British & Irish Lions tour of New Zealand (2017)

[Dan54]

Dan, are you deliberately misreading all of the posts trying to describe the circumstances of Vunipola's YC or do you really think there was only one incident involving both Vunipola and Barrett?

To make it clear (I hope), there is no suggestion at all that Vunipola attacked Barrett's head in the late tackle, or that Barrett going to ground after the late hit was in any way involved in Vunipola's YC. The YC offence happened at a later ruck/tackle when Barrett was on the ground trying to move away from the tackle area and Vunipola dived shoulder first to connect with Barrett's head. It was not a late tackle - forget all about any reference to a late tackle. It was for a dangerous dive on a player on the ground, and a deserved YC.

No Brumby I not misreading anything, I was also just making it clear that in no way did I think Vunipola attacked Barretts head in reaction to a supposed dive when he hit Barrett late, I am not the one who said it, and unfortunately there is more than a suggestion that Vunipola attacked Barrett as payback for a supposed dive when Vunipola hit him a bit latish.Until Gnostic made that claim, I hadn't even realised it was Vunipola that was involved in the late tackle. I am in fact defending Vunipola!!

 

[USARugger]

Simplest answer is he saw what he thought what was a chance to smash a half who wandered too close to the ruck and did what every forward in the world has been told to do in that situation since childhood.

 

[Dan54]

And personally though I got nothing against SBW , I would of given him and extra 4 weeks just because his hit was so stupid I thought!!

 

[Bullrush]

The inconsistency of SBW getting 4 weeks while Vunipola got nothing is a little discouraging but hardly surprising.

 

[Dan54]

Simplest answer is he saw what he thought what was a chance to smash a half who wandered too close to the ruck and did what every forward in the world has been told to do in that situation since childhood.

Agree USA, just a bit unfortunate (I though)he connected with his shoulder to Barretts head.

 

[Highlander35]

Eh. Mako used arms, hit the chest, and it was "at the ruck" (yes, he wasn't blocking the ball or anything, but if the 10s there, you smash 'em.)

Don't particularly like the bloke, I'd vastly prefer McGrath to start in the final test, but the only reason it was any more than a penalty and a warning is that the ref made a bad call earlier and really had to bin him for repeated infringements.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Bullrush]

Eh. Mako used arms, hit the chest, and it was "at the ruck" (yes, he wasn't blocking the ball or anything, but if the 10s there, you smash 'em.)

Don't particularly like the bloke, I'd vastly prefer McGrath to start in the final test, but the only reason it was any more than a penalty and a warning is that the ref made a bad call earlier and really had to bin him for repeated infringements.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Ummm - no.

Hopefully the ABs get their own justice with a win at Eden Park

 

[Brumby Runner]

No Brumby I not misreading anything, I was also just making it clear that in no way did I think Vunipola attacked Barretts head in reaction to a supposed dive when he hit Barrett late, I am not the one who said it, and unfortunately there is more than a suggestion that Vunipola attacked Barrett as payback for a supposed dive when Vunipola hit him a bit latish.Until Gnostic made that claim, I hadn't even realised it was Vunipola that was involved in the late tackle. I am in fact defending Vunipola!!

I get that Dan, but that's where I think you're in the wrong. There is no excuse for a dive on the player on the ground who was retreating from the breakdown area anyway, and as it was determined that he used his shoulder to Barrett's head the YC was entirely appropriate. Probably marginal red if truth be known.

 

[mark_s]

Either way, the BIL's will need to be much more disciplined at Eden Park to have a chance. What's lost a bit in the card debate is that the AB's could very easily have wrapped the series up on the weekend, and really should have given Barrett's misses weren't particularly difficult positions. I think Gatland will make some changes despite the win.

 

[cyclopath]

View attachment 9452

Ummm - no.

Hopefully the ABs get their own justice with a win at Eden Park

If you don't put arrows on it, how can we really interpret it?

 

[formerflanker]

They replaced Kaino with Laumape. It bloody nearly paid off too.

Of course. I was muddled into confusion.

 

[Bullrush]

I just read that Naholo failed the concussion test after the O'Brien swinging arm but the citing got dismissed?!?
And I thought they were taking head contact seriously...

 

[Tigs Man]

I just read that Naholo failed the concussion test after the O'Brien swinging arm but the citing got dismissed?!?
And I thought they were taking head contact seriously.

Hansen said he passed HIA

 

[USARugger]

I just read that Naholo failed the concussion test after the O'Brien swinging arm but the citing got dismissed?!?
And I thought they were taking head contact seriously.

He passed HIA and was subbed anyway, I believe.

As a neutral I didn't and still don't see the O'Brien/Naholo incident as any different than Cane/Henshaw last year, neither should have been and rightfully weren't banned for what were accidental inevitabilities of a collision sport.

 

[Brumby Runner]

But there has been little consideration given to the accidental nature of a collision with the head area during this year. Even the Watson/SBW incident had an element of accidental collision in it as Watson seemed to be ducking into contact under the influence of the other tackler. But that did not, nor should it have, influence the correct decision to issue the RC. Naholo was similarly falling under the influence of another tackle when it seemed to me that O'Brien accidentally hit him on the head with what was very nearly a swinging arm - could have been simply a natural action of the arm with the intention of making a tackle with arms, but it turned out to be a forearm jolt as the arm was swinging.

I was surprised that at least an off-field YC wasn't issued to O'Brien.

 

[Dan54]

He passed HIA and was subbed anyway, I believe.

As a neutral I didn't and still don't see the O'Brien/Naholo incident as any different than Cane/Henshaw last year, neither should have been and rightfully weren't banned for what were accidental inevitabilities of a collision sport.

Agree wholeheartedly USA, christ with the speed that the players are moving you will get accidents happening! I would of been a bit disappointed if SOB had been stood down for that hit too.

 

[Twoilms]

But there has been little consideration given to the accidental nature of a collision with the head area during this year. Even the Watson/SBW incident had an element of accidental collision in it as Watson seemed to be ducking into contact under the influence of the other tackler. But that did not, nor should it have, influence the correct decision to issue the RC. Naholo was similarly falling under the influence of another tackle when it seemed to me that O'Brien accidentally hit him on the head with what was very nearly a swinging arm - could have been simply a natural action of the arm with the intention of making a tackle with arms, but it turned out to be a forearm jolt as the arm was swinging.

I was surprised that at least an off-field YC wasn't issued to O'Brien.

nah nah SBW came around the corner and lined him up well after he was already in the tackle. No accident about it.

 

[USARugger]

I was surprised that at least an off-field YC wasn't issued to O'Brien.

I have a very difficult time trying to rationalize the SBW incident as an "accident" in the same nature as what happened with SOB. In the latter I think this was a true accident that could occur around most any ruck, with little or no intent.

The SBW incident would be on the exact opposite end of that spectrum, lots of intent with chance playing a very small role. Even if he had landed on the chest he could have easily been hit with a yellow for the shoulder charge.

 

[Bullrush]

Hansen said he passed HIA

OK. I had read that he failed it which is what made me wonder how it hadn't been punished at the judiciary.

 

[Bullrush]

'for consistency'. In no universe were those two offenses on the same level. It was dirty and he got appropriately carded. SBW's tackle was all kinds of stupid and dangerous on a level very rarely seen these days.

Whereas Vunipola's wasn't stupid or dangerous? Vunipola's could have easily been a red AND it should have been looked at by the judiciary.

I am hoping that the off-side is policed better in the last Test as well. I have thought all year during the Super Rugby games that the off-side line has all but been ignored by officials but it was taken to ridiculous levels on Saturday by the Lions.