Quarter Final - Brumbies vs Highlanders, 22 July 2016 @ 6:00pm

[cyclopath]

8500 very loyal fans.

I salute anyone braving that weather - it looked pretty rugged! Needed Gore-Tex on your Gore-Tex.

 

[The torpedo]

I salute anyone braving that weather - it looked pretty rugged! Needed Gore-Tex on your Gore-Tex.

Only saw a bit before I went to watch the roos pies match - it looked freezing cold without the rain, so it would have been horrid with the rain. Was similar conditions in Melbourne on Friday night

 

[mst]

Only saw a bit before I went to watch the roos pies match - it looked freezing cold without the rain, so it would have been horrid with the rain. Was similar conditions in Melbourne on Friday night

It was not pleasant. What also put also off people was it was very stormy conditions about 90 mins before kick off.

 

[The torpedo]

The real myth is the "coaching" of Stephen Larkham. He has been trying to play a constant ball possession game plan like he was successful with himself under McQueen. Times have changed Stephen and defences better organised and the trick was found out in 2002. I'd also add the favourable ruck determinations that allowed the success no longer exist. The fact that this side was so clueless in attack all year with the Head Coach being the Wallabies backline coach fills me with dread.

I'd also add on the skills front - the Highlanders especially Ben Smith were able to kick the ball more effectively into the wind than the Ponies were either with the wind or into it. Even in shit conditions they passed the ball and made good use of it even if they were pretty inaccurate at times. Contrast the Brumbies "attack" which consisted of a pass or at most two from each ruck to a pod getting caught behind the gain line. At the end of the 1st half they managed a whopping 56% gain line efficiency. Still just like an England side of the last 30 years they almost snatched in in spite of doing nothing with the ball by scrumming their way to penalties, and doing not much with them but going for more penalties.

I really didn't think the Brumbies were that dominant in the scrum, they didn't really go forward, just wheeled around on their TH side which didn't advance. Maybe it was just Sio that was dominant.

Moore is a shadow of his top form and is a waste of space as Captain both in speaking with the refs and in decision making.

Did I mention Larkham, to top it off he is whinging about Gardiner, when it is his inability to coach a decent attack that has cruelled his team's play all year.

For some reason I think Bernie is too scared to play an expansive gameplan, and so implements the rubbish gameplan that he used this year. Their rolling maul should be used as a supporting attacking weapon, not the main one. This is a problem through all sporting codes in Australia atm, too much risk aversion and not enough risk taking

 

[Merrow]

I salute anyone braving that weather - it looked pretty rugged! Needed Gore-Tex on your Gore-Tex.

Meh, I've watched rugby in worse weather. Not actually that cold. Did have to put my hand over the beer in between sips though . Once again a great atmosphere, and those slack bastards that couldn't be bothered making the effort missed out big time. Regardless of the score, the defensive effort from both teams was immense.

 

[Brumby Runner]

For some reason I think Bernie is too scared to play an expansive gameplan, and so implements the rubbish gameplan that he used this year. Their rolling maul should be used as a supporting attacking weapon, not the main one. This is a problem through all sporting codes in Australia atm, too much risk aversion and not enough risk taking

And this after talking up the new attacking style they were going to play at the start to the season. If he's still in the hot seat next year, I just hope he doesn't go talking things up but actually does something about implementing an attacking structure, high risk as it may be, in their games. Would like to see more of it at the Wallabies' level as well.

 

[ForceFan]

The normal Ruck Involvement Data shows a significantly different game plan and some serious implications for the Wallabies.

Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

Ruck Involvements over Time

Comments:

1. The changes in Ruck Involvements over the two halves reflect the significant swings in Possession and Territory. 1st Half - Brumbies had 32% Possession and 22% Territory. 2nd Half - Brumbies had 65% Possession and 78% Territory.
2. Brumbies overall Ruck Involvements were close to their season average - Average of 2.5 players per Attack Ruck (in support of the ball carrier) and average 0.7 players per Defence Ruck.
3. Brumbies won 70 of 73 of their own rucks - 96%. Highlanders won 73 of 78 of their own rucks - 94%.
4. In stark contrast, the Highlanders greatly minimised their Ruck Involvements - Average of only 2.2 players per Attack Ruck and only 0.5 players per Defence Ruck. The Highlanders' strong focus was maintaining their line of defence and almost ignoring Defence Rucks. 2.2 players per Attack Ruck is about the same level shown by Aussie teams against non-threatening teams such as the Sunwolves. 0.5 players per Defence Ruck, was a strategy shown by Aussie teams in only 6 games on 2016 (by Waratahs v Stormers; Force v Canes, Rebs & Brumbies; Rebs v Highlanders and Crusaders.)
5. The Brumbies earned 7 Turn Overs Won against the Highlanders 3 Turn Overs Won.
6. David Pocock's return from injury was above his average Ruck Involvement level. He earned 3 TOW at 7 DRIs/TOW.
7. The Highlanders Front Row made 32% of their teams Total Ruck Involvements with a fairly even distribution of the remainder between the Locks, Back Row and Backs. The Highlander's Back Row (37%) and Backs (34%) were very involved in Defence Rucks.
8. The Brumbies Front Row made only 25% of their teams Total Ruck Involvements, the Locks only 15% and the Back Row 40% of TRIs and almost 60% of Defence Ruck Involvements.
9. Leading Ruck Involvements by Backs. Brumbies: Kuridrani - 13T (11A/2D); To'omua - 11T (8A/3D); Lealiifano - 9T (9A/0D). Highlanders: Fekitoa - 14T (11A/3D); Faddes - 9T (8A/1D); Naholo - 9T (3A/6D).
10. Wallabies Watch. Of real concern was the very low level of Ruck Involvement shown by Moore and Carter with about 50% of their normal TRIs. Although Sio's TRIs were just below average he failed to make a single tackle and had 2 ball carries for 5m.
11. Front Row - Work Rate. Not only did the Highlanders Front Row make 32% of their teams TRIs but they also made 41% of team tackles. Brumbies by comparison - 25% TRIs and 20% Tackles. The work rate of the Aussie Front Rowers continue to be of concern.
12. Ball Carries. No Brumbies player had more than 35m in ball carries. Lealiifano - 5 carries for 35m; Cubelli - 8 carries for 34m. By stark contrast Highlanders had 5 players who had >50m in carries: B Smith - 8 carries/62m; Faddes - 5 for 59m; Sopoaga - 13 for 53m; Naholo - 11 for 51m; Osborne - 11 for 50m.
13. Off Loads. Consistent with the 2016 trend - Highlanders 7 OL; Brumbies 4 OL.
14. Handling Errors. Highlanders 17 (season average); Brumbies 12 (av 15).
15. Carries. Highlanders - 113 carries for 424m (3.8m/carry); Brumbies - 89 carries for 194m (2.2m/carry).
16. Lineouts. Highlanders - won 92% on own throw (11/12); Brumbies 71% on own throw (12/17).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So what are you actually basing your opinion on? This one game? Explain.

NZ needs the Aussie money from TV - frigging ridiculous that this was played when it was: MMM Radio were saying it was so they could mark the lines out for the mungoes on Saturday. if so that is pathetic.
I still haven't seen the whole game.
I am struggling to see how Bernie can have any complaint about the disallowed try at the end: seemed clear to me he lost the ball - or was there some earlier one?

 

[I like to watch]

Nope, that was it.
I thought it was a petulant display from Bernie, and deserving of more criticism than he received.
Very mungo esque.....

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm surprised that so many people think that it was a shoulder charge on Leali'ifano that should have been penalised.

Both tacklers clearly made an attempt to wrap their arm and they both made contact with their other arm with Leali'ifano as they hit with the shoulder.

The law is:

Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

Providing you make an attempt to grasp the player which both of them did, it is a legal tackle.

 

[Viking]

I'm surprised that so many people think that it was a shoulder charge on Leali'ifano that should have been penalised.

Both tacklers clearly made an attempt to wrap their arm and they both made contact with their other arm with Leali'ifano as they hit with the shoulder.

The law is:

Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

Providing you make an attempt to grasp the player which both of them did, it is a legal tackle.

One arm grasp was the confusing bit for me. One arm he clearly tucked close the body so he could impact with his shoulder first - not even attempt a grasp. The other arm he kept out wide and made a half-ass attempt of a grasp late in the tackle.

I always thought they had to attempt to wrap both arms not just one. I guess not.

So I can see where people are coming from thinking its a shoulder charge with that half ass attempt of a grasp at the end that really would never have been a successful grasp.

But the law is the law so I guess it passes as legal. Plus It wasn't that bad anyways so I was happy to let it go.

 

[Viking]

NZ needs the Aussie money from TV - frigging ridiculous that this was played when it was: MMM Radio were saying it was so they could mark the lines out for the mungoes on Saturday. if so that is pathetic.
I still haven't seen the whole game.
I am struggling to see how Bernie can have any complaint about the disallowed try at the end: seemed clear to me he lost the ball - or was there some earlier one?

It wasn't clear he lost the ball. It wasn't clear he didn't.

What was clear was that he had momentum and over half his body sliding over the line.

Can't blame the video ref it was the right call saying the footage was inconclusive.

It comes downs to the ref. He should have asked "any reason not to award the try". Therefore it is a try until proven it isn't, which gives advantage to the attacking team - the way it should be.

Instead he asked "try or no try" which is essentially, no try until proven it is. Giving the defending team the advantage. Why did the ref assume it was no try?

When a player slides more then half over the line with momentum on their side they should get the benefit of the doubt.

Just my opinion. But either way we didn't deserve to win.

 

[Froggy]

Seb, I'm afraid I don't agree with you.
It is quite possible (even probable?) that it was a try, but there was also the distinct possibility that either a) the ball was never made it over the line and/or b) someone got a hand/arm/whatever under the ball.
You can only award that try if someone (Ref, AR, TMO) actually sees the ball grounded over the try-line.
How could the ref say "is there any reason not to award the try" when he really had no idea whether the ball had been grounded over the line. "try or no try" was really his only option.
I would love to have seen the try awarded, but just don't see how it could be when nobody knew whether the ball had been grounded over the line.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think Gardiner could have gone either way. It was unfortunate that he slipped and couldn't get into the right position to have the best view but I think he could have gone to the TMO on the balance of probabilities that he thought it must have been a try and asked the question whether there was any reason he couldn't award the try.

It seems to me that there are plenty of situations where rolling maul tries are awarded without the referee having a clear view that the ball was grounded but they ask the question with the assumption that it was scored rather than just try/no try.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Ok.
My real point does not involve questioning whether Gardiner asked the right question: if our game comes down to that we're in big trouble.
My point is if there's a question either way a bloke like Larkham should not call it as a certainty- any number of platitudes cover this eventuality: shit happens; bounce of the ball; matter of opinion etc etc mean this is part of the rich tapestry of life.
He cheapened the whole affair - which is a pity for a guy of his standing in the rugby world.

 

[Braveheart81]

My real point does not involve questioning whether Gardiner asked the right question: if our game comes down to that we're in big trouble.

The question asked helps dictate the outcome in most sports where this sort of replay system is used.

You either need definitive evidence to overturn the decision made on the field (i.e. any reason I can't award the try) or definitive evidence to award a try (try/no try?).

The same principle applies in rugby league, AFL, NFL, cricket etc.

 

[fatprop]

Don't lump the Reds in with that shit. The only Aus side to truly play running rugby in the last 6 years was the Reds of 2010-2012. They also kicked the most and had crowds and exposure you hacks down south can only dream of. Now the Kiwis have stolen the game plan and are using it against us. Now the Reds with no international starting backs and second worst team in the conference had the best record against the Kiwi sides. Not a coincidence at all given the point above of them stealing our plan.

Or something like that.

You haven't watched the Tahs play since 2012?

 

[fatprop]

I continue to be impressed by the Highlanders, they play positive smart rugby.

Shitty windy night, stick a decent jumper at two and make them go to 4 or throw wide going long.

They simply took the ponies only consistent, potent attacking weapon off the table.

All those 300,000 5m scrums would have been mauling lineouts if they hadn't negated it early and made the ponies look for other options

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The question asked helps dictate the outcome in most sports where this sort of replay system is used.

You either need definitive evidence to overturn the decision made on the field (i.e. any reason I can't award the try) or definitive evidence to award a try (try/no try?).

The same principle applies in rugby league, AFL, NFL, cricket etc.

I know.
Gardiner was slightly out of position to rule on it.
He asked the right question in those circumstances.
That is the most open ended of the questions he could ask.v To ask any other other question would have compromised the TMO process, without justification, since Gardiner had no basis for thinking a try had been scored.
That we are having this discussion shows why Larkham made a serious error in pursuing it.

 

[Viking]

Seb, I'm afraid I don't agree with you.
It is quite possible (even probable?) that it was a try, but there was also the distinct possibility that either a) the ball was never made it over the line and/or b) someone got a hand/arm/whatever under the ball.
You can only award that try if someone (Ref, AR, TMO) actually sees the ball grounded over the try-line.
How could the ref say "is there any reason not to award the try" when he really had no idea whether the ball had been grounded over the line. "try or no try" was really his only option.
I would love to have seen the try awarded, but just don't see how it could be when nobody knew whether the ball had been grounded over the line.

Lots of tries are awarded without seeing the ball grounded. Maul tries the prime example.

All I'm saying is, in 50/50 calls the attacking team should get the benefit of the doubt.