Waratahs vs Reds - Round 1 - 2012R01

[qwerty51]

Was Carter "taken out" or did he "lose his feet?

He ran fair into the back of a Reds player - definitely not taken out. If anything, a Reds cover defender was taken out. Sounds like you're hedging your bets a bit - throw some bait out but then add the "lose his feet" bit, so you have an out when you're called on it.

Running into someone is being taken out, I did not accuse the Reds playing of deliberately doing this you assumed that.

 

[cyclopath]

"Taken out" actually implies intent on the part of the other party by the nature of the language. I accept you might have meant "accidentally or otherwise impeded by".

 

[tranquility]

Right, then by your logic he took himself out then?

 

[Slim 293]

"Dig up, stupid!"

Carter shouldn't have lost his feet chasing a kick because... well... he shouldn't have been dumb enough to call for the kick...

 

[Lee Grant]

...the ABC radio 'Grandstand' call of this match was the worst I've ever heard

I know what you mean - but the expert comments of Ross Reynolds are always good.

It was strange on Saturday night listening to a digital radio call at the ground and hearing the commentary about 8 seconds after something happened. I haven't got used to that yet.

At home it's better watching the cricket and listening to the radio now. On analogue radio batsmen got out before the ball was bowled on TV. When they broadcast the cricket 'live' (and sometimes they don't, because of delays to finish an ad after lunch or tea etc.), at least the digital radio is in synch with the TV and you can listen to Kerry O'Keefe without giving yourself a spoiler.

But I digress.

 

[biggsy]

Higgers is very good in choosing the correct line when his back is turned. He does it a fair bit, and has one victim we all know of.

 

[p.Tah]

Higgers is very good in choosing the correct line when his back is turned. He does it a fair bit, and has one victim we know all know of.

Still haven't forgiven him for that...

 

[Scotty]

The replay showed that Horwill's chest hit TPN hard on the back of the head, when TPN wasn't expecting it. Are you surprised that he was stunned for a short period? He didn't roll around on the ground in assumed pain or stare at the ref and throw his arms up so at to milk a penalty like some players have done.

I suspect his lying on the ground wasn't from being stunned, but I'm not going to argue it further.

 

[suckerforred]

Higgers is very good in choosing the correct line when his back is turned. He does it a fair bit, and has one victim we all know of.

Still haven't forgiven him for that...

Now even Drew will tell you that he should have looked where he was putting his feet....

 

[Scoey]

"Taken out" actually implies intent on the part of the other party by the nature of the language. I accept you might have meant "accidentally or otherwise impeded by".

What he said.

 

[Scoey]

Oh but no mention of Higgers faking injury after Mumm barely touched him in the lineout?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...th-western-force/story-fnbzn566-1226285878195

This is the sort of injury you recieve from being dropped from a great height. As I stated in the Lineout Strategies thread - interfering with a player in the air needs to be treated far more seriously IMO.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...th-western-force/story-fnbzn566-1226285878195

This is the sort of injury you recieve from being dropped from a great height. As I stated in the Lineout Strategies thread - interfering with a player in the air needs to be treated far more seriously IMO.

I though I must have missed the incident in question but if it was the one where Higgers was interfered with then Mumm was lucky not to concede a penalty for it as i saw it. Higgers has a bad back anyway so it didnt occur to me that he was faking it. Geez - tough crowd - he fell from about 12 feet in the air onto his back....granted he didnt lose the ball

 

[waratahjesus]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...th-western-force/story-fnbzn566-1226285878195

This is the sort of injury you recieve from being dropped from a great height. As I stated in the Lineout Strategies thread - interfering with a player in the air needs to be treated far more seriously IMO.

This discussion has come up before, the "interference" that was received on Saturday night and in many other occasions isn't the problem and more ruling against it will do nothing but defeat the contest.

The problem s players being lifted from there knees o there balance is above there litters and creates a safety issue in the air. Ban it, lift from the shorts and the jumper will be so much safer.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

A little surprised that no one has commented on Link's article in the SMH. He says Reds weren't lucky:

The reality in the raw numbers was that the Reds had one of their finest defensive performances since I've been here. In the end we had a 92% tackle success rate.....​

We also won 100% of our scrum feeds and secured 89% of our lineout possession, the same as NSW.​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/reds-will-handle-both-the-truth-and-perceptions-20120301-1u48f.html#ixzz1np8n8Rrf​

​

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it's dumb to suggest the Reds didn't get lucky to win that game.

Even if you completely dominate a game stats wise, if you win the game by scoring a try at the death, there must have been an element of luck involved.

 

[wamberal]

I think it's dumb to suggest the Reds didn't get lucky to win that game.

Even if you completely dominate a game stats wise, if you win the game by scoring a try at the death, there must have been an element of luck involved.

What is "luck"? The bounce of the ball? A referee's decision?

I was not at the ground, watched the game on television, but it seemed to me that the Reds won fair and square - the game is not over until...............luck comes into it? I don't think so.

 

[No4918]

Some element of luck but i agree with his general sentiment. The Reds gave up a lot of possession in good position and ball security was poor which went a long way to keeping the Tahs in it and allowing them to take the lead. All a matter of perspective.

 

[Braveheart81]

What is "luck"? The bounce of the ball? A referee's decision?

I was not at the ground, watched the game on television, but it seemed to me that the Reds won fair and square - the game is not over until...............luck comes into it? I don't think so.

Of course The Reds won fair and square. That doesn't mean they weren't lucky.

The luck part is that stupid decisions were made and tackles were missed in the last 30 seconds.

The flipside to that would be that the Tahs would have been lucky to win if Foley had made the covering tackle or Alcock had tackled Shipperly and the move broke down at the halfway line.

It takes two to tango and the Reds needed certain things to happen that were outside their control to put them in a position where they could win the game.

 

[ripper868]

Of course The Reds won fair and square. That doesn't mean they weren't lucky.

The luck part is that stupid decisions were made and tackles were missed in the last 30 seconds.

The flipside to that would be that the Tahs would have been lucky to win if Foley had made the covering tackle or Alcock had tackled Shipperly and the move broke down at the halfway line.

It takes two to tango and the Reds needed certain things to happen that were outside their control to put them in a position where they could win the game.

Would say Palu's try had more to do with luck than anything then. Shipperleys try (as highlighted by ikin PTT) came from a great run from Tapuai, a solid hit up from gill, ball retntion, a sensational pass from Holmes to Harris and the Shipperly embarrassing the Tahs defensive line. It's not 'lucky' that Shipperley went through them, it would have been lucky if he chipped over the top twice with right angle bounces that landed directly on his chest. As it was, he BEAT 3 tacklers and outsprinted foley to the line. That's rugby. Not lucky.

 

[Braveheart81]

I completely agree that Palu's try was lucky.

I guess we can agree to disagree on the other.

I just think a lot of things in competitive sport involve luck because an event is not just reliant on you doing something, it is reliant on the opposition's actions as well.

I don't disagree for a second that the Reds didn't execute the final try brilliantly. I just don't think their great execution meant that stopping the try was completely out of the hands of the Waratahs. They could execute the same move multiple times with the same precision and not score every time. Hence the element of luck.