The breakdown...

After rewatching test 1, one thing stands out as a massive difference between teams!

We can argue player selection all day long (Lets not, please), but it won't matter unless you get to grips with slowing down all black ball.

The first 10 minutes the average length of the ruck was:

New Zealand 2.6 seconds

Lions 4.1 seconds

Ball was evenly split at 53/47 in the lions favour I think, however the stats may be skewed by Lions options of setting a slow box kick chase a few more times. However this changed little in the next 10 mins

NZ 2.2
Lions 4.3

Between 10 and 20 mins there were a large amount of risky play from NZ, it got more risky as their lead grew:

- 10 mins, good lions D in midfield, AWJ steps over to jackal, SBW from the lions side of the ruck pulls his shirt back, allowing the first clear out man to wipe him out with ease.

- 11mins SOB goes over the ball to jackal, Retalicks first bump doesn't get rid of him so he wraps the neck and twists his body to move.

- 11 minutes, Franks fails to remove George so wraps his neck and drags jim to the floor

- 12 minutes AWJ in a good position, bumped from a very lateral side entry by Taylor

- 15 minute, George wrapped up in tackle, tackler never releases as Kruis hits lower back and falls away, call of 'we got it' as Retalick rolls off his feet on wrong side, Moody drives from behind him, and Read hits up the side and takes out a lions support player.

- 17 mins great double hit by AWJ and Vunipola, Vunipola in a great jackle position Whitelock hits him laterally from the side to drophim instantly

- 17 minutes as Farrell makes a tackle Davies steps in to threaten a jackal, Crotty tackles him away from the contact area, 3 metres back and dumps him on his back

- 17 mins 5 metres out AWJ tackles Read, first clearing player dives over the ruck off his feet, rolls and 3 defends are scrambling to get back into the D line around him.


This isn't just to whinge about SH interpretation at the breakdown clearly assisting one team, it was to find out why NZ's ruck time in the first 20 minutes was so much faster than the lions, and IMO the answer is simple.

NZ players solve problems, they find space to run into or at 90% of the time, they have developed a nous over years of playing of not getting hit straight up or by numbers. Footwork, before, during and after receiving the ball is incredible, and far more active than Lions players, who man for man made tackles with lazy legs (Not driving of the legs, staying on feet and in the game), and having to go down behind, or on top of the ball carrier, making them easy to clear, or ignore when approaching a ruck.

We HAVE to restructure our junior game, too many of these elite players run straight easily read lines, they never change direction, pace or angle, and therefore are easy to target and drop. I suspect that the majority of forwards in the pro game started life as big ball carrying number 8's at junior level, and were highlighted because of their physical prowess and ball carrying abilities by low quality selection policies, then taught to play position specific skills when in academies, this I also find infuriating!!!

Can anyone tell me the history of the lions forwards, I think Warburton started life as an 8 didn't he? Falatau was always an 8? I think I heard someone once tell me O Brien played 8 at junior levels...

The reffing of the breakdown is going to change in the next 2 games so it will be interesting to see if we suddenly 'improve' though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The reffing of the breakdown is going to change in the next 2 games so it will be interesting to see if we suddenly 'improve' though.

I still expect us to lose but the refereeing of the breakdown should be better. SH refs do not seem to have heard of the gate or that neck rolls are illegal.

The 'gate' is a huge issue, and was something that players complained about verbally regularly throughout the game. There are a couple of really strong cases too!!!

I hate the way it'S coached from the very bottom to the top academies in the UK, it's a constant clash when I've refused to coach it the 'right way'!

This is all avoiding the issue that the Lions are poorly coached (and selected) and NZ are a much better side. The superior NH sides like England are Ireland would give NZ a good game. Sadly, the Lions Teat results are going to get increasingly bleak in the next two weeks. Yesterday's result flattered the Lions, even without NZ getting out of first gear.

We tend to ignore the point if sport and the lions. Entertainment. Were you not entertained!

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The reffing of the breakdown is going to change in the next 2 games so it will be interesting to see if we suddenly 'improve' though.

I still expect us to lose but the refereeing of the breakdown should be better. SH refs do not seem to have heard of the gate or that neck rolls are illegal.

Plenty of un-penalised neck rolls in NH rugby too this season - seems to have been de-emphasised with focus shifting to high tackles.

I saw neck rolls from the Lions players as well. Even Murray did one and when he realised what he was doing he released the neck pretty quickly. I take any of this stuff whinging about the ABs or the SH referee not being up to standard with a grain of salt. The French referees are loose cannons so that'll play into the Lions hands. But the ABs won't fall into the same trap as the Crusaders did. We'll just need to make sure the wacky French guy understands what a sacked lineout/maul and an offside defensive line looks like.

Like the wacky saffer knew who pays his bills right?
Like I said in the game thread, the abs are the best side in the world and that includes cheating. I've got no problem with that and actually respect the way they didn't roll away from the breakdown etc. There's no point complaining you just have to hit them harder or drag them away from the ruck.
It was a shame that the saffer reffed the game because he's not up to the highest standard but as I think everyone accepts the better side on the day won which was the right result.

Gatland trying to bully the referee again with some nonsense about the ABs. The guy, just like his dodgy screaming-like-girls lineout is underhanded. With an attitude like that let us pray he gets no where near an ABs position. We want people with integrity not cry babies and shysters.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11881837

Cyril wrote:This is all avoiding the issue that the Lions are poorly coached (and selected) and NZ are a much better side. The superior NH sides like England are Ireland would give NZ a good game. Sadly, the Lions Teat results are going to get increasingly bleak in the next two weeks. Yesterday's result flattered the Lions, even without NZ getting out of first gear.

I don't agree. The coaches only have a few weeks to build a side to beat NZ in NZ. Not sure there's any coach who could do that. NZ have all that talent but also years to blend as a team.

The All Blacks get away with side entry as I generally believe the Refs don't see it as the kit is black so they just blend in, the Lions wearing bright red stick out like a sore thumb.

Sarries do it to as do Wasps, Exeter and Bath in their black Euro kit.

was I watching a different game? LIons hardly contested the breakdown hence NZ got easy quick ball and I didn't see a single neck roll - and the only side entry I saw was from the lions!

TJ, that is very gracious of you to say something like that. I think the ABs game plan in the weekend was a master stroke because Gatland may be in two minds about how to approach the game this week. Flooding the breakdown will leave gaps which the ABs could exploit. Or play the same way and hope the ABs just had a good day.

ebop wrote:Gatland trying to bully the referee again with some nonsense about the ABs. The guy, just like his dodgy screaming-like-girls lineout is underhanded. With an attitude like that let us pray he gets no where near an ABs position. We want people with integrity not cry babies and shysters.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11881837

Hansen replies (lol)

"He's implying that we're trying to hurt the guy. Rugby is about playing within the laws. In this case we're trying to charge the kick down and or tackle him. Both those things are legal - that's what the game is built around.

"Just because (Murray) is one of their key players, he doesn't have the right to go around the park without being charged down or tackled. After such a great test match, on Monday (Gatland) comes out and is saying something like that."

When asked by Devlin what he thought Gatland's motivation was, Hansen said: "I don't know, I guess he might be a bit desperate or something. I don't know why he would be saying it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11882032

On the note of screaming like girls in the lineout peyper had a word straight away and threatened to penalise the lions if they continued. Anyone know why in relation to the laws?

Yeah that was well played by Peyper whom had a very good game. Maybe there is no law against it but it is unbecoming and brings the game into disrepute. The ABs and other SR teams could easily do the same but they won't stoop so low. It's just really odd that top internationals in the B/I Lions think that it is an acceptable thing to do. Very bizarre.

But serious answers are welcome. Not aware of a law myself but there's loads of them!

That was serious. Can't you see it? Why would there need to be a law against it for it to not be ok in your book?

For me there needs to be a law against it or its legal. Otherwise it would just be how the ref wants the game to go each game. Was a serious question anyway.

There's no law saying you need to shake an opponents hand after a game but everyone does. If you refused to, you'd just look like a poor sport. Kind of like what the Lions look like when they scream and gesticulate like idiots so their opponent can't hear their own lineout calls. Can't believe you think that's ok and can't believe you don't mind your players looking like right clowns in the process. Is there no sense of shame anymore?

And if that's the case then the lions could look like por sportsmen but the question I asked related to what law was being broken. I'm not aware of it obviously neither are you, maybe there's a ref on here who knows more?

Fair enough

Didn't take long

10.4(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship.
A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

Sanction: Penalty kick

So it's fair to say the French referees on this tour don't know the laws. Should be kicked off.

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me there needs to be a law against it or its legal. Otherwise it would just be how the ref wants the game to go each game. Was a serious question anyway.

There is no specific law against it as far as I am aware but the ref has every right to put a stop to it if he feels that it is going against the spirit of the game. I am not sure if he can penalise or even card a player for this. Personally I do not like it and I would like to see a rule developed for referee discretion in this regard.

Wrong

There is a law eirebilly

Yeah, if Peyper was going to penalise the Lions for shouting then there needs to be a law broken I guess. But I don't see the need for the shouting. What are they doing anyway? Trying to put off the opposition hooker? Daft.

And I don't think that would cover it as those laws are in relation to dangerous play and misconduct. Does it mean you will see players calling for the ball penalised in open play for instance. No. Hence I wanted someone who knew as you've admitted you don't ebop.

ebop wrote:Didn't take long

10.4(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship.
A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

Sanction: Penalty kick

So it's fair to say the French referees on this tour don't know the laws. Should be kicked off.

The Haka could be seen as not good sportsmanship to be fair! Card them all!

Misconduct 7.5

Yelling at the opposition when they are trying to talk to someone in their team is very rude. Very very rude and obnoxious and unsportsmanlike. Kind of like misconduct.

No it wouldn't be against that law. It will be interesting to see how it's reffed this weekend and if wr come out to clarify the issue.

Now there's a question mark over the games that the Lions have won where they were unsanctioned for poor sportsmanship under law 10.4(m). Those dastardly French referees were letting the Lions get away with murder! I'm a bit annoyed at that now because those SR teams were clearly disrupted by the tactic and lost a lot of ball.

I'm not a fan of the shouting, ebop, but there seems to be a bit of double standards here.  The Lions are told to harden the f*** up when they complain of incidents like the BOD one, about Murray being targeted for some rough treatment, etc., yet here we have NZ complaining about players shouting and being rude!  HTFU!

But I agree that shouting is not great.  I think what they're probably doing is trying to get the opposition to hurry up if it's done when the hooker is chatting with his team mates. Deliberately time wasting by going off to talk to players is a but unsporting conduct too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We tend to ignore the point if sport and the lions. Entertainment. Were you not entertained!

I think that's utter nonsense.

Sport is sport. The point of sport is for it to be a sporting competition. If people derive entertainment from that, great.

If Rugby ever get's to the point of putting entertainment before two teams trying to win then it's finished.

The point of sport for the spectators is enjoyment. If you're really sitting watching rugby and only gEttington entertained if your team wins you need to.find something else to do.

Cool ebop so we can cancel Saturdays result if we don't like some of peyper decisons; good to know!

Come on griff, you know it's just a bit of banter. Didn't see anything wrong with the treatment Murray got. A shove from memory was about it. No big deal. Gatland is hamming it up. But losing lineout ball can be critical to ones chances. Yeah, the BOD thing was terrible, agree with that.

ebop wrote:Come on griff, you know it's just a bit of banter. Didn't see anything wrong with the treatment Murray got. A shove from memory was about it. No big deal. Gatland is hamming it up. But losing lineout ball can be critical to ones chances. Yeah, the BOD thing was terrible, agree with that.

All I'm saying is that it's a tough sport, with teams playing hard. We've got high tackles, neck rolls, big hits, body slams, spear tackles (in rugby in general, not saying we've had these in the Lions series). Complaining about shouting and 'being rude' therefore sounds a bit weak in the grand scheme of things!

Well I'm only making a big deal about it griff not because it's rude but because I want our team(s) to have the best opportunity possible to win their own lineout ball. That should be obvious.

TJ wrote:was I watching a different game?  LIons hardly contested the breakdown hence NZ got easy quick ball and I didn't see a single neck roll - and the only side entry I saw was from the lions!

We did get away with a couple of neck rolls TJ. It's a Peyper (& SA ref in general) blind spot - Ireland got away with 4 or 5 of them in Dublin last year.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The point of sport for the spectators is enjoyment.  If you're really sitting watching rugby and only gEttington entertained if your team wins you need to.find something else to do.

No one said that.

Not sure any team is legal in a breakdown so we are basically saying NZ did it better.

They should know how the referee interprets things, and can see it happening during the game so the the players lack the ability to read the game and adapt.

I did. Above the point is to be entertained. If you're not being entertained there's no point watching.

ebop wrote:

ebop wrote:Gatland trying to bully the referee again with some nonsense about the ABs. The guy, just like his dodgy screaming-like-girls lineout is underhanded. With an attitude like that let us pray he gets no where near an ABs position. We want people with integrity not cry babies and shysters.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11881837

Hansen replies (lol)

"He's implying that we're trying to hurt the guy. Rugby is about playing within the laws. In this case we're trying to charge the kick down and or tackle him. Both those things are legal - that's what the game is built around.

"Just because (Murray) is one of their key players, he doesn't have the right to go around the park without being charged down or tackled. After such a great test match, on Monday (Gatland) comes out and is saying something like that."

When asked by Devlin what he thought Gatland's motivation was, Hansen said: "I don't know, I guess he might be a bit desperate or something. I don't know why he would be saying it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11882032

Today's Times (I would post a pic of the article but the hosting-an-image site V2's software uses is blocked at work) quotes English ref Rob Debney as saying he saw nothing clearly and obviously penalisable on Murray that was missed by the ref. He contrasts that with how Glasgow clearly targeted Murray back in January as an example of where penalties should be coming

No 7&1/2 wrote:I did. Above the point is to be entertained.  If you're not being entertained there's no point watching.

No-one said that the only way to be entertained is when your team wins.

And if you're not being entertained, I agree, there is no point watching. But that doesn't contradict what I said, nor does it reinforce your point.

Athletes compete, spectators who happen to find that competition entertaining will watch.

When athletes start to entertain instead of compete, the game is in trouble.

ebop wrote:Wrong

There is a law eirebilly

No, that is your interpretation of the rules, does not mean you are correct...

eirebilly wrote:

ebop wrote:Wrong

There is a law eirebilly

No, that is your interpretation of the rules, does not mean you are correct...

Perhaps it just matched Peyper's interpretation


I saw an article yesterday where the Hurricanes talked about how they've expanded their use of line-out hand signals as a way of getting around the Lions' shouting

eirebilly wrote:

ebop wrote:Wrong

There is a law eirebilly

No, that is your interpretation of the rules, does not mean you are correct...

But football has verbal distraction as part of their misconduct rules, so it's not much of a stretch. It seems to me that if Peyper judges it against the laws and spirit of the game, it is. If the next ref doesn't, it isn't.

eirebilly wrote:

ebop wrote:Wrong

There is a law eirebilly

No, that is your interpretation of the rules, does not mean you are correct...

Clearly the French referees don't know much about the spirit of the game and sportsmanlike behaviour

My comment comes from people complaining that the lions concept is dead as it isn't a level playing field etc etc. The lions is dead when people aren't entertained anymore.