Australia vs British and Irish Lions 2nd Test (Melbourne)

[Scotty]

Douglas struggled in that game to me, his stats were way down, I think that head knock was an issue.

On the lineout, Mowen, Hooper & Palu were the catchers, Horwill & Douglas were thrown away from

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match22231.html

He was good in the first game, but I reckon he had dropped 2-3 pills by the time he was replaced in the second half. Simmons had a greater impact than Douglas (but has to overcome perception so many people wouldn't see it that way).

 

[Scotty]

By the way, it's pretty interesting to look at the stats from the second test.

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match22231.html

Mowen, who everyone thinks had a great game: 3 tackles, 5 runs (20m), 4 penalties, 1 t/o, 5 ruck/mauls.

Palu, who a number of people think was rubbish: 5 tackles, 12 runs (41m), 1 penalty, 1 t/o, 11 ruck/mauls.

Moore: 9 tackles, 12 runs (35m), 1 penalty, 3 t/o, 12 ruck/mauls.

Again, it's not that stats explain everything and some of the various involvements could have been ineffective, but it does give some interesting counterpoints to the general narrative. 4 penalties from Mowen, for example, is really bad and could easily have lost us the series. Palu only played 61 minutes, but still accumulated better stats than Mowen. I'm not saying Palu had a better game necessarily, just that the stats tell a more nuanced story than some punters.

The biggest concern with Mowen is him being a penalty magnet. I am sure at times he even means to give away penalties. There were several times in the game where he could have been penalised more, as he tends to flop over and seal the ball off a lot when in support of the ball carrier.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Too much credit to Deans. Sure he picked Christian, but Mowen, Tomane and Mogg were forced on him by injuries to initial squad members. I am more concerned about the narrative of many who claimed the Lions' series was no place or time to bring in debutants. On the whole, Mowen, Folau and now Lealiifano have been amongs the best performed in the tests and these were the in-form players some of us were wanting in the first place but who wouldn't have been given the opportunity if not for injuries. Form should prevail over reputation at all times.

No it shouldn't. It has been shown over many many years that some players have very indifferent club/provincial/super form but step up at test level.

Team selection is a very subjective matter and coaches would be crazy to run the same ruler over each individual player, because every player is a different proposition. It's the whole package of what a player brings, not just what they've done over the previous weeks on the field.

Also there's no need for transparency at all IMO. I think coaches run into problems when they attempt to be transparent on selections. They should just focus on why they selected player X instead of comparing him with player Y and Z.

 

[fatprop]

He was good in the first game, but I reckon he had dropped 2-3 pills by the time he was replaced in the second half. Simmons had a greater impact than Douglas (but has to overcome perception so many people wouldn't see it that way).

he dropped two, I would be very concerned if he and Simmons were the locks for this next game

 

[daz]

Having been at the game, and then watching the replay the next day, the biggest thing that I saw was how bad my perception was during game time.

I honestly thought the backs let us down time and time again with turnover ball and a lack of handling skills. Not to mention being utterly toothless in attack.

In my mind at the time, it was the forwards who kept us in the game.

Watching the replay almost turned me around 180 degrees.

KB (Kurtley Beale) and JOC (James O'Connor) dropped a couple of passes, but it was the forwards who just couldn't hold the pill in contact.

If the backs were guilty of anything, it was trying to do something special every time they got the ball. No patience, but loads of application.

And frankly, I need to remind myself that the Lions didn't get over the chalk. So much for North, Youngs, et al tearing us apart.

And I dropped a shitload of IQ capability in the last 5 minutes of the game, mainly because I think I stopped breathing.

 

[Bessa]

Just a thought, do you think North should be charged with lifting in the tackle? Folau was put in a dangerous position by North, North wrapped his hand around Folau's legs and drove him down.

No where in the rules does it state that it must be the ball carrier put into the dangerous position......

Law 10.4(j): Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

 

[Bullrush]

Just a thought, do you think North should be charged with lifting in the tackle? Folau was put in a dangerous position by North, North wrapped his hand around Folau's legs and drove him down.

No where in the rules does it state that it must be the ball carrier put into the dangerous position..

Law 10.4(j): Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

You gotta be kidding.......

 

[Bessa]

You gotta be kidding...

Just read the law.... I say he should be banned for at least the next match.
He can sit next to Horwill and cry about it.

 

[Bullrush]

Just read the law.. I say he should be banned for at least the next match.
He can sit next to Horwill and cry about it.

I think you should actually read the Law:

"Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play."

The first part of Folau's body to hit the ground was his feet. You'll note that the first part of the law specifically states that 'whilst the player's feet are still off the ground.'

I feel like I'm doing a lot of explaining of stuff here over the last 24hrs of video that should be easy to see for anyone who actually just watches it?!?

Glad to see that you think Horwill should be sat down as well though.

 

[Bessa]

Firstly, Folau is slammed onto his , he never lands and is control.
Secondly, Horwill shouldn't be banned, but everyone here knows that the IRB is run by the Northern Hem's. so it's natural that they cry until they get their own way, which they no doubt will.
Thankfully Warburton will be ruled out.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think you're clutching at straws.

The only thing that will have been hopefully learned from that incident is that George North will think twice about picking up a player like that again as he could have broken his neck when he spear tackled himself.

 

[It is what it is]

Firstly, Folau is slammed onto his , he never lands and is control.
Secondly, Horwill shouldn't be banned, but everyone here knows that the IRB is run by the Northern Hem's. so it's natural that they cry until they get their own way, which they no doubt will.
Thankfully Warburton will be ruled out.

I won't celebrate if Warburton is ruled out, I'd rather see each squad have every possible player available for selection.
I'll actually feel sorry for him as this will be yet another huge game on the world stage he'll miss, after his RWC 2011 mishap.

 

[Bullrush]

Firstly, Folau is slammed onto his , he never lands and is control.
Secondly, Horwill shouldn't be banned, but everyone here knows that the IRB is run by the Northern Hem's. so it's natural that they cry until they get their own way, which they no doubt will.
Thankfully Warburton will be ruled out.

Right - so now you just want to make up rules. Where does it say in the Laws that you quoted that Folau must be in 'control'?

By the way, you also said:

"No where in the rules does it state that it must be the ball carrier put into the dangerous position.."

Well, actually it does. The Laws you quote state:

"A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles"

and

"For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles.."

Just in case you're unsure, tackles are made by the person who doesn't have the ball - in this instance Folau - so these Laws pertain to his actions not North's.

If anything, North was the one who was in a dangerous tackle (he was the one with the ball so he is the one getting tackled - just so we're clear here) as he got DDT'd once he put Folau down - , I mite call Folau 'Jake The Snake' from now on - but I think the whole thing was a just a weird situation that sometimes happens in sport and I don't think anyone deserves any kind of suspension from it.

Certainly no-one got kicked in the head which then required stitches anyway....

 

[daz]

Firstly, Folau is slammed onto his , he never lands and is control.
Secondly, Horwill shouldn't be banned, but everyone here knows that the IRB is run by the Northern Hem's. so it's natural that they cry until they get their own way, which they no doubt will.
Thankfully Warburton will be ruled out.

Whoo. Tin hat time.

Fair dinkum, if North gets any negative response from the IRB on that tackle, then we should just shut the doors and call this sport experiment named "rugby" dead in the water.

Secondly, there are many, many people of these fora (myself being one of them) who thinks that Horwill was very very lucky to get off with nothing.

The IRB process is the joke. If James is rubbed out for the stomp, the uproar won't be because he didn't deserve it; it will be because the IRB process is nothing more than toilet paper.

And my personal view is that being thankful that a player is ruled out due to injury is poor form.

I need a drink. Carry on.

 

[It is what it is]

Right - so now you just want to make up rules. Where does it say in the Laws that you quoted that Folau must be in 'control'?

By the way, you also said:



Well, actually it does. The Laws you quote state:


and



....snip

Certainly no-one got kicked in the head which then required stitches anyway..

....or had their nose smashed in by a prop 5 minutes after putting the ball down for a great winger's try in Brisbane.

 

[Braveheart81]

Whoo. Tin hat time.

Agreed. North would have been much safer if he'd been wearing his protective tinfoil hat.

 

[Pfitzy]

Simmons actually had a couple of good carries in this game. He hit gaps nicely on both those runs and how hands are good. But his physical presence, especially in defence or at ruck time, is not on par with Douglas or Horwill. He simply does not shift bodies in the same fashion.

-----------------------
I hate autocorrect ...

 

[Bessa]

Secondly, there are many, many people of these fora (myself being one of them) who thinks that Horwill was very very lucky to get off with nothing.
.

Not me, I agree with the original IRB decision....

 

[Bullrush]

Agreed. North would have been much safer if he'd been wearing his protective tinfoil hat.

I didn't LOL but I defintely QCALOTI'd (quietly chuckled and laughed on the inside)

 

[Bullrush]

Not me, I agree with the original IRB decision..

You wouldn't look to have AWJ suspended for putting Horwill in a dangerous position where he could have seriously twisted, sprained or maybe broken his ankle via the facial contact to Horwill's boot?

I'm sure there's a Law somewhere that would back it up......