Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fair point, yes. Just not for an ordinary open

> field runner who happens to jump when receiving a

> pass! As Kieran Reid said to the ref yesterday,

> does that mean next time I've got the ball, if I

> jump in the air they can't tackle me?


He had to jump to take the pass as it was head height - if he is then tackled low whilst still in the air he's potentially going to topple over head first.


As the referee explained, that's why it was only a penalty, no card.


I thought it was the right decision. Intentionally jumping before being tackled is another matter - although you do see it sometimes under high kicks where it looked like to catcher jumped just to take advantage of the rules. I don't think that was the case with Sinckler.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Fair point, yes. Just not for an ordinary open

> > field runner who happens to jump when receiving

> a

> > pass! As Kieran Reid said to the ref

> yesterday,

> > does that mean next time I've got the ball, if

> I

> > jump in the air they can't tackle me?

>

> He had to jump to take the pass as it was head

> height - if he is then tackled low whilst still in

> the air he's potentially going to topple over head

> first.

>

> As the referee explained, that's why it was only a

> penalty, no card.

>

> I thought it was the right decision. Intentionally

> jumping before being tackled is another matter -

> although you do see it sometimes under high kicks

> where it looked like to catcher jumped just to

> take advantage of the rules. I don't think that

> was the case with Sinckler.


No I don't think he did it deliberately (though as you say, it was head height, he could have caught it without jumping), and the interpretation of the rules is correct, just think they need to tweaking to say if the player is so close to the ground that tackling them there isn't dangerous it's not a penalty, maybe reduce to to a scrum at best.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not much to change really (if he's going to stick

> with the Sexton/Farrell combination, which I still

> don't find convincing - the SBW red possibly saved

> them from too much exposure) - McGrath in for

> Vunipola and Lawes for Wyn Jones, perhaps?


Agreed on the exposure of Sexton Farrell - but I'd possibly limit that to Farrell, its Farrell who is the only out of position player. And he seemed weak in the tackle a couple of times on Saturday. His kicking and interaction with Sexton is worth having, and his fast pass, but it's a bit of a gamble.


Wyn Jones will start I imagine.


The referee will be key. The Dublin game which AM referred to above was thuggish for the first 20mins as ABs laid down a marker after losing in Chicago - the referee allowed it all, high tackles + forearms everywhere. Whether they play within the law on Saturday will depend upon the referee's early calls.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Not much to change really (if he's going to

> stick

> > with the Sexton/Farrell combination, which I

> still

> > don't find convincing - the SBW red possibly

> saved

> > them from too much exposure) - McGrath in for

> > Vunipola and Lawes for Wyn Jones, perhaps?

>

> Agreed on the exposure of Sexton Farrell - but I'd

> possibly limit that to Farrell, its Farrell who is

> the only out of position player. And he seemed

> weak in the tackle a couple of times on Saturday.

> His kicking and interaction with Sexton is worth

> having, and his fast pass, but it's a bit of a

> gamble.

>

> Wyn Jones will start I imagine.

>

> The referee will be key. The Dublin game which AM

> referred to above was thuggish for the first

> 20mins as ABs laid down a marker after losing in

> Chicago - the referee allowed it all, high tackles

> + forearms everywhere. Whether they play within

> the law on Saturday will depend upon the referee's

> early calls.



AWJ will only play 55 minutes then Lawes - AWJ can be really niggly and frustrate the opposition at his best.


It's Romain Poite as Ref


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11885575

Apparently he is, after some googling:

good at referring the scrum and then supports the dominant srummaging team through the game, so the early scrums are key,

and he tends to favour the defending team at the breakdown, so I'd say there may then be fewer kickable penalties.

I noticed in the commentary on Saturday (it wasn't obvious to me on the screen) that Sean O'Brien was posted out in the backs to help take care of Sonny Bill while he was there. This was presumably because Farrell wouldn't be able to. I still like both he and Sexton playing. There have been quite a few exciting moves in the backs.


I wouldn't call Farrell out of position Mick. He plays there for England.


As for Saturday, I'd expect casualties........

I agree they make for an exciting combination, but given that the ABs are doubtless going to come out all guns blazing (and possibly fists flying) I'd like to see some more beef in the centres - Joseph, probably, with one of the two at 10 - Farrell edging it for superior tackling and goal-kicking ability.

Goal kicking defo - but tackling has been weak so far this tour I thought. I know he has a reputation as a decent tackler, but I'm seeing him being brushed off / dumped on his ass, in Saturdays game


I think the combination is the right thing to do - its inventive and attacking. who dares wins. and as AM says SOB will likely be there extra cover.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Goal kicking defo - but tackling has been weak so

> far this tour I thought. I know he has a

> reputation as a decent tackler, but I'm seeing him

> being brushed off / dumped on his ass, in

> Saturdays game


Shane Williams used to describe himself as a speed bump

- slowing the opposition down before someone else could

pile in.


He needs someone else quite close though.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Goal kicking defo - but tackling has been weak so

> far this tour I thought. I know he has a

> reputation as a decent tackler, but I'm seeing him

> being brushed off / dumped on his ass, in

> Saturdays game


That's the problem I think, he's a good tackling 10 but not necessarily up to a centre's job in the modern game - he was giving away two stone and three inches to SBW, for example - and so gets targeted as the weak spot in the line, which makes him look worse than he is maybe.


It's all a bit academic anyway as I'm sure Gatland will stick with the plan - after all they did win!

Here's the ABs:


Starting XI: J Barrett, I Dagg, A Lienert-Brown, J Laumape, J Savea, B Barrett, A Smith; J Moody, C Taylor, O Franks, B Retallick, S Whitelock, J Kaino, S Cane, K Read (capt).


Replacements: N Harris, W Crockett, C Faumuina, S Barrett, A Savea, TJ Peranara, A Cruden, M Fekitoa.


No surprises. Laumape looks like an awesome force, only 5'9" but sixteen stone plus of muscle, defensive positioning needs work but like a lot of former league players his bulldozing qualities are frightening. Be interesting to see his impact with fifteen men on the field instead of fourteen.

No change for the Lions. Fair enough, though I really feel sorry for Joseph, I think he deserved at least a place on the bench. Guess there'll always be someone who loses out. Roll on Saturday, could be a cracker though I fear the ABs will come out fired up and swinging, and if they play at their best there isn't a team on earth can live with them. Twenty margin, I'd guess, hope I'm wrong. Will be watching with Kiwis so someone'll be happy...

Gatters was a hooker after all :)


Given how much you have talked about discipline this week, did Mako Vunipola?s four penalties and yellow card make you think about a change in that position?


A: No. I didn?t think there was anything wrong with the first one where he has gone to charge down a kick and he has followed through. Codie Taylor does exactly the same thing in exactly the same time frame and it?s not a penalty.


If you put the two of them side by side, they are exactly the same, so Mako was a bit unlucky. The one where the referee has penalised him for going on his knee is absolutely marginal where he is competed on the ball.


He hasn?t collected Barrett?s head (with the clear out yellow card) and then there?s a scrum penalty.



http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/warren-gatland-lions-qa-game-13289208

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...