RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2)
-
@Machpants said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Nepia said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@NTA said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
It seems a complete luxury to win by 30 and bitch about the ref, I must say.
If you're asking for consistency, you're obviously watching the wrong sport.
Wouldn't it be the best time? We won, we won handily, most of us like Owens as a ref, we thought he made some poor decisions. Let's not pretend he had a perfect game.
We still want him for the SF instead of Garces. I'm ok with Peyper
-
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
-
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.) -
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)You were also allowed to defend mauls (and rucks) by swimming up the side and pushing sideways. Which was valuable for defending your line.
Now defenders aren't allowed on the edges of mauls, but attackers can swim wherever they want.
The pad is half a metre thick and pokes out in front of the line. It was borderline sensible back in the day, now it is just stupid. Attackers should aim for the other 69m of tryline and not be rewarded for banging into a post like a drunk unco.
-
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
it just didn't look right.
Agree that it didn't look right, but which law did it contravene? I would dispute that was dangerous like a cannonball.
Also agree that the base of the posts thing is daft.
A rugby field is supposed to be 100m, not 99.4 ish for some of it.@Crucial has the solution (goal kickers may disagree).
-
@Kirwan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@chimoaus said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
An honest question but you often hear people say the ABs are fitter, and sides slow the game down when playing us.
How in the professional era with fitness coaches and state of the art gyms, nutritionists etc can any side be that much fitter than another?
Playing style? We regularly play at a higher pace, across multiple teams.
Also, I guess not all fitness training is equal either. Some teams seem to prefer bulk, which has a cost.
I think we definitely upped the accuracy at pace to another level. I think we have been trying this for the past 7 seasons or so with mixed success but it feels like the accuracy is going up another level therefore we can sustain the pace for much longer periods.
-
-
@Kirwan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
I really hate players sliding with their knees after trys are scored. Filth.
Yep. Not rugby, but Billy Slater made a living off it for several years before people started to turn on him.
Less cynical than that, but we see fairly regularly defensive players running into a tackle situation and whether they try to hold on or get underneath a potential try scorer. What’s the go with that given a tackled player should be allowed to place the ball unless he is held up. But if said player is not held up then he shouldn’t be prevented right?
-
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
but plenty do just that when defending thier goal line, aim for thier feet but ultimately you are just diving to get under them.
-
@ACT-Crusader just one of the many things to hate about Slater
-
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Rapido said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Snowy said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
That whole Matt Todd yellow discussion is quite interesting law wise. He basically just had a lie down and he wasn't off side. Surely the onus is on the attacking player to avoid him?
I used to get a bit tired on the field and have a rest all the time, nobody penalised me and gave me a card. If all of the ABs just said "fck this I'm going to sit down" then the oppo just have to go around them, their problem if there are obstacles in the way whether they are making tackles or not? Impeding a ball carrier is kind of the point as long as it isn't dangerous.
While I think Ownes made a meal of that, I think it is still probably the correct outcome. It's like a cannonball tackle. you can't dive on the ground in front of the player.
It's harsh in that Todd was putting his broken body on the line and protecting his hurt side, but it is still correct, it just didn't look right.
BTW. Can just state (repeat) that the scoring against the base of the goal pads is the stupidest rule in any sport, ever.
Wasn't stupid when there was no padding or padding was small. Now a piece of the try line has been moved forward and is difficult to defend.
Simple solution is to have pads in line with the try line (i.e. move the posts back.)NFL has the solution - posts should be on the dead ball line making the entire tryline post-free
Will never happen of course, too radical for the kickers now.
-
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are. -
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are.Just an adjustment for them. I reckon fair bit of muscle memory gets built up over years of kicking from different spots
But yeah, not a massive deal. I'm also fine with moving the pads back.
-
@voodoo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Crucial said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@voodoo not sure why people think kickers will have a problem. For conversions you take the ball back to a comfortable angle anyway.
Cost of replacing goalposts wouldn’t be popular though if going NFL style.
Just dig the holes 300mm back and leave the laws as they are.Just an adjustment for them. I reckon fair bit of muscle memory gets built up over years of kicking from different spots
But yeah, not a massive deal. I'm also fine with moving the pads back.
For conversions you simply walk back to where it looks comfortable given the conditions e.g. wind, rain, turf and whether there is a fast chaser for charge downs. It could be different between kicks let alone games. The muscle memory is only in the kicking action and is why many kickers only have one strength of hit and the ball goes way past the goalposts for close kicks.
