Planet Rugby Forum

grubberkick wrote:

Santa wrote:Anyone got any numbers around rates of blockage running per game per team properly ranked so that we can understand the scale of New Zealand's perfidy?

Enzedder is well up on it?

This kind if thing happens in all pro sport. If one team are better at it then everyone else needs to catch up, but it's a big if. Maybe we can get some independent, unbiased analysis using still photos to highlight the offenders in a balanced way, green and gold website- we need you

james garner wrote:This kind if thing happens in all pro sport. If one team are better at it then everyone else needs to catch up, but it's a big if. Maybe we can get some independent, unbiased analysis using still photos to highlight the offenders in a balanced way, green and gold website- we need you

If it's as obvious as they're making it, they clearly aren't necessarily "good" at it. Peyper warned them after that ludicrous one. The good ones are the ones that don't get caught.

Hawk97 wrote:

james garner wrote:This kind if thing happens in all pro sport. If one team are better at it then everyone else needs to catch up, but it's a big if. Maybe we can get some independent, unbiased analysis using still photos to highlight the offenders in a balanced way, green and gold website- we need you

If it's as obvious as they're making it, they clearly aren't necessarily "good" at it. Peyper warned them after that ludicrous one. The good ones are the ones that don't get caught.

Well make up your minds! Have NZ teams been doing it all game every game and not getting pinged for it or not?

If they are getting pinged for it why multiple threads and whinges about it? They must be getting whistled off the park every game. Wish you trolls would get your arguments straight. yeesh.

Toro wrote:

Hawk97 wrote:

james garner wrote:This kind if thing happens in all pro sport. If one team are better at it then everyone else needs to catch up, but it's a big if. Maybe we can get some independent, unbiased analysis using still photos to highlight the offenders in a balanced way, green and gold website- we need you

If it's as obvious as they're making it, they clearly aren't necessarily "good" at it. Peyper warned them after that ludicrous one. The good ones are the ones that don't get caught.

Well make up your minds! Have NZ teams been doing it all game every game and not getting pinged for it or not?

If they are getting pinged for it why multiple threads and whinges about it? They must be getting whistled off the park every game. Wish you trolls would get your arguments straight. yeesh.

Mixture. Some are houdini-like firkin experts, like whoever munched Henshaw. And some (was it Lowe?) might as well have announced to the ref that he was doing it.

Hawk97 wrote:

Toro wrote:

Hawk97 wrote:

james garner wrote:This kind if thing happens in all pro sport. If one team are better at it then everyone else needs to catch up, but it's a big if. Maybe we can get some independent, unbiased analysis using still photos to highlight the offenders in a balanced way, green and gold website- we need you

If it's as obvious as they're making it, they clearly aren't necessarily "good" at it. Peyper warned them after that ludicrous one. The good ones are the ones that don't get caught.

Well make up your minds! Have NZ teams been doing it all game every game and not getting pinged for it or not?

If they are getting pinged for it why multiple threads and whinges about it? They must be getting whistled off the park every game. Wish you trolls would get your arguments straight. yeesh.

Mixture. Some are houdini-like firkin experts, like whoever munched Henshaw. And some (was it Lowe?) might as well have announced to the ref that he was doing it.

Yet your second example didn't get pinged for it either. (right?)

So, if the refs for the tests can sort out the wibbly wobbly front row, the off the ball blocking obstructions and the general niggle, rugby will be the winner...

Of course the Lions could help themselves by attacking with the ball instead of KICKING IT AWAY ALL THE TIME!!

None of this is even remotely new. Back in the 90's when literally all Ireland had was the garryowen, every other team we faced would throw in constant jersey grabs, changes in running lines, little shoulder bumps, to slow down the chase. I don't know if the irony of trying to slow Maurice Field and Phil Danagher any more than they already were was lost on the centers of other countries at the time, but in hindsight it probably was a funny sight to watch them try to slalom through congested midfields even without the ball.

Toro wrote:Of course the Lions could help themselves by attacking with the ball instead of KICKING IT AWAY ALL THE TIME!!

No need to shout! Warren is playing a clever game, first test just watch the lions flow with tries. It's all deception..

The laugh is all the NH posters defending Gatland. In three weeks they may well be wanting him boiled in oil for picking too many Welshmen

brat wrote:I think the lions offside line requires more scrutiny

Especially on the umpteen box kicks they do a match.

rfurlong wrote:

Toro wrote:

Flametop wrote:

Toro wrote:

Kid A wrote:Blatant blocking of the Lions tackler putting pressure on kicker.

That's a disgusting high tackle by Murray off the ball.

What's Black 13 doing running in front of his player with the ball?
Is it a special move?

15, he's running sideways as he can't advance. Murray tackles him.

why is he running sideways?

could it be that he's looking to impede Murray?

part of the problem with posters like Toro, is that he cannot bring himself to admit Lowe was blatantly cheating. And there are numerous similar examples during the Maori, Highlanders and Crusaders games.

all the Lions fans would fully accept that AWJ should have been pinged for Warburtons try ...... so the kiwis constantly bringing it up as a defence of their own cynical blocking tactics is just fecking sad really.....

Or it could be that Black 15 is moving into position to try and cover red 4 if he gets a charge down. Which is just as likely.

But I don't expect you will even see that as a possibility given it doesn't fit your one-eyed high horse narrative.

Warburton's try isn't being used as a defense for blocking, but to point out the one-eyed "our shit don't stink" whinging that so often seems to come from posters like yourself. It isn't a defense of cynical play (and your team is just as guilty of it as our). It's an attack on senseless one-eyed over the top whinging.

Tbf this tactic wouldn't be as effective if the rugby robots churned out in the British Isles were able to move laterally and had some concept of footwork. This would also give them a few more attacking options than 'hoist and hope' . The Daleks they've bought this time could well win if it's wet and their propaganda team influences the ref, but the reality is the future is players who can identify, create and attack space.

guy smiley wrote:

Marcus50 wrote:The laugh is all the NH posters defending Gatland. In three minutes they may well be wanting him boiled in oil for picking too many Welshmen

A pertinent point that deserves a wider hearing.

fixed

guy smiley wrote:

Marcus50 wrote:The laugh is all the NH posters defending Gatland. In three weeks they may well be wanting him boiled in oil for picking too many Welshmen

A pertinent point that deserves a wider hearing.

The laugh is that Gatland, a kiwi is the biggest whinger of the Lions tour. A fact that seems to be lost on here

Sundy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Marcus50 wrote:The laugh is all the NH posters defending Gatland. In three weeks they may well be wanting him boiled in oil for picking too many Welshmen

A pertinent point that deserves a wider hearing.

The laugh is that Gatland, a kiwi is the biggest whinger of the Lions tour. A fact that seems to be lost on here

It's obviously in the job description. And is probably a performance measure.

Fat Old Git wrote:

Sundy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Marcus50 wrote:The laugh is all the NH posters defending Gatland. In three weeks they may well be wanting him boiled in oil for picking too many Welshmen

A pertinent point that deserves a wider hearing.

The laugh is that Gatland, a kiwi is the biggest whinger of the Lions tour. A fact that seems to be lost on here

It's obviously in the job description. And is probably a performance measure.

Must be why so many NZ coaches get employed up north them

Mahoney wrote:

Denirostaxidriver wrote:

Dumbledore wrote:

Mahoney wrote:Leaving accusations about which side does it more / more effectively, it's just not possible for human beings to pick up on all this crap in real time. I'm more and more convinced that rugby desperately needs AI. I'd quite like to see what rugby looks like in a world where deliberate law breaking is always seen and treated appropriately.

Would be a penalty every 15 seconds. There's at least one infringement every single phase. Could pretty much give away a couple of penalties each way at any given ruck.

Would start with the kick-off with players being in front. Would not get any better.

You think that if it was guaranteed that players in front at the kick-off would get called, players would continue to risk being in front at the kick-off?

They wouldn't. They'd adjust their behaviour to make damn sure they didn't go in front.

The first dozen-odd games you tried to play like that would be an unwatchable trainwreck. Would be interesting to see it trialled at a lower level of play mind.

Anyway, of course the Kiwis are deliberately blocking. It's just another part of rugby that they're better than the rest of us at.

i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

Sundy wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:

Sundy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Marcus50 wrote:The laugh is all the NH posters defending Gatland. In three weeks they may well be wanting him boiled in oil for picking too many Welshmen

A pertinent point that deserves a wider hearing.

The laugh is that Gatland, a kiwi is the biggest whinger of the Lions tour. A fact that seems to be lost on here

It's obviously in the job description. And is probably a performance measure.

Must be why so many NZ coaches get employed up north them

It's classic judas sheep technique. Hire a kiwi and get them to complain so you can go "look, even one of your own says you're cheats" as you justify your near constant whingefest.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?
Murray is the one who tackles Lowe and takes him out, contact could have been avoided if he really wanted to avoid it.
He would never have got there regardless

deadduck wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?
Murray is the one who tackles Lowe and takes him out, contact could have been avoided if he really wanted to avoid it.
He would never have got there regardless

Shit....you're being serious aren't you. You actually believe that.

grubberkick wrote:Watching the games I have noticed Lions players following up on kicks ahead being blocked by kiwis seeming to deliberately run into their path. This was obvious a few times in the Maori game. I now read that Gatland has been bringing this up with refs. Is it a deliberate tactic or is Gatland getting in first? Sure to be a hot topic for refs in the tests.

Like the Maori first try when Davies was too preoccupied with shunting Milner Skudder [ shoulder ] towards the touchline to prevent him recovering his kick . In doing so he neglected the ball which Messam toed ahead to score .

Laughable - the whole thing is a smoke screen to to minimise scrutiny of the constant negative and illegal play of the Lions with the offside line , killing ruck ball , and offside play at the lineout .

guy smiley wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

deadduck wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?
Murray is the one who tackles Lowe and takes him out, contact could have been avoided if he really wanted to avoid it.
He would never have got there regardless

Shit....you're being serious aren't you. You actually believe that.

It is, of course nowhere near as believable as a top flight rugby player deliberately running across to block someone within 5m of the line and the ref.

no one said James Lowe was a rhodes scholar

deadduck wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?

I agree, should be allowed tackle a player without the ball in anticipation of it being passed to them.

Sundy wrote:

deadduck wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?

I agree, should be allowed tackle a player without the ball in anticipation of it being passed to them.

Who did Lowe tackle?

mr bungle wrote:

Sundy wrote:

deadduck wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?

I agree, should be allowed tackle a player without the ball in anticipation of it being passed to them.

Who did Lowe tackle?

Nobody. I'm merely agreeing with deadduck and saying it should be okay to infringe because you anticipate something is going to happen.

Got ya. Watching it live I thought it was a remarkably obvious block.

mr bungle wrote:Got ya. Watching it live I thought it was a remarkably obvious block.

Neat bit of play if you get away with it tbh.

Sundy wrote:

mr bungle wrote:

Sundy wrote:

deadduck wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?

I agree, should be allowed tackle a player without the ball in anticipation of it being passed to them.

Who did Lowe tackle?

Nobody. I'm merely agreeing with deadduck and saying it should be okay to infringe because you anticipate something is going to happen.

Which law did Lowe break?

Obstruction

deadduck wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:i remember just shaking my head watching the Maori game on the weekend when James Lowe did that.

How the fudge the ref missed that I will never know

Subtle as an atomic bomb ffs

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?
Murray is the one who tackles Lowe and takes him out, contact could have been avoided if he really wanted to avoid it.
He would never have got there regardless

Imho, more likely indeed that Itoje was the true target for a block and that Murray was acceptable collateral damage....

Sandstorm wrote:Obstruction

I assume you mean one of these

(c)
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

Sanction: Penalty kick
(d)
Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.

Sanction: Penalty kick


What about this one
(a)
Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.

Murray should have been pinged

deadduck wrote:

Sundy wrote:

mr bungle wrote:

Sundy wrote:

deadduck wrote:

I reckon FOG is right, Lowe looks like he's running a line to cover Itoje if he got the charge down, and why shouldn't Lowe be allowed to do that? Anticipation is illegal now?

I agree, should be allowed tackle a player without the ball in anticipation of it being passed to them.

Who did Lowe tackle?

Nobody. I'm merely agreeing with deadduck and saying it should be okay to infringe because you anticipate something is going to happen.

Which law did Lowe break?

You sure you should be posting on a rugby forum if you can't figure that out mate? Read Law 10 and 11 and come back to us if you are still having difficulties.

deadduck wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:Obstruction

I assume you mean one of these

(c)
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

Sanction: Penalty kick
(d)
Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.

Sanction: Penalty kick


What about this one
(a)
Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.

Murray should have been pinged

Honest question, are you just an armchair fan? You don't seem to have much knowledge of how rugby laws are interpreted or applied

I hope he's trolling

Dumbledore wrote: Anyway, of course the Kiwis are deliberately blocking. It's just another part of rugby that they're better than the rest of us at.

Ssssshhhhhhh.

This is one of those irregular verbs/adjectives isn't it?

Engand are streetwise
The Lions are canny
The opposition fucking cheat
The All Blacks should be imprisoned under Section 42 of the Human Rights Act 2015

Damn, rumbled.
Full disclosure I've only been following rugby since the Champions Trophy finished