2018 Super Rugby Semi Final - Lions vs Waratahs - Saturday 28 July @11.05pm AEST

[Dan54]

Being in a position to see something and actually doing something about it is an entirely different thing. Under the laws it's quite clear regarding players standing up. I'm not sure why Jackson feels it is not. Same with props putting their hand down repeatedly. Why do you think it's OK?

I don't think anything Ok Cyclo, it is also clear in the laws you have to scrum straight so as not to cause players to either collapse or pop up, I saw when I played a few times where a prop/hooker would make a downward motion with his upper body, and as soon as opposing player was higher than him to prevent collapsing, just came up under him!. Why do you assume Jackson feels anything is ok or not, the point I was making a ref standing next to a scrum would have a lot more idea why a scrum either collapses or someone get popped out than us seeing it from a distance on tv. And as for the people that say Jackson or any ref doesn't know what happens in scrum because they haven't played there would then I assume think that forward refs can't decide what the backs are doing. It's all rubbish, if you read anything you will know that Jackson, Peyper and Gus are rated top 3 refs by refs and that is with input from Super coaches who I suspect know a fair bit more about what happens in a game than viewers on TV!

 

[Dan54]

As usual, Dan puts everyone commenting about a referee in the "blaming the ref for the loss" corner, which was not what I was doing. The notion that referee performances should not be critiqued is a nonsense. Jackson was all over the shop.

And as I said I was incorrect to assume that Cyclo, but I also stand by my comment that first you should maybe of applauded the very good performance of the Lions team, otherwise you can come across rightly or wrongly as having very little grace!!

 

[drewprint]

I haven’t seen any one yet who hasn’t said, almost right away, that the better more deserving team won.

 

[Dan54]

I haven’t seen any one yet who hasn’t said, almost right away, that the better more deserving team won.

I suggest you go back through the thread and see how it reads drew, and come back and tell me how many people have applauded the great games by Kwagga Smith, Malcolm Marx or the fantastic try by Dyantyi, and then tell me how many have found it easier to bag the ref!!! And even count the people who have bagged the ref with the old 'The Lions deserved to win but the ref gave these unfair decisions against us', so as to leave that little doubt.

 

[Gnostic]

My view on the game might upset a few as usual:-
1) The Tahs workrate forwards did their workrate but without effect it is meaningless. It is good to make the tackles but if they concede the gain line by meters every time and a dominant tackle is rare it really makes the battle for possession a matter of an exceptional jackle or a matter of outright linespeed. Without Hooper to lead the linespeed (and some dominant tackles) the Lions with a very well drilled ruck game denied any real chances for jackline. So the Tahs struggled to stop the Lions possession relying on their mistakes.
2) Holloway played well and was certainly a step up from Staniforth in all aspects of performance, that said he is still not a secondrower that can really hold his own against good lineout forwards. I had hoped Hanigan would step up and start to fill a role that Mowen had for the Tahs and Brumbies, but he just hasn't and that left the Tahs with only Simmons as a go to jumper and he is getting double teamed often and the Tahs are just getting unusable or scrappy ball.
3) Fitzpatrick - He has outperformed for a large part of the season, but the Tahs seriously must recruit a second hooker with presence, it is fine to have workrate, but when up against truly dominant Hookers like Marx or a couple of the NZ units (and next year I am thinking the Reds and Rebels Hookers) this workrate is overwhelmed by effectiveness at set piece and around the field and add to that even the alleged superior lineout was not to be seen in the last few games.
4) To win a game you have to score more points that the opposition quite simply and this year the Tahs went for a complete attack plan with the lightweight workrate pack and what I regard as a weak centre/10 axis defensively, but extremely strong in attack. Foley is a good defender and the stats back up that view, whilst not dominant, but then few 10s are. Beale is sometimes a good defender and pulls of some miraculous tackles and strips of the ball, but on too many occasions the space between these two players is exploited easily, and whilst Rona has also defended well he is no Mortlock or Kurindrani to shut down attacking moves. If Gibson signs again he has some hard thinking to do regarding playing style and recruiting to fix the defence.

The Tahs were not really in this game after the first 15 minutes. The comments regarding the referee penalising the Tahs so often in the second half are off the mark. Apart from a couple of scrums where I thought the Lions stood up I thought were spot on and the Tahs were infringing as they tired and there could have been a yellow earlier than the blatant one Fitzpatrick gave away.

As for the Blog piece comment about the Tahs ruing not playing this at home, I doubt the outcome would have been any different, the Lions made the advantage line with relative ease, their lineout functioned well and apart from one beautiful counter the Tahs maul defence is pretty average at best.

 

[cyclopath]

And as I said I was incorrect to assume that Cyclo, but I also stand by my comment that first you should maybe of applauded the very good performance of the Lions team, otherwise you can come across rightly or wrongly as having very little grace!!

Well, on here and on social media I acknowledged the Lions were clearly the better team. Not sure how much better I could put it.
I, and quite a few others, thought Jackson had a poor game. Did the Tahs lose because of it? No. Does that mean it should be whitewashed and not discussed? No. And no amount of your repetitive posts to that effect will convince me otherwise. I get it, you feel refereeing is an untouchable subject. It isn't.

 

[Dan54]

Well, on here and on social media I acknowledged the Lions were clearly the better team. Not sure how much better I could put it.
I, and quite a few others, thought Jackson had a poor game. Did the Tahs lose because of it? No. Does that mean it should be whitewashed and not discussed? No. And no amount of your repetitive posts to that effect will convince me otherwise. I get it, you feel refereeing is an untouchable subject. It isn't.

Yep well, I see you acknowledged that the Lions deserved to win, and I understand you and others were upset with some of Jacksons decisions (against the Tahs), but perhaps I could suggest if the very good play by both teams is commented om first by anyone , I then am more likely to see them as someone who is a rugby fan first and perhaps not just an excuse maker. It not really aimed just at you Cyclo, but all posters, actually watch and enjoy the game of rugby,not just sit there and see what decisions the ref makes against your team, Saturdays game was bloody good by 2 very good teams, and not a lot seem to have noticed.

 

[Derpus]

Dan, you've done more to tank this thread than anyone complaining about the ref.

Anyway, what the fuck am i going to do at work with no Aussie rugby for weeks? work?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Derpus, get on the red n black bus. Its dependable, runs to timetable, has the hardest working engine and can overtake on the freeway.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Dan54 - I think you are barking up the wrong tree - all the posts I have read have clearly acknowledged Lions deserved the win.

So what you are suggesting that is not enough and they must go into detail about the specific good performances of individual lions players to prove we acknowledge lions were better is ludicrous. Most on here are Oz rugby supporters so hence are not as familiar or more focussed on all the good players of teams from other countries and in case you have not picked up interest in South African rugby players is even less so for Oz rugby supporters. So yes why an oz rugby supporter can state Lions were better and then focus on where the Tahs players fell down is perfectly reasonable. Equally where there is a poor ref performance but again all have acknowledged it would not have influenced the outcome of the match as clear to all it seems Lions were the better team.

I generally see the same for NZ rugby supporters on here that they will be gracious to acknowledge where oz teams play better but again focus on where NZ players played poorly rather than where opposition oz players played well. That is the reality of fans who support their own teams is it not...I think you are confusing the fact you may be a little different as you are a New Zealander who lives in oz so perhaps has a little more interest in Oz rugby players.

 

[Up the Guts]

Derpus, get on the red n black bus. Its dependable, runs to timetable, has the hardest working engine and can overtake on the freeway.

And for the first time since 2014 we have a Wallaby in the Super Rugby final assuming Samu gets on.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I don't think anything Ok Cyclo, it is also clear in the laws you have to scrum straight so as not to cause players to either collapse or pop up, I saw when I played a few times where a prop/hooker would make a downward motion with his upper body, and as soon as opposing player was higher than him to prevent collapsing, just came up under him!. Why do you assume Jackson feels anything is ok or not, the point I was making a ref standing next to a scrum would have a lot more idea why a scrum either collapses or someone get popped out than us seeing it from a distance on tv. And as for the people that say Jackson or any ref doesn't know what happens in scrum because they haven't played there would then I assume think that forward refs can't decide what the backs are doing. It's all rubbish, if you read anything you will know that Jackson, Peyper and Gus are rated top 3 refs by refs and that is with input from Super coaches who I suspect know a fair bit more about what happens in a game than viewers on TV!

Dan, I do think you are somewhat intolerant of critical posts about referee performances and are inclined to write them off as being from sore losers. But I do have some support for your contention that things happen in scrums that are missed or overlooked by many onlookers.

Take the scrum being complained of here where the Lions' prop was popped. A close look at the action will disclose that Robertson was actually boring in (again) under the THP and forcing him up. It was at least as cynical (successful?) as the way the English front row operated in times past. IIRC Jackson just reset the scrum, but in fact Robertson should have been penalised in that instance.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Samu likely to start with Jordan Taufua out for 12 weeks with a broken arm and surgery planned

 

[barbarian]

In the end, the game said it all about the Waratahs season. Flashes of brilliance, but ultimately they lacked the firepower to compete with a top team for 80 minutes.

They needed an ounce of luck which just didn't come. Or, to put it better, they needed the Lions to make mistakes they just didn't make. The Highlanders opened the door with a dumb yellow card followed by an error-riddled 15 minute stretch, but the Lions played an almost error-free second half.

Meanwhile it was the Tahs who made the critical errors. Too many dumb penalties, including a dumb yellow card. Dropped balls and isolated runners in the opposition half. Set piece problems.

Ultimately the Tahs did pretty well but were beaten by the better side. When the game slowed down after the frenetic first 30 they didn't have the muscle to get over the gainline, and we really missed Hooper's contributions.

It's obviously a discussion for the 2019 Tahs thread, but it was a good game to show the potential of this team, but also it's current weaknesses. We are crying out for a bruising 8 or lock to vary our game when we need to play tighter. You can't win a title when Tom Robertson is your primary ball carrier.
.

 

[barbarian]

Take the scrum being complained of here where the Lions' prop was popped. A close look at the action will disclose that Robertson was actually boring in (again) under the THP and forcing him up. It was at least as cynical (successful?) as the way the English front row operated in times past. IIRC Jackson just reset the scrum, but in fact Robertson should have been penalised in that instance.

BR - when was the last time you saw a prop penalised for boring in? It never happens any more, not sure why.

I don't want to get into the Jacko discussions, but the refereeing of the scrums in that game reminded me of a recent discussion in the refereeing thread.

Scrums are moving towards silliness now, where the dominant side will look to milk a penalty at every chance, and the refs are slightly too keen to provide them. It's not about restarting play, or setting up your backline.

Jacko blew a penalty which summed this up perfectly. The Tahs scrum was going backwards, sure, but they stayed straight and together. The Lions props popped up eventually and Jacko blew them a penalty for their dominance. But had the Tahs done anything wrong? I didn't see anything that suggested they did. Steve Hoiles picked that up too - a scrum is allowed to go backwards.

It's getting to this binary point where dominance=penalties and that's it. I don't hate that approach necessarily (it's better than the random penalty generator it used to be) but I'm not sure we have the balance right.

And I've thought that all season, not just because the Tahs got rolled in the scrum this week.
.

 

[Derpus]

Scrum infringements should just be short-arms unless they are dangerous.

A player losing his bind or slipping over doesn't seem like it ought to be worth 3 points or 60 metres of territory (at altitude).

 

[Rebels3]

In all honesty, minus the Staniforth maul decision, Jacko did a great job. The scrum penalties were more based on the feel of the game. One side was on roller skates, the other had complete domination. If your scrum back pedals several meters even without infringing you deserve to be called against.

 

[Braveheart81]

As great as he has been for the Wallabies, this match perfectly illustrated why Sekope Kepu should now be rated as third in the THP stakes. .

A week after he was one of the best players on the park in a quarter final.

I like that you don't give up Brumby Runner, but Kepu will be in the Wallaby 23 next month and probably wearing the 3 jersey.

 

[Bandar]

In all honesty, minus the Staniforth maul decision, Jacko did a great job. The scrum penalties were more based on the feel of the game. One side was on roller skates, the other had complete domination. If your scrum back pedals several meters even without infringing you deserve to be called against.

Wrong sorry - I'm a prop and love a good scrum but the reality of the situation is they are a method of restarting the game. If you throw a bad line out but still win it should you be penalised??? If you can get the ball out of the scrum without collapsing but lose 10 metres why do the opposition deserve a shot at 3 points.

 

[formerflanker]

In all honesty, minus the Staniforth maul decision, Jacko did a great job. The scrum penalties were more based on the feel of the game. One side was on roller skates, the other had complete domination. If your scrum back pedals several meters even without infringing you deserve to be called against.

The Laws of the game don't call for penalties against a back peddling scrum. There are enough disadvantages for that team as it is - flankers unable to sprint off the side of the scrum, loss of field position, backs moving backwards and slow to move up in defence, and potential to commit an actual misdemeanour like popping or hands in the scrum.
The "vibe" of the game doesn't cut mustard.