Peyper Stats Vs AB
-
@mariner4life said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
Our offside penalties seem to be the result of our pillar/post defenders playing on anticipation, and everyone following them (as they should). The start to come forward when they think the halfback is going to pull the ball out, which is great when it's right, but when it's not...
I have noticed a few occasions, and at least a couple on the weekend, where the halfback looks like he is picking it up, but gets a knock or the ball moves, so he pulls out, but our boys have already gone. whistle. penalty. Peyper let a couple go because the guy going forward stopped and had not effect on play, but blew others.
There are definitely things for us to work on, even with a poor ref performance.
If when the half back touches the ball it is deemed to be out would stop a lot of this. But that is not the law. At the moment a number of half backs have their hands on the ball for an age and it is deemed still to be in the ruck. They can not dummy but they can step back which makes it look like they may pass.
if the half back puts his hands on the ball it has to be out of the ruck as he is not bound to the ruck or a player from either side.
-
Can we merge this thread with the conspiracy theory one?
-
@Catogrande said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
Can we merge this thread with the conspiracy theory one?
Conspiracies have an absence of facts.
-
@antipodean Conspiracy theorists assume facts
-
@Wreck-Diver said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
if the half back puts his hands on the ball it has to be out of the ruck as he is not bound to the ruck or a player from either side.
I actually think the law right now is good. If this was the case, what if the halfback has to dig into the ruck to get the ball? As soon as his hands go on, the defence can come and tackle him, but it may be under three blokes bodies and take a few seconds to clear.
I agree we shouldn't allow halfbacks to take the piss and sit there for ages resting on the ball, but I think it's pretty obvious when the ball is 'clear' of the ruck. We always got told it's 'when a bird can shit on it', and I think it's a pretty good and easy rule to follow.
-
-
-
@Billy-Tell said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
I have to say when Peyper first came on the scene I had high hopes. His first few Super Rugby games were very good. He has been poor in recent times, he had a mare for Eng vs Fiji opening game of RWC.
Just give us Gardiner for every game please. Otherwise Owens or Garcès.
Wasn't averse to the Froggy guy we had in Chi town. Generally good. Very little to complain about. (Only had a minor quibble being the inconsistency around obstruction at kick off.)
Mind tou Stuart Dickenson was a GREAT ref when he started.
-
@booboo said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
@Billy-Tell said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
I have to say when Peyper first came on the scene I had high hopes. His first few Super Rugby games were very good. He has been poor in recent times, he had a mare for Eng vs Fiji opening game of RWC.
Just give us Gardiner for every game please. Otherwise Owens or Garcès.
Wasn't averse to the Froggy guy we had in Chi town. Generally good. Very little to complain about. (Only had a minor quibble being the inconsistency around obstruction at kick off.)
Mind tou Stuart Dickenson was a GREAT ref when he started.
Let's be clear on this. Stuart Dickenson was only ever a great ref in his own mind. Along with Wayne "scrum expert" Erickson. I always thought Dickenson was a closet soccer fan getting revenge on the 15-man code: absolutely no feel for the game, or an appreciation of the fact fans pay money to be entertained, not watch a game ruined by pedantry.
calms down, yeah I have no complaints about the French ref in Chicago, none whatsoever.
-
This numbers could be wrong, as I wasn't able to take the figures out of Excel, but:
Out of 13 matches, on 10 occasions New Zealand conceded more penalties than the opposition.
Against the SH opposition the average penalty count is roughly 10 apiece. Against NH opposition, New Zealand conceded 200% of the oppositions penalty count.
If we take the view that the match in the US was an away match, it is interesting to note that New Zealand also concede just over 200% of the opposition penalty count away from home. It is only at home that there is any parity between the two.
Now, I'm suspicious of penalty count comparisons as if you give away a penalty but the opposition score on the advantage, then there is no penalty. This has happened plenty.
But, looking at these figures one would have to take the view that New Zealand, independently of the referee, give away more penalties than the opposition. With home advantage, New Zealand reduce the number of penalties conceded somewhat, and the opposition concede somewhat more, but New Zealand still concede 5% more penalties than the opposition.
You won all but one of these matches by the way. You won all the matches with Peyper.
-
@reprobate said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
tries under advantage - we scored 38 and conceded 5 in the rugby
Yeah, I'm sure a few of those were under advantage. I doubt if there was a global referring conspiracy against New Zealand, that New Zealand would have scored 38 tries and conceded only 5 in the Rugby Championship.
@Bones said in Peyper Stats Vs AB:
Suspicious of penalty count comparisons.....but then I'll just go ahead and say NZ give away more penalties. Riiiiight.
NZ do give away more penalties, no matter what way you dice it.
I'm suspicious of the value to be attached to such a metric, and what is to be read from it.
I'd love to see someone do in the stats the amount of times that advantage is signaled in a match. My suspicion is that New Zealand, being the best team in the world, in particular being the best attacking team in the world, are the best able to score from situations like that - thereby making these stats look skewed.
