Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Moderator: Puja

User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17795
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by Puja »

Thought Gloucester looked so much worse when Chapman went off. Don't know why they make that decision - Meehan is just so pedestrian.

Glaws are doing their absolute best to avoid getting into the top 4.

Puja
Backist Monk
User avatar
Gloskarlos
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by Gloskarlos »

Well that was disappointing. Odd changes in the second half. Ultimately can’t go 17 points down and expect to win well, conceding the instant we went to 14 was disastrous too. Very odd refereeing at times, felt we got nothing at the breakdown throughout, that area was just a mess from Tempest, but the Singleton try shouldn’t have stood. Meehan is not a finisher unless you’re 20 points up. I don’t think we are a top 4 side yet. Would’ve been happy with top 6 at the start of the season. That game was there to be won though, same as Wasps.
fivepointer
Posts: 5925
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by fivepointer »

Well done Bristol. They gave that everything and were deserved winners. They lost 2 players early on and then had Bedlow red carded, yet still came back to win the game at the end. That was a ballsy effort.
Glos did enough to get 2 pts and are still in the top 4 hunt. Maybe they do lack a bot of depth here and there but goodness they have a potent force in LR-Z.
Raggs
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:17 am

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by Raggs »

No arguement with red, but the head wasn't first point of contact. The head clearly goes forward after the tackle is initiated, and then collides.

More luck than judgement, and still a tackle type that shouldn't be used though.
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17795
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by Puja »

Raggs wrote:No arguement with red, but the head wasn't first point of contact. The head clearly goes forward after the tackle is initiated, and then collides.

More luck than judgement, and still a tackle type that shouldn't be used though.
I would argue that the head moving forward wasn't the sole reason the head contact happens though - the shoulder was going through to hit the head anyway, it was just accelerated by the head movement.

Puja
Backist Monk
Raggs
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:17 am

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by Raggs »

Puja wrote:
Raggs wrote:No arguement with red, but the head wasn't first point of contact. The head clearly goes forward after the tackle is initiated, and then collides.

More luck than judgement, and still a tackle type that shouldn't be used though.
I would argue that the head moving forward wasn't the sole reason the head contact happens though - the shoulder was going through to hit the head anyway, it was just accelerated by the head movement.

Puja
Agreed. It's just it makes the "first point of contact" not the head, which in theory can be used as mitigation.
Peej
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:01 pm

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by Peej »

I thought the TMO/ref link was off throughout. It was all very odd.
jimKRFC
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:42 pm

Re: Bristol vs Gloucester: Friday

Post by jimKRFC »

That was a much better performance! Didn't expect to get anything out of that so well pleased.

Big difference for me was that the set piece was solid so we could off front foot ball rather than turning over ball or getting penalised and marched back. Hopefully they can carry this over to the next few games!
Post Reply