Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth)
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@toddy said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Fucken dammit. Too slow.
What are you, Scott Barrett playing 6?
If he was slower he wouldn't have overrun the ruck leaving a gaping hole.
-
I think we all have to remember is that contact to the head should be rightfully jumped on, but Retallic's boot was what caused Hooper's cut to face, completely accidental as he was running through, so next argument could be, you have to look where you put feet when running! Does anyone on here think that should of been RCed, as he did a lot more damage.
-
One of those things is coachable.
I was watching the game whilst at a birthday party, and although I didn't think JB deserved a RC, the moment it happened I turned to another one of the guys and said - that's a RC.
Whether it should be or not is different, but with catching being a coached skill I assume they want to make sure that nothing dodgy creeps in with players raising feet etc.
Again, I don't think it was intentional, but it is coachable.
-
@dan54 said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I think we all have to remember is that contact to the head should be rightfully jumped on, but Retallic's boot was what caused Hooper's cut to face, completely accidental as he was running through, so next argument could be, you have to look where you put feet when running! Does anyone on here think that should of been RCed, as he did a lot more damage.
That's Hooper's fault and he should've been penalised - have to be on your feet to play the game.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
That's Hooper's fault and he should've been penalised - have to be on your feet to play the game.
Nice.
You also can't run in to take a player in the air, so if you get a foot in the face - tough.
What happened to personal responsibility? If Jordie was reckless, so was he about his own safety, shouldn't be that close to a player in the air anyway.
We can all stop rugby now, it's just dangerous.
Facetious comments above but FFS accidents happen. It's a contact sport.
-
Interesting comments here about BB’s game by Mark Reason. It used to be that we talked about kicking in the first 40 i.e. not playing with the ball, as our strategy. So I can see why he kicked a lot in the first 30 minutes. The only time I had a problem was when we had a penalty advantage and used the cross kick to marked players. Just a waste.
-
One kick I really liked from Beaudy was after Wallabies had scored at 18-7. ABs attacking about 40 out from Wallaby line but not really going anywhere - Beaudy puts in a check/cross kick across his body to to the corner. The balls roll into the in goal with Havili chasing ensuring the Wallabies have to force it and have a goal line drop out.
ABs collect the drop out and set up a ruck. ABs then score the next phase with Akira's break and putting Jordan away.
It was a good example of pinning Wallabies back and re-setting.
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
One kick I really liked from Beaudy was after Wallabies had scored at 18-7. ABs attacking about 40 out from Wallaby line but not really going anywhere - Beaudy puts in a check/cross kick across his body to to the corner. The balls roll into the in goal with Havili chasing ensuring the Wallabies have to force it and have a goal line drop out.
ABs collect the drop out and set up a ruck. ABs then score the next phase with Akira's break and putting Jordan away.
It was a good example of pinning Wallabies back and re-setting.
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
I'm glad, that's an annoying league style change I dislike more than the goal line drop out (hmm, maybe I should post this on grumpy old man thread too).
-
@kiwimurph that kick was slated by sometime during the game comments, to which I replied 'goal line drop outs are hard' sure enough, we score. I think he was actually going for the 50-22, but didn't quite bounced his way. But with the goal line drop out rule combined with 50-22, that was a great piece of controlling high percentage play, to me
-
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial its the ABs, he will get it reversed, RC rescinded and a try awarded to his record.
And if he doesn’t, JUSTICE 4 Jordie. J4J armbands and t-shirts for the next few tests.
-
@act-crusader said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial its the ABs, he will get it reversed, RC rescinded and a try awarded to his record.
And if he doesn’t, JUSTICE 4 Jordie. J4J armbands and t-shirts for the next few tests.
Nothing less than a public apology from the ref will suffice
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
I think one of the very first kicks of the last game looked like a 50-22 attempt, but it bounced up instead of out.
It is an interesting tactical change now because if you have the ball within your 50 and 40m line the opposition wingers almost have to drop back to protect the 50-22 which in theory opens up the wide channels. I'm not sure if that is how Akira was used. As in purposely get your phase play to just within your 50 and then send it wide. Or setup phase play to go for the 50-22 which if pulled off is a huge advantage.
-
@chimoaus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
I think one of the very first kicks of the last game looked like a 50-22 attempt, but it bounced up instead of out.
It is an interesting tactical change now because if you have the ball within your 50 and 40m line the opposition wingers almost have to drop back to protect the 50-22 which in theory opens up the wide channels. I'm not sure if that is how Akira was used. As in purposely get your phase play to just within your 50 and then send it wide. Or setup phase play to go for the 50-22 which if pulled off is a huge advantage.
Exactly. The effects of that law aren't immediately obvious. The intention was always to reduce the 13 man walls of defence.
-
@act-crusader said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial its the ABs, he will get it reversed, RC rescinded and a try awarded to his record.
And if he doesn’t, JUSTICE 4 Jordie. J4J armbands and t-shirts for the next few tests.
Ugh, you Cantabs are becoming Saffas.
If you are going to go that way a Barrett's Stop Getting Red Cards armbands seems to me more sensible to help ensure BB doesn't get the trifecta next week.
-
@crucial said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@chimoaus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
I think one of the very first kicks of the last game looked like a 50-22 attempt, but it bounced up instead of out.
It is an interesting tactical change now because if you have the ball within your 50 and 40m line the opposition wingers almost have to drop back to protect the 50-22 which in theory opens up the wide channels. I'm not sure if that is how Akira was used. As in purposely get your phase play to just within your 50 and then send it wide. Or setup phase play to go for the 50-22 which if pulled off is a huge advantage.
Exactly. The effects of that law aren't immediately obvious. The intention was always to reduce the 13 man walls of defence.
May be more effective on a skiddy pitch against a Sean Edwards-style rush defense?
I haven't seen the AB's really change their push-up and drift defense in ... years?
I think percentage-wise they are still happy to give up ground, rely on speed to the breakdown and technique to isolate a center/wing and then target the breakdown to look to counter-attack.
-
I couldnt clearly recall the Nabura one, but jeez he looks like he lined that one up!
-
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster. -
@nostrildamus I think it's a case of "if the law says it's a red card, the law is an ass"
I think a more senior ref. might be more inclined to knowingly give a yellow, like Nigel Owens.
Wayne Barnes might be 50/50 i.e. give the red and then say to his superiors in the post-game review "look in this situation, the law is an ass and we need to look at it".
Harder for a more junior ref. trying to make it up the hierarchy though.
-
@landp you do realize invoking Wayne Barnes' name is instant PTSD?
