Rugby Championship: Australia - New Zealand (18/08/2012)

[admartian]

I'll nibble! haha... Hey it's not like I'm saying hes not a "great", the man has had a long illustrious career, I'll admit to not seeing much of O'Driscoll other than in the World Cup and when he has played against the All Blacks, but it's just that when he has been praised before a game like a god, It's a real let down when I watch the game and he's rendered ineffective.

I don't see it.

Every time he's played us, he's always been real solid. He was the only real threat most of the time in the recent June tests, and pretty much every game I've watched of him, he's made some big plays (whether it be defensively, a cutting run etc).

BOD's strength is that he's very very good, without being flashy (SBW). Which is why Conrad is sort of likened to him.

 

[smartcooky]

They're one of the "cutest" teams out there. Apparently they were the main team used in a video for refs on what to look out for a season or two ago.

The one on BOD at 0:21 (repeated again in slo-mo at 1:35) ought to have been a yellow card; it was blatant, cynical and dangerous. What's worse, it happened right in front of the referee, in his sight line!

He should not have missed that!

 

[Keithmurdoch]

I don't see it.

Every time he's played us, he's always been real solid. He was the only real threat most of the time in the recent June tests, and pretty much every game I've watched of him, he's made some big plays (whether it be defensively, a cutting run etc).

BOD's strength is that he's very very good, without being flashy (SBW). Which is why Conrad is sort of likened to him.

"real solid" is a good description, I've very rarely seen him play badly, (and he was pretty good v. the boks for the lions) but I've never seen anything to justify the level of worship he receives either. AA. Cooper has always been "real solid" against us as too, neither going to make a world XV while Smith is around though IMHO.

 

[Dizzy]

I don't see it.

Every time he's played us, he's always been real solid. He was the only real threat most of the time in the recent June tests, and pretty much every game I've watched of him, he's made some big plays (whether it be defensively, a cutting run etc).

BOD's strength is that he's very very good, without being flashy (SBW). Which is why Conrad is sort of likened to him.

I really don't see it.

I will agree, BOD doesn't have shocking games,he is always playing well but what I'm talking about is the amount of praise the man gets pre-game and then in-game it's not really evident.

 

[admartian]

I really don't see it.

I will agree, BOD doesn't have shocking games,he is always playing well but what I'm talking about is the amount of praise the man gets pre-game and then in-game it's not really evident.

I don't know, I can't speak on why that is. Heck SBW gets nearly as much praise for less body of work and people don't seem to have a problem with that.

All I know is, BOD has been consistently solid throughout his career, at all levels, and is a stand-up ambassador of the game.

 

[smartcooky]

But every once in a (short) while, he can pull out a moment of sheer genius....

 

[Darwin]

Well, Woodcock has been officially ruled out of the next test. I'm assuming Crockett will start, but I have to say I am still nervous about his scrummaging at test level....

 

[admartian]

Well, Woodcock has been officially ruled out of the next test. I'm assuming Crockett will start, but I have to say I am still nervous about his scrummaging at test level....

Yeah, it sucks, but 3 years out from the WC is probably the best time to bleed in talent (not talking rotation, but it's good to inject new guys here and there).

But every once in a (short) while, he can pull out a moment of sheer genius....

That was cool.

Should've stepped inside though.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

thanks to BOD for saving this thread from being all about how **** the wallabies were on the weekend

here one for you smartcooky, towards the end of the game. a maul comes down, ball on wallabies side and secured and none other than sir richie is blatently lying betwen the ball and the scrum half... no attempt to roll away and we are pinged for not releasing. i think phil kearns was the one that started whining then tim horan chipped in and said that it was ok as it was a collapsed maul, no attempt to roll away was required. i didn't actually know this, but good on sir richie for knowing it as it would have been a kickable penalty to the wallabies if it went the other way.

 

[Darwin]

thanks to BOD for saving this thread from being all about how **** the wallabies were on the weekend

here one for you smartcooky, towards the end of the game. a maul comes down, ball on wallabies side and secured and none other than sir richie is blatently lying betwen the ball and the scrum half... no attempt to roll away and we are pinged for not releasing. i think phil kearns was the one that started whining then tim horan chipped in and said that it was ok as it was a collapsed maul, no attempt to roll away was required. i didn't actually know this, but good on sir richie for knowing it as it would have been a kickable penalty to the wallabies if it went the other way.

Interestingly, BOD could have single-handedly beaten Australia in the weekend.

Fact.

/thread

 

[smartcooky]

thanks to BOD for saving this thread from being all about how **** the wallabies were on the weekend

here one for you smartcooky, towards the end of the game. a maul comes down, ball on wallabies side and secured and none other than sir richie is blatently lying betwen the ball and the scrum half... no attempt to roll away and we are pinged for not releasing.

Answer. There is NO requirement in Law to roll away, or get up and move away from a collapsed maul (or a ruck for that matter).

Players only have to get up and move away from a tackle.

 

[Tony Manx]

Answer. There is NO requirement in Law to roll away, or get up and move away from a collapsed maul (or a ruck for that matter).

Players only have to get up and move away from a tackle.

I understand and agree with that! Just for the sake of argument, coould it not be argued that that maul started with a "tackle" where two or more AB's held onto the Aussie, as opposed to emanating from a line out?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I think a couple of guys have missed/ignored BG8's key point which is that:

1: Rugby is first of all a team game and it's very hard to stand out in an Ireland team which is going down heavily to New Zealand.
2: The implication of what Dizzy is saying is that to perform against New Zealand is that the highest demonstration of your ability, which while somewhat true also ignores the Heineken cup which is of a standard better than the majority of internationals. In it you have games such as Leinster vs Clermont/Toulouse which showcase some of the best rugby around. If you are forgetting to mention the heineken cup, clearly you don't pay much attention to northern hemipshere rugby.

 

[smartcooky]

I understand and agree with that! Just for the sake of argument, coould it not be argued that that maul started with a "tackle" where two or more AB's held onto the Aussie, as opposed to emanating from a line out?

Nope. Remember that we are talking about a tackle, as defined in Law 15, not the "act of tackling", i.e. grasping an opponent.

A Law 15 tackle takes place when when the ball carrier is grasped by an opponent and brought to ground. It is not a Law 15 tackle until the ball carrier is brought to ground. The tackler, who must also go to ground (if he doesn't go to ground, then he is not a tackler) must release, and either roll away or get up and move away. The ball carrier must also release and roll away or get up and move away.

However, when the ball carrier is grasped, and is not brought to ground, then a team-mate of the ball carrier binds on, we now have a maul (Law 17), and if that group subsequently goes to ground, it is NOT a tackle, its a collapsed maul. No-one has to get up or roll away.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I think a couple of guys have missed/ignored BG8's key point which is that:

1: Rugby is first of all a team game and it's very hard to stand out in an Ireland team which is going down heavily to New Zealand.
2: The implication of what Dizzy is saying is that to perform against New Zealand is that the highest demonstration of your ability, which while somewhat true also ignores the Heineken cup which is of a standard better than the majority of internationals. In it you have games such as Leinster vs Clermont/Toulouse which showcase some of the best rugby around. If you are forgetting to mention the heineken cup, clearly you don't pay much attention to northern hemipshere rugby.

Heineken cup games aren't better than any AB tests against top 5 or 6 countries. Tests between **** countries maybe. there are also ITM cup games with more quality on display than some H cup games so don't over stress how great it is.

Saying that I've seen O'Driscoll play well for club and country, well enough to deserve some of the praise he gets. The one thing I will say in his favor is that he is from Ireland, so he is a big fish in a smaller pond of talent than other countries, and Ireland aren't often blessed with world class players so when one comes along it is natural they're celebrated a bit more than they otherwise would be.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Nope. Remember that we are talking about a tackle, as defined in Law 15, not the "act of tackling", i.e. grasping an opponent.

A Law 15 tackle takes place when when the ball carrier is grasped by an opponent and brought to ground. It is not a Law 15 tackle until the ball carrier is brought to ground. The tackler, who must also go to ground (if he doesn't go to ground, then he is not a tackler) must release, and either roll away or get up and move away. The ball carrier must also release and roll away or get up and move away.

However, when the ball carrier is grasped, and is not brought to ground, then a team-mate of the ball carrier binds on, we now have a maul (Law 17), and if that group subsequently goes to ground, it is NOT a tackle, its a collapsed maul. No-one has to get up or roll away.

Was it a bad call then that the wallabies got pinged for not releasing? I thought it should have been a scrum nz ball

 

[lynam1104]

I didn't mean to start a NH v SH thread but ok.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Heineken cup games aren't better than any AB tests against top 5 or 6 countries. Tests between **** countries maybe. there are also ITM cup games with more quality on display than some H cup games so don't over stress how great it is.

I have to disagree with that. The Heineken cup is great because teams rise to a certain standard, despite there being quite a gulf in quality between a lot of them (four separate tiers of quality, arguably). I can't say I agree that games of the top international sides always reach such their highest standards. Games involving the Wallabies and the All-Blacks always have quality to them, but no other team - even South Africa or France - is an assurance of a quality game. New Zealand were top class against Ireland in the 3rd test but it wasn't a great game because Ireland spent most of it on their arses having been left for dead by the all-blacks. The six nations - and this is old news - can be pretty low in quality, albeit high in excitement. Romania vs Georgia is as likely to be a great game as England Ireland six nations is. It's not a question of the out and out quality of the sides.

I wasn't attempting to invite this debate, simply say that you can't judge BOD on the basis of appearances of these tours aginst superior opposition, especially if you don't watch heineken cup rugby! (not @you DD, but some of the above)

 

[smartcooky]

Was it a bad call then that the wallabies got pinged for not releasing? I thought it should have been a scrum nz ball

I'll have to check. I thought they were pinged for collapsing the maul.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Kepu has been ruled out. We'll get to see Benny A pack down at tighthead.