Planet Rugby Forum

Toro wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:04 am Absolutely shocking last 20 from the ABs, much like the first 40. Won it on the back of a great 15 minutes after halftime. Often looked shakey trying to hold possession. That game was a great opportunity to be ruthless but this team isn't there yet, effort was there but very little structure and purpose. So many shit offloads/passes.

Happier than last week obviously but frustrating to watch. Don't understand so much gushing from the pundits. Oz were poor today too.

The first 40 were shocking? Are you drunk?

JB1981 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:07 am I didn’t think there was much “interpretation” at play in the no try. Placing the ball (a dynamic movement or whatever they call it now) would have been fine. The replay looked pretty clear that he got to his knees and moved (propelled) himself forward before placing. The decision was made quickly from that replay.

What was the feeling in the Australian broadcast? It was a small movement but to me if you allow that, you allow every tackles player to crawl.

I agree you can't allow that but are you seriously saying you believe he moved his knees forward. I've just watched it back and he 100% did not propel himself forward

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:11 am

JB1981 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:07 am I didn’t think there was much “interpretation” at play in the no try. Placing the ball (a dynamic movement or whatever they call it now) would have been fine. The replay looked pretty clear that he got to his knees and moved (propelled) himself forward before placing. The decision was made quickly from that replay.

What was the feeling in the Australian broadcast? It was a small movement but to me if you allow that, you allow every tackles player to crawl.

I agree you can't allow that but are you seriously saying you believe he moved his knees forward. I've just watched it back and he 100% did not propel himself forward

If you are tackled and not held you can release, get up regather. You cant get up at the bottom of a ruck without releasing the ball and move forward. If he just reached out inspector gadget style then no problem. It looked like a fair call IMHO.

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:01 am

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:51 am

Farva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:48 amHe didn’t propel himself forward ?

He did though. He propelled himself off both his hand and knee. Could he have reached the line without getting up? No.

He didn't propel himself forward. The weight of the players on top of him prevented him from lifting his arm to place the ball. Lifting himself up onto his knees meant he could place the ball. It was a "double movement" but it was vertical not horizontal. Correct decision

He did though, you can reach further forward from being up on your knee than you can prone on the ground. Propelled forward doesn't mean he crawled forward it means he pushed himself forward off his knee.

pigaaaa wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:08 am

Toro wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:04 am Absolutely shocking last 20 from the ABs, much like the first 40. Won it on the back of a great 15 minutes after halftime. Often looked shakey trying to hold possession. That game was a great opportunity to be ruthless but this team isn't there yet, effort was there but very little structure and purpose. So many shit offloads/passes.

Happier than last week obviously but frustrating to watch. Don't understand so much gushing from the pundits. Oz were poor today too.

The first 40 were shocking? Are you drunk?

No the first half wasn't shocking, but it does read like that sorry. I just mean I found it similar in terms of lack of patience, last of structure and purpose in general. That game was won off moments of individual plays and turnover ball. There was a lineout at the end of the first half in their 22 on attack and we threw a shit ball but still got it back, then proceeded to do five pick and gos and give away a penalty for holding on. That's pretty f'n poor. RMo not bossing the game at this level yet.

Olo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:14 am

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:11 am

JB1981 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:07 am I didn’t think there was much “interpretation” at play in the no try. Placing the ball (a dynamic movement or whatever they call it now) would have been fine. The replay looked pretty clear that he got to his knees and moved (propelled) himself forward before placing. The decision was made quickly from that replay.

What was the feeling in the Australian broadcast? It was a small movement but to me if you allow that, you allow every tackles player to crawl.

I agree you can't allow that but are you seriously saying you believe he moved his knees forward. I've just watched it back and he 100% did not propel himself forward

If you are tackled and not held you can release, get up regather. You cant get up at the bottom of a ruck without releasing the ball and move forward. If he just reached out inspector gadget style then no problem. It looked like a fair call IMHO.

As I said I think it was the correct call because he got up onto his knees. I'm just saying he did not move forward.

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:15 am

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:01 am

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:51 am

Farva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:48 amHe didn’t propel himself forward ?

He did though. He propelled himself off both his hand and knee. Could he have reached the line without getting up? No.

He didn't propel himself forward. The weight of the players on top of him prevented him from lifting his arm to place the ball. Lifting himself up onto his knees meant he could place the ball. It was a "double movement" but it was vertical not horizontal. Correct decision

He did though, you can reach further forward from being up on your knee than you can prone on the ground. Propelled forward doesn't mean he crawled forward it means he pushed himself forward off his knee.

Watch it again as I have. He had bodies on top of him and could not place the ball. He got to his knees so he could place the ball. His knees never moved forward.

JB1981 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:07 am I didn’t think there was much “interpretation” at play in the no try. Placing the ball (a dynamic movement or whatever they call it now) would have been fine. The replay looked pretty clear that he got to his knees and moved (propelled) himself forward before placing. The decision was made quickly from that replay.

What was the feeling in the Australian broadcast? It was a small movement but to me if you allow that, you allow every tackles player to crawl.

Didn't show much replay. Just one I think. Kearnsy didn't complain so it must be the right decision

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:18 am As I said I think it was the correct call because he got up onto his knees. I'm just saying he did not move forward.

If you mean he didn't crawl forward sure. But getting up to a knee means you can reach further forward, that's what I was meaning by propelled himself forward.

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:11 am

JB1981 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:07 am I didn’t think there was much “interpretation” at play in the no try. Placing the ball (a dynamic movement or whatever they call it now) would have been fine. The replay looked pretty clear that he got to his knees and moved (propelled) himself forward before placing. The decision was made quickly from that replay.

What was the feeling in the Australian broadcast? It was a small movement but to me if you allow that, you allow every tackles player to crawl.

I agree you can't allow that but are you seriously saying you believe he moved his knees forward. I've just watched it back and he 100% did not propel himself forward

From the one replay I felt he did - or at least got on his hands and knees and leveraged off them.

They were never going to award that

Been a double-movement for as long as the game’s been played.

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:20 am Watch it again as I have. He had bodies on top of him and could not place the ball. He got to his knees so he could place the ball. His knees never moved forward.

As above - think we're just operating under different definitions of what propelled forward means. But as we both agree it was a penalty, I'm not sure if we're actually disagreeing on what happened.

JB1981 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:21 amgot on his hands and knees and leveraged off them.

That's how I saw it - by getting up, he was able to reach further forward.

shanky wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:21 am They were never going to award that

Been a double-movement for as long as the game’s been played.

Yep. Still love it when rugby refs actually use the term 'double movement' as the purists on here will always come out screaming that it doesn't exist in rugby. (the term)

Toro wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:25 am

shanky wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:21 am They were never going to award that

Been a double-movement for as long as the game’s been played.

Yep. Still love it when rugby refs actually use the term 'double movement' as the purists on here will always come out screaming that it doesn't exist in rugby. (the term)

I've always found that argument bizarre. No one ever complains when a ref says 'truck and trailer', 'lazy running' or indeed 'forward pass' despite those terms not actually being in the laws. Rugby is full of laws that are actually kind of vague and refs have always used informal jargon to denote what the players actually did wrong.

Best game I have even seen from Tuipulotou. He was immense and took responsibility at lineup time. Savea had a monster game and Cane continued his run of form. Think Umaga-Jensen is looking the part also at this level.

Toomua was a massive loss for Aus. They lost leadership and some direction when he departed but the the front five just were not close to the pitch they set last week.

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:20 am

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:18 am As I said I think it was the correct call because he got up onto his knees. I'm just saying he did not move forward.

If you mean he didn't crawl forward sure. But getting up to a knee means you can reach further forward, that's what I was meaning by propelled himself forward.

He wasn't trying to reach further. There was no need for him to reach further. He was right by the TRY line and if he did not have people on him he could have placed the ball in the exact same spot he did when he got to his knees.

Imagine doing womens press ups and when you are in the up position with someone sitting on your back you can reach one arm forward. You then go flat to the floor and you can't reach out anymore. That is all

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:32 am

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:20 am

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:18 am As I said I think it was the correct call because he got up onto his knees. I'm just saying he did not move forward.

If you mean he didn't crawl forward sure. But getting up to a knee means you can reach further forward, that's what I was meaning by propelled himself forward.

He wasn't trying to reach further. There was no need for him to reach further. He was right by the TRY line and if he did not have people on him he could have placed the ball in the exact same spot he did when he got to his knees.

Imagine doing womens press ups and when you are in the up position with someone sitting on your back you can reach one arm forward. You then go flat to the floor and you can't reach out anymore. That is all

On second look, he was on the ground then got up and propelled by himself. What an idiot.

Brian9848 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:30 am Think Umaga-Jensen is looking the part also at this level.

PUJ was on the field for 11 minutes in total and touched the ball twice.

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:32 am

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:20 am

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:18 am As I said I think it was the correct call because he got up onto his knees. I'm just saying he did not move forward.

If you mean he didn't crawl forward sure. But getting up to a knee means you can reach further forward, that's what I was meaning by propelled himself forward.

He wasn't trying to reach further. There was no need for him to reach further. He was right by the TRY line and if he did not have people on him he could have placed the ball in the exact same spot he did when he got to his knees.

Imagine doing womens press ups and when you are in the up position with someone sitting on your back you can reach one arm forward. You then go flat to the floor and you can't reach out anymore. That is all

Have just rewatched it. He didn't do a women's press up to get up, he brought his knees forward to get them underneath and then push up.

Well done to NZ. Just smashed us. Had such influence over us, that even when you went to sleep for 20 mins, we happily joined you for a nap. Enjoy the win.

kiap wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:53 am

flaggETERNAL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:51 am So...another false dawn yeah?

Yep.

You're harsh. The Wallabies had one ball turned over right on the line and one held up by a freak act. I think you were probably that far away from being right in it.

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:20 am

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:15 am

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:01 am

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:51 am

Farva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:48 amHe didn’t propel himself forward ?

He did though. He propelled himself off both his hand and knee. Could he have reached the line without getting up? No.

He didn't propel himself forward. The weight of the players on top of him prevented him from lifting his arm to place the ball. Lifting himself up onto his knees meant he could place the ball. It was a "double movement" but it was vertical not horizontal. Correct decision

He did though, you can reach further forward from being up on your knee than you can prone on the ground. Propelled forward doesn't mean he crawled forward it means he pushed himself forward off his knee.

Watch it again as I have. He had bodies on top of him and could not place the ball. He got to his knees so he could place the ball. His knees never moved forward.

Clear as day double movement no try. Disappointing, but text book double movement no no.

Ali's Choice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:41 am

Brian9848 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:30 am Think Umaga-Jensen is looking the part also at this level.

PUJ was on the field for 11 minutes in total and touched the ball twice.

Magic both times

ABs need about 30% improvement on that performance, not enough treasuring the ball, some really pointless kicking, and a few too many missed tackles. Nice to see a bunch of newbies getting game time, can't hurt for the future.

Reckon Eroni Clarke's young fella is going to be one of the greats in due course, almost Johan out there at stages.

Wobs have some nice looking players coming through, they are getting the mongrel back, not good news looking to 2023 or indeed the brace of games in Oz this year.

Enzedder wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:56 am

kiap wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:53 am

flaggETERNAL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:51 am So...another false dawn yeah?

Yep.

You're harsh. The Wallabies had one ball turned over right on the line and one held up by a freak act. I think you were probably that far away from being right in it.

This. It wasn't what I would class as being dominated. They were in the contest, but boy when the All Blacks got a whiff, they absolutely stepped it up 3 gears.

You can’t just do the caterpillar dance move all the way to the line. Up, slide forward. Up, slide forward. Needed to let go of the ball before getting to his knees.

Sam Cane is immense. Tackles everything hard. Very happy for the skip to be on the end of a great team try. Both NZ halfbacks played well.

Looking forward to seeing more of Caleb Clarke.
Those hips, those thighs...

grievous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:02 am

Salient wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:58 am

Farva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:48 am

guy smiley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:40 am Yeah nah Farva.


Anyone want to argue Aaron Smith over TJ?

It won’t affect the result, we have been comprehensively outplayed. But it is an interesting point to look at. What did he do that constituted a penalty. At first glance I thought penalty but what did he actually do illegally? He remained tackled at all times and so couldn’t have played the ball without releasing. He didn’t propel himself forward as he was in the same spot before and after. He placed the ball so didn’t hold the ball in the tackle.
I thought kiwis liked to discuss interpretations of the laws?

Either you watched a different feed to the one I watched with Aussie commentators agreeing with the call, or you are arguing for the sake of arguing, either way it doesn't pan out well for people's view of you as a "sore loser".

On reply the player clearly infringed, no try, penalty, good decisions Gardiner.

Another fvckwit

If losing turn to personal insult, you a SJW by any chance?

Salient wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:05 am
Reckon Eroni Clarke's young fella is going to be one of the greats in due course, almost Johan out there at stages.\

Johan Ackerman? Seems an odd comparison, but ok.

Just back from the pub. Reasonably happy with that. Think the score flatters us a bit. It never really felt like OZ were out of it.

The wallabies had chances and couldn't convert, the all blacks had 10-15min of really good play and got the rewards.

Feel the wallabies got sacked in a bit throwing the ball around a lot more which played into the all blacks hands. They weren't able to suffocate us much as the collisions really evened up compared toast week.

Some of these wallaby young guys are going to be outstanding though

Fat Old Git wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:28 am Just back from the pub. Reasonably happy with that. Think the score flatters us a bit. It never really felt like OZ were out of it.

Just back from the game. Your comments are spot on. Oz were competitive the whole game but could not get the points,. Bothe teams were let off by the respective opposition dropping the ball at inopportune times. Some the the passing was substandard but all the tries were crackers.

Jay Cee Gee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:16 am

Salient wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:05 am
Reckon Eroni Clarke's young fella is going to be one of the greats in due course, almost Johan out there at stages.\

Johan Ackerman? Seems an odd comparison, but ok.

Adrianmole wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:41 am

Fat Old Git wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:28 am Just back from the pub. Reasonably happy with that. Think the score flatters us a bit. It never really felt like OZ were out of it.

Just back from the game. Your comments are spot on. Oz were competitive the whole game but could not get the points,. Bothe teams were let off by the respective opposition dropping the ball at inopportune times. Some the the passing was substandard but all the tries were crackers.

Yep, my take as well. I don't see the Wallabies missing that many tackles once they're back in Oz, and the game will tighten up again...

shanky wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:21 am They were never going to award that

Been a double-movement for as long as the game’s been played.

Yep. And Hooper knew it, which is why he did not get in Angus' face.

towny wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:47 am Well done to NZ. Just smashed us. Had such influence over us, that even when you went to sleep for 20 mins, we happily joined you for a nap. Enjoy the win.

It did not feel like a smashing. Not even close. Your lads were always in that game, just a couple of amazing bits of defense on/over the goal that made the difference.

They will be a tough team on the other side of the ditch.

B Barret is such a weapon

Toro wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:04 am Absolutely shocking last 20 from the ABs, much like the first 40. Won it on the back of a great 15 minutes after halftime. Often looked shakey trying to hold possession. That game was a great opportunity to be ruthless but this team isn't there yet, effort was there but very little structure and purpose. So many shit offloads/passes.

Happier than last week obviously but frustrating to watch. Don't understand so much gushing from the pundits. Oz were poor today too.

Agree, the AB's were a little better, but there organisation on defence was terrible. Twice they were caught out without enough numbers out wide. This never happened a couple of years ago. I like Toro, think Oz were poor, but they can and will fix that, they were Ok for the first 30, but then started dropping off tackles. They had chances and I wonder if the chances they missed had a phsycohological effect on them?

The attack from the AB's seems nowhere near what it was previously, too often someone would make a break but there was not the support we have been accustomed to, or they didnt move out far enough quickly enough. I still wonder about the intelligence of some of the AB's and their ability to see an overlap and keep it intact by drawing defenders before passing. Regularly certain players are intent on sending it wide instead of drawing a defender.

I wonder what is being coached with this team. Are we going to see a team coached into mediocrity?

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:11 am

JB1981 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:07 am I didn’t think there was much “interpretation” at play in the no try. Placing the ball (a dynamic movement or whatever they call it now) would have been fine. The replay looked pretty clear that he got to his knees and moved (propelled) himself forward before placing. The decision was made quickly from that replay.

What was the feeling in the Australian broadcast? It was a small movement but to me if you allow that, you allow every tackles player to crawl.

I agree you can't allow that but are you seriously saying you believe he moved his knees forward. I've just watched it back and he 100% did not propel himself forward

ABs took their chances, Oz blew most of theirs. O'Connor was a weapon for them last week but was anonymous today and gifted NZ a try with a poor kick. Some good young talent coming through on both sides though and the two games in Oz will be a lot tighter I expect.