Wallabies v Lions II
-
@MajorRage I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and watch it, but I think that's stretching it. He's well into his dive in the still you posted, so it probably depends if there are any head on Aus defenders in front of him when he starts the dive. I think there is at least one, possibly two or three. It's a dangerous thing to do running into a set defense which again is why it's outlawed.
@No-Quarter he was on his knee before the dive.
Actually got no idea what he was trying to achieve.
If the rules as I say above are correct then I think that still shows it was fine.
Must be a ref on here who can clarify the “out of the game” assumption? @nta @antipodean
-
@MajorRage I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and watch it, but I think that's stretching it. He's well into his dive in the still you posted, so it probably depends if there are any head on Aus defenders in front of him when he starts the dive. I think there is at least one, possibly two or three. It's a dangerous thing to do running into a set defense which again is why it's outlawed.
@No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@MajorRage I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and watch it, but I think that's stretching it. He's well into his dive in the still you posted, so it probably depends if there are any head on Aus defenders in front of him when he starts the dive. I think there is at least one, one possibly two or three. It's a dangerous thing to do running into a set defense which again is why it's outlawed.
I think it displays tremendous split second timing and analysis by Sheehan to determine within 0.01 of a second that the defenders were now out of the game and hence he could leap over them without consequence.
-
Pretty good game.
Thought the Morgan cleanout non-penalty was probably the right decision, though I was rooting for the Wallabies. As others have mentioned, the tackle/cleanout situation regarding head contact is a bit of a gamble these days and very annoying. I think most people who are on the fence agree that the less TMO involvement in these kinds of situation, the better, therefore I am OK with the outcome.The Sheehan try irked me a bit, because I think many/most people will feel the way the law is written is not necessarily word for word the way it should be refereed, as I doubt the way Sheehan jumped over players in this particular situation is the kind of "jumping in a try scoring situation" the lawmakers had in mind. Should not be deemed safe play.
Unlucky Wallabies fans. Bombing a 23-5 lead must have felt way more shite than getting pummeled again.
-
Very happy that Morgan didn't get pinged with the loss attributed to Wales.
But wouldn't have been shocked if they had ruled in Australia's favour.
Genge made a massive difference when he came on but was very lucky not be be pinged several times in the scrum
Gleason was very good and in tandem with Valetini could give the Lions all sorts of headaches
I think the wonder try Australia scored in the first half actually hindered not helped them. They'd been driving in to the heart of the Lions prior to that try, tying in defenders and forcing errors and penalties from the BIL
They went away from that after the try and I think that's what gave the BILs a breather and the opportunity to regroup
-
@No-Quarter he was on his knee before the dive.
Actually got no idea what he was trying to achieve.
If the rules as I say above are correct then I think that still shows it was fine.
Must be a ref on here who can clarify the “out of the game” assumption? @nta @antipodean
@MajorRage said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Must be a ref on here who can clarify the “out of the game” assumption?
It's one of those things listed in the preamble bit to the laws. You don't see it ruled on very often and TBH with the new high tackle framework, you're seeing more players try to get low enough to avoid the ire of the ref.
-
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
-
@No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@MajorRage I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and watch it, but I think that's stretching it. He's well into his dive in the still you posted, so it probably depends if there are any head on Aus defenders in front of him when he starts the dive. I think there is at least one, one possibly two or three. It's a dangerous thing to do running into a set defense which again is why it's outlawed.
I think it displays tremendous split second timing and analysis by Sheehan to determine within 0.01 of a second that the defenders were now out of the game and hence he could leap over them without consequence.
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@MajorRage I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and watch it, but I think that's stretching it. He's well into his dive in the still you posted, so it probably depends if there are any head on Aus defenders in front of him when he starts the dive. I think there is at least one, one possibly two or three. It's a dangerous thing to do running into a set defense which again is why it's outlawed.
I think it displays tremendous split second timing and analysis by Sheehan to determine within 0.01 of a second that the defenders were now out of the game and hence he could leap over them without consequence.
I’m not saying he made that decison.
He was always going to dive, clearly. It’s whether by the laws it was legal given the tackler was on his knees.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@MajorRage I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and watch it, but I think that's stretching it. He's well into his dive in the still you posted, so it probably depends if there are any head on Aus defenders in front of him when he starts the dive. I think there is at least one, one possibly two or three. It's a dangerous thing to do running into a set defense which again is why it's outlawed.
I think it displays tremendous split second timing and analysis by Sheehan to determine within 0.01 of a second that the defenders were now out of the game and hence he could leap over them without consequence.
I’m not saying he made that decison.
He was always going to dive, clearly. It’s whether by the laws it was legal given the tackler was on his knees.
@MajorRage I think at best there's a frame or two in it as to whether Slipper has a knee on the ground before Sheehan takes flight.
FWIW Slipper makes no effort to wrap, so that's a penalty.
This probably isn't an answer for the technical question you've posed, but I'd have penalised Sheehan for the dive and on TMO referral possibly reversed the penalty for the no arms tackle attempt.
-
@MajorRage I think at best there's a frame or two in it as to whether Slipper has a knee on the ground before Sheehan takes flight.
FWIW Slipper makes no effort to wrap, so that's a penalty.
This probably isn't an answer for the technical question you've posed, but I'd have penalised Sheehan for the dive and on TMO referral possibly reversed the penalty for the no arms tackle attempt.
@antipodean penalty try was not the outcome I was expecting!
-
As a neural, well done to the Lions and congrats to their fans.
I thought the Wallabies put up an epic fight and for the sake of drama - going to a 3rd test decider - I was hoping they'd done enough.
Some on field calls that are talking points for sure. But that's rugby. We (and I completely include myself in that) tend to focus on one or two calls when the result goes the "wrong way". But largely, for 80 minutes, I thought it was a well refereed game. Some misses, of course, but broadly evenly balanced.So what now for the 3rd test?
Does Andy Farrell give some fringe players a run? Or does he go for the clean sheet? -
As a neural, well done to the Lions and congrats to their fans.
I thought the Wallabies put up an epic fight and for the sake of drama - going to a 3rd test decider - I was hoping they'd done enough.
Some on field calls that are talking points for sure. But that's rugby. We (and I completely include myself in that) tend to focus on one or two calls when the result goes the "wrong way". But largely, for 80 minutes, I thought it was a well refereed game. Some misses, of course, but broadly evenly balanced.So what now for the 3rd test?
Does Andy Farrell give some fringe players a run? Or does he go for the clean sheet? -
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Gee, Aussie sports fans like a big old whinge these days.
Can't they see the Lions won that fair and square? Whatever happened to accepting the official's decision and moving on?
Yeah we never do that on here …
@MajorRage said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Gee, Aussie sports fans like a big old whinge these days.
Can't they see the Lions won that fair and square? Whatever happened to accepting the official's decision and moving on?
Yeah we never do that on here …
Yep some do Major, still no excuse for anyone. It's easy way out for so called fans to blame refs.
-
@Billy-Webb should go for an all Irish starting XV. Maybe make the bench all Scotland and Wales just for shits n giggles.
@Bones said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Billy-Webb should go for an all Irish starting XV. Maybe make the bench all Scotland and Wales just for shits n giggles.
Hahaha. That would ruffle some feathers.
-
I was watching the game with a few mates and we were all a bit pissed off at getting pumped in the first half but I wondered aloud that the intensity and frequency of the carries by Skelton and Valetini would be hard to maintain. Towards the end of the first half, Skelton in particular, had lost a lot of impetus in his carrying. I assume the plan was always to use these two as much as possible and then replace them against a tiring Lions defence. Unfortunately the replacements are several rungs below those two.
Skelton and Valetini were returning from injuries so were never going to go the full 80 mins. Maybe Schmidt had a plan for them to empty the tank but would have hoped for more minutes on the field. As others have said, it wouldn't have been such an issue if their replacements offered similar impact. Glesson did OK but Williams' lack of bulk was an issue - again.
-
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
@gt12 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
I think that decision needs a clarification by World Rugby. I'm fine to chalk the final decision up to a 50/50, 'one of those things' and move on.
But that one to me is a lot more gray when you look at the Laws as they are written. Much like the Boks lineout lift I think it would be good to get an official word on where it sits, because I don't think it helps anyone for that to stay a bit uncertain.
-
I read somewhere that Valetini felt a tweak in his calf at half time, which is why he was subbed.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I read somewhere that Valetini felt a tweak in his calf at half time, which is why he was subbed.
Yes there was definitely something because Valetini certainly wasn’t labouring up until the 40th minute whereas Skelton looked a little weary at about the 35th minute and then was given another 5 after HT.
-
@gt12 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
I think that decision needs a clarification by World Rugby. I'm fine to chalk the final decision up to a 50/50, 'one of those things' and move on.
But that one to me is a lot more gray when you look at the Laws as they are written. Much like the Boks lineout lift I think it would be good to get an official word on where it sits, because I don't think it helps anyone for that to stay a bit uncertain.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@gt12 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
I think that decision needs a clarification by World Rugby. I'm fine to chalk the final decision up to a 50/50, 'one of those things' and move on.
But that one to me is a lot more gray when you look at the Laws as they are written. Much like the Boks lineout lift I think it would be good to get an official word on where it sits, because I don't think it helps anyone for that to stay a bit uncertain.
I can’t see how it is in any way ‘safer’ than the ruling on the PGS try from a few years ago, perhaps there has been a new interpretation but this looks cut and dried to me. I’m still surprised it was allowed to stand.
