Brumbies MOM v Crusaders

[Bilby]

3. Fainga'a
2. Vaea
1. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) -

 

[Moses]

3. Palmer
2. McCabe
1. Fainga'a

 

[lincoln]

3. Palmer
2. Moore
1. McCabe

 

[Newb]

3. Finger
2. MacCabe
1. Palmer

 

[fatprop]

The positives about Palmer are his scrum and his lack of errors this year, the negative is his work rate, he is doing half to a third of the work around the park of the top THPs (in Aus Slipper & the best Franks)

 

[Brumby Jack]

3. Colby Fainga'a
2. Pat McCabe (I'm starting to sound like a broken record saying his name all the time)
1. Ita Vaea

 

[boonboon]

If Palmer was a backrower it would worry me he wasnt great around the field but he is a prop - We should be picking the best scrummager and lineout lifter - everything else is secondary - Slipper runs around the field well unfortunatly like most aussie THP he is shit where it counts

 

[DPK]

Agree boonboon, we should be picking props to prop. If we stabilise our scrum we won't need him to do anything around the park, the back's will handle the rest.

 

[Hawko]

3. Fainga'a
2. Vaea
1. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) - actually cut through the defence in the 1st half, so points because he hasn't done that in previous games.

Feel odd giving points to the backrow because we weren't quick enough to the tackle ball in the 2nd half. But there you go, points have to go somewhere. CF tried hard and Vaea made some good runs.

Interesting that these two players are under significant pressure for their spots. Desperation seems to make a little bit of difference no?

 

[vidiot]

If Palmer was a backrower it would worry me he wasnt great around the field but he is a prop - We should be picking the best scrummager and lineout lifter - everything else is secondary - Slipper runs around the field well unfortunatly like most aussie THP he is shit where it counts

Agree boonboon, we should be picking props to prop. If we stabilise our scrum we won't need him to do anything around the park, the back's will handle the rest.

That is harsh on Slipper and IMO a gross oversimplification. A stable scrum is good, sure. If we stabilise the scrum but get our butts kicked at the breakdown, miss or fail to make dominant tackles, we will get thrashed. Our scrum wasn't the problem v. England on the EOYT. Flying Palmer over there would have been worse.

 

[fatprop]

Agree boonboon, we should be picking props to prop. If we stabilise our scrum we won't need him to do anything around the park, the back's will handle the rest.

It will always be a compromise

 

[territorian]

OK, I don't need much convincing! - I haven't seen a replay, but didn't plan on looking hard either.
Are there any referees at relatively senior level that post on here? Seems very much a closed shop.

yes I am although do not ref anymore - yes it was a correct decision to card him for the offence but it was an incorrect call on the foul play in the first place.
Refs are human, he saw the foot move, the ball move and the fumble by the Crusaders halfbank.
What the ref did was break the first rule of refereeing - he made a decision on something he did not see - he did not see the foot touch the ball - he only say three separate and unrelated incidents and he then ASSUMED.
That was so wrong, it is something I and all referee coaches always taught refs to never do - if you don't see it you can rule on it - that is why we as TV spectators are of the opinion refs are lame - we see far more than they ever can in the real time and a good ref will never rule on suspicion alone - he must see the incident.

Same for many forward passes etc, you would be surprised at how often a referee actually is unsighted on incidents – it’s just the frenetic nature of the game I’m afraid.

 

[kiap]

yes I am although do not ref anymore - yes it was a correct decision to card him for the offence but it was an incorrect call on the foul play in the first place.
Refs are human, he saw the foot move, the ball move and the fumble by the Crusaders halfbank.
What the ref did was break the first rule of refereeing - he made a decision on something he did not see - he did not see the foot touch the ball - he only say three separate and unrelated incidents and he then ASSUMED.
That was so wrong, it is something I and all referee coaches always taught refs to never do - if you don't see it you can rule on it - that is why we as TV spectators are of the opinion refs are lame - we see far more than they ever can in the real time and a good ref will never rule on suspicion alone - he must see the incident.

Same for many forward passes etc, you would be surprised at how often a referee actually is unsighted on incidents – it’s just the frenetic nature of the game I’m afraid.

Thanks, Territorian. Good points.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Some very good points, territorian. I often feel like the odd man out when I start to read people's comments on a game and the general view of just how much impact the referee's decisions have had on the outcome of the match. I have usually been much too busy watching the players' involvements to take much notice of the bloke with the whistle.

 

[territorian]

Some very good points, territorian. I often feel like the odd man out when I start to read people's comments on a game and the general view of just how much impact the referee's decisions have had on the outcome of the match. I have usually been much too busy watching the players' involvements to take much notice of the bloke with the whistle.

I have a problem in games - i am usually watching the ref and his positioning and what he is looking at and don't see the wider game. Just comes with the territory.

 

[qwerty51]

3. Fainga'a
2. Palmer
1. McCabe

 

[rugbysmartarse]

3-mcabe
2-vaea
1-finger

 

[DPK]

That is harsh on Slipper and IMO a gross oversimplification. A stable scrum is good, sure. If we stabilise the scrum but get our butts kicked at the breakdown, miss or fail to make dominant tackles, we will get thrashed. Our scrum wasn't the problem v. England on the EOYT. Flying Palmer over there would have been worse.

That's not really what I was trying to say. At the moment, I would say Aus rugby doesn't have a great track record in training props who are great around the park to scrum; maybe we can try doing the opposite.

 

[Slim 293]

That's not really what I was trying to say. At the moment, I would say Aus rugby doesn't have a great track record in training props who are great around the park to scrum; maybe we can try doing the opposite.

Exactly.

Plus it's our locks who are the ones who need to harden up and use their muscle at the breakdown to drive out players.

Let's for once field a dominant TH whose workrate around the field can be improved. Rather than the other way around as that hasn't worked for us in years and years...