Cringeworthy Kearns/Martin moments.....minutes......hours......

[Scoey]

Braveheart81 he was rightly annoyed at the technicality of the offence in the context of the game. As was I. To the letter of the law, it was a penalty, but there was no obstruction, the Reds gained no advantage and it was ridiculous to give the penalty in the context of the game. This is something that occurs on a heap of kick offs in all games. It handed the Brumbies a free 3 points that in the context of the game were not deserved. Given that the result was ultimately a draw, gives further weight to the questioning of the penalty.

 

[Braveheart81]

Braveheart81 he was rightly annoyed at the technicality of the offence in the context of the game. As was I. To the letter of the law, it was a penalty, but there was no obstruction, the Reds gained no advantage and it was ridiculous to give the penalty in the context of the game. This is something that occurs on a heap of kick offs in all games. It handed the Brumbies a free 3 points that in the context of the game were not deserved. Given that the result was ultimately a draw, gives further weight to the questioning of the penalty.

I disagree completely. If the referee considered it a blatant intentional infringement then he has to award a penalty. Gaining no advantage from an intentional infringement doesn't lessen the infringement. It just makes it more stupid.

I can't comment on what happened on the following kick-off as I didn't notice it.

 

[Dumbledore]

Marto just shouldn't be allowed to cover Reds games.

 

[Scoey]

I disagree completely. If the referee considered it a blatant intentional infringement then he has to award a penalty.

It would be hard to argue that it was intentional. It was a little sloppy at best but hardly an intentional foul. Added to this that the first arriving Brumbies tackler hit Simmons cleanly, it is also hard to argue that there was in fact any obstruction at all.

 

[Braveheart81]

It would be hard to argue that it was intentional. It was a little sloppy at best but hardly an intentional foul. Added to this that the first arriving Brumbies tackler hit Simmons cleanly, it is also hard to argue that there was in fact any obstruction at all.

Again, I disagree. The two players are there next to Simmons to act as lifters. The kick doesn't require a lift for Simmons to secure and instead the two players step in front of him. I think it is very much deliberate. If they had stayed still or taken a step backward so they are well out of the way (and ready to support Simmons at the ruck) there would be no penalty.

I think decisions not to award these sort of penalties because the game is close is crazy. I think it is what creates the sort of situation whereby the referee puts his whistle away in the final 20 minutes of the game because they don't want to make big decisions that might affect the outcome of the match and the amount of infringing reaches farcical levels.

Whilst Jackson could have definitely been harsher on the Brumbies in the final 20 minutes and resorted to a card earlier, I thought he did continue to referee at a fairly consistent standard to the rest of the match. Whilst I don't think he did a good job overall, he definitely didn't put the whistle away in the fear that calling penalties or cards was going to affect the outcome of the match and he didn't want that.

 

[wamberal]

Wayne Smith had an interesting piece in The Weekend Australian - "Too many cooks spoil a tantalising broth" in which he outlined in detail the Brumbies kick off reception strategy.


Sure enough, the dills on the Fox commentary team spent the first twenty minutes of the game quoting from it (without acknowledgement, of course). These buggers honestly do not have an original thought in their bodies. They are beyond pathetic, really.


Nick McArdle and Rod Kafer excepted. But Clarke, Martin, Kearns and, I am sorry to say, Sharpe are just boring. All they can do is talk in cliches.

 

[JSRF10]

Didn't really understand the reaction of the commentators, it was a blatant penalty end of story. If anything they needed to be questioning why the Queensland players made such a stupid mistake in a close game, I wonder if BNZ do the same receiving a kick off in the Bledisloe will the reaction be the same?

 

[RedsHappy]

Again, I disagree. The two players are there next to Simmons to act as lifters. The kick doesn't require a lift for Simmons to secure and instead the two players step in front of him. I think it is very much deliberate. If they had stayed still or taken a step backward so they are well out of the way (and ready to support Simmons at the ruck) there would be no penalty.

I think decisions not to award these sort of penalties because the game is close is crazy. I think it is what creates the sort of situation whereby the referee puts his whistle away in the final 20 minutes of the game because they don't want to make big decisions that might affect the outcome of the match and the amount of infringing reaches farcical levels.

Whilst Jackson could have definitely been harsher on the Brumbies in the final 20 minutes and resorted to a card earlier, I thought he did continue to referee at a fairly consistent standard to the rest of the match. Whilst I don't think he did a good job overall, he definitely didn't put the whistle away in the fear that calling penalties or cards was going to affect the outcome of the match and he didn't want that.

Just to add to this, as a Reds supporter. As I've noted elsewhere today, and a point in this particular debate to Braveheart's argument above, it was an essential indirect element of the Reds' hyper-attacking game plan that they executed all of 80 with a very, very high level of discipline in all key penalty-abale areas of the game so as not to give the Brums kickable penalties which there were likely to make with their excellent place and from-hand kicking skills, period. From scrum penalties to others (that Horwill later referred to self-critically), this low level of opposition kickable penalties, they simply did not achieve and the points so gifted contributed mightily to a non-Reds win. Jackson may have been a tad pedantic with the specific penalty noted here, but it was incumbent upon the Reds to be extremely careful not to expose themselves to any form of penalty within 50 metres of their posts unless they held a wide points margin.

 

[Scoey]

Braveheart81 I should probably clarify that my references to the penalty being ridiculous in the context of the game, wasn't a reference to it being a close game, more so that it was a reference to the clear benchmark that had been set in terms of the latitude being given to teams when infringing. Clearly play was being allowed to go on and numerous more significant penalties were going unpunished, so to call such a pedantic foul was ridiculous in that context of the game.

Had he been reffing the whole game like that (other than it being a horrible game to watch) I would have no beef with the application of the law. As it stood however, the laws of the game were being applied quite loosely at times so to pick that one event, when it had no impact on the game to be pedantic is always going to upset people.

 

[Scoey]

Didn't really understand the reaction of the commentators, it was a blatant penalty end of story. If anything they needed to be questioning why the Queensland players made such a stupid mistake in a close game, I wonder if BNZ do the same receiving a kick off in the Bledisloe will the reaction be the same?

It was a penalty. The reaction IMO was due largely to the numerous and arguably much more significant infringements (in terms of the impact on the game) that were not penalised. Most teams do the same thing a handful of times in every game and it is never penalised, so no I doubt if NZ did it without being penalised there will be any reaction at all.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Just to add to this, as a Reds supporter. As I've noted elsewhere today, and a point in this particular debate to Braveheart's argument above, it was an essential indirect element of the Reds' hyper-attacking game plan that they executed all of 80 with a very, very high level of discipline in all key penalty-abale areas of the game so as not to give the Brums kickable penalties which there were likely to make with their excellent place and from-hand kicking skills, period. From scrum penalties to others (that Horwill later referred to self-critically), this low level of opposition kickable penalties, they simply did not achieve and the points so gifted contributed mightily to a non-Reds win. Jackson may have been a tad pedantic with the specific penalty noted here, but it was incumbent upon the Reds to be extremely careful not to expose themselves to any form of penalty within 50 metres of their posts unless they held a wide points margin.

Agree. I thought in the 1st half the Reds were lacking in discipline and were a little out of step at the collissions. This gave the Brumbies a good cushion.

As for the commentating, I turn that rubbish down all the time now, Aussie and Kiwi. Listen to the radio commentators if I want to hear anything while I watch.

Didn't mind the ABC Brisbane ones the short periods I listened to them on Saturday. The Radio Sport NZ ones are a crack up

 

[Dan54]

Funny, I haven't heard commentary, as I was at game myself, but funnily enough I saw it as a penalty as soon as it happened, said so to mate I was with, and am surprised that anyone would think it should be let go.

 

[Dan54]

This just goes to show that not everyone will be happy with a commentary team anywhere, ever. Gordon Bray is one of the best in the business!

I like Bray, never used to be keen on him ,as I felt he got names wrong (probably of ABs as it when I still lived in NZ and only heard him on AB tests), but from what I have heard last few years, I have found him very good, mainly because he shows a good knowledge of the game, one of main things I want from commentators!!

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Marto annoyed the hell out of me when he was complaining about the penalty for offside by the Reds props from the kickoff (Reds had just scored a try, Brumbies kicked off, Simmons caught it and the Reds props obstructed).

It was a clear penalty and whilst the Reds didn't get any advantage from it, it was still blatant and should be penalised.

Marto going on and on about it being a soft penalty, the Reds not gaining any advantage and that the infringement wasn't worth three points are all completely stupid arguments.

It was a blatant obstruction and it should be penalised. Marto seems to miss the point that the action is what dictates the referee's decision, not the outcome.

He makes the same argument over and over again when there is a dangerous tackle committed by the Reds. Seemingly in his mind, a dangerous tackle only warrants a sanction if the tackled player gets injured.

Agreed - Martin spoilt my game of choice this weekend - again... I note that his method is to often wait for one of the others to say something, and then Repeat it (straight after) in a loud, shouting voice, sounding like an agrieved Punter from some Oxford Street Hostelry....

He has a whining, constantly outraged manner of speaking - and I am unsure why he thinks that is suitable for a commentry Team.

Perhaps it would be an interesting interview for GAGR to set up with Fox Channel - asking them about the finer points of their Rugby Coverage - and WHY THEY PERSIST WITH THIS APPALLING COMMENTATOR!

 

[Sully]

I'vs ignored this thread for ages but I thought I'd mention that I have no problem with any of the commentators. Just can't see what the problem is. It's not like they're acting like Phill Gould.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Braveheart81]

I'vs ignored this thread for ages but I thought I'd mention that I have no problem with any of the commentators. Just can't see what the problem is. It's not like they're acting like Phill Gould.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

On that comparison, every commentator is good.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Wayne Smith had an interesting piece in The Weekend Australian - "Too many cooks spoil a tantalising broth" in which he outlined in detail the Brumbies kick off reception strategy.


Sure enough, the dills on the Fox commentary team spent the first twenty minutes of the game quoting from it (without acknowledgement, of course). These buggers honestly do not have an original thought in their bodies. They are beyond pathetic, really.


Nick McArdle and Rod Kafer excepted. But Clarke, Martin, Kearns and, I am sorry to say, Sharpe are just boring. All they can do is talk in cliches.

I didagree on Sharpie - He does not pretend to be anything other than what he is - an experienced player who has a good read of the game, and is giving his honest ten cents worth... If they replace Greg Martin with Sharpe on a permanent, total basis, the quality of comment would be raised by several hundered percent - and viewer's enjoyment by much more.

One thing that annoys me in all Rugby countries however, is the tendency in recent years - especially by specific commentators - to constantly question the Refs decisions - only to moments later - (amidst a blather of verbal dysentery) concede that they either 'can't be sure' or, that the 'Ref had to make an immediate decision, without the benefits of a replay' or worse still 'okay, I got that one wrong'!...

So leave it alone, and comment on the game - (not what they WOULD do, IF they were the Ref)... When I was a kid I was taught an ethic of 'cop the bad ref decisions on the chin' and lift yourself - the Ref is Always Right. That is what the young kids watching ought to be taught; 'don't argue, run back to your mark'...

Fine if there is a major cock-up, or a blatantly bad call, then name it, but this constant questioning at every maul and every scrum, and kick, and, and, and...

its just puerile.

 

[Penguin]

I'vs ignored this thread for ages but I thought I'd mention that I have no problem with any of the commentators. Just can't see what the problem is. It's not like they're acting like Phill Gould.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

Or that abomination Ray Hadley.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I'm getting increasingly annoyed with the carping criticism that some on this forum direct at Tim Horan. I think that a lot of people miss the point that he is helping to educate viewers who lack the deep knowledge of someone like Matthew Burke, for instance.

In the post match show tonight he made a very percipient point about Will Genia, to wit: "He made a lot of tackles defensively." Those of us who watch a lot of rugby might have thought the comment a tad tautological, but to an uninitiated viewer it conveys the quite useful information that it is more appropriate for a rugby player to make tackles defensively than to make them attackively, which of course is much more common in American Football.
.

 

[Paddysboy]

Bruce I always enjoy reading what you have to say because it is insightful, reasoned and balanced, but on this occasion, I can't agree about Helmet. He is Captain obvious and dull as Clarke's commentary. I've said before on another thread that Horan is perhaps the best 12 I've seen for the Wallabies (though that was when we thought the 12 was a second five-eigth, but I digress), but the more he opens his mouth the less I like him.
As for the others, we all know Marto is incompetent, though it amuses me when all say he is such a one-eyed Reds fan. He is the first to panic and jump off them if things look shaky, closely followed by Timmy who tends to yell 'trouble!' all too often regarding the Reds in defence. Then again, maybe they're both such fans they fret like they're still a a part of it and just want to run on and sort it out.
Kafe is the only one who usually seems to earn his dollars and spends time analysing the game, though he does spend an inordinate amount of time justifying some of the horseshit the Brumbies are putting on in defence, as per last Saturday when he said it was fine to give away penalties when you back your defence. Sounds and looks like Springboks 2006-07 to me and it brings little to the game.
Frankly, I rate Justin Marshall as the fairest and most thoughtful of commentators (god I never thought I'd say that given my disdain for him as an All Black). I find Grant Nisbett pretty good and the newer kiwi commentator, Scotty Stevenson, is pretty funny and of the three, TJ tends to lean to a pro-kiwi slant depending on which NZ Province is playing, though still good and all of them are entertaining and clearly know the game. I think without his stats sheet, Clarkey could just as well be calling the Dapto Dogs for all the feel he has for the game. Oh for the time when we had Gordon Bray giving us some obscure snippet about Toutai Kefu's cousin's plumber who once sang the national anthem at the world crab tying championships when it was last held in Kiribati...........then again that used to annoy the hell out of me as a kid.
Hugh Blaaaaaaden is great. Mental, but nobody can pronounce a player's name like that, or as badly quite often. Bros is pretty funny and just seems to love the game (a little too much perhaps).
That is all.