Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | ... | 595

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1656533 23-Oct-2016 11:39

ABs from the past would not be able to compete, they would be run off the ground before 40 minutes. Different era, different game. Put their current record against any international team in any sport and they are truly global stars. People need to quit bagging our most successful team period. They have lost a mere 3 tests in five years, Hansen has a 91% success rate. ABs have not lost at Eden park to Australia for 36 year, they have won 18 internationals in a row and so on ......

MyHeritage

Shop MyHeritage and uncover your origins and find new relatives with a simple DNA test. (affiliate link).

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1656536 23-Oct-2016 11:50

We can only beat who we play. We could win another 18 games in a row and some people would still find fault.

In my view, the only all blacks team that would beat this current team is the team that immediately preceded this team, and half of this team were part of that team anyway.

If you think a team from 15+ years ago could match the physicality, skills and execution of this team for 80+ minutes then you are kidding yourself. There is a stark difference in intensity between modern games and games of yesteryear. Perhaps previous generations had more raw talent in certain positions, but the game has evolved. In the professional age, modern players have massive advantages over older generations.

In the McCaw and now Reid era, I have found the ability of the AB's to "get up" and deliver quality performances week in, week out, to be very impressive. And also how they can play at such intensity so deep into the game, and to find a way to win when the performance is not perfect... it's pretty unique in sport.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29049 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1656537 23-Oct-2016 12:05

blair003:
Aussie had lots of ball in good attacking position after their disallowed try. The Aussie disallowed try was at 45m.

They had the ball at 49m inside our 22 on attack and looked pretty good. They got a penalty a minute or two later and choose to kick for goal, which they missed. From the ensuing 22-restart they had more good attacking ball in our half. Ultimately we defended well and ended up scoring from a turnover at 53m 41s.

If there was a turning point, it was that moment at 53m41s when we scored from a turnover inside our own half, not when their try was disallowed 9 minutes earlier. To label the disallowed try as a "turning point" is a load of crap in the context of the game.

Who are you referring to?

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1656539 23-Oct-2016 12:14

I wasn't referring to a person. I was calling BS on the labelling of the aussie "no-try call" as a turning point in the game.

Dingbatt

6421 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1656550 23-Oct-2016 13:38

Rewatching a replay. Retallick definitely elbowed in the face by the Wallaby number 6, Dean Mumm @ 52:40 on the clock. Neither Owens or the assistant saw it and Owen's comment I mentioned in an earlier post had nothing to do with that action. It should have been investigated by the TMO, that is part of his job. I think Mumm is the one yellow carded for foul play the last time these teams met. Glad to see it was Mumm that got cut down by Coles in a try saving chase and tackle after Mumm intercepted. The move that ultimately led to the final try.
And as I suspected, Retallick is now to undergo a concussion protocol and may miss the tour. Bad news since Whitelock is out as well.

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

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1656551 23-Oct-2016 13:41

MikeB4: ABs from the past would not be able to compete, they would be run off the ground before 40 minutes. Different era, different game. Put their current record against any international team in any sport and they are truly global stars. People need to quit bagging our most successful team period. They have lost a mere 3 tests in five years, Hansen has a 91% success rate. ABs have not lost at Eden park to Australia for 36 year, they have won 18 internationals in a row and so on ......

I haven't seen anyone bagging this team.

This year is a new team, post Richie, Dan and other top players. Off course many are still here from the Richie era, but its a new team. There are new players too, which is great.

The issue I have is not this team, or the AB's, or the coach, its that this team, as in this year, is the best team ever. If we played SA and OZ who were playing top tier rugby, as they often do, then wow, awesome team. But the main competition to us are below par. We've beat low ranked teams, as you would expect us to beat. So I can't get how "this" team is so great. Maybe they are, but they haven't played SA and OZ at anywhere near their typical best to give us any line on that.

The AB's have a 77% test record, thats because we are the best, and the the likes of SA and OZ are tough opponents. But these teams are below par, so we need to be careful when we resonate this new team as the best ever. Best in 50 years according to Phil Gifford.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29049 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1656580 23-Oct-2016 14:41

blair003: I wasn't referring to a person. I was calling BS on the labelling of the aussie "no-try call" as a turning point in the game.

THe game of rugby is played using a scoring system. The fact that team A dominates counts for zilch if they don't score. The ABs dominated the game from the word go to the final kick. But that doesn't determine the winner, the scoreboard does.

So there was no concrete turning point, and I don't know who suggested there was one, was it the commentators. The score is what matters whether you're a player, fan or a TAB staff. If the score doesn't matter then there is no need to play any matches, just declare the ABs winners because they are so good.

In tennis term, if a rugby match is level going into the 3rd quarter, that means the teams are forced into a tie breaker, or a playoff in golf, or extra time in league, ie you give yourself a chance against the ABs. 99 times out of 100 in the last 10 years, the ABs will come out winners, because they are that good. But going into final quarter trailing, in cricket term the ABs have declared and enforced the follow on. Hence that try would determine which way the game ends.

As for me I hate Australians, but unlike Aussies I like to be fair. So Nigel ruled the Wallaby infringed by barging into Savea, fair call, and the game ends there. THe Wallabies gave up after that and that's why the ABs are best in the world, they never give up.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29049 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1657167 25-Oct-2016 07:08

blair003:

joker97:

JarrodM:
joker97: So is the disallowed Wallaby try correctly disallowed or not. My reaction to the match depends on that. If no then I feel the Wallabies were robbed of the chance to contest the win in the final quarter.

From the laws of the game

10.1 Obstruction
(c) Blocking the tackler.
A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick

There was definitely an intentional movement there, but did it prevent a tackle? We'll never know but I don't think savea was going to catch him.

That's definitely not the rule applied, there was no tackle, it was 2 people running into each other with a gold shirt jostling with a black shirt. Rugby is a contact sport so you can't just say no running into each other, please line up and take your turn.

There must be another rule about running lines.

It definitely is the law. It was one guy changing his running line to block the other guy. He didn't need to do it, as it was very unlikely Savea would have been able to make an effective tackle, which is why the call was questionable.

If you're in doubt you can view here and listen to Nigel Owen https://youtu.be/ilTILcVP5Yk?t=832

Apparently Jonathan Kaplan thinks it's not a penalty.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1657769 25-Oct-2016 21:38

joker97:

blair003:

joker97:

JarrodM:
joker97: So is the disallowed Wallaby try correctly disallowed or not. My reaction to the match depends on that. If no then I feel the Wallabies were robbed of the chance to contest the win in the final quarter.

From the laws of the game

10.1 Obstruction
(c) Blocking the tackler.
A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick

There was definitely an intentional movement there, but did it prevent a tackle? We'll never know but I don't think savea was going to catch him.

That's definitely not the rule applied, there was no tackle, it was 2 people running into each other with a gold shirt jostling with a black shirt. Rugby is a contact sport so you can't just say no running into each other, please line up and take your turn.

There must be another rule about running lines.

It definitely is the law. It was one guy changing his running line to block the other guy. He didn't need to do it, as it was very unlikely Savea would have been able to make an effective tackle, which is why the call was questionable.

If you're in doubt you can view here and listen to Nigel Owen https://youtu.be/ilTILcVP5Yk?t=832

Apparently Jonathan Kaplan thinks it's not a penalty.

He can say what he likes, but we agree there was a penalty in the actual game. And the the rule that gave rise to the penalty was the one stated.

Right or wrong, you can see why the TMO had reason to think it was a penalty from watching the video.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1657772 25-Oct-2016 21:41

joker97:

blair003: I wasn't referring to a person. I was calling BS on the labelling of the aussie "no-try call" as a turning point in the game.

THe game of rugby is played using a scoring system. The fact that team A dominates counts for zilch if they don't score. The ABs dominated the game from the word go to the final kick. But that doesn't determine the winner, the scoreboard does.

So there was no concrete turning point, and I don't know who suggested there was one, was it the commentators. The score is what matters whether you're a player, fan or a TAB staff. If the score doesn't matter then there is no need to play any matches, just declare the ABs winners because they are so good.

In tennis term, if a rugby match is level going into the 3rd quarter, that means the teams are forced into a tie breaker, or a playoff in golf, or extra time in league, ie you give yourself a chance against the ABs. 99 times out of 100 in the last 10 years, the ABs will come out winners, because they are that good. But going into final quarter trailing, in cricket term the ABs have declared and enforced the follow on. Hence that try would determine which way the game ends.

As for me I hate Australians, but unlike Aussies I like to be fair. So Nigel ruled the Wallaby infringed by barging into Savea, fair call, and the game ends there. THe Wallabies gave up after that and that's why the ABs are best in the world, they never give up.

The AB's didn't dominate the game from start to finish, far from it.

The Wallaby's didn't give up after the disallowed try.