We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Mon 3 Jul 2017 | 05:43
HIGHLIGHTS: British & Irish Lions beat All Blacks to keep series alive

71
Comments

The British and Irish Lions achieved a historic 24-21 win over the All Blacks in Wellington on Saturday. The Lions scored two tries to zero, as Conor Murray and Taulupe Faletau crossed, after New Zealand were down to 14 men thanks to a dangerous challenge by Sonny Bill Williams.

With the series now at 1-1, the decider takes place in Auckland this coming Saturday.

Catch up on a short highlights wrap above, or view extended highlights (20mins) below. We'll have more from the 2nd Test soon

credit: rugby.com.au/rugbynow

Posted By: Grant Constable

71 Comments

  • pgrugby
    6:22 PM 07/07/2017

    ...and those two were away games. I know they rested their Christchurch component for the SA game (Carter, McCaw, Read and a couple others I think) as it was the last set of games before the world cup and they wanted them rested - both physically and mentally as they had just had the large earthquake.

    Not saying they would have won had they been playing, but that game would likely have been closer

    As I'm all sucked into the Lions series I've been catching up on documentaries on the All Blacks and Lions - just saw this one which is where the info above comes from:

    "Weight of a Nation"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7KHmqqLZ4

  • pgrugby
    6:22 PM 07/07/2017

    ...and those two were away games. I know they rested their Christchurch component for the SA game (Carter, McCaw, Read and a couple others I think) as it was the last set of games before the world cup and they wanted them rested - both physically and mentally as they had just had the large earthquake.

    Not saying they would have won had they been playing, but that game would likely have been closer

    As I'm all sucked into the Lions series I've been catching up on documentaries on the All Blacks and Lions - just saw this one which is where the info above comes from:

    "Weight of a Nation"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7KHmqqLZ4

  • jimmy23
    9:59 AM 06/07/2017

    Okay it wasn't as long ago as I thought, 2011 Tri Nations to SA and Australia.

    I say not that long ago but then again, how many teams can go as far back as 6 years to the last time they lost 2 in a row?

  • joeythelemur
    11:22 PM 05/07/2017

    Last time they lost 2 in a row period, I'm not sure. Last time they lost two in a row at home was 1998 I think (SA and Australia).

    Good point about the weather. I'm wondering that too. If it's clear, the ABs will be happy with that. A wet and miserable night will make it more of an arm wrestle like last week.

  • drg
    1:33 PM 05/07/2017

    Ok, apologies, but as Pete has said he's not suggesting it be employed as a tactic, but more highlighted as a flaw. Forget gain lines etc, there has to be something wrong where the referee has to intervene in this manner. If this were entirely up to me, I'd say the hit on Sinckler was fine, I'd have no issues with it. We have already climbed onto the wagon of "players must expect opponents to jump for a kicked ball, so they should be prepared even if it is a last second jump" - an ideal that I despise.. so that means, any kicked ball, players should expect others to jump - even in my hatred for that thought, I can see how one can draw lines to connect it all up, but surely you cannot suggest that now we need to say "any kicked balls, and any wayward passes will result in players jumping, so you should all expect them to jump at every kick and every pass"...it's illogical.

    We have the following number of options:

    Ban all jumping for kicks and passes.
    Ban jumping for passes only.
    Or ignore it all...

    Sinckler could have put his hands above his head to try and catch the ball, or he could have left it... the laws protecting him from being touched due to the sloppiness of his own team are wrong imo.

  • pete
    1:13 PM 05/07/2017

    The 10 had to check his run to catch the ball, that why he didn't travel far. we're talking about a high pass in front of you to run on to. Again like the Sincler tackle, only flat to the defence. The attacker only needs to be off the ground for a second or two at the point of contact... not flying!

    I am not suggesting it be employed as a loophole, merely it maybe a flawed law and hard on the defender given the suggested scenario. It was just a comment?

  • pete
    11:30 AM 05/07/2017

    Vlad - the very concept I am talking about is illustrated in this very video. The idea of catching ball mid air and being tackled while air born, is ALREADY proven above by the Sincler tackle.

    How can you possibly dispute it, arguing physics don't allow it and super humans??? All I'm doing is moving the contact flat to the defence.

    CF was adjudged wrong for a miss times tackled, so I simply asked what if it was a flatter pass closer to the advancing defence - timing was right. The law states he's in the air and untouchable.

    Your hatred of the AB is clouding your reasoning.

    Nice one DrG.

  • vladimir
    11:28 AM 05/07/2017

    Also, I'm a 9, a good annoying one!

  • im1
    11:22 AM 05/07/2017

    I think i'm just explaining the law and acknowledging the difficulty of reffing it rather than being a dick, no?

    One thing not mentioned previously is that Sinkler would have landed either on, or on the Lions side of, the gain line. It was CF coming forward that 'casued' the issue.

    If the pass had been flat and Sinkler had to jump to get it and thefore would have landed over the gainline, I think the ref could fairly pull him up under 10.4m based on the speed he was travelling. There is a fair bit of interpretation here and referees discretion on whether he thinks that what Sinkler did was unfair. Obviously he must have concluded it was not and that the issue was that CF attempted to make a dominant tackle, by premeditating and advancng quickly of the gainline.

    What I am trying to say in response to Pete (and what I think Vlad is trying to as well) is that the co-ordination required to set this up and pull it off in real time PLUS hoodwink the referee into believing that it was an accident that the pass was high, is highly difficult and risky. If the ref thinks you did it on purpose he will ping you for it.

  • vladimir
    11:19 AM 05/07/2017

    Then look at this for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZScVM8Ta-0
    When the 10 receives the ball from the 9, how far does he travel? He built momentum, but converted it the wrong way (vertically) to catch the high ball.
    Also, when the ball is high, it travels slowler as it is from less directly, giving the defense time to grasp the situation (look at Cowan).

    You might be untouchable while in the air, but it is not a big deal as you won't go anywhere at all. I won't argue, it might get some brainless tacklers off guard, especially in the last quarter when tired (but the same can be said about any part of the game, rucks, up and unders, ...). But it is far from a loophole that any team can exploit to ruin the game.

  • drg
    10:27 AM 05/07/2017

    Vlad and im1, stop being a dick... Pete is making a perfectly valid point about the flaws in the law... we have seen the reality of the flaws many times over on this site, last second jumps for high balls is nothing new whether they come from a pass or a kick is about the only difference. The main issue is that there are laws to stop players deliberately jumping into a tackle or over a tackler - but there have been occasions where they aren't applied, however there are no laws to allow players a bit of breathing room, for instance as Pete has suggested if I run in to receive a pass and the last second it's a high pass and I jump, then I am untouchable... and anyone that tackles me, could risk a red depending on how I land...

    It's not a hard concept to understand, perhaps it doesn't apply so much to Sinkler, given the tackler was already well committed and perhaps that is his downfall, but in situations similar, we're basically suggesting players reactions to a jump have to be faster or as fast than a players reaction to jump and catch the ball in the first instance...and that is impossible at close proximity...

  • vladimir
    9:59 AM 05/07/2017

    Again, in basketball, you are allowed some trajectories and building momentum that are prevented in rugby. I have practised both sports and when I moved to rugby, I tried to implement some new moves to quickly realize conditions are really different. But even in basketball, it is easy to prevent that as you cannot force through a player (except in NBA where they rarely enforce it).

    Your momentum will take you significantly forward if you use it horizontally. A long jumper in athletics goes far because he stays very VERY low.
    While a high jumper goes high because he uses his momentum vertically hence making almost no ground.
    Again, try it.

  • pete
    11:40 PM 04/07/2017

    Yeah it's just an example but think you're actually trying to understand the point I'm attempting to make.

  • pete
    10:46 PM 04/07/2017

    This is not deliberate or planned, just providing senario and you're trying to say it's impossible?

    In NZ backs hit the ball at pace and we are traught to run onto the ball. Now if you run to to the ball and it's not passed perfectly to your chest but in front of you to run on to.. have ever adjusted to catch it?

    There's no super humans required here, just trajectory as your momentum takes you forward. I say flat but that would be the tackle point, the pass would actually be just before this as he begins to stretch out and goes air born (yes backwards, flat was trying give you a sense of how close to defenders you are). So your suggestion is law is fine, just take knee to face - cool.

    Even see Michael Jordan famous dunk, he starts his leap from the top of the key - physics? I know you'll get caught up on the point but if you think you can't cover ground while in the air off a run up? I'll stop wasting my time.

  • jimmy23
    4:17 PM 04/07/2017

    Heart says Lions for the next test, head says the All Blacks. The ABs always respond well to a loss (I don't recall the last time they lost 2 in a row, does someone know this statistic?), they'll probably have 15 men for the entirety of the match and they haven't lost at Eden Park for 20-odd years.

    If it rains again, the Lions might be in with a chance. I can only see them winning an arm-wrestle.

  • im1
    3:32 PM 04/07/2017

    Jumping into the tackle does not have a specific law. It is punished under;

    10.4 (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

    So if the ref deemed that an attacking team deliberately attempted the tactic you describe then they should ping them.

    In Sinkler's case it is obvious that this wasn't an deliberate attempt.

    Maybe a team could practice it, to make it look accidental, but that is probably quite a bit of wasted time on the training field to achieve it.

    It does seem a bit unfiar on CF, but he had commited to a tackle before Sinkler got the ball. It would have been interesting if CF hadn't commited and then pulled out of the tackle and appealed to the ref that he couldn't make the hit becasue Sinkler was in the air. I'm not sure what a ref could/should do in that situation

  • vladimir
    3:29 PM 04/07/2017

    I'd say you should try to do it in real.
    You'd be amazed how your sense of physics is wrong (space and time).

    'you run to hit the flat pass, defender rushes to meet you... right as I pop the ball you (second before contact) I fling high [...]In that instant you have to leap to take the pass, flat on the line as the defender was about to line you up. Now, your in the air for that second'
    How fast a man can react? I am talking of the two attacking players. In your scenario, if you try an improvised short-high pop pass in the split 1/4second, I don't know how the two players can synchronize it.

    And if their trained for this move, it would just have disastrous consequences :
    either you happened to leap through the defense, it would be jumping into the tackle with absolutely no ambiguity.
    or, if you jumped vertically to catch the ball, in front of a rushing defense, get your ribs ready.
    For the defender, it is simple:
    - just stand here in the way, with no intent and let the fool crash into you like stupid rock. Don't try to grab him and scream at pain when he hits you in the chest with his knee.
    - Get in tackling position, low. Don't grab him and scream his foot hits your head.
    - or better, jump to contest the ball (like a boxkick) and use your superior momentum to repel the other.

    Either way, just show he jumped into you.

    Anyway, you cannot throw your pass forward. That's why it works in basket-ball and not in rugby. The simple fact that you are restrained to flat at best, makes it an impossible loophole (because physics and superhuman skills).

  • pete
    3:01 PM 04/07/2017

    I'm trying to explain what I think is a flaw in the tackled law if a player is in the air but you're not getting it.

    Forget length, even a short pop pass. You run to hit the flat pass, defender rushes to meet you... right as I pop the ball you (second before contact) I fling high, instead of your chest I throw above you, say it's a cut move. In that instant you have to leap to take the pass, flat on the line as the defender was about to line you up. Now, your in the air for that second, the defence has come up in a flat line but at that last second you've gone air born to take a bad flick pass.

    Applying the letter of law, attacker can't be touched. Defender has to pull out in a split second and let him through? Seems flawed if I understand your clear application.

  • vladimir
    2:30 PM 04/07/2017

    The guy leap frogging the defense. That's a myth. Have you tried it? First, your guy is not an olympic jumper, how far is he to travel in the air? Moreover, physics, when you reach high to catch a ball, you do it at the expense of lenght. You push vertically, not horizontally, you won't pass through the defense like that.
    Even if we fancied it possible, how come no team in the world ever pulled that out, with the amount of work most spend to exploit the rules of the game?
    If you tried it and threw a flat pass, it might surprise the team once. Then you'd get intercepted every time by flat defenders while you centre would be still far away gathering momentum.
    Finally, the rest of the time, a good referee would penalize you for jumping into the tackle.
    Try it on the field, you won't be disappointed.

  • pete
    2:08 PM 04/07/2017

    Would have taken my comments with a pinch of salt.. good thing I didn't say the ref was bought.

    Not bothered about the decisions, just discussing (in a forum) that 3 head contacts got different outcomes, which is a fairly neutral comment - was unaware AB's not allowed to discuss inconsistencies... noted.

    Yes there were loads of calls all day, I was however discussing the 3 key ones reviewed during the game. As in the same Ines this entire thread has basically been about. So not sure I opened up that chapter?

    Leaping into contact, ok forget leap. High is the key, I throw a high hospital pass but still flat to my centre. It's right on the line and point of contact... but as it's a shocker, it's high. He takes it anyway, as defence cant hit him while he's in the air to take it and through he goes. Maybe a flaw there?

  • im1
    2:06 PM 04/07/2017

    SBW - shoulder to head = red (DEFINITELY right) - there are absolutely no mitigating factors here.

    Mako V - shoulder to Bb UPPER BODY off ball = yellow - its unclear if there was contact with the head, but you can see Bb is hardly affected by it.

    O'Brien - stiff arm to Naholo jaw, he goes off afterhe failing concussion test. We will have to wait until the decision is put on here http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=disciplinary to see why SOB was not punished further. My guess is that the panel will have concluded that the contact was accidental. If it were deemed reckless then contact with the head, with enough force to knock Naholo out would have to be a red. But was it reckless? SOB is trying to hit the back of a maul. His arm is pretty low as he is trying to bind on to his own player. Naholo's head is just poking out from the side, so probably not immediately obvious at the speed of the game. So the question the is whether SOB 'should have known' that he could have caught Naholo in the head. That's probably a borderline question and the reason why the Citing officer referred it to the panel (a citing doesn't mean the citing officer thought is should be a red card, but just that it is close enough to require further thought). The other question is what was SOB meant to do with his arm as an alternative? He has to wrap his arm around his player somehow to join the maul. Where else would he put it and what level of force is he allowed to wrap it round with? So, the Lions legal team probably argued that it was a perfectly legitimate action by SOB and therefore it was an accident, which on the balance of probabilities, I don't see how it can be argued that it wasn't.

    If SOB was a Pacific Islander, he would probably have been banned as they can't afford the lawyers to defend them in the hearings

    If SOB was French he would probably have been banned as well.


    If SOB was a Kiwi......

  • vladimir
    12:52 PM 04/07/2017

    As for the jumping issue. It's the same as 'cynical play'. The law is pretty clear and enough as it is imo. If only the referee's would really enforce it, there would not be any issue: you cannot jump into a tackle.
    You jump to catch a ball (and use your momentum towards the high ball) = not allowed to be tackled.
    You jump to catch a ball and preload/prepare/use your momentum to land into/over the opposing line = you jumped into a tackle.

  • vladimir
    12:44 PM 04/07/2017

    Talk about consistency in every AB's game. Since you want to get on this chapter, I might add:
    - Farrell taken out minutes before like Vunipola on Barrett = nothing??
    - Retallick shouldering in every ruck = nothing ????
    - Wingers offside when Smith box-kicks = you get the idea.

    I don't think the AB are amongst the teams who can bring in the 'consistency' argument so easily to explain their loses.

  • dancarter
    12:41 PM 04/07/2017

    We could bring back Mike Phillips to boost our chances.

  • dancarter
    12:40 PM 04/07/2017

    Both the Vunipolas (Vunipolae?) have incredible engines on them.

  • pete
    11:29 AM 04/07/2017

    Well done Lions, not the way I wanted it go while getting soaked in the rain. It at least it's sets up the 3rd test nice. Thought AB's did well to take it to the end and only lose by 3.

    Also, good to see no one has mentioned the red card etc. So my comments on the topic will be completely refreshing.

    Agree with a lot of DrG cooments but for what's it's worth;

    SBW - shoulder to head = red (probably right)
    Mako V - shoulder to Bb head off ball = yellow (I agree but you just give red for similar gets tricky)
    O'Brian - stiff arm to Naholo jaw, he goes off afterhe failing concussion test = nothing???

    Might be the right decisions but consistency all over the place.

    To the leap into the tackle, again I get the letter of the law but what's to stop every centre crashing onto a flat ball andd simply jumping as ball and tackle arrive. Defence has to pull out and you're through every time?

    It's not about lining up a guy and getting it wrong, it's a flat ball where defence have no option.

  • im1
    10:12 AM 04/07/2017

    you're right, He should have been pulled off. Funnily though, his yellow seemed to be the trigger for the team to pull it together and stop giving pens away (maybe that was becasue he was off the park though)

  • im1
    10:09 AM 04/07/2017

    Also, the black player was already comitted to the tacke when the red player jumped.

    so id Sinkler just left the ball and didn't try and catch it, what should be the outcome of the tackle being made?

    If you commit to a (big) tackle, prior to the player having the ball, you are instantly at risk of giving a penalty away if something goes wrong/differently as to what is expected. And that's what happened.

  • im1
    10:06 AM 04/07/2017

    there is a high impact with Barrett, but its not clear cut (or even 50/50) that is it is in Barretts face/head and there is certainly no forcefull contact with the head. These are the things that the refs have to take into accounts. If in your honest opinion that is a red, then it is clear that you haven't read or don't undertstand the laws of the game and guidance on red cards.

  • im1
    10:02 AM 04/07/2017

    If you look at 00:11 on the video, you can't actually see if Vunipola makes contact with the head of Barrett due to the angle and the Kiwi leg in the way. But its not hard to argue that he makes no contact at all and his shoulder and forearm go to the side of the head.

    your 'didn't deserve to win" and "lucky" comment..... That's just ignorance

  • pgrugby
    9:14 AM 04/07/2017

    I was very suprised Gatland didn't take Vunipola off after he got the penalty for late tackling/running through Barrett after the kick. He'd already done a couple of stupid things and as soon as he'd done that you could tell he'd lost control... you could hear on the ref's Mic him arguing back about the penalty and how they'd done the same to Farrel. I thought to myself after that penalty Gatland has to take him off before he does something stupid... shortly afterwards the yellow card.

    I think we've all played in games were either we've lost our cool or we have a teamate that is in the process of loosing it. How on earth did the entire Lions coaching staff not see that happening and pull him off earlier???

    Is it just me, or did anyone of you also have those thoughts?

  • breakaway
    9:00 AM 04/07/2017

    "For every example that you want to cite for one team getting the rub, there are as many examples pointing the other way. I think you're choosing not to see them though." Exactly, and of course Larry chooses not to see them. Larry himself admits on here to "personally, being someone who doesn't like the All Blacks" and unfortunately all his comments on NZ rugby flow from there.

  • drg
    11:16 PM 03/07/2017

    Well, I think we somewhat agree all round, however that example I posted, the ball bounces.. and it is not too high to catch, the reason Cueto jumps is because he does not want to expose himself to Tuilagi coming in hard. I'm not suggesting that is a bad thing, I can understand it, and Tuilagi was in the wrong, however it's another example of a last minute "ok I'll jump to save myself" and the other player who was ready to make a 100% legal hit, ends up in big big trouble.... there are plenty more examples out there of similar nature.. I just can't be arsed to search for them.

    Take care

  • drg
    11:10 PM 03/07/2017

    Yeh, but on the flipside doc, they only won by 3 points because they couldn't keep their bloody hands to themselves and keep their discipline.

    You say AB's wasted 3 point opportunities...well those 3 point opportunities weren't down to poor drop goals, they were gifts from the ill disciplined Lions to the AB's.... one mans rubbish is anothers treasure...an all that....

    I agree with you re the jump to catch a pass thing...but then I feel like rucking people on the ground should still be allowed, but it ain't....so clearly my opinions about what the laws should be and what they actually are, are two different things... so both you and I have to just accept it this time round.

    Back onto the Vunipola thing again.... I already said, if it was a yellow, I'd say Vunipola was lucky to JUST get a yellow, if it was a red, I'd say he was unlucky to get a red... so imo, it's somewhere half and half.... however, as mentioned already, my opinion doesn't always = the actual laws...... But clearly the citing mob hasn't had an issue with it... so, should we chalk this down to: 1. You are right and referee was wrong, assistant referees were wrong, TMO was wrong, citing mob were wrong..... or...2. They're all right, and you're wrong... or 3. no one can really decide whether it was a soft yellow or a hard red.... so they sort of went in the middle and stuck with the yellow.... I genuinely don't know what to say, I don't think anyone could really complain if Vunipola got a red... but likewise, it was probably not as bad - outcome based, as SBW incident... which is probably why the referee didn't view it quite as harshly - rightly or wrongly.

  • vladimir
    9:59 PM 03/07/2017

    Can you analyse Retallick's technique to clear a ruck then?

  • vladimir
    9:58 PM 03/07/2017

    Lions were lucky AB could not kick.
    AB were lucky Lions could not behave.
    Lions were lucky one AB got red carded.
    AB were lucky Vunipola got yellow carder.
    We go on?

  • thedoctor
    9:44 PM 03/07/2017

    Hello there. As I said, what I ment in the "I won't say well done Lions" part is that they were lucky that BB was a little erratic. I agree with you that Lions did a LOT of penaltis but look, they only get a yellow and it was because a foul play. Also as I said, I'am not a kiwi nor a british fan...
    Hahahahaha you made me laugh about the orange hahahhahha. I agree with you that it could be going either way, but taking into account the red for SBW and the place where the impact of Vunipola forearm or shiulder was, plus he was off his feet, plus BB didn't even had the ball, makes a red for me.
    As for the jump to catch the ball, the video you put is a different situation because is after a kick was made. Both palyers could contest the ball with fairness. But in the case we are discussing the jump comes from a pass. Not a kick. So, it's not a fair situation for the defense because they have the offside line plus the other player receiving the ball more or less near him, making it a near impossible contest. Also, the black player was already comitted to the tacke when the red player jumped. You can't stop when you are at that stage.
    Hahahahahhaa, you made me laugh again with the last paragraph. I meant that I expected more tries, more big plays, more legal big hits, etc, taking into account that we are in presence of probably the two stroger teams of the world. But I saw a flat match in all aspects. This match left me with a little of bitter taste.

  • thedoctor
    9:21 PM 03/07/2017

    Take it easy man. Don't make it personal. I'am not a kiwi nor a british rugby fan. I'am a neutral that saw some different decisions to apply the law in similar cases. What I see in the video you put is that around the 0:23 the shoulder or the forearm of Vunipola made a high impact on BB. IMHO thats a red. BB didn't even had the ball nor he was on the ruck. He was trying to get up.
    Maybe you are right with BB and what surprised me in the first match was that he slotted so many, thing that was a kind of coincidence.

  • thedoctor
    9:11 PM 03/07/2017

    I only talked about the charge in the ruck. The other one was clear overreact. As you said, the law is the law, and if the shoulder hits the head of other player then is a red. It doesn't matter if the other player isn't badly injured.
    Take a look at 0:11 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD8zOyDjfjw
    In addition, during the trasmision you can clearly hear that the TMO calls the referee twice after the review showed on the big screen and the referee dicides to ingore it.

    The thing about the jump is that, in my case, my trainers always told me not to jump to catch a pass. I mean, the black player was already commited to the tackle when the red player jumped. You can't stop once you made a choice. Imagine a five meters situation. I tell the scrum-half to throw a pass a little higher so I can jump to take advantage of the situation.....I call that bulshit.

    Maybe the rain is a explanation but the first match was also a little bit poor IMHO. I expected more from both sides. During this weeks it was more intresting the trash-talk between matches than the matches itself.

    What I meant with the "they didn't deserve to win" part was that they were lucky. They only won by three points and because the other team waste like 3 easy penaltis.

  • joeythelemur
    8:39 PM 03/07/2017

    Well Larry, you seem to be totally unaware what I'm referring to. Since you asked... :-)

    You claimed that people were making excuses when there were none here, so you set up your own straw man about said excuses and proceeded to knock it down. Nice of you to come in later and say that you saw them on YouTube comments, as if that were a valid place from which to gain information. You also assumed that YouTube commenters were representative of all All Blacks fans, so count that as composition/division fallacy (to be fair, all fan bases are guilty of this at some level).

    You go on to claim that the ABs are not so great because they did not score during a specific time period that was 1/8 of the total game time. You didn't say the same about the first 20+ minutes when the teams were also evenly matched, and no ABs supporter suggested that they should have. (So two straw man arguments in one, impressive! Also could be chalked up as an anecdotal fallacy if you like.)

    You brought up an obstruction claim, and then instead of refuting it (which I would have expected as straw man #3), I think you are making the claim that the ABs deserve to have things missed by the ref since they have benefitted in the past. Of course, games in 1978, 2011, 2013, etc. have nothing to do with this game, not to mention that all teams have things go for and against them. For every example that you want to cite for one team getting the rub, there are as many examples pointing the other way. I think you're choosing not to see them though.

    Dare I even bring up your follow up post referencing Trump, and saying "When a team goes around acting like they can beat other teams with a hand tied behind their back..." So the ABs themselves do this? You're suggesting they have no respect for their opponent?

    I hope your other eye gets better; you're not seeing well out of the one that you have.

  • 45678
    8:07 PM 03/07/2017

    One thing no one is giving mako credit for is that his attempted charge down on Barrett came from a lions 22 drop out which ended up in the kiwi half. He was the first and only player to have chased the kick. So a front row player beats everyone else in the team over a 50m kick chase.

    I think he was entitled to attempt a charge down, purely because I think that's a pretty awesome feat for a fatty

  • drg
    7:49 PM 03/07/2017

    Jimmy, not that I disagree with your assessment on Barretts actions, but you're a man down, you're doing extremely well on the scoreboard, then you get clocked by a prop, he gets penalised then a short while later, he dives into you with a forearm/shoulder into your face... you know he left his feet and you know he made contact with your face...and you know your team mate was sent off for something similar.. It's not surprising he milked it really... Given the fact that in this day and age, if you make a deal about something the referee will look at it, I don't think Barrett had much choice...

  • drg
    7:45 PM 03/07/2017

    Ok, after reading this, I forgive your comments earlier Larry...

    doc, regarding your sentiments about some of the calls, I don't disagree entirely, however your attitude of "I won't say well done Lions", is a little sour grapes and pathetic... I'd have expected more from a kiwi, but then I guess there always has to be one twit in the group...

    You say AB's lost it alone, the Lions NEARLY lost it by giving away such abysmal penalties in the first place, without those penalties I don't think the AB's would have been as close as they were.

    Moving on... Vunipola yellow or red... I can see this call going either way. It was not directly comparable to SBW given that Barret was already heading backwards, whereas Watson was going forwards, so forces would have been less... however I'd argue similarities are vulnerable players and an illegal process leading to the impact anyway - SBW not attempting to use arms and Vunipola leaving his feet... It'd also be wise to take into account Vunipolas penalty, being his second in quick succession, on the same player... so again, it could go either way for me, yellow and I'd say Vunipola was lucky, red and I'd say Vunipola was unlucky.... (orange card maybe :/)

    The jump to catch a pass... this has come around so many times it's boring to even consider.. but, player in the air cannot be touched... I don't like it, I don't like the last second jumps to catch a pass, or a kick... but the laws are the laws, they are available to you, I, anyone else and especially professional players... it's nothing new... an example of the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l91f28J_Ng

    "real rugby"... not sure what the definition of that is... Last I heard it was two teams battling it out with an inflated egg shaped ball, kicking it, tackling each other, passing it and scoring a couple tries -with a few scrums, rucks, lineouts and mauls in amongst that too.... Were they playing fake or pretend rugby then??

  • drg
    7:33 PM 03/07/2017

    For starters Larry, try not to confuse Youtube with this beloved site... the two are a bit few and far between....

    Secondly, what is this about Trump supporters - 36% eh...??... I can't say I'm the biggest follower of US politics, but Trump is the current US president...that was decided through a democratic process and he won the most votes...I really don't have a clue what the world is on about regarding protests in the streets - 'not my president' BS...it's a democracy.. if it wasn't your vote then you're a minority and you have to accept what's happening until the next chance to "win"... want to be the minority that takes control then you're looking at a state that ignores the majority (however small) of the population... you'll end up with civil war... Same applies to this BS I hear about in the UK regarding Brexit and their latest election...majorities have spoken - stop whinging and make the most of the situation, even if it's a shitty choice.

    Anyway.. as for this 14v15.. of course it's an excuse, it's not a bad excuse.. it's pretty factual.. the AB's played like almost no other team, when down 1 man for the majority (that word again) of the game... Taking out the variable context of rugby, you'd say, chances would be in AB's favour if it was 15v15... no one can say with any certainty it would be a guaranteed win to either side - and Vunipola was carded in the 50-60th minutes ish right? So AB's by that point had been playing against a fantastic team, they're bound to be tired and suffering and when Vunipola went off the Lions knew it was do or die, so you'd expect them to tighten up...

    "They lost!"...yes they did, I'm not aware of anyone denying this anywhere...

    Basically this all comes down to the analysis of the game. If you want to sit back and say AB's LOST, Lions WON end of story, then that's your choice, most other Lions fans will analysis, assess and figure out why the game didn't spiral into the Lions favour so that next test they can be better...

  • ajv1beta
    7:15 PM 03/07/2017

    And here was me thinking I was cynical about this Lions team!

    Ah, the 'what-ifs'. 'NZ would've won easily if it's 15 vs 15 and Barrett gets all his kicks' etc is kinda a moot point - whose fault is it for missing those kicks, and getting themselves sent off for a cheap shot? That's not the Lions' fault. And given how England and Racing 92 have in recent memory won whilst down to 14 men for large parts of a match, a red card doesn't equal an easy win for the opposition. And how many times have we seen the ABs under pressure and still managing to get the tries needed to win? Giving the ABs their first home loss in eight years, let alone outscoring them 2 tries to 0 and keeping them tryless for the first time in 39 test matches is a HUGE achievement.

    As for the Lions themselves, I'm largely willing to eat humble pie - the three selections I had the most beef with, AWJ, Warburton and the 10/12 axis all largely came through and had a positive impact on the game, particularly the latter with the Faletau try and both Sexton and Farrell contributing a lot in attack and kicking. Also worth pointing out Farrell had a miss of his own from the tee.

    Itoje though is something else. For a 22-year-old in only his second full year of international rugby, he's a phenomenon. A one-man destroyer in the lineout and tight, he can do it all. Still got so much time to improve and brush up elements of his game where needed.

    Are the Lions still massive underdogs for the third test? Yeah, but this one win is still one more win than many (including me!) were predicting. They at least gave themselves a chance, and this win on it's own is massive.

  • larry
    7:08 PM 03/07/2017

    If Vunoipola is going to give away penalties, he needs to be replaced by a player who has more discipline. Having a player giving away penalties can be deadly for a team, and it's not like the other side doesn't notice and can't 'play' that player into situations where infringements aren't going to be committed and noticed by the referee. I remember reading in a book about the '71 Lions that Carwyn James basically had Jazz Muller's number: he knew that that All Black player would "do something stupid again" during a match.

  • larry
    7:03 PM 03/07/2017

    It's winter down under, and rain in New Zealand isn't something new, is it? Last I checked, New Zealand has a tendency to have rain in their winter, especially toward the south, and Wellington is on the south end of the North Island. Regarding the weather, both teams had to deal. I agree that the Lions won, and whether it was deserved or not they did it. And it's not like there hasn't been other internationals where a team played much of the game down one, or in the era before there even were any subs allowed, sometimes down two or three players. I will point out again that the teams were even for ten minutes in the second half. So, playing even, not down one man, and if the All Blacks are so great, why did they not take advantage? Where was the try or two to put them so far ahead to seal a win? It didn't happen that way! And personally, being someone who doesn't like the All Blacks, I'm very happy that the Lions didn't allow them to score any tries at all! I've read plenty of posts, on You Tube during the last year, that the Lions were going to get destroyed on this tour. It hasn't happened.

  • vladimir
    6:59 PM 03/07/2017

    Either way, I can already predict what will happen in the 3rd test: the AB will put tremendous pressure on Poite who, as usual, will fold (like he already did with Peyper in this one).

  • vladimir
    6:56 PM 03/07/2017

    I agree. The post-Chicago against Ireland, says it all. Whenever they get hurt, the AB always resort to that kind of negative rugby afterwards.

  • larry
    6:54 PM 03/07/2017

    What logical fallacies? Refs can make or break a game for a team. That's not a fallacy. The teams were even for ten minutes in the second half. That's not a fallacy either. Like I said, if the All Blacks were so great like they claim to be, why didn't they score a few tries before they'd be a man down again? Nothing illogical about that. They didn't score. When a team goes around acting like they can beat other teams with a hand tied behind their back, there's something called Karma that can come back and bite them in the rear end! It just did!

  • vladimir
    6:54 PM 03/07/2017

    TJP-Barrett vs Webb-Biggar then.

  • larry
    6:50 PM 03/07/2017

    And that's just what the 14-15 argument is, an excuse. They lost! And if playing down a man was so hard, then why didn't they play better when they were even-steven for 10 minutes in the second half. I'm also commenting more on the lame excuses I read on You Tube, and would have expected the same tripe here from All Black supporters who remind me of the 36% of Trump supporters in America, as in it's always someone else's fault: the referee for the red card, the referee for not calling a penalty on Murray's try. What I'm pointing out if the hypocrisy of it all, like the All Blacks have never, ever benefitted from referee calls or non-calls in the past! Of course they have, lots of times, and whether it was in 1972, 1978, or the 2011 RWC final against France, it's not as though they have not won games because a referee made a decision or non-decision that basically made the difference in whether they lost a match or not. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Kiwis are all pissed off they lost a match. They didn't even score a try in the game, for crissakes. I also have read over the months, especially on You Tube, how the Lions were going to lose by 50 in each of the tests.
    Like how's that working out for All Black supporters? It isn't. One thing I'm sure the All Blacks will practice in the coming week is how they can win by getting away with as much crap as they can on the pitch, the referee, touch judges, and TMOs catching them at it or not!

  • dancarter
    5:47 PM 03/07/2017

    If you watch the replay, Barrett looks up to see where the ref is before lying back down again to make the most of the contact. Stupid from Vunipola, but BB milking it is poor too.

  • dancarter
    5:45 PM 03/07/2017

    You have no way of knowing who would have won had SBW not been sent off, and the game was evenly matched in the first 25 minutes before his red card. The fact that Barrett missed kickable goals doesn't really mean anything. Missing kicks at goal is no different from not taking your chances in open play. You had a better goal kicker in Cruden sat on the bench and opted not to start him.

    Mako lost his head a bit, yes. He made some good carries in the loose. Itoje was everywhere and put in a huge amount of work, he made twice as many tackles (14) as any of the All Blacks players (Whitelock, 7). Warburton did a lot of work at the breakdown, I think he helped slowed down the ABs ball which didn't give Barrett the front foot ball he wanted.

    It's Sinckler, not Sinclair. He's feisty and doesn't take a step backwards. I like him a lot, I'd want him on my side in a test match. It wouldn't hurt you to give the Lions some credit, they played well and scored 2 tries to NZ's zero.

  • im1
    5:21 PM 03/07/2017

    If Gatland benched Mako on that basis, I wouldn't disagree

  • im1
    5:19 PM 03/07/2017

    I think TJP would do well in that competition as well

  • im1
    5:18 PM 03/07/2017

    The difference between the SBW and Vunipola cards, was where the initial impact took place. Its pretty obvoius SBW got Watson right in the face with his shoulder. However, Vunipola barely makes contact with Barrett's face if at all. From the replays, you can't tell 100% either way because its a 2D image (a bit like trying to determin if in cricket a fielder has his fingers under the ball when claiming a catch) but Barret's imediate reaction is to look up and appeal. You don't do that if you have just copped one to the head. Then he decides its in the best interest of his team to flop back and try and get Vunipola sent off. I'll still say its a yellow becasue it is reckless/dangerous, but not a red.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4LB2-rKVKo

    The law on regarding jumping into the tackle is irrelevant, because Sinkler was jumping to catch the ball. Faumuina committed early to the chop tackle and paid the price. If he hadn't he could have competed for the ball in the air. The question that Read raised was valid. Why can't an attacking team just pop the ball up in the air and get a big guy to jump and catch it and claim a penalty. If a team did that deliberately the ref can just blow up for dangerous play. And a defending team would cotton on to it and compete for the ball.

    Its always an awful game when you lose isn't it?

    Barrett is a poor kicker. The suprise was that he slotted so many in the first test.

    Assuming you are a Kiwi, why don't you try and be a bit more like your national captain, who has carried himself throughout this whole series with complete class both on and off the pitch.

  • joeythelemur
    5:09 PM 03/07/2017

    Wow Larry, you managed two logical fallacies plus a confirmation bias in one comment! That's serious commitment!

  • jimmy23
    5:07 PM 03/07/2017

    Sorry to say but I think Barrett milked both occasions. Vunipola deserved a yellow for that clear out but the fact that Barrett was immediately able to throw his arms in the air, yell at the ref and not have to go for a HIA to me suggests it wasn't anything nearly as bad as what SBW did to Watson.

    The jump wasn't that unnecessary I don't think, it's that or expose your ribs for a nice pasting. I agree that it's pretty harsh and unlucky but that's the law, if you take someone out in the air it's a penalty. Sinckler can't be penalised for jumping into the tackle as he didn't have the ball at the point of jumping.

    I think the torrential downpour and that was occurring throughout the duration of the match might explain why it wasn't a fast paced, free flowing try-fest.

    I've never understood this "they didn't deserve to win" mentality. The Lions scored more points than the All Blacks therefore they deserved to win it. It doesn't matter if Barrett missed some kicks, the Lions still needed to score points themselves no?

  • joeythelemur
    5:02 PM 03/07/2017

    No one holds a candle to Biggar on this one. Far and away, the best birdman.

  • drg
    5:01 PM 03/07/2017

    Larry....are you arguing with yourself?

    There isn't many people on here saying anything along the lines of what you're saying.

    I think the mention of AB's losing from being a man down is a pretty fair excuse. I don't think people are saying 14 v 15 is the same as saying 14 v 14... I think what most are saying, is given the fairly horrendous discipline of the Lions and how well the AB's reacted to losing a player, it's lucky that the Lions didn't lose. I think if both sides were full compliment, the game may have been even tighter... but what we saw is Lions poor discipline not being completely capitalised by the AB's... which is rare!

  • rich_w
    4:59 PM 03/07/2017

    This post is hilarious. A team have just beaten NZ at home for the 1st time since 2009, and this is your response. I mean there is glass half empty and then there is this. It's almost a work of art in its negativity.

  • drg
    4:56 PM 03/07/2017

    Yeh I'm with Reality here...

    The Lions tour is one I find extremely interesting, possibly because there is none other like it, but also perhaps because the Lions are the supposed best players from 4 nations against only 1 nation...BUT...they have never all played together...so they're sort of top dogs and underdogs at the same time...

    Anyway.. point being, the Lions have the potential to beat any team as well as lose horrendously against any team. Had the shoe been on the other foot and the Lions lost a player to a red card, I think we could all agree that our assumptions would be a rather convincing dissection of the team in red by those lads in black. Which suggests the Lions are set to lose this tour...meaning, they have to batten down the hatches, tighten up and really give it their all. I do seriously think loose cannons are not going to help their cause - Vunipola giving away penalties - ok I agree im1, whilst I don't recall them all, possibly some were perhaps unlucky interpretations of laws etc...but after 1 penalty, Vunipola clearly didn't get his head on and say "right, behave myself now!"... then that yellow card hit on Barrett imo, could easily have been a red!

    One thing I noted from reading and listening to commentators around was that the Lions penalties were not 'clever' in the sense of "ok, we'll give them 3 points, because they're getting close to getting 5-7"... they were ill discipline.

    Regarding Sinkler, Reality makes another brilliant point with his reference to Cudmore, much like his counterpart Bakkies, two very hard men, never willing to step back, but also two men that can win a fight and lose a game in the same actions. im1, you mention the other players keeping an eye on Sinkler - is that really feasible though - all it takes is one stupid act a la SBW and you have a player off....not to mention the Lions players can't spend their time baby sitting Sinkler when they have AB beasts to keep their eyes on.

  • thedoctor
    4:26 PM 03/07/2017

    Vunipola yellow was a red for the same reason that SBW got it. And, can someone explain me what the heck did the referee blow in the last penalty for the Lions? If a player jumps to catch the ball (in this case was totally unnecesary) then we penalize the defense? Bullshit.
    That being said, what an awful game. This is all that this two great teams can offer? I was expecting more real rugby.... I won't say well done Lions because New Zeland lost it alone. Barret had a terrible night at the posts, and as I said before it was an awful game. I mean New Zeland was overly conservative (they were tryless) and Lions did what was expected but they didn't deserve the win.

  • vladimir
    4:04 PM 03/07/2017

    Tbh, Barrett did a good job, both times, to ensure Vunipola was on the wrong side of the referee's interpretation.

  • flanker2712
    3:51 PM 03/07/2017

    I have to agree with Reality on Vunipola.

    It's a funny one the whole "discipline" argument. Although it gets harder to argue the longer a game goes on and a player or team doesn't change what it/he is doing wrong, I think there has to be a distinction between the type of penalty where, for example, a player is just the wrong side (pardon the pun) of the referee's interpretation of a law, and the type of penalty that you look at and think "what was he thinking?". I can't recall all 5 of Vunipola's penalties, but he had at least one that I would put in the first category, where he was unlucky that Garces decided his knee had touched the ground as he joined a ruck. Sam Cane had done exactly the same thing a few minutes earlier and had won a penalty for NZ! However, conceding two penalties in quick succession that are of the second category type is inexcusable.

  • larry
    3:36 PM 03/07/2017

    I would expect comments regarding the All Blacks playing down a man for most of the match, and that therefore it would be excuse number one for not beating the Lions. Well, when the Lions lost a player for ten minutes in the second half, things being equal, then you'd think the All Blacks would have gone on a rampage and scored a few tries if they're so great, and they didn't. Excuse number two is that Murray's try was scored because of a slight bit of obstruction. Well, okay then, let's go back to 1978 when there was an obvious obstruction not called leading to a try that meant the All Blacks beat Ireland in Dublin. Excuse number three is that the All Blacks actually had to play 16 men, with the ref on the side of the Lions. Well, all the All Blacks' points were from penalties. And regarding referees and their calls, let's also go back to 2013 in Dublin again, when during that last All Black attack there was a forward pass not called, leading to another All Black try under questionable circumstances! Good on you Lions for winning. Win next week and it's 1971 all over again!

  • vladimir
    3:35 PM 03/07/2017

    I'd like to see Biggar in the 3rd test to see who, between him and Barrett, flaps his arms the most.

  • reality
    2:53 PM 03/07/2017

    I disagree about Vunipola. He's not great in scrums nor has he ever been, and while he normally gets around the pitch, the fact is that he was absolutely terrible and ill-disciplined. When one player gives away 5 penalties and a yellow card in a 55-minute performance then he has to be dropped, or at the very least put on the bench. Saying and hoping that he'll come good isn't very fair on the other players in that position.

    Yeah, Jones, he wasn't as bad as last time, but he still wasn't good. Definitely not one of the two best locks in Britain and Ireland. Nowhere near that, in fact. And yeah, I didn't understand if the third name was a surname or forename - I don't think that's a good defence though to say that I can't criticise him. And I don't buy the experience argument. Personally, I wouldn't look up to someone and their calming influence if I was well aware that he doesn't deserve his place on the team. And considering the awful discipline on Saturday, I don't think his calming influence was felt.

    The breakdown was ok, but when you have a three-man back row against a two-man back row, it'd be amazing for the breakdown to be a problem. I'd argue the stability there was more related to SBW getting sent off and Kaino being sacrificed rather than Warburton being good. I still don't think anyone can claim he's the best man for the job there - except Warren Gatland.

    I'll give you Itoje. As you said, he gave away a few too many penalties, but he put in a good shift elsewhere.

    I understand your point about Sinclair, but I wouldn't risk having a big child on the pitch who can't control his emotions. He seemed industrious, but if to have a bit of industry you have to risk having him explode at any given moment, then I think it's a risk too far. It's a bit like Jamie Cudmore. A good player but sooner or later he would cost his team very dearly, and to risk jeopardising the whole tour just to have one powerful player could end up being a great move or a terrible move.

  • im1
    2:07 PM 03/07/2017

    Williams red card was punishment for ill discipline. By claiming that the Lions would have lost if Williams had not been sent off, you could say the Lions would have won by more if they had not given away as many penalties. The best rugby the Lions played was probably when Vunipola was in the bin anyway so it was 14 on 14

    Vunipola had a bad game overall, but he has enough credit in the banks

    Wyn Jones (sic - his name is actually Alun-Wyn Jones - get his name right if you are going to criticise) actually had a much better game than the week before and is probably needed for his expereince to prevent the younger players giving away too man pens.

    Itoje knocked on early on and gave a 1-2 more pens away then I'd like, but the rest of his performance was spot on. He destroyed one NZ maul on his own and provided high quality ball from the lineout as well. He outperformed Retalick and that says it all. His restart takes were exceptional as well.

    Warburton was picked to fix the breakdown. The breakdown was not really an issue in this game. Job done.

    Kyle Sinclair is a walking time bomb, and you are right it must be hard to trust him as a coach. But every game he has played on this tour he has added a dimesion of power and pace that very few players in test rugby can do. So its worth the gamble and maybe its better to focus on the efforts of his team mates to shut him down and prevent him getting the penalty reversed. I hope every player in the Lions squad knows that if they see Kyle starting to kick off, they have no choice but to try and stop him by any way possible.

    Its a slim chance to win on Saturday, but the winnng team will have to go to a very difficult place mentally and physically to do it. This win will have created just a niggle of self-doubt in NZ, which they have never had before. They have always respected the ability of their oppposition, but backed their own ability more. There are some pretty special players in this Lions team and NZ now know that

  • reality
    1:34 PM 03/07/2017

    Interesting result but realistically they would have been hammered if Williams hadn't gotten a red card. They won by the skin of their teeth against a team with 14 players that missed several absolute sitters from the tee.

    If they're to have any hope at all they need to get rid of Vunipola who was quite simply disastrously bad. Completely negative impact any time he was involved.

    Wyn Jones too - for the second match running I was asking myself if he was even playing.

    Itoje as well. Decent in the loose but gave away penalties like there was no tomorrow.

    Warburton as well was pretty useless. Not as bad as I expected, but he definitely showed why Warren Gatland is the only person on the planet who wants him to start.

    Even Kyle Sinclair for his little cameo seemed like a walking time bomb. I can't believe they had to restrain him after that penalty at the end to prevent him from having the referee reverse the penalty. Then five minutes later he starts fighting people after the final whistle? I definitely wouldn't trust him if I was the coach.

    If they fix those problems they could have a chance, albeit a slim chance. If not, I think they're going to be trounced like in the first test.

Related Articles