RugbyRebels

At least Canterbury lost as well.

A huge fcuk you to Israel folau too

Aus far better off without him - silver lining there for all blacks fans

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: My point is that it's a game plan that calls for the very average.

well he even manages to be poor at that, again allowing for your dismissal of their game plan.

He just looked ordinary to me. Or very average, to use a phrase.

Its become semantic, I agree. The key point is that he was excellent today- and its not something seen in Exeter's colours, so not purely down to pack dominance. It may be that the Oz game plan suits him much more than Chiefs (which does call for more kicking), but also that Oz actually dominated contact; the surprise was for those of us who have seen a lot of White, both for Chiefs and Oz.

paddy no 11 wrote:I'd like to make a pre game pro Michael Hooper statement - doesn't deserve half the stick he gets here

Going to bump this for cas

I can't read more than the first paragraph of this because of the paywall, but what I can read appears to both reasonable and balanced: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/a ... d=12257480

Puja

Puja wrote:I can't read more than the first paragraph of this because of the paywall, but what I can read appears to both reasonable and balanced: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/a ... d=12257480

Puja

Its a shame that's likely the big talking point, as the wobblies played very well, as above.

Well, that was a bit stink. I like not the taste of this humble pie.

Puja wrote:I can't read more than the first paragraph of this because of the paywall, but what I can read appears to both reasonable and balanced: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/a ... d=12257480

Puja

It's the Herald. They're a bad joke.

Mind you, the reffing we get here often does take into account intention and any other mitigating factors (like, say, did Barrett mistime his hit, etc.). That said, I have no problem with the red card itself. He did hit Hooper in the back of his head, and knowing what we know about concussions, he should've been more careful.

What I do have an issue with though, is the lack of consistency in Garces' refereeing - as much as Australia deserved to win, Garces' influence can not be ignored. Even putting aside the red card, the fact that the decisive score came off of him fucking up and awarding the Wallabies about 30m of territory, or the fact that he watched and ignored a few incidents where All Blacks were cleaned out of the ruck by their neck, like this





is pretty fucking frustrating.

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:I can't read more than the first paragraph of this because of the paywall, but what I can read appears to both reasonable and balanced: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/a ... d=12257480

Puja

It's the Herald. They're a bad joke.

Mind you, the reffing we get here often does take into account intention and any other mitigating factors (like, say, did Barrett mistime his hit, etc.). That said, I have no problem with the red card itself. He did hit Hooper in the back of his head, and knowing what we know about concussions, he should've been more careful.

What I do have an issue with though, is the lack of consistency in Garces' refereeing - as much as Australia deserved to win, Garces' influence can not be ignored. Even putting aside the red card, the fact that the decisive score came off of him fucking up and awarding the Wallabies about 30m of territory, or the fact that he watched and ignored a few incidents where All Blacks were cleaned out of the ruck by their neck, like this





is pretty fucking frustrating.

He had a shocking game all round. The forward pass for NZ's second try, Koroibete being allowed to pick up from the middle of a ruck, O'Connor throwing the ball backwards and being called for "losing it forwards" that NZ then scored from, and that's just the ones off the top of my head. Practically the only decision he got right was the red!

Puja

Puja wrote:He had a shocking game all round. The forward pass for NZ's second try, Koroibete being allowed to pick up from the middle of a ruck, O'Connor throwing the ball backwards and being called for "losing it forwards" that NZ then scored from, and that's just the ones off the top of my head. Practically the only decision he got right was the red!

Puja

Take Wayne Barnes for example. You can actually see that he's become a fine test-level ref (why wasn't he in Perth? Or, heck, Nige?), and had clearly reflected on and improved on the areas where he fell short. He may make the odd mistake, but that doesn't make him mentally shut down, and his communication with players is absolutely exemplary. Garces, on the other hand, just seems to be in a perpetual game of refereeing onedownsmanship with himself.

On the plus side, a loss or draw at Eden Park would basically be a nuclear torpedo to Foster's chances of becoming HC. Every cloud and all that.

It now also sets up what will be far and away the most interesting test of the year, so far. The one that forces Hansen to reveal if it's all an elaborate charade and there's plenty being kept back for the RWC, or if this is, somehow, genuinely the best they've got to show for years of work.

Jaco Peyper is set to officiate the Eden Park test.

Garces, meanwhile, should just do us all a favour and fuck off to the NRL. He'd fit right in.

So where to for the All Blacks?

Crotty - unavailable
Rettalick - unavailable
Barrett - probably gone for at least 1 game
Goodhue - probably out for at least 1 game

I did wonder about the balance of the loose forwards, but I suppose I'd convinced myself too that Savea/Cane/Read was workable.

So who would you go with? I'd call in Nonu, for starters. If you don't think his 100+ test caps worth of experience would be useful right now, I don't know what to tell you. Put Hemopo in at 6, and tell him to do what got him on the radar in the first place - tackling the fuck out of anyone in the other team that happens to have the ball. It would also bring a bit of weight and height for the setpieces, and allows for more freedom on the bench.

1. Moody
2. Coles
3. Franks
4. Tuipulotu
5. Whitelock
6. Hemopo
7. Cane
8. Read (C)
9. Smith
10. Mo'unga
11. Ioane
12. SBW
13. ALB
14. Smith
15. B Barrett

16. Taylor
17. Moli
18. Tu'ungafasi
19. Fifita
20. Savea
21. Perenara
22. Nonu
23. J Barrett/Reece/Ennor

If we were allowed to make whatever changes we wanted, and assuming all those you listed are unavailable, then I'd go with:

1. Moody
2. Coles
3. Franks Laulala
4. Tuipulotu (possibly Romano)
5. S.Whitelock (C)
6. Hemopo
7. Cane
8. Read (C)
9. Smith
10. Mo'unga
11. Ioane Ennor
12. SBW Nonu
13. ALB
14. B.Smith Bridge
15. B.Barrett

16. Taylor
17. Moli Tu'inukuafe
18. Tu'ungafasi
19. Fifita L.Whitelock
20. Savea
21. Perenara Weber
22. Nonu Proctor
23. J Barrett/Reece/Ennor Naholo or maybe B.Smith

Changes are mostly about steeling the pack, and making the back three unit both more secure under the high ball and more incisive on attack.

I entirely prioritised who was already in the squad currently, with the assumption that someone will be called up to cover for Goodhue in the midfield.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:I can't see how that's harsh. It's a shoulder charge with force, which is a yellow even before it's contact direct to the head. You could argue that he's unlucky that he's hit the head, but you could also argue that that's his own problem for throwing his shoulder into a challenge.

Massive opportunity for Australia here. If they can't win from this position, they may as well stop playing New Zealand.

Puja

Harsh red for me. Real time had no time to react to Hooper being spun round by Coles, and initial contact wasn't with shoulder imo. Greenwood has it right- you could red card almost every breakdown. If there is any argument, as you posit, then it is harsh.

Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. None of the potential mitigation’s apply so no option to reduce one level, which is the maximum reduction.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:I can't see how that's harsh. It's a shoulder charge with force, which is a yellow even before it's contact direct to the head. You could argue that he's unlucky that he's hit the head, but you could also argue that that's his own problem for throwing his shoulder into a challenge.

Massive opportunity for Australia here. If they can't win from this position, they may as well stop playing New Zealand.

Puja

Harsh red for me. Real time had no time to react to Hooper being spun round by Coles, and initial contact wasn't with shoulder imo. Greenwood has it right- you could red card almost every breakdown. If there is any argument, as you posit, then it is harsh.

Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. No mitigation to reduce one level.

43B2AF0B-0395-42CA-AE39-2DFC01C72CA0.jpeg

Problem is, Garces has also absolutely demonstrated he is incapable of consistently applying any precedent he sets for himself IN THE SAME FUCKING HALF.

If there were any justice in the world, this incident should have ended his test career.

Consistency is a big issue. Doesn’t stop it being red though. Barrett was a moron. Already penalty advantage down, Coles is making the tackle on Hooper and Barrett has a total brain fart and decides to cheap shot him.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Consistency is a big issue. Doesn’t stop it being red though. Barrett was a moron. Already penalty advantage down, Coles is making the tackle on Hooper and Barrett has a total brain fart and decides to cheap shot him.

Sure, I agree that it deserved a red, but I'm also arguing that Garces has no business refereeing at the test level, and has proven time and time again that he is unfit for officiating at a high level.

A referee has failed at their job when they have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, and even ignoring the red card, his complete lack of consistency in applying the law, and failing to recognise that he'd unfairly rewarded the Wallabies about 30m of territory off of their knock-on which led to a fairly decisive score is something he should be getting raked over the coals for.

His entire performance was the kind thing that reminds me of Ricky Stuart's rant last year when the Raiders were jobbed by some shitty refereeing against Cronulla, when he demanded that the refs attend the press conference too to explain themselves.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:I can't see how that's harsh. It's a shoulder charge with force, which is a yellow even before it's contact direct to the head. You could argue that he's unlucky that he's hit the head, but you could also argue that that's his own problem for throwing his shoulder into a challenge.

Massive opportunity for Australia here. If they can't win from this position, they may as well stop playing New Zealand.

Puja

Harsh red for me. Real time had no time to react to Hooper being spun round by Coles, and initial contact wasn't with shoulder imo. Greenwood has it right- you could red card almost every breakdown. If there is any argument, as you posit, then it is harsh.

Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. None of the potential mitigation’s apply so no option to reduce one level, which is the maximum reduction.

43B2AF0B-0395-42CA-AE39-2DFC01C72CA0.jpeg

yes, Rugby is indeed a giant flow chart....

and didn't Hooper suddenly change height as a result of Coles tackle and swing? However, I do see why red was awarded.

cashead wrote:So where to for the All Blacks?

Crotty - unavailable
Rettalick - unavailable
Barrett - probably gone for at least 1 game
Goodhue - probably out for at least 1 game

I did wonder about the balance of the loose forwards, but I suppose I'd convinced myself too that Savea/Cane/Read was workable.

So who would you go with? I'd call in Nonu, for starters. If you don't think his 100+ test caps worth of experience would be useful right now, I don't know what to tell you. Put Hemopo in at 6, and tell him to do what got him on the radar in the first place - tackling the fuck out of anyone in the other team that happens to have the ball. It would also bring a bit of weight and height for the setpieces, and allows for more freedom on the bench.

1. Moody
2. Coles
3. Franks
4. Tuipulotu
5. Whitelock
6. Hemopo
7. Cane
8. Read (C)
9. Smith
10. Mo'unga
11. Ioane
12. SBW
13. ALB
14. Smith
15. B Barrett

16. Taylor
17. Moli
18. Tu'ungafasi
19. Fifita
20. Savea
21. Perenara
22. Nonu
23. J Barrett/Reece/Ennor

why is Crotty unavailable?

Hurt his thumb. He'll be ready for the RWC.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Harsh red for me. Real time had no time to react to Hooper being spun round by Coles, and initial contact wasn't with shoulder imo. Greenwood has it right- you could red card almost every breakdown. If there is any argument, as you posit, then it is harsh.

Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. None of the potential mitigation’s apply so no option to reduce one level, which is the maximum reduction.

43B2AF0B-0395-42CA-AE39-2DFC01C72CA0.jpeg

yes, Rugby is indeed a giant flow chart....

and didn't Hooper suddenly change height as a result of Coles tackle and swing? However, I do see why red was awarded.

To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. None of the potential mitigation’s apply so no option to reduce one level, which is the maximum reduction.

43B2AF0B-0395-42CA-AE39-2DFC01C72CA0.jpeg

yes, Rugby is indeed a giant flow chart....

and didn't Hooper suddenly change height as a result of Coles tackle and swing? However, I do see why red was awarded.

To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

cashead wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Consistency is a big issue. Doesn’t stop it being red though. Barrett was a moron. Already penalty advantage down, Coles is making the tackle on Hooper and Barrett has a total brain fart and decides to cheap shot him.

Sure, I agree that it deserved a red, but I'm also arguing that Garces has no business refereeing at the test level, and has proven time and time again that he is unfit for officiating at a high level.

A referee has failed at their job when they have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, and even ignoring the red card, his complete lack of consistency in applying the law, and failing to recognise that he'd unfairly rewarded the Wallabies about 30m of territory off of their knock-on which led to a fairly decisive score is something he should be getting raked over the coals for.

His entire performance was the kind thing that reminds me of Ricky Stuart's rant last year when the Raiders were jobbed by some shitty refereeing against Cronulla, when he demanded that the refs attend the press conference too to explain themselves.

In fairness, he didn't have an impact on the outcome of the game, cause he made shitty decisions that cost Australia too. Equal opportunity incompetence!

Puja