Are we in for a try fest?

According to this article the SA referees for the matches this weekend have been instructed to adhere to the laws set by sanzar at the start of the super 14.
Ruggamatrix also hinted that this would be the case.

http://www.scrum.com/sixnations/rugby/story/111916.html

An intriguing battle awaits at the breakdown with England's James Haskell, Lewis Moody and Nick Easter set to go head-to-head with their Irish counterparts Stephen Ferris, David Wallace and Jamie Heaslip. Class exudes on both sides with perhaps referee Mark Lawrence set to be the key player if reports are to be believed. Wallabies coach Robbie Deans revealed this week that South African Lawrence and his compatriot Jonathan Kaplan have been 'instructed' to adhere to the strict directive issued by SANZAR at the beginning of the year aimed at, among other things, tidying up the breakdown in the Super 14. That move has resulted in a glut of tries in the opening two rounds of the southern hemisphere's premier competition and means all eyes will be on Cardiff on Friday night where Kaplan will provide a marker

Im surprised more isnt being made of this if true.We are either going to see a try fest or a peno fest,hopefully the former.

Shaun Edwards also insinuates this will be the case in his blog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/feb/26/six-nations-cardiff-twickenham

Look at the team-sheets for this weekend's internationals in Cardiff and London and you'll see a couple of South African names – Jonathan Kaplan, who is refereeing our game tonight in Cardiff against France, and Mark Lawrence, who is looking after England versus Ireland at Twickenham tomorrow.

Both are experienced referees – Kaplan has 55 Tests behind him, including six involving Wales, and Lawrence has 21, five of them with England – but their particular relevance this weekend is the attitude they bring with them. If everything goes well, we might be in at the start one of those sea changes in the way rugby is played – and a change for the better at that.

http://www.cityam.com/sport/super-14-ref-will-make-lively-game

IRELAND’S trip to face England in the Six Nations this weekend is the most fascinating northern hemisphere match-up there has been in a long, long time.

Much of the reason for that is South African official Mark Lawrence, who takes over the whistle for Saturday having officiated in Super 14 matches this season.

Mark, as he is used to in Super 14, will penalise any player who does not run away or who slows the game down and I believe this will create a very expansive game

If this is true I cant wait.

Ciaran-Irl

First I heard of it. Strange...

Tim Robbins

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

First I heard of it. Strange...

I don't follow all this. Ok, I haven't seen much super 14 but I did watch that game where there was a plethoria of tries. The tries I saw had nothing to do with different breakdown reffing but all to do with awful defense.

I don't buy into this interpretation thing. The media over play it.

Refs differ in judgement, fitness, communication and positioning.

Podge_irl

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't follow all this. Ok, I haven't seen much super 14 but I did watch that game where there was a plethoria of tries. The tries I saw had nothing to do with different breakdown reffing but all to do with awful defense.

Indeed. Different ruck interpretations can only make a difference if there actually are any rucks, which is difficult when no one is making any tackles.

stephen_n

Not given Declan Kidney's comments to the press that the most important objective is to avoid what happened in 2008 happening again. That pretty much says what our game plan will be!

Tim Robbins

Podge_irl wrote: »

Indeed. Different ruck interpretations can only make a difference if there actually are any rucks, which is difficult when no one is making any tackles.

Indeed.

Super 14 there's very little tactical kicking / ping pong and there's way more running and offloading. The grounds are usually also harder.

If you can have a huge variance of GAA between Kerry and Tyrone you can surely have huge variances in Rugby over hemispheres.

toomevara

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you can have a huge variance of GAA between Kerry and Tyrone you can surely have huge variances in Rugby over hemispheres.

Agreed, but what I'm worried about after watching these appalling candyfloss, saccharine sweet, but ultimately and paradoxically, utterly tedious try fests is that we've got an entirely new code slowly and surreptitiously evolving in the SH...rugbylite if you will.

toomevara

toomevara wrote: »

Agreed, but what I'm worried about after watching these appalling candyfloss, saccharine sweet, but ultimately and paradoxically, utterly tedious try fests is that we've got an entirely new code slowly and surreptitiously evolving in the SH...rugbylite if you will.

These? It happened once and was an anomoly. The rest of the games have been perfectly watchable. Lets not get carried away with ourselves

toomevara

Deleted User wrote: »

These? It happened once and was an anomoly. The rest of the games have been perfectly watchable. Lets not get carried away with ourselves

To be specific I've watched two games in their entirety 'Canes/Force, Lions/Chiefs and tbh I don't know which was worse. Also saw about 60%, admittedly on a poor stream, of Bulls/Brumbies last week and that too, to my eyes, was utterly awful.

I realise of course that there is some fine rugby played in the Super 14 and some damn fine players plying their trade in the comp, but lets be honest the officials and administrators appear to have gotten it badly wrong (unless of course I'm a hopeless old duffer and people genuinely do want to watch these structure-free, anarchic tryfests, In which case I humbly retire form the field!

I hope good sense prevails and there a significant rowing back down under....

Tim Robbins

toomevara wrote: »

I hope good sense prevails and there a significant rowing back down under....

Rowing back of what though?

I see it as poor defending, teams that don't kick, teams that run and offload - what do you see it as?

Stev_o

It ll just end up in a giant penalty mess, no one wants to watch a match where after every 3 phases there is a penalty. It makes no sense for players to play under one set of law interpretations and then the next week switch to other. That alone is part of the degrading of RU, every month we hear about ref's deciding to differ their approach on how the game should be reffed.

toomevara

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Rowing back of what though?

I see it as poor defending, teams that don't kick, teams that run and offload - what do you see it as?

I see it as the consistent undermining of the fundamental ethos and the core values of the great game of rugby union. Depowering, undervaluing the scrum, removing a fair contest for the ball at the ruck, cheapening the line-out, and ignoring the kicking game. I do not want to see helter-skelter anarchy free style chaos on the rugby pitch in the pursuit of some misguided goal of accessibilty achieved by a relentless process of dumbing down, aiming at some mythical, non-existent audience, who, if only we took out the difficult to understand bits, will suddenly flock through the turnstiles.

The great glory of rugby union is it's a complex multifaceted game with many different and subtle aspects, the struggle for supremacy at scrum and line out, the judicious use of the kicking game, the duel between the three-quarters etc... Just turning it into 30 large guys running about slinging the ball around and crashing into each other until someone gets over the try line is a catastrophic prescription for disaster in terms of the game's future.

And I wouldn't agree Tim, that its simply a question of poor tackling, for me its a concerted policy on the part of the games administrators in the SH to move the game this way. So by 'rowing back' I mean folk need to get back to what RU is all about and stop this silly wrong headed pursuit of running,open rugby at all costs..thats only part of what makes rugby union great.

Now, a fascinating discussion, but I'll have to take it up with you next week as I'm heading out the door for London and Twickers, where hopefully the try fest will be an all-green affair....

athtrasna

Clay Millions Parrot wrote: »

Mark, as he is used to in Super 14, will penalise any player who does not run away or who slows the game down

http://www.cityam.com/sport/super-14-ref-will-make-lively-game

Hope someone tells Tomas O'Leary!!

anonymous_joe

toomevara wrote: »

I see it as the consistent undermining of the fundamental ethos and the core values of the great game of rugby union. Depowering, undervaluing the scrum, removing a fair contest for the ball at the ruck, cheapening the line-out, and ignoring the kicking game. I do not want to see helter-skelter anarchy free style chaos on the rugby pitch in the pursuit of some misguided goal of accessibilty achieved by a relentless process of dumbing down, aiming at some mythical, non-existent audience, who, if only we took out the difficult to understand bits, will suddenly flock through the turnstiles.

The great glory of rugby union is it's a complex multifaceted game with many different and subtle aspects, the struggle for supremacy at scrum and line out, the judicious use of the kicking game, the duel between the three-quarters etc... Just turning it into 30 large guys running about slinging the ball around and crashing into each other until someone gets over the try line is a catastrophic prescription for disaster in terms of the game's future.

And I wouldn't agree Tim, that its simply a question of poor tackling, for me its a concerted policy on the part of the games administrators in the SH to move the game this way. So by 'rowing back' I mean folk need to get back to what RU is all about and stop this silly wrong headed pursuit of running,open rugby at all costs..thats only part of what makes rugby union great.

Now, a fascinating discussion, but I'll have to take it up with you next week as I'm heading out the door for London and Twickers, where hopefully the try fest will be an all-green affair....

And breathe.

I agree entirely though. I fcuking hate artificial try fests. It's like football, I love seeing a three all or whatever game when the two teams both deserved it. I hate loose tackling and deliberate refereeing to cause high try counts. It's boring. Tries aren't meant to be easy to score.

Tim Robbins

anonymous_joe wrote: »

deliberate refereeing to cause high try counts. It's boring. Tries aren't meant to be easy to score.

This where I am losing yourself and toomevara. What makes you think the ref is responsible for this?

My point is everyone is getting hung up about the ref. We do this too much. for example, at the beginning of every game everyone asks me about the ruck law about the jackler being allowed to keep his hands on the ball during the ruck, if he has his hands on the ball before it starts.

People think this makes a big difference from last season. But it doesn't.

If the jackler has his hands on the ball before the ruck starts only one of four things can happen:

1. He tugs the ball and gets it, same this season as last season.
2. He gets a tug on the ball but is prevented from getting it because the tackled player won't release. Result: Penalty. Same as last season.
3. He doesn't get a tug and is ruck off the ball so quickly, he doesn't get the penalty for not releasing. Same this season as last season.

So the only difference is number 4:

4 He keeps his hands on the ball and the other team are so bad at rucking they can't ruck him off.

Now, how often does this happen?

JustinDee

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I hate loose tackling and deliberate refereeing to cause high try counts. It's boring. Tries aren't meant to be easy to score.

????
What are you talking about? Which referee has 'taken to the field' so-to-speak?

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't follow all this. Ok, I haven't seen much super 14 but I did watch that game where there was a plethoria of tries. The tries I saw had nothing to do with different breakdown reffing but all to do with awful defense.

I don't buy into this interpretation thing. The media over play it.

Refs differ in judgement, fitness, communication and positioning.

Tim there is a huge interpretation thing,I have watched nearly all the super 14 games so far and its definitely noticeable.
Its quite clear,the ball comes back straight away,its actually probably a good bit faster than rugby league in the tackle area once implimented properly.

If it happens tonight you will see penalties galore in the first half,the pause between tackling and releasing has to be made significant.
The stormers coach went as far as to get his players to clap there hands after releasing to make the ref aware.

anonymous_joe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This where I am losing yourself and toomevara. What makes you think the ref is responsible for this?

My point is everyone is getting hung up about the ref. We do this too much. for example, at the beginning of every game everyone asks me about the ruck law about the jackler being allowed to keep his hands on the ball during the ruck, if he has his hands on the ball before it starts.

People think this makes a big difference from last season. But it doesn't.

If the jackler has his hands on the ball before the ruck starts only one of four things can happen:

1. He tugs the ball and gets it, same this season as last season.
2. He gets a tug on the ball but is prevented from getting it because the tackled player won't release. Result: Penalty. Same as last season.
3. He doesn't get a tug and is ruck off the ball so quickly, he doesn't get the penalty for not releasing. Same this season as last season.

So the only difference is number 4:

4 He keeps his hands on the ball and the other team are so bad at rucking they can't ruck him off.

Now, how often does this happen?

Often enough to make a difference, because it can lead to yellows and so on.

Far more important than the rule changes, is the enforcement of other rules, which are a part of the package.

JustinDee wrote: »

????
What are you talking about? Which referee has 'taken to the field' so-to-speak?

Any SH ref? It's not about taking the field, it's about the directions they receive in how to ref. It's not a criticism of the refs, but of the rules they enforce.

Tim Robbins

Clay Millions Parrot wrote: »

Tim there is a huge interpretation thing,I have watched nearly all the super 14 games so far and its definitely noticeable.
Its quite clear,the ball comes back straight away,its actually probably a good bit faster than rugby league in the tackle area once implimented properly.

If it happens tonight you will see penalties galore in the first half,the pause between tackling and releasing has to be made significant.
The stormers coach went as far as to get his players to clap there hands after releasing to make the ref aware.

Well fair enough. I'd love to see some clips and specific examples of this. Usually the first thing any ref will check for after the tackle is that the tackler rolls away. So all this talk about Super 14 is what I am and every other ref in Leinster is doing.

Like I said, I'd love to see some clips. I don't have sky sports.

strathspey

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't follow all this. Ok, I haven't seen much super 14 but I did watch that game where there was a plethoria of tries.

This is the first season I have made a point of watching some Super 14 matches and all I can say is WHOW. That's an 80 minute spectacle. A New Zealand colleague persistently says watching a Heinekun Cup or Magners league game is like watching a match with players who have retired from the game, a seniors game if you will. The pace between the two streams of rugby is unbelievable.

strathspey

toomevara wrote: »

I see it as the consistent undermining of the fundamental ethos and the core values of the great game of rugby union. Depowering, undervaluing the scrum, removing a fair contest for the ball at the ruck, cheapening the line-out, and ignoring the kicking game. I do not want to see helter-skelter anarchy free style chaos on the rugby pitch in the pursuit of some misguided goal of accessibilty achieved by a relentless process of dumbing down, aiming at some mythical, non-existent audience, who, if only we took out the difficult to understand bits, will suddenly flock through the turnstiles.

The great glory of rugby union is it's a complex multifaceted game with many different and subtle aspects, the struggle for supremacy at scrum and line out, the judicious use of the kicking game, the duel between the three-quarters etc... Just turning it into 30 large guys running about slinging the ball around and crashing into each other until someone gets over the try line is a catastrophic prescription for disaster in terms of the game's future.

And I wouldn't agree Tim, that its simply a question of poor tackling, for me its a concerted policy on the part of the games administrators in the SH to move the game this way. So by 'rowing back' I mean folk need to get back to what RU is all about and stop this silly wrong headed pursuit of running,open rugby at all costs..thats only part of what makes rugby union great.

Now, a fascinating discussion, but I'll have to take it up with you next week as I'm heading out the door for London and Twickers, where hopefully the try fest will be an all-green affair....

I can't agree with any of this. I have to give the SH credit. The game of rugby evolves down there. Move with the times or retire to the armchair.

JustinDee

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Any SH ref? It's not about taking the field, it's about the directions they receive in how to ref. It's not a criticism of the refs, but of the rules they enforce.

The laws haven't changed. More benefit to the side in possession is the way they're reffing in the S14 this season. The reason there were games of stupid amounts of tries is that in order to defend against a side attacking in rucks like this, patterns and tactics will have to adapt.
Its like when a new defence coach joins your staff. The players are not going to just fluently roll into a new team overnight. Some will adapt quicker than others but it will not happen immediately. See Mike Ford or Les Kiss' introductions, for example. Takes a few games and some serious training.

Tim Robbins

JustinDee wrote: »

The laws haven't changed. More benefit to the side in possession is the way they're reffing in the S14 this season. The reason there were games of stupid amounts of tries is that in order to defend against a side attacking in rucks like this, patterns and tactics will have to adapt.
Its like when a new defence coach joins your staff. The players are not going to just fluently roll into a new team overnight. Some will adapt quicker than others but it will not happen immediately. See Mike Ford or Les Kiss' introductions, for example. Takes a few games and some serious training.

But hold on...
We had a SH ref yesterday - four tries. Not fourteen.
We also rain, teams kicking the ball a lot and players making handling errors and inaccurate passes. We also had forwards picking and driving and setting up mauls.

Perhaps them the difference. The law is the law.

JustinDee

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But hold on...

He wasn't reffing under the tackle interpretations currently being utilised in the S14.

Tim Robbins

JustinDee wrote: »

He wasn't reffing under the tackle interpretations currently being utilised in the S14.

Really? Did he state that publicly?

Note: I don't watch all the build up before and after games so I may have missed something.

anonymous_joe

JustinDee wrote: »

The laws haven't changed. More benefit to the side in possession is the way they're reffing in the S14 this season. The reason there were games of stupid amounts of tries is that in order to defend against a side attacking in rucks like this, patterns and tactics will have to adapt.
Its like when a new defence coach joins your staff. The players are not going to just fluently roll into a new team overnight. Some will adapt quicker than others but it will not happen immediately. See Mike Ford or Les Kiss' introductions, for example. Takes a few games and some serious training.

My comment was to look at the laws they enforce.

The laws are the same, they're enforeced differently.

JustinDee wrote: »

He wasn't reffing under the tackle interpretations currently being utilised in the S14.

And thank God for that.

Tim Robbins

anonymous_joe wrote: »

My comment was to look at the laws they enforce.

The laws are the same, they're enforeced differently.

Or we think they are. I'd some like to see some good hard evidence.

There was all this talk about how strict they are are about the tackler rolling away. Yesterday, Lawrence was no more or no less strict than a NH ref. Was he not using super 14 interpretation then? Perhaps someone could give me an example where he would have pinged for not rolling away using his super 14 interpretation that he decided not to use yesterday then?

He was picky on offsides - especially with the pillars - but he was consistent here. And he gave very few penalties for not releasing instead letting the jackler rob and maul ensue. But surely that's ok - it's letting the game flow?

His fitness, communication and general positioning were everything you'd expect from a top class ref.

anonymous_joe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Or we think they are. I'd some like to see some good hard evidence.

There was all this talk about how strict they are are about the tackler rolling away. Yesterday, Lawrence was no more or no less strict than a NH ref. Was he not using super 14 interpretation then? Perhaps someone could give me an example where he would have pinged for not rolling away using his super 14 interpretation that he decided not to use yesterday then?

He was picky on offsides - especially with the pillars - but he was consistent here. And he gave very few penalties for not releasing instead letting the jackler rob and maul ensue. But surely that's ok - it's letting the game flow?

His fitness, communication and general positioning were everything you'd expect from a top class ref.

The only major difference yesterday towards the normal laws was the approach to kicking - being harsher on offside kick-chasing.

It's not a bad thing that, but some of the new interpretations down south have a purpose, I just don't know if they're doing it right.

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But hold on...
We had a SH ref yesterday - four tries. Not fourteen.
We also rain, teams kicking the ball a lot and players making handling errors and inaccurate passes. We also had forwards picking and driving and setting up mauls.

Perhaps them the difference. The law is the law.

Unfortunately they did not ref the breakdown laws like sanzar have issued,dissapointing really.
Pretty dissapointed that so many sources that I posted at the start were talking crap about the way the games would be reffed.

Tim Robbins

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The only major difference yesterday towards the normal laws was the approach to kicking - being harsher on offside kick-chasing.

It's not a bad thing that, but some of the new interpretations down south have a purpose, I just don't know if they're doing it right.

Could you (or anyone) give an example from yesterday's game where the ref would have made a different call if he was using these new SH interpretation?

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Could you (or anyone) give an example from yesterday's game where the ref would have made a different call if he was using these new SH interpretation?

Here's an article about the directive SH refs were given about super 14.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3943_5917603,00.html

Here are the four areas they were told be stricter on:

a. Tackle - tackler to release IMMEDIATELY and roll away or get back on his feet.

b. Scrums - correct engagement, correct binding and straight body positions.

c. Off side in general play - players to stand still until put onside as per law.

d. Observe for obstruction at kick-offs and line-outs prior to a maul forming.

I think we'd all agree Laurence gave a few penalties for offside both at the breakdown and general kicking, that a NH ref wouldn't have given because there wasn't enough materiality.

I don't think there was much difference w.r.t. the other laws.

Danakin

Did anyone else notice the way that the Irish players in particular seemed to be screaming "Release!" at rucks yesterday throughout the match? Was this some kind of prep work because they expected Lawrence to ref according to the new SH directive?

On the whole differing interpretations issue: I agree that a fair contest for possession is a major part of the game of rugby union and has to be protected in the game but the slowing down/pinching of the ball unfairly has to stop. The "jackler" interpretation was a step too far and was a major cause (but not the only one) of the hopeless ping-pong.

The counter-attack is as important a part of rugby as the contest for possession and has to be protected too. I find myself watching old footage of say the 70s Welsh teams or the 90s French teams and thinking that for all the professionalism and fitness of today's players and for all the flaws of rugby in those days, the skill and excitement of the game and especially the counterattacking play was far better than what we see now. Something needs to be done to bring this back.

CatFromHue

the thing i have regarding the tackler having to release immediatley is whats to stop the tacklee just getting up and continue running?

obviously if a ruck starts to form is one thing but i think was it in the last lions game v south africe heaslip was tackled, released and then he got up and ran on somemore!

chupacabra

Danakin wrote: »

Did anyone else notice the way that the Irish players in particular seemed to be screaming "Release!" at rucks yesterday throughout the match? Was this some kind of prep work because they expected Lawrence to ref according to the new SH directive?

That's a rather common thing heard on a rugby field. The players are just trying to get the ref to blow up for holding on as quick as they can. Regardless of whether the player in possession is holding on or not.

Danakin

chupacabra wrote: »

That's a rather common thing heard on a rugby field. The players are just trying to get the ref to blow up for holding on as quick as they can. Regardless of whether the player in possession is holding on or not.

Just seemed to be particularly obvious and loud yesterday. Lawrence actually told them to be quiet at one stage I think!

Podge_irl

Danakin wrote: »

Did anyone else notice the way that the Irish players in particular seemed to be screaming "Release!" at rucks yesterday throughout the match? Was this some kind of prep work because they expected Lawrence to ref according to the new SH directive?

I think the ref's mike was just overly sensitive.

JustinDee

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't think there was much difference w.r.t. the other laws.

The laws at the tackle and breakdown vary.

Tim Robbins

JustinDee wrote: »

The laws at the tackle and breakdown vary.

The laws at the tackle and breakdown don't vary.

There are people who think the interpretations very. I have asked for specific examples several times but haven't got any.

If Laurence was reffing the breakdown on Sat. with his SH hat on, someone should be able to point to differences.

If Laurence wasn't reffing the breakdown on Sat. without his SH hat on, somone should be able to point to differences there would have been had he had his SH hat on.

d'Oracle

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The laws at the tackle and breakdown don't vary.

There are people who think the interpretations very. I have asked for specific examples several times but haven't got any.

If Laurence was reffing the breakdown on Sat. with his SH hat on, someone should be able to point to differences.

If Laurence wasn't reffing the breakdown on Sat. without his SH hat on, somone should be able to point to differences there would have been had he had his SH hat on.

Post.

I didn't notice any significant difference in his approach.
I suspect, as I did when I first read the article, that the "SH refs were gonna ref the 6N matches with the new interpretation" stuff is nonsense.

Tim Robbins

d'Oracle wrote: »

Post.

I didn't notice any significant difference in his approach.
I suspect, as I did when I first read the article, that the "SH refs were gonna ref the 6N matches with the new interpretation" stuff is nonsense.

So do I. Rugby is a very technical game. People who played Prop generally look at the Props more than other players in a game. Same with 10's, full backs, no 8's etc.

Refs tend to look at refs. I didn't see any major difference in his enforcement of rolling away at the breakdown but I did for offsides.

But I open to persuasion if someone can site specific examples.

stephen_n

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Refs tend to look at refs. I didn't see any major difference in his enforcement of rolling away at the breakdown but I did for offsides.

But most ref's have particular areas of the game they are fussy about and that seemed to be his. It wasn't really a different enterpretation of the rule was it?

Tim Robbins

stephen_n wrote: »

But most ref's have particular areas of the game they are fussy about and that seemed to be his. It wasn't really a different enterpretation of the rule was it?

No. And in fact an assessor pulled me up on this year that I didn't ping enough for players creeping forward even though it had no materiality.

I thought Laurence had a good game. He seems one serious fit dude. Didn't even break sweat and was well up with the play.

JustinDee

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The laws at the tackle and breakdown don't vary

I should have written "interpretations vary" and not the laws (since I was saying the laws haven't changed in the first place).
Yes, there are people who say interpretation at the breakdown varies.

I'll point out some differences when I've looked at the game again and give you a time stamp.
I work in same office as ref dept so I'll ask their view for you also.
Lawrence reffed the game as normal and I agree with you that he had a good game.

shanagarry

Tim Robbins wrote: »

His fitness, communication and general positioning were everything you'd expect from a top class ref.

Did you not think his positioning was questionable at times? He seemed to get in the way on a couple of occassions, especially the scrum halves' ways when they were trying to get the ball out.

He also had the incident the previous week when he stepped into the path of one of the Brumbies as he was lininig up a tackle and Du Preez got in for a try for the Bulls.

I'll try and find some instances of differing tackler interpretation in the match, I don't remember many specific moments when it's heart in mouth viewing, I need to watch again.

Tim Robbins

shanagarry wrote: »

Did you not think his positioning was questionable at times? He seemed to get in the way on a couple of occassions, especially the scrum halves' ways when they were trying to get the ball out.

The only time I thought his positioning was a bit off was for the last Irish try where he almost blocked a tackler's path. I think it was Wilkonson's. Can't remember. But his pre lineout positioning here was fine, he probably needed to move forward quickly. In fact, it was very clever the way O'Leary stood at 2 and then Ireland through to 4 and O'Leary carried it even further.

Put it this way, they didn't just catch the ref out, they caught the entire English defense out.

If you think there are some other examples of bad positioning, give me the time of the game as I have it recorded.