Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lions v New Zealand 3rd Test Match Thread

Options
1…2527293031

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Jump_In_Jack wrote:
    If you can point out the law where you can hit a guy in the air without being in a position to touch the ball I'd be very impressed.

    I think Read was entitled to compete for the ball but he certainly made enough contact with Williams to merit a penalty to the Lions. It would have been an apalling injustice if a penalty had been awarded to the All Blacks. Full marks to Poite (who is not my favourite ref) for eventually calling it right


  • Options
    #783
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,632 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    No way. He is looking at the ball all the way down and just missed being able to knock it back. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that his intention was to win the ball there.

    You're forgetting a duty of care to a player already in the air, you can't barrel in and hit someone like that.
    It was clumsy at best.

    It's like saying if you tackle a guy in the head, well he watched him all the way and just missed a proper tackle by a few inches.
    Still a penalty.


  • Options
    #784
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    First Up wrote: »
    I think Read was entitled to compete for the ball but he certainly made enough contact with Williams to merit a penalty to the Lions. It would have been an apalling injustice if a penalty had been awarded to the All Blacks. Full marks to Poite (who is not my favourite ref) for eventually calling it right

    Murray Kinsella says the ref bottled it by not giving the penalty to the All Blacks. Who are we to argue?

    https://twitter.com/The42_ie/status/883695342977503232


  • Options
    #785
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Jump_In_Jack wrote: »
    You're forgetting a duty of care to a player already in the air, you can't barrel in and hit someone like that.
    It was clumsy at best.

    It's like saying if you tackle a guy in the head, well he watched him all the way and just missed a proper tackle by a few inches.
    Still a penalty.

    You absolutely CAN do what Read did. He was competing for the ball and it was entirely fair. Lewis Moody made a career of it.

    You're basically arguing that if two players go up for the ball and collide the guy who loses the contest should be penalised. Like old school Aussie rules. It's not how the laws work.

    I'm not sure Read made contact with Williams' head. And its nothing like a high tackle because noone was in possession so that comparison is bizarre.


  • Options
    #786
    SlickRic
    Registered Users Posts: 36,083 ✭✭✭✭SlickRic


    Of course he bottled it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    There was one incident where Itoje was stationary when given the ball and then immediately engulfed by ABs but still managed to make ground against them.

    Farrell is one heck of a place-kicker - won the match for us - and a good fly-half too but this tour should settle the 10/12 debate.

    I'm delighted with the draw in the match and series, an extraordinary achievement against a great team. Hats off to Gatland who took a lot of abuse as usual. One tough dude.


  • Options
    #788
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,632 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    You absolutely CAN do what Read did. He was competing for the ball and it was entirely fair. Lewis Moody made a career of it.

    You're basically arguing that if two players go up for the ball and collide the guy who loses the contest should be penalised. Like old school Aussie rules. It's not how the laws work.

    I'm not sure Read made contact with Williams' head. And its nothing like a high tackle because noone was in possession so that comparison is bizarre.

    Agree to disagree, you think he had some chance of touching the ball, I say he had no chance of touching the ball.
    That's the difference of opinion.


  • Options
    #789
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Jump_In_Jack wrote: »
    Agree to disagree, you think he had some chance of touching the ball, I say he had no chance of touching the ball.
    That's the difference of opinion.

    How did he have no chance of touching the ball? The ball went straight past his hand?


  • Options
    #790
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Basil3 wrote: »
    Murray Kinsella says the ref bottled it by not giving the penalty to the All Blacks. Who are we to argue?]

    Murray Kinsella. I'll hold my tongue.

    In fairness to Poite, regardless of whether the call was right or wrong... he gave the penalty and then reversed it. Against the All Blacks. In Eden Park. In the 78th minute.

    Whatever he did, he didn't bottle it.


  • Options
    #791
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,600 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Regardless of the wording of the law. Regardless of how it has been reffed. I think Poite reffed it the way I'd like it to be reffed. Does anyone think the All Blacks deserved a penalty for what happened? Owens hardly prevented them playing the ball, in fact if I recall correctly he ended up teeing it up nicely for Ardie. If Poite was wrong the law should change. Only cynical offside should be a penalty offense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    Hastentoadd
    Registered Users Posts: 573 ✭✭✭Hastentoadd


    It is interesting reading all the different opinions. Rugby can't be this way. It either is or it is not following basic rules. You can't have it both ways. What happened was a penalty. If a referee can't say it was a penalty then the rules of the game need to be tightened. While we can all discuss the merits of a game it reaches shambolic when a referee can't even decide on such a basic principle. And as a decision goes, it was a penalty, clear and obvious.Folks can fight over this but anyone with any understanding of rugby would not have felt hard done by when a penalty was awarded. To address the previous infringement when Williams was in the air, well that is open to discussion. It was not clear and obvious so the referee could be forgiven. So there is a middle ground from time to time but you cannot pick your time based on how many minutes are left in a match as to how you award a decision


  • Options
    #793
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Regardless of the wording of the law. Regardless of how it has been reffed. I think Poite reffed it the way I'd like it to be reffed. Does anyone think the All Blacks deserved a penalty for what happened? Owens hardly prevented them playing the ball, in fact if I recall correctly he ended up teeing it up nicely for Ardie. If Poite was wrong the law should change. Only cynical offside should be a penalty offense.

    Completely agree, but the thing is that the Lions benefitted from an equally questionable situation a few minutes earlier which he did ref to the letter of the law.


  • Options
    #794
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Oh God, this is still going on. I'm outta here!


  • Options
    #795
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Hastentoadd wrote: »
    It is interesting reading all the different opinions. Rugby can't be this way. It either is or it is not following basic rules. You can't have it both ways. What happened was a penalty. If a referee can't say it was a penalty then the rules of the game need to be tightened. While we can all discuss the merits of a game it reaches shambolic when a referee can't even decide on such a basic principle. And as a decision goes, it was a penalty, clear and obvious.Folks can fight over this but anyone with any understanding of rugby would not have felt hard done by when a penalty was awarded. To address the previous infringement when Williams was in the air, well that is open to discussion. It was not clear and obvious so the referee could be forgiven. So there is a middle ground from time to time but you cannot pick your time based on how many minutes are left in a match as to how you award a decision
    You've already made this statement before and have had the law quoted to you and pointed out where the decision came from. No response from you and here you are back again with the same old rigmarole. Are you just sticking your fingers in your ears when the facts are pointed out to you?


  • Options
    #796
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Basil3 wrote:
    Murray Kinsella says the ref bottled it by not giving the penalty to the All Blacks. Who are we to argue?

    My opinion carries exactly the same weight as his. Who is he to argue?


  • Options
    #797
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    BBDBB wrote:
    Just read a stat on the bbc that of the 240 minutes of test match rugby, the lions were only ahead for 3 of them. If even remotely near true that's pretty telling.

    It is pretty telling and when the dust settles it shouldn't be hard to accept the Lions got off pretty lightly


  • Options
    #798
    Hastentoadd
    Registered Users Posts: 573 ✭✭✭Hastentoadd


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    You've already made this statement before and have had the law quoted to you and pointed out where the decision came from. No response from you and here you are back again with the same old rigmarole. Are you just sticking your fingers in your ears when the facts are pointed out to you?

    I hope I present a reasonable case. You seem to believe I don't. If similar happened for any of our interpro teams we would feel an injustice had been done


  • Options
    #799
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,179 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Farrell is one heck of a place-kicker - won the match for us - and a good fly-half too but this tour should settle the 10/12 debate.

    He kicked beautifully today but his general play was very, very poor. If the Lions had a 10, 12, 15 of Sexton, Te'o and Halfpenny they might have won today.

    Keep in mind the opening 7 pointer for NZ came from an attack handed to them by Farrell when the Lions should have been in for their own try at the other end.


  • Options
    #800
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Was immortality achieved?


  • Options
    #801
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,179 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Was immortality achieved?

    If we're ignoring the Sky Bullsh*t Bingo and actually ask will this Lions tour be talked about in 40 years then, yes, it will.

    We'll bore our grandkids to tears about the amazing try by Sean O'Brien. We'll tell them about the kicking masterclass from Farrell from the tee and Murray's aerial attack. We'll harp on about the summer where Maro Itoje announced himself to the world.

    We'll talk more about this tour in decades to come than the tour they actually won in 2013.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,143 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Former Former wrote: »
    Murray Kinsella. I'll hold my tongue.

    In fairness to Poite, regardless of whether the call was right or wrong... he gave the penalty and then reversed it. Against the All Blacks. In Eden Park. In the 78th minute.

    Whatever he did, he didn't bottle it.

    I agree.

    Poite sent off POC in Thomond Park, I don't think you can say he lacks in bottle. If anything that's one of his strengths. He calls it as he sees it and treats a 1 cap debutante the same as a 100 cap All Black Captain.


  • Options
    #803
    Elvisjuice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Elvisjuice


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Was immortality achieved?

    in Stuarts bed


  • Options
    #804
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,143 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    BBDBB wrote: »
    Just read a stat on the bbc that of the 240 minutes of test match rugby, the lions were only ahead for 3 of them. If even remotely near true that's pretty telling.

    I'm not so sure.

    Take it in the game that never happened and we don't talk about in 2013 they were behind for 79mins and 59 seconds.

    There's been regular games and series we've had against them were we've been ahead for the majority of the game/games and still lost.

    It's the final score that matters.


  • Options
    #805
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,179 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    I would think that barely ever being in front in 240 minutes of rugby but coming away with a drawn series is a sign of ridiculous character and determination. NZ put teams to the sword for fun but they couldn't do it to the Lions.


  • Options
    #806
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Hastentoadd wrote: »
    I hope I present a reasonable case. You seem to believe I don't. If similar happened for any of our interpro teams we would feel an injustice had been done
    You didn't. You made no reference to the law as quoted. If you want to debate it within the law as applied, I'm all ears. Merely repeating an opinion isn't a debate.

    Just to be clear. You can actually do what Owens did and it not be penalised. Another ref may well have decided that he played the ball and penalise him, but this ref didn't. In fairness it would have been very harsh considering no advantage of any sort accrued through Owens' contact with the ball.

    Nothing unfair or unjust there.


  • Options
    #807
    irishman86
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭irishman86


    Former Former wrote: »
    Murray Kinsella. I'll hold my tongue.

    In fairness to Poite, regardless of whether the call was right or wrong... he gave the penalty and then reversed it. Against the All Blacks. In Eden Park. In the 78th minute.

    Whatever he did, he didn't bottle it.

    Well he didnt want to be the one deciding the test so ya he bottled it. If anything this tour has shown outside of Nigel the refs are terrible


  • Options
    #808
    clsmooth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,559 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    irishman86 wrote: »
    Well he didnt want to be the one deciding the test so ya he bottled it. If anything this tour has shown outside of Nigel the refs are terrible

    Had no problem with Garces or Poite today. You'll always get a few calls for and against you each game but usually they tend to balance each other out. Would never accuse those two of being bottlers. Wouldn't quite say the same for Jaco though.


  • Options
    #809
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,179 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    man86 wrote: »
    Well he didnt want to be the one deciding the test so ya he bottled it. If anything this tour has shown outside of Nigel the refs are terrible

    He awarded the penalty and went back on his own decision against the opinion of his TMO. He completely and utterly did not bottle it unless you're deluded.


  • Options
    #810
    irishman86
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭irishman86


    clsmooth wrote: »
    Had no problem with Garces or Poite today. You'll always get a few calls for and against you each game but usually they tend to balance each other out. Would never accuse those two of being bottlers. Wouldn't quite say the same for Jaco though.

    I have no problem accusing them of being bottlers. The Lions have had most calls go there way, not really what Im complaining about like a few have said Warburton has a head boy way of talking to refs.
    The call he had decided a penalty then changed based on the moment of the game, it was similar to Chile/Germany farce in the Confederations cup last week


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    irishman86
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭irishman86


    Buer wrote: »
    He awarded the penalty and went back on his own decision against the opinion of his TMO. He completely and utterly did not bottle it unless you're deluded.

    Thats the definition of bottling it, everything said it was a penalty but he didnt have the balls to stand up and give it knowing the backlash he would get in europe over it, he took the easy way out


Advertisement