Lawrence's performance / POC's comments

Tim Robbins

I'd have some questions about Lawrence's performance yesterday:

1. Lawrence should have put a SA player in the bin after a string of about 7 penalities, about 5 of them in the red zone

2. I think he should have kept the advantage for the Lions when Philips lost control of the ball for the touchdown and should have gone back for the penalty. He awarded a scrum to the saffies.

3. He missed a few things in one case a clear high tackle.

4. A number of times I thought a few players didn't enter the tackle through the gate.

5. Lawrence has a style where he doesn't talk that much. Most other refs at the breakdown shout, then ping. He just pings.

I'd support him on a few close calls e.g. the time Bowe got pinged for not releasing. The pub I watched the game were going crazy as Bowe was in the process of pushing the ball back through his legs, but Bowe had also prevented the third man getting the ball.


However, I am wondering about POC's comments after the game giving out about the penalties at scrum time.

See here.

Firstly, this is just more soccer giving out about the ref creeping into rugby.
Ok, maybe I'm been a hypocrite here as I am giving out about certain aspects of Lawrence's game but I think the captain should never be blaming the ref as it can just be a way of avoiding critical thinking about their team. I'll also change my opinion if someone can give good counter arguments and I'll also not blame the ref for defeat. I think the forwards took a beating that's why the Lions lost. Not because of the ref.

Secondly, I actually think Lawrence was spot on scrum time, Vickery had no bind any time he was pinged.

Your comments...

toomevara

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Secondly, I actually think Lawrence was spot on scrum time, Vickery had no bind any time he was pinged.

Your comments...

Sorry Tim, but the beast scrummaged illegally all aft....fair play, got away with it, but another ref on another day, and its a whole different ball game.

Jackz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Secondly, I actually think Lawrence was spot on scrum time, Vickery had no bind any time he was pinged.

Your comments...

How would he know about Vickery's bind from the other side of the scrum?

Size=everything

To be honest I'm not happy O'Connell decided to give out about the ref to the media very soccer-esque indeed.

danthefan

Size=everything wrote: »

To be honest I'm not happy O'Connell decided to give out about the ref to the media very soccer-esque indeed.

I don't think it looks good either to be honest, the South Africans will be laughing at him.

themont85

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Secondly, I actually think Lawrence was spot on scrum time, Vickery had no bind any time he was pinged.

Your comments...

I disagree, the Beast bored into Vickery when he engaged. Didn't go in square at all.

The ref was dreadful yesterday.

Tim Robbins

Jackz wrote: »

How would he know about Vickery's bind from the other side of the scrum?

AFAIR he was on vickery's side anytime he pinged him.

Tim Robbins

themont85 wrote: »

I disagree, the Beast bored into Vickery when he engaged. Didn't go in square at all.

The ref was dreadful yesterday.

But a fan needs overhead camera angle to see that?

Also, would you not agree it's much harder to bore in when you have your bind up? so if, The Beast has he's bind up, he's just going to then check Vickery's bind?

Your thoughts...

It would be interesting to hear Downtime's take on it.

danthefan

We can complain about the ref but Vickery was just powerless to do anything about the scrummaging. He was eaten alive.

Stealdo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Your thoughts...

I agree with you re: POC, he should have bit his tongue, especially immediately after the game. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was emotion based and in the heat of the moment, let's face it he's prone to it, similar to the Millenium Stadium interview after the GS.

On the scrums - I saw your post in the other thread and think you're right re: Vickery's bind, but I would have thought that the first issue is the angled hit. If the LH doesn't hit square, and is driving the TH into the scrum it's very difficult for him to get the bind. In my opinion, the first offence and therefore the one that should be punished is the person not engaging correctly.

Size=everything

danthefan wrote: »

I don't think it looks good either to be honest, the South Africans will be laughing at him.

This is why I felt O'Driscoll should of been captain not because he is a better leader on the pitch (as unless your there you'll never know) but because he knows how to handle the media and doesn't let his emotions get the better of him. I know O'Connell is captain of Munster but I honestly don't think he would be used to the kind of media scrutiny he is now probably under for the Lions and O'Driscoll has the experience. My 2cents anyway.

[Jackass]

I don't think we can have ANY complaints about how we were enighelated in the scrum...it's petty if we start talking about illegal play, cause the Lions were fu*king destroyed, no excuses.

And for O'Connell to go and complain about a ref makes a bit of a joke out of the team. SA will be even stronger now for next test and will be targetting the scrum again to shut O'Connell up...very bad decision...just keep the mouth shut and get on with it.

themont85

This is the Sky interview after the match;

http://www.skysports.com/video/clips/0,23791,12602_5390752,00.html

Thats a fair enough interview if you ask me, quite 'level headed'!

As regards 'level headed' interviews, what about BOD causing the journalists to criticise him for criticising them after they won the HC. I agreed with BOD there but the journalists twisted it on him, again I think we may something similar with POC.

All the POC bashing is hilarious, the English are really trying to scapegoat the guy when his performances although not at his highest level are quite good still.

I'm a huge BOD fan as a Leinster man and thought he should have been captain. However, why doesn't everybody get behind POC? What's done is done, we saw a very commited effort yesterday which they should have won but gave SA the game on the plate through sloppy finishing and some dodgy penalties.

The Lions have the beating of this Springboke side!

gcgirl

themont85 wrote: »

This is the Sky interview after the match;

http://www.skysports.com/video/clips/0,23791,12602_5390752,00.html

Thats a fair enough interview if you ask me, quite 'level headed'!

As regards 'level headed' interviews, what about BOD causing the journalists to criticise him for criticising them after they won the HC. I agreed with BOD there but the journalists twisted it on him, again I think we may something similar with POC.

All the POC bashing is hilarious, the English are really trying to scapegoat the guy when his performances although not at his highest level are quite good still.

I'm a huge BOD fan as a Leinster man and thought he should have been captain. However, why doesn't everybody get behind POC? What's done is done, we saw a very commited effort yesterday which they should have won but gave SA the game on the plate through sloppy finishing and some dodgy penalties.

The Lions have the beating of this Springboke side!

Well said we need to rally in behind the lads the Bokks are there for the taking!!

Profiler

themont85 wrote: »

This is the Sky interview after the match;

http://www.skysports.com/video/clips/0,23791,12602_5390752,00.html

Thats a fair enough interview if you ask me, quite 'level headed'!

I can't see the controversy there! I thought what POC said was spot on.

I was screaming at the Ref to get his yellow card out and I think the ref bottled it in the run up to Phillips try. The Boks absolutely should have been down to 14.

If the Boks are laughing they are doing to hide nerves

Size=everything

themont85 wrote: »

This is the Sky interview after the match;

http://www.skysports.com/video/clips/0,23791,12602_5390752,00.html

Thats a fair enough interview if you ask me, quite 'level headed'!

As regards 'level headed' interviews, what about BOD causing the journalists to criticise him for criticising them after they won the HC. I agreed with BOD there but the journalists twisted it on him, again I think we may something similar with POC.

All the POC bashing is hilarious, the English are really trying to scapegoat the guy when his performances although not at his highest level are quite good still.

I'm a huge BOD fan as a Leinster man and thought he should have been captain. However, why doesn't everybody get behind POC? What's done is done, we saw a very commited effort yesterday which they should have won but gave SA the game on the plate through sloppy finishing and some dodgy penalties.

The Lions have the beating of this Springboke side!

Difference is BOD said it when the competition was over and only attacked the journalists which didn't affect his team or their chances at winning. The difference in this case is South Africa are going to come back and target the scrum again and try dominate to shut O'Connell up and are going to come out completely riled up to prove to everyone that the ref didnt win the game for them. O'Connell should of kept his mouth shut and said we'll be back stronger for the next test.

Soccer type whinging about referees decisions is something I simply don't want to see in rugby. New Zealand were bad enough after the World Cup don't want it creeping into the game.

But yes the over the top reactions to O'Connells performances are just that, over the top.

themont85

Size=everything wrote: »

Difference is BOD said it when the competition was over and only attacked the journalists which didn't affect his team or their chances at winning. The difference in this case is South Africa are going to come back and target the scrum again and try dominate to shut O'Connell up and are going to come out completely riled up to prove to everyone that the ref didnt win the game for them. O'Connell should of kept his mouth shut and said we'll be back stronger for the next test.

Soccer type whinging about referees decisions is something I simply don't want to see in rugby. New Zealand were bad enough after the World Cup don't want it creeping into the game.

But yes the over the top reactions to O'Connells performances are just that, over the top.

Bod has 'attacked' several people like George Hook in a recent interview.

POC didn't 'attack' the ref, all he said was that penalties killed their chances, and he was right! He also said 'no doubt some of them were are own fault'. When asked what lost you the game you come out with a fair enough answer and that was it, penalties killed the game. The Lions haven't gone on about the penalties at all, notice McGeegan and Rowntree refusing to outright blame the ref. I don't think POC did either tbh and that journalists have picked up some quotes and run with them. I'm sure BOD would have said the exact same at the end of that type of game.

razorblunt

I dont think POC said anything untoward the referee in the interview.

What I found about the referee is the amount of times he was raised his hand from vertical to horizontal indicating a constant change of mind.

mikedragon32

Regarding Vickery, from what I could see... Yes, the beast was boring, but not all the time. The Ref only started pinging Vickery once he'd come around to the correct side. When he did ping Vickery, but was on the other side, I would be certain it was a TJ call.

I agree with the OPs point about the restart after Philip's disallowed try. As far as I could see, advantage was still being played and at no point had the ref called that advantage was over, so once the try was disallowed (rightly) they should have gone back for the penalty.

I was curious too about the restart after the first disallowed try. The TMO's recommendation being overruled was a bit odd (and Lawrence's tone was very unprofessional), however my view was that the ball was sent out of bounds by a South African defenders hand. Shouldn't that have been a scrum 5 to Lions rather than a 22 to SA? Granted the TMO did an awful job of explaining himself...

Eoin

themont85 wrote: »

POC didn't 'attack' the ref, all he said was that penalties killed their chances, and he was right! He also said 'no doubt some of them were are own fault'.
.

So he was saying that not all the penalties were unfair. That's just a passive-aggressive way of saying that there were a good few bad calls.

According to planetrugby.com, Vickery is saying that there was nothing illegal about their scrummaging. I thought their loosehead was nowhere close to being straight, but Vickery should know best. Off topic, but I think the law to penalise a frontrow from popping up is very dangerous. In most cases you have to do that because you are being driven upwards (illegal in its own right) and your head is being pushed into your chest.

MikeDragon32 wrote:

I was curious too about the restart after the first disallowed try. The TMO's recommendation being overruled was a bit odd (and Lawrence's tone was very unprofessional), however my view was that the ball was sent out of bounds by a South African defenders hand. Shouldn't that have been a scrum 5 to Lions rather than a 22 to SA? Granted the TMO did an awful job of explaining himself...

That's explained in another thread - apparently the dropout was the correct call.

Tim Robbins

mikedragon32 wrote: »

Regarding Vickery, from what I could see... Yes, the beast was boring, but not all the time. The Ref only started pinging Vickery once he'd come around to the correct side. When he did ping Vickery, but was on the other side, I would be certain it was a TJ call.

TJ's don't make scrum calls.

I agree with the OPs point about the restart after Philip's disallowed try. As far as I could see, advantage was still being played and at no point had the ref called that advantage was over, so once the try was disallowed (rightly) they should have gone back for the penalty.

Exactly. I think he got that wrong.

I was curious too about the restart after the first disallowed try. The TMO's recommendation being overruled was a bit odd (and Lawrence's tone was very unprofessional), however my view was that the ball was sent out of bounds by a South African defenders hand. Shouldn't that have been a scrum 5 to Lions rather than a 22 to SA? Granted the TMO did an awful job of explaining himself...

In fairness to Lawrence, this is where he did really well. In every game there comes a "flashpoint", something totally unexpected and sort of what the f do I do now?

He remained came and in control even though what was happening around him was madness.

A lesser ref would have crumbled.

Tim Robbins

eoin wrote: »

Off topic, but I think the law to penalise a frontrow from popping up is very dangerous. In most cases you have to do that because you are being driven upwards (illegal in its own right) and your head is being pushed into your chest.

Would you agree it's hard for a FR to do drive upwards if their binds are sound?

anonymous_joe

I was disappointed with how the ref performed, and thought O'Connell did try and talk to him and basically got told to fcuk off along with Vickery as they walked to the dressing rooms with Lawrence. Whether he could have tried harder/sooner/whatever I don't know. I wasn't on the pitch.

Eoin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Would you agree it's hard for a FR to do drive upwards if their binds are sound?

Not really, I'd say it's more about the angle they're driving at.

RuggieBear

lads if you have a problem with a post report it. and do not drag this thread into another provincial slanging match

Tim Robbins

eoin wrote: »

Not really, I'd say it's more about the angle they're driving at.

It's harder to get that angle if you have keep your bind up.

Ciaran-Irl

You are absolutely right that there should have been a yellow in that last 10 minutes though. I wonder if that would have made the difference in the end. Hard to know.

Tim Robbins

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

You are absolutely right that there should have been a yellow in that last 10 minutes though. I wonder if that would have made the difference in the end. Hard to know.

I think the ref didn't give a YC to the saffies because he didn't give one to Vickery in the first half.

If he gave one to the Saffies for persistent infringing he would have roasted for not doing the same for the Lions. That's my thinking.

Eoin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's harder to get that angle if you have keep your bind up.

I disagree. If a loosehead is set low, shorter than the opposing tighthead, then it's not that hard to get the head into their chest and drive upwards. If the loosehead binds very high on the tighthead - say around the back of their jersey, then that will automatically angle the head slightly inwards and under the tighthead. To straighen the loosehead up, the tighthead would need to try and drop the outside arm a little, so he can work the loosehead's head against the shoulder and try and keep the loosehead pointed straight. A good scrummaging hooker can either worth with the tighthead to target the loosehead in a pincer, or target the opposite hooker by rotating the right shoulder forward, which can push the other hookers head down.