B
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
I think Farrells may of been a red actually baabaa,, and probably a yellow to Itoje?
Yeah happy with that outcome too, can see why you'd get there, logically speaking.
@mariner4life Genuinely think NWM is the best player in the competition at the moment. If you held a draft with every player available, he'd be my first pick. The skill set that every team needs.
Plenty of decent on-ballers but only a couple who can move back, move forward, go into the middle and be so impactful everywhere.
@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.
Going to be a great week. Plenty of interesting narratives - can Scheffler get it done outside of the US? Is Rory back? Is Rahm back, or did he ever even leave? Is Xander alive?
Much like at Oakmont, feels relatively open, could be a left field winner. Especially if conditions are tough (forecast is for a bit of rain but not high winds).
I reckon it's a great idea. And looking at that team it makes me really keen to watch, which is frankly more than I've been for the Lions to take on Super teams without their best 5-7 players.
As for tradition, history etc - Australia only has four Super teams. For a full tour you need to provide 5-7 matches beyond Tests. It's not like we have other rugby teams with history and pedigree just knocking around (well you could reform the Rebels but nobody wants that).
Sure we could roll out a Country side like we did in 2013, but the fun of playing amatuers from the bush wears off pretty quickly as the Lions put on 100+. You could do Australia A, but does that really have any more tradition and prestige than the AUNZ concept? Not really.
Between the AUNZ and the Pacifika/Indigenous side next week, I think RA are trying a few things that may evolve into actual traditions that we can continue in years to come.
@MiketheSnow said in 2025 British & Irish Lions tour to Australia:
@Mr-Fish said in 2025 British & Irish Lions tour to Australia:
I actually think Donaldson could be a step up, higher ceiling but also capable of a few brain farts every match. Very rocks and diamonds but might be the type of player that the Wallabies need.
I'd have Lynagh straight in there. He's the future.
He broke his hand in Super QF and hasn't trained since. I don't think you can have him based off that little preparation. Rate him highly when fit.
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
@barbarian said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
One thing that the review system in cricket has really helped with is taking the heat off the umpires. There is so much less scrutiny on them these days. If an umpire gets a call wrong, then the expectation immediately falls on the players to review. If they don't review, then it's much harder to just blame the umpire when the professional players didn't notice either. Then in the scenario where the umpire gets a call wrong and the players don't have any reviews left, then the first comment is they shouldn't have wasted their reviews on calls they got wrong and the umpire got wrong. I think that's been a really good thing overall.
Rugby is a very different sport to cricket though, but some form of onus on the players also making the right call would help, at the moment the assumption is all the players on the field except the ref knew what happened in the moment, and that won't be true at all.
Good God.
If Rugby allowed players to review that might kill the game stone dead. Imagine if Jonny Sexton was still playing ?
The idea being it removes the TMO from intervening, or intervening much less. At the moment the TMO is randomly intervening, causing huge delays in some games where he thinks there's a lot to make calls on.
Little Jonny could blow his only two reviews in the first 10 minutes then bitch and moan about calls against him for the rest of the game, and it'd fall on deaf ears because he wasted his reviews on calls he got wrong.
I just don't think this would work well in practice.
Here's a scenario that happens fairly regularly - ball carrier in tight, carrier 2/3 tacklers over the line, mass of bodies but knocks the ball on slightly before grounding it over the line.
It would be understandable the players might not see this, nor the referee. But the cameras pick it up. I'm not sure it's fair on the defending side to expect them to challenge something they had no way of seeing. So does the TMO intervene, or let a dodgy try stand?
Cricket already lives with this scenario where say the batsmen has faintly edged it, the umpire gives it not out, and the bowling side doesn't review even though the 3rd umpire can see a clear edge on the slow mo and snicko etc. In that scenario, the immediate reaction from fans is they should have reviewed it, not that the 3rd umpire should have intervened even though technically he could have. It puts the onus back on the players as well as the ref, which helps people remember that they are all human out there doing their best.
That's a fair point, although at least in the case of cricket you can't suggest the players weren't able to see/judge for themselves.
Plenty of cases in rugby where something happens where no player would see it - foot in touch, small knock-on etc. Now going back to Mariner's point that maybe we should be happy to live with that, but as he himself acknowledges that's never actually going to happen. The genie is out of the bottle.
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
One thing that the review system in cricket has really helped with is taking the heat off the umpires. There is so much less scrutiny on them these days. If an umpire gets a call wrong, then the expectation immediately falls on the players to review. If they don't review, then it's much harder to just blame the umpire when the professional players didn't notice either. Then in the scenario where the umpire gets a call wrong and the players don't have any reviews left, then the first comment is they shouldn't have wasted their reviews on calls they got wrong and the umpire got wrong. I think that's been a really good thing overall.
Rugby is a very different sport to cricket though, but some form of onus on the players also making the right call would help, at the moment the assumption is all the players on the field except the ref knew what happened in the moment, and that won't be true at all.
Good God.
If Rugby allowed players to review that might kill the game stone dead. Imagine if Jonny Sexton was still playing ?
The idea being it removes the TMO from intervening, or intervening much less. At the moment the TMO is randomly intervening, causing huge delays in some games where he thinks there's a lot to make calls on.
Little Jonny could blow his only two reviews in the first 10 minutes then bitch and moan about calls against him for the rest of the game, and it'd fall on deaf ears because he wasted his reviews on calls he got wrong.
I just don't think this would work well in practice.
Here's a scenario that happens fairly regularly - ball carrier in tight, carrier 2/3 tacklers over the line, mass of bodies but knocks the ball on slightly before grounding it over the line.
It would be understandable the players might not see this, nor the referee. But the cameras pick it up. I'm not sure it's fair on the defending side to expect them to challenge something they had no way of seeing. So does the TMO intervene, or let a dodgy try stand?
The perils of being a big Melbourne club. Great to get the attention when it's going well, but very hard to fail quietly every Thursday or Friday night.
I don't think they are actually that bad. Been in most games this year. Just lack that execution, and if/when they get it I think a lot will come from that. Confidence being the main one.
