and so onto France

[Cutter]

Burgess isnt at fault for the penalty try. Burgess is at fault for the scrum on our 5m. The scrum is at fault for the penalty try. Smith isnt at fault for the splintered, fractured scrum. Smith is at fault for trying to, cynically, stop the French from scoring the try. If we'd set a solid scrum we wouldnt be having this rather pointless conversation.

 

[Scotty]

I think we can leave the blame game alone now. On the actual performance of the scrum, I didn't think it was too bad considering we had Alexander, MMM and Kepu in there. Mostly held its own, but obviously wasn't a patch on last week.

I think they just lost focus with the 5m scrum - didn't commit fully to the contest, expecting the french to use the backline or at least a back row move. Instead the french put on the full shove and caught the Wallabies unawares. Which is a bit stupid (on the wallabies behalf) really.

 

[Spook]

Someone mentioned it before but the scrum should have been reset.

 

[Pfitzy]

Actually if we want to go right back, wasn't it Mitchell's kick that was charged down? Its all Mitchell's fault

I am surprised their isn't more discussion of the penalty against the french that led to our 1st try. At worst it was accidental offside, is that a full arm peanlty under these rules? The pommie commentator clearly didn't think so but it changed the momentum of the game.

Because the Frencie actually grabbed at the ball it looked worse at the time than it probably was. It was the barest touch on his teammate but as we've already covered: Joubert did not have a great game. He is still a promising ref though - I reckon it must be tough to be stuck between two different sets of Laws and directives... but that's why he gets paid.

 

[Ash]

Burgess deserves to get harshly rated for that pass. He's a halfback and supposed to have the best pass on the team - that's his bread and butter. His passing has been very poor recently, and it just keeps getting worse. 10 minutes of good organisation doesn't make up for playing like a headless chicken and throwing woeful passes. How many of Burgess' passes do you actually see IN FRONT of his first receiver, rather than the first receiver waiting to grab the ball that's on his inside, causing the backline to be static?

Our backline play is really struggling. There's little direction or build up even off set pieces, most of the backline play is simply kicking. The best we looked all game was one-off forward pods hitting the ball, which is a tactic that the Lions and English used for years, and fell back to as a crutch when their backline play became awful.

The hallmark of this tour for me is how much our forwards have progressed, and how much our backs have regressed with Gits at 10 and no real 12 and 15 (until last game). Wasn't it good, though, to see a more natural fullback in the 15 jersey?

Oh, and Alexander has a big future, but he got hammered by the French scrum. I was inclined to think that scrum was a lot more Alexander's fault than MMM's, but I need to watch the game again. And why oh why has Sharpe NEVER learned to pack at tight head?

 

[Lee Grant]

THe penalty try was given because of the collapsed scrum. Nothing to do with Smith. You blokes really need to get over the Waugh - Smith thing. It's over.

Spook you have to get away from the chip on the shoulder mindset that because we criticise Smith for cynical actions it is because we favour another player. These are the kneejerk, precious reactions that the Kiwis are so fond of on the other forum. Consider that we may be criticising an Australian player because he acted in a cynical way.

Had McCaw done that in a Bledisloe match (when he punched the ball out of the "scrum" with his hand or first so that the Frogs couldn't ground the ball) we would have been baying at the moon for a card as punishment as well as the penalty try.

Smith had nothing to do will with collapsing the scrum, and I haven't looked at all the posts but did anybody actually say he did? - but he deserved a card for cynical play, post collapse.

And take this with as many grains of salt as you wish, because he didn't have his noggin in too many scrums, collapsed or otherwise, but Mark Ella said on the radio this morning that Smith should have gone to the bin too for that action.

 

[disco]

I can't believe Smith wasn't yellow carded for what he done but anyway the reason I won't to see Pocock start against the welsh is because I just basically want to see him play again.

Not that I would drop Smith on form more rotation.

I know I don't really understand scrums but isn't a bit harsh to blame just Alexander & MMM considering they were the only two still bound & pushing at the end????

 

[Lee Grant]

I don't know why the scrum collapsed either, but we have to give credit to the Frogs for what they did. Their arms looked welded to the players they were binding onto. They got the hit and the shove and kept going.

I'm waiting for the explanation from Foley or some scrum guru and I hope I don't hear: "Our guys lost their concentration." FFS.

Whatever - I applaud the French for attempting the pushover try and succeeding by getting a PT because they were better than our guys. That's how it should be.

I think a few fellows should be rested for Wales. Some players have played 4 tests in 4 weeks or at least 3 in 4. I would start Pocock instead of Smith too, but he has had very little class rugby since the S14 except on the Force tour, that it may not be wise too.

 

[Pfitzy]

Frogs sheared sideways a little, destabilising Baxter and basically putting all their drive through Baxter, Moore, and McMeniman. At that point if Alexander drove in he'd be going sideways which might not affect the Froggy pack very much at all. In the end Alexander was chasing the French THP over the tryline - he tried to do the "right" thing by continuing to push straight.

That particular scrum was slightly illegal because the French aren't technically pushing straight. However you could also say that we simply weren't pushing back hard enough against their tighthead side to begin with.

A more experienced LHP e.g. Robinson, may have felt that coming on straight after the hit. At this point there are a couple of reasonable options:

1) Pretend to lose your footing and drop the scrum.
2) Drive in as hard as you can sideways to try and roll the opposition THP onto his hooker - this would give the scrum too much sideways momentum and it would collapse.

Ideally, after either option resulting in a scrum re-set, the LHP (Robinson) should be talking to the TJ about the Frogs not packing straight, while the hooker tells the ref the same story. While this smoke screen is occurring, Baxter should be giving his second-rowers a stern talking-to and maybe a clip over the ear.

Either way, you wouldn't want to try it on again with the ref that close to your own line.

 

[Lindommer]

After two days' cogitation, and a bottle of Mount Barker Riesling's reflection tonight, here're my thoughts on the match in Paris:

1. Referee. I'm going to stick up for Joubert, but only partially. It would be safe to presume he was following an iRB edict to come down hard on offside at the breakdown, as well off one's feet at the tackle, ruck, maul or whatever. We've all been told repeatedly this is what's required of players at the breakdown, and it happened; Joubert was only following orders. If the iRB wants players to stay on their feet at every tackle and/or breakdown, we'd better get used to it. I, for one, quite like the idea, and cottoned on early in the game that that was what Joubert wanted. Joubert is philosophically in favour of a ref letting things go when he can, (check this link on The Roar http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/11/24/referee-destroys-australia-vs-france-test/). The point I'd like to make here is his attitude to the players doing the entertaining, which is completely at odds with the performance he served up last Saturday. He was doing what he was told. However, I will say he was overly officious and there were times when he whistled up something or other which had no potential consequence on subsequent proceedings. Instances when a forward went off his feet as the pill was being presented to the half-back come to mind; if the contest for the next phase has been decided, put the whistle down Craig. Soccer do this: there's an understanding if an offside player isn't affecting play that player isn't flagged offside. More of this in rugby, please, Mr Joubert.

One of the things we amateur spectators possibly don't appreciate is the pressure on elite referees. Joubert would've been marked on this game, as is every referee for a major match, test, Super 14, Currie Cup, NPC, Heineken Cup, etc. In this instance I suspect our NH friends have screamed blue murder at what we SH criminals (read St Richie the Invisible) have got away with and demanded every transgression be punished. And herein lies the difference to our rugby philosophies: we don't mind if every petty and technical transgression draws the referee's ire, as long as the punishment fits the crime. If ever there was an advertisement for short arm penalties, plus the odd yellow card, Saturday was the day. Considering the attitude of both teams in the first ten minutes, allied with France's and Australia's commitment to enjoying flowing rugby, I weep to think about what we possibly missed.

2. The scrum. Two steps forward and one step back. I'll declare my expertise from the outset: I was a back and the dark arts of the front row remain a mystery to me. All I can comment on is what I saw on the TV: it seemed to me the Frogs concentrated on Oz's right shoulders, and effectively took our left side out of the contest. Does Alexander have the nous, or strength, to counter a wheel? Were they trying to negate Sharpe? Did they think MMM was a crap contributor on the right hand side? Do they rate MMM as a second rower? After our progress against the Poms last week (and the interminable forwards' practice with Axle over the last few years) I'm surprised we didn't have the wherewithall to sum up the situation and counter it. The scrum before the penalty try was humiliating; alarm bells should've been ringing when the whistle went. Although I must say it was nice to see so few scrums reset due to the front rows not going down. Why so few?

3. Burgess. This exciting young player, who has brought an urgency and energy to Australia's play the last few tests we can only dream of, was affected by a lurgy before the game which didn't let him perform at his best. Call me an apologist, read the reports. Luke's will to get the ball out of rucks and mauls without delay and get our attack moving is what we need after the last few years of geriatric grandstanding. The French forwards were well schooled in the possibilities of the speed of Burgess' passes and pressured him accordingly, the Oz forwards didn't protect him enough. And the potential recipients of his passes didn't tell him him where they were as he shaped to pass, as they haven't for his last few tests. Like it or not, Luke's the long-term half back for the Wobblies. For anyone to call for Cordingley to replace him for any test on this tour suggests the caller needs his marbles be counted; Cordingley is yesterday's man, with beautifully accurate and measured passes but as slow as a wet week. He's off to Grenoble in a fortnight, goodbye Sam. It begs the question: why send him on this tour in the first place?

4. Kicking. The Frogs followed their kicks up and competed at the fall of the ball beautifully. How many kicks upfield did they retrieve? A lot. If we're going to persist with this kicking game we could well take a leaf out of the Frogs' game plan and copy them. It's one weakness I always reckon Burke and Latham had about their kicking games: kick, and hope about getting the pill back. If Deans wants us to employ a kicking game for field position we have to develop the skills to, somehow, get the ball back in the ensuing engagement.

5. Overall. Considering the Frogs scheduled this game to start at 9:00pm on a potentially cold Paris evening (and it was bitterly cold, check the crowd's clobber) and the Wobblies were adversely affected by various illnesses resulting in three positional changes in the backs 30 minutes before kick off and a crook half back, we did reasonably well. The imperative of a reliable goal kicker is becoming obvious, something we've neglected in Oz rugby in the past. The clinical attitude of NZ rugby where they get their kicks early in the game and don't have to play catch-up rugby is starting to show. The rest of the match then comes down to composure; we had this with Eales when we needed to pull something out of our arses to grab victory from the jaws of defeat, but Deans doesn't want us to be in a position where this is necessary. With our arses exposed, that is.

Dissection over. Comment away.

 

[Lee Grant]

Good post Lindommer,

You are right about the ref. He's usually not too bad but he lacks authority.

I don't know if you saw the Poms v. South Africa game but Nigel Owens had a superb game with the the whistle in that match. He didn't take any crap and he carded a couple of South Africans, sending the Beast to the bin quite early. Thereby he controlled the game, and made players observe the IRB protocols, a lot better than the South African did.

I wrote before the "autumn" tests that the 3N teams would have trouble with the IRB protocols - the requirement to observe the laws and particularly those pertaining to staying on feet and not to kill the ball which is more often than not the same thing.

South Africa was the team that took longest to adjust but they were well behaved at Twickenham, for them. If "the protocols" are refereed with authority they have the merit of being able to change the behaviour of players.

Joubert should get a recording of the game and learn something from Owens.

PS - there was an interesting point of law in the game. The ball came out of the scrum, or was it a ruck, doesn't matter, and one of the Boks dives on it in the vicinity. Penalty and correct - but the Bok player was nonplussed.

 

[Lindommer]

No, Lee, I haven't seen the Pom v Bokke match but I'll make a point of looking it up this week. There'll be a replay some time or other.

Perfectly properly awarded penalty to the Poms, that. But somewhat pedantic. One could possibly make a point for that penalty to be removed from the statute book. (Can't think of anything else starting with P). ;D ;D ;D

 

[Pfitzy]

... I must say it was nice to see so few scrums reset due to the front rows not going down. Why so few?

Sheridan wasn't there to collapse it under pressure 8)

I'm only half-joking with this. Isn't it funny how the French simply played the scrum on its merits and didn't try to collapse every time they thought they could get Baxter penalised? Contrast that to NZ, the Boks, and the Poms, who believed they could milk penalties from the ref based on our reputation. Onya Frogs - you beat us fair and square in the scrum and did it in a positive fashion.

 

[mark_s]

Well I'll fess up and say I wasn't aware of the IRB edict to penalise players for going off their feet at the breakdown so I withdraw some of my criticism of Joubert. However, I think Lindomers post covered it off well in that Joubert was penalising players for going off their feet after the ball had been won and when it was of no consequence.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

No, Lee, I haven't seen the Pom v Bokke match but I'll make a point of looking it up this week. There'll be a replay some time or other.
Perfectly properly awarded penalty to the Poms, that. But somewhat pedantic. One could possibly make a point for that penalty to be removed from the statute book. (Can't think of anything else starting with P). ;D ;D ;D

Disagree entirely. The law in this case is designed to 'prevent' players from killing any loose ball in the vicinity of a ruck/maul thereby making the player actually play the ball intead of killing opportunity - from either side. The 'understanding' is one (1 metre).
So if a player falls on a ball that is lying on the ground within one metre of a ruck/maul/tackle he is deemed to have left his feet.

I also agree with Lee that CJ was acting on instructions but his pedantic methods killed the game.
I for one would like to see more enforcement of this law as 'invisible McCaw' and his ilk - from all teams are exploiting this area and I feel killing the real ruck. If this part is reddied I think we will see some good ruck delivery and quicker service in future. It's at the ruck that most delays occur.

 

[Spook]

THe penalty try was given because of the collapsed scrum. Nothing to do with Smith. You blokes really need to get over the Waugh - Smith thing. It's over.

Spook you have to get away from the chip on the shoulder mindset that because we criticise Smith for cynical actions it is because we favour another player. These are the kneejerk, precious reactions that the Kiwis are so fond of on the other forum. Consider that we may be criticising an Australian player because he acted in a cynical way.

Gee Lee, that is a massive over-reaction from a bit of an attempt to wind up NTA. In any event, the balance of the criticism you have levelled at Smith with regard that try is frankly ridiculous - cynical play or not he is an openside flanker who was put in a situation of trying to prevent a try or just standing back and doing nothing. The reality is that most players (especially opensides) will cheat as much as they can in every facet of play. This is just another one of those facets. Smith could have a got a yellow but didn't. The worst act of the game from an Australian player involved a certain individual tackling an opponent in the air. Now that is both cynical and dangerous but I can't recall anyone mentioning it. The penalty awarded as a result of this action should have resulted in 3 points but fortunately did not.

I hope you don't accuse everyone who has an opinon contrary to that of yours of having a chip on their shoulder, etc as it makes you sound like a misologist. Let's not get confused...the censure of debate is what the Kiwis were fond of.

If anyone dared criticise Beale, you'd be flapping around like a headless chicken. (OK this last bit is a windup!!!)

 

[Spook]

3. Burgess. This exciting young player, who has brought an urgency and energy to Australia's play the last few tests we can only dream of, was affected by a lurgy before the game which didn't let him perform at his best. Call me an apologist, read the reports. Luke's will to get the ball out of rucks and mauls without delay and get our attack moving is what we need after the last few years of geriatric grandstanding. The French forwards were well schooled in the possibilities of the speed of Burgess' passes and pressured him accordingly, the Oz forwards didn't protect him enough. And the potential recipients of his passes didn't tell him him where they were as he shaped to pass, as they haven't for his last few tests. Like it or not, Luke's the long-term half back for the Wobblies. For anyone to call for Cordingley to replace him for any test on this tour suggests the caller needs his marbles be counted; Cordingley is yesteday's man, beautifully accurate and measured passes but as slow as a wet week. He's off to Grenoble in a fortnight, goodbye Sam. It begs the question: why send him on this tour in the first place?

For exactly the reason why he came on against France. To calm things down a bit, provide composure and reliability. The best thing for Oz would be for some of the other young half backs to come through and compete with Burgess for the 9 jersey - I think we have some very talented players who are only hitting their 20s now who will challenge for the jumper.

Burgess has been ordinary all tour. Give me geriatric grandstanding any day over that. Burgess needs to stop dithering and go with instinct. He's seems to have lost some confidence. Hopefully he fires this weekend.

 

[fatprop]

Cordingley was asked by Deans to play mentor to Burgess this season. (there was an article about it, but be buggered if I can find it)

Cordingley initially wanted an early release

 

[Ash]

Well I'll fess up and say I wasn't aware of the IRB edict to penalise players for going off their feet at the breakdown so I withdraw some of my criticism of Joubert. However, I think Lindomers post covered it off well in that Joubert was penalising players for going off their feet after the ball had been won and when it was of no consequence.

My biggest criticism of Joubert and the NH edict in regard to players going off their feet is the complete pendancism employed in the ruling of it. In several cases, players have gone off their feet in the clearout as they hit defending players and drive them backwards and fall over from momentum, or, as in one case against France that Joubert awarded a penalty for, there was a counter ruck which was driven backwards but the attacker fell over because he lost contact with the player he drove back / held off from the ball.

There are dominant ruck situations whereby the attacking team member should be excused if he doesn't keep his feet, but it seems those cases are somewhat harshly treated.

 

[PhucNgo]

PS another player I bag a bit is Ioane because his spectrum of skills is narrow, but he looked lively, didn't he?

Agree entirely Lee, he looked confident under the high ball and even put boot to ball in a manner that you'd hardly know he was an unco. Definitely moving in the right direction.