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
@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.
-
Question on laws from those in the know. Do they actually say you can't make contact above shoulders? Just in last ruck/breakdown Tizzano actually had his neck and head lower that his shoulders. :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: Ok just taking piss , but hey..........
-
Question on laws from those in the know. Do they actually say you can't make contact above shoulders? Just in last ruck/breakdown Tizzano actually had his neck and head lower that his shoulders. :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: Ok just taking piss , but hey..........
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Question on laws from those in the know. Do they actually say you can't make contact above shoulders? Just in last ruck/breakdown Tizzano actually had his neck and head lower that his shoulders. :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: Ok just taking piss , but hey..........
Was a tackle not a ruck. His head was level with his hips but when he was hit by Morgan he folded due to the impact on his neck.
To my knowledge there is no requirement by a jackaler at a tackle to have their head level or above their hips but as soon as someone from the opposition binds to them to form a ruck then they would need to instantly adjust their height.
The laws are f'ed and contradictory. If it were a computer program it would be a bug.
People say that those kind of clean outs were happening a lot throughout the game and I think that's true. I also think a lot of the cleanouts were dodgy by the Lions all series. Charging in and no bind.
-
There’s a very easy way to sort it out and it has precedent
When I started playing rugby in the 70s we did drills every training session to prepare yourself for the match situation
As soon as you hit the deck you let go of the ball and placed both your hands on your head to protect you from the inevitable trampling that would follow
World Rugby are not going to bring back rucking but if they mandated that the ball carrier soon as the hips hit the deck has to either pass the ball instantly and/or release the ball and not handle & place it like he’s a Vegas dealer then the contest for the ball becomes cleaner and quicker
Invariably the jackler will win possession but then is fair game for a legal hit/tackle from the opposition
Anyone other than the tackled player off their feet then it’s an automatic penalty, regardless of whether it’s deliberate or accidental
Defence coaches are already training their players to commit to some breakdowns and not others
This is a skills and timing issue which can be learned
And the better players and coaches learn very fucking quickly
-
Anyone should, whether they have skin in the game or not, accept that both instances, whilst contentious, were subject fine margins and interpretation and as such, liable to go either way. To a degree this is the essence of sport, but here it is not helped by the ambiguity of the laws leaving a much greater emphasis on that interpretation thing. We've all been subject to 50/50 decisions and been on the losing end of it.
Grow a pair of bollocks and move on to the next game.
-
The problem is the interpretation of "foul play" changes from week to week, ref to ref and TMO to TMO.
Meaning what is penalisable or worse one week isn't the next, that creates huge issues for the game.
I think if that had been called back and a penalty awarded we'd still be having this same conversation about "that moment"
-
The problem is the interpretation of "foul play" changes from week to week, ref to ref and TMO to TMO.
Meaning what is penalisable or worse one week isn't the next, that creates huge issues for the game.
I think if that had been called back and a penalty awarded we'd still be having this same conversation about "that moment"
Spot on.
-
There’s a very easy way to sort it out and it has precedent
When I started playing rugby in the 70s we did drills every training session to prepare yourself for the match situation
As soon as you hit the deck you let go of the ball and placed both your hands on your head to protect you from the inevitable trampling that would follow
World Rugby are not going to bring back rucking but if they mandated that the ball carrier soon as the hips hit the deck has to either pass the ball instantly and/or release the ball and not handle & place it like he’s a Vegas dealer then the contest for the ball becomes cleaner and quicker
Invariably the jackler will win possession but then is fair game for a legal hit/tackle from the opposition
Anyone other than the tackled player off their feet then it’s an automatic penalty, regardless of whether it’s deliberate or accidental
Defence coaches are already training their players to commit to some breakdowns and not others
This is a skills and timing issue which can be learned
And the better players and coaches learn very fucking quickly
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions II:
There’s a very easy way to sort it out and it has precedent
When I started playing rugby in the 70s we did drills every training session to prepare yourself for the match situation
As soon as you hit the deck you let go of the ball and placed both your hands on your head to protect you from the inevitable trampling that would follow
World Rugby are not going to bring back rucking but if they mandated that the ball carrier soon as the hips hit the deck has to either pass the ball instantly and/or release the ball and not handle & place it like he’s a Vegas dealer then the contest for the ball becomes cleaner and quicker
Invariably the jackler will win possession but then is fair game for a legal hit/tackle from the opposition
Anyone other than the tackled player off their feet then it’s an automatic penalty, regardless of whether it’s deliberate or accidental
Defence coaches are already training their players to commit to some breakdowns and not others
This is a skills and timing issue which can be learned
And the better players and coaches learn very fucking quickly
Amen, Mike in rugby you meant to be out of game when you off feet. I think they need to be a little harder on passing off ground too. Like you when I played in late 60s and 70s, when you hit ground you let the ball go, and got out of way.
-
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Rugby must be an utterly baffling sport to the occasional viewer.
I agree sparky, and strange as it sounds, I think it one of the appeals of the game.
I perhaps like the fact it's not simple, though I can understand that others prefer simpler game. -
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Rugby must be an utterly baffling sport to the occasional viewer.
I agree sparky, and strange as it sounds, I think it one of the appeals of the game.
I perhaps like the fact it's not simple, though I can understand that others prefer simpler game.@Dan54 It's chess with 30 people. It's warfare without the gunpowder.
It's game I love. It's the Game of Our Lives.
But yeah, I get that in an era when people like their entertainment simple, accessible and undemanding that other sports might suit our times better.
-
@Dan54 It's chess with 30 people. It's warfare without the gunpowder.
It's game I love. It's the Game of Our Lives.
But yeah, I get that in an era when people like their entertainment simple, accessible and undemanding that other sports might suit our times better.
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 It's chess with 30 people. It's warfare without the gunpowder.
It's game I love. It's the Game of Our Lives.
But yeah, I get that in an era when people like their entertainment simple, accessible and undemanding that other sports might suit our times better.
Perhaps not our times mate, just some people in our times.:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:
-
No skin in the game for TAS this time, maybe an axe to grind - but don't we all with the laws and their interpretation
Brought up some very interesting points and opinions, especially Australian captain asking the ref to look at the wrong thing
As I mentioned earlier, could easily see both incidents reversed in favour of Australia on any other day
-
No skin in the game for TAS this time, maybe an axe to grind - but don't we all with the laws and their interpretation
Brought up some very interesting points and opinions, especially Australian captain asking the ref to look at the wrong thing
As I mentioned earlier, could easily see both incidents reversed in favour of Australia on any other day
@MiketheSnow My two cents, there is enough wrong with the Sheehan try that it should not have been given and I think the ref has set a dangerous precedent.
The decision on the Morgan clear out before the Keenan try is consistent with the way the international game has been officiated for the last decade or so. I think if it's even 50:50 then it's attacking team advantage. We might see something similar go another way in another game and it would have been good for the series as a whole if a penalty had been given, but that is not the referee's concern. He got that one right IMHO.
