All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.
-
Kimber (and a lot of people) seem to forget that Cheika DID acknowledge the ABs and how well they played that game. The fact that he didn't want to talk about 18 victories was part of some weird plan Cheika had to tie the bug from weeks ago.
Kimber also didn't mention the forward pack at all, which allowed Foley to do his thing. Its a failing of a lot of Aussie commentators.
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Eales? Really? Great player, boring human. Can't see him being fun on the schooners. Be as bad as i imagine beers with Richie would be.
If you're getting on the sauce with Melon, you better pack your drinking shoes. and your gambling wallet.
So have heard from a couple of sources that Eales is actually an absolute riot on the piss. Can spin a yarn, and they get more and more interesting the later in the night you go with him. Apparently.
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@akan004 The darker dude is an on to it guy, but the one with the punchable face just expressed Kafe's comments but said it a bit calmer.
I'll definitely watch them again, they even made TJ seem less annoying than usual.
I'm kinda sympathetic to both sides of the argument here so I was ok with his comments. The ruling was correct imo, but I felt it was the wrong one when I watched it live. Took me a day to change my mind after seeing a still of Julian Savea possibly being in close enough proximity to make the potential ankle tap. Generally speaking though, both these jokers are pretty fair and level headed.
-
@akan004 said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@akan004 The darker dude is an on to it guy, but the one with the punchable face just expressed Kafe's comments but said it a bit calmer.
I'll definitely watch them again, they even made TJ seem less annoying than usual.
I'm kinda sympathetic to both sides of the argument here so I was ok with his comments. The ruling was correct imo, but I felt it was the wrong one when I watched it live. Took me a day to change my mind after seeing a still of Julian Savea possibly being in close enough proximity to make the potential ankle tap. Generally speaking though, both these jokers are pretty fair and level headed.
I've now had a chance to go back and watch the whole thing unfold as well. This time with the pause button at the ready through every angle. While I first thought it was a marginal call that entered the Veldsman lottery I now think he got the call bang on (as did Owens on the Coles non-try).
For starters if you look through all of this please turn the sound down. I had Marshall and Smith instantly reacting because neither had noticed it in real time so their last two minutes of waffling was redundant. They were never going to change their mind unless they witnessed DHP pull a switchblade out his pocket. I can only imagine what Kearns and Kafer were like.
Unlike that Pfitzy guy on GAGR I'm not going to take selective screenshots that only paint one picture while omitting the ones around it that paint a different one.Sequence of events as I see them:
- Phipps passes to Foley who has DHP outside him and Speight further out. Read is marking Foley, Savea marking DHP. Foley has noticed Speight in the clear, dummied slightly to DHP and stepped inside Read to make a clear break. Excellent play by Foley
- Read instantly turns, Savea takes slightly longer to notice and then turns himself to chase. DHP is on a collision course with Savea in trying to support Foley and bumps into him. Savea and DHP get slightly tangled but neither are looking at each other DHPs focus is on supporting Foley, Saveas focus on trying to turn and chase. To keep balance DHP raises an elbow at Savea and Savea does the same. Neither look to be playing at each other just trying to keep up and keep in play.
- At the same time Read is watching Foleys line which is angled toward the sideline and track him. Again eyes are only on Foley and at one moment Read, DHP and Savea are bouncing off each other with DHP doing a great job of forcing his way between them. Arms from all three players can be seen across each other at any precise moment. DHPs arm comes across Savea then Saveas arm comes up then DHP bounces over to Read and puts his other arm across Read who does the same back. All just three players converging into the same square metre and jostling. No problems with any of it by Law. It is all in the same vein as Foley on Coles later in the game.
- Foley is now drawing a defender and has a clear pass to Speight which he makes. At this moment DHP is slightly ahead of Speight and Savea is about level with him.
- From this moment on DHP runs a line directly toward Speight. He is already in a support position but is intentionally running a line to get in the way of Saveas chase. Savea is close enough to have a crack and has about 24 metres to catch up. As DHP gets close enough he raises his arm and pushes Savea off his stride.
Now here is the clincher to me. The moment DHP takes out Savea he decides it is job done, looks inside to the posts and starts to pull up. If he was running legit support as claimed why didn't he continue supporting?
Now all of this happen in a second or two. Everyone is working off instinct. The only reason I can see for DHP to run that angle was to impede Savea. He may have even got away with it if he had simply run into him but raising his elbow and pushing out is what convicted him. He ran a line to block a would be tackler who was a high risk of catching the ball carrier.
Yes, this happens a lot in games but to get away with it you need to be a bit more subtle than raising your elbow and pushing out.
The call was correct in my eyes.
-
I agree the ONLY reason for DHP to run that line is to impede Savea, if he is running a support line its straighter, he'd be trying to run a line to put him 5m inside Speight so Speight could roll the pass in-field to him if he had to.
So pedantically, he intentionally runs an impeding line & makes contact with Savea.
But I'm not sold its enough to call back the try unless we are REALLY tight on the rulings. And in the average games there's any number of ruck clear outs, bind slips, crooked feeds etc that are all let flow. One thing I'm not clear on is if the law says Savea would have had to have been able to catch Speight. Smithy & Justin went on & on about that - how he couldn't.
And I agree, he wasn't catching him. But legally is that required? Is the blocking of the attempt enough? I have a feeling it probably is so the "I don't think he would have caught him" bit is totally irrelevant. But I honestly don't know (and I'm certain Smithy & Justin don't)
Its the same deal as cleaning a guy out with the shoulder at a ruck, it doesn't matter if the guy was getting the ball, the clean out is illegal. Or shoving the no. 2 jumper out of a lineout when the throw is to the tail.
-
While it seems a harsh call, there's also plenty of those - if you don't want to give the ref a reason, don't do it. Basically, can't do the time, don't do the crime. I wouldn't have had a problem if the try was awarded, but I also don't have a problem with it being called back - and I like to think I'm pretty consistent on these types of decisions.
If it had been the other way around (AB impeding Aus on an AB try) I would have been just as comfortable with the decision. I bet Kafer would've too.
-
@gollum said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I agree the ONLY reason for DHP to run that line is to impede Savea, if he is running a support line its straighter, he'd be trying to run a line to put him 5m inside Speight so Speight could roll the pass in-field to him if he had to.
So pedantically, he intentionally runs an impeding line & makes contact with Savea.
But I'm not sold its enough to call back the try unless we are REALLY tight on the rulings. And in the average games there's any number of ruck clear outs, bind slips, crooked feeds etc that are all let flow. One thing I'm not clear on is if the law says Savea would have had to have been able to catch Speight. Smithy & Justin went on & on about that - how he couldn't.
And I agree, he wasn't catching him. But legally is that required? Is the blocking of the attempt enough? I have a feeling it probably is so the "I don't think he would have caught him" bit is totally irrelevant. But I honestly don't know (and I'm certain Smithy & Justin don't)
Its the same deal as cleaning a guy out with the shoulder at a ruck, it doesn't matter if the guy was getting the ball, the clean out is illegal. Or shoving the no. 2 jumper out of a lineout when the throw is to the tail.
There is no law that says Savea had to have been certain to catch Speight. What you have described (and Marshall etc were implying) is that referees at all levels are asked to manage a game by applying materiality judgement to decisions.
In this case if you listen to the dialogue between Owens and Veldsman, Owens clearly asks "so he knocks him off his stride and you reckon he does enough to prevent him getting anywhere near".
In Owens thinking that constitutes materiality because it takes away a legitimate chance of defence. -
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@akan004 The darker dude is an on to it guy, but the one with the punchable face just expressed Kafe's comments but said it a bit calmer.
I'll definitely watch them again, they even made TJ seem less annoying than usual.
I stumbled across these guys on my you tube page when they popped up in recommended videos a few months back ,
I subscribed to their page and been watching them since, they give pretty balanced analysis
-
Just had a read of the Rugbyrefs forum to see how they viewed the incident. The majority agreed with the decision or said it was a 50:50 call.
One interesting point was Marshall bleating about about how he knew Savea wouldn't have caught Speight accompanied by the clip of the same Marshall calling "they won't catch him, they won't catch him, they won't catch him.
-
There have been some talk about Barrett's kicking. The truth is his goal kicking has only cost the All Blacks about 13 points this year - that is less than 2 points per game. Barrett has been adding far, far more than 2 points per game with his play around the field. Hopefully Barrett works on his goal kicking but to even talk about changing the team configuration because of it would be to tragically over value one portion of the game.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Savea is close enough to have a crack and has about 24 metres to catch up
He IS close enough to have a crack. But he doesn't at that point because he's backing his pace. And this is where we see the actions of DHP being completely unnecessary, HOWEVER you don't really know how much faster anyone is without seeing a foot race.
With that in mind, here are two more selective images.
The first is neither Speight nor Savea at full pace because one is receiving a pass, and one is making their decision on defence.
The second is the point just before DHP raises his elbow.
Reckon Save is going to lose even ankle tap range a few steps inside the 22. But then, he couldn't have known that either.
Shame DHP didn't bump him that hard when he was tackling him...
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Reckon Save is going to lose even ankle tap range a few steps inside the 22. But then, he couldn't have known that either.
Judging by Savea's burst of speed, he wasn't going to lose any ground on Speight without DHP's interference.
Shame DHP didn't bump him that hard when he was tackling him...
The one I felt sorry for was Frisby. It was like watching a pram being thrown in front of a runaway, well, bus...
-
That's the thing though, the rule book doesn't differentiate if Savea is chasing Speight or Moore, nor if it is Franks chasing Folau or Speight and whether they can catch them, just that you cant interfere.
But it would have been interesting to see how they would have ruled it had it been a speedster like Franks on the wing that DHP gave a nudge.
If he had ran the line without the little push, he'd of been fine.
@antipodean that bump off was all TR Jnr was talking about...he said if a bus is coming, get out the way!
-
@taniwharugby I can almost guarantee that Franks would've been the one to push off DHP.....
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@taniwharugby I can almost guarantee that Franks would've been the one to push off DHP.....
damn right he will, right in the eyes! hahaha!
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@taniwharugby I can almost guarantee that Franks would've been the one to push off DHP.....
damn right he will, right in the eyes! hahaha!
LOL quality.
Franks would have been 20 metres upfield, offside by two fucking metres like he is every other phase of play.
-
@NTA your second picture there shows the danger of a static photo to argue the point of a moving situation.
It may be exactly as you describe however DHP has already effected Saveas run and slowed him in the split second before raising his elbow.
Now if we really want to be pedantic about Laws DHP was at one point ahead of his team mate in possession of the ball and continued moving forward.....
@taniwharugby on the Rugbyrefs forum they made the same point about Franks and agreed in a materiality call it would mean they wouldn't call back the try. When judging materiality they look at the actual situation not a general one. -
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
It may be exactly as you describe however DHP has already effected Saveas run and slowed him in the split second before raising his elbow.
So it "may" be as I described, but DHP has "definitely" affected Savea at this point.
Right. I'm taking your word for that, I suppose...
