Planet Rugby Forum

The Native wrote:

BBB wrote:Irish journo Brendan Gallagher is having ago at Gardner on Twitter now for having “long,cosy chats” with the AB captain whereas he couldn’t extend the same to Morgan Parra because Parra doesn’t speak english.FFS.

They’ll be running out of refs willing to officiate All Black tests soon.Pathetic.

I saw that. He was insisting that officials appointed should speak the language of both teams as the appointments "Are known well in advance". It'll make those Fiji versus Japan or Uruguay versus Romania tests difficult to staff correctly.

He was also bagging the ref of the Wallaby vs. Ireland game. Who is a Kiwi.

BBB wrote:If you look at the footage of this incident though,you’ll see Fall never looks anywhere but at the ball and then barely jumps before he takes out Barretts legs.The onus is on him to realise where he is (which he so easily could have by taking a split second eye off the ball as players usually do in his situation) so as far as these types of Red cards go this one is pretty straight forward.
I just don’t understand why people are so confused and unhappy about this particular example of a Red Card for this type of offence when it was so easily avoided and caused injury.

Edinburgh01 wrote:
You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.

guy smiley wrote:All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?

Sonny Blount wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:
You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.

Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.

Edinburgh01 wrote:

Sonny Blount wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:
You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.

Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.

No you can't, that is dangerous play. Just think about the implications of what you suggest. A player is on attack, there is only one defender between him and the line. All he would need to do is jump into the tackle and the defender either has to let him past and score or it will be a penalty try.

jdogscoop wrote:Hey Ardie, how about contesting a ruck from time to time. Don't you claim to be a seven?

kiwidutchie wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:

Sonny Blount wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:
You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.

Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.

No you can't, that is dangerous play. Just think about the implications of what you suggest. A player is on attack, there is only one defender between him and the line. All he would need to do is jump into the tackle and the defender either has to let him past and score or it will be a penalty try.

Edinburgh01 is Jerome Garces and I hereby claim my chocolate fish

Shrekles wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:DMac has steadily improved as a 10 at soup level and think he'll get there for the ABs.

There are better first-fives in NZ than McKenzie. He's yet to prove himself in that position at Super Rugby level. I'd rather have a specialist first-five on the bench.

One is leaving. That leaves Barrett and Mo'unga, and Mo'unga gets a luxury ride in that Crusaders team. DMac has been steadily improving, his biggest issue last night was being a hungus when making breaks.

It's mildly interesting to watch the rationalising going on over McKenzie.

it's all 'yeah but'...

he's currently a utility selection. If he was a recognised 10 with a proven track record in Soup rugby then his selection would stand on that but he's at best a 'mercurial' player at 10 who doesn't yet naturally direct a game and from my viewing, still tries to do too much himself.

So does Barrett to a degree.

Coincidentally, we've yet again got a Test team that doesn't really gel in the backs. Results flatter to deceive, and last night a 14 man French team got that whole AB side rattled and out of kilter.

Comparing with RichieMo, you've got an experienced 10 at Soup level who doesn't usually play fullback. I dunno if he ever has, to be fair. Apparently, the 'luxury' of playing behind the Crusaders pack is his weakness and we should extrapolate from that, that the ABs pack would be inferior to the Saders. We should just cap the Crusaders and be done with it, perhaps...

but Mo'unga will distribute and take the line on. He can also pass in the traditional manner as opposed to the DMac netball two handed push pass.

We're a year out from the RWC and this is a good time to be challenged. BB will probably miss next week due to concussion so I would be starting Mo'unga and leaving DMac on the bench as utility cover again. Mo'unga has to be given a run and assessed because we all know you can end up down to your 4th choice player in a RWC and it'd be handy to actually have options outside one specialist and one utility lined up.

I agree with this - it is time to see what Richie Mo can do behind the AB pack. Mackenzie is being picked as a bench utility and not as a first choice 10 I feel - I guess we will find out this week.

Edinburgh01 wrote:

guy smiley wrote:All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?

If you are referring to my point, I am pointing out that things have changed, and in the past (i.e. before the advent of strict liability) Fall not taking his eyes off the ball would be a critical factor in assessing culpability, regardless of what Barrett did.

kiwigreg369 wrote:All Blacks played poorly as a team.

New Zealand did not have 1 attack over 7 phases...
France had more runs, run metres, and 17 offloads to 10
NZ had 30 missed tackles (vs. 14)
They conceded 14 penalties ... (Ireland conceded 5 on Sat)

Overall poor game.

For next week:
- As i've said before i believe Mounga is a better 10 than DMac - however if the selectors feel DMaC is the back up 10 he needs to play there in the next test.
- If DMaC is at 10 i believe Ben should be 15 / Naholo on the wing.

KG

Ted. wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:

guy smiley wrote:All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?

If you are referring to my point, I am pointing out that things have changed, and in the past (i.e. before the advent of strict liability) Fall not taking his eyes off the ball would be a critical factor in assessing culpability, regardless of what Barrett did.

I'm not sure of the correct wording, but they also assess effort to contest, i.e. was it a genuine attempt.

If you had watched the whole match, and I assume you haven't from your comments, you will have noticed several such aerial contests, even a couple where players landed heavily. The difference was, both players were in the air, both had their arms outstretched for the ball. No penalty. There is a clear difference between those contests and Fall's. As it is, I thought Fall was harshly treated, live I thought a yellow would have been more appropriate but I would not have grizzled at a penalty only.

As an aside, it's getting beyond tedious where there seems to be a hysteria that has been whipped up by journalists and social media that to the effect that whatever side of the coin the AB's are on, they are in the wrong. You do realise, don't you, that without fail your are all as asinine as Trump supporters and for the very same reasons.

guy smiley wrote:

Peteray wrote:It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.

The trouble is too many possible combinations and I reckon that's the attraction to them of throwing McBarrett and DMac into the team. They've got the look of selections made in hope that potential becomes real.

It's the same across the park.

What's our starting 15 for the RWC looking like now?

We should know that at this stage. I reckon we haven't got a clue.

guy smiley wrote:

Peteray wrote:It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.

The trouble is too many possible combinations and I reckon that's the attraction to them of throwing McBarrett and DMac into the team. They've got the look of selections made in hope that potential becomes real.

It's the same across the park.

What's our starting 15 for the RWC looking like now?

We should know that at this stage. I reckon we haven't got a clue.

Peteray wrote: Another thing, am I alone in thinking that D Mac is so much more potent from fullback? I don't think he's a 10 at all. A fill-in maybe, but no more than that. Yet off the bench, could change a game dramatically in the last 20 minutes.

guy smiley wrote:Imma gonna let you finish but first...

I reckon there's a question mark over Jordie's head as far as being a test standard 15.

He's got speed and can hoof it. That's nice.

He also looks mentally suspect.

You query that, then your whole backline becomes a different beast. As for Crotty, I'm a massive fan BUT

he's physically unstable in the head. So that's a big risk taking into a RWC. Take him out of there and...

it gets messy.

Squire looks like being the default 6. Let's hope he's matured in the role by then. There's no-one else really, is there.

It's all f**ked man. All of it. Everyone. Everything.

Mind you, it all looked shaky this time 4 years ago so meh.

Nuthin to worry about.

Sonny Blount wrote:

Edinburgh01 wrote:
You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.

Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.

Peteray wrote:Undoubtedly, our best 15 right now would appear to be Moody, Taylor, Franks, Whitelock, Retallick, Squire, Cane, Read, Smith, Barrett, Ioane, SBW, Crotty, Naholo, Smith. Is that going to change much? For me the biggest issues are tighthead prop, and a concern about the midfield tyros ALB and Goodhue not getting enough footy.

Another thing, am I alone in thinking that D Mac is so much more potent from fullback? I don't think he's a 10 at all. A fill-in maybe, but no more than that. Yet off the bench, could change a game dramatically in the last 20 minutes.

witnof wrote:Ref said 'red' becuase Fall had no hope of getting the ball, which is bullshit.

Think this is why Fall got no suspension.

Kiwias wrote:The chaser should always be aware of the position of any defender jumping for the ball and determining his chances of beating him in a contest for the ball.

Often we see a chaser, realising he does not have a decent chance and aware of the risks if he gets it wrong, of slowing down a bit and tackling the defender as he hits the ground.

Fall chose the high-risk option and paid a high price.

Vahian wrote:

Kiwias wrote:The chaser should always be aware of the position of any defender jumping for the ball and determining his chances of beating him in a contest for the ball.

Often we see a chaser, realising he does not have a decent chance and aware of the risks if he gets it wrong, of slowing down a bit and tackling the defender as he hits the ground.

Fall chose the high-risk option and paid a high price.

I would prefer something along these lines where the defender has the advantage to some degree and put the onus on the attacking team to challenge safely.