New Zealand v Wallabies, Eden Park, Sat 22nd October

[Inside Shoulder]

I think you got the quote backwards ..

That observation makes my point.

 

[smartcooky]

Dane doesn't have to 'hold his line'.

Yes, he has the right to hold his line.. What he doesn't have the right to do is what he did, which was to change his direction to intentionally run into a defender.

As a support player behind the ball he has every right to attempt to get in a better position to receive a pass

You're right, he does, and that better position was inside Henry Speight's running line not outside it. He was already inside that running line, so the intelligent thing to do was to ignore Savea and stay his course. If Savea did manage to ankle tap Speight, Haylett-Petty would be right there to receive the inside pass, and score under the sticks.

If Haylett-Petty was genuinely trying to run around the back of Henry Speight then he doesn't know his job as a winger and support runner. Not only is he nowhere near fast enough to catch a speedster like Speight, he would also be giving himself extra distance to run.

 

[KOB1987]

If Savea had no chance of a dive and ankle tap
why did the Wallaby run into him ?

He was trying to get himself into a position in the event that he need to receive a pass. Which he is 100% entitled to do. For that to be a correct ruling Savea needed to be a chance to effect the tackle and no matter how many times you watch the replay and how many different angles, never can you conclude that was the case. It stank.

 

[All Black Magic]

He was trying to get himself into a position in the event that he need to receive a pass. Which he is 100% entitled to do.

I don't buy that for one minute.
Savea was pushed off balance.
That's why he complained and rightly so.

 

[KOB1987]

I don't buy that for one minute.
Savea was pushed off balance.
That's why he complained and rightly so.

No he complained to try to milk a penalty.

 

[smartcooky]

OFF TOPIC

I am having some problems with forum. I'm having to post them here because I cannot find a "feedback" forum or a webmaster link. If a mod could please move this to an appropriate forum I would appreciate it.

1. I can't start a topic, I can only post replies to existing topics - at the bottom of every forum page it says "(You have insufficient privileges to post here.)

2. I am having a problem with the formatting of the preview page

The crap on the right overlaps the previewed post and there seems to be no way to remove it. Most other forums I use have a little double arrow icon that will allow the user to tuck the panel away. If there is one here, I can't find it

 

[KOB1987]

Yes, he has the right to hold his line.. What he doesn't have the right to do is what he did, which was to change his direction to intentionally run into a defender.



You're right, he does, and that better position was inside Henry Speight's running line not outside it. He was already inside that running line, so the intelligent thing to do was to ignore Savea and stay his course. If Savea did manage to ankle tap Speight, Haylett-Petty would be right there to receive the inside pass, and score under the sticks.

If Haylett-Petty was genuinely trying to run around the back of Henry Speight then he doesn't know his job as a winger and support runner. Not only is he nowhere near fast enough to catch a speedster like Speight, he would also be giving himself extra distance to run.

Are you lot bored with the Silver Fern?

The highlighted part is all that matters. It doesn't matter one iota where you think the better position was, you weren't on the field. And FWIW it's worth I've just watched the replay of the incident again and the better position was definitely outside Speight, all the defenders were coming across inside of him. If you want to see it again for yourself just watch the Sky news channel, they will be replaying it all day.

As for the last pass ruling at the end of the game, it was clearly forward and the one before it was as well. Owens was not going to let Veldsman embarass him again so he ignored his claims.

It's not you or All Black Magic that I'm angry with, it's Shaun Veldsman.

 

[smartcooky]

He was trying to get himself into a position in the event that he need to receive a pass. Which he is 100% entitled to do. For that to be a correct ruling Savea needed to be a chance to effect the tackle and no matter how many times you watch the replay and how many different angles, never can you conclude that was the case. It stank.

Wrong on two counts

1. See my earlier post #1086. That support position was inside Henry Speight's running line not outside it. He was already inside that running line. If Haylett-Petty was trying to run around the back of Henry Speight then he's dumb. He is nowhere near fast enough to catch up with Speight, and he is giving himself extra distance to run.

2. Whether or not Savea had any chance to catch Speight is irrelevant. When there is foul play (and playing an opponent without the ball IS foul play), immateriality is not taken into consideration. Foul play trumps everything, including the try.

 

[gel]

Yes, he has the right to hold his line.. What he doesn't have the right to do is what he did, which was to change his direction to intentionally run into a defender.

Yes he does - he's in support of the ball carrier
He can run and change line his line wherever he wants to.

He and Savea can jostle for position. Savea effectively took a "dive" to milk the penalty.

 

[smartcooky]

Are you lot bored with the Silver Fern?

1 Attacking me does not help your case

2. I'm not a member at The Silver Fern and never likely to be. Too many numties there for my liking

The highlighted part is all that matters

Nope, what matters is that he changed direction and intentionally played Savea without the ball.

As for the last pass ruling at the end of the game, it was clearly forward and the one before it was as well. Owens was not going to let Veldsman embarass him again so he ignored his claims.

The mantra is "clear and obvious"". It was neither. If two officials disagree over a forward pass, then by definition, it cannot be clear and obvious.

There is a reason why Shaun Veldsman was appointed the 2015 RWC Final TMO - he is the No. 1 ranked TMO in the world.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes he does - he's in support of the ball carrier
He can run and change line his line wherever he wants to.

Not if changing his line means playing an opponent who is not carrying the ball

LAW 10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick

He and Savea can jostle for position.

No, they cannot. That Law only applies when two players are chasing a loose ball

LAW 10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[KOB1987]

1 Attacking me does not help your case

2. I'm not a member at The Silver Fern and never likely to be. Too many numties there for my liking



Nope, what matters is that he changed direction and intentionally played Savea without the ball.



The mantra is "clear and obvious"". It was neither. If two officials disagree over a forward pass, then by definition, it cannot be clear and obvious.

There is a reason why Shaun Veldsman was appointed the 2015 RWC Final TMO - he is the No. 1 ranked TMO in the world.

1. I'm not attacking you, it was a genuine question which you answered in point 2.

He was jostling for position with Savea, not 'intentionally playing him without the ball', in fact he hardly even nudged him. It was effectively the same reason why Foley didn't get penalised in the Coles no-try incident, players are allowed to compete for position but not hold each other back.

 

[Grant NZ]

Yes he does - he's in support of the ball carrier
He can run and change line his line wherever he wants to.

FFS, no he can't.

 

[Grant NZ]

No, they cannot. That Law only applies when two players are chasing a loose ball

That would have been a penalty chasing a loose ball too.

 

[smartcooky]

1. I'm not attacking you, it was a genuine question which you answered in point 2.

He was jostling for position with Savea, not 'intentionally playing him without the ball', in fact he hardly even nudged him. It was effectively the same reason why Foley didn't get penalised in the Coles no-try incident, players are allowed to compete for position but not hold each other back.

Get a Law book and read Law 10.1 (a) and (c)

 

[Grant NZ]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...l-cheika-of-hijacking-all-blacks-celebrations

One has to wonder how the All Blacks would react if we drew them us as clowns doing the haka.

.jpg

 

[TOCC]

Games over guys, just agree to disagree

 

[Grant NZ]

Well, if this is the test to be applied, then the All Blacks should be penalised on every kick-off they receive.

It was a poor decision and I don't believe that law 10 (1) c) applies in this case. The decision is so out of kilter with anyone's understanding of how rugby is played that it's mystifying how a test referee could make it.

Seriously? Do you actually not think DHP impeded Savea? I thought he did and fairly deliberately too.

I can see the argument that Savea was beaten, but that was a pretty obvious offence for me.

 

[liquor box]

Frisby played better than Phipps did when Phipps came off because the pack was tired and fucked.

Foley, Folau, Pocock, Arnold and DHP played well. If QC (Quade Cooper) played this game and missed those kicks though, the flower brigade would crucify him.

Effort - that's what the guys put out there and it was what's been missing.

Nigel did not referee that game well.

Hodge needs to work on accuracy - pointless having a big boot if he's not going to slot them over.

Wallabies should still be disappointed though because their finishing is absolutely Rubbish and they left a lot of points out there.

Imagine is QC (Quade Cooper) kicks at 90% in Super Rugby how good Reds supporters hindsight will be!!!

 

[liquor box]

That's just crap. 98% of the people on here are mature enough to give credit where credits due and not some preconceived opinion. If the 'flower brigade' are the other 2%, then fair enough.

I think in Coopers defence it would be about 70%

He could have a 100% tackle rating for the next ten tests and he would still be hounded about his defence. Cooper is a layer who has improved over the years and this should be celebrated.

I think he is attacked because of who he is and not due to what he does on the field