All Blacks v Pumas 1
-
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
had to laugh when one of the Argie players had slid down in a tackle, was lying on the ground holding our players foot as he tried to wade on while upright, and the ref told the player on the ground he had to release him.
That was a clear penalty. The ref saw it. He commented on it. It continued and had an effect on play. Baffling.
Why?
He hadn’t completed the tackle
-
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
had to laugh when one of the Argie players had slid down in a tackle, was lying on the ground holding our players foot as he tried to wade on while upright, and the ref told the player on the ground he had to release him.
That was a clear penalty. The ref saw it. He commented on it. It continued and had an effect on play. Baffling.
Why?
He hadn’t completed the tackle
I get what you are angling at but 'the game is played only by players who are on their feet'.
A player on the ground in the field of play, without the ball is out of the game and must:
Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
Not play the ball.
Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent. -
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
had to laugh when one of the Argie players had slid down in a tackle, was lying on the ground holding our players foot as he tried to wade on while upright, and the ref told the player on the ground he had to release him.
That was a clear penalty. The ref saw it. He commented on it. It continued and had an effect on play. Baffling.
Why?
He hadn’t completed the tackle
I get what you are angling at but 'the game is played only by players who are on their feet'.
A player on the ground in the field of play, without the ball is out of the game and must:
Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
Not play the ball.
Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.He was in the act of tackling
Perfectly legal to hold on to bring the man down
If not, then rugby has a lot more to worry about than head hits
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@pakman said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Now 60 - 70. First Whitelock knock across at lineout called forward. Then ref misses clear knock on, then penalised Cane for off ball tackle on Mantera. So that three points should never have happened.
Then ABs hot on attack, with Akira doing lots of carrying. Rieko cuts back into traffic. Puma 12 off feet then back on and jackals. Is that legal? If not shot almost in front. As is ref says fine and then penalises us for sealing off. 🤔The Cane penalty annoyed me. I guess with an inexperienced ref like that you were in his hands and needed to be careful but good refs realise when a dummy player is a legit option and committed tackles will happen. You want to pretend you are getting the ball then you can also cop a tackle IMO.
Tackle off the ball is for taking players out early or late and either removing an option or being dirty.What? You can't tackle a player without the ball, even if you fell for the dummy run. It's not like he was in front of the ball carrier either, was a dumb, needless penalty from a player frustrated and out of form.
-
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
The ref was a bit shit, sure. But seriously, what the fuck has that got to do with anything?
Since when do we lose to Argentina at home because a couple of decisions don't go our way?FFS. This again. 20 years plus on this forum and every single fucking time someone talks about reffing decisions in a loss someone says "that's not why we lost"
I think we all understand that and I don't see anyone here claiming otherwise. It is just a topic of conversation. Same as it is after a win. -
Groundhog Day
Everyone has a theory on the continuing mystifying propensity for the All Blacks, formerly the world’s greatest team, to not only repeatedly shoot themselves in both feet, but then to remove their socks and blow their toes off one by one.
The test in Christchurch was there for the taking in the first half. But poor discipline, together with an incapacity to adjust to the referee’s idiosyncratic style, brought them undone. This was compounded by the head-scratching decision by the coaching box just minutes into the second half to replace the entire front row, including the ABs’ most in-form player. From there, it was just a comedy of schoolboy errors, including the aimless pie-chucking of Codie Taylor into potentially match-winning line outs.
All the Argentinians had to do was to give their opponents the ball and watch them implode. Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we seen this movie before? Ian Foster and Sam Cane are like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, reliving the same nightmare over and over. In this case, however, the adenoidal tones of Sonny Bono on the alarm clock radio were supplied by Michael Cheika.
Murray’s character in that movie was a cynical and self-obsessed TV weatherman feeling trapped in a job and a routine that he doesn’t particularly like. So he is forced to live the same day over and over until he finds his purpose. Ultimately, after much trial and error, he realises he has choices and he has agency. He can’t keep blaming his predicament on everybody else.
In the case of the All Blacks, there are any number of external forces they can point to for their Groundhog funk. There is the coaching soap opera, of course, but also the selection controversies (wings at centres, open-sides at number eight, fullbacks at wings etc;). There is the ageing of faithful old warriors and the apparent lack of equally competent young replacements. There is the argument that Super Rugby, particularly without South Africa, is failing to prepare them for tests. There is the raiding of NZ coaching and playing IP by cashed-up NH clubs and an associated thinning of development programs at home. There is mounting concern among parents about stories of premature senility in repeatedly concussed players. Add to that stale game plans, refereeing controversies and inconsistencies and the vagaries of the rule book.
The point is there is always something externally you can blame for the state this team is in, but none on its own explains it. If you held a gun to my head and told me to boil it down to one thing, it would be a failure of leadership across the board. No-one is taking responsibility - from the NZR to the coaching set-up to the players themselves. The feeling is one of drift. Like the Mary Celeste, the All Black machine is a pilot-less ship lost at sea. And the failure of leadership is creating a crisis of confidence, of second-guessing that led to the debacle on Saturday night.
In short, no-one is in charge. And it shows.
-
@His-Bobness Well said. Agree with everything above. The days of NH cashed-up clubs though will soon be a thing of the past I think. The north has it's own problems, notwithstanding the looming energy crisis, and with it the sustainability of the SA clubs in European comps travelling back and forth between Europe & SA. Murmurings already afoot that SA clubs are not happy with the set up..
Back to the ABs. If we are a "ghost ship" adrift in dark and menacing seas, how do we fix the problem of absentee leadership, assuming Foster stays on through to the WC? -
@Jailbreak7 If Foster stays, I think they will need a new captain. Cane is a great warrior, but his confidence is shot and that’s infecting the rest of the squad.
-
We drop down to 7th am I right???!!!
-
well fuck....definitely dont watch the game on your phone in bed in the early hour of sunday after getting home from watching your club team lose the final and hearing Otago also lost...that was a shit 24 hours
nothing to add that hasn't been said....they just need to do something! new coach...would make a change...actually playing young talent they picked for the squad like sotutu or perofeta might change something....playing people in the strongest position would change something...just do fucking something other than the same guys playing the same way and loosing
-
@broughie said in Worst AB Captain:
@Kiwiwomble sure. Is Cane that person?
im not the best game analyst but i dont remember cane popping up with the ball as much as other 7's, im probably wrong but i feel he's doing the tackling that other countries would have their tights forwards doing and so he's not on the tacklers shoulder looking for the ball
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Worst AB Captain:
@broughie said in Worst AB Captain:
@Kiwiwomble sure. Is Cane that person?
im not the best game analyst but i dont remember cane popping up with the ball as much as other 7's, im probably wrong but i feel he's doing the tackling that other countries would have their tights forwards doing and so he's not on the tacklers shoulder looking for the ball
If we had more mobile, aggressive props would that take some of the pressure off Cane? It sounds like the Argies really had our number, forced us to do all the work and then pick us off at error time. I wonder which team of a few years ago that reminds me of?
-
@nostrildamus I think the lack of work by our props and to a lesser extent, our hooker when ST isnt playing, has been an issue for some time, putting additional load on our locks and forcing our loosies to play differently.
So I guess Saturday would highlight that given we looked better in the first 40 with some busy props and hooker, then we sub them off 4 minutes deep into the 2nd half, and our shape changes, so you could probably argue that it is playing its part.
-
@taniwharugby replacing the entire front row after they have only been back out on the paddock 4 mins was peak Fozzie
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
We drop down to 7th am I right???!!!
Lose again to Arg we go to 6th, Lose to Oz we then go to 7th
