• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Bledisloe 2 2023 @ Dunedin 12:35PM Sat 5 Aug

molman

Peter Johnson (47)
This one was sent to me privately, I haven’t checked it but I’m just going to put it up here:

Law 8.21 Penalty Kick: The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed, and a scrum is awarded.

77:36 penalty awarded
77:54 decision to kick for goal
79:05 ball kicked

No grey area in the laws here.

Yet Wallabies get pinged on the attack because we took too long in a lineout

Edit: add to that the Foley one last year which also wasn’t officially on a timer
What was the time taken for Quade's earlier kick? The laws don't allow for a delay due to the tee not coming out quick enough.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
What was the time taken for Quade's earlier kick? The laws don't allow for a delay due to the tee not coming out quick enough.
I didn’t time that one either. They said something about that in the commentary though, apparently they do allow something for a change in tee. The time of the game when that happened was a lot less consequential however - although rules are rules.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
What was your assessment of the AB's @Dan54 ?

I think even with all the depth in NZ, this game did illuminate that the are a couple of players a clear cut above in their positions.
Much the same as you molman, I thought it very much proved the point that AB selectors have things right for game they want team to play. I have rea a number of times in posts that say Stevenson should be in team, he showed in first 8 minutes exactly what Foster said last year, he tends to get caught out with decisions on defence. Also Samisoni at 2 is a bloody good back up hooker to Taylor. There were a few who played ok , but were a gap in ability with options in players, playing the game that the ABs seem to trying to play.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
What was the time taken for Quade's earlier kick? The laws don't allow for a delay due to the tee not coming out quick enough.
The ref said he allowed it because the tee couldn't be found. I was a little surprised, but have no problem , certainly wasn't wasting time as such.
 

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
I'm not entirely convinced on Leota. I need to watch him more closely in this game but some of the detail in his game has been off in the last games.

Kerevi isn't back to his best, but he looks a bit better in each game.

White's box kicks annoyed me in the context of the territory and how little possession we had at that point. Beside Mark's attempts there wasn't much of a chase for them either.
The kick chase has been disappointing - not just the box kicks but also the in game kicks by Kerevi/Petaia.

On the box kicks, Tate still sends them too far to be contestable, and as often as not against the ABs they turn that few metres of ground into real counter attacking opportunities. Nic White is a technically better box kicker but overdoes it too much and in the wrong parts of the field.

When a kick is put in from general play, it is incumbent on the kicker, or someone behind the kicker, to chase hard and put the defence onside. That feature is sometimes missing when either Kerevi or Petaia kick in general play. Again that just opens up attacking opportunities for a side like the ABs.

These are issues that should be easily fixed but we seem to have not progressed at all in recent years.

Kicking aside, the big issue to me is the way our scrum has deteriorated over time. In the first half this game the Wallaby scrum held its own and I don't think there were any tight heads or penalties against us. In the second half, with fresh legs in Slipper, Nonggor, Skelton and Leota (all big men) it went to shit. I have my suspicions about what's going on, but whether I'm right or wrong I hope the coaches can get on to this as a matter of urgency.
 

The Red Baron

Chilla Wilson (44)
We really looked gassed in the second half, kudos to the ABs for shifting the plan and finding a way to win. God damn it.

Backrow looked a lot more balanced in this game. McReight's workrate allowed Hooper to pick and choose his moments, and he was much more physical in contact. Bounced back well from last week. Having said that, we are still really sloppy at the breakdown. Arriving players are coming in too late, and when they get there are failing to shift the opposition.

I also noticed that when players made a break, all too often they would take the tackle instead of assessing their options and seeing who their support was. I saw Kellaway and Frost do this, when both times they had McReight in support. I think Petaia was guilty of it too. They're consistently taking the wrong option when they get through the initial line of defence.
 

molman

Peter Johnson (47)
The kick chase has been disappointing - not just the box kicks but also the in game kicks by Kerevi/Petaia.

On the box kicks, Tate still sends them too far to be contestable, and as often as not against the ABs they turn that few metres of ground into real counter attacking opportunities. Nic White is a technically better box kicker but overdoes it too much and in the wrong parts of the field.

When a kick is put in from general play, it is incumbent on the kicker, or someone behind the kicker, to chase hard and put the defence onside. That feature is sometimes missing when either Kerevi or Petaia kick in general play. Again that just opens up attacking opportunities for a side like the ABs.

These are issues that should be easily fixed but we seem to have not progressed at all in recent years.

Kicking aside, the big issue to me is the way our scrum has deteriorated over time. In the first half this game the Wallaby scrum held its own and I don't think there were any tight heads or penalties against us. In the second half, with fresh legs in Slipper, Nonggor, Skelton and Leota (all big men) it went to shit. I have my suspicions about what's going on, but whether I'm right or wrong I hope the coaches can get on to this as a matter of urgency.
I'd like to see players like Petaia who has good height and historically the ability to get decent loft be used more as a chaser.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
I’m a bit torn about what to do at fullback. Kellaway was OK today, and he’s safe as a house, but unless he gets put in a hole he doesn’t offer a lot in attack. I reckon Eddie needs to have a look at Petaia there in the game v France knowing that Ikitau will be back.
 

dusk

Ron Walden (29)
I’m a bit torn about what to do at fullback. Kellaway was OK today, and he’s safe as a house, but unless he gets put in a hole he doesn’t offer a lot in attack. I reckon Eddie needs to have a look at Petaia there in the game v France knowing that Ikitau will be back.
Kellaway ran some great lines in attack. Where the fuck is this hate coming from. Not sure if you all are aware but our full-back range isn't that big!
 

Joe Blow

Peter Sullivan (51)
Skelton has been pretty good, but not as busy as Philip or Swain would be IMHO. He has special skills and is a big lump so no doubt he goes. I wouldn’t mind getting a look at the other two.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
Kellaway ran some great lines in attack. Where the fuck is this hate coming from. Not sure if you all are aware but our full-back range isn't that big!
Where precisely is the hate in my post, and the lack of options at fullback was the whole point of it. However, I’ll acknowledge that Kellaway runs great lines, and he has proper rugby smarts. Petaia put in some great footwork, maybe not as intelligent but needs more space maybe?
 
Last edited:

dusk

Ron Walden (29)
Where precisely is the hate in my post, and the lack of options at fullback was the whole point of it.
Wasn't directly addressed to u so my bad, but he's clearly the best option at full-back currently and I don't see him being a safe choice as a negative thing, he's also proved himself as an attacking threat in multiple test matches last year including against the All Blacks. Wright is a better full-back at times but his mistakes have single-handedly cost us important matches. In fact, I'd argue he was probably a touch better than Jordan today.
 

stillmissit

Desmond Connor (43)
I think Slipper is part of the problem. His side went backwards in his first scrum. But is there any evidence that Will Skelton is effective at scrum time? He was pushing Pone when the TH side went to pieces. After that, Zane of course leaves a lot to be desired at scrum time but maybe he's not helped either by having Skelton behind him. It was the TH side that failed in the last scrum that gave the ABs the penalty for the win.

The final score nevertheless means nothing to me. The Wallabies were very competitive for 80 minutes. That is a huge improvement. The scrum is the main area of concern leading into the RWC.
Last week the pundits here were saying how strong Skelton was in the scrum and I agree. Havent watched the game yet and will look at it closely. Nic Bishop's analysis will be interesting this week.
 

stillmissit

Desmond Connor (43)
Also, referee’s these days seem to penalise a scrum just for being terrible. The All blacks had a dominant scrum, but the Wallabies weren’t doing anything illegal. It’s not illegal to go backwards
No but is they have the ball and you go backwards it's a penalty these days - no idea why!
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
No but is they have the ball and you go backwards it's a penalty these days - no idea why!
That’s TTs whole point. I think it needs as much attention as some as the other officiating anomalies that have been pointed out. The referee needs to pinpoint an infringement, but they rarely do, they just throw their arm up in the direction of the dominant scrum. In some cases there are genuine safety concerns but a short arm rather than just gifting the dominant team some points is probably a happy medium.
 

teach

Trevor Allan (34)
That’s TTs whole point. I think it needs as much attention as some as the other officiating anomalies that have been pointed out. The referee needs to pinpoint an infringement, but they rarely do, they just throw their arm up in the direction of the dominant scrum. In some cases there are genuine safety concerns but a short arm rather than just gifting the dominant team some points is probably a happy medium.
I think they are using rule 11(d) of the Global law trial:
All players’ binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty.
Once a scrum is going backward, the reversing team's scrum falls to pieces and so do the binds. Certainly rewards a dominant scrum.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
I think they are using rule 11(d) of the Global law trial:
All players’ binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty.
Once a scrum is going backward, the reversing team's scrum falls to pieces and so do the binds. Certainly rewards a dominant scrum.
Ok so they have invented a law around it now, albeit a trial. I still think the sanction should be a short arm, alleviates any safety concerns whilst still giving said team the advantage but not gifting them points.
 

Th0mo

Allen Oxlade (6)
I think they are using rule 11(d) of the Global law trial:
All players’ binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty.
Once a scrum is going backward, the reversing team's scrum falls to pieces and so do the binds. Certainly rewards a dominant scrum.
Pretty much this plus angling in, standing up or wheeling all options. Most of the time the reversing and wheeling is more pronounced so the ref has their pick of infringements. Last scrum Wallabies went back a bit and the scrum wheeled slowly before just going past 90. They may not have clearly infringed but they like to reward perceived dominance with the prior scrums counting against them.

The advantage was pretty standard. Yes they gained 25m but the ref correctly surmised the ABs would want the penalty and opportunity to kick for goal to take the lead so advantage hadn’t accrued. Only change I noticed this year is you don’t get 20 phases and they will end advantage claiming it has accrued (I think prematurely for goal line penalties) or call no advantage and go back before play has broken down (the more correct option where the free swing is limited to say 5 or 6 phases).
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
Pretty much this plus angling in, standing up or wheeling all options. Most of the time the reversing and wheeling is more pronounced so the ref has their pick of infringements. Last scrum Wallabies went back a bit and the scrum wheeled slowly before just going past 90. They may not have clearly infringed but they like to reward perceived dominance with the prior scrums counting against them.

The advantage was pretty standard. Yes they gained 25m but the ref correctly surmised the ABs would want the penalty and opportunity to kick for goal to take the lead so advantage hadn’t accrued. Only change I noticed this year is you don’t get 20 phases and they will end advantage claiming it has accrued (I think prematurely for goal line penalties) or call no advantage and go back before play has broken down (the more correct option where the free swing is limited to say 5 or 6 phases).
That’s the thing though, unless they have done something illegal they shouldn’t be penalised. It doesn’t matter what ‘they’ ‘like to do’, thats what the laws are for.

Your other paragraph does provide a bit of clarity on the last penalty though. The 30-40m advantage on the previous one was beyond ridiculous.
 
Top