v All Blacks III: the Decider

Moderators: Puja, Misc Forum Mod

Post Reply
Banquo
Posts: 20887
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Banquo »

Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.
agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed
User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10299
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Sandydragon »

A game you couldn't take your eyes off. Despite early AB dominance, the Lions could have won that with an it more composure in the second half.

Some huge performances out there and some average ones on both sides. But if nothing else this series has demonstrated the importance of a good goal kicker.
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by morepork »

Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.

I will fight you.
Banquo
Posts: 20887
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Banquo »

Sandydragon wrote:A game you couldn't take your eyes off. Despite early AB dominance, the Lions could have won that with an it more composure in the second half.

Some huge performances out there and some average ones on both sides. But if nothing else this series has demonstrated the importance of a good goal kicker.
yet what did we sacrifice today on that altar; Sexton is a good kicker to be fair.
Banquo
Posts: 20887
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Banquo »

shut up Simmonds you utter utter utter c&nt
Banquo
Posts: 20887
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Banquo »

yay, gats called out all Faz's fck ups, there is a god
Big D
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: RE: Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Big D »

Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.
The laws on the matter whilst trying to be clear are actually not and don't help the ref at all. Under law 11.6 it would be a penalty "offside after a knock on". But then under law 11.5 perhaps not as it states accidental offside is "when an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball....".

My view on that type of situation has been consistent since the last WC. The players can't make themselves invisible or stop their reactions when they are that close to the play and law 11.6 is for deliberate acts. But as a Scottish Lions fan I would be inclined to think that.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 16083
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: RE: Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Mellsblue »

Big D wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.
The laws on the matter whilst trying to be clear are actually not and don't help the ref at all. Under law 11.6 it would be a penalty "offside after a knock on". But then under law 11.5 perhaps not as it states accidental offside is "when an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball....".

My view on that type of situation has been consistent since the last WC. The players can't make themselves invisible or stop their reactions when they are that close to the play and law 11.6 is for deliberate acts. But as a Scottish Lions fan I would be inclined to think that.
For me, the issue was he momentarily caught the ball, not that I blame him. If he'd put his hands in the air or just not attempted catch it I'd accept accidental offside. But when you catch it, natural split second reaction as it was, you've got no defence.
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by skidger »

Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.
I didnt notice any of that last week and am sure there will be zero comment on the ref this week.
Banquo
Posts: 20887
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Banquo »

All in all, as I think Numbers noted earlier in the tour, we've done better than most of us thought we would.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 16083
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Mellsblue »

skidger wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.
zero comment .
Accidental or not, this is of the highest quality.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 16083
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Mellsblue »

morepork wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.

I will fight you.
on the bitches.
Big D
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Big D »

Mellsblue wrote:
Big D wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:Can't see that being anything other than a pen against Owens. Not that anybody would've done anything different than reacting as he did. But thems the laws.
Everyone on top of their game except Iceman. What a match, what a series. Good to see the NZ fans moaning about the referees performance. You know they know they've been in a scrap when that happens.
The laws on the matter whilst trying to be clear are actually not and don't help the ref at all. Under law 11.6 it would be a penalty "offside after a knock on". But then under law 11.5 perhaps not as it states accidental offside is "when an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball....".

My view on that type of situation has been consistent since the last WC. The players can't make themselves invisible or stop their reactions when they are that close to the play and law 11.6 is for deliberate acts. But as a Scottish Lions fan I would be inclined to think that.
For me, the issue was he momentarily caught the ball, not that I blame him. If he'd put his hands in the air or just not attempted catch it I'd accept accidental offside. But when you catch it, natural split second reaction as it was, you've got no defence.
To me in that scenario catching the ball is a reflex reaction in an unavoidable situation given how close he was to the play. IIRC he pretty much puts his hands up when he realises what happened which to me suggests his previous actions wasn't deliberately impacting play from an offside position. There was no reasonable way for him to get out the way so for me, and I do accept others disagree, Poite made the right call eventually.

If he had been a couple of metres further away I'd give a penalty.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 16083
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Mellsblue »

Big D wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:
Big D wrote: The laws on the matter whilst trying to be clear are actually not and don't help the ref at all. Under law 11.6 it would be a penalty "offside after a knock on". But then under law 11.5 perhaps not as it states accidental offside is "when an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball....".

My view on that type of situation has been consistent since the last WC. The players can't make themselves invisible or stop their reactions when they are that close to the play and law 11.6 is for deliberate acts. But as a Scottish Lions fan I would be inclined to think that.
For me, the issue was he momentarily caught the ball, not that I blame him. If he'd put his hands in the air or just not attempted catch it I'd accept accidental offside. But when you catch it, natural split second reaction as it was, you've got no defence.
To me in that scenario catching the ball is a reflex reaction in an unavoidable situation given how close he was to the play. IIRC he pretty much puts his hands up when he realises what happened which to me suggests his previous actions wasn't deliberately impacting play from an offside position. There was no reasonable way for him to get out the way so for me, and I do accept others disagree, Poite made the right call eventually.

If he had been a couple of metres further away I'd give a penalty.
Yep, tough call. Glad it wasn't me.
Big D
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Big D »

Mellsblue wrote:
Big D wrote:
Mellsblue wrote: For me, the issue was he momentarily caught the ball, not that I blame him. If he'd put his hands in the air or just not attempted catch it I'd accept accidental offside. But when you catch it, natural split second reaction as it was, you've got no defence.
To me in that scenario catching the ball is a reflex reaction in an unavoidable situation given how close he was to the play. IIRC he pretty much puts his hands up when he realises what happened which to me suggests his previous actions wasn't deliberately impacting play from an offside position. There was no reasonable way for him to get out the way so for me, and I do accept others disagree, Poite made the right call eventually.

If he had been a couple of metres further away I'd give a penalty.
Yep, tough call. Glad it wasn't me.
Aye. I wouldn't want to be an international ref.
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by skidger »

On stuff.co.nz the main headline is 'what the.......?' with the two different stories underneath having the following headlines-

Ref stuns in final minute
Test descends into french farce.

Some of the NZ media make Arsene Wegner look gracious. Every time there is a defeat(or draw) it seems they quickly rush to put it on the ref. Such a shame as its the best rugby country in the world.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 16083
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Mellsblue »

skidger wrote:On stuff.co.nz the main headline is 'what the.......?' with the two different stories underneath having the following headlines-

Ref stuns in final minute
Test descends into french farce.

Some of the NZ media make Arsene Wegner look gracious. Every time there is a defeat(or draw) it seems they quickly rush to put it on the ref. Such a shame as its the best rugby country in the world.
I blame Wayne Barnes.
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by skidger »

Mellsblue wrote:
skidger wrote:On stuff.co.nz the main headline is 'what the.......?' with the two different stories underneath having the following headlines-

Ref stuns in final minute
Test descends into french farce.

Some of the NZ media make Arsene Wegner look gracious. Every time there is a defeat(or draw) it seems they quickly rush to put it on the ref. Such a shame as its the best rugby country in the world.
I blame Wayne Barnes.
It all started with Wayne. Shame on him.
fivepointer
Posts: 6486
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by fivepointer »

Owens caught the ball so could legitimately be said to have played it. I appreciate its an instinctive reaction but i dont think the Lions could have complained had Poite stood by his original penalty decision.
That aside, NZ have only themselves to blame for failing to win last week and this. They had their chances and blew them.
Timbo
Posts: 2497
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Timbo »

Banquo wrote:yay, gats called out all Faz's fck ups, there is a god
What'd he say?
zer0
Posts: 965
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:11 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by zer0 »

Wummery aside, I guess it's a positive that we didn't lose either the series or the Eden Park record. As others have said, the AB's should've been far more clinical so as to remove the very random French refereeing variable. If they had their house in order it could've been all but over at half time.

As for the tour as a whole, the Blues won, the Crusaders lost. The touring Lions fans were good value, as always. An entertaining tour all round. Good stuff. Hope they continue as is, without the English clubs further encroaching upon them.
User avatar
Sourdust
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Sourdust »

I tend to think that by the strictest interpretation of law, it should have been a pen.

But the law is so vague in these circumstances, and has been so controversial before, that to decide a test series on that moment would have been intolerably cruel. I think even NZ fans would have felt a bit hollow about it if they're fully honest with themselves. IMO Poite applied natural justice in full "empathy with the game". Whether he was entitled to make that call, is another issue.

When something hits you your hands go to the point of impact. It's a reflex, and I hate seeing it penalized. The law needs to be cleared up, so that for a penalty there must be a clear and obvious intent to play the ball from a knowingly offside position, otherwise it's the same offence as bumping into a teammate.
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by skidger »

Timbo wrote:
Banquo wrote:yay, gats called out all Faz's fck ups, there is a god
What'd he say?

Graham 'look at me' Simmons was about to push for him to be knighted when Gatland just replied with a comment about all his mistakes. Although the New Zealand Herald still enjoys acid it seems

12. Owen Farrell - 8
Powerful all-round game, including strength in tackle and levelling penalty. Confidence gave Lions momentum.
Timbo
Posts: 2497
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Timbo »

skidger wrote:
Timbo wrote:
Banquo wrote:yay, gats called out all Faz's fck ups, there is a god
What'd he say?

Graham 'look at me' Simmons was about to push for him to be knighted when Gatland just replied with a comment about all this mistakes. Although the New Zealand Herald still enjoys acid it seems-

12. Owen Farrell - 8
Powerful all-round game, including strength in tackle and levelling penalty. Confidence gave Lions momentum.
He had a good second half I thought. 3 for the first and a 7 for the second, for a bang average 5 overall.
Cameo
Posts: 2851
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:14 pm

Re: v All Blacks III: the Decider

Post by Cameo »

Sourdust wrote:I tend to think that by the strictest interpretation of law, it should have been a pen.

But the law is so vague in these circumstances, and has been so controversial before, that to decide a test series on that moment would have been intolerably cruel. I think even NZ fans would have felt a bit hollow about it if they're fully honest with themselves. IMO Poite applied natural justice in full "empathy with the game". Whether he was entitled to make that call, is another issue.

When something hits you your hands go to the point of impact. It's a reflex, and I hate seeing it penalized. The law needs to be cleared up, so that for a penalty there must be a clear and obvious intent to play the ball from a knowingly offside position, otherwise it's the same offence as bumping into a teammate.
I'd be all for that not being a penalty but to change it in the final minute of a lions test is farcical. Those are always given and it is always said that they are unlucky but those are the rules. It's not like all other penalties are for full on skulduggery.

I think he just bottled it. I don't know how the TMO angles could possibly have changed his mind.
Post Reply