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…2526272830

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Materiality sounds like an ecumenical matter. I had to look it up and I'm still confused. What would be immaterial in a Lions game?

    I'm not sure there's a huge amount of benefit to be gained from explaining what materiality means given you're already dismissing its importance before knowing what it is.  But its explained here: http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFU_Referee_Manual_2014.pdf
    I don't mean to give the impression that I have dismissed it at all, and I would appreciate a simple explanation.


  • Options
    #873
    irishman86
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭irishman86


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    What the viewing public think they see isn't always that relevant though.

    Referees are heavily instructed on materiality, its a very important part of applying the laws. I'd much rather fans just get used to that rather than go changing the laws.

    Word of the day on the old word calendar eh :pac:
    I agree with you on changing laws to suit people though


  • Options
    #874
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 16,996 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    I don't mean to give the impression that I have dismissed it at all, and I would appreciate a simple explanation.

    Acts of foul play are always penalised. But other acts need not be penalised if they don't have meaningful impact on the other team.


  • Options
    #875
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Neil3030 wrote: »
    Ardillaun wrote: »
    I don't mean to give the impression that I have dismissed it at all, and I would appreciate a simple explanation.

    Acts of foul play are always penalised. But other acts need not be penalised if they don't have meaningful impact on the other team.

    Thank you.

    I can understand such a directive being applied in lower level amateur matches but at the highest level 'meaningful impact' must be a very difficult matter to determine.


  • Options
    #876
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The more I look at the final incident, the more I think it was a complete clusterf*ck. Why did he blow the whistle straight away for a penalty? Why not play advantage? It is the most bizarre sequence of events where had he not blown the whistle, there's a good chance ALB could have been away.

    He just seemed way to eager to jump on the whistle, which is all well and good, except when you change your mind about why you're blowing the whistle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    Offside is probably one of the most fundamental laws in the sport. Back when Super Rugby tested out penalising nearly everything with a free kick, offside remained a penalty. It can't be changed.


  • Options
    #878
    Deusexmachina
    Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭Deusexmachina


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Two of these examples are not Lions tours. And one of the examples of people that Sky have "erased" has been employed for them for years and commentated on every game on this tour.

    What's your underlying point? Everything was hunky dory? You know that there was a huge issue with the Lions (and some International teams including Ireland) touring SA during Apartheid. The ANC asked them not to. The anti apartheid movement asked them not to. They went anyway.
    Some players made a stand and wouldn't go.
    There are plenty of articles written about this if you are bothered, including GT in the Irish Times 'Rugby family has a shameful history of propping up the apartheid regime'.

    Willie John was particularly unsympathetic to the anti apartheid cause. They met him at Heathrow airport before one tour - as he was the captain they begged him not to tour. He ignored them. Remember this was when Mandela was in prison and the SARB was for 'whites only'. It was a disgrace. The SAs wouldn't even allow New Zealand to include Maoris in their teams when touring in SA at one point.

    So, I find it difficult to listen to some of the tales of glory, knowing the reality behind them.


  • Options
    #879
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,179 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Deusexmachina wrote: »
    So, I find it difficult to listen to some of the tales of glory, knowing the reality behind them.

    Then don't. :confused: There's no other reality behind this tour. This was a tour to NZ by a group of guys who weren't even born when the Lions last went to SA in apartheid times.

    Most posters on here are aware of the apartheid situation and aware there was contentious involvement in previous generations; it's not some secret that is covered up. But it has no relevance to the Lions tour being discussed. You're complaining about events that took place a minimum of 37 years ago.


  • Options
    #880
    OldRio
    Registered Users Posts: 5,919 ✭✭✭OldRio


    You make a very good point regarding the rewriting of the history of the Lions by some.
    Some of us were alive at the time and remember the true facts about supposedly 'great Lion's'.
    The roll politicians, entertainers businessmen and sportsman played in propping up that regime has been downplayed.
    But some of us still remember.

    Anyway. Time to move on.


  • Options
    #881
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Deusexmachina wrote: »
    What's your underlying point? Everything was hunky dory? You know that there was a huge issue with the Lions (and some International teams including Ireland) touring SA during Apartheid. The ANC asked them not to. The anti apartheid movement asked them not to. They went anyway.
    Some players made a stand and wouldn't go.
    There are plenty of articles written about this if you are bothered, including GT in the Irish Times 'Rugby family has a shameful history of propping up the apartheid regime'.

    Willie John was particularly unsympathetic to the anti apartheid cause. They met him at Heathrow airport before one tour - as he was the captain they begged him not to tour. He ignored them. Remember this was when Mandela was in prison and the SARB was for 'whites only'. It was a disgrace. The SAs wouldn't even allow New Zealand to include Maoris in their teams when touring in SA at one point.

    So, I find it difficult to listen to some of the tales of glory, knowing the reality behind them.

    Why on earth would Sky be talking about this during a Lions tour to NEW ZEALAND?

    Like, fair enough this should get an airing in four years time in the next tour to SOUTH AFRICA.

    Bizarre.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,037 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    sextons stats in the last game were excellent


  • Options
    #883
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,179 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    sextons stats in the last game were excellent

    Going for a scan today, paid the price.

    He was very good on the day though. Missed touch badly at one point trying to get further which he shouldn't have as it would have been a very good kick if it even went into touch 10m shorter than where it was directed.

    But his defence and his taking of the ball to the line was excellent particularly in the first half before his injury. His restarts were fairly on the money too.

    Definitely started the tour poorly and can't have many complaints about not starting the opening test. But he really answered the criticism well and can be happy with his tour. Given the opposition, this was probably a better tour overall for him than 2013 where it was all very one dimensional and static.


  • Options
    #884
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Hastentoadd wrote: »
    Maybe the most frustrating for a fan is to see how the linesman/lineswoman provide very little value to the game. I get that is really difficult to make a call but if the linesman is in line to make a call surely they should make that call. They seem to make such calls from time to time but honestly the game is being let down by officiating when the rules are simply being ignored
    They're called assistant referees now.

    But you actually don't know what input they have. They're in constant communication with the referee and (as an example), apparently it was Jerome Garces who suggested that Owens was accidently offside and changed the call from penalty.

    But also, you see scrum penalties given from the other side of the scrum from the ref. Those calls come from the ARs.


  • Options
    #885
    flatty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭flatty


    Deusexmachina wrote: »
    Buer wrote: »
    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.

    I really hope not. This 'immortality' nonsense is a very recent phenomenon. Yes, there has always been a dewey eyed sentimentality about the tours of old. But it has only become 'the stuff of legend' since Sky have marketed the hell out of it. Old windbags like Willie John being lauded ad nauseam. Tell us about the 99 call again Willie John (for the 100th time).
    The Lions Tour is a great series but I hope some measure of balance can be maintained to couteract the hype machine. I remember the guys who refused to go on Lions tours to South Africa (including Tony Ward) because they could not stomach apartheid and wanted to help stop it by boycotting SA.
    Sky has conveniently erased there real heroes from the picture - meanwhile smarmy Mc Geechan (who did not give one ****e about apartheid) and his ilk are constantly rolled out to reminise on the good old days for our entertainment.
    A great series this year. Its still only rugby though.
    Exactly this. Great post.


  • Options
    #886
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Basil3 wrote: »
    The more I look at the final incident, the more I think it was a complete clusterf*ck. Why did he blow the whistle straight away for a penalty? Why not play advantage? It is the most bizarre sequence of events where had he not blown the whistle, there's a good chance ALB could have been away.

    He just seemed way to eager to jump on the whistle, which is all well and good, except when you change your mind about why you're blowing the whistle.

    He blew the whistle because it looked like a clear cut offside. It went to tmo to check if it was actually a knock on, and under video evidence he turned it to an accidental offside.

    I think you're being overly harsh if you're expecting him to assume it was accidental offside and to play advantage all in a millisecond... he's not a robot...


  • Options
    #887
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    .ak wrote: »
    He blew the whistle because it looked like a clear cut offside. It went to tmo to check if it was actually a knock on, and under video evidence he turned it to an accidental offside.

    I think you're being overly harsh if you're expecting him to assume it was accidental offside and to play advantage all in a millisecond... he's not a robot...

    I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I'm not asking him to assume anything. The offence was against the Lions regardless, whether it was a penalty or scrum.

    Are you saying that because it was a 'clear cut offside' in the ref's eyes, that advantage can't be played? I'd say it's fairly common for refs to not blow for something instantly because of this.


  • Options
    #888
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,385 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    .ak wrote: »
    He blew the whistle because it looked like a clear cut offside. It went to tmo to check if it was actually a knock on, and under video evidence he turned it to an accidental offside.

    I think you're being overly harsh if you're expecting him to assume it was accidental offside and to play advantage all in a millisecond... he's not a robot...

    He could play advantage even if he thought it was a penalty offence though. Whether it was accidental offside or not is irrelevant to the advantage question.


  • Options
    #889
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,121 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    What's considered the greater advantage - straightforward place kick to win with no time left on the clock or possession in the red zone and chance of a try?


  • Options
    #890
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pickarooney wrote: »
    What's considered the greater advantage - straightforward place kick to win with no time left on the clock or possession in the red zone and chance of a try?

    Well the point of advantage is that you get a crack at both. We've seen penalty advantage go on for about 40m in this series for the Lions....


  • Options
    #891
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    He could play advantage even if he thought it was a penalty offence though. Whether it was accidental offside or not is irrelevant to the advantage question.
    I'm wondering if he wanted to make sure Read's challenge was ok as well. I didn't hear him say anything about it, but possibly one of the ARs did?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I'm not asking him to assume anything. The offence was against the Lions regardless, whether it was a penalty or scrum.

    Are you saying that because it was a 'clear cut offside' in the ref's eyes, that advantage can't be played? I'd say it's fairly common for refs to not blow for something instantly because of this.

    Yeh that's what I'm saying. There was no advantage for the ABs because he assumed a lions player gained possession.. you see it all the time from knocks into offside possession, the ref never waits for a player to drop a ball or hand it over, no advantage has accrued.


  • Options
    #893
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    He could play advantage even if he thought it was a penalty offence though. Whether it was accidental offside or not is irrelevant to the advantage question.

    Not if the team in offence gathers the ball, then the team with advantage can't use it.


  • Options
    #894
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Read wasn't offside. He didn't do anything illegal contesting the kick. The knock-on went backwards. The advantage never came. The player couldn't avoid catching the ball. The penalty wasn't a penalty, according to the assistant referee who wasn't the referee. Noone did anything, therefore taking all of this into account the Lions were robbed.


  • Options
    #895
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    He didn't do anything illegal contesting the kick. .

    I see Jonathan Kaplan is opening another front:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/07/08/ref-romain-poite-couldve-avoided-controversy-awarding-lions/


  • Options
    #896
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    I see Jonathan Kaplan is opening another front:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/07/08/ref-romain-poite-couldve-avoided-controversy-awarding-lions/

    I think Kaplan has a point. Read was genuinely going for the ball and it wasn't a dangerous challenge, but he does make contact with a player in the air. Penalty Lions.


  • Options
    #897
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Former Former wrote: »
    I think Kaplan has a point. Read was genuinely going for the ball and it wasn't a dangerous challenge, but he does make contact with a player in the air. Penalty Lions.

    I'm not sure who is being serious anymore but its not a penalty to make contact with a player in the air if you're contesting for the ball


  • Options
    #898
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I'm not sure who is being serious anymore but its not a penalty to make contact with a player in the air if you're contesting for the ball

    It wasn't a clear cut penalty, no more than Owens' offside was (or was not) a clearcut penalty, it's all down to interpretation.

    Edit: my point is not that the Lions were robbed, merely that we have to trust the ref to make the best call he can. If everyone goes CSI Auckland on the game, that never ends.


  • Options
    #899
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    I'm a bit confused by the way Williams went down afterwards. Initially, he looked seriously hurt.


  • Options
    #900
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Former Former wrote: »
    If everyone goes CSI Auckland on the game, that never ends.

    Clearly...... :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    SlickRic
    Registered Users Posts: 36,083 ✭✭✭✭SlickRic


    Basil3 wrote: »
    The more I look at the final incident, the more I think it was a complete clusterf*ck. Why did he blow the whistle straight away for a penalty? Why not play advantage? It is the most bizarre sequence of events where had he not blown the whistle, there's a good chance ALB could have been away.

    He just seemed way to eager to jump on the whistle, which is all well and good, except when you change your mind about why you're blowing the whistle.

    It's quite simple what happened.

    He blew for the penalty, because it is what he'd do every time, as it's the obvious call.
    It was minute 78. This could be the deciding moment. He knew it. And the Lions knew it.
    Warburton smartly played up to it, and got a review.
    The ref then looked for any reason to not give a penalty. He had a perfect out by claiming accidental offside and a scrum.
    He didn't want the deciding moment to be soaked in possible controversy because of him.
    He bottled it.

    There's nothing else to it.


Advertisement