RugbyRebels

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

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.

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.

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.

shut up Simmonds you utter utter utter c&nt

yay, gats called out all Faz's fck ups, there is a god

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.

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.

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.

All in all, as I think Numbers noted earlier in the tour, we've done better than most of us thought we would.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Banquo wrote:yay, gats called out all Faz's fck ups, there is a god

What'd he say?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.