Implications of the First Test

by winchester Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

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?

by SecretFly Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:31 pm

Thomond wrote: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

Copped on how? Both O'Driscoll and Warburton said publically how they copped on - they were afraid to attempt turnovers at all for fear of yellow. That's not copping on, that's being handicapped when your whole gameplan (and I'm sure training) revolved around trying to win turnovers legally.

It's one thing adapting to the whims of a particular ref but you have nowhere to cop on to, as it were. No avenue to approach the same intention of stealing ball. So the Australians benefitted greatly from the interpretations as their possession ball was safer throughout the game than it might have been...as probably the next two games will highlight in the stats.

by ChequeredJersey Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:00 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Thomond wrote: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

Copped on how? Both O'Driscoll and Warburton said publically how they copped on - they were afraid to attempt turnovers at all for fear of yellow. That's not copping on, that's being handicapped when your whole gameplan (and I'm sure training) revolved around trying to win turnovers legally.

It's one thing adapting to the whims of a particular ref but you have nowhere to cop on to, as it were. No avenue to approach the same intention of stealing ball. So the Australians benefitted greatly from the interpretations as their possession ball was safer throughout the game than it might have been...as probably the next two games will highlight in the stats.

Well, as Pollock treated both teams equally and this outcome of supporting the attacking side at the breakdown was no surprise to anybody outside of the Lions camp, if their gameplan for Saturday was based on trying to win turnovers legally it was an incredibly naive at best gameplan, frankly, wasn't it?

I am a staunch Lions supporter, I would rather see the Lions do well than England frankly such is the rarity of the Tour, the pain of 2005 and 2009 and my feelings as a Brit, but if we were genuinely so scuppered by an outcome so predictable we are frankly not clever enough to deserve to win.

by SecretFly Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:17 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Well, as Pollock treated both teams equally and this outcome of supporting the attacking side at the breakdown was no surprise to anybody outside of the Lions camp, if their gameplan for Saturday was based on trying to win turnovers legally it was an incredibly naive at best gameplan, frankly, wasn't it?

I don't know, was it? There was a big deal about Gatland having a special chat with Pollock before the game (sometime in the preceding week) about all that lovely interpretation stuff. So he had his chat.

What did Pollock say that Gatland didn't transmit to the players? Did England adapt to the scrum issues duing the 6N game against Wales? Nope, they just complained about those issues after the game.

The players trust their coaches to have ref issues all worked out and bring those issues into training and tactics. Someone let someone down but it wasn't the players.

by ChequeredJersey Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:20 pm

SecretFly wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:

Well, as Pollock treated both teams equally and this outcome of supporting the attacking side at the breakdown was no surprise to anybody outside of the Lions camp, if their gameplan for Saturday was based on trying to win turnovers legally it was an incredibly naive at best gameplan, frankly, wasn't it?

I don't know, was it? There was a big deal about Gatland having a special chat with Pollock before the game (sometime in the preceding week) about all that lovely interpretation stuff. So he had his chat.

What did Pollock say that Gatland didn't transmit to the players? Did England adapt to the scrum issues duing the 6N game against Wales? Nope, they just complained about those issues after the game.

The players trust their coaches to have ref issues all worked out and bring those issues into training and tactics. Someone let someone down but it wasn't the players.

Yep and that was naive too, at best

by wayne Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:10 am

Just to start when I use Block Capitals I'm not shouting only emphasising a point.

Taylorman, you gave 3 instances where we (Lions) couldn't complain, one of which you were FACTUALLY INCORRECT, which I picked you up on, you then go on a rant about the inadequacies of the ref for the 3rd test, that you had found out about by doing some research, IF YOU had done the research in the FIRST PLACE, I would NOT have responded the way I did. Get your facts right in the first instance and this topic would be a lot smaller.
Opinions are fair game to have disagreements about FACTS ARE NOT, in the 1970s, there used to be on BBC national radio a program named Brain of Sport in the first year out of 24 to qualify throughout GB I was one of 2 Welshman to qualify and it was held at Stradey Park, so by that I give great emphasis to Facts.
IMO (this is obviously open to debate) Roman Poite is the best referee in the NH when it comes to officiating at scrum time, I say this as IMO my team (ospreys) apart from last season when Paul James left us to join Bath for our financial reasons, at least for the previous 3 seasons we had the dominant scrum in the Rabo or Magners league even our 2nd choice front row of Duncan Jones, Huw Bennett and Craig Mitchell were better than practically every other team in that League, there was even a famous game against the much vaunted Leicester front row when Paul James had Martin Castro, practically doing somersaults in one scrum, he went up, back and in on one scrum in particular.

Just admit you were wrong on instance 1 and move on

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:11 am

I've only just seen this thread, and I have to say some of the comments about the referee are ridiculous. It's nothing new that players competing for the ball are supposed to support their own bodyweight. Being on your feet isn't enough if you began your attempt to steal the ball with your arms on the floor to stop yourself falling over, which was the case with O'Driscoll. Chris Pollock was right, and what's more, I didn't think much of O'Driscoll telling him to look at the replay on the big screen, especially when he's not even captain.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:32 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:...Chris Pollock was right, and what's more, I didn't think much of O'Driscoll telling him to look at the replay on the big screen, especially when he's not even captain...

Even Chris Pollock has said he thinks he was probably wrong about the second penalty (the one where BOD pointed to the screen).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10892721

He says he didn't give an official warning but BOD had no choice but to pull back. He'd just been pinged twice in close succession and was in no position to test the referee's limits again.

by RubyGuby Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:35 am

:thumbsup:That decision had a significant impact on the rest of the game with Warburton and his team avoiding competing on the floor at the breakdown for fear of giving penaltys away. That was a tragic crossroads for me and perhaps runined the game

by nganboy Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:49 am

Do you not think that the Wallabies were affected in the same way - ie not competeing on the floor at the breakdown. I would have thought after all the B+I fan talk about the danger of the Aus 7s that that would have disadvantaged Aus as much if not more than the Lions.

by RubyGuby Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:53 am

No one has suggested thst Aus were not affected by it - that's your assumption
thumbsup

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:00 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:...Chris Pollock was right, and what's more, I didn't think much of O'Driscoll telling him to look at the replay on the big screen, especially when he's not even captain...

Even Chris Pollock has said he thinks he was probably wrong about the second penalty (the one where BOD pointed to the screen).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10892721

He says he didn't give an official warning but BOD had no choice but to pull back. He'd just been pinged twice in close succession and was in no position to test the referee's limits again.

I think it's sad that he's had to explain himself to the press.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:02 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I think it's sad that he's had to explain himself to the press.

He was under no obligation to say anything.

by GloriousEmpire Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:07 am

I wonder if the implication isn't the continued evolution of the 12 spot in power and pace. Fitting in an extra flanker at 12 could revolutionise the game in a way it hasn't been changed since the All Blacks and their 6 man scrum. The game is increasingly about the breakdown and Australia rules it for the last 15 minutes with three fetchers. If a hybrid 12/6/7 can be found who plays a linking Backline roll but can also foot it with the best foragers and line up in defence...this could be a model if the future. Victor Vito? SBW? Hooper? Pierre spies? Tipuric? Rene Ranger? Could be models of a new structure. Robbie Deans! Game changer.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:10 am

True, he didn't have to say anything. But it's still sad that he's been asked about it when it was hardly a howler.

by Taylorman Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:13 am

wayne wrote:Just to start when I use Block Capitals I'm not shouting only emphasising a point.

Taylorman, you gave 3 instances where we (Lions) couldn't complain, one of which you were FACTUALLY INCORRECT, which I picked you up on, you then go on a rant about the inadequacies of the ref for the 3rd test, that you had found out about by doing some research, IF YOU had done the research in the FIRST PLACE, I would NOT have responded the way I did. Get your facts right in the first instance and this topic would be a lot smaller.
Opinions are fair game to have disagreements about FACTS ARE NOT, in the 1970s, there used to be on BBC national radio a program named Brain of Sport in the first year out of 24 to qualify throughout GB I was one of 2 Welshman to qualify and it was held at Stradey Park, so by that I give great emphasis to Facts.
IMO (this is obviously open to debate) Roman Poite is the best referee in the NH when it comes to officiating at scrum time, I say this as IMO my team (ospreys) apart from last season when Paul James left us to join Bath for our financial reasons, at least for the previous 3 seasons we had the dominant scrum in the Rabo or Magners league even our 2nd choice front row of Duncan Jones, Huw Bennett and Craig Mitchell were better than practically every other team in that League, there was even a famous game against the much vaunted Leicester front row when Paul James had Martin Castro, practically doing somersaults in one scrum, he went up, back and in on one scrum in particular.

Just admit you were wrong on instance 1 and move on

I had moved on long ago..in any case yes I hadnt bothered to look who the ref was, my point was no one is ever happy with refs these days. You think Poite is the best, others obviously don't. The issues also don't seem to be at scrumtime from what I've read, more so the breakdown and how theyre interpreted so not sure that 'we're ok' if scrumtime is the measure of that.

I just don't do the ref thing these days after having been put through what us Kiwis believe is the worst referee performance of all time in Barnes. Since then others pale in comparison. Opinions in the South are that the Lions have not adapted to the refs interpretations and that this match was evidence of it. That is a widely held opinion here and Pollock himself after reviewing his own performance believes he got it 90% right.

So you may think he's a poor ref and youre entitled to your opinion and if the scrum at Ospreys is the better for Poite being around, thats great. In the South we have a couple of good sides as well, but refs have nothing to do with it.

My main point is, find me a good ref and I'll find you matches where one side or the other thought the ref should be shot. The problem with reffing is the game is too complex and refs have too big a job to get it right 100% of the time. Its a thankless job and by its nature will end up in trouble with no one wanting to be abused.

I mean Pollock thought he got it 90% right...half the northern hemisphere though he was terrible/ biased against the Lions. Who'd want a job like that?

by GunsGerms Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:16 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:I wonder if the implication isn't the continued evolution of the 12 spot in power and pace. Fitting in an extra flanker at 12 could revolutionise the game in a way it hasn't been changed since the All Blacks and their 6 man scrum. The game is increasingly about the breakdown and Australia rules it for the last 15 minutes with three fetchers. If a hybrid 12/6/7 can be found who plays a linking Backline roll but can also foot it with the best foragers and line up in defence...this could be a model if the future. Victor Vito? SBW? Hooper? Pierre spies? Tipuric? Rene Ranger? Could be models of a new structure. Robbie Deans! Game changer.

O'Driscoll has been playing like a flanker as well as a centre for years. The position was revolutionised years ago.

by Taylorman Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:19 am

GunsGerms wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:I wonder if the implication isn't the continued evolution of the 12 spot in power and pace. Fitting in an extra flanker at 12 could revolutionise the game in a way it hasn't been changed since the All Blacks and their 6 man scrum. The game is increasingly about the breakdown and Australia rules it for the last 15 minutes with three fetchers. If a hybrid 12/6/7 can be found who plays a linking Backline roll but can also foot it with the best foragers and line up in defence...this could be a model if the future. Victor Vito? SBW? Hooper? Pierre spies? Tipuric? Rene Ranger? Could be models of a new structure. Robbie Deans! Game changer.

O'Driscoll has been playing like a flanker as well as a centre for years. The position was revolutionised years ago.

Really? Gosh he kept that so quiet!

by fa0019 Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:24 am

In the modern game all players need to be expert ruck operators.

BOD, Cole, T. Youngs, O'Connell are all none backrow players in the Lions squad who are top class ruck operators.

Ruck prowess is only good though if you're on the front or equal footing. If your defensive line is constantly being smashed and your scrum is going backwards there is no way you can compete come ruck time.

Take South Africa for instance. Take out Brussow and the ELVs year of madness and when have they ever played a genuine openside at ruck time???

Never in my memory.

The reason is that they are so strong in the forwards, that their ball carriers punch so many holes in defences that they don't need to play one to compete. They will enter the ruck first, the opposition will take longer as they have run behind their line to get there.

In 50 years time it will still be the same... if you can get forwards dominance, ruck work will become a secondary priority and why chaps like Bismarck Du Plessis are worth their weight in gold.

by Feckless Rogue Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:23 pm

There have been very interesting studies done regarding OPINIONS and FACTS. If humans have strongly held beliefs they tend not to be budged at all by facts. In fact they tend to question the validity of the facts and cling even more strongly to their previously held beliefs.

A more extreme example would be those crazy groups who believe the world is going to end on a certain date. When it doesn't happen they almost never accept they were wrong. They tend to concoct elaborate explanations based around the fact their belief in the end of the world and preparedness for it had somehow helped avert the disaster.

I know people who simply believe that 90% of the All Blacks in history were pretty much kidnapped from the Pacific islands. And I know Kiwi's who think O'Driscoll is a worse human being than the hunter who shot Bambi's mother, and also a useless rugby player. Facts don't tend to penetrate these beliefs.

The more you know.

by GloriousEmpire Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:05 pm

Taylorman wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:I wonder if the implication isn't the continued evolution of the 12 spot in power and pace. Fitting in an extra flanker at 12 could revolutionise the game in a way it hasn't been changed since the All Blacks and their 6 man scrum. The game is increasingly about the breakdown and Australia rules it for the last 15 minutes with three fetchers. If a hybrid 12/6/7 can be found who plays a linking Backline roll but can also foot it with the best foragers and line up in defence...this could be a model if the future. Victor Vito? SBW? Hooper? Pierre spies? Tipuric? Rene Ranger? Could be models of a new structure. Robbie Deans! Game changer.

O'Driscoll has been playing like a flanker as well as a centre for years. The position was revolutionised years ago.

Really? Gosh he kept that so quiet!

Offensive post removed

by Cyril Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:21 pm

Classy post ghost

by asoreleftshoulder Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:22 pm

That's pretty low even for him.

by Sponsored content

Implications of the First Test

Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test

Re: Implications of the First Test