Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | ... | 642

6744 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020227 22-May-2018 10:24

If All Blacks are selected on form, how was Nehe Milner-Skudder chosen ahead of Ben Lam? Maybe because he can play fullback as well? But so can Beauden Barrett and Damian McKenzie. And if they need a big Fullback, then Jordie Barrett is your man. Ben Smith being the obvious first choice, able to play wing as well.
Maybe Lam will be a 'work on' in the end of year tour.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2020229 22-May-2018 10:26

networkn:

Word from who exactly? The competition in the air was reviewed and determined to be fair. Both players left the ground and were 100% focused on the ball. The collision was a consequence of the competition. The only way to mitigate the risk is to remove in the air taking of the ball, something we are unlikely to see. In your opinion how would you have resolved this situation? Why did Duffie have greater "rights" to the ball than Mataele?

I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that 100% chance of the Blues beating the Crusaders off 1 guy in the bin for 10 minutes. Possible of course, but many teams have still won despite a 1 man disadvantage for 10 minutes.

Reviewed by Glen Jackson; someone with a pretty poor record when it comes to officiating Auckland games.

And sorry, but there was no way he was in contest for that ball *without* smashing into a Blues player in the air. He was 100% reliant on colliding with someone to stay under where the ball fell; if there wasn't a Blues player there he would have sailed miles past it. You have to actually to be a position to contest the ball in order for it to be a fair contest. And he wasn't going to be able to do that without taking a player out in the air.

I guess I'd be more rational if the Blues hadn't been carded for less in this season.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020233 22-May-2018 10:28

Hammerer:

It would be nice to hear such positive comments, in general, about the Hurricanes as you make about the Crusaders.

Beauden Barrett's running game has been very good this season like every other he's played in. Though if you only look at the last two or three matches then you might think that he was performing worse. And his running game is not just making breaks but often about making space for other players.

Don't get all sensitive. Go and read back pages and pages, I make positive comments about other teams players all the time, just as I do make critical comments of Crusaders players all the time.

I didn't say BB wasn't playing well, but he is not breaking the line at will like he was last season. I don't think his running game has been as good as the prior 2 seasons. You can disagree if you wish.

I have made comments about the backline of the Hurricanes multiple times and how well they have been playing. I've said they are probably the best backline in the SR.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020235 22-May-2018 10:34

Dingbatt: If All Blacks are selected on form, how was Nehe Milner-Skudder chosen ahead of Ben Lam? Maybe because he can play fullback as well? But so can Beauden Barrett and Damian McKenzie. And if they need a big Fullback, then Jordie Barrett is your man. Ben Smith being the obvious first choice, able to play wing as well.
Maybe Lam will be a 'work on' in the end of year tour.

I don't think Lam is out of the picture. There simply isn't room for every good player and some players are going to be disappointed for sure. I agree specialist players probably end up slightly disadvantaged over multi-positional ones.

NMS is there because you don't lose your place in the AB's because of injury. If his form isn't good enough, then he will be given some work on's and pushed down the pecking order.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020240 22-May-2018 10:44

GV27:

networkn:

Word from who exactly? The competition in the air was reviewed and determined to be fair. Both players left the ground and were 100% focused on the ball. The collision was a consequence of the competition. The only way to mitigate the risk is to remove in the air taking of the ball, something we are unlikely to see. In your opinion how would you have resolved this situation? Why did Duffie have greater "rights" to the ball than Mataele?

I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that 100% chance of the Blues beating the Crusaders off 1 guy in the bin for 10 minutes. Possible of course, but many teams have still won despite a 1 man disadvantage for 10 minutes.

Reviewed by Glen Jackson; someone with a pretty poor record when it comes to officiating Auckland games.

And sorry, but there was no way he was in contest for that ball *without* smashing into a Blues player in the air. He was 100% reliant on colliding with someone to stay under where the ball fell; if there wasn't a Blues player there he would have sailed miles past it. You have to actually to be a position to contest the ball in order for it to be a fair contest. And he wasn't going to be able to do that without taking a player out in the air.

I guess I'd be more rational if the Blues hadn't been carded for less in this season.

I'll rewatch the video, but I didn't see that. I felt Mataele would have just extended his arms to catch it.

Don't forget the TMO is also involved, so even with your claim of Jackson being biased, which seems a tad over the top to me, the TMO agreed with Jackson on the events.

If both players had collided but both landed on their feet, it would likely not have even been looked at.

Dingbatt

6744 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020243 22-May-2018 10:52

GV27:
networkn:

Word from who exactly? The competition in the air was reviewed and determined to be fair. Both players left the ground and were 100% focused on the ball. The collision was a consequence of the competition. The only way to mitigate the risk is to remove in the air taking of the ball, something we are unlikely to see. In your opinion how would you have resolved this situation? Why did Duffie have greater "rights" to the ball than Mataele?

I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that 100% chance of the Blues beating the Crusaders off 1 guy in the bin for 10 minutes. Possible of course, but many teams have still won despite a 1 man disadvantage for 10 minutes.

Reviewed by Glen Jackson; someone with a pretty poor record when it comes to officiating Auckland games.

And sorry, but there was no way he was in contest for that ball *without* smashing into a Blues player in the air. He was 100% reliant on colliding with someone to stay under where the ball fell; if there wasn't a Blues player there he would have sailed miles past it. You have to actually to be a position to contest the ball in order for it to be a fair contest. And he wasn't going to be able to do that without taking a player out in the air.

I guess I'd be more rational if the Blues hadn't been carded for less in this season.

I would love to be able to check what Mataele was looking at just before he looked up and jumped for the ball. That is what sunk Nabura in the red card against the Warratahs, he is clearly looking at the Warratahs player and sticks his sprigs up. So looking up and jumping a bit, but still impacting the other player below his centre of gravity so he spins and lands head first is not safe play. Yellow cards have indeed been given for less this season. And the Crusaders quite often are the beneficiaries.
Can't remember now if that incident was before or after Franks' contact with Parson's head. Direct contact with the head is a red card these days, I don't care if there has been a set piece since. That is a technicality that makes a mockery of getting tough on foul play. If I recall correctly the set piece they used as an excuse was the lineout that Parsons couldn't participate in because he was off for an HIA!
My point is the Crusaders should have been down to 14 men for the rest of the game. And if the Duffie incident was after that they would have been down to 13.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020244 22-May-2018 10:57

I would love to be able to check what Mataele was looking at just before he looked up and jumped for the ball. That is what sunk Nabura in the red card against the Warratahs, he is clearly looking at the Warratahs player and sticks his sprigs up. So looking up and jumping a bit, but still impacting the other player below his centre of gravity so he spins and lands head first is not safe play. Yellow cards have indeed been given for less this season. And the Crusaders quite often are the beneficiaries.
Can't remember now if that incident was before or after Franks' contact with Parson's head. Direct contact with the head is a red card these days, I don't care if there has been a set piece since. That is a technicality that makes a mockery of getting tough on foul play. If I recall correctly the set piece they used as an excuse was the lineout that Parsons couldn't participate in because he was off for an HIA!
My point is the Crusaders should have been down to 14 men for the rest of the game. And if the Duffie incident was after that they would have been down to 13.

In the replays, it's pretty obvious both players are looking at the ball (Faces skyward). It was even talked during the review (IIRC) and was the reason it was decided there wasn't an issue.

There seems to be increasing scrutiny over the air competitions, and it's done to make the game safer, but it's a lottery at the best of time when both players go into the air. The only real way to deal to it, is to remove aerial competition altogether.

Hatch

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Hatch (affiliate link).

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020252 22-May-2018 11:12

networkn:

Hammerer:

It would be nice to hear such positive comments, in general, about the Hurricanes as you make about the Crusaders.

Beauden Barrett's running game has been very good this season like every other he's played in. Though if you only look at the last two or three matches then you might think that he was performing worse. And his running game is not just making breaks but often about making space for other players.

Don't get all sensitive. Go and read back pages and pages, I make positive comments about other teams players all the time, just as I do make critical comments of Crusaders players all the time.

I didn't say BB wasn't playing well, but he is not breaking the line at will like he was last season. I don't think his running game has been as good as the prior 2 seasons. You can disagree if you wish.

I have made comments about the backline of the Hurricanes multiple times and how well they have been playing. I've said they are probably the best backline in the SR.

I understand that you think that you're being evenhanded in a comparison of your comments about the Crusaders and Hurricanes (and other teams) but that's not how it reads to me. I read them as "damning with faint praise" because it seems like there is usually an implied or clear put down coming along with the praise. So when I'm being sensitive, it is a sensitivity that has developed in this topic.

I don't hear you comment about potential forward passes from the Crusaders in their close win games but I did hear you comment about this for the Hurricanes. If it were the Crusaders winning that game then I'd be very certain that you wouldn't comment on potential forward passes. You'd be talking about more important stuff like the winning team dominating territory and possession, how the losing team were only in it at the end because of a couple of excellent tries against the run of play, and how the officials missed some of the losing team's infringements, e.g. while defending on their own try line.

I didn't say that you said "BB wasn't playing well". I said that "Beauden Barrett's running game has been very good this season (etc.)" to address your comment "I am not sure his running is quite as good this year." You just seemed to be looking at the last few games rather than the year to date.

I was there at the game and it was one of the least interesting games I've watched there. The most exciting tries were from the Reds. The biggest error was Ben Lam's dropped ball at the try line when he could easily have held on with both hands - one of his several mistakes this season which are probably enough to keep him out of the All Blacks.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2020254 22-May-2018 11:13

networkn:

In the replays, it's pretty obvious both players are looking at the ball (Faces skyward). It was even talked during the review (IIRC) and was the reason it was decided there wasn't an issue.

It's also pretty obvious that there was no way he was going to be under the ball when it fell unless he smashed into the Blues player.

"Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on"

Nothing about 'eyes on the ball'; the question is would he have been in a realistic position to catch the ball without taking the other player out. The answer is clearly not.

Now consider the leniency here for the Crusaders compared to the tediously soft yellow given to Trainor in the Sharks game. Sorry, but Blues fans have the right to be asking some pretty serious questions about the standards and consistency of SANZAR officials.

E: I want to check my memory of this, but unsurprisingly it's not in any of the highlight reels that I can find, even on Sky Sport highlights. If someone can link me to it, then that would be appreciated.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2020275 22-May-2018 11:58

Hammerer:

I understand that you think that you're being evenhanded in a comparison of your comments about the Crusaders and Hurricanes (and other teams) but that's not how it reads to me. I read them as "damning with faint praise" because it seems like there is usually an implied or clear put down coming along with the praise. So when I'm being sensitive, it is a sensitivity that has developed in this topic.

You are reading what you want to read.

I choose to spend my time commenting on things I feel made the difference in games. *I* initiated the discussion on the Crusaders dirty play.

I make no apology for preferring the Crusaders over the Hurricanes, the 'Canes are my second or third favourite team (The Highlanders being my other choice) because I largely like the positive way they play. I don't see many completely unbiased comments here, yours included. Unlike many other people here and in NZ, when a NZ team played an overseas team in the final (canes v Lions) I actually cheered on the 'canes. Compartively when the Crusaders went to the Lions, the canes came out publically and said they would cheer on the Lions. That was disappointing to say the least.

If the 'canes win this year, I'll not be unhappy. In a Crusaders Canes final, I'll be cheering on the Crusaders, but I wouldn't expect you to.

I don't hear you comment about potential forward passes from the Crusaders in their close win games but I did hear you comment about this for the Hurricanes. If it were the Crusaders winning that game then I'd be very certain that you wouldn't comment on potential forward passes. You'd be talking about more important stuff like the winning team dominating territory and possession, how the losing team were only in it at the end because of a couple of excellent tries against the run of play, and how the officials missed some of the losing team's infringements, e.g. while defending on their own try line.

I have savaged the Crusaders two consecutive weeks for their thuggish play, just like I do with other teams. I don't want this in the game, esp test matches. The All Blacks (by far my favourite sports team) last year attracted MANY negative comments both here and in person by me for their poor discipline. If I saw a forward pass for the Crusaders and it was the difference in a game, I would likely comment.

The problem is, any negative comment I make against the Crusaders carries less weight than the positive ones. I have made comments this year about forward passes for all teams, as I think it's becoming more common and not being picked up. I also lament the poor throwing this competition in lineouts, where many aren't straight but most of those aren't picked up. I haven't commented in this forum as such, but there are many things I think about Rugby which aren't shared here too.

I didn't say that you said "BB wasn't playing well". I said that "Beauden Barrett's running game has been very good this season (etc.)" to address your comment "I am not sure his running is quite as good this year." You just seemed to be looking at the last few games rather than the year to date.

I was there at the game and it was one of the least interesting games I've watched there. The most exciting tries were from the Reds. The biggest error was Ben Lam's dropped ball at the try line when he could easily have held on with both hands - one of his several mistakes this season which are probably enough to keep him out of the All Blacks.

What you didn't say and what was implied by your response to my comment seem the same to me. I have watched most of the NZ games played in NZ and Australia.

I agree that the Reds played the more exciting Rugby, the Hurricanes seemed subdued by their normal standards. Ben Lam dropping that ball was a horrible mistake, one he won't likely repeat. Every time I see players carry a ball to the try line one handed I cringe. He has had a good season by anyones standard.

I have previously commented that I feel that players should need two good seasons in SR to be considered for the AB's. I feel this way about all players including Crusaders who were selected last year like Havilli and Goodhue.

Dingbatt

6744 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020289 22-May-2018 12:19

Once again contributors in this thread need to "Play the ball, not the man".
We all have our own perspective from which we view and comment on these games.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2020348 22-May-2018 13:36

We seem to be in agreement about most other things: playing the game to the rules (even if we don't agree with all the rules?); applauding good play and punishing the bad; straight (and contestable?) lineout throws and scrum feeds (whatever the rules are this year); and so on. But I won't take anyone to task for their personal choice to support an overseas team even though I almost always support NZ teams (event he Crusaders though I have friends who wouldn't) against overseas teams. But I also like to cheer for the underdog too.

networkn:

Unlike many other people here and in NZ, when a NZ team played an overseas team in the final (canes v Lions) I actually cheered on the 'canes. Comparatively when the Crusaders went to the Lions, the canes came out publicly and said they would cheer on the Lions. That was disappointing to say the least.

If the 'canes win this year, I'll not be unhappy. In a Crusaders Canes final, I'll be cheering on the Crusaders, but I wouldn't expect you to.

I'd agree with you about what the Hurricanes said if "the Hurricanes" had actually said it. It was just Dane Coles who said he'd "cheer on the Lions." It wasn't the whole team or the management or coaches.

Coles is hardly the first semi-final loser to be a bad sport in an interview immediately after losing. As I've said before I've yet to hear Keiran Read acknowledge the Hurricanes as the best/better team when they beat the Crusaders. Coles did explain why he thought the Lions would win but at the same interview Chris Boyd said that the Crusaders held the result in their own hands (or something like that) as he didn't think that the Lions would determine the outcome of the final.

networkn:

The problem is, any negative comment I make against the Crusaders carries less weight than the positive ones.

So true! You have a reputation now.

networkn:

What you didn't say and what was implied by your response to my comment seem the same to me. I have watched most of the NZ games played in NZ and Australia.

What I said was what I wrote. I was only responding to your comment about his running and nothing else.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021170 23-May-2018 14:44

Reviewing the highlights from the other games in the weekend it seems Argentina and Japan are on the up which is nice to see. It will be interesting finals this year. Chiefs fought pretty valiantly considering their severely diminished roster. To even be in the fight was an achievement in my opinion.

The Crusaders are going to be lucky to even field a full team of forwards this week! Tim Perry has gone down in training. It's going to be pretty tough going.

I see the French are sending an apparent B team to NZ for the 3 test tour. The AB's are stating they aren't taking them lightly, and I hope not.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2021197 23-May-2018 15:29

networkn:

The Crusaders are going to be lucky to even field a full team of forwards this week! Tim Perry has gone down in training. It's going to be pretty tough going.

This is the part of the season that I really don't like. Teams with rosters depleted for the All Blacks are hit hard if there are injuries in those positions.

I'd rather the Crusaders and Hurricanes had all their best players so we got a real spectacle this weekend.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2021577 24-May-2018 08:56

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12057306

Repeat after me: It's OK if it's just a Blues player.

1 | ... | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | ... | 642