All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2
-
Was just thinking that from time to time Hansen does get a bit too clever, and when he does it seems to involve Kaino.
In Chicago it was thinking that he was an international class lock from the first minute against a tough Irish pack.
Last night, it was thinking that we could get rid of him so soon on a wet night. If that scenario had ever been discussed, it certainly looked like a shock to Kaino. In hindsight keeping him going till halftime at least might have been better in the conditions and given the opposition.
All that said, it doesn't help when someone leaves you playing 55 mins with only 14 men...
-
@Kruse late charge was one we see all the time, sometimes pinged, sometimes not.
THe hit while BB was on the deck, IMO very deliberate and potentially dangerous.
-
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@Crash said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
I doubt some of the anger will have washed away overnight but I'm going to make the comment anyway.
When the head contact directives came in we all said it was only going to be a matter of time before a test was ruined because of them.
Now SBW should certainly have been more careful knowing the directives and should have realised the dangerous situation he was getting into. He must certainly take the blame.
However, before the directives that would have been a YC. Clumsy accidental contact to the head. A lot of posters are carrying on as if that was a deliberate shoulder charge. It was a tackle assist executed dangerously.
Yep completely agree - tackle assist, poor execution careless and a YC - new protocols introduced have changed our game completely and not always for the better. Amazingly enough, Watson passed his HIA, but Naholo failed his.
I don't even know who hit Naholo but his was also a poorly executed, lack of due care, tackle assist that actually caused a head injury yet nothing? I think Ayoub had given up by then, he knew Garces wasn't listening to him.
A poor showing by the ref team that lost it's way. Not only with the MV and Naholo incidents but the ARs completely lost sight of the offside lines in the last 10 minutes as well, it was a fucken mess.
Quit the whingeing lads, we're not Irish. Naholo concussion doesn't automatically equal foul play. Reckon there is zero zilch nada chance O'Brien will be cited for that.
Ref had some poor calls either way. Just like in every match ever played.
Agree. Reminded me of McCaw on Parra in 2011 RWC final.
-
@taniwharugby Yep - and I'd need to have another look at the "cleanout" - but was it ever anywhere near necessary? A couple of posters mentioned BB was "on the wrong side", but my recollection (after many a beer) was that he was pretty much the only guy there, and hadn't even had a chance to roll away yet.
The late charge - looked like a big fat guy TRYING to make a big hit, but failing miserably. -
@Kruse said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
I really didn't think there was fuck all in the vunipola cleanout, he hardly hit him and beauden milked it for all it was worth.
Wtf? Are you blind?
The Vunipola "late charge" - nothing in it, but if I was to cover one eye, I'd ponder whether there was intent without damage.
The Vunipola cleanout - dodgy, and reckless at best. Coming so soon after the late charge... I can imagine a post in the conspiracy thread about it.
(Along the lines of... after the "late charge" - was that a hollywood by Barrett? And if so - was it because Vunipola said something as he failed to take him out? Targetted.)I felt the Lions could be aggrieved about the late charge. But to say that there was nothing in that cleanout and that BB played Hollywood (not you Kruse but Mr farking Magoo) is just plain weird.
-
Christ Gatland, you just coached a team to a win over the abs and you have to go and make it all about you.
-
@Kruse coincidentally on replay right this minute.
BB was our only player there, was roling away from the tackled player and about to get up, he wasnt even touching the tackled player, and MUrray had his hands on the ball (unsighted in
this still below that makes things look much worse)
-
@jegga WTF is Gatland even talking about, when he refers to "personal attacks"?
I've been reading only a little bit of media from both NH and NZ papers, and generally - not too much inflammatory in NZ. But perhaps that's my one-eyed NZ arrogance.
But in the English papers, which cite NZ papers as claiming certain things - I click on the links which one would presume link to those NZ papers... and end up at an opinion piece by the same english paper.
I'm certainly not claiming that NZ papers haven't been dicks - that NZ Herald clown shit is getting might old, and of course Rattue and Reason are just fucking idiots... but if anybody can point to these "personal attacks" - I'd genuinely like to read them. -
@jegga said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
Christ Gatland, you just coached a team to a win over the abs and you have to go and make it all about you.
Yeah galvanized him and his team to send a farking mind message to SBW to get sent off. piston wristed gibbon.
-
@taniwharugby did he actually hit him though? When I saw it I thought he basically skimmed over the top of him, making only pretty light contact. Barrett stayed down as if he had been hit hard, but it didn't look like it to me. I don't think it was clear head contact any more than what you see at heaps of rucks, just more obvious with less players around. Sort of seemed like an 'is a high tackle penalisable if it misses' sort of situation to me.
Unnecessary, clumsy, illegal - probably all of those things, but a clear red card like some are saying? When we haven't had one since 1967? I don't really buy that. -
@reprobate said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@taniwharugby did he actually hit him though? When I saw it I thought he basically skimmed over the top of him, making only pretty light contact. Barrett stayed down as if he had been hit hard, but it didn't look like it to me. I don't think it was clear head contact any more than what you see at heaps of rucks, just more obvious with less players around. Sort of seemed like an 'is a high tackle penalisable if it misses' sort of situation to me.
Unnecessary, clumsy, illegal - probably all of those things, but a clear red card like some are saying? When we haven't had one since 1967? I don't really buy that.Are we talking about the same incident?
Late charge - he pretty much skimmed his chest, Barrett stayed down for some reason.
Cleanout - nailed him with forearm, Barrett didn't do any hollywood (that I noticed).
Not that I'm sold on the red-card theory, but... -
@jegga said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
Christ Gatland, you just coached a team to a win over the abs and you have to go and make it all about you.
Warren-bawl?
Or maybe a "sook"?
Gatland is like Mourinho and Woodward - in his head, there is always some part of what is going on that is about him.
This sort of grandstanding never happened with Geech in '89, '93. '97 or '09 (or the mid-week part of '05).
At RWC 2019 it will happen with Eddie J but not with Joe Schmidt.
Different folks, different strokes.
Give me Geech and Joe any day.PS Please don't take Joe in 2019 - we want him for the RWC in Ireland 2023!
-
@Kruse said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@jegga WTF is Gatland even talking about, when he refers to "personal attacks"?
I've been reading only a little bit of media from both NH and NZ papers, and generally - not too much inflammatory in NZ. But perhaps that's my one-eyed NZ arrogance.
But in the English papers, which cite NZ papers as claiming certain things - I click on the links which one would presume link to those NZ papers... and end up at an opinion piece by the same english paper.
I'm certainly not claiming that NZ papers haven't been dicks - that NZ Herald clown shit is getting might old, and of course Rattue and Reason are just fucking idiots... but if anybody can point to these "personal attacks" - I'd genuinely like to read them.It'll be great when a few of these lions retire and we get to see what they really thought of him.
-
I've just watched both press conferences. Gatland's comments were in response to a question from a UK journo, so you need to see the full video for context. I'm sure the NZH clown photo was the catalyst for the question but Gatland is very complimentary to NZ rugby fans.
-
@Megweya said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@jegga said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
Christ Gatland, you just coached a team to a win over the abs and you have to go and make it all about you.
Warren-bawl?
Or maybe a "sook"?
Gatland is like Mourinho and Woodward - in his head, there is always some part of what is going on that is about him.
This sort of grandstanding never happened with Geech in '89, '93. '97 or '09 (or the mid-week part of '05).
At RWC 2019 it will happen with Eddie J but not with Joe Schmidt.
Different folks, different strokes.
Give me Geech and Joe any day.PS Please don't take Joe in 2019 - we want him for the RWC in Ireland 2023!
Any word of mcGeechan? I reckon Jones would be good to have a beer with , Gatland ? Yeah, nah
-
@Kruse said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@taniwharugby did he actually hit him though? When I saw it I thought he basically skimmed over the top of him, making only pretty light contact. Barrett stayed down as if he had been hit hard, but it didn't look like it to me. I don't think it was clear head contact any more than what you see at heaps of rucks, just more obvious with less players around. Sort of seemed like an 'is a high tackle penalisable if it misses' sort of situation to me.
Unnecessary, clumsy, illegal - probably all of those things, but a clear red card like some are saying? When we haven't had one since 1967? I don't really buy that.Are we talking about the same incident?
Late charge - he pretty much skimmed his chest, Barrett stayed down for some reason.
Cleanout - nailed him with forearm, Barrett didn't do any hollywood (that I noticed).
Not that I'm sold on the red-card theory, but...Incredibly enough it is talking about the cleanout.
-
@reprobate @ ~55:19 if you want to go re-watch it.
Definite contact with BB head by his shoulder, albeit not a solid contact, but totally unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@Kruse said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #2:
@taniwharugby did he actually hit him though? When I saw it I thought he basically skimmed over the top of him, making only pretty light contact. Barrett stayed down as if he had been hit hard, but it didn't look like it to me. I don't think it was clear head contact any more than what you see at heaps of rucks, just more obvious with less players around. Sort of seemed like an 'is a high tackle penalisable if it misses' sort of situation to me.
Unnecessary, clumsy, illegal - probably all of those things, but a clear red card like some are saying? When we haven't had one since 1967? I don't really buy that.Are we talking about the same incident?
Late charge - he pretty much skimmed his chest, Barrett stayed down for some reason.
Cleanout - nailed him with forearm, Barrett didn't do any hollywood (that I noticed).
Not that I'm sold on the red-card theory, but...Incredibly enough it is talking about the cleanout.
Yeah - it's been mentioned that the cleanout was what is being discussed several times, but I just went and watched a replay of both... and the only way the comments make sense is if perhaps there's some miscommunication.
Edit: actually - the cleanout - from first angle, it does look like MV just skimmed over the top. It's only on the reverse angle you see the forearm (deliberately?) nailing him.
