RugbyRebels

Just seen the Mako yellow, only from one camera angle, barely even a penalty in the modern game and certainly not commensurate with the actions of Williams

Puja wrote:

skidger wrote:

Freddo wrote: From the replay I saw it seemed that Sinckler was still celebrating (doing his best Ric Flair impression) and Farrell told him to shut up.

Oh dear. A very good prospect but has a lot of growing up to do.

Indeed. When the match-winning penalty was conceded (from a frankly appalling decision, considering Sinckler caused it by jumping into a tackle, which is against the laws), Sinckler actually sprang up from the floor looking for a fight after having been "fouled". Showed good pre-emptive management from the Lions leaders that SOB and Farrell were watching for it and were on his shoulder instantly to lead him away and tell him not to be a twat and get the penalty reversed.

Puja

Don't often disagree with you, but in this case afraid I must! Sinkler 'jumped' for the high pass off Murray and was hit before he hit the ground, how many times does it happen but Law 10.4 (e) makes it clear and therefore a penalty. There is no direct law about "jumping into a tackle" although the ref could consider it dangerous play (like they enforce that when someone dives over a ruck to score!)

Puja wrote:

skidger wrote:

Freddo wrote: From the replay I saw it seemed that Sinckler was still celebrating (doing his best Ric Flair impression) and Farrell told him to shut up.

Oh dear. A very good prospect but has a lot of growing up to do.

Indeed. When the match-winning penalty was conceded (from a frankly appalling decision, considering Sinckler caused it by jumping into a tackle, which is against the laws), Sinckler actually sprang up from the floor looking for a fight after having been "fouled". Showed good pre-emptive management from the Lions leaders that SOB and Farrell were watching for it and were on his shoulder instantly to lead him away and tell him not to be a twat and get the penalty reversed.

Puja

I reckon we got that penalty as he was looking for the next possible opportunity. having let the AB front row off with collapsing the last scrum.

I don't much like the penalty Sinkler won by jumping into the tackle, even if for a pass, but I don't know that's the match winning play. There are thousands of incidents in a game, if you're that bothered a late incident doesn't give you a chance to respond do better in the earlier incidents.

Digby wrote:I don't much like the penalty Sinkler won by jumping into the tackle, even if for a pass, but I don't know that's the match winning play. There are thousands of incidents in a game, if you're that bothered a late incident doesn't give you a chance to respond do better in the earlier incidents.

The broader point is that they scraped through against 14 men by looking for penalties. Again, see you next week sir. Next week I say.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't much like the penalty Sinkler won by jumping into the tackle, even if for a pass, but I don't know that's the match winning play. There are thousands of incidents in a game, if you're that bothered a late incident doesn't give you a chance to respond do better in the earlier incidents.

The broader point is that they scraped through against 14 men by looking for penalties. Again, see you next week sir. Next week I say.

I don't disagree. Though I suspect many wouldn't agree that ideally next week finishes in a draw so neither side wins.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't much like the penalty Sinkler won by jumping into the tackle, even if for a pass, but I don't know that's the match winning play. There are thousands of incidents in a game, if you're that bothered a late incident doesn't give you a chance to respond do better in the earlier incidents.

The broader point is that they scraped through against 14 men by looking for penalties. Again, see you next week sir. Next week I say.

Heh - we're not the side that's just shown themselves to be boring, constantly kicking for goal, and incapable of try scoring. Reduce penalties down to 2 points, in my opinion, to combat this drear New Zealand style!

Puja

Puja wrote:
Heh - we're not the side that's just shown themselves to be boring, constantly kicking for goal, and incapable of try scoring. Reduce penalties down to 2 points, in my opinion, to combat this drear New Zealand style!

Puja

ooooh you will eat those words.

Maybe.

The Lions did their best to throw this game away, we were doing better before Williams got sent off, but they did what was needed and won, should be some game next week.
Nice to see an All Black get the same treatment as everyone else for a change, getting justice for their skulduggery.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't much like the penalty Sinkler won by jumping into the tackle, even if for a pass, but I don't know that's the match winning play. There are thousands of incidents in a game, if you're that bothered a late incident doesn't give you a chance to respond do better in the earlier incidents.

The broader point is that they scraped through against 14 men by looking for penalties. Again, see you next week sir. Next week I say.

Two tries to nil, mate, 2-0.

Makes next week far more interesting.

Lions fans bragging that we scored more tries than NZ. It's ballsy if ill advised.

Mellsblue wrote:Lions fans bragging that we scored more tries than NZ. It's ballsy if ill advised.

It doesn't happen often and we all know what's going to happen next Saturday. Enjoy it for one week.

Haven't seen the game but things in here have perked up in here nicely.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Hats off to Warbs for leadership today, going about his business and getting those around him to up their game to the death.
Liked the pivotal moment in the 2nd. half when Lions were behind, flagging and flapping a bit..Ieuan Evans gave a '97 character recount and a few minutes later there were 3 shuddering hits in the
forwards knocking the AB carriers back a few yards.Suspect Lawes, SOB and Itoje were involved but not sure.These brought back memories of Dayglo, Rodber, Gibbs et al hammering at the Boks.
They'll need 80 mins. of this next week.

For me the Vunipola incident remains at most a penalty, unlucky to get a yellow tbh,though the Lions were pushing the ref on the number of pens they were coughing up, so on that basis it was fair enough.

cashead wrote:

J Dory wrote:Haven't seen the game but things in here have perked up in here nicely.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I wouldn't be surprised if some around here try to do what happened after the 2007 quarterfinals debacle, when they tried to bully and browbeat those criticising Barnes into silence and then throw a tantrum when those people refuse to comply. I forget whom, but one of the wannabe-bullies threatened a flounce when the critics refused to back down, which was hilarious.

Certainly wouldn't try to bully you (got enough of that of a certain Welsh poster myself!) and certainly won't flounce but will have to agree to disagree cashead. I think it was a penalty and harsh yellow card (but given the law guidance can see why) but certainly not a red. If refs are giving reds for that don't know how scrums and lineouts will work with no forwards on the field!

cashead wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

cashead wrote: No, Vunipola got a yellow for striking Barrett's head - which, if going by the precedent set by Garces himself earlier in the game, should've been a red.

No Vunipola got yellow for clearing out the man away from the ball! I know its unusual for a NZ forward to do that sort of clearout (and not come in like an exocet missile) but it does happen on occasions! Also would need to see it again but it looked to me as if it caught his shoulder first. Barrett certainly milked both that and the previous contact (given that Vunipola went in front of him and not into him)

This is not a fucking clear-out.

1. Barrett is no longer even a part of the ruck
2. Vunipola clearly aims for Barrett's head/neck area
3. There is clear contact between Barrett's head and Vunipola's shoulder



SBW's silliness warranted a red. Fair enough. But so did this, by the very standards that Garces had set for himself earlier in the game in giving SBW a red to begin with. Combined with the swinging arm to the back of Naholo's head that sent him off for a HIA that he clearly had no interest in, it begs the question "What happened to 'I must protect the player?'"

See, for me, I'm really not seeing the contact between Vunipola's shoulder and Barrett's head. To me, that video clearly shows Vunipola making contact with Barrett's chest with his forearm and that force is what makes the head go back. Vunipola's forearm then slides up to get into Barrett's face, which is where the clear yellow comes from.

Also while the swinging arm on Naholo was clearly a problem that needed to be dealt with, so was the late shoulder charge on Farrell that Garces also had no interest in. There was crap refereeing in both directions.

Puja

cashead's meltdown here is epic. Almost as fun as seeing the Lions deservedly win a fantastic game. His one-eyed view of everything is usual, yet magnified. He sees every Lions transgression yet ignores every AB foul. Typical 5-year old AB fan boy. Pathetic, but so amusing...please keep it up.

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:See, for me, I'm really not seeing the contact between Vunipola's shoulder and Barrett's head. To me, that video clearly shows Vunipola making contact with Barrett's chest with his forearm and that force is what makes the head go back. Vunipola's forearm then slides up to get into Barrett's face, which is where the clear yellow comes from.

Also while the swinging arm on Naholo was clearly a problem that needed to be dealt with, so was the late shoulder charge on Farrell that Garces also had no interest in. There was crap refereeing in both directions.

Puja

The video quality is not optimal, but the first point of contact for Vunipola's forearm is Barrett's head.



Edit: found a better one. Hope it's not geolocked. Screenshot is from 13 seconds in.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/r ... en-barrett

You big cry baby, the all blacks have been getting away with cheap shots for years, you are just astonished that they have finally been punished for it, and one of there players deservedly red carded.
Vunipolo's is completely different and not in any way shape or form as dangerous as Williams cheap shot.

Did Barrett go off for a HIA?

Mellsblue wrote:Did Barrett go off for a HIA?

No. But cashead should

cashead wrote:I'm wondering what you're seeing, or not seeing, since the only difference between SBW's charge on Watson and Vunipola's on Barrett is that Watson wasn't lying prone. And once again, as soon as Garces set the precedent that such an offence would be a red when he sent off SBW, then the fact that he deemed what Vunipola did was a yellow indicates a clear inconsistency in his application of the law.

I wasn't going to continue this, but since you've asked.
SBW - I'm seeing immediate shoulder contact with the head, with Watson moving forward and being held by another player, with SBW left arm then coming round under momentum. I can't read his mind, but it looks as though SBW is going in to make a statement after they'd 'clashed' earlier in the phase. Or it could be that SBW was attempting to put a player out of the game. AW gets up but is obviously staggering and goes back down.Off for HIA.
MV - BB has made the tackle and is starting to roll away and MV comes in to 'clear out' making initial contact with BB upper torso with his right forearm and his left arm going to BB waist. Then MV's momentum dying, carries his shoulder and then forearm onto BB head. Again can't read his mind (after all he is a prop!) but at that stage of the game, MV decides he's just going to 'hit' a ruck. It could be that, having just had BB do a dying swan impression from the chargedown attempt and minimal contact, MV decides to give him a bit more! Or it could be that MV has gone to put him out of the game. If MV jumped on top of me like that I think I might be a bit winded (as BB was) because the medic WAS NOT dealing with his head but more his ribs.

The interpretation I understand that the refs work to, is: immediate contact with the head/neck area and outcome then mitigating factors (intent is not part of it)

So SBW red Garces didn't have a choice - penalty and red card.
MV - Garces saw similar to me and decided penalty and yellow, as he said at the time for clearing out away from the ball (although ball was closer at initial contact than Garces said) and had warned him earlier.

As I said, I think we are both a bit partisan so might have to agree to disagree as sometimes witnesses see different things in the same situation!.

cashead wrote: The classic, textbook example of how to try to wade into a discussion with nothing to actually say. Tone-policing, straw man and ad hominem.

Classic..YES
Textbook....YES
Nothing to say.....NO
I actually nailed you completely, and described your rants on this thread accurately . You can't see that because the red rage mist blinds you.

You are, however, still very amusing - so please continue to rant like a little trained poodle. We find your predicable bile to be very entertaining.

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:See, for me, I'm really not seeing the contact between Vunipola's shoulder and Barrett's head. To me, that video clearly shows Vunipola making contact with Barrett's chest with his forearm and that force is what makes the head go back. Vunipola's forearm then slides up to get into Barrett's face, which is where the clear yellow comes from.

Also while the swinging arm on Naholo was clearly a problem that needed to be dealt with, so was the late shoulder charge on Farrell that Garces also had no interest in. There was crap refereeing in both directions.

Puja

The video quality is not optimal, but the first point of contact for Vunipola's forearm is Barrett's head.



Edit: found a better one. Hope it's not geolocked. Screenshot is from 13 seconds in.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/r ... en-barrett

Again, I'm really not seeing what you're seeing. To me, that video (and the still) clearly shows initial contact is to the breastbone - Barrett's head goes forward first from the force to his upper torso and only goes backwards when his entire body moves - and then when both of them hit the floor, Mako's arm slides up into Barrett's face.

I would offer three other things of note - 1) as OBR notes, the medic deals solely with his ribs, not his head, 2) there is no suggestion of an HIA - Mako is a big bloke and if the flying leap of his entiee bodyweight had hit Barrett's face, then I'd be amazed if he came back on, let alone stayed on without any assessment at sll, 3) the rugby authorities clearly agree with me, as SOB has been cited for "an action equivalent to a red card" and Mako has not.

Puja