for interfering with Willemse's thumb with his eyeball.
What an absolute tool.
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
Fabien Galthue:
"I don't think he deserves a heavy sanction. There is clearly no contact, or if there is it's very limited. It's absolutely not voluntary. If you really watch the reaction of the Welsh players, they specialise in making the opponents get red cards. Their body language is quite clear. I hope the referee takes that into consideration."
So the villain here is not Willemse, or even the ref or the TMO, it's Wynne Jones for interfering with Willemse's thumb with his eyeball.
What an absolute tool.
No need to react, pull a face and throw your arms up just because you have something stuck in your eye pulling you over. Get on with the game, players have gone soft.
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
BBC are talking about points differential. That is what it's been in the past.
Think they changed it a few years back to points diff.
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
BBC are talking about points differential. That is what it's been in the past.
Think they changed it a few years back to points diff.
It's never been based on head to head result.
Up until 1993, if teams were level on games won they would share the title. Maybe it was considered unseemly to win by a big margin? 1973 had the crazy situation of a five-way tie - all teams won their two home matches and lost both away games.
1994 was the first year they used points difference and also the first time it decided the outcome. Wales won their first 3 and were going for the Slam, to end a 16 year drought (which seemed like a long time at the time). England had won two but lost to Ireland. So when then played in the final match, England needed to win by 16(?) to become champions.
In the end they won by I think 7. So we had the weird situation of Wales losing the game and missing out on the grand slam, but also becoming 5 Nations Champions.
Bonus points were introduced in 2017, but we haven't had a title decided by them yet. (Could happen this year if France win without a bonus point on Friday)
-
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
BBC are talking about points differential. That is what it's been in the past.
Think they changed it a few years back to points diff.
It's never been based on head to head result.
Up until 1993, if teams were level on games won they would share the title. Maybe it was considered unseemly to win by a big margin? 1973 had the crazy situation of a five-way tie - all teams won their two home matches and lost both away games.
1994 was the first year they used points difference and also the first time it decided the outcome. Wales won their first 3 and were going for the Slam, to end a 16 year drought (which seemed like a long time at the time). England had won two but lost to Ireland. So when then played in the final match, England needed to win by 16(?) to become champions.
In the end they won by I think 7. So we had the weird situation of Wales losing the game and missing out on the grand slam, but also becoming 5 Nations Champions.
Bonus points were introduced in 2017, but we haven't had a title decided by them yet. (Could happen this year if France win without a bonus point on Friday)
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
BBC are talking about points differential. That is what it's been in the past.
Think they changed it a few years back to points diff.
It's never been based on head to head result.
Up until 1993, if teams were level on games won they would share the title. Maybe it was considered unseemly to win by a big margin? 1973 had the crazy situation of a five-way tie - all teams won their two home matches and lost both away games.
1994 was the first year they used points difference and also the first time it decided the outcome. Wales won their first 3 and were going for the Slam, to end a 16 year drought (which seemed like a long time at the time). England had won two but lost to Ireland. So when then played in the final match, England needed to win by 16(?) to become champions.
In the end they won by I think 7. So we had the weird situation of Wales losing the game and missing out on the grand slam, but also becoming 5 Nations Champions.
Bonus points were introduced in 2017, but we haven't had a title decided by them yet. (Could happen this year if France win without a bonus point on Friday)
And France will snatch the title from Wayne Pivac's side if they beat Scotland with a winning margin of 21 points or more in a bonus-point win.
Victory by 21 points or more, without the bonus point for scoring four tries, would not be enough for France to lift the trophy.
Should France secure a bonus-point win with a 20-point winning margin, they would be separated from Wales on tries scored across the campaign.
Wales have scored 20 tries to France's 15.
If France score five tries and beat Scotland by 20 points, the title would be shared for the first time since 1988.
A bonus-point victory for Scotland would ensure them second place in the table behind Wales.
-
surely Wales have this in the bag. The Scots aren't shit enough to give up the kind of kicking that France needs to give them to win it.
The Eddie Jones cycle is in full effect, he's an incredible coach, but something about his methods always results in this, where the team and the results fall away, and markedly.
Italy are the best illustration that access to elite competitions does not equate to improved performance. They are getting worse every year. They have fallen a mile behind 5th.
-
@mikethesnow Hogg/Williams/Davies/Rees-Zammit/Henshaw/Sexton/Murray/Faletau/Stander/Connors/WynJones/Beirne/Furlong/Owens/Sutherland.
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Hogg/Williams/Davies/Rees-Zammit/Henshaw/Sexton/Murray/Faletau/Stander/Connors/WynJones/Beirne/Furlong/Owens/Sutherland.
A bit concerning when Planet Rugby has same backs and six out of eight forwards: https://www.planetrugby.com/a-potential-british-irish-lions-xv-to-face-south-africa/ !
-
@machpants said in NH International Rugby:
@junior as always, you're a pro player, don't be there. Taking it to ridiculous extremes, if the only way you can stop a try being scored is to kick the person in the head, do you do it? If you can't take within the laws, don't tackle. I liked it cos it takes interpretation out. Can't roll away? Tough shit, make your tackle completion so you end on the correct side. Can't get low enough to tackle without head contact? Pull out of the tackle
taking it to your extreme, remember you can't tackle a player in the air. So, what about between strides - if you get your timing wrong, you hit someone wihtout feet on the ground ... and that's on you right?
The tackle laws are a bit of a lottery. It's annoying seeing players making a fair bit of an effort, and still copping reds. Aki today, Ofa last year. It's damn annoying. If the objective is safety, there needs to be some onus on the carrying player to either stay high, or not lead with the head
@nzzp said in NH International Rugby:
@machpants said in NH International Rugby:
@junior as always, you're a pro player, don't be there. Taking it to ridiculous extremes, if the only way you can stop a try being scored is to kick the person in the head, do you do it? If you can't take within the laws, don't tackle. I liked it cos it takes interpretation out. Can't roll away? Tough shit, make your tackle completion so you end on the correct side. Can't get low enough to tackle without head contact? Pull out of the tackle
taking it to your extreme, remember you can't tackle a player in the air. So, what about between strides - if you get your timing wrong, you hit someone wihtout feet on the ground ... and that's on you right?
The tackle laws are a bit of a lottery. It's annoying seeing players making a fair bit of an effort, and still copping reds. Aki today, Ofa last year. It's damn annoying. If the objective is safety, there needs to be some onus on the carrying player to either stay high, or not lead with the head
my first impression of that red was "oh bullshit!!!"
but
Aki doesn't actually get that low, both guys are upright, because Aki wants to make a solid ball-and-all hit. Tackled player contributes, but not hugely. If you are trying to change behaviors, then this is the right track. Guys aren't learning the lesson, why are they not copping heat for it? Aim for below the ball.
I'm coming around to the idea that the "what else is he supposed to do there?" crowd are actually wrong. You are too slow to the cleanout so your "only option" is full pelt in to him? so what, you should have been earlier, turnover is good. You aimed for the chest and he dipped in to you? so what, should have aimed at the waist (if there is an offload, even better). We might even get the benefit of a more open game less dominated by enormous units pounding the fuck out of each other.
And if that means i have to put up the red cards, so be it.
-
@nzzp said in NH International Rugby:
@machpants said in NH International Rugby:
@junior as always, you're a pro player, don't be there. Taking it to ridiculous extremes, if the only way you can stop a try being scored is to kick the person in the head, do you do it? If you can't take within the laws, don't tackle. I liked it cos it takes interpretation out. Can't roll away? Tough shit, make your tackle completion so you end on the correct side. Can't get low enough to tackle without head contact? Pull out of the tackle
taking it to your extreme, remember you can't tackle a player in the air. So, what about between strides - if you get your timing wrong, you hit someone wihtout feet on the ground ... and that's on you right?
The tackle laws are a bit of a lottery. It's annoying seeing players making a fair bit of an effort, and still copping reds. Aki today, Ofa last year. It's damn annoying. If the objective is safety, there needs to be some onus on the carrying player to either stay high, or not lead with the head
my first impression of that red was "oh bullshit!!!"
but
Aki doesn't actually get that low, both guys are upright, because Aki wants to make a solid ball-and-all hit. Tackled player contributes, but not hugely. If you are trying to change behaviors, then this is the right track. Guys aren't learning the lesson, why are they not copping heat for it? Aim for below the ball.
I'm coming around to the idea that the "what else is he supposed to do there?" crowd are actually wrong. You are too slow to the cleanout so your "only option" is full pelt in to him? so what, you should have been earlier, turnover is good. You aimed for the chest and he dipped in to you? so what, should have aimed at the waist (if there is an offload, even better). We might even get the benefit of a more open game less dominated by enormous units pounding the fuck out of each other.
And if that means i have to put up the red cards, so be it.
@mariner4life good comment. I think that if that's the outcome you are looking for, you have to change the laws about what is acceptable and what is not. Right now those tackles are rewarded, and if they go slightly wrong it's a red. So there is an element of risk/reward for people to trade off in training and the game.
For me, one key issue is that we're pinging the outcome (head contact), and not really trying hard to make that a super unusual situation that is avoidable.
So, how about this. We trade off in both directions. Take the front on tackle largely out of the game (maybe with the exception of the tryline), and limit tackles to under the nipple line. BUT - give something back - once the tackled player is down (knee or body), the offload is out of the game. Gone. You can place it, but you can't pop it up. Means that you can still have a decent game without massively advantaging the attacking players, and there needs to be some seriously good reason to try those ball and all tackles
-
@mariner4life good comment. I think that if that's the outcome you are looking for, you have to change the laws about what is acceptable and what is not. Right now those tackles are rewarded, and if they go slightly wrong it's a red. So there is an element of risk/reward for people to trade off in training and the game.
For me, one key issue is that we're pinging the outcome (head contact), and not really trying hard to make that a super unusual situation that is avoidable.
So, how about this. We trade off in both directions. Take the front on tackle largely out of the game (maybe with the exception of the tryline), and limit tackles to under the nipple line. BUT - give something back - once the tackled player is down (knee or body), the offload is out of the game. Gone. You can place it, but you can't pop it up. Means that you can still have a decent game without massively advantaging the attacking players, and there needs to be some seriously good reason to try those ball and all tackles
@nzzp said in NH International Rugby:
@mariner4life good comment. I think that if that's the outcome you are looking for, you have to change the laws about what is acceptable and what is not. Right now those tackles are rewarded, and if they go slightly wrong it's a red. So there is an element of risk/reward for people to trade off in training and the game.
For me, one key issue is that we're pinging the outcome (head contact), and not really trying hard to make that a super unusual situation that is avoidable.
So, how about this. We trade off in both directions. Take the front on tackle largely out of the game (maybe with the exception of the tryline), and limit tackles to under the nipple line. BUT - give something back - once the tackled player is down (knee or body), the offload is out of the game. Gone. You can place it, but you can't pop it up. Means that you can still have a decent game without massively advantaging the attacking players, and there needs to be some seriously good reason to try those ball and all tackles
Definitely. Popping it up off the ground drives me crazy. For starters it just plain bullshit that goes against the very essence of rugby, for seconds it encourages the tackling techniques they want to eradicate.
I posted this last year btw, that's why I think it is a good idea.
I still find the sport unwatchable at the moment. I'm giving me a couple years of a sky-less break. Until these dumbarse lawmakers sort it out and the dumbarse players and coaches adapt.
-
@mariner4life good comment. I think that if that's the outcome you are looking for, you have to change the laws about what is acceptable and what is not. Right now those tackles are rewarded, and if they go slightly wrong it's a red. So there is an element of risk/reward for people to trade off in training and the game.
For me, one key issue is that we're pinging the outcome (head contact), and not really trying hard to make that a super unusual situation that is avoidable.
So, how about this. We trade off in both directions. Take the front on tackle largely out of the game (maybe with the exception of the tryline), and limit tackles to under the nipple line. BUT - give something back - once the tackled player is down (knee or body), the offload is out of the game. Gone. You can place it, but you can't pop it up. Means that you can still have a decent game without massively advantaging the attacking players, and there needs to be some seriously good reason to try those ball and all tackles
@nzzp i think that is an unecessary adjustment to thinking. The defense already has so many advantages, why give them another
the front on tackle is king because we have allowed rugby, most especially at the very top level, to be dominated by the gain line. Lose the gain line, lose the game. And what's more, there is only one way to get over the gain line now too. Raw power. Generating momentum with width has never been harder.
If we get the added benefit of less concussions, AND more ways to attack, then i am all for it to be honest.
-
@nzzp said in NH International Rugby:
@mariner4life good comment. I think that if that's the outcome you are looking for, you have to change the laws about what is acceptable and what is not. Right now those tackles are rewarded, and if they go slightly wrong it's a red. So there is an element of risk/reward for people to trade off in training and the game.
For me, one key issue is that we're pinging the outcome (head contact), and not really trying hard to make that a super unusual situation that is avoidable.
So, how about this. We trade off in both directions. Take the front on tackle largely out of the game (maybe with the exception of the tryline), and limit tackles to under the nipple line. BUT - give something back - once the tackled player is down (knee or body), the offload is out of the game. Gone. You can place it, but you can't pop it up. Means that you can still have a decent game without massively advantaging the attacking players, and there needs to be some seriously good reason to try those ball and all tackles
Definitely. Popping it up off the ground drives me crazy. For starters it just plain bullshit that goes against the very essence of rugby, for seconds it encourages the tackling techniques they want to eradicate.
I posted this last year btw, that's why I think it is a good idea.
I still find the sport unwatchable at the moment. I'm giving me a couple years of a sky-less break. Until these dumbarse lawmakers sort it out and the dumbarse players and coaches adapt.
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
-
@nzzp said in NH International Rugby:
@machpants said in NH International Rugby:
@junior as always, you're a pro player, don't be there. Taking it to ridiculous extremes, if the only way you can stop a try being scored is to kick the person in the head, do you do it? If you can't take within the laws, don't tackle. I liked it cos it takes interpretation out. Can't roll away? Tough shit, make your tackle completion so you end on the correct side. Can't get low enough to tackle without head contact? Pull out of the tackle
taking it to your extreme, remember you can't tackle a player in the air. So, what about between strides - if you get your timing wrong, you hit someone wihtout feet on the ground ... and that's on you right?
The tackle laws are a bit of a lottery. It's annoying seeing players making a fair bit of an effort, and still copping reds. Aki today, Ofa last year. It's damn annoying. If the objective is safety, there needs to be some onus on the carrying player to either stay high, or not lead with the head
my first impression of that red was "oh bullshit!!!"
but
Aki doesn't actually get that low, both guys are upright, because Aki wants to make a solid ball-and-all hit. Tackled player contributes, but not hugely. If you are trying to change behaviors, then this is the right track. Guys aren't learning the lesson, why are they not copping heat for it? Aim for below the ball.
I'm coming around to the idea that the "what else is he supposed to do there?" crowd are actually wrong. You are too slow to the cleanout so your "only option" is full pelt in to him? so what, you should have been earlier, turnover is good. You aimed for the chest and he dipped in to you? so what, should have aimed at the waist (if there is an offload, even better). We might even get the benefit of a more open game less dominated by enormous units pounding the fuck out of each other.
And if that means i have to put up the red cards, so be it.
I don't really have a problem with the Aki red, he hits hit well about the ball and make direct head contact. I think you are bang on about defenders needing to just be lower. There are many instances in a game where a player might be able to make an illegal tackle (e.g. clothesline the guy who stepped you) but just don't do it anymore because it will be an automatic yellow (possible red). I think you are right that to get that change, we need to get really hard on it.
One tricky thing is when players lead with their head. On that one, I'm not sure at all - you see this whenever someone is trying to drive over the line - pretty much every tackle makes head contact - what do we do in that situation?
-
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
@mariner4life said in NH International Rugby:
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
It's not that common, but it's a bit of joke how long it often takes. Having said that, right now I'm with you - apart from mauls I want as many advantages for the attacking player as there can be.
-
I don't really have a problem with the Aki red, he hits hit well about the ball and make direct head contact. I think you are bang on about defenders needing to just be lower. There are many instances in a game where a player might be able to make an illegal tackle (e.g. clothesline the guy who stepped you) but just don't do it anymore because it will be an automatic yellow (possible red). I think you are right that to get that change, we need to get really hard on it.
One tricky thing is when players lead with their head. On that one, I'm not sure at all - you see this whenever someone is trying to drive over the line - pretty much every tackle makes head contact - what do we do in that situation?
@gt12 if AFL umpires can work out the difference, i reckon a rugby ref can
i got done for a high shot against a guy bent at the waist 15 years ago (it absolutely was, and i absolutely meant it), so this is not something new the ref has to work out
Rugby is a game of constantly moving parts, we can't make any change if we try and take out every single possible variable.
I would also make the point that the repeat pick and go on the line is a thing right now even with the new guidelines, and i haven't seen too many called red, so there must be a mechanism in place.
-
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
@mariner4life said in NH International Rugby:
@rapido can i ask why? and which game you watched that had so many it became an issue for me? i barely see any of them.
Any time I see a try with a pop off the ground, I inwardly groan and wonder why the game hates defenders. I've even seen a 10 metre sideways 'pop' directly to a wide player who runs in the try (in my fuzzy memory I am seeing an Otago FIjian winger in this memory). It's a 'pass' Trapper Loveridge would have been proud of. A guy has done a perfectly text book tackle and his reward is for the ball carrier to hold onto it like he's still actually in play and chose who he passes/pops to. It's horseshit.
The first man to a breakdown should decide how the play is to unfold, not the numpty who was useless enough to get tackled with the ball and is out of the game until he retains his feet.
I know there was a time in the late 70s when this was legal. E.g. the Hika Reid try at Cardiff 1980. It was one of the best televised test tries in history up to that point and would get replayed quite a bit when I was a kid, But as this was totally illegal about a year later and from when I learnt the game, this always jarred as a weird try.
