Springboks v British & Irish Lions I
-
@gibbonrib nah, penalty on only - just a bump to remind the halfback that you are there.
But... That clear out on Mapimpi is a shocker. VDM comes in from completely the wrong side, lifts the legs almost vertically. I am tempted to say he could have doid.
-
@oompb I don't blame the refs for missing it, I've watched the game twice and watched the highlights (on which that sequence featured) and missed it every time. But that is dangerous af.
It's a problem with the current review system that a brush with the head on ducking opponent is a red, but something like that can be completely missed.
-
Where on the match timeline was that Sid? I can’t remember seeing anything and nothing on the highlights that I’ve seen.
-
@catogrande it's the ruck following Am's big tackle on Daly. It's on the clip shared by some Johan Jaco Twitter account (22 sec in)
-
Thanks, I’ll check it out.
-
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions 1:
@catogrande it's the ruck following Am's big tackle on Daly. It's on the clip shared by some Johan Jaco Twitter account (22 sec in)
Hmm. Not a good look was it?
-
@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?
that's onside for me. Why? Because it looks onside.
WE really don't want rugby going down the football VAR route. You can be 100% sure that Le Roux was trying to keep onside and would have scored still if he'd been 6 inches back.
-
@majorrage 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?
that's onside for me. Why? Because it looks onside.
WE really don't want rugby going down the football VAR route. You can be 100% sure that Le Roux was trying to keep onside and would have scored still if he'd been 6 inches back.
I agree with your general thought on this but it also highlights a problem. That's offside for me. Why? Because it looks offside. However, you're right, we don't want to go down this route and I'd still stay with the ref's/assistants' decision on such matters.
As for Le Roux trying to be onside, you can argue that he should have tried a whole lot harder and taken any doubt out of the equation - easy in hindsight I know.
Mumble, mumble, should have gone back for the forward pass. Mumble.
