All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3
-
I see Treason is having a field day, couple of headlines I saw (obviously didn't click) apparently it was hubris to play our Super rugby rookies against the Lions and also our razzle has gone wrong....
and the little bit I can read without clicking on it...
OPINION: The Lions have so far seen absolutely nothing to fear, writes Mark Reason.
How is it that hacks such as him can get paid for their BS?
then there is this guy:
-
I see Treason is having a field day, couple of headlines I saw (obviously didn't click) apparently it was hubris to play our Super rugby rookies against the Lions and also our razzle has gone wrong....
and the little bit I can read without clicking on it...
OPINION: The Lions have so far seen absolutely nothing to fear, writes Mark Reason.
How is it that hacks such as him can get paid for their BS?
then there is this guy:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I see Treason is having a field day, couple of headlines I saw (obviously didn't click) apparently it was hubris to play our Super rugby rookies against the Lions and also our razzle has gone wrong....
and the little bit I can read without clicking on it...
OPINION: The Lions have so far seen absolutely nothing to fear, writes Mark Reason.
How is it that hacks such as him can get paid for their BS?
then there is this guy:
You make the exact same post on here every time Reason writes an article.
Why don't you just not read the herald?... it's shit, everyone knows that
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I see Treason is having a field day, couple of headlines I saw (obviously didn't click) apparently it was hubris to play our Super rugby rookies against the Lions and also our razzle has gone wrong....
and the little bit I can read without clicking on it...
OPINION: The Lions have so far seen absolutely nothing to fear, writes Mark Reason.
How is it that hacks such as him can get paid for their BS?
then there is this guy:
You make the exact same post on here every time Reason writes an article.
Why don't you just not read the herald?... it's shit, everyone knows that
@SammyC he aint on the Herald, it is just the headlines pop up for me, and it aint exact, nor is it every time
Maybe you could ignore my posts?
-
@Wairau said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I would have accepted a yellow. But it deserved a red, or failing that, citing and 2 week ban.
This is a black mark against the officials, and Garces in particular. The SOB swinging arm should have been dealt with on the field. A penalty at least, but he couldn't have had any complaints if a YC was issued.
I expect both coaches are going to have plenty to say to Poite so he will be under pressure to get his decisions right. The last thing anyone wants is a controversial call to decide the game and series.
@Bovidae said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Wairau said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I would have accepted a yellow. But it deserved a red, or failing that, citing and 2 week ban.
This is a black mark against the officials, and Garces in particular. The SOB swinging arm should have been dealt with on the field. A penalty at least, but he couldn't have had any complaints if a YC was issued.
I expect both coaches are going to have plenty to say to Poite so he will be under pressure to get his decisions right. The last thing anyone wants is a controversial call to decide the game and series.
Actually - depending on who comes out ahead as a result of said controversial call - it's not the last thing I want.
-
@SammyC he aint on the Herald, it is just the headlines pop up for me, and it aint exact, nor is it every time
Maybe you could ignore my posts?
@taniwharugby Notice the headline changed to be more inflammatory the course of the day as the editors strove for more clicks. Expect "AB's conduct human sacrifice" by 9-ish.
-
@SammyC he aint on the Herald, it is just the headlines pop up for me, and it aint exact, nor is it every time
Maybe you could ignore my posts?
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@SammyC he aint on the Herald, it is just the headlines pop up for me, and it aint exact, nor is it every time
Maybe you could ignore my posts?
Most of us do.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@SammyC he aint on the Herald, it is just the headlines pop up for me, and it aint exact, nor is it every time
Maybe you could ignore my posts?
Most of us do.
@Catogrande obviously not
@Marty yeah they do that, and often the headline for you to click is different to the actual headline of the article.
-
@Catogrande obviously not
@Marty yeah they do that, and often the headline for you to click is different to the actual headline of the article.
@taniwharugby I read-a da wun post
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I see Treason is having a field day, couple of headlines I saw (obviously didn't click) apparently it was hubris to play our Super rugby rookies against the Lions and also our razzle has gone wrong....
and the little bit I can read without clicking on it...
OPINION: The Lions have so far seen absolutely nothing to fear, writes Mark Reason.
How is it that hacks such as him can get paid for their BS?
then there is this guy:
You make the exact same post on here every time Reason writes an article.
Why don't you just not read the herald?... it's shit, everyone knows that
@SammyC said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I see Treason is having a field day, couple of headlines I saw (obviously didn't click) apparently it was hubris to play our Super rugby rookies against the Lions and also our razzle has gone wrong....
and the little bit I can read without clicking on it...
OPINION: The Lions have so far seen absolutely nothing to fear, writes Mark Reason.
How is it that hacks such as him can get paid for their BS?
then there is this guy:
You make the exact same post on here every time Reason writes an article.
Why don't you just not read the herald?... it's shit, everyone knows that
I'm gonna go and read it now
-
@Crazy-Horse no
we don't have shortcomings, just cheating dirty opposition and incompetent refs, sheesh, where the hell you been all these years?@Marty yeah will be interesting, with it all on the line will the Lions go to a more conservative game plan and try and shut us down up front?
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Marty yeah will be interesting, with it all on the line will the Lions go to a more conservative game plan and try and shut us down up front?
We've hardly been the Harlem Globetrotters
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Marty yeah will be interesting, with it all on the line will the Lions go to a more conservative game plan and try and shut us down up front?
We've hardly been the Harlem Globetrotters
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Marty yeah will be interesting, with it all on the line will the Lions go to a more conservative game plan and try and shut us down up front?
We've hardly been the Harlem Globetrotters
Yeah I reckon the Lions have played fairly similar in both tests and mixed it up during the 80 minutes quite well. I can't see the Lions back 3 "shutting up shop". They're not that sort of players. Likewise with the two 1st 5s starting (presumably), they will look to play with width.
-
The way the Lions are doing the rush D is to be so on the edge and anticipate as a line that usually no one looks obviously 'the guy'. Most times they are certainly moving before the ball is lifted but are also not planting the first step until right on the lift. It is well coached and usually executed well.
They are often getting it wrong though and the ref is telling them to get back which they do and avoid the penalty (but have affected the play by slowing it down).It's boundary pushing for sure but that's what good teams do.
I stated earlier in the series that I thought the game needs tidying to avoid this 'style' shutting down a game. Laws have been implemented with 5m back from scrums and 10m back from line outs to create space so it's not like this is a radical concept. You can't have a 1 or 2 metre back law at tackle/rucks, it would be to hard to rule on, but you can put the onus of teams to show they are clearly onside rather than clearly offside. Make doubt go in favour of the attacking side and the game would be 'cleaner'
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
The way the Lions are doing the rush D is to be so on the edge and anticipate as a line that usually no one looks obviously 'the guy'. Most times they are certainly moving before the ball is lifted but are also not planting the first step until right on the lift. It is well coached and usually executed well.
They are often getting it wrong though and the ref is telling them to get back which they do and avoid the penalty (but have affected the play by slowing it down).It's boundary pushing for sure but that's what good teams do.
I stated earlier in the series that I thought the game needs tidying to avoid this 'style' shutting down a game. Laws have been implemented with 5m back from scrums and 10m back from line outs to create space so it's not like this is a radical concept. You can't have a 1 or 2 metre back law at tackle/rucks, it would be to hard to rule on, but you can put the onus of teams to show they are clearly onside rather than clearly offside. Make doubt go in favour of the attacking side and the game would be 'cleaner'
Just going to quote myself here because I've thought about this a little more.
What if the laws were to state that non-participants in a ruck (i.e. not bound or not halfback) had to retire to 5 metres back like a scrum? Apart from creating space for a backline it would also create space for the ref team and potentially stop players blowing past the ruck and creating a further mess.
The drawback would be that some rucks would become very light in numbers and resemble a league situation where the defending team simply concedes the possession then fans out with a stronger wall.
I'd be interested in other views on this. -
A facebook post popped on my feed and it asked "What happens to Hansen if the Ab's lose saturday?"
I wanted to answer "He will be literally thrown under a bus after the game, his remains will be fed to baby seals which Andrew Hore will then club into oblivion and Warren Gatland will be made Ab coach effective immediately", but fuck I don't want to engage in to a discussion on Facebook.
-
For those lauding the Sexton- Farrell axis, take a look at this vid.
In 8 and change minutes, the better passing and space creation came from Farrell, often as first receiver.
Defensively they were adequate.
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
For those lauding the Sexton- Farrell axis, take a look at this vid.
In 8 and change minutes, the better passing and space creation came from Farrell, often as first receiver.
Defensively they were adequate.
I'm sure the ABs went into the game with a plan to make these guys tackle a lot. We just didn't get to see it. Dull their attacking thinking by fatiguing them with tackles.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
The way the Lions are doing the rush D is to be so on the edge and anticipate as a line that usually no one looks obviously 'the guy'. Most times they are certainly moving before the ball is lifted but are also not planting the first step until right on the lift. It is well coached and usually executed well.
They are often getting it wrong though and the ref is telling them to get back which they do and avoid the penalty (but have affected the play by slowing it down).It's boundary pushing for sure but that's what good teams do.
I stated earlier in the series that I thought the game needs tidying to avoid this 'style' shutting down a game. Laws have been implemented with 5m back from scrums and 10m back from line outs to create space so it's not like this is a radical concept. You can't have a 1 or 2 metre back law at tackle/rucks, it would be to hard to rule on, but you can put the onus of teams to show they are clearly onside rather than clearly offside. Make doubt go in favour of the attacking side and the game would be 'cleaner'
Just going to quote myself here because I've thought about this a little more.
What if the laws were to state that non-participants in a ruck (i.e. not bound or not halfback) had to retire to 5 metres back like a scrum? Apart from creating space for a backline it would also create space for the ref team and potentially stop players blowing past the ruck and creating a further mess.
The drawback would be that some rucks would become very light in numbers and resemble a league situation where the defending team simply concedes the possession then fans out with a stronger wall.
I'd be interested in other views on this.@Crucial Be wary of the law of unintended consequences. Not actually on this specific point but a little while ago I went to a dinner where the speaker was Rob Baxter (Exeter Chiefs coach) and he fielded a few questions, there were a couple that were asking about/moaning about various contentious issues such as the scrum battle leading to constant re-sets. Baxter was very thoughtful on the subject and pointed out the possible problems in de-powering the scrum with the main one being more blokes in the defensive line. As a consequence I'm very wary of anything that reduces the contest for the ball in any given situation. But I agree that the offside line at ruck and maul is becoming very difficult to police.
-
THe Lions are very smart with thier defensive line, keeping it straight is key to gaining that extra half a metre or so, which can make a huge difference, except Itoje, I think he wants to be an AB!
-
@Crucial Be wary of the law of unintended consequences. Not actually on this specific point but a little while ago I went to a dinner where the speaker was Rob Baxter (Exeter Chiefs coach) and he fielded a few questions, there were a couple that were asking about/moaning about various contentious issues such as the scrum battle leading to constant re-sets. Baxter was very thoughtful on the subject and pointed out the possible problems in de-powering the scrum with the main one being more blokes in the defensive line. As a consequence I'm very wary of anything that reduces the contest for the ball in any given situation. But I agree that the offside line at ruck and maul is becoming very difficult to police.
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial Be wary of the law of unintended consequences. Not actually on this specific point but a little while ago I went to a dinner where the speaker was Rob Baxter (Exeter Chiefs coach) and he fielded a few questions, there were a couple that were asking about/moaning about various contentious issues such as the scrum battle leading to constant re-sets. Baxter was very thoughtful on the subject and pointed out the possible problems in de-powering the scrum with the main one being more blokes in the defensive line. As a consequence I'm very wary of anything that reduces the contest for the ball in any given situation. But I agree that the offside line at ruck and maul is becoming very difficult to police.
I completely agree. Nearly every law change throws up another problem while 'fixing' the original one.
That's why I was throwing that idea out to the collective wisdom of the fern to let others pick it apart.
As I said, I think the consequence may be that if you cleanup those extra players clogging the area by incentivising them to stay back it only increases the numbers in defence. However there will be an incentive to group numbers in narrow as any pick and go will have a head of steam up.
That also makes me think you would get a lot more big straight runners winding up from 5 back to take a flat ball and smash it up. -
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial Be wary of the law of unintended consequences. Not actually on this specific point but a little while ago I went to a dinner where the speaker was Rob Baxter (Exeter Chiefs coach) and he fielded a few questions, there were a couple that were asking about/moaning about various contentious issues such as the scrum battle leading to constant re-sets. Baxter was very thoughtful on the subject and pointed out the possible problems in de-powering the scrum with the main one being more blokes in the defensive line. As a consequence I'm very wary of anything that reduces the contest for the ball in any given situation. But I agree that the offside line at ruck and maul is becoming very difficult to police.
I completely agree. Nearly every law change throws up another problem while 'fixing' the original one.
That's why I was throwing that idea out to the collective wisdom of the fern to let others pick it apart.
As I said, I think the consequence may be that if you cleanup those extra players clogging the area by incentivising them to stay back it only increases the numbers in defence. However there will be an incentive to group numbers in narrow as any pick and go will have a head of steam up.
That also makes me think you would get a lot more big straight runners winding up from 5 back to take a flat ball and smash it up.
