RugbyRebels

100th Cap

zer0 wrote:

Puja wrote:Yeah, they didn't make a huge impression on England in 2014 for the first two tests and then horsed us in the third.

That's typically how things go on modern NH three tests tours of NZ. The second test is the closest and the third the most lopsided.

2012 NZL vs IRE II: 19-3 (+16)
2012 NZL vs IRE III: 60-0 (+60)
2014 NZL vs ENG II: 28-27 (+1)
2014 NZL vs ENG III: 36-13 (+23)
2016 NZL vs WAL II: 36-22 (+14)
2016 NZL vs WAL III: 46-6 (+40)

2013 France are the anomaly in that their first test was the closest (23-13), while they got pantsed slightly more in the second test (30-0) than the third (24-9).

While the Lions are obviously stronger in depth than any of those individual sides, it does suggest a general trend in All Black performances, and NH fatigue, over a series, I think.

paddy no 11 wrote:It wasn't all that bad, retaalick won a few turnovers etc. Apparently lions done 2 sessions the Thursday before which would explain that. Lions hosed the crusaders which had a significant intl presence

So the Lions get 57% possession and 62% territory against the Crusaders and "hosed" them. Whereas the All Blacks get 61% possession and 62% territory against the Lions in the first test and "made no impression". I see.

I don't really do stats as they say there more for support than illumination - can judge a game myself as can you. Anyway I think the they were pretty even all told?

The lions somehow survived throwing in the worst 20 mins since bergamasco was forced at gunpoint to play 9. The intercept was unforgiveable, serious performance after that to get back into it and 3 great kicks to tie it up

complaining about the last pen is a bit much, if you wanted to apply the law then it was a lions pen for read hitting williams in the back of the head when he had no chance of getting the ball, but we dont need to sanitise the game that much, poite made a sensible call in giving a scrum

The opening pen against warburton was one of the worst ever given so it all evens out

Great series glad Liam williams turned around the lions style by making those line breaks, looking forward to a lions team playing more rugby in 4 years time

Liam Williams is a rock star. Just gets amongst it. I'm not dark about the result, wouldn't be if we lost in fact. Thoroughly enjoyed one of the last proper tour events on the international calendar. As always, that environment will serve participants on both sides well in the future. The crusaders got an object lesson in facing up to a respectable front five bully, as did the Lions in the first test. The ABs will learn from this.

paddy no 11 wrote:Great series glad Liam williams turned around the lions style by making those line breaks, looking forward to a lions team playing more rugby in 4 years time

Hah - joke's on us! The success of this series now means Gatland's guaranteed to be back for 2021!

Mind, I suppose I shouldn't be mocking him too much. He can now really point to his record with the Lions and invite any critics to f*ck off.

Puja

Pork and Puha.

morepork wrote:Pork and Puha.

No idea what you're referring to.

Pujs

Watercress and pig. Crosstalk between Maori and European food. Puha is watercress and rocks the shyte out of a hangi with the meat.

morepork wrote:Watercress and pig. Crosstalk between Maori and European food. Puha is watercress and rocks the shyte out of a hangi with the meat.

Ah - I thought you might have been referring to a typo, which as you can see from my post, doesn't exist and never ever did. I don't even know how to edit, so I don't know why you'd bring that up.

Poja

Morepork and Poja brother!

Puja wrote:Hah - joke's on us! The success of this series now means Gatland's guaranteed to be back for 2021!

Mind, I suppose I shouldn't be mocking him too much. He can now really point to his record with the Lions and invite any critics to f*ck off.

Puja

Was it a success? If there was a SH equivalent do you think it would be coached by the Argentine coach with 8 players from NZ, 7 from Argentina, 6 from Australia and none from South Africa?

Puja wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Great series glad Liam williams turned around the lions style by making those line breaks, looking forward to a lions team playing more rugby in 4 years time

Hah - joke's on us! The success of this series now means Gatland's guaranteed to be back for 2021!

Mind, I suppose I shouldn't be mocking him too much. He can now really point to his record with the Lions and invite any critics to f*ck off.

Puja

Its a results based game, and his record with the Lions matches or exceeds any other coach. He may not use the players or tactics that people want, but he has been successful with the Lions.

old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:

Puja wrote:Hah - joke's on us! The success of this series now means Gatland's guaranteed to be back for 2021!

Mind, I suppose I shouldn't be mocking him too much. He can now really point to his record with the Lions and invite any critics to f*ck off.

Puja

Was it a success? If there was a SH equivalent do you think it would be coached by the Argentine coach with 8 players from NZ, 7 from Argentina, 6 from Australia and none from South Africa?

The Lions have won one series in New Zealand. With bugger all prep time, a draw is a good result for the Lions. A win would have been superb, but since most people seemed to think that it would be a Blackwash, I'm quite pleased with the result.

Sandydragon wrote:

old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:

Puja wrote:Hah - joke's on us! The success of this series now means Gatland's guaranteed to be back for 2021!

Mind, I suppose I shouldn't be mocking him too much. He can now really point to his record with the Lions and invite any critics to f*ck off.

Puja

Was it a success? If there was a SH equivalent do you think it would be coached by the Argentine coach with 8 players from NZ, 7 from Argentina, 6 from Australia and none from South Africa?

The Lions have won one series in New Zealand. With bugger all prep time, a draw is a good result for the Lions. A win would have been superb, but since most people seemed to think that it would be a Blackwash, I'm quite pleased with the result.

agreed. I thought they might lose all the Saturday matches and a couple of midweek ones. We will never know if another coach could have done better, but I reckon he's done ok.

paddy no 11 wrote:

zer0 wrote:

Puja wrote:Yeah, they didn't make a huge impression on England in 2014 for the first two tests and then horsed us in the third.

That's typically how things go on modern NH three tests tours of NZ. The second test is the closest and the third the most lopsided.

2012 NZL vs IRE II: 19-3 (+16)
2012 NZL vs IRE III: 60-0 (+60)
2014 NZL vs ENG II: 28-27 (+1)
2014 NZL vs ENG III: 36-13 (+23)
2016 NZL vs WAL II: 36-22 (+14)
2016 NZL vs WAL III: 46-6 (+40)

2013 France are the anomaly in that their first test was the closest (23-13), while they got pantsed slightly more in the second test (30-0) than the third (24-9).

While the Lions are obviously stronger in depth than any of those individual sides, it does suggest a general trend in All Black performances, and NH fatigue, over a series, I think.

paddy no 11 wrote:It wasn't all that bad, retaalick won a few turnovers etc. Apparently lions done 2 sessions the Thursday before which would explain that. Lions hosed the crusaders which had a significant intl presence

So the Lions get 57% possession and 62% territory against the Crusaders and "hosed" them. Whereas the All Blacks get 61% possession and 62% territory against the Lions in the first test and "made no impression". I see.

I don't really do stats as they say there more for support than illumination - can judge a game myself as can you. Anyway I think the they were pretty even all told?

The one telling stat was the unforced error count, NZ made 10 of these in the first half alone according to the half time stats on SKY.

Which Tyler wrote:http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/all- ... -changing/

either the TMO's do their job properly, or we get rid.

In today's Times. Regardless of the technical correctness, or otherwise, of Poite's decision, Mehrtens response is a bit lightweight - perhaps they should have found another ref for their opinion?





Did referee Romain Poite get the big calls right in third Test?




July 10 2017, 12:01am,
The Times


Yes
Rob Debney, former international referee

As the third Test came down to the wire, the chances were high that any series-deciding score was going to be created by human error. In the end, there was no score, and, to my mind, no crucial error from Romain Poite, the referee.

Poite’s decision to award only a scrum to New Zealand and not a penalty, when Ken Owens had touched the ball in an offside position, was absolutely correct. The offside was accidental. First, Owens had no option but to instinctively catch the ball. He had no time to get out of the way when the ball ricocheted down from Liam Williams. Law 11.6 states: “When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside.” Second, I don’t think he denied a New Zealand player the chance to claim possession. When the ball dropped, there was no All Black within a few metres.

What the referee did not get quite right was his communication. When he was speaking to the TMO, George Ayoub, it sounded as though they had agreed upon a decision to award a penalty, so it came as a surprise when he awarded the scrum.

In any case, I think there was a penalty to be awarded against Kieran Read for jumping into Williams while he was airborne. It was claimed that Poite bottled it but the easy decision would have been to penalise Read for the aerial challenge.


No
Andrew Mehrtens, former New Zealand fly half

New Zealanders will be bleating about Romain Poite — and that never goes down well. But they may have a point. I don’t think he is a good referee at all. I don’t think any of the French referees are.

Whether he favoured the All Blacks or the Lions is not clear; what is clear is that both teams had legitimate causes for concern with him. With French referees, most rucks and scrums are a lottery and there are inconsistencies in how they rule on things. This makes players nervous and, even subconsciously, they try to keep the ball alive a bit more, because every time there is a ruck they don’t know which way it is going to go.

We have a problem with refereeing. The number of top-class referees who have got there on merit are very few. The whole organisation is atrocious; they have too much autonomy.

When I was playing in France, Poite and Jérôme Garcès were on their way up. Both refereed me and were atrocious. I concluded then that French referees, as a rule, were very poor and I am happy to say that. They have a really dictatorial manner and they often get things wrong. There is not enough accountability.

The referees, to me, are an accessory to the game. They are not supposed to be the game itself.

Sandydragon wrote:In today's Times. Regardless of the technical correctness, or otherwise, of Poite's decision, Mehrtens response is a bit lightweight - perhaps they should have found another ref for their opinion?





Did referee Romain Poite get the big calls right in third Test?




July 10 2017, 12:01am,
The Times


Yes
Rob Debney, former international referee

As the third Test came down to the wire, the chances were high that any series-deciding score was going to be created by human error. In the end, there was no score, and, to my mind, no crucial error from Romain Poite, the referee.

Poite’s decision to award only a scrum to New Zealand and not a penalty, when Ken Owens had touched the ball in an offside position, was absolutely correct. The offside was accidental. First, Owens had no option but to instinctively catch the ball. He had no time to get out of the way when the ball ricocheted down from Liam Williams. Law 11.6 states: “When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside.” Second, I don’t think he denied a New Zealand player the chance to claim possession. When the ball dropped, there was no All Black within a few metres.

What the referee did not get quite right was his communication. When he was speaking to the TMO, George Ayoub, it sounded as though they had agreed upon a decision to award a penalty, so it came as a surprise when he awarded the scrum.

In any case, I think there was a penalty to be awarded against Kieran Read for jumping into Williams while he was airborne. It was claimed that Poite bottled it but the easy decision would have been to penalise Read for the aerial challenge.


No
Andrew Mehrtens, former New Zealand fly half

New Zealanders will be bleating about Romain Poite — and that never goes down well. But they may have a point. I don’t think he is a good referee at all. I don’t think any of the French referees are.

Whether he favoured the All Blacks or the Lions is not clear; what is clear is that both teams had legitimate causes for concern with him. With French referees, most rucks and scrums are a lottery and there are inconsistencies in how they rule on things. This makes players nervous and, even subconsciously, they try to keep the ball alive a bit more, because every time there is a ruck they don’t know which way it is going to go.

We have a problem with refereeing. The number of top-class referees who have got there on merit are very few. The whole organisation is atrocious; they have too much autonomy.

When I was playing in France, Poite and Jérôme Garcès were on their way up. Both refereed me and were atrocious. I concluded then that French referees, as a rule, were very poor and I am happy to say that. They have a really dictatorial manner and they often get things wrong. There is not enough accountability.

The referees, to me, are an accessory to the game. They are not supposed to be the game itself.

The highlighted bit doesn't mention attempting to play the ball which is what Ken did albeit instinctively, I would feel hard done by had the call be the other way around, maybe we can swap that for the non-penalty by Warburton at the start of the match.

However, as I have already stated if the ABs didn't fluff the ball continually in our 22 in the first half it wouldn't be a point of discussion.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/all- ... -changing/

either the TMO's do their job properly, or we get rid.

judging by the article... what did the TMO do wrong?

Was asked to look at foul play.
Looked at foul play.
Decided that no foul play had occurred.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/all- ... -changing/

either the TMO's do their job properly, or we get rid.

judging by the article... what did the TMO do wrong?

Was asked to look at foul play.
Looked at foul play.
Decided that no foul play had occurred.

RP: “Are you happy for the knock on. The challenge in the air was fair. Penalty kick against 16 red in front?”

TMO: Yes I am.

....It wasn't a knock on.....

My point stands generally though, I think TMO-ing isn't universally a good thing tbh.

Was Read even onside?

Mikey Brown wrote:Was Read even onside?

the analysis said yes

Mikey Brown wrote:Was Read even onside?

Haven't seen an video angle that is conclusive either way. Must admit the one I've seen on youtube he is sort of level with the ball as he crosses the 10m markings which would probably put him offside when the ball was kicked (unless he is quicker than we think!)

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/all- ... -changing/

either the TMO's do their job properly, or we get rid.

judging by the article... what did the TMO do wrong?

Was asked to look at foul play.
Looked at foul play.
Decided that no foul play had occurred.

That bit.

Puja