• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2nd test - Australia v British & Irish Lions

You're welcome to show me evidence of head contact.

View attachment 24211
It was neck contact, and his mouthguard registered almost double that of a “high magnitude impact” whatever that means.

Could have penalised Morgan thrice in that one clean out 😂. He held the leg of Tizzano after, whilst on the ground.

Anyway, I think we’re all keen to accept the ruling and the loss and move on.

Hopefully test three isn’t a blow out.
 
I think any HC in Schmidt's position would have challenged the decision. They have to be seen to be backing their team in such circumstances. I think Joe did a pretty good job of pushing the envelope as far as he could without getting into hot water. If that was Rassie there would be a Netflix series about the whole incident.
 
It was neck contact, and his mouthguard registered almost double that of a "high magnitude impact" whatever that means.

Could have penalised Morgan thrice in that one clean out 😂. He held the leg of Tizzano after, whilst on the ground.

Anyway, I think we're all keen to accept the ruling and the loss and move on.

Hopefully test three isn't a blow out.

A head isn't independent of a neck or body. Players have been HIA'd after being hit by perfectly legal tackles.
 
I think any HC in Schmidt's position would have challenged the decision. They have to be seen to be backing their team in such circumstances. I think Joe did a pretty good job of pushing the envelope as far as he could without getting into hot water. If that was Rassie there would be a Netflix series about the whole incident.
Joe's often commented on referees after games regardless of the result.

I don't mind it at all, pro rugby has a refereeing issue, people might argue the extent of it but no one disagrees. Head Coaches are in a pretty strong position to query decisions and if it was completely hidden nothing would change. I don't think Joe went too far despite being quite emotional, he got a response from World Rugby so it was considered. Move on now.
 
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮



1) Immense leadership and "a sign of maturity" that he... referred to an ex-team-mate by their nickname.
2) Covers a shallow restart, allowing Aki to carry from deep.
3) Replacement OC stands in the OC channel in defence. This is obviously, real Test Match Animal stuff.
4) Scans the Aussie attack, and makes the wrong decision; gets screamed at by his winger, and realises the winger was right. Phrased as "Though not always obvious, such off-the-ball running is crucial in allowing a side to maintain width in their defence".
5) "keeps moving as Tom Wright ships the ball onto Harry Wilson".
6) "Wilson bulldozes through him, yet is brought down by Beirne".
7) Escapes from that ruck, and joins the defensive line in the position expected of someone escaping that ruck.
8) Meaning that Genge can make a tackle (seriously, Genge making a tackle is evidence that Farrell was key).
9) Misses a tackle on Suaali'i, but is 3rd man in once the tackle is made.
..............9a) A quote from Felix Jones "Don't tell me Owen Farrell missing the most tackles at a World Cup is a good thing" - but it's all okay if he chooses which tackles to miss...
10) Chases a clearance kick, but isn't fast enough to be effective. But at least he tracks back again afterwards.
11) Is one of many players calling a clear forward pass as being forward.
12) A bog-standard pull-back play at first receiver - as seen by every IC multiple times a match... and quote a few props. Russell then fixes 2 defenders, and puts in a brilliant pass for Kinghorn in space.
13) Passes to Kinghorn instead of Aki. Kinghorn and then Freeman do good things.
14) Picks up a messy pass off the floor - Absolutely fair, a decent bit of skill.
15) Stuart chooses not to pass to Farrell, and it's the right decision.
16) Joins a ruck, running in from quite a way away, as no-one closer had realised it might be lost - absolutely fair, good reading of the game there.



I've no actual problem with Farrell. I think 100 caps is beyond flattering for his skill levels, but accept that he's a coach and motivator on the playing field, and that England didn't have a huge number of options at IC (oh for Slade to have played there for his club). This does NOT mean that I think he's a bad player.
It's the level of praise (and condemnation) he receives that is orders of magnitude beyond what he's actually done.
Using someone's nickname
Standing where he's supposed to stand
Missing 2 out of 3 tackle attempts, but it's okay because he didn't just stand there feeling sorry for himself
Being slow chasing a kick, but it's okay because he didn't just stand there feeling sorry for himself
Making a pass you'd expect your THP to make 99 times out of 100
Existing whilst someone else does something

It's just glazing for the sake of glazing at this point, but it's the Telegraph, and journos over there like Gavin Mairs love him. They don't want their golden boy to be forgotten in amongst all the euphoria.

Farrell was fine and had to play at 13, which he's probably very rarely ever done before. He passed when he needed to pass and acted as a 1st and 2nd receiver to Russell for a couple of moves, got bumped by Wilson because his tackle technique was garbage, and contributed to the rucks as a centre should.
 
Sorry no, bollicks to that. Air your dirty laundry in post match analysis, not publicly to further undermine the officials. No ref, no game.
He praised him for the majority of the game but he disagreed with one decision. That’s not publicly undermining someone. Give the guy a break. He would’ve been gutted at the result, and that interview was directly after the game.
 
People need to move on. In the warm up games, there was a far more dangerous clear out from an Aus player that was also cleared during the game. Funnily enough the resident Aussie poster was quick to say nothing in it
 
I've seen a lot of claims from Australians that Australia should have been awarded a penalty as Morgan was late to the ruck. Does anyone know why this should be a penalty?
 
I've seen a lot of claims from Australians that Australia should have been awarded a penalty as Morgan was late to the ruck. Does anyone know why this should be a penalty?
Not watched it as I was way too hungover. My understanding is the ruck is over if the balls unplayable, or it's past the feet of the last player in the ruck. You then get your 5 seconds to play it and use it. Hence why you had the god awful caterpillar ruck.
 
Not watched it as I was way too hungover. My understanding is the ruck is over if the balls unplayable, or it's past the feet of the last player in the ruck. You then get your 5 seconds to play it and use it. Hence why you had the god awful caterpillar ruck.

Thanks, but I should have mean more specific - I just wonder more how Aussies think any of this applies to that ruck.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top