All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
That clip even throws out my generous assessment that there would have been unavoidable contact anyway. If he doesn't reach and gather the ball it goes right past him
The more I look at that clip, the more I think it was not a knock-forward. The ball goes backward or level to Williams since he is falling backwards anyway. And from that clip, it looks like the ball came off Williams face but I suspect there are some frames missing due to the frame rate grab.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Eh? It's immaterial if the ball went forward? Surely it is absolutely material? If it didn't knock forward then it wouldn't be a knock-on. It's the knock-on law that makes it a penalty??
My point about it coming off Williams face also means it's not a knock on. But the frame rate in the clip above is too slow to be sure about this.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
That clip even throws out my generous assessment that there would have been unavoidable contact anyway. If he doesn't reach and gather the ball it goes right past him
The more I look at that clip, the more I think it was not a knock-forward. The ball goes backward or level to Williams since he is falling backwards anyway. And from that clip, it looks like the ball came off Williams face but I suspect there are some frames missing due to the frame rate grab.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Eh? It's immaterial if the ball went forward? Surely it is absolutely material? If it didn't knock forward then it wouldn't be a knock-on. It's the knock-on law that makes it a penalty??
No, it's the offside and playing at the ball that makes it a penalty.
Owens is offside after Williams butchers the take and no one, from either side, puts Owens onside in accordance with the laws of the game.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Is thst correct? Surely if the ball's gone back then you're not offside? Can't be bothered googling the law ...
@booboo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Is thst correct? Surely if the ball's gone back then you're not offside? Can't be bothered googling the law ...
If the ball has been touched by a teammate who is behind you, you are now offside. You can only be put onside by having that or another onside player, run past you towards the opponent's dead ball line. Or as the offside player, you can run behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball. Otherwise, you need an opponent carrying the ball to run 5 metres, or an opponent kick, pass or intentionally touch the ball.
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Is thst correct? Surely if the ball's gone back then you're not offside? Can't be bothered googling the law ...
If the ball has been touched by a teammate who is behind you, you are now offside. You can only be put onside by having that or another onside player, run past you towards the opponent's dead ball line. Or as the offside player, you can run behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball. Otherwise, you need an opponent carrying the ball to run 5 metres, or an opponent kick, pass or intentionally touch the ball.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@booboo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Is thst correct? Surely if the ball's gone back then you're not offside? Can't be bothered googling the law ...
If the ball has been touched by a teammate who is behind you, you are now offside. You can only be put onside by having that or another onside player, run past you towards the opponent's dead ball line. Or as the offside player, you can run behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball. Otherwise, you need an opponent carrying the ball to run 5 metres, or an opponent kick, pass or intentionally touch the ball.
Gotcha. Ta
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Is thst correct? Surely if the ball's gone back then you're not offside? Can't be bothered googling the law ...
If the ball has been touched by a teammate who is behind you, you are now offside. You can only be put onside by having that or another onside player, run past you towards the opponent's dead ball line. Or as the offside player, you can run behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball. Otherwise, you need an opponent carrying the ball to run 5 metres, or an opponent kick, pass or intentionally touch the ball.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@booboo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
Is thst correct? Surely if the ball's gone back then you're not offside? Can't be bothered googling the law ...
If the ball has been touched by a teammate who is behind you, you are now offside. You can only be put onside by having that or another onside player, run past you towards the opponent's dead ball line. Or as the offside player, you can run behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball. Otherwise, you need an opponent carrying the ball to run 5 metres, or an opponent kick, pass or intentionally touch the ball.
You are clearly not Roman Poite
-
ery balanced summary, if it hasn't been posted previously:http://www.the42.ie/eddie-osullivan-lions-questions-2-3490226-Jul2017/
-
My last word (extract of rant this morn to Kiwi mates):
I just finished the tape. The Lions were incredibly lucky to get that draw. To be fair they grasped every last opportunity the ref gave them in that second half.
-
Penalty from inside own half 12-9.
-
Kick to corner from AB penalty. Spun wide. Savea over but Jordie had thrown low pressure pass 5 yards forward when any legal pass was a walk in.
-
ABs on top when Kaino carded. That was a joint tackle with Sam W. AWJ's head was beneath the shoulders of Kaino, who is the shorter. It was only head high because AWJ folded at the waist. A penalty would have been harsh, but a yellow was ridiculous. As Craig said, real momentum changer.
-
Lions good period 15 v14, culminating with penalty for 'high' tackle by BBBR on Lawes. But clear on replay that BBBR's arm was never at head height and contact made with chest and shoulder. Lions fan on Thursday volunteered to me no penalty. 12-12
-
AB pressure. Lions force knock on from AB midfield surge on Lions 22. From scrum Lions TH goes to ground right in front of Clouseau. Penalty (not sure it was collapse, more not holding up). 15-12
-
ABs power into Lions half. Scrum on Lions 22 at 72 minutes. ABs in control. Cruden/Fekitoa on, Laumape/Savea off. ABs run Savea move off scrum with Dagg. He is not a bus. Turnover. Really dumb from ABs! Even a droppie would have been better? Lions wangle scrum penalty from their 'step sideways' ploy, which makes scrum screw violently. Work their way to halfway. Crockett tackles Itoje, who holds him in ruck. Half milks penalty, three yards in AB half. 15 all. Lions have had six points from penalties no closer than three yards inside AB half. Maybe outside 10 metre mark penalties ought to count for two?
-
Reversed penalty from kick off. You know the rest.
In the last ten minutes the ABs were almost entirely in Lions half. Yet they failed to rack up any points. Lions made it three yards into AB half and nabbed 3.
We ought to have been out of sight at halftime. But the big wake up call is that ABs had much the better of second, but lost it 9-3. The decision making in calling moves around the 72 minute mark was naive and amateur. Sort it Shag!
Glad to get that off my chest!
-
-
-
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
-
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
@MiketheSnow Yeah, we're good at that stuff. Single handedly gave Mandela a red carpet ride in '95 too
#everycloudsilverlining
-
@MiketheSnow Yeah, we're good at that stuff. Single handedly gave Mandela a red carpet ride in '95 too
#everycloudsilverlining
-
-
@Catogrande I'm hearing you sound like Jim Broadbent's voice there mate...Hot Fuzz?
@Siam Spot on Nicholas.
-
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario) -
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)Unfortunately yes.
-
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)It's not really the NH as a whole, just England and France. Now I can't speak for France but the idea that The RFU would actually make a pro-active decision of any magnitude is laughable. In England professionalism was held back for a year to allow for a smoother, land transition. What a complete and utter joke. The RFU did SFA to manage the change and left this extra year as a vacuum for wealthy sugar daddies to finance the clubs and effectively own the player base. Fucked it up from the word go.
there are many aspects of the professional game in England that are laudable but the overall planning is not one of them. It is more a case of constantly putting out fires that we have started ourselves.
-
@MiketheSnow Yeah, we're good at that stuff. Single handedly gave Mandela a red carpet ride in '95 too
#everycloudsilverlining
@Siam said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow Yeah, we're good at that stuff. Single handedly gave Mandela a red carpet ride in '95 too
#everycloudsilverlining
I was at that game. The atmosphere was absolutely ecstatic, so much so it's the only time ever I thought to myself that it wouldn't be the end of the world if the ABs lost, given what it obviously meant to the nation.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)It's not really the NH as a whole, just England and France. Now I can't speak for France but the idea that The RFU would actually make a pro-active decision of any magnitude is laughable. In England professionalism was held back for a year to allow for a smoother, land transition. What a complete and utter joke. The RFU did SFA to manage the change and left this extra year as a vacuum for wealthy sugar daddies to finance the clubs and effectively own the player base. Fucked it up from the word go.
there are many aspects of the professional game in England that are laudable but the overall planning is not one of them. It is more a case of constantly putting out fires that we have started ourselves.
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)It's not really the NH as a whole, just England and France. Now I can't speak for France but the idea that The RFU would actually make a pro-active decision of any magnitude is laughable. In England professionalism was held back for a year to allow for a smoother, land transition. What a complete and utter joke. The RFU did SFA to manage the change and left this extra year as a vacuum for wealthy sugar daddies to finance the clubs and effectively own the player base. Fucked it up from the word go.
there are many aspects of the professional game in England that are laudable but the overall planning is not one of them. It is more a case of constantly putting out fires that we have started ourselves.
Wales has done an awesome job of fucking it up too
-
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)It's not really the NH as a whole, just England and France. Now I can't speak for France but the idea that The RFU would actually make a pro-active decision of any magnitude is laughable. In England professionalism was held back for a year to allow for a smoother, land transition. What a complete and utter joke. The RFU did SFA to manage the change and left this extra year as a vacuum for wealthy sugar daddies to finance the clubs and effectively own the player base. Fucked it up from the word go.
there are many aspects of the professional game in England that are laudable but the overall planning is not one of them. It is more a case of constantly putting out fires that we have started ourselves.
Wales has done an awesome job of fucking it up too
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)It's not really the NH as a whole, just England and France. Now I can't speak for France but the idea that The RFU would actually make a pro-active decision of any magnitude is laughable. In England professionalism was held back for a year to allow for a smoother, land transition. What a complete and utter joke. The RFU did SFA to manage the change and left this extra year as a vacuum for wealthy sugar daddies to finance the clubs and effectively own the player base. Fucked it up from the word go.
there are many aspects of the professional game in England that are laudable but the overall planning is not one of them. It is more a case of constantly putting out fires that we have started ourselves.
Wales has done an awesome job of fucking it up too
True but in a different way. The idea of the regions was IMO, the right way to go but it seems from the outside that it has been handled poorly. Quite how I don't know but money is obviously a problem
-
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)It's not really the NH as a whole, just England and France. Now I can't speak for France but the idea that The RFU would actually make a pro-active decision of any magnitude is laughable. In England professionalism was held back for a year to allow for a smoother, land transition. What a complete and utter joke. The RFU did SFA to manage the change and left this extra year as a vacuum for wealthy sugar daddies to finance the clubs and effectively own the player base. Fucked it up from the word go.
there are many aspects of the professional game in England that are laudable but the overall planning is not one of them. It is more a case of constantly putting out fires that we have started ourselves.
Wales has done an awesome job of fucking it up too
True but in a different way. The idea of the regions was IMO, the right way to go but it seems from the outside that it has been handled poorly. Quite how I don't know but money is obviously a problem
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Had it on good authority that some of the Home Nations would love for the Lions Tours to finish.
Minimal remuneration and loss of players to injury the primary reasons.
If we'd gone down 3-0 - which was on the cards prior to and during the tour - then it could have seen the end.
So thanks for playing ball NZ
It is certainly something that really irks me that the NH either decided (or allowed) the SoccerFootball construct of clubs to be the structure in Pro Rugby.
It can only lead to the game being money driven, to owners making decisions based on their club rather than country and to the international game being devalued.
When 'friendlies' become common the international game will die and the RWC will become everything. (I think there are some in higher powers that would actually welcome that scenario)It's not really the NH as a whole, just England and France. Now I can't speak for France but the idea that The RFU would actually make a pro-active decision of any magnitude is laughable. In England professionalism was held back for a year to allow for a smoother, land transition. What a complete and utter joke. The RFU did SFA to manage the change and left this extra year as a vacuum for wealthy sugar daddies to finance the clubs and effectively own the player base. Fucked it up from the word go.
there are many aspects of the professional game in England that are laudable but the overall planning is not one of them. It is more a case of constantly putting out fires that we have started ourselves.
Wales has done an awesome job of fucking it up too
True but in a different way. The idea of the regions was IMO, the right way to go but it seems from the outside that it has been handled poorly. Quite how I don't know but money is obviously a problem
Regions would have been accepted from the outset if they had been administered and financed by the WRU a la NZ.
They weren't, and then it became tribal warfare.
