Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11
-
@Bones said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@gt12 said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
Fair point. Clarke plays in 14.
What’s next?
You're not getting it, Foster wants specialists.
Clarke is locked in at 12.
No, the solution is to put Ardie there. It’s time.
-
@gt12 said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@Bones said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@gt12 said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
Fair point. Clarke plays in 14.
What’s next?
You're not getting it, Foster wants specialists.
Clarke is locked in at 12.
No, the solution is to put Ardie there. It’s time.
Now we're getting somewhere, I guess Clarke can shuffle out. So we're getting close to completing the Fozzie specialist backline:
9 DMac
10 Perenara
11 Beauden
12 Savea
13 Clarke
14 Jordie
15 Bridge.About right?
-
-
-
@pukunui said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@junior said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@canefan said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@junior said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@chimoaus said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@ACT-Crusader He basically walks up to the ruck, puts his hand on top of the wallaby then casually walks away. The next drive the ruck is directly under the posts. Its at this stage he should be demanding the ball to throw it over. WTF is he even doing at the ruck. The rest of the backline are out waiting.
That last shot of the 4 (bottom right) is quite telling - look at the space behind the ruck, right in front of the posts, basically the perfect spot for him to casually knock it over.
Like our failure in 2007 it has to be a failure of the onfield leadership group, its not up to Richie to call his own number
I don't disagree that there needs to be some collective accountability. However, by the same token, if your 10 does not have the nous or courage to make the big call in that situation, and more importantly put himself in a position to be the match winner, you have to wonder whether he has the temperament for test footy.
Rubbish! RM was in position for the droppie more than once. TJP needs to take the heat for not directing the play and giving the pass to RM for the DG attempt.
This is the exact same situation as against SA in 2018/2019 where we were camped 5m out and instead of BB or Dmac setting for a DG they tried to go for the try and Dmac dropped it cold.
NZRU definitely got the continuity they wanted when they hired Fozzie. Unfortunately it is a continuation of shit performances and brainless rugby.
Actually the Saffer defender knocked it on. But same effect.
-
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/ja6hsj/the_holy_post/
Might make a pilgrimaqe down to Te Papa.
-
On Rieko's grounding, and me saying his lax grounding technique has been bugging me for a few years.
I think, he botched a grounding few years ago away, v Argentina away, but got away with it. But warning, my memory is atrocious of anything about post circa-1996 ... this nugget of info could be 100% wrong. anyone else ? Maybe it was a time he grounded it like that in the wet?, or he grounded it like that when a cover defender was getting darn close ... I can't remember specifics.
For the record I think his grounding was technically just ok on Sunday. Don't agree with the decision on that occasion.
-
@Rapido said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
On Rieko's grounding, and me saying his lax grounding technique has been bugging me for a few years.
I think, he botched a grounding few years ago away, v Argentina away, but got away with it. But warning, my memory is atrocious of anything about post circa-1996 ... this nugget of info could be 100% wrong. anyone else ?
For the record I think his grounding was technically just ok on Sunday. Don't agree with the decision on that occasion.
Technically just OK?
It either was or wasn't.
TMO protocols are clear. An on-field call of try means clear evidence is needed to overturn. Has anyone seen a clear picture of separation with finger and ball?
I know it was possible that there was. Can even understand a call of likely. But possible and likely aren't criteria. Clear evidence is. -
@Crucial i think he lost it and no try, but no, i havent seen a perfectly clear pic of separation between finger tip and ball
this is proabably as clear as ive seen, his hand would have too be pretty long (longer than his other one) to still be touching it...but its still far from clear
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@Rapido said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
On Rieko's grounding, and me saying his lax grounding technique has been bugging me for a few years.
I think, he botched a grounding few years ago away, v Argentina away, but got away with it. But warning, my memory is atrocious of anything about post circa-1996 ... this nugget of info could be 100% wrong. anyone else ?
For the record I think his grounding was technically just ok on Sunday. Don't agree with the decision on that occasion.
Technically just OK?
It either was or wasn't.
TMO protocols are clear. An on-field call of try means clear evidence is needed to overturn. Has anyone seen a clear picture of separation with finger and ball?
I know it was possible that there was. Can even understand a call of likely. But possible and likely aren't criteria. Clear evidence is.It's just ok in that if he was an inch taller, or he was placing it at one of those points on a field with one of those cricket style lift a hatch irrigation tap parts of the ground that are in a dip .... or he was standing a bloody footstool ..... - the ball would have seperated from his hand before touching the ground.
But he wasn't, and it didn't.
I've only watched it on the screen above the bar queues in the concourse (and on a laptop since). With no commentary to hear the TMO conversation. But I saw no separation. I was genuinely surprised when the decision was
made.I don't think the TMO was making that decision on separation, I think he had a different opinion of in-control.
How can the ball be grounded in in-goal?:
- A. by holding the ball and touching the ground with it,
- B. by pressing down on it with hand/s, arm/s, or front of the body from waist to neck.
From: https://www.rugbytoolbox.co.nz/referees/law-questions-and-answers/law-21-in-goal
A. is for a player carrying the ball to the line
B. is for a player chasing a kick or diving on a loose ball.SO, I think I have a different opinion of in control than the TMO, and I suspect out another TMO in there they would have had a different opinion also.
Just my thoughts on trying to mind read someone else's thoughts of which I heard none.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@Crucial i think he lost it and no try, but no, i havent seen a perfectly clear pic of separation between finger tip and ball
this is proabably as clear as ive seen, his hand would have too be pretty long (longer than his other one) to still be touching it...but its still far from clear
He's already squashed that mutha-f@cking ball into a 2 inch deep hole.
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
TMO protocols are clear. An on-field call of try means clear evidence is needed to overturn.
My exact thinking at the time - not enough evidence.
A bit of inconsistency on the field when you've got an instant to make a call can happen.
When you've got a couple of minutes, WTF? And also: where are the superslowmo UHD cameras after all these years?
-
@Rapido It seemed like a hometown TMO trying too hard to not be biased - and balanced out the the non hometown touchies mistake, but not really as it doesn't work like that ....
I'm still not certain that DMac actually stripped that ruck ball and that play had a huge influence on the end result.
But there were lost of decisions like that either way in this match.
-
im still firmly in the camp of Reiko being mostly to blame, why risk dropping it...just dot it down like a normal person
-
@Nepia said in Bledisloe One: Wellington, October 11:
@Rapido It seemed like a hometown TMO trying too hard to not be biased - and balanced out the the non hometown touchies mistake, but not really as it doesn't work like that ....
I'm still not certain that DMac actually stripped that ruck ball and that play had a huge influence on the end result.
But there were lost of decisions like that either way in this match.
Yeah, I'm not that fussed TBH.
Just don't think super slo-mo should be used like that, but I suppose something in real time made them want to check, so onus on Rieko to ground it like a pro. -
-
Rieko's risky grounding v Argentina 2018 that's in my memory bank:
No question a legit try, I said previously I thought he got away with one, but my memory was doddy ... well, it's both goodish but dodgy. Good enough to track down a youtube video, but dodgy to questoin legitimacy of his try.
<iframe src='//gifs.com/embed/riekogif-P7vmvl' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' width='640px' height='360px' style='-webkit-backface-visibility: hidden;-webkit-transform: scale(1);' ></iframe>
Below will take you to a gif:
gifs.com/gif/riekogif-P7vmvl -
@Rapido in real time the ball bounces up so that raises doubt about the grounding. This one was less of any issue because he’s holding the ball and touching it on the ground. The problem with the one on Sunday is he’s clearly not holding the ball whilst grounding it.
His first try in that Argies test was perfect. Keep doing it like that young fella.
