RugbyRebels

wanderingjock wrote:

Big D wrote:

wanderingjock wrote:So about the actual game. Liz might know this, have the lions ever won a final test.

To the haters, start your own thread.


To baz,, you stink

They've won the last two final tests on Lions tours?

Odd for someone who hates the concept to bite at that

Eh? At what point have I ever been against the Lions?

Despite Farrell playing terribly and not defending the cross kicks the Lions have started pretty well.

Farrell continues to have a shocker. Decent idea to take the tap but awful pass.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:Aye, none of you are wrong.

As HP pointed out, fuds are going to fud and it's going to collateral everyone in the middle.

It's hard to disagree with any of that Al, but I'm not going to support NZ because of it, not because I like hanging off the coat tails of my betters, but because I'm not 12.

I was probably taller than you are at 12. The more you know...

Lucky to be within 6. Some mighty shifts going in but some poor performances so far.

Daly is pretty good off the tee. Beauty.

3 match test series comes down to the next 17mins of rugby

Well that's a bit of a weird ending to the series. No real glory for either side in a tie.

Surprised there aren't more casualties in that game. Brutal at times.

Can't see how that is not a penalty. Just looked like he massively bottled it. I dont think he is allowed to go to the TMO but saw it as his only way out even though it confirmed what he had seen previously.

I'd be all up for changing that rule so if it is just instinct it is just a free kick but that is not how it has been reffed ever

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:Aye, none of you are wrong.

As HP pointed out, fuds are going to fud and it's going to collateral everyone in the middle.

It's hard to disagree with any of that Al, but I'm not going to support NZ because of it, not because I like hanging off the coat tails of my betters, but because I'm not 12.

This

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Cameo wrote:Can't see how that is not a penalty. Just looked like he massively bottled it. I dont think he is allowed to go to the TMO but saw it as his only way out even though it confirmed what he had seen previously.

I'd be all up for changing that rule so if it is just instinct it is just a free kick but that is not how it has been reffed ever

I think it's covered within 11.6. Given how close he was he could not have avoided the ball. A reflex reaction to catch it doesn't change that for me. The player could not have avoided that ball.

Big D wrote:

wanderingjock wrote:

Big D wrote: They've won the last two final tests on Lions tours?

Odd for someone who hates the concept to bite at that

Eh? At what point have I ever been against the Lions?

Apologies. And many.


I got confused between n big al and big d.

Big D wrote:

Cameo wrote:Can't see how that is not a penalty. Just looked like he massively bottled it. I dont think he is allowed to go to the TMO but saw it as his only way out even though it confirmed what he had seen previously.

I'd be all up for changing that rule so if it is just instinct it is just a free kick but that is not how it has been reffed ever

I think it's covered within 11.6. Given how close he was he could not have avoided the ball. A reflex reaction to catch it doesn't change that for me. The player could not have avoided that ball.

I would be fine with it being interpreted that way if it ever was. That is given as a penalty every time though. It's not like it fire into his midrift and just stuck. I dont like talking about refs so will probs stop now but I think that call (and especially the way that it was made) was pretty outrageous. On the Joubert one in the WC I felt for him as it came down to whether Phipps had played at the ball in a split second. This one is just a penalty and nothing changed on second viewing except the importance of it got to him.

Incidentally, they really need to clear up when you can go to the TMO. If then, why not for the Lions penalty just before to see whether he really wasnt rolling away or whether he was being held. Choose some protocols and stick to them.

wanderingjock wrote:

Big D wrote:

wanderingjock wrote: Odd for someone who hates the concept to bite at that

Eh? At what point have I ever been against the Lions?

Apologies. And many.


I got confused between n big al and big d.

No worries. Sure now we don't need to worry about the Lions for 3.5 years when it will have been 12 years since a losing series. 1st time in my lifetime they've not lost one after winning one.

Still with the team id have selected we'd have scored fiftysix million against the all blacks.

Cameo wrote:

Big D wrote:

Cameo wrote:Can't see how that is not a penalty. Just looked like he massively bottled it. I dont think he is allowed to go to the TMO but saw it as his only way out even though it confirmed what he had seen previously.

I'd be all up for changing that rule so if it is just instinct it is just a free kick but that is not how it has been reffed ever

I think it's covered within 11.6. Given how close he was he could not have avoided the ball. A reflex reaction to catch it doesn't change that for me. The player could not have avoided that ball.

I would be fine with it being interpreted that way if it ever was. That is given as a penalty every time though. It's not like it fire into his midrift and just stuck. I dont like talking about refs so will probs stop now but I think that call (and especially the way that it was made) was pretty outrageous. On the Joubert one in the WC I felt for him as it came down to whether Phipps had played at the ball in a split second. This one is just a penalty and nothing changed on second viewing except the importance of it got to him.

Incidentally, they really need to clear up when you can go to the TMO. If then, why not for the Lions penalty just before to see whether he really wasnt rolling away or whether he was being held. Choose some protocols and stick to them.

Agreed don't want to get too bogged down in ref stuff.

I thought he went to the TMO to see if there was foul play in the challenge in the air. Even if it was really to get a second look at the offside. I reckon in second viewing he saw Owens was closer to the knock on than he thought.

Owens was way to close to the knock on for it to be anything other than accidental offside IMO.

Shame for Poite as I thought he reffed a decent game. I think all refs this series did a decent job considering the pressure they'd be under.

It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

I asked a couple ref pals on Pussbook and 3 others chimed in. 60/40 split, which is telling even of only a 5 person sample. It should be made clearer in law.

One ref saying he only uses accidental offside around rucks and mauls for running into your own player.

One saying that it's hard to know what is a legitimate reflex and what is deliberate so errs on a penalty most of the time.

So the 2 above are refereeing as per 11.7 .

3 saying that was impossible for Owens to get out the way and given proximity to the knock on him catching it could only have been reflex. To them it's clearly accidental offside as he could not have avoided the ball so comes under 11.6.

Big D wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

I asked a couple ref pals on Pussbook and 3 others chimed in. 60/40 split, which is telling even of only a 5 person sample. It should be made clearer in law.

One ref saying he only uses accidental offside around rucks and mauls for running into your own player.

One saying that it's hard to know what is a legitimate reflex and what is deliberate so errs on a penalty most of the time.

So the 2 above are refereeing as per 11.7 .

3 saying that was impossible for Owens to get out the way and given proximity to the knock on him catching it could only have been reflex. To them it's clearly accidental offside as he could not have avoided the ball so comes under 11.6.

Ha! Aye, right there is he issue with it. It's another one of our laws that relies heavily on interpretation, and worse still, it also asks refs to judge intent.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

I asked a couple ref pals on Pussbook and 3 others chimed in. 60/40 split, which is telling even of only a 5 person sample. It should be made clearer in law.

One ref saying he only uses accidental offside around rucks and mauls for running into your own player.

One saying that it's hard to know what is a legitimate reflex and what is deliberate so errs on a penalty most of the time.

So the 2 above are refereeing as per 11.7 .

3 saying that was impossible for Owens to get out the way and given proximity to the knock on him catching it could only have been reflex. To them it's clearly accidental offside as he could not have avoided the ball so comes under 11.6.

Ha! Aye, right there is he issue with it. It's another one of our laws that relies heavily on interpretation, and worse still, it also asks refs to judge intent.

Indeed.

Lions fans acting as if a 66-54 series loss on points is something to be proud of. Hilarious.

Reminds me of a classic meme. A special prize for special fans & players.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Reminds me of a classic meme. A special prize for special fans & players.

Edgy.

It being the back of 8 on a Saturday night back home I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you be had a couple of Smirnoff ices and are steaming otherwise that chaff is some of the worst you've come up with.

OptimisticJock wrote:It being the back of 8 on a Saturday night back home I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you be had a couple of Smirnoff ices and are steaming otherwise that chaff is some of the worst you've come up with.

How many smirnoff ices did it take for you to spread your buttocks for the English, Welsh & Irish Lions? Not many apparently...