Springboks v British & Irish Lions I
-
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@catogrande yeah not robbed, just rubbed of green stuff.
Actually the discipline wasn't that bad. High tackle from Etsebeth that was tough call (led to line out that BIL scored off) , an offside against Mapimpi, a scrum penalty where Vanipulo was on an interesting angle. The big one was the maul (three penalties and a try) where we just didn't have an answer.
In the UK comms, Sam Warburton called it late in the first half that if the Lions kept the ball in hand a bit more and just played more rugby in general, the Boks we’re giving away penalties. He must have called that three or four times before we began to play that sort of pattern. In the second half the score and the penalty count backed this up. For sure one can point at some close calls but the numbers overall tell the story.
-
@pakman yeah, but could have been even had Pollard hit the conversion and the penalty for the tip tackle.
Hell we could have been up by seven had Le Roux timed his run from Am's kick a bit better.
We had our chances, but didn't take them. It might have been different with a tad more luck, but them the breaks.
-
@pecotrain said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@gibbonrib said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
Wasn't impressed with Curry at all in the first half (although I wasn't impressed by anyone apart from Itoje). Gave away 3(?) penalties, and didn't offer much. Gutted that Tipuric wasn't available.
The two first half penalties Curry gave away were the late hit on Faf and not rolling away when he was caught and pinned by SA - I would argue that the late hit upset Fafs kicking game and there was nothing more Curry could have done to roll away as he was largely out of the way and struggling to get out from under the SA players. I didn't see a third penalty - was Curry the second player in the tackle with Daly when le Roux took a high ball and the Lions were pinged (correctly) for not releasing the player when he got a knee down to the ground?
the third was early when SA were looking to clear their lines, and there was bobbling ball. I think first 10 minutes - but the ref blows an SA penalty, and calls 'offside 7'. Was hard to pick up live - it looked like a latish hit on the SA kicker.
I'd also strongly argue the 'not rolling' penalty. Really stood out as both sides were working so hard on clearing the tackle area - in that one, he lay there, then rolled. I hate the Gats tacklers lying longitudinal and impeding people to the breakdown. It's apparently legal, but you see it in every team he coaches. Smart rugby, but cynical as all hell, and very effective I reckon.
-
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
Point being that Boks being 5 behind at end was unlucky, and allowed Lions to close it out. If 2 points different ball game!
5 points means you need to manufacture a try rather than earn a penalty - given that all of SA's try scoring opportunities in the game after the 5 minute mark (when Itoje got his hads on the ball in questionable circumstances) came from mistakes that created opportunities from broken play rather than genuine pressure and broken play was just as likely to result in Lions points as Springbok points.
Your analysis of the reffing is right around Hamish Watson (definite card for tip tackle) but ignores SA having the penalty count going 8 v 1 against them in the second half without losing anyone for deliberate infringing. Of the three TMO incidents for tries, one was clearly correct (knock on by Kolbe), one benefitted the Boks (Fafs try) and the third appears to be correct from the front on angle which wasn't shown during the game but I assume was seen by the TMO.
So whats the Springbok gameplan for the 2nd test? Pretend everything is OK, do the same again and hope they can benefit from TMO mistakes to get more tries?
-
@pecotrain said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
Point being that Boks being 5 behind at end was unlucky, and allowed Lions to close it out. If 2 points different ball game!
5 points means you need to manufacture a try rather than earn a penalty - given that all of SA's try scoring opportunities in the game after the 5 minute mark (when Itoje got his hads on the ball in questionable circumstances) came from mistakes that created opportunities from broken play rather than genuine pressure and broken play was just as likely to result in Lions points as Springbok points.
Your analysis of the reffing is right around Hamish Watson (definite card for tip tackle) but ignores SA having the penalty count going 8 v 1 against them in the second half without losing anyone for deliberate infringing. Of the three TMO incidents for tries, one was clearly correct (knock on by Kolbe), one benefitted the Boks (Fafs try) and the third appears to be correct from the front on angle which wasn't shown during the game but I assume was seen by the TMO.
So whats the Springbok gameplan for the 2nd test? Pretend everything is OK, do the same again and hope they can benefit from TMO mistakes to get more tries?
Great photo. Clear and obvious as mud, in words of Will Greenwood!
And two of those 8 penalties were bogus. Very few in red zone.
But agree with summation. Stick with game plan and it will come down to how the 50:50s break.
I think I’d revert to big eightman.
-
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@pecotrain said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
Point being that Boks being 5 behind at end was unlucky, and allowed Lions to close it out. If 2 points different ball game!
5 points means you need to manufacture a try rather than earn a penalty - given that all of SA's try scoring opportunities in the game after the 5 minute mark (when Itoje got his hads on the ball in questionable circumstances) came from mistakes that created opportunities from broken play rather than genuine pressure and broken play was just as likely to result in Lions points as Springbok points.
Your analysis of the reffing is right around Hamish Watson (definite card for tip tackle) but ignores SA having the penalty count going 8 v 1 against them in the second half without losing anyone for deliberate infringing. Of the three TMO incidents for tries, one was clearly correct (knock on by Kolbe), one benefitted the Boks (Fafs try) and the third appears to be correct from the front on angle which wasn't shown during the game but I assume was seen by the TMO.
So whats the Springbok gameplan for the 2nd test? Pretend everything is OK, do the same again and hope they can benefit from TMO mistakes to get more tries?
Great photo. Clear and obvious as mud, in words of Will Greenwood!
And two of those 8 penalties were bogus. Very few in red zone.
But agree with summation. Stick with game plan and it will come down to how the 50:50s break.
I think I’d revert to big eightman.
If you expand that pic it is quite clear really, though obviously not clear at the time from the footage we were shown. But do you really think Le Roux knew exactly where his feet were in relation to the kicker or do you think he was trying to squeeze as much as he could? Like Curry’s late hit on De Klerk, a little bit different and you’re a hero but if you put yourself at the mercy of the officials don’t t expect everything to go your way. The ironic thing is that Le Roux could have been half a yard onside and he would still have scored. Forward pass notwithstanding 😬
-
@catogrande I think Le Roux would have been pumped with Adrenalin and just trying to chase.
But as you note a foot back and he’s onside and (forward pass excepted) scores.
Likewise, Kolbe’s knock down goes a foot further back and De Allande still scores.
Thank goodness for technology?!
-
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
But as you note a foot back and he’s inside and (forward pass excepted) scores.
This came up a while ago, and it's always confused me with overlapping players. Anyone know what the actual interpretation is - is it that you have to have part of your body grounded behind the ball?
Or that you just need some overlap?
-
@nzzp said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
But as you note a foot back and he’s inside and (forward pass excepted) scores.
This came up a while ago, and it's always confused me with overlapping players. Anyone know what the actual interpretation is - is it that you have to have part of your body grounded behind the ball?
Or that you just need some overlap?
Not the ball, the player.
Can't be in front of the last player to play the ball.
In most cases it is an easy look at the front feet on the ground but I guess that in a case like this it is the line of the kicking foot? -
@kiwiwomble said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
I feel like I’m missing something, there is loads of banter on the socials about the game being a bit of a hiding, felt to me like they limped over the line
Banter on socials is not known for being the most accurate reflection of reality. But any BIL fans who really think that was a hiding are deluded. They were in control at the end, and were unquestionably the better team for half the game. But it was a close game, a few moments of luck and a few decisions the other way would have made it a very different game.
-
@mikethesnow said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@pecotrain said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@mikethesnow
Only news I can find is https://www.ruck.co.uk/lions-injury-update-biggar-and-jones-out-russell-returns/
When asked about Biggar, Gatland responded: “We’ll have to see. It’s a tricky one”I assume that means its not tricky at all and he's not available. Think he already had a knee niggle so this has made it worse.
From the article it says he failed his HIA.
At the time I thought it was a knee injury and some shrewd/dodgy coaching from Gatland to take Biggar off for a HIA so Daly could come back on.
There's nothing shrewd about finding a way to get Daly back on
-
@pecotrain said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
Point being that Boks being 5 behind at end was unlucky, and allowed Lions to close it out. If 2 points different ball game!
5 points means you need to manufacture a try rather than earn a penalty - given that all of SA's try scoring opportunities in the game after the 5 minute mark (when Itoje got his hads on the ball in questionable circumstances) came from mistakes that created opportunities from broken play rather than genuine pressure and broken play was just as likely to result in Lions points as Springbok points.
Your analysis of the reffing is right around Hamish Watson (definite card for tip tackle) but ignores SA having the penalty count going 8 v 1 against them in the second half without losing anyone for deliberate infringing. Of the three TMO incidents for tries, one was clearly correct (knock on by Kolbe), one benefitted the Boks (Fafs try) and the third appears to be correct from the front on angle which wasn't shown during the game but I assume was seen by the TMO.
So whats the Springbok gameplan for the 2nd test? Pretend everything is OK, do the same again and hope they can benefit from TMO mistakes to get more tries?
would love to see this angle for the pass before it too, i thought that looked worse than Le Roux
-
My immediate reaction was that it was forward and offside, but both were very close. None of the replays I've seen since have changed my mind.
-
@gibbonrib said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@kiwiwomble said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
I feel like I’m missing something, there is loads of banter on the socials about the game being a bit of a hiding, felt to me like they limped over the line
Banter on socials is not known for being the most accurate reflection of reality. But any BIL fans who really think that was a hiding are deluded. They were in control at the end, and were unquestionably the better team for half the game. But it was a close game, a few moments of luck and a few decisions the other way would have made it a very different game.
According to Planet Rugby ratings the Lions won't have a chance in tests 2 and 3. The Boks pretty much all played well below their normal level and got 5s to 7s, while the Lions all played at the top of theirs, and were getting 8s and 9s. Hardly any wonder so many deluded fans with media of this quality. I felt the game turned on Itoje getting away with his kneel on players turnover. If there was a penalty or a card there, it would likely have been fairly different as the Boks were well on top.
-
I have to say, id rather things this close just be given, ive always been a fan of of theyve earned it give it, i dont care if there is a mm gap between their hand and the ball, or in this case his foot is 100mm infront when running at full tilt
Falling back on some uni photogrammetry, his foot is well of the ground as he's kicking it but theyve lined the line up perfectly in line with his toe even at this angle, if we drew a vertical line straight down from his toe is would most likely be infront of that yellow line so is may be even closer than it looks here
-
@kiwiwomble said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
I have to say, id rather things this close just be given, ive always been a fan of of theyve earned it give it, i dont care if there is a mm gap between their hand and the ball, or in this case his foot is 100mm infront when running at full tilt
Falling back on some uni photogrammetry, his foot is well of the ground as he's kicking it but theyve lined the line up perfectly in line with his toe even at this angle, if we drew a vertical line straight down from his toe is would most likely be infront of that yellow line so is may be even closer than it looks here
Yeah get what you mean. I was confident at the the time it wasn't a try, and more confident after seeing the replay, but I wasn't confident that it wouldn't be awarded.
It was close enough that I wouldn't have been outraged if it was allowed. It was reasonable for he the ref to say he thought was ok on field, and it would have been reasonable enough for the TMO to say there wasn't enough certainty to overturn the result. Luckily for the Lions he decided there was, but very fine margins. Similar to the decision that there was no knock-on before Faf's try.
-
I haven't seen the pass from this angle - given the tendency to judge on direction of the ball rather than the movement of the hands to allow for forward momentum, I suspect it was flat at best.
Certainly nothing as clear as as the foot in front once a line is drawn.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
Falling back on some uni photogrammetry, his foot is well of the ground as he's kicking it but theyve lined the line up perfectly in line with his toe even at this angle, if we drew a vertical line straight down from his toe is would most likely be infront of that yellow line so is may be even closer than it looks here
While I understand your argument, see Premiership football for the implementation. The number of "shoulder/elbow is offside" calls has left everyone fustrated I think...
The real challenge is how many camera angles do you need before you can get an unobstructed view of any event and the answer is "a lot" combined with a lot of time to review them all.
It's the path too madness I tells ya!
-
@pecotrain yeah, but those are people being judged as off side, im referring to the person setting the offside line, the foot kicking the ball is off the ground and so this camera angle is projecting the line behind where a vertical line would put it
