NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS, 24 June

First topic message reminder :

                   
NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  
24 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Eden Park, Auckland

Live on [Sky Sports HD]

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
ARs: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

38 Played 38
29 Won 6
3 Drawn 3
6 Lost 29
634 Points 345

B. Recent Form

9 July 2005
Eden Park, Auckland
38 – 19 to New Zealand

2 July 2005
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
48 – 18 to New Zealand

25 June 2005
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
21 – 3 to New Zealand

3 July 1993
Eden Park, Auckland
30 – 13 to New Zealand

26 June 1993
Athletic Park, Wellington
7 – 20 to British & Irish Lions

12 June 1993
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
20 – 18 to New Zealand

16 July 1983
Eden Park, Auckland
38 – 6 to New Zealand

2 July 1983
Carisbrook, Dunedin
15 – 8 to New Zealand

18 June 1983
Athletic Park (Wellington), Wellington
9 – 0 to New Zealand

4 June 1983
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
16 – 12 to New Zealand

C. TEAMS:

NEW ZEALAND

01. Joe Moody (25)
02. Codie Taylor (16)
03. Owen Franks (91)
04. Brodie Retallick (61)
05. Samuel Whitelock (85)
06. Jerome Kaino (78)
07. Sam Cane (41)
08. Kieran Read (97)

09. Aaron Smith (59)
10. Beauden Barrett (50)
11. Rieko Ioane (2)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (34)
13. Ryan Crotty (26)
14. Israel Dagg (62)
15. Ben Smith (61)

16. Nathan Harris (5)
17. Wyatt Crockett (59)
18. Charlie Faumuina (47)
19. Scott Barrett (5)
20. Ardie Savea (13)
21. TJ Perenara (30)
22. Aaron Cruden (47) / Lima Sopoaga (7)
23. Anton Lienert-Brown (10)

BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  

15. Liam Williams – Scarlets, Wales, #833
14. Anthony Watson – Bath Rugby, England, #816
13. Jonathan Davies – Scarlets, Wales, #778
12. Ben Te’o – Worcester Warriors, England, #815
11. Elliot Daly – Wasps, England, #822
10. Owen Farrell – Saracens, England, #780
09. Conor Murray – Munster, Ireland, #790

01. Mako Vunipola – Saracens, England, #787
02. Jamie George – Saracens, England, #819
03. Tadhg Furlong – Leinster, Ireland, #818
04. Alun Wyn Jones – Ospreys, Wales, #761
05. George Kruis – Saracens, England, #817
06. Peter O’Mahony (capt) – Munster, Ireland, #832
07. Sean O’Brien – Leinster, Ireland, #796
08. Taulupe Faletau – Bath Rugby, Wales, #779

16. Ken Owens – Scarlets, Wales, #829
17. Jack McGrath – Leinster, Ireland, #827
18. Kyle Sinckler – Harlequins, England, #814
19. Maro Itoje – Saracens, England, #825
20. Sam Warburton – Cardiff Blues, Wales, #800
21. Rhys Webb – Ospreys, Wales, #820
22. Johnny Sexton – Leinster, Ireland, #791
23. Leigh Halfpenny – Toulon, Wales, #775

And of course if Watson I think it was doesn't give them the ball straight away like a star struck child it's a pen.

LondonTiger wrote:Yet through the tour, Murray has been the quickest at clearing the ball of any of the SHs. Laidlaw is not threatening a place, while Webb is more exciting ball in hand, his delivery has so far been slower and less accurate and his kicking far too long.

NZ did a very good job of getting players over the ball (and on the wrong side) and thus slowed down the ball. Lions were appalling at presenting the ball and clearing out the Kiwi spoilers. It is easy to blame the SH for slow ball - but often the issue is elsewhere.

They are also masters of players coming late from offside obstructing channels, remember one occasion where I think it was both locks running back late at a ruck and blocking anyone getting in for the Lions. It was a regular occurrence and at times they obstructed Murray and nothing was given

No 7&1/2 wrote:And of course if Watson I think it was doesn't give them the ball straight away like a star struck child it's a pen.

No, if you release the ball and it 'accidentally' hits a physio, fan or ball boy and becomes dead
Unless you be a complete prat with it a ref won't give a penalty

So the situation on saturday if Watson doesn't give the nz player the ball it's a pen.

It can be given but is never given so stop being a drama queen about it

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the situation on saturday if Watson doesn't give the nz player the ball it's a pen.

In that situation - yes, as the player had got to Watson before he can do anything with the ball. I thought Watson then went to stand and "block" the lineout and with other players (includeing ABs) congregating there the lineout was forming and no quick throw should have been allowed. As with most SH refs though Peyper seemed to ignore this law.

Simply pointing out a few more people would be more annoyed at Watson marty had he given away a pen. Yes I'm being a drama queen calling them start struck kids for actually knowing the law and not wanting to risk it.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Best should start too, again unfair on Owens but we need to dominate the scrum and as Ferris said on Saturday, he's the best scrimmaging hooker in the world.

Just because Ferris said that, it does not make it true. I like Rory Best, but scrummaging wise there is not much difference between him and Owens. Owens is much more accurate with his line out throwing, which puts him ahead.

But in saying that, I would be just as pleased to see Best start as I would if Owens were to start.

Just because Dowlais said that, it does not make it true

When are the mods going to sort members like you out.

It's just my opinion. Just like it is of the opinion of Ferris about Best.

When are you going to grow up, he was pointing out the flaw in your argument but like a child you throw a hissy fit

precisely

The quick line out is a real bug bear of mine, the ball still has to re-enter the field of play straight.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Simply pointing out a few more people would be more annoyed at Watson marty had he given away a pen. Yes I'm being a drama queen calling them start struck kids for actually knowing the law and not wanting to risk it.

Im well aware of the law Im also well aware that gamesmanship happens every game and a loose interpretation is taken of it, hence why I said a penalty is only given when someone is a complete prat with holding onto the ball and even then its not always given

But handing the ball back and running away and allowing them to take a quick throw is a schoolboy error, I am allowed to call it that?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The quick line out is a real bug bear of mine, the ball still has to re-enter the field of play straight.

It's removing an area of competition. Like the SH just passing to the 8 rather than having a scrum.

You can throw the ball back towards your own goal line on a quick throw.

And no marty I think you're being harsh. He has to give him the ball.

Our pack wasn't good enough. 1-8 need to pretty much take the blame for this.

NZ won because they won the breakdown battle and dominated the gain line IMO.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You can throw the ball back towards your own goal line on a quick throw.

And no marty I think you're being harsh. He has to give him the ball.

And yet many don't, you have to go through the gate at rucks yet the ABs don't. They start on the wrong side of the line until they are told to get back across it

I think you are going by the laws rather than understanding the reality, if you hold onto the ball for too long or throw yourself to the ground and lay on it you'll get penalised but more often that not you won't

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh yes. Danny care. Made Martin Johnson punch himself.

I think that was for a ruck offense and it was Ben Youngs who got the card for kicking it into the crowd. But the general point stands...theres a limit to what you can do.

But its perfectly normal to be cute about it and slow down the return of the ball without getting penalised, and get yourself into a position to block the quick lineout. Its certianly not the norm to just hand it back when theres bags of space.

Like I said I'd rather our players behave like star struck kids than risk giving a stupid pen. We just differ on it.

Justin Marshal was yellow carded for tapping the ball into the crowd during an Ospreys V Blues game a few years back, I was at the game, the ball was in the air in the try area, everybody jumped to catch it, but he swatted it into the crowd and was yellow carded.

LordDowlais wrote:Justin Marshal was yellow carded for tapping the ball into the crowd during an Ospreys V Blues game a few years back, I was at the game, the ball was in the air in the try area, everybody jumped to catch it, but he swatted it into the crowd and was yellow carded.

You don't have to launch it though. Make it look like you've accidently dropped it, pass it to your own man or the ball boy, turn away 'distracted'. It happens every game yet people are going back years for examples of it being penalised.

LordDowlais wrote:Justin Marshal was yellow carded for tapping the ball into the crowd during an Ospreys V Blues game a few years back, I was at the game, the ball was in the air in the try area, everybody jumped to catch it, but he swatted it into the crowd and was yellow carded.

Marshall hasn't played for Ospreys for a decade so hardly a few, he deliberately put the ball into touch so not relevant

If you can't beat them join them,

- pass the ball to our No8 in the scrum.
- take quick lineouts after the lineout has been formed.
- keep doing side entry at rucks, forget going through the gate.
- target their No9 with late hits (not Marler style).
- pass the ball forward as much as possible.
- slow the ball down by lying over it, but make it look accidental.

The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Yep the Ref wasn't fit enough so couldn't see it, and the Touch judges were simply not interested in the game at all.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Justin Marshal was yellow carded for tapping the ball into the crowd during an Ospreys V Blues game a few years back, I was at the game, the ball was in the air in the try area, everybody jumped to catch it, but he swatted it into the crowd and was yellow carded.

Marshall hasn't played for Ospreys for a decade so hardly a few, he deliberately put the ball into touch so not relevant

Typical marty answer.

Stay on Topic.

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Think the first NZ try was a forward pass. Not sure why the ref didnt review it.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Think the first NZ try was a forward pass. Not sure why the ref didnt review it.

Yep. He was asked to review it.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Justin Marshal was yellow carded for tapping the ball into the crowd during an Ospreys V Blues game a few years back, I was at the game, the ball was in the air in the try area, everybody jumped to catch it, but he swatted it into the crowd and was yellow carded.

Marshall hasn't played for Ospreys for a decade so hardly a few, he deliberately put the ball into touch so not relevant

Typical marty answer.

What?

You give a decades old example of something that is not the same. Sorry for pointing out the irrelevance of your post

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Think the first NZ try was a forward pass. Not sure why the ref didnt review it.

Dagg's hands went backwards, ball drifted very slightly forward with momentum. So legal. Probably worth a review though.

Don't think it was reviewed but it was forwards slightly.

Lord D, immediately as you return you're already getting on the wick of everyone. Stop the moaning, stop playing the victim card and either contribute to the forum or find yourself banned permanently.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Think the first NZ try was a forward pass. Not sure why the ref didnt review it.

Dagg's hands went backwards, ball drifted very slightly forward with momentum. So legal. Probably worth a review though.

What momentum? He was running more sideways than anything at the time. I dont buy it. Bad refereeing.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Think the first NZ try was a forward pass. Not sure why the ref didnt review it.

Dagg's hands went backwards, ball drifted very slightly forward with momentum. So legal. Probably worth a review though.

What momentum? He was running more sideways than anything at the time. I dont buy it. Bad refereeing.

His hands definitely go back though - which is what the refs are told to judge on

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Think the first NZ try was a forward pass. Not sure why the ref didnt review it.

Because the interpretation of the laws of the game are very different in the SH to the NH. In SH:

• Forward passes are only given if wildly forward
  
• The offside rules at the breakdown (i.e. coming through gate) are routinely ignored
  
• neck rolls are not punished
  
• blocking lines preventing kick chase are ignored
  

All this is well known. The Lions knew what the ref is like. They should have played accordingly particularly at the breakdown. If the ref allows clearing out from the side don't moan about it just do the same.

The refereeing should be better in the next two tests but I am sure the All Blacks will know that and will adept well.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:His hands definitely go back though - which is what the refs are told to judge on

I don't think they definitely go backwards at all. A difficult call in my opinion, it looks to me like he releases forwards but not a lot in it, the ball goes further forward than you'd expect from momentum of his diagonal run. TMO would probably give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:The forward passes were crazy. Clear forward actions went unpunished so many times, a number of them important.

Think the first NZ try was a forward pass. Not sure why the ref didnt review it.

Dagg's hands went backwards, ball drifted very slightly forward with momentum. So legal. Probably worth a review though.

What momentum? He was running more sideways than anything at the time. I dont buy it. Bad refereeing.

His hands definitely go back though - which is what the refs are told to judge on

Dont look like they go back to me.

if every try was checked strictly for a forward pass there wouldn't be any scored. the refs are told ( foir review) it has to be "clear and obvious" judged on the "direction of the hands"

Scottrf wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:His hands definitely go back though - which is what the refs are told to judge on

I don't think they definitely go backwards at all. A difficult call in my opinion, it looks to me like he releases forwards but not a lot in it, the ball goes further forward than you'd expect from momentum of his diagonal run. TMO would probably give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah good chance the TMO would have given it.

[quote="TJ"]if every try was checked strictly for a forward pass there wouldn't be any scored.  the refs are told ( foir review) it has to be "clear and obvious"  judged on the "direction of the hands"[/quote]

That's a ridiculous comment.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Dagg's hands went backwards, ball drifted very slightly forward with momentum. So legal. Probably worth a review though.

It was very tight that's for sure but I also like to give advantage to the attacking team. When they go for you, you are happy but when they go against you, well... it bites.

My brother and nephew were apoplectic yesterday when we met up about the volume of forward passes missed by Peyper (especially pop passes and offloads). I have to confess though that (watching on my own) the potential issue had not even hit my consciousness.

LondonTiger wrote:My brother and nephew were apoplectic yesterday when we met up about the volume of forward passes missed by Peyper (especially pop passes and offloads). I have to confess though that (watching on my own) the potential issue had not even hit my consciousness.

There were a few of the pop passes that did look forward but given the close proximity think its always going to be hard to tell unless you replay it to death

guns - its true hence the soft interpretation of the laws for the purposes of replay. they did a lot of video analysis and discovered that many passes travel forward due to the momenteum of the players hence the definitions used

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Very true about the momentum argument. There was little to none in the instance of the first try. Should have gone to review but I'd agree it would be close to allowable anyway.

TJ wrote:guns - its true hence the soft interpretation of the laws for the purposes of replay.  they did a lot of video analysis and discovered that many passes travel forward due to the momenteum of the players hence the definitions used

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

He is aware. As he commented on Dagg moving sideways (he was moving slightly forward but I still think the motion was forwards).

There were much more blatant ones though.

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:My brother and nephew were apoplectic yesterday when we met up about the volume of forward passes missed by Peyper (especially pop passes and offloads). I have to confess though that (watching on my own) the potential issue had not even hit my consciousness.

There were a few of the pop passes that did look forward but given the close proximity think its always going to be hard to tell unless you replay it to death

Agreed.

Rugby wise, if you look hard enough (or far enough back) you can probably find an excuse to disallow pretty much any try.

I've seen some kiwis elsewhere online moaning about blocking in SOB's try - IMO that try was a thing of beauty and deserves to stand.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:My brother and nephew were apoplectic yesterday when we met up about the volume of forward passes missed by Peyper (especially pop passes and offloads). I have to confess though that (watching on my own) the potential issue had not even hit my consciousness.

There were a few of the pop passes that did look forward but given the close proximity think its always going to be hard to tell unless you replay it to death

Agreed.

Rugby wise, if you look hard enough (or far enough back) you can probably find an excuse to disallow pretty much any try.

I've seen some kiwis elsewhere online moaning about blocking in SOB's try - IMO that try was a thing of beauty and deserves to stand.

Exactly Pete. Wasn't blatantly obvious but Te'o seemed to bump SBW and affect his ability to reach Williams. I'm ok it wasn't looked at. Was a nice try.

AWJ not playing Tuesday, not even on the bench, does that mean he starts Saturday or is now out of contention altogether. Kruis played 80 Saturday and is benching, AWJ played 47 minutes.

Kruis is the only starter from Saturday in the 23 despite being one of the only forwards to stay on the field and the only lock to play 80. Seems like a punishment .

If AWJ plays after being taken off that early it will be a travesty. What is he doing to Kruis, either Itoje, only played 33 minutes or AWJ should be on the bench. With such a "high quality" bench, most starters are going to have to go the full 80, therefore do not expect many changes.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:AWJ not playing Tuesday, not even on the bench, does that mean he starts Saturday or is now out of contention altogether. Kruis played 80 Saturday and is benching, AWJ played 47 minutes.

Kruis is the only starter from Saturday in the 23 despite being one of the only forwards to stay on the field and the only lock to play 80. Seems like a punishment .

If AWJ plays after being taken off that early it will be a travesty. What is he doing to Kruis, either Itoje, only played 33 minutes or AWJ should be on the bench. With such a "high quality" bench, most starters are going to have to go the full 80, therefore do not expect many changes.

I think Gatland will use the bench this week.

He got some flak for his call-ups, and I think he wanted to protect them from further backlash by trotting them all out last week. In between two test matches, nobody is going to be focused on whether Cory Hill gets a Lions appearance.

Agreed well past it. Just can't see the Lions winning if they stick with AWJ in the 23.

robbo277 wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:AWJ not playing Tuesday, not even on the bench, does that mean he starts Saturday or is now out of contention altogether. Kruis played 80 Saturday and is benching, AWJ played 47 minutes.

Kruis is the only starter from Saturday in the 23 despite being one of the only forwards to stay on the field and the only lock to play 80. Seems like a punishment .

If AWJ plays after being taken off that early it will be a travesty. What is he doing to Kruis, either Itoje, only played 33 minutes or AWJ should be on the bench. With such a "high quality" bench, most starters are going to have to go the full 80, therefore do not expect many changes.

I think Gatland will use the bench this week.

He got some flak for his call-ups, and I think he wanted to protect them from further backlash by trotting them all out last week. In between two test matches, nobody is going to be focused on whether Cory Hill gets a Lions appearance.

Well I hope Finn gets some meaningful time. We need a spark at 10 badly.