22 October 2016 v Australia, Eden Park, Auckland

[RoosTah]

Probably should have been a penalty try.

if that should have been a penalty try the game is dead to me. Seriously, you have to be able to jostle and compete for the bloody ball. It's bad enough the over officiate everything to the point guys are yellow carded for brushing another player's shoulder or not jumping high enough and then accidentally knocking over another player whilst competing fairly for a high ball nowadays.

 

[nik]

Big call! Possibly game changing. The Wallablies went on the decline after that moment.

In hindsight it's probably the correct call. It was blatant for sure to shove away Savea from chasing. Probably wouldn't have made a tackle but ankle tap was possible maybe. Personally I would have liked to have that try allowed and then see how the ABs would respond. ABs haven't been in that position all season.

Scrappy game from the ABs but they still scored 37 points. They made a lot of errors, through pressure applied by Australia and also silly errors. Seemed like there wasn't enough physicality from ABs for this type of test match.

Still, this game was very evenly contested, in fact Australia were dominant in large parts of the game. And for ABs to sill smash them on the scoreboard is incredible.

 

[TheOvalBall]

This game is another example why i loathe technology in the game. The constant referrals, and they can't even get it right. I don't care how 'beneficial' technology has been. I've never liked technology in the game. It breaks up the flow of the game, with the constant interruptions.

If the ref did not see it, it shouldn't count. Easy.

 

[RoosTah]

Big call! Possibly game changing. The Wallablies went on the decline after that moment.

In hindsight it's probably the correct call. It was blatant for sure to shove away Savea from chasing. Probably wouldn't have made a tackle but ankle tap was possible maybe. Personally I would have liked to have that try allowed and then see how the ABs would respond. ABs haven't been in that position all season.

Scrappy game from the ABs but they still scored 37 points. They made a lot of errors, through pressure applied by Australia and also silly errors. Seemed like there wasn't enough physicality from ABs for this type of test match.

Still, this game was very evenly contested, in fact Australia were dominant in large parts of the game. And for ABs to sill smash them on the scoreboard is incredible.

In truth few sides can keep with the ABs for the full 80 these days and the quality of Rugby in Australia has been on a steady decline for a long time now. Half the people I know who used to follow the Tahs religiously back in the mid 00s would rather watch the f##king Swans for some reason now and the game is now on the cusp of completely breaking internally with a Super League esque breakaway domestic competition (except this will be super league in reverse - grass roots with no money wanting to ruin themselves further by going to war with the NRC).

- - - Updated - - -

This game is another example why i loathe technology in the game. The constant referrals, and they can't even get it right. I don't care how 'beneficial' technology has been. I've never liked technology in the game. It breaks up the flow of the game, with the constant interruptions.

If the ref did not see it, it shouldn't count. Easy.

Agree 100%.

The NRL have worked out this year finally that having more tech just ****** people off and they're looking it implementing a system of "captain's challenges" instead. They've played a couple games with it already and it is SOOO much better to watch. Basically the idea is the ref's onfield call stand unless the captain challenges it, but the kicker is the captain only gets 2 "lives" - if his challenge is upheld and its wrong, then he keeps both his challenges, but if the ref was right he loses one.

The point being that much more onfield stuff just stands and the teams have to be tactical and careful when they want to send things upstairs. The upshot is you're a lot less ****** at the ref because it ultimately comes down to the judgement of the captain as to whether they want to challenge.

 

[TheOvalBall]

In truth few sides can keep with the ABs for the full 80 these days and the quality of Rugby in Australia has been on a steady decline for a long time now. Half the people I know who used to follow the Tahs religiously back in the mid 00s would rather watch the f##king Swans for some reason now and the game is now on the cusp of completely breaking internally with a Super League esque breakaway domestic competition (except this will be super league in reverse - grass roots with no money wanting to ruin themselves further by going to war with the NRC).

- - - Updated - - -



Agree 100%.

The NRL have worked out this year finally that having more tech just ****** people off and they're looking it implementing a system of "captain's challenges" instead. They've played a couple games with it already and it is SOOO much better to watch. Basically the idea is the ref's onfield call stand unless the captain challenges it, but the kicker is the captain only gets 2 "lives" - if his challenge is upheld and its wrong, then he keeps both his challenges, but if the ref was right he loses one.

The point being that much more onfield stuff just stands and the teams have to be tactical and careful when they want to send things upstairs. The upshot is you're a lot less ****** at the ref because it ultimately comes down to the judgement of the captain as to whether they want to challenge.

Thanks for explanation. Sounds interesting and sounds a lot better.

 

[smartcooky]

The technology is here to stay, so you'll just have to learn to live with it.

 

[RoosTah]

Thanks for explanation. Sounds interesting and sounds a lot better.

Yeah, it's essentially the same as what they do in cricket, but it works better in footy because doing it that way means the game keeps moving more and there's less hyperanalysing absolutely everything.

This year the NRL had a $2 million centralised control room called the "bunker" where they basically video reffed everything. The idea was to be more precise and judge tries faster, but they ended up just using it to review every minor indiscretion and it killed the flow of the game by penalising silly little things way off the ball that you see all the time (a bit like what happened tonight).

By about 2 months in they realised they were just ******* everyone off so the pulled back a lot and started looking at the captain's callenge system.

Hopefully they implement it next year and the overlords of World Rugby take note and copy the idea for union, as it's just a much better way of officiating the game.

- - - Updated - - -

The technology is here to stay, so you'll just have to learn to live with it.

That's what people said in the NRL. Looks like that's about to change. Heck, it changed in the NFL and that's a vastly bigger sport than either code, so if they can we can.

The point is of course that the tech doesn't disappear - it's just used in a more intelligent way.

 

[TheOvalBall]

Yeah, it's essentially the same as what they do in cricket, but it works better in footy because doing it that way means the game keeps moving more and there's less hyperanalysing absolutely everything.

This year the NRL had a $2 million centralised control room called the "bunker" where they basically video reffed everything. The idea was to be more precise and judge tries faster, but they ended up just using it to review every minor indiscretion and it killed the flow of the game by penalising silly little things way off the ball that you see all the time (a bit like what happened tonight).

By about 2 months in they realised they were just ******* everyone off so the pulled back a lot and started looking at the captain's callenge system.

Hopefully they implement it next year and the overlords of World Rugby take note and copy the idea for union, as it's just a much better way of officiating the game.

- - - Updated - - -



That's what people said in the NRL. Looks like that's about to change. Heck, it changed in the NFL and that's a vastly bigger sport than either code, so if they can we can.

The point is of course that the tech doesn't disappear - it's just used in a more intelligent way.

This is what i'm hoping. Hopefully enough people will get the current process to change.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I agree, the technology is here to stay AND I also agree it could be used more intelligently.
I really like the idea of the Captain getting two chances as Roostah pointed out, that would be a great idea.
Limit the interference and let the game crack on.

I thought the ref got it right with the disallowed try, Savea WOULD have caught the centre (13) and only the winger? pushing him out of the way stopped Savea from effecting the tackle. However, the Aussie bloke who pushed Savea would most likely have been the recipient and the try scorer legally if he hadn't cheated. It was a foolish thing to do.

On the potential penalty try to Dane Coles; I am ok with the ref's decision. It wasn't enough to warrant a PT.

Barrett was poor in this game and thats hard to say because I'm a fan, and maybe we have seen the way of things to come. Barrett is dynamite on the ball but, here's the thing, in a tight test match you MUST get your kicks.
You just gotta get them. Especially anything around the 22. Small wonder he was dragged early.
Barrett's place kicking has declined to the point where we will soon see Aaron Cruden starting if Barrett doesn't get a handle on it.
Barrett will be back to being an impact player from the bench in the 'Big' matches.
He will start against teams that the AB management decree we are 'likely' to beat.
It's harsh but thats test match rugby.
You leave all those missed kick points off the board and you won't win the tight ones.

Todd missed a key tackle that gave Arnold his try and there were way too many missed tackles and handling errors from the AB's in my opinion. I'm not convinced about Todd yet.
Cane seems bigger and more likely to do some damage.

Savea has a certain big game magic that is undeniable. He can be a bit of a butterfingers sometimes but when he has the ball tucked under his arm and the sideline next to him he is a Beast to stop. The double fend to get clear to the try line was the kind of action you just don't see other wingers pull off. He does it all too regularly to call it a fluke.

When the handling was on it was a bit special and Ben Smith is a truly mercurial player.

 

[TheOvalBall]

When the handling was on it was a bit special and Ben Smith is a truly mercurial player.

Ben Smith has been my favourite All Black player for the last few years. He's an exceptional rugby player.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree, the technology is here to stay AND I also agree it could be used more intelligently.
I really like the idea of the Captain getting two chances as Roostah pointed out, that would be a great idea.
Limit the interference and let the game crack on.

I would rather see a slow, correct decision than a quick wrong decision. The TMO was correct to check the actions of Dane Haylett-Petty, and in the end it was a 50/50 call. Whether you agree with the call or not depends largely on which team you support. Cheika will no doubt whinge on and on about this for a week or two, but the fact is that if the shoe had been on the other foot, and an All Black try had been allowed after a potential try saving tackler had ben intentionally been taken out in the same way, he would whinging about that too.

I thought the ref got it right with the disallowed try, Savea WOULD have caught the centre (13) and only the winger? pushing him out of the way stopped Savea from effecting the tackle. However, the Aussie bloke who pushed Savea would most likely have been the recipient and the try scorer legally if he hadn't cheated. It was a foolish thing to do.

100%.

If you don't want to force the referee or TMO to have to make a 50/50 call, then don't put them into play. The blame for the disallowing of Henry Speight's try falls fairly and squarely on the shoulders of one, and only one person... Dane Haylett-Petty.

Cheika has some more serious problems to deal with than a couple of 50/50 calls that didn't go his way, like

1. Why his players missed 29% of their tackles! (62 attempted, 18 missed)

2. How his team had 68% possession and 65% territory and yet were only able to score one try

3. Why his team were almost able to match the All Blacks running metres (503 v 523) yet conceded six tries and could have conceded eight were it not for two 50/50 calls that went their way.

 

[nzlizard]

So I thought Barrett was average and it really showed how he struggles when he has to make play happen out of nothing, he has been so fantastic all year when the AB's go forward but really found it hard tonight, needs more exposure to those situation I feel to develop into them. His goal kicking is really bad and that needs work asap, can't miss like that in close games. Cruden showed how valuable he is in those situations.

J Savea had a game of 2 halves, terrible in the first and good in the second, seeing him get stepped too many times for my liking out wide, but his brute strength showed is amazing.

Todd got 4-5 turnovers last night? it was great how much ball he secured, but tgh can't wait for Cane to get back.

ALB had another good game, I feel he struggled with the intensity some times but this would have been the most intense game of his career to date.

I thought on the whole the team lacked intensity tonight, almost like they just expected things to happen.

Hats off to Aus, they took it to us and their running game around the fringes looked very deadly and played hard. They should be concerned about the amount of possession they had and the lack of points that reflect it though and stack missed tackles and turnovers on you can see why they lost.

At one point the Ab's had 90 odd seconds in the Aus 22 and scored 4 tries, Aus had double that and only 1 try.

Actually thought Owens reffed a good game, did good to control the ****le, from the outset you got the feeling he could see this game blowing up and tried hard to focus on the rugby, no probs with him penalizing Read after the Aus try.

 

[nik]

I was a bit concerned when Barrett was subbed off. He had another bad night with the boot. But the first half we only had 33% possession and Barrett only touched the ball 5 times and I didn't see him doing much wrong apart from goal kicking. Maybe the AB coaches judged that his game management wasn't going well so he got hooked.

However, usually Barrett never gets subbed off. The backline gets reshuffled to accomodate him to allow for his skills and speed in the last 20min. However as we saw, the ABs didn't need him in the late romp.

 

[Crazy Horse]

I wonder if the NZRU will be thinking hard about trying to keep Cruden from signing an overseas deal. I don't know if they can compete with the NH clubs obviously, but surely his experienced and steady hand (and boot) is going to be needed.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree 100%.

The NRL have worked out this year finally that having more tech just ****** people off and they're looking it implementing a system of "captain's challenges" instead. They've played a couple games with it already and it is SOOO much better to watch. Basically the idea is the ref's onfield call stand unless the captain challenges it, but the kicker is the captain only gets 2 "lives" - if his challenge is upheld and its wrong, then he keeps both his challenges, but if the ref was right he loses one.

We have the challenge system here in the US in the NFL. The coaches can do a challenge and if unsuccessful, they lose a timeout which, as anyone who knows the American code knows, as like gold in the end game. So, it keeps a lid on frivolous challenges.

 

[RoosTah]

I would rather see a slow, correct decision than a quick wrong decision.

I used to think that, but after years of watching League and Union at a variety of levels it's become clear to me that the video referees are far from perfect and make A LOT of poor and even flat out wrong decisions. Even the way the technology is used is inconsistent and frankly stupid - the idea the video referee can interrupt up until a conversion is taken but not after it is frankly silly and largely dependant on where the try is scored - there's little rhyme or reason to it if the goal is supposedly accuracy.

This is something that the NRL highlighted unintentionally this year with the bunker - a video referral system light years ahead of what Union uses. What we ended up with was the flow of the game being destroyed for often pedantic technical calls that had zero effect on the play, highly contentious frame by frame calls where tries being awarded or not can't really be said to definitively be right or wrong (league has less grey areas than union, but they're still there) and on-field referees just no longer trusting their judgement at all and becoming lazy.

The exact same thing happened in the NFL several years ago, and they now use a coach's challenge for the same reason.

Essentially the over use of tech just results in the spectacle and joy of the game being undermined through analysis paralysis and makes the focus entirely on what the referee got right or wrong. It might work for technocrats of the game like yourself SC, but for a lot of fans the fact that the video referees still make mistakes just makes the whole thing irritating and seem pointless.

What a captain's challenge does is directs the fan's indignation more at the teams themselves, as they have to think tactically about if they want to risk losing a challenge over a call they don't like.

It just makes so much more sense than the plodding, spectacle sapping and inconsistent way we do it now. It's also just more efficient on a number of levels too. Think about it - if a player knows he's dropped the ball, but it's unclear on first viewing and the ref just says no-try, then the attacking team is just going to cop it and move on rather than the system we have now where the unsure ref will send it to the box for 30 camera angles and a frame by frame break down.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I completely agree with you, Roo....

 

[RoosTah]

I'm not sure what your deal is mate and how you ended up on this board, but it's a bit rich to come on and whine and complain about bias and then launch into a series of ad hominem character attacks on the Wallabies whilst never actually address the issue we were discussing.


As for the NRL, you might not like it, but your predictable snobbery aside the game is vastly more well run, richer and well organised than Rugby in this country. I grew up playing both codes, but the fact is Rugby has descended into a joke in this country, to the point where it is light years behind the NRL and AFL, and now even is behind soccer. It's telling for instance that more people watched the Kangaroos v Kiwis test than people tuned into the Wallabies - something that reflects how little of Australia outside of Sydney's north shore now care about Rugby. Indeed, even in those old enclaves the game has haemorrhaged support to the bloody Swans in the AFL of all things.

So yes, it's little wonder the Wallabies are mess, because the game is in terminal decline in this country and shows little sign of recovery.

This is largely a function of the snobbery and born to rule attitude of the people who administer the game here - people like you who arrogantly turn their noses up at other codes of football with a born to rule attitude. That might work in a one code country like NZ, but in a brutally competitive football market like Australia it's a failing strategy.

But all your anti-rugby league snobbery aside there's a reason that the NRL is modelling themselves on the NFL - a football code that in terms of sheer size is vastly bigger and richer than either code (you can count countries all you like, but the fact is the Union world is pretty bloody tiny compared to the USA).

Do you have any actual thoughts on the proposition at hand, or did you just come here to whine and name call the Wallabies and Cheika.

 

[RoosTah]

You have the athletes and players, but it's now a cultural and attitude problem in the side, starting with Cheika. Sure his ignorant bite might have sparked something last year to get you on a nice run into the WC final, but it's lost it's steam and it's now old and embarrassing. Follow the rules and apply some professionalism and you might see some progress. Complaining about the sport like it's the sports fault is obviously your own issue. Man up.

Some of you kiwis really get upset by Cheika don't you? He barely seems to exist in Australia - that's how little coverage he gets, but over there you get as worked up about him as a bunch of Trump supporters seeing Hilary Clinton. Don't really know why you even care to be honest - you're bloody winning after all, so who gives a ****?

As for having the players, we really don't... pretty well every NRL player that comes over to Union walks into the Wallabies - even guys who were stuck in 2nd grade NRL like Naiyaravoro - a guy who never got close to Origin, let alone the Kangaroos - made the Wallabies. That alone tells you everything you need to know about our player stocks.

The fact is though that Rugby has in reality always been a minor sport generally limited to little enclaves in Sydney and Brisbane and played nowhere else - we've just happened to punch above our weight on occasion (a bit like you lot in the league). Go spend a bit of time in Melbourne during Super Rugby and you'd swear the game didn't exist in Australia at all - that's why it's kinda funny to most Aussies how worked up some of you blokes get about Cheika lol.

Still though, your failure to address the central point here on its merits kinda confirms my suspicion you're just here to whine and complain - which is kinda funny considering how much you hate it when Cheika does it.

 

[smartcooky]

I see Dean Mumm has been cited for striking

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11734347

I imagine Cheika will just go ballistic now

 

[RoosTah]

Ok, like every post you make, we get it, Rugby isn't a big deal in Aussie. Can you please stop watching and spare us your god awful Cheika-esque opinions?

Yep, and you've been here for 20 seconds and it's been one long little *****ing and whining session. Maybe you ought to take your own advice and harden up?