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

B&I Lions v Wallabies, Match Thread, Sat June 22, 1105am

Options
1…4445464850

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Lions by less than 7
    BoardsMember wrote: »
    I'd ignore any comment suggesting that Sexton was poor in that game, such a viewpoint is either trolling, or borne of ignorance. There just is no way that you could say he had anything but a very good game. Very good decision making, restarts, passing, defence, etc. Even the try was as much down to having to defend the outside channel, and also very clever running taking advantage of slower inside players. A fantastic performance, up there with Genia's.

    Agree except for the last bit. Sexton passed, defended, kicked well.....basically executed well. Had a good game. Did everything that was expected of him.

    But Genia showed genius


  • Options
    #1413
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,197 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Indeed. Genia was electric. I would be very tempted to start Lydiate next week with the explicit remit of shutting down Genia and nothing else.


  • Options
    #1414
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    Lions by less than 7
    Anyone know what penalty against lions on 60 mins was for? What Heaslip did looked ok-came through middle from behind the ruck


  • Options
    #1415
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    Lions by less than 7
    captbarnacles wrote: »
    Anyone know what penalty against lions on 60 mins was for? What Heaslip did looked ok-came through middle from behind the ruck

    Interfering with the half back at ruck time?


  • Options
    #1416
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,197 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    That was what the referee called at the time. Took out the scrum half.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    Lions by less than 7
    Correct decision? He didn't grab Genia and drag him into the ruck. He rucked over the ball and Genia was in the way so tough, no?


  • Options
    #1418
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,197 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Judgement call, really. Referee was very quick on things at the ruck. Hopefully it will be corrected next week and the Lions play the referee better. They conceded almost twice as many penalties as Australia. Craig Joubert has the whistle next week and Poite in the last test which could prove crucial.


  • Options
    #1419
    Swiwi.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Swiwi.


    Dan Lydiate
    Buer wrote: »
    Indeed. Genia was electric. I would be very tempted to start Lydiate next week with the explicit remit of shutting down Genia and nothing else.

    It's very hard to shut down Genia. But Ferris managed it! I agree, Lydiate might be the best placed to do it, and no doubt Sean would have an opinion on the matter. I'm not sure Croft even tried.


  • Options
    #1420
    subfreq
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭subfreq


    Lions by less than 7
    Buer wrote: »
    Poite in the last test which could prove crucial.

    Does anybody understand where Poite is coming from when he refs? He does my head in.


  • Options
    #1421
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    subfreq wrote: »
    Does anybody understand where Poite is coming from when he refs? He does my head in.

    I think he's one of the best. But he certainly winds a lot of people up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,541 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Does anyone know where I can watch this?


  • Options
    #1423
    DDC1990
    Registered Users Posts: 10,363 ✭✭✭✭DDC1990


    Wallabies by less than 7
    awec wrote: »
    Does anyone know where I can watch this?
    The match?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt7OkVn4CWc


  • Options
    #1424
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    Lions by less than 7
    awec wrote: »
    Does anyone know where I can watch this?

    I sent you a PM the last time you asked :) The info there-in will get you torrents of all televised games.


  • Options
    #1425
    interlooter
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭interlooter


    Wallabies by more than 7
    dregin wrote: »
    Interfering with the half back at ruck time?

    This is another tricky one IMO.
    There was a ruck, consisting of a few players on the floor and heaslip came through the gate and did not attempt to handle the ball, but did clean genia out. Genia immediately crys to pollock who whistles. I was outraged at the time, but having watched the game again and re-watched several of the controversial calls, I don't think pollock was as bad as I felt watching it live. How often have we all said that? The fair result would have been for the lions to regain possession and play on, but can anyone quote the law for this matter to clarify?

    On the sexton issue, our club had sexton as lions MOTM.


  • Options
    #1426
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    interlooter wrote: »
    This is another tricky one IMO.
    There was a ruck, consisting of a few players on the floor and heaslip came through the gate and did not attempt to handle the ball, but did clean genia out. Genia immediately crys to pollock who whistles. I was outraged at the time, but having watched the game again and re-watched several of the controversial calls, I don't think pollock was as bad as I felt watching it live. How often have we all said that? The fair result would have been for the lions to regain possession and play on, but can anyone quote the law for this matter to clarify?

    On the sexton issue, our club had sexton as lions MOTM.

    You aren't allowed engage the half back. I'm not sure if its specified in the laws specifically (probably is) but its basic obstruction anyway as its beyond the ruck


  • Options
    #1427
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    Lions by less than 7
    But sometimes when you see teams counterruck the scrumhalf just gets buried under the attacking players rucking over the ball. This is one on one but why should it be different?


  • Options
    #1428
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    captbarnacles wrote: »
    But sometimes when you see teams counterruck the scrumhalf just gets buried under the attacking players rucking over the ball. This is one on one but why should it be different?

    Because the scrum half isn't considered the half back when he joins the ruck


  • Options
    #1429
    interlooter
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭interlooter


    Wallabies by more than 7
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    You aren't allowed engage the half back. I'm not sure if its specified in the laws specifically (probably is) but its basic obstruction anyway as its beyond the ruck

    you can't interfere with the scrummy at ruck time, fair enough, but does genia having the 9 on his back make him the scrummy in this situation?
    if it was the wallaby 7, hooper, who was in the same position and going over the ball and jamie cleared him out, what would youur take be?
    the ruck was blown apart by the aussie 18 flopping straight off his feet and o'connor was left lying on the ground with POC at his feet. should jamie have gone straight to lift the ball, and would he have got away with that?
    i really must do a refereeing course;)


  • Options
    #1430
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    interlooter wrote: »
    you can't interfere with the scrummy at ruck time, fair enough, but does genia having the 9 on his back make him the scrummy in this situation?
    if it was the wallaby 7, hooper, who was in the same position and going over the ball and jamie cleared him out, what would youur take be?
    the ruck was blown apart by the aussie 18 flopping straight off his feet and o'connor was left lying on the ground with POC at his feet. should jamie have gone straight to lift the ball, and would he have got away with that?
    i really must do a refereeing course;)

    I actually haven't watched it back, I was talking in generalities


  • Options
    #1431
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    Lions by less than 7
    Just looking back at it now, it's questionable that a ruck had actually formed at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Wallabies by more than 7
    dregin wrote: »
    Just looking back at it now, it's questionable that a ruck had actually formed at all.

    Yeah, just finished watching the game back. There wasn't a ruck IMO, all the players were on the deck, the ball was open.

    Incidentally, I watched it back to see two things; the ref, and the lions breakdown.

    Both weren't as bad as I initially thought. Pollock did give a lot to the Aussies tho, especially at the breakdown, there was one particular ball that north got in over and had his mits on that was called against us I thought was particularly unfair.


  • Options
    #1433
    interlooter
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭interlooter


    Wallabies by more than 7
    .ak wrote: »
    Yeah, just finished watching the game back. There wasn't a ruck IMO, all the players were on the deck, the ball was open.

    Incidentally, I watched it back to see two things; the ref, and the lions breakdown.

    Both weren't as bad as I initially thought. Pollock did give a lot to the Aussies tho, especially at the breakdown, there was one particular ball that north got in over and had his mits on that was called against us I thought was particularly unfair.

    the north one could have seen us penalised for not releasing either.
    the aussies continually engaging early in the scrums in the first half was my biggest bugbear from watching again


  • Options
    #1434
    interlooter
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭interlooter


    Wallabies by more than 7
    maybe the aussies aren't so bad

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/video.cfm?c_id=4&gal_objectid=10892424&gallery_id=133686


  • Options
    #1435
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    .ak wrote: »
    Yeah, just finished watching the game back. There wasn't a ruck IMO, all the players were on the deck, the ball was open.

    Incidentally, I watched it back to see two things; the ref, and the lions breakdown.

    Both weren't as bad as I initially thought. Pollock did give a lot to the Aussies tho, especially at the breakdown, there was one particular ball that north got in over and had his mits on that was called against us I thought was particularly unfair.

    Yeah, I'm not sure he got too many specific calls wrong. I thought the first BOD one was very harsh. A few breakdowns the Aussies seemed to get quite a bit of time hanging onto it, like the North example.

    I also thought that he was far quicker to tell the Lions to use it at rucks, whether it was available or not, than he was to the Aussies, who a couple of times when under pressure in their own 22 seemed to have an age to get control of the ruck, and even then they weren't told to use it.

    I dont think there is any attempt at being biased, but it looked to me there were a lot of small things, maybe subconsciously he was reffing (cant quite put my finger one it but...) like one team was the strong one that was supposed to win and one team was the underdogs that might need the benefit of the doubt. It just seems like all the close calls weren't called when they would have been against Aussies, and when against the Lions they were pulled up pretty quickly. Hopefully a more "balanced" reffing performance next week.


  • Options
    #1436
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,252 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Wallabies by more than 7
    The first bod one was a penalty. He can clearly be seen resting on his fore arms before coming back on the ball and challenging.

    It might be something allowed in the nh but sh refs don't like anything that hints at slowing it down


  • Options
    #1437
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Wallabies by more than 7
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The first bod one was a penalty. He can clearly be seen resting on his fore arms before coming back on the ball and challenging.

    It might be something allowed in the nh but sh refs don't like anything that hints at slowing it down

    Yeah but there's nothing in the law that saws if you're off you're feet you can't come back onto your feet and THEN challenge for the ball. If he had his hands on the ball, then fell over, and tried again, fair enough, but that's not what happened.


  • Options
    #1438
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,252 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Wallabies by more than 7
    .ak wrote: »
    Yeah but there's nothing in the law that saws if you're off you're feet you can't come back onto your feet and THEN challenge for the ball. If he had his hands on the ball, then fell over, and tried again, fair enough, but that's not what happened.

    Well I suppose that's the nub of it. if youre off your feet and 'bridging' then theoretically your stopping the team in possession from accessing the ball.

    whether you are able to stand back up and challenge for the ball is a non issue as you've committed the offense already.


  • Options
    #1439
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    .ak wrote: »
    Yeah but there's nothing in the law that saws if you're off you're feet you can't come back onto your feet and THEN challenge for the ball. If he had his hands on the ball, then fell over, and tried again, fair enough, but that's not what happened.

    Well if he was off his feet and over the ball, then yeah he was breaking the rules, regardless of whether he then got to his feet to play the ball.

    It's a harsh penalty any way you look at it.


  • Options
    #1440
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Wallabies by more than 7
    Don't think he was over the ball at the time, looked like he was on his side before gathering himself back up.

    Anyway, no point in crying over spilled milk, lets just hope Joubert isn't so pedantic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    shuffol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭shuffol


    Similiar to what i saw some players getting penalised for last season, a player goes off his feet over the ball and as guys are trying to clear him out he scoops up the ball. Think it might be called trawling.


Advertisement