Implications of the First Test

Just some food for thought here:

Lets face it, the Lions were lucky. Australia will feel they blew this game. They left 14 points on the field with missed kicks. Criminal at this level. The Lions only left 3 points out there. Even with an injury ravaged team, the Lions failed to exert real authority which was very disappointing. Im glad they won, but it almost felt like a moral Aussie victory than a vinatage Lions win.

1. The ref didnt help matters. Sure people will say he wanted the game to flow but really what he did was sow doubt into the Lions team and their ability to compete. This isssue of interpretation is now getting rididculos in rugby. Referees should be anonymous except to enforce the rules. The ref now has far too much say in the outcome of games. You practically have to play a strategy based on who is officiating. Ridiculous. The rules should be standard. Ive no problem with the ref getting a decision wrong by mistake. But this nonsense that a play is legal/illegal depending on who is reffing is nonsense. O'Driscoll was pinged twice early and that set the whole doubt on the Lions as they didnt know what to do. There didnt seem to be anything BOD did wrong by the letter of the law so either he the ref got it wrong or he got it right. Its not the refs "interpretation". Its either the right or wrong call.

2. Injuries. Its been a theme in this tour. The game is so physical now in the pro era with intensity on such a high level that injuries and knocks are inneviteable. Benches become critical. Is it now time to name unlimited subs on a bench? You dont want to see a game ruined by players playing way out of position, or uncontested scrums etc. Why not allow for naming 15 subs if neccessary? Look at Ireland in the 6 Nations also. Their team against Italy was completley destroyed and unplayable.

3. Philips has to pay the price for that performance. Should have been subbed earlier. Backrow balance didnt feel right although it became hard to compete effectively with the ref liable to ping players for no good reason. Scrum dominance wasnt as complete as hoped for and lineout functioned well albeit conservative. Centre combo no better than average and if Roberts/Bowe fit then think they deserve to start.

Hoping for better to come in the 2nd test as there is plenty to improve on.

What do people think?

I thought the referee was disgraceful in all honesty.  I have been watching the game from scratch and all  I see is him watching one team.  Even from as early as 1 minute 27 seconds you can see how biased he is.  At the first scrum the Aussies set before the referee says set and as the Lions didn't move the scrum collapsed.  Even when a bit of niggle happens he looks straight at the Lions and tells them to behave.  On the second scrum both teams go early together yet it's the Lions who are penalised on their own throw.

On 4 minutes the Lions are penalised again with BOD pinged for "not supporting his body weight" when he clearly is.  Even the Australian commentators said on Fox Sport that it's a very harsh call, and he's clearly on two feet, and the Australian player should be penalised for holding on.  Luckily the kick at goal missed.

5:48 BOD again penalised for no good reason.  He was the second man into the ruck, he went through the gate, was on his feet and challenging for the ball legally.  Thankfully that shot at goal was missed also.

To me it seemed the referee was doing his very best to find fault with the Lions play any time australia were in Lions half to give them a kickable penalty.

12:34 BOD again penalised for holding on when the Aussies are clearly pileing over the top of the ruck and not staying on their feet.  Genia taps and goes and Australia score a try.

I couldn't watch the match until yesterday evening and by then I was really quite tired, but had to watch it or else i could look at any news or sports bulletins ...

1
Interpretation at the breakdown:  In principle I agree with you Winchester but ...  it is well known that the laws of rugby require "interpretation".  IT shouldn't be so, but it is.  Part of the preparation for a game is checking that particular ref's interpretation of the contentious areas of the game.  The SKY commentators said after the first BOD penalty that that was how Pollack saw the breakdown.  The Lions players should have known this. 

Consider a scenario:
BOD sets a "tester" - how was CP going to ref this area? 
Whistle; penalise BOD
OK, so that's how;
Response from Lions - It's Plan B lads for breakdown play. 

Was there a Pan B for this area of play?  If not, why not?  What have the coaches been doing since the reffing team was announced?

2
Injuries - number of subs, complete etam on the bench etc.
I think this has some merit, but I would suggest that whilst you can have 10, 15, 20 or whatever number on the bench, there should be restrictions.  For example, you must have a full front row (as now).  But also each team is limited to the number of subs they may deploy.  So although yopu are allowed to have a 15-man bench, you may only use 8 of them.  I am not sure of the actual numbers but in Gaelic games (football and hurling)  you can have a lot of players on the bench but you may only use 5 of them.

3
I agree I was appalled at how poorly Mike Phillips played.  There were a number of times in the first half in particular where he was totally out of camera shot when the ball was emerging from rucks.  It was like at the beginning of the 6Ns when he was struggling with his fitness and could not keep up with the play.

I will admit that I was hoping by the end of the game that Australia would win. Yes their kicking was atrocious, but it was equally shocking that the Lions could not break down such a makeshift back line that Oz ended up playing. 

I am still wondering what all these wonderful lineout moves are that the Lions have been keeping up their slieve till the Test begin - this was the constant excuse for their horrible lineout performance so far.  I didn't see much evidence of moves yesterday.  I thought Youngs played a canny game by going to the front early on and gradually moving further back in the line.  At least that part worked.

Also how about that disintegrating scrum at the end?

Implications of the first test?  If I were a betting person, I think my money would be going on Australia.

I do not think the ref was biased. The problem is that increasingly that is how NZ and Aus referees ref the game.  They think that turning union into league is the answer to getting crowds.
Perhaps they will introduce a rule where the teams has to give the ball back after 5 tackles.

I was struck by the fact that Stuart Barnes commentating seemed to expect that refereeing interpretation but none of our players did.

Warburton might have good relationships referees you suspect that works a lot better when the official isn't turning to address BOD and POC as if they were also Lions captains. Sam needed to establish himself more clearly as the point man to exercise some sort of influence there.

Can anyone remember an occasion, no matter how far back, when the Lions have taken an early series lead and so much of the talk has been about the need to drop some players?

Given we had such a good run in the lineouts, it was disappointing we didn't have a better kicking game, especially in the second half. I know we didn't have a lot of kicking ability out of hand in the backs, but it seemed like an obvious strategy to pursue, and something at least Sexton and Halfpenny could have executed if asked.

Exiledinborders wrote:I do not think the ref was biased. The problem is that increasingly that is how NZ and Aus referees ref the game.  They think that turning union into league is the answer to getting crowds.
Perhaps they will introduce a rule where the teams has to give the ball back after 5 tackles.

And you wonder why the NH is behind in the game...

My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1 A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2 A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3 A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

Dude. 
I think you are 50% half-right.

Clearly, next match will have a biased (or incompetent, or a twaddle) NH ref. 
Also, the Wallabies won't miss those kicks. 

But, the Lions already have injuries in their squad.  So now, things have leveled out a bit, no?

Yep. I don't know if the different breakdown interpretation will be enough. The Lions were not at all convincing yesterday.

Rugby Fan wrote:I was struck by the fact that Stuart Barnes commentating seemed to expect that refereeing interpretation but none of our players did.

Warburton might have good relationships referees you suspect that works a lot better when the official isn't turning to address BOD and POC as if they were also Lions captains. Sam needed to establish himself more clearly as the point man to exercise some sort of influence there.

Can anyone remember an occasion, no matter how far back, when the Lions have taken an early series lead and so much of the talk has been about the need to drop some players?

Given we had such a good run in the lineouts, it was disappointing we didn't have a better kicking game, especially in the second half. I know we didn't have a lot of kicking ability out of hand in the backs, but it seemed like an obvious strategy to pursue, and something at least Sexton and Halfpenny could have executed if asked.

I noticed this a bit too. There was a moment when a decision had to be made about going down the line or taking a scrum or what not, Sexton took the ball and got his instruction from O'Connell. I have seen this happen for Ireland when BOD is out captain and in general this is cos he further out so the pack leader makes the call, but on Saturday I must admit to being very confused by that particular display

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

1 Wrong the ref is Craig Joubert another biased SH ref.
The following week we'll have a non biased NH ref who always adjudicates at scrum time to the dominant scrum, so we'll be alright then.

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:I do not think the ref was biased. The problem is that increasingly that is how NZ and Aus referees ref the game.  They think that turning union into league is the answer to getting crowds.
Perhaps they will introduce a rule where the teams has to give the ball back after 5 tackles.

And you wonder why the NH is behind in the game...

Do you really want a game where defences are not allowed to compete for the ball? If so I suggest you watch league which is perfectly good game it is just not rugby union.

wayne wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

1 Wrong the ref is Craig Joubert another biased SH ref.
The following week we'll have a non biased NH ref who always adjudicates at scrum time to the dominant scrum, so we'll be alright then.

Joubert may be SH but he is from SA where they still beleive in the scrum.

I don't think the captaincy is an issue. O'Connell is still acting as a sort of pack leader. Lots of urging on his team mates and pats on the back and encouragement and all that. That's what he does. For Leinster and Ireland I often see BOD reading the game and making decisions and shouting instructions on the fly, whether he's captain or not. That's what he does. Warburton dealt fine with the ref as always, and the fact that other lieutenants take on leadership duties too is not a problem as far as I can see.

All top teams have several leaders. The Lions will be fine in that regard

wayne wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

1 Wrong the ref is Craig Joubert another biased SH ref.
The following week we'll have a non biased NH ref who always adjudicates at scrum time to the dominant scrum, so we'll be alright then.

Oh forgot about Joubert...NHers hate him as well.

Give up on the ref critic thing...theres no such thing as either a good or unbiased ref these days

Roman Poite:

First google search:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/unpredictable-romain-poite-s-selection-for-potentially-decisive-third-test-sends-a-shiver-down-the-spine-1.1435619

Headline from the NH paper...Unpredictable Romain Poite’s selection for potentially decisive third Test sends a shiver down the spine

Both camps have welcomed the appointment of New Zealander Chris Pollock for the first Test.

Next

http://www.theweeklyreviewbayside.com.au/story/1575548/johnson-slams-pedantic-poite-after-yellow-card-costs-scots/

Both he's slammed by NH sides...Couldnt actually find a good one...

Taylorman wrote:

wayne wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

1 Wrong the ref is Craig Joubert another biased SH ref.
The following week we'll have a non biased NH ref who always adjudicates at scrum time to the dominant scrum, so we'll be alright then.

Oh forgot about Joubert...NHers hate him as well.

Give up on the ref critic thing...theres no such thing as either a good or unbiased ref these days

Roman Poite:

First google search:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/unpredictable-romain-poite-s-selection-for-potentially-decisive-third-test-sends-a-shiver-down-the-spine-1.1435619

Headline from the NH paper...Unpredictable Romain Poite’s selection for potentially decisive third Test sends a shiver down the spine

Both camps have welcomed the appointment of New Zealander Chris Pollock for the first Test.

Next

http://www.theweeklyreviewbayside.com.au/story/1575548/johnson-slams-pedantic-poite-after-yellow-card-costs-scots/

Both he's slammed by NH sides...Couldnt actually find a good one...

Ha, love it!

The strange thing was how much the commentators went on about how polite warberton is when talking to ref. like it was a new wonder discovery

Most captains are.

Sky team need to either shut up or take their stiffies for certain players and have a cold shower

I feel for Joubert this week. He still has the anger of some posters for his treatment of France in the WC 2011 final...

Lord help him when he steps off the ground this week after mistreating one of their own...

Ah, bugger the ref stuff. 
If the teams have not reviewed countless hours of video analysing each referee's tendencies, likes and dislikes, then they have not prepared properly and deserve what comes their way.

doctor_grey wrote:Ah, bugger the ref stuff. 
If the teams have not reviewed countless hours of video analysing each referee's tendencies, likes and dislikes, then they have not prepared properly and deserve what comes their way.

I completely disagree. I think the issue should be addressed about how the rules are enforced universally and consistently. I think its damaging having each country able to pick and choose how they interpret rules. Isnt the point of them to be clear and unambiguos?

What BOD for example did in the start of the first test was clearly legal. Why should he punished because refs have the liberty to choose how they want to enforce a rule? The Lions could have down 13 points 15 minutes into the test due to nothing more than this silly differning on interpretations. Ruins the whole spectacle as a contest and for entertainment.

You can argue teams have to be well drilled in understanding the ref who is incharged which in itself I think is ridiculous. But then you actually have players being punished for infringements that arent actually illegal. BOD was entitles to compete the way he did. Why should he have to refrain from that because "he should have known the ref would penalise?"

Time to do something about this I think.

Taylorman wrote:

wayne wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

1 Wrong the ref is Craig Joubert another biased SH ref.
The following week we'll have a non biased NH ref who always adjudicates at scrum time to the dominant scrum, so we'll be alright then.

Oh forgot about Joubert...NHers hate him as well.

Give up on the ref critic thing...theres no such thing as either a good or unbiased ref these days

Roman Poite:

First google search:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/unpredictable-romain-poite-s-selection-for-potentially-decisive-third-test-sends-a-shiver-down-the-spine-1.1435619

Headline from the NH paper...Unpredictable Romain Poite’s selection for potentially decisive third Test sends a shiver down the spine

Both camps have welcomed the appointment of New Zealander Chris Pollock for the first Test.

Next

http://www.theweeklyreviewbayside.com.au/story/1575548/johnson-slams-pedantic-poite-after-yellow-card-costs-scots/

Both he's slammed by NH sides...Couldnt actually find a good one...

Having either played, coached or watched rugby for over 45 years, I do not need newspaper reviews, to decide if a referee is any good.

wayne wrote:
Having either played, coached or watched rugby for over 45 years, I do not need newspaper reviews, to decide if a referee is any good.

No, unlike anyone who has done all that and more you are actually the authority on it. Thats obvious.
You have made it clear Poite, despite clear indifferences form those actually involved, is a good ref. We'll see then won't we.

In my experience there is actually no such thing as a 'good ref' at the international level. They all interpret, they all make mistakes, they all have good and bad games...

what you are actually saying is:

1 That NH refs are better in your opnion (largely because you understand the way NH refs ref the game up there and therefore accept that as the norm.
2 SH refs are largely useless for the same above reason.

My argument with that is generally players are better in the SH...why wouldnt the refs be? Holds just as much logic as any.

Phew if this is what some people have to say about the ref when the Lions won the game, hate to think the stuff that'l be coming out if the Lions loses a game.

It does seem to me that just because the expected so call dominance of the Lions forwards did not happen it must have been the ref's fault? Not that the Wallabies may have forwards too? And they competed for the ball also?

I thought the ref did well in the game. I believe both sides only see misinterpertation of the rules by the ref when it's against them, I say this for both sets of fans. But is it really worth that an article? Oh drat, I just added to it..

I only saw about 50 minutes of the game but I didn't notice anything particularly bad about the ref - but then I seldom do.

Lessons from the first test?  I think its one of the oldest lessons in Rugby:  Gain advantage up front and hold it for 80 minutes.  The Lions failed.  And almost lost. 

I don't care who plays up front, but if they take one backward step, send them to Tasmania.  Forever.

Shifty wrote:I thought the referee was disgraceful in all honesty.  I have been watching the game from scratch and all  I see is him watching one team.  Even from as early as 1 minute 27 seconds you can see how biased he is.  At the first scrum the Aussies set before the referee says set and as the Lions didn't move the scrum collapsed.  Even when a bit of niggle happens he looks straight at the Lions and tells them to behave.  On the second scrum both teams go early together yet it's the Lions who are penalised on their own throw.

On 4 minutes the Lions are penalised again with BOD pinged for "not supporting his body weight" when he clearly is.  Even the Australian commentators said on Fox Sport that it's a very harsh call, and he's clearly on two feet, and the Australian player should be penalised for holding on.  Luckily the kick at goal missed.

5:48 BOD again penalised for no good reason.  He was the second man into the ruck, he went through the gate, was on his feet and challenging for the ball legally.  Thankfully that shot at goal was missed also.

To me it seemed the referee was doing his very best to find fault with the Lions play any time australia were in Lions half to give them a kickable penalty.

12:34 BOD again penalised for holding on when the Aussies are clearly pileing over the top of the ruck and not staying on their feet.  Genia taps and goes and Australia score a try.

Perhaps it is the case that BOD having achieved god-like status in Ireland/NH, that referees should leave him a alone because of status and that every time he is penalised the referee has it wrong as you suggest? He is a great player but he is not above the rules, though he seems to have difficulties with the concept of releasing the ball when tackled. I think he had one harsh call against him true, however in one instance, where he was penalised, he dived on a ball off his feet held it to his chest and then was penalised for holding on - it was pretty clear. And I think for Cuthbert's try, I have watched several replays of that and I think Lions were a tad (or very) lucky not to be called back. BOD as a decoy runner sprinted directly at O'Connor and made contact with him off the ball impeding O'Connor in defence. Not saying BOD is an out an out cheat, but he seems to cross the line a wee bit awfully often.

You've done it now Rob...wait till the NHers get up and settle down to their cornies, bit of toast and cuppa for the morning and tune in to a bit of 606...

doctor_grey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

Dude. 
I think you are 50% half-right.

Clearly, next match will have a biased (or incompetent, or a twaddle) NH ref. 
Also, the Wallabies won't miss those kicks. 

But, the Lions already have injuries in their squad.  So now, things have leveled out a bit, no?

Dr_G, on a point of semantics, is it possible to be any other percentage than 50% half-right?!

OzT wrote:Phew if this is what some people have to say about the ref when the Lions won the game, hate to think the stuff that'l be coming out if the Lions loses a game.

It does seem to me that just because the expected so call dominance of the Lions forwards did not happen it must have been the ref's fault? Not that the Wallabies may have forwards too? And they competed for the ball also?

I thought the ref did well in the game. I believe both sides only see misinterpertation of the rules by the ref when it's against them, I say this for both sets of fans. But is it really worth that an article? Oh drat, I just added to it..

OzT, spot on, mate. I think it's a matter of expectation as much as anything else - Lions fans expected their pack to be dominant, particularly at set-piece, against a perceived weaker Wallaby eight - when that didn't happen, the natural inclination is to conclude that the Lions pack were poor on the day. In all honesty tho, the Aussie pack was never going to be as dismal as suggested - you don't maintain a team in the top 3 in the world with a Poopie pack!

Taylorman wrote:You've done it now Rob...wait till the NHers get up and settle down to their cornies, bit of toast and cuppa for the morning and tune in to a bit of 606...

Think they have missed it!

Rob B wrote:

Taylorman wrote:You've done it now Rob...wait till the NHers get up and settle down to their cornies, bit of toast and cuppa for the morning and tune in to a bit of 606...

Think they have missed it!

No I saw it & actually agree with it. Seasoned pros do what they can get away with but BOD genuinely looked aggrieved when pinged as opposed to being caught out cheating.

As for Cuthberts try yes that could well have been called back & disallowed, marginal decisions but. I genuinely believe the move deserved a try & was correctly given.

Anyway back to my brekkie.

"Criminal at this level..."

Enough stereotyping...

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My take..
Next week the Lions won't be able to count on 3 things...

1   A biased SH ref- Oz will instead have a biased NH ref
2   A plethora of missed goal kicks including a comedic fallover- no one could be worse than that.
3   A plethora of injuries from the same backline.

This will mean this time the Lions will have to actually earn their win, rather than hope for missed kicks and injuries.

Fair?

Dude. 
I think you are 50% half-right.

Clearly, next match will have a biased (or incompetent, or a twaddle) NH ref. 
Also, the Wallabies won't miss those kicks. 

But, the Lions already have injuries in their squad.  So now, things have leveled out a bit, no?

Dr_G, on a point of semantics, is it possible to be any other percentage than 50% half-right?!

Ah, mon ami.  Maybe I have spent too much time in aggregate over here in the US.  That statement was meant as a small joke.  That kind of quote is attributed to Yogi Berra, the NY Yankees catcher and apparently very good player from the 1950s.  He is also famous for making statements such as:
"It's like deja vu all over again"
"You can observe a lot just by watching"
"You should always go to other people's funerals, otherwise, they won't come to yours"
"It gets late early out there"
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical"

Love this stuff.  The logic is iron clad.

Don't worry you'll still have Pollock for the second and third tests:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/8839952/Pollock-happy-with-display-in-first-Lions-test

I think video replies should be banned on TV... it makes our enjoyment levels so much lower.

In the past we never complained about the referee as we didn't go over every minute detail.... "oh their was a chap clearly offside on the other side of the pitch"...." or "8 phases back their was a marginal flat/forward pass".

We accepted defeat... now we have become a bunch of spoilt brats & bad losers... even bad winners.

I now know the referees by name, their habits etc and they have become more prominent then some players.  Referees have had to quit, go into hiding... all because they missed one move. Get 100 things right, acceptable, get 1 thing wrong, worst and most biased ref ever.

There is always someone now to blame... and it hinders our own acceptance of our own insufficiencies rather than look at the actual cause and act accordingly.

Look at some of the biggest games over the last few years.

RWC Final11 - Joubert biggest talking point.
RWC SF11 FRA vs. WAL - Warburton's sending off.
RWC QF11 AUS vs. SA - Lawrence's performance.
Lions 2nd test 09 - Burgers gouge, which card should have been shown?
RWC Final07 - Cueto's toe in touch.
RWC QF07 - Michelak's forward pass.
Lions 1st test 05 - BOD's mafia assignation.

When we should be looking at these matches for great play but instead we remember them for negative things only. Its a real shame

Rob B wrote:

Shifty wrote:I thought the referee was disgraceful in all honesty.  I have been watching the game from scratch and all  I see is him watching one team.  Even from as early as 1 minute 27 seconds you can see how biased he is.  At the first scrum the Aussies set before the referee says set and as the Lions didn't move the scrum collapsed.  Even when a bit of niggle happens he looks straight at the Lions and tells them to behave.  On the second scrum both teams go early together yet it's the Lions who are penalised on their own throw.

On 4 minutes the Lions are penalised again with BOD pinged for "not supporting his body weight" when he clearly is.  Even the Australian commentators said on Fox Sport that it's a very harsh call, and he's clearly on two feet, and the Australian player should be penalised for holding on.  Luckily the kick at goal missed.

5:48 BOD again penalised for no good reason.  He was the second man into the ruck, he went through the gate, was on his feet and challenging for the ball legally.  Thankfully that shot at goal was missed also.

To me it seemed the referee was doing his very best to find fault with the Lions play any time australia were in Lions half to give them a kickable penalty.

12:34 BOD again penalised for holding on when the Aussies are clearly pileing over the top of the ruck and not staying on their feet.  Genia taps and goes and Australia score a try.

Perhaps it is the case that BOD having achieved god-like status in Ireland/NH, that referees should leave him a alone because of status and that every time he is penalised the referee has it wrong as you suggest? He is a great player but he is not above the rules, though he seems to have difficulties with the concept of releasing the ball when tackled. I think he had one harsh call against him true, however in one instance, where he was penalised, he dived on a ball off his feet held it to his chest and then was penalised for holding on - it was pretty clear. And I think for Cuthbert's try, I have watched several replays of that and I think Lions were a tad (or very) lucky not to be called back. BOD as a decoy runner sprinted directly at O'Connor and made contact with him off the ball impeding O'Connor in defence. Not saying BOD is an out an out cheat, but he seems to cross the line a wee bit awfully often.

So does Richie. All the best players do. We all whine about "gamesmanship" in rugby when it goes against us but it goes on all the time, at all levels, and is a part of the game. If you didn't get caught, you did it well

I have to say that watching the kids play has made me more open minded towards refs. Even within clubs they referee differently (i.e. concentrate on different things). I can't see that being any different at international level. There are so many laws, so much going on, at high speed that I doubt consistency is possible.

I also think it means that good players like McCaw and BOD will appear to cheat because to be competitive they have to be able to compete and it changes subtly from game to game.

Re the Lions try, imo no it wasn't blocking, JOC still had ample time to make a tackle on the man, he didn't (I also think when JD2 was called for it earlier in the game it wasn't).

Bit ironic that an ozzie fan tries to call that - considering some of the decoys runs and running lines the oz backs use

As far as the ref went, a few contentious calls, but what game at test level doesn't have these? No real problem, swings and roundabouts.

The implications of the first test though as far as I see it, the Australian backline will become more dangerous, the Lions will beef up the pack to attack the breakdown and hopefully focus on the gainline battle.

Much is made of Oz's "inferior' set piece" but its never been that bad, and even when their scrums been terrible, their lineouts stayed consistent and their work at the tackle area more than makes up for it.

Arguments will be had, the way I look at it, it was a 1 score game, both sides had chances to win it,the last 10 minutes seemed to end up being a game of who wants to lose more...

Comfort wrote:Re the Lions try, imo no it wasn't blocking, JOC still had ample time to make a tackle on the man, he didn't (I also think when JD2 was called for it earlier in the game it wasn't).

Bit ironic that an ozzie fan tries to call that - considering some of the decoys runs and running lines the oz backs use

As far as the ref went, a few contentious calls, but what game at test level doesn't have these? No real problem, swings and roundabouts.

The implications of the first test though as far as I see it, the Australian backline will become more dangerous, the Lions will beef up the pack to attack the breakdown and hopefully focus on the gainline battle.

Much is made of Oz's "inferior' set piece" but its never been that bad, and even when their scrums been terrible, their lineouts stayed consistent and their work at the tackle area more than makes up for it.

Arguments will be had, the way I look at it, it was a 1 score game, both sides had chances to win it,the last 10 minutes seemed to end up being a game of who wants to lose more...

This website is irony personified to someone  from SH I can assure! Must have been something in it - ref wouldn't refer it to TMO if there wasn't.  The good old swings and roundabout cost 7 points though. Anyway, I thought it was a close call; so did the commentary.

I can assure you its not just ironic from the SH perspective

I could sit here arguing about the calls at the breakdown that could have potentially cost the lions the game if kicks had been made. As i say, decisions in a game are swings and roundabouts and I generally refuse to blame the referee for costing the side a game.

You could look at is as a sort of karma, BOD got penalised for something that was legal (at the ruck - twice - my opinion) but wasnt for something that was illegal (crossing for the try - your opinion).

swings and roundabouts

Rob B wrote:

Comfort wrote:Re the Lions try, imo no it wasn't blocking, JOC still had ample time to make a tackle on the man, he didn't (I also think when JD2 was called for it earlier in the game it wasn't).

Bit ironic that an ozzie fan tries to call that - considering some of the decoys runs and running lines the oz backs use

As far as the ref went, a few contentious calls, but what game at test level doesn't have these? No real problem, swings and roundabouts.

The implications of the first test though as far as I see it, the Australian backline will become more dangerous, the Lions will beef up the pack to attack the breakdown and hopefully focus on the gainline battle.

Much is made of Oz's "inferior' set piece" but its never been that bad, and even when their scrums been terrible, their lineouts stayed consistent and their work at the tackle area more than makes up for it.

Arguments will be had, the way I look at it, it was a 1 score game, both sides had chances to win it,the last 10 minutes seemed to end up being a game of who wants to lose more...

This website is irony personified to someone  from SH I can assure! Must have been something in it - ref wouldn't refer it to TMO if there wasn't.  The good old swings and roundabout cost 7 points though. Anyway, I thought it was a close call; so did the commentary.

During the match I commented that the try call was a lose-lose one for the TMO - marginal enough that either way someone would feel aggrieved. With my neutral hat on (even though I picked the Wallabies by 7 mutter mutter goal kicking mutter) I thought it'd have been harsher to disallow that one than allow.

Just to play devils advocate, should the referee/TMO have pulled the try back in the name of consistency?

Considering the blocking call on JD2 earlier in the game (albeit slightly wider) he only bumped a defending player who had enough time to re-adjust back into his position and attempt a tackle if needs be.

I only ask becase of the mutterings about the referees interpretations, and at least he was consistent....

[quote="Very true FA-I'll try look for positives for those games to try get some warm fuzzies out of them!"]
RWC Final11 - NZ's fourth choice 10 who plainly isn't good enough for international rugby kicking the decisive penalty. Redemption.RWC SF11 FRA vs. WAL - Phillips' brilliant try and a game that was on a knife edge for the duration.RWC QF11 AUS vs. SA - David Pocock's one man breakdown masterclass.Lions 2nd test 09 - One of the most epic tests you'll ever see-the ice in Morne Steyn's veins as he kicked the Boks home.RWC Final07 - Didn't think there was much controversy about it-was rather a dull game but the winner was deserved.RWC QF07 - Dusautoir's defensive equivalent of Lomu vs England in 95-one of the best team efforts of all time too.Lions 1st test 05 - Ali Williams destroying the Lions' lineout in the rain and Umaga's sublime pass to Sivivatu. Actually the BOD cleanout overshadowed the whole series which doesn't do justice to the greatest individual performance I've ever seen (Dan Carter in Wellington-the passing of the torch from Wilkinson IMO).Everyone get all nice and tingly now?fa0019I think video replies should be banned on TV... it makes our enjoyment levels so much lower.

In the past we never complained about the referee as we didn't go over every minute detail.... "oh their was a chap clearly offside on the other side of the pitch"...." or "8 phases back their was a marginal flat/forward pass".

We accepted defeat... now we have become a bunch of spoilt brats & bad losers... even bad winners.

I now know the referees by name, their habits etc and they have become more prominent then some players.  Referees have had to quit, go into hiding... all because they missed one move. Get 100 things right, acceptable, get 1 thing wrong, worst and most biased ref ever.

There is always someone now to blame... and it hinders our own acceptance of our own insufficiencies rather than look at the actual cause and act accordingly.

Look at some of the biggest games over the last few years.

RWC Final11 - Joubert biggest talking point.
RWC SF11 FRA vs. WAL - Warburton's sending off.
RWC QF11 AUS vs. SA - Lawrence's performance.
Lions 2nd test 09 - Burgers gouge, which card should have been shown?
RWC Final07 - Cueto's toe in touch.
RWC QF07 - Michelak's forward pass.
Lions 1st test 05 - BOD's mafia assignation.

When we should be looking at these matches for great play but instead we remember them for negative things only. Its a real shame[/quote]

Very true FA-I'll try look for positives for those games to try get some warm fuzzies out of them!

RWC Final11 - NZ's fourth choice 10 who plainly isn't good enough for international rugby kicking the decisive penalty. Redemption.

RWC SF11 FRA vs. WAL - Phillips' brilliant try and a game that was on a knife edge for the duration.RWC QF11 AUS vs. SA - David Pocock's one man breakdown masterclass.

Lions 2nd test 09 - One of the most epic tests you'll ever see-the ice in Morne Steyn's veins as he kicked the Boks home.

RWC Final07 - Didn't think there was much controversy about it-was rather a dull game but the winner was deserved.

RWC QF07 - Dusautoir's defensive equivalent of Lomu vs England in 95-one of the best team efforts of all time too.

Lions 1st test 05 - Ali Williams destroying the Lions' lineout in the rain and Umaga's sublime pass to Sivivatu. Actually the BOD cleanout overshadowed the whole series which doesn't do justice to the greatest individual performance I've ever seen (Dan Carter in Wellington-the passing of the torch from Wilkinson IMO).

Everyone get all nice and tingly now?

I think I preferred it when we were at each others necks!

Na, in all seriousness I just hate it how the ref has become the main focal point of winning and losing in rugby. There is always an excuse, its never because you aren't as good.

Everyone is at it now. THe SA vs Scot match was when it go too much for me... when the boks are complaining about match brutality and fairness you know we have a problem.

We should all grow a pair.. our rugby forebearers are holding their heads in shame.

fa0019 wrote:I think I preferred it when we were at each others necks!

Na, in all seriousness I just hate it how the ref has become the main focal point of winning and losing in rugby. There is always an excuse, its never because you aren't as good.

Everyone is at it now. THe SA vs Scot match was when it go too much for me... when the boks are complaining about match brutality and fairness you know we have a problem.

We should all grow a pair.. our rugby forebearers are holding their heads in shame.

The Lions won though so they clearly are good enough. Its sooooooooo predictable on Lions tours for the tourists to get pinged out of it. Ruins the game for me.

Also is there any reason why there is always a majority of SH refs? It isnt for logistical reasons as Europe is closer to SA than Australia and NZ for example yet on the last tour just like this one there are 2 SH refs and just 1 NH ref. Same with the '05 and '97tours.

If you look back at the match, the ref wasn't wrong a lot of the time. The Lion copped on by and large after 5 minutes, BOD could have been binned within the first 5 minutes alone!


I'd go to my thread on the game and then onto the next link for that https://www.606v2.com/t45724-the-eye-in-the-sky-never-lies-video-analysis-of-the-lions

Guns I think its practicalities in terms of refs nationality. In this series you can't have referees from Britain, Ireland or AUS.... which leaves France, NZ & SA.... which is in fact how its gone.

Unless we were to get 2 French referees then I think it would be impossible to not go 2 SH, 1NH.. I think in fact we're lucky we get the 1 NH ref.
The game should be administered the same anyhow. Refs should follow a strict line of conduct.