Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | 297 | ... | 640

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294470 11-Aug-2019 23:01

I think if you go back to 2015 in this thread you'll see plenty of hand wringing then. People were calling for DC to be dropped and RM was even being questioned. We lost in Australia off the back of what some said was our worst performance of the past 3 years and all in all people were doubting our chance to win it. I believe we have some positions of concern, if we lose Richie M or BB we are in reasonable trouble, we are short on locks and 6's and some of our combinations aren't working, but I am not TOO worried yet. I'd like to win in Japan of course, but I'd really like to see a good win in Eden Park next week. I want to see the backlash that has been missing following poor games or losses. Our end of year tour was far from memorable. We do have a fairly long injury list preventing us from what I'd consider a good quality build up and as a result of our Super Rugby win this year some players have had longer and more brutal lead ups. Sam Whitelock looks a bit off the pace, but am wondering if he is pacing himself.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294476 11-Aug-2019 23:36

networkn:

I think if you go back to 2015 in this thread you'll see plenty of hand wringing then. People were calling for DC to be dropped and RM was even being questioned. We lost in Australia off the back of what some said was our worst performance of the past 3 years and all in all people were doubting our chance to win it. I believe we have some positions of concern, if we lose Richie M or BB we are in reasonable trouble, we are short on locks and 6's and some of our combinations aren't working, but I am not TOO worried yet. I'd like to win in Japan of course, but I'd really like to see a good win in Eden Park next week. I want to see the backlash that has been missing following poor games or losses. Our end of year tour was far from memorable. We do have a fairly long injury list preventing us from what I'd consider a good quality build up and as a result of our Super Rugby win this year some players have had longer and more brutal lead ups. Sam Whitelock looks a bit off the pace, but am wondering if he is pacing himself.

Yes. based on RC form they were playing worse compared to their apprentices - Sam Cane & Lima Sopoaga who had great super rugby form. Ian Foster asdmitted they were 1 test match away from dropping DC from the RWC squad.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294507 12-Aug-2019 07:59

Well apparently Wales had 2 different people doing a Scott Barrett and neither of them were carded by French ref.

There you go, there will be another shocker in Japan.

I really think if Wales did not have their captain sent off in 2011 Semi final they would have beaten the ABs at Eden Park. But we'll never know. Just like when Scotland were failed by the lack of TMO referral when they lost at the death to Australia last WC (though it would not have changed the outcome of the ABs that time round ...).

Expect some crazy reffing in Japan!

(Can't they make this game not need a court of lawyers to interpret the rules?)

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294513 12-Aug-2019 08:39

Not sure what you mean by court of lawyers? He was given Red on field after video playback provided by the TMO at the referees request, made his own decision and then ran his decision by the TMO to check he was interpreting the rules correctly. That's in my view about as fair as you can hope for. The TMO didn't influence the decision per se. Whether it was red or not (and I feel based on the rules currently being adhered to, and the guidance of the referees division, it was red. The issue is that if it's not being consistently refereed as per Wales that is the issue.

Thankfully we have our #1 ranking again as I suspected we would. Question is, do the AB's have what it takes to beat Australia if they play again like they did last week (Which is doubtful in my view) and we manage to keep 15 men on the park? If not, then I think there will be some serious questions raised fairly enough. Having said that, given our ranking over the past 15 years, the AB's deserve our support even if they are a bit wobbly right now.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294515 12-Aug-2019 08:41

One difference I noticed between the games I watched in the weekend, is that the AB's often ran into the defender directly where as SA vs Arg were running into the gap between 2 defenders giving them an extra meter or so of gain and making it harder to get across that player at the breakdown, easier recycle, faster ball and makes it harder for the man to get held up. It's something the AB's were doing until relatively recently. I am unsure what's going on there and if it's some form of tactic.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294529 12-Aug-2019 09:02

One thing that I read online is that Barrett does have a defense in front of the judiciary. It's not something I saw, but apparently Dane Coles (I think) was trying to (legally) move Hooper and as Dane Coles moved Hooper, Barrett had already initiated his tackle and made "different" contact than what was intended.

tdgeek

29650 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294530 12-Aug-2019 09:09

I read that, makes a lot of sense. If Coles had been a party to the incident, they can argue that Scott's intentional move was fine, and a circumstance out of his control (Coles), created the incident. In which case he would not be given a holiday. Depends if Rugby will allow themselves to admit a mistake, given that multiple refs examined the footage. And that two similar incidents up North didn't get carded at all.

Sharesies

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

Dingbatt

6742 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2294535 12-Aug-2019 09:17

I believe Garces had already made up his mind on Barrett's red card before he watched any replay or got advice from the TMO. He commented that it had happened right in front of him, so he was just wanting validation for his decision.

If the IRB's objective is to protect the neck and head then shouldn't Kerevi have received the same red card for the way he lifted his knee and dropped his shoulder into B.Barrett in the lead-up to White's try? Very Lomu-esque, but that was from last century. I guess being the ball carrier absolves the player from any responsibility for protection but in this instance Barrett has gone for the waist and legs, and once committed, Kerevi has dropped his shoulder. I have watched this action multiple times, and Barrett was in danger of serious injury. Much more so than Hooper was with the other Barrett.

Such is the inconsistency of the IRB's push to protect players welfare.

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

tdgeek

29650 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294537 12-Aug-2019 09:22

A poster on Stuff made a valid comment. Why didnt Hooper get sent off for an HIA? That he didnt implies it was a minor incident. I realise that hey its a head knock the rules apply, but if it didn't warrant an HIA, that tells me its not a head knock, its an incident that you get in a contact sport

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2294623 12-Aug-2019 11:03

Jones rightly notes the lack of consistency when it comes to NH teams being refereed differently to the All Blacks.

That's not to say anything about Owen Farrell's repeated high shots and shoulder charges last year which got no attention from officials at all.

tanivula

991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2294640 12-Aug-2019 11:21

This was a quite useful picture amidst all the opinons/interpretations. Key points I've taken:

Ball carriers are protected species!
Scotty never looked like he was going to use his arms in the tackle
Maybe a common occournce, but IRB want to stop this happening, unfortunately not everything gets seen

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294662 12-Aug-2019 11:41

If you policed the ball carrier the way you do the tackler, Rugby couldn't exist. Ball Carriers make contact with the head and neck of the defender all the time, think of your average fend, however, there isn't allowed to be a "striking" motion or it would be considered dangerous (though this does happy occasionally and I've rarely seen it dealt with.

I agree that Barrett never intended to use his arms that will go against him. A no arms tackle that didn't make contact with the head/shoulders would usually be yellow or a penalty. I have heard arguments about why tacklers don't use their arms, and whilst I do feel there is some validity to that, it's against the rules and by now this should be well known.

I am expecting a more physical but ultimately more disciplined side will show up to face the Wallabies this week.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294715 12-Aug-2019 12:00

networkn:

One thing that I read online is that Barrett does have a defense in front of the judiciary. It's not something I saw, but apparently Dane Coles (I think) was trying to (legally) move Hooper and as Dane Coles moved Hooper, Barrett had already initiated his tackle and made "different" contact than what was intended.

He may have initiated his "tackle", but he appeared to have led with his shoulder, or at the very least there was no attempt to use his arms in the tackle.

Whatever the outcome he will not play on Saturday.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294717 12-Aug-2019 12:03

tanivula:

This was a quite useful picture amidst all the opinons/interpretations. Key points I've taken:

Ball carriers are protected species!
Scotty never looked like he was going to use his arms in the tackle
Maybe a common occournce, but IRB want to stop this happening, unfortunately not everything gets seen

Ball carriers are not a "protected species".

The head is a protected species.

Unfortunately if you are charging like a bull head first, you are putting the opposing defenders in a big pickle.

So what do you do? You get clones of Michael Hooper and you have an untouchable not very secret weapon.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2294720 12-Aug-2019 12:04

Led with a shoulder doesn't mean automatic Red. If there are mitigating circumstances that meant onfield should have been yellow, then he will have been deemed to have been punished already and no further sanction would be applied.

It's somewhat unlikely he will play Saturday but not automatic. The judiciary has reserved it's judgement which is somewhat a good thing in my opinion. If it was clear cut, he would already know how long he was out for.

I believe it somewhat likely he will be suspended for 2 games or so.

1 | ... | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | 297 | ... | 640