RugbyRebels

A draw was probably a fair result, it would have been a horrible way to lose had the penalty at the end stood, fair do's to the Lions they fronted up well, it was a good series to watch. The all blacks are very good, but not as invincible as some would have us believe, this scratch squad went toe to toe with them and gave us a great series.

Its a pity England don't play them in the autumn, that would have been a good game.

I don't think anyone could have objectively blamed him for pen NZ, scrum NZ, play on, possibly even pen BIL but once he had made his decision it should not have been changed. We teach our kids that the referee's word is final, then we see a very high profile game in which he seems to be surrounded by rugby's equivalent of the Roy Keane gang and he is pressured into altering his decision. As I understood it the TMO is there to rule on foul play and tries. There is a creeping menace of the ref's authority being eroded when line judges start intervening and every borderline decision goes upstairs, sometimes as we have seen, after pressure from one team or the other. The kids I coach will have seen this and will think it is OK to pressure the ref because he might change his mind. Regardless of the rugby (which was great) I think we have taken a retrograde step today.
I am with those who say they wouldn't want to be an international ref but the international refs we have plainly do so I would like to see them making more decisions themselves, even if they are wrong, and a return to no one but the captain speaks to the ref without permission.
And if I am right about the TMO's role why didn't he just say he couldn't help?

Does anyone recall a prior instance ref going to a TMO for a penalty that didn't involve foul play/injury in any game?

And wtf happened at the end? The ref didn't seem to be able to decide whether the match was over or not. I thought at the time he had realised he had made a howler and was trying to see if there was a way to give NZ another go.

morepork wrote:Does anyone recall a prior instance ref going to a TMO for a penalty that didn't involve foul play/injury in any game?

I was speculating about this on our Lions Fred, I'm pretty sure I'm not far off thinking that the Scotland exit to the last World Cup and the shitstorm that followed may have had something to do with the use of the TMO and ultimately the decision that was made.

Scotland, instrumental to the Lions.

You cunts are welcome.

onlynameleft wrote:I don't think anyone could have objectively blamed him for pen NZ, scrum NZ, play on, possibly even pen BIL but once he had made his decision it should not have been changed. We teach our kids that the referee's word is final, then we see a very high profile game in which he seems to be surrounded by rugby's equivalent of the Roy Keane gang and he is pressured into altering his decision. As I understood it the TMO is there to rule on foul play and tries. There is a creeping menace of the ref's authority being eroded when line judges start intervening and every borderline decision goes upstairs, sometimes as we have seen, after pressure from one team or the other. The kids I coach will have seen this and will think it is OK to pressure the ref because he might change his mind. Regardless of the rugby (which was great) I think we have taken a retrograde step today.
I am with those who say they wouldn't want to be an international ref but the international refs we have plainly do so I would like to see them making more decisions themselves, even if they are wrong, and a return to no one but the captain speaks to the ref without permission.
And if I am right about the TMO's role why didn't he just say he couldn't help?

There have been a few examples of that behaviour this tour. It needs to stop quite frankly, if the referees word isn't law then there will be carnage, particularly in the lower leagues which don't have tv replaces and post match citing.

morepork wrote:Does anyone recall a prior instance ref going to a TMO for a penalty that didn't involve foul play/injury in any game?

Poite actually went to the TMO for foul play - he wanted to see whether Read had jumped unfairly with Williams. Interestingly enough, 90% of NH TMOs would have given that as a Lions penalty - the interpretation of the laws are that you can't take a flying leap through someone who is jumping to catch the ball unless you a) get up higher than them (as measure by whose hips are higher) or b) have at least as good a chance to get the ball as they do. Read was neither higher than Williams, nor in as good a position to catch the ball, and certainly his leap into Williams's back was the cause of the spill. In any AP or ERC match, that's a penalty to the Lions.

For some reason, the TMO decided that there wasn't a penalty for foul play, which I can only ascribe to hemispherical differences in interpretation. But the replay gave Poite a chance to reassess his decision and give something that nobody was particularly happy with!

Puja

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Does anyone recall a prior instance ref going to a TMO for a penalty that didn't involve foul play/injury in any game?

Poite actually went to the TMO for foul play - he wanted to see whether Read had jumped unfairly with Williams. Interestingly enough, 90% of NH TMOs would have given that as a Lions penalty - the interpretation of the laws are that you can't take a flying leap through someone who is jumping to catch the ball unless you a) get up higher than them (as measure by whose hips are higher) or b) have at least as good a chance to get the ball as they do. Read was neither higher than Williams, nor in as good a position to catch the ball, and certainly his leap into Williams's back was the cause of the spill. In any AP or ERC match, that's a penalty to the Lions.

For some reason, the TMO decided that there wasn't a penalty for foul play, which I can only ascribe to hemispherical differences in interpretation. But the replay gave Poite a chance to reassess his decision and give something that nobody was particularly happy with!

Puja

I take your point, but by thunder that is a clumsy justification for reversing a penalty decision via TMO.

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Does anyone recall a prior instance ref going to a TMO for a penalty that didn't involve foul play/injury in any game?

Poite actually went to the TMO for foul play - he wanted to see whether Read had jumped unfairly with Williams. Interestingly enough, 90% of NH TMOs would have given that as a Lions penalty - the interpretation of the laws are that you can't take a flying leap through someone who is jumping to catch the ball unless you a) get up higher than them (as measure by whose hips are higher) or b) have at least as good a chance to get the ball as they do. Read was neither higher than Williams, nor in as good a position to catch the ball, and certainly his leap into Williams's back was the cause of the spill. In any AP or ERC match, that's a penalty to the Lions.

For some reason, the TMO decided that there wasn't a penalty for foul play, which I can only ascribe to hemispherical differences in interpretation. But the replay gave Poite a chance to reassess his decision and give something that nobody was particularly happy with!

Puja

Fair enough, it's a game whose laws are open to a great deal of interpretation which is both devil and angel. But that determination is the referee's job not, with limited exceptions, that of the TMO, certainly not that of the line judges unless asked and absolutely not that of the players involved.

Puja wrote:Yeah, JD2 really shut up a lot of doubters this tour (including me). Very well played.

Puja

6/10 for today according to the Itoje New Zealand Herald whilst Farrell got an 8/10. JD2 got stick in 2013 for not being BOD and got some stick and doubts this time for not being Irish,Scottish or Jonathan Joseph. A bloody good player and he was in very fine form for the Scarlets in the lead up.

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Does anyone recall a prior instance ref going to a TMO for a penalty that didn't involve foul play/injury in any game?

Poite actually went to the TMO for foul play - he wanted to see whether Read had jumped unfairly with Williams. Interestingly enough, 90% of NH TMOs would have given that as a Lions penalty - the interpretation of the laws are that you can't take a flying leap through someone who is jumping to catch the ball unless you a) get up higher than them (as measure by whose hips are higher) or b) have at least as good a chance to get the ball as they do. Read was neither higher than Williams, nor in as good a position to catch the ball, and certainly his leap into Williams's back was the cause of the spill. In any AP or ERC match, that's a penalty to the Lions.

For some reason, the TMO decided that there wasn't a penalty for foul play, which I can only ascribe to hemispherical differences in interpretation. But the replay gave Poite a chance to reassess his decision and give something that nobody was particularly happy with!

Puja

This. Read had no realistic chance of winning the ball, he simply disrupted Williams enough (by smacking him with his leading arm) to enforce a knock on. Owens was the unlucky recipient of the unexpected ball as a result. It should have been a Lions penalty unless someone can argue genuinely that Read could have caught the ball he was "challenging" for. Read either took a man out in the air OR committed an early tackle.

When Kaino picked up his yellow was AWJ at all concussed or was it just a bang to the head? And if there were issues what was he doing back on the pitch?

The series has seen some fine play from both sides at times considering the pressure being applied, but one of the standout features has also been the disregard for concussion as a serious issue

Digby wrote:When Kaino picked up his yellow was AWJ at all concussed or was it just a bang to the head? And if there were issues what was he doing back on the pitch?

The series has seen some fine play from both sides at times considering the pressure being applied, but one of the standout features has also been the disregard for concussion as a serious issue

Actually, that's a very good point and one that I hadn't paid attention to when AWJ came back on to cover Warburton's HIA. AWJ was knocked silly by Kaino; his bell was absolutely run and he had no idea where he was. I don't care if he technically passed the HIA, anyone viewing the video should've known it was irresponsible to bring him back on.

Puja

Digby wrote:When Kaino picked up his yellow was AWJ at all concussed or was it just a bang to the head? And if there were issues what was he doing back on the pitch?

The series has seen some fine play from both sides at times considering the pressure being applied, but one of the standout features has also been the disregard for concussion as a serious issue

Gatland said in the post match interview he was not knocked out and had a HIA (apparently by independant medic) and passed it (SW also passed his).

As far as the end of the match goes, haven't figured out why Poite was thinking of giving a NZ pen anyway as the ball had actually gone backwards and therefore it was in open play (NZ may well have scored a try from it so should be happy anyway!)

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:When Kaino picked up his yellow was AWJ at all concussed or was it just a bang to the head? And if there were issues what was he doing back on the pitch?

The series has seen some fine play from both sides at times considering the pressure being applied, but one of the standout features has also been the disregard for concussion as a serious issue

Actually, that's a very good point and one that I hadn't paid attention to when AWJ came back on to cover Warburton's HIA. AWJ was knocked silly by Kaino; his bell was absolutely run and he had no idea where he was. I don't care if he technically passed the HIA, anyone viewing the video should've known it was irresponsible to bring him back on.

Puja

I noticed it at the time owing to Poite saying Kaino hit him with no force, which I thought was odd when no force wouldn't have let AWJ look like that.

After what happened to Saints the Lions really should be up before the beak, we were told they (from the IRB down) were going to take this seriously from now on, though we were also told there'd be straight scrum feeds so...

oldbackrow wrote:

Digby wrote:When Kaino picked up his yellow was AWJ at all concussed or was it just a bang to the head? And if there were issues what was he doing back on the pitch?

The series has seen some fine play from both sides at times considering the pressure being applied, but one of the standout features has also been the disregard for concussion as a serious issue

Gatland said in the post match interview he was not knocked out and had a HIA (apparently by independant medic) and passed it (SW also passed his).

As far as the end of the match goes, haven't figured out why Poite was thinking of giving a NZ pen anyway as the ball had actually gone backwards and therefore it was in open play (NZ may well have scored a try from it so should be happy anyway!)

Just how shit is the HIA if players knocked out can pass it?

Edit - The medic was independent, that was a pre tour agreement between the two sides. Seems odd to me the medics involved in giving Tom Williams a nick can get investigated but the HIAs continue as they do

I think the independent medic makes the final in person judgement, but there are medics for each individual team that review video evidence for a possible missed episode before getting referred to an examination. I think that review process that picks up events that were missed in real time has been very slack for the Lions personally.

Digby wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

Digby wrote:When Kaino picked up his yellow was AWJ at all concussed or was it just a bang to the head? And if there were issues what was he doing back on the pitch?

The series has seen some fine play from both sides at times considering the pressure being applied, but one of the standout features has also been the disregard for concussion as a serious issue

Gatland said in the post match interview he was not knocked out and had a HIA (apparently by independant medic) and passed it (SW also passed his).

As far as the end of the match goes, haven't figured out why Poite was thinking of giving a NZ pen anyway as the ball had actually gone backwards and therefore it was in open play (NZ may well have scored a try from it so should be happy anyway!)

Just how shit is the HIA if players knocked out can pass it?

This

zer0 wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:ooh boo hoo baby, did you not get the result you wanted, and now you're being a pathetic little bitch? We have something for you to rub on that. It's called fuck you cunt face. Suck it up you fat fluffer.

Hook, line and sinker.

Banquo wrote:that escalated

It was exactly the fish I was looking for... Though he did bite a lot harder than I anticipated.

for me, that was kinda lightweight

Should've gone full blast, Hwntw style.

zer0 wrote:Should've gone full blast, Hwntw style.

YES!

a la England exit from RWC 2011, or was it 2007

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: yet what did we sacrifice today on that altar; Sexton is a good kicker to be fair.

For a five minute period on the first half I though Farrell was going to cost us in a huge way. I'm not sure that the combination worked as well as it was hoped, but then with Teo on the field the ball just didn't get wide.

It was Sexton, not Farrell, who missed a penalty kick to touch (just before the ABs scored their first try?). That's always a serious error, almost unforgiveable...

loudnconfident wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: yet what did we sacrifice today on that altar; Sexton is a good kicker to be fair.

For a five minute period on the first half I though Farrell was going to cost us in a huge way. I'm not sure that the combination worked as well as it was hoped, but then with Teo on the field the ball just didn't get wide.

It was Sexton, not Farrell, who missed a penalty kick to touch (just before the ABs scored their first try?). That's always a serious error, almost unforgiveable...

The point i was making is that Sexton is a quality goal kicker, so picking Farrell for that purpose alone is not necessary.

loudnconfident wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: yet what did we sacrifice today on that altar; Sexton is a good kicker to be fair.

For a five minute period on the first half I though Farrell was going to cost us in a huge way. I'm not sure that the combination worked as well as it was hoped, but then with Teo on the field the ball just didn't get wide.

It was Sexton, not Farrell, who missed a penalty kick to touch (just before the ABs scored their first try?). That's always a serious error, almost unforgiveable...

I was the naming more about the daft attempted clearance followed five minutes later by the interception.

Kicking aside, that wasn't Farrell greatest game. But I do think that he was a better choice than Teo, who would have limited our game plan.

Banquo wrote:

loudnconfident wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: For a five minute period on the first half I though Farrell was going to cost us in a huge way. I'm not sure that the combination worked as well as it was hoped, but then with Teo on the field the ball just didn't get wide.

It was Sexton, not Farrell, who missed a penalty kick to touch (just before the ABs scored their first try?). That's always a serious error, almost unforgiveable...

The point i was making is that Sexton is a quality goal kicker, so picking Farrell for that purpose alone is not necessary.

Yes but with Farrell you get the running threat that stops defenders just drifting off him, as we see here when the defenders are drawn to him and can't simply pick off his pass with an intercept (which was also just before the 1st NZ try and didn't see a missed pen kick to touch)