v All Blacks III: the Decider

[Sandydragon]

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.

Amen to that.

[Timbo]

Jonathan Davies Lions man of the Series?

[Sandydragon]

Jonathan Davies Lions man of the Series?

Definitely a contender. Did lots right and very little wrong. SOB another I'd suggest.

[fivepointer]

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

Hell yes. Of course I'm sure someone will make the comment that with other players and a different coach we would have won 3-0 but I would argue that this has been a huge achievement.

1-1-1 is quite an achievement. Most predicted a comfortable NZ win. To come back after going one down is really quite some going.
Gatland has taken some stick, but coming away with a drawn series is a very good result that he must take a great deal of credit for.

[Puja]

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.

I have to say, I think that refereeing orthodoxy is nonsense. The ball is flying in towards your chest and face area, you've got maybe a tenth of a second to react, I can't see it ever being a deliberate action in that circumstance (especially when it's not 100% clear in real time who tapped the ball back). If he had reached out to catch it, then I might have more sympathy for the notion that it's a deliberate action, but stopping a ball from bouncing off your chest with your hands is hardly a deliberate action.

It is the refereeing orthodoxy at the moment to give a penalty for it and Poite's changing of his mind was probably incorrect, but it is a silly interpretation of the laws.

Puja

[Mr Mwenda]

Jonathan Davies Lions man of the Series?

Definitely a contender. Did lots right and very little wrong. SOB another I'd suggest.

Both good shouts. A fair number have shown up well. JD2 the pick of the backs I'd say.

[Puja]

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

Puja

[Puja]

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.

Just been to have a look - that is really quite something! And that's with me coming from a country that has the world's worst newspapers!

I especially loved this little gem, nestled in an article rich with obloquy about Poite and bias and offside and the All Blacks never getting anything:

No doubt there will be some world-class whining from the north about the scrum penalty that put the All Blacks in the lead with 13 minutes to go, but nobody should take too much notice of it.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Jonathan Davies Lions man of the Series?

Definitely a contender. Did lots right and very little wrong. SOB another I'd suggest.

This.

[Banquo]

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.

Well his goal kicking was good but he still managed to pass poorly second half.

[Sourdust]

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.

I think your first paragraph is entirely fair. IMO it was a just call, but probably not a right one.

But I can't agree with your second; Poite changed his original decision, going against the home team's interests. You might call him indecisive but I don't think you could get further away from "bottling it".

[Banquo]

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

Puja

always been a very good 13, first choice 13 on two lions tours says much. His hands aren't the greatest, and can overdo the grubber but he's someone you'd want. Held off JJ, not that JJ was ever in with much of a shout in this defensive strategy.

[16th man]

Slightly bemused by the criticism of the ref for that last call. In the NH that's a lions penalty every time as Reed hasn't got a prayer of winning the ball but forces the knock on by sticking his shoulder into the back of a guy in the air.

If we're going to get down into the weeds on the reffing can we also ask for the penalties we should have had for the NZ scrummies chucking the ball straight to the feet of their 8?

[Mellsblue]

we also ask for the penalties we should have had for the NZ scrummies chucking the ball straight to the feet of their 8?

Well everyone gets away with it. The question we should be asking is why we were putting it in straight(ish) so that sometimes it just sat in the tunnel.

[16th man]

we also ask for the penalties we should have had for the NZ scrummies chucking the ball straight to the feet of their 8?

Well everyone gets away with it. The question we should be asking is why we were putting it in straight(ish) so that sometimes it just sat in the tunnel.

Yeah kinda making the point that if you're going to argue for every penalty off a technicality then you have to hope that you aren't infringing yourselves.

[Mellsblue]

we also ask for the penalties we should have had for the NZ scrummies chucking the ball straight to the feet of their 8?

Well everyone gets away with it. The question we should be asking is why we were putting it in straight(ish) so that sometimes it just sat in the tunnel.

Yeah kinda making the point that if you're going to argue for every penalty off a technicality then you have to hope that you aren't infringing yourselves.

True.

[Puja]

we also ask for the penalties we should have had for the NZ scrummies chucking the ball straight to the feet of their 8?

Well everyone gets away with it. The question we should be asking is why we were putting it in straight(ish) so that sometimes it just sat in the tunnel.

Yeah kinda making the point that if you're going to argue for every penalty off a technicality then you have to hope that you aren't infringing yourselves.

I did notice a couple of All Blacks throwing themselves off their feet, shoulder first, to clear out a tackled player on the ground. We'd've been playing 12 vs 10 if the NZ newspaper hysteria over Mako's "definite red card" were to have been applied today.

Mind, Naholo's probably quite narked that Kaino got a yellow for exactly what SOB did to him last week.

Puja

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Abs only have themselves to blame, they should've been out of sight by halftime. Having said that it was a bloody good test match only spoilt by Poite's refereeing at times. I didn't think he could change his mind at the end and why didn't he let play carry on anyway when Leinert Brown had the ball and was through before going for the penalty that never was in his opinion eventually?

[Lord Lucan]

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.

[onlynameleft]

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?

[morepork]

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

[onlynameleft]

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.

[Edinburgh in Exile]

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.

[Sandydragon]

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.

[Puja]

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