Lions v New Zealand 3rd Test Match Thread

ScrubsfanChris

Bazzo wrote: »

Anyone catch who was man of the match?

Jonathan Davies

Augme

laugh wrote: »

From memory he wasn't looking at where the ball came from. His arm was already in a fixed position and that's where the ball landed. He didn't move to his body, arm or hand to take the ball and he was shocked that it had landed there.

The ball hit his head/shoulder and then he moved his arms and caught the ball and then realised and dropped it. You could argue catching the ball was a deliberate movement.

.ak

Cut the mistakes out (ones not typical of those players when they play for their club/country) and that is a very good Lions team. The Sexton/Farrell partnership was brilliant, every time the two linked they made space and in spades. That's a rare thing in international rugby. I wonder if he'd be tempted to play a bit of rugby in sunny D4. :pac:

CatFromHue

Sephiral wrote: »

At best, that was a deeply unusual interpretation of the rules from Poite. New Zealand left a pile of tries out there and more badly missed kicks from Barrett. Lions really lucky, were barely in the opposition 22 and spent most of the game losing territory and possession. Defensive line speed the hero.

11.6 Accidental offside
(a)
When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.12

Owens dropped the ball as soon as it landed in his hands and the Kiwi's collected it straight away. If Owens had held onto the ball or passed it then it would have been a peno.

The ref got the interpretation correct.

Though if he hadn't of reviewed the play I don't think he would have called it that way, I think he'd have gone with a peno.

Hastentoadd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well this is just completely incorrect, accidental offside is when you unintentionally play the ball. And there is no argument to be had there.

The only argument is whether or not there was intent. I think its completely fair to argue there was and I would have seen it as a penalty, but its not black and white at all and a scrum is completely understandable.

a player in an offside position is forbidden from interfering with the ball in any form or fashion, whether intentional or unintentional. this is a totally black and white situation.

CMOTDibbler

Hastentoadd wrote: »

a player in an offside position is forbidden from interfering with the ball in any form or fashion, whether intentional or unintentional. this is a totally black and white situation.

And yet the law says otherwise.

.ak

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

Jonathan Davies

Christ...

Such a brilliant player but he failed as a 13 today imo. Didn't fix n give when he needed to.

irishbucsfan

Hastentoadd wrote: »

a player in an offside position is forbidden from interfering with the ball in any form or fashion, whether intentional or unintentional. this is a totally black and white situation.

I'm not sure where you've managed to pick that one up

molloyjh

Hastentoadd wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well this is just completely incorrect, accidental offside is when you unintentionally play the ball. And there is no argument to be had there.

The only argument is whether or not there was intent. I think its completely fair to argue there was and I would have seen it as a penalty, but its not black and white at all and a scrum is completely understandable.

a player in an offside position is forbidden from interfering with the ball in any form or fashion, whether intentional or unintentional. this is a totally black and white situation.

That's not true, as the law I quoted clearly shows, but you have you're mind made up.

Tigerandahalf

Poor enough 3rd test. Didn't seem like it was wet but NZ spilled an awful lot of ball. Barrett missed his share of kicks again. Should Hansen have made a call and switched kickers? Or should Cruden have started with Barrett pushed to full back.

No surprises from the Lions backline - pretty poor at converting chances. It is a problem with all the sides in the NH. Always going to struggle to put up big scores.

NZ scrum was excellent as was their lineout though the Lions didn't really attack it. Kaino for me was poor enough and Cane was anonymous today. They don't seem to have great depth in the backrow. I think Kaino is 34.

If NZ had taken that early chance and Barrett converted the 1st penalty they would have been difficult to peg back from 10.0.

Overall a good series. I am glad the last penalty wasn't given as a penalty is way too harsh for that offence. Rule book needs to be changed.
I thought the scrum penalty was a harsh call too. To me it looked Sinckler had pushed his man back and then he went to ground because there was no resistance to hold him up. An argument could be made for refs not to give a penalty unless the call is really clear.

Well done to Kieran Read - 100 tests - a great achievement and comes across as a decent bloke.

irishman86

irishbucsfan wrote: »

When you read madness like this you'd almost think Poite invented accidental offside on the spot

Accidental offside is one thing, what happened was not, he caught the ball then dropped it when he realised what he had done. Poite didnt want the match decided by a penalty, it was a terrible call

Royal Legend

BBDBB wrote: »

I do hope they played Don't stop believin in the stadium

No, Sky are saving that for tonight in Thurles when the Deise hammer the Cats

I've watched it multiple times. He watched the ball, stuck his arm out, caught it, and then realised what he had done. He definitely didn't try not to play it.

Not that it really matters

irishbucsfan

irishman86 wrote: »

Accidental offside is one thing, what happened was not, he caught the ball then dropped it when he realised what he had done. Poite didnt want the match decided by a penalty, it was a terrible call

That's what is up for debate. As laugh said, there's an argument to be made that he didn't intentionally play the ball. I think he got lucky, but its a 50/50 call. For it to be a terrible call it would need to be a lot more black and white.

laugh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

And yet the law says otherwise.

11.6 Accidental offside
(a)
When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.12
(b)
When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is offside. Unless the receiver is considered to be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty kick is awarded), the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

Hastentoadd

molloyjh wrote: »

That's not true, as the law I quoted clearly shows, but you have you're mind made up.

My mind is not made up. I must have missed your post with the associated rule. obviously you believe different but I missed your post with the relevant rule to prove I am wrong!

laugh

Basil3 wrote: »

I've watched it multiple times. He watched the ball, stuck his arm out, caught it, and then realised what he had done. He definitely didn't try not to play it.

Not that it really matters

Do you have a clip?

.ak

irishman86 wrote: »

Accidental offside is one thing, what happened was not, he caught the ball then dropped it when he realised what he had done. Poite didnt want the match decided by a penalty, it was a terrible call

He caught it cuz it fell into his arms, he didn't intentionally catch it, nor was there an advantage. Right call imo.

CMOTDibbler

Basil3 wrote: »

I've watched it multiple times. He watched the ball, stuck his arm out, caught it, and then realised what he had done. He definitely didn't try not to play it.

Not that it really matters

Depends on what you mean by 'play it'. He didn't move up the field with it or pass it, he just dropped it. No advantage gained by the Lions, which is the litmus test in the law.

irishman86

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's what is up for debate. As laugh said, there's an argument to be made that he didn't intentionally play the ball. I think he got lucky, but its a 50/50 call. For it to be a terrible call it would need to be a lot more black and white.

You could see the moment he realised what he did and dropped it, thats playing the ball. Its not a 50/50 call. The ref bottled it, if it was for the Lions you would see outrage here and rightly so

irishman86

.ak wrote: »

He caught it cuz it fell into his arms, he didn't intentionally catch it, nor was there an advantage. Right call imo.

He could have moved his arms out of the way, he caught it as its a natural reaction, he then realised what he had done and dropped it, its as clear as day. Defo not right call

.ak

irishman86 wrote: »

You could see the moment he realised what he did and dropped it, thats playing the ball. Its not a 50/50 call. The ref bottled it, if it was for the Lions you would see outrage here and rightly so

You'd be right if he picked the ball up, he didn't, it literally landed into his arms as he's running back - the fact he released it helped him actually - clear accident.

irishman86

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by 'play it'. He didn't move up the field with it or pass it, he just dropped it. No advantage gained by the Lions, which is the litmus test in the law.

Well the advantage gained was Savea I think it was didnt come on to the ball, it stopped NZ getting the ball back. Thats a advantage there

irishman86

.ak wrote: »

You'd be right if he picked the ball up, he didn't, it literally landed into his arms as he's running back - the fact he released it helped him actually - clear accident.

The ball fell the air and he caught it, the fact he released it was a clear usage of the ball. Like I said if it was the other way there would be outrage. The fact he clearly intentionally released the ball showed there was no accident

molloyjh

For Owens to have been deliberately offside he would need to have deliberately caught the ball and looked to use it. The first bit is impossible to call but once the ball landed in his hands he released it. He didn't go anywhere with it, he didn't try to pass it, he didn't try to keep it away from a Kiwi. He caught a ball that dropped into his hands and released it as soon as he realised. That simply does not constitute playing the ball in any way. And I've simply no idea how anyone can say otherwise tbh.

irishbucsfan

irishman86 wrote: »

Like I said if it was the other way there would be outrage

Absolutely no evidence of that and the kiwis I play with have both said it's fair enough, no sign of outrage there really. Haven't seen much outrage anywhere actually.

Hastentoadd

.ak wrote: »

You'd be right if he picked the ball up, he didn't, it literally landed into his arms as he's running back - the fact he released it helped him actually - clear accident.

I can't buy that argument. Sorry mr police officer I didn't mean to do it. The fact is he did do it, whether he meant to do it or didn't mean to do it. Are you telling me that if you mean to do something as compared to not meaning to do something should have the slightest bearing on an obvious infringement.

laugh

laugh wrote: »

Do you have a clip?

His arm isn't just in his natural running position, he follows the ball and tries to catch it. It's an unfortunate mistake which should have been penalised, just like the one that the Lion's got at the end of the last test.

irishbucsfan

Hastentoadd wrote: »

I can't buy that argument. Sorry mr police officer I didn't mean to do it. The fact is he did do it, whether he meant to do it or didn't mean to do it. Are you telling me that if you mean to do something as compared to not meaning to do something should have the slightest bearing on an obvious infringement.

Well actually its whether or not he could have avoided touching the ball that is specifically mentioned in the laws. So its just whether or not you think Owens could have avoided the ball in that passage of play.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well actually its whether or not he could have avoided touching the ball that is specifically mentioned in the laws. So its just whether or not you think Owens could have avoided the ball in that passage of play.

Not sticking your arm up to catch it is probably a good start.

The Lions definitely got the rub of the green on big penalty calls in this match.

molloyjh

Basil3 wrote: »

laugh wrote: »

Do you have a clip?

His arm isn't just in his natural running position, he follows the ball and tries to catch it. It's an unfortunate mistake which should have been penalised, just like the one that the Lion's got at the end of the last test.

He pulls out of catching that and in the end didn't actually catch it at all.

The Jman

Am I the only person that's disappointed the Lions were happy to draw today instead of trying to win??

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

Not sticking your arm up to catch it is probably a good start.

The Lions definitely got the rub of the green on big penalty calls in this match.

No disagreement from me on that. ABs had some noticeably lucky calls as well, like Lawes "knocking on" 15 meters out, but some key decisions at big moments from the Lions.

irishbucsfan

The Jman wrote: »

Am I the only person that's disappointed the Lions were happy to draw today instead of trying to win??

What makes you think the Lions were happy to draw?

Augme

Pretty obvious from the clip the ball didn't just fall into his arms accidentally.

CurryFlavoured

It's a tricky call. There is obvious intention to catch the ball, I mean it's reactionary but his arms don't magically curve around the ball. But at the same time, he drops it almost instantly and doesn't effect play at all. It was a really weird situation.

Williams is lucky he didn't lose them the game.

laugh

Basil3 wrote: »

His arm isn't just in his natural running position, he follows the ball and tries to catch it. It's an unfortunate mistake which should have been penalised, just like the one that the Lion's got at the end of the last test.

Yea I was wrong, he did change what his arm was doing as a reaction to where the ball was going.

molloyjh

Basil3 wrote: »

Not sticking your arm up to catch it is probably a good start.

The Lions definitely got the rub of the green on big penalty calls in this match.

And NZ got away with some too. Numerous neck rolls, being in front of kickers etc. This "no we were more hard done by by the ref" thing some people are partaking in is petty and daft.

PhlegmyMoses

The Jman wrote: »

Am I the only person that's disappointed the Lions were happy to draw today instead of trying to win??

Almost certainly, because nobody actually thinks that the Lions were happy to draw.

CMOTDibbler

The Jman wrote: »

Am I the only person that's disappointed the Lions were happy to draw today instead of trying to win??

I don't think they were happy. Warburton certainly wasn't in his post match interview. Both captains were a bit meh about the result.

Buer

Well, they're both losers.

Joking aside, superb tour from a Lions perspective. Hansen and NZ will be gutted with that. 3-0 was the target here.

Not a great game and NZ blew multiple chances to kill it off. Some great pressure and physicality to force some of those errors but still very disappointing error count from them.

Farrell kicked like a dream but his general play was very poor. Error strewn and he was clearly targeted in defence to great effect.

Bit of a weird anti climax in many ways but will take that. Jonathan Davies was a deserved man of the match from a Lions perspective. His defensive reading was generally very good. Bit in for the second try though.

First time I watched a test in this series on Sky. They're genuinely pathetic. There has to be an agreement not to criticise any English players. Not a word about the intercept from Farrell which was utterly bizarre. A game changer.

The Jman

CMOTDibbler wrote:

I don't think they were happy. Warburton certainly wasn't in his post match interview. Both captains were a bit meh about the result.

To go for the three points with a couple of minutes to go instead of kicking to the corner is what makes me think they were happy to draw it. Id be much happier to see them go down swinging trying to win the game rather than the series ending in a meh draw

CMOTDibbler

Buer wrote: »

First time I watched a test in this series on Sky. They're genuinely pathetic. There has to be an agreement not to criticise any English players. Not a word about the intercept from Farrell which was utterly bizarre. A game changer.

Yeah, but they hardly criticise any player. Far too sycophantic imo.

shootermacg

laugh wrote: »

Yea I was wrong, he did change what his arm was doing as a reaction to where the ball was going.

That's a yellow for me, absolutely clattered Williams in the air.

molloyjh

Buer wrote: »

Well, they're both losers.

Joking aside, superb tour from a Lions perspective. Hansen and NZ will be gutted with that. 3-0 was the target here.

Not a great game and NZ blew multiple chances to kill it off. Some great pressure and physicality to force some of those errors but still very disappointing error count from them.

Farrell kicked like a dream but his general play was very poor. Error strewn and he was clearly targeted in defence to great effect.

Bit of a weird anti climax in many ways but will take that. Jonathan Davies was a deserved man of the match from a Lions perspective. His defensive reading was generally very good. Bit in for the second try though.

First time I watched a test in this series on Sky. They're genuinely pathetic. There has to be an agreement not to criticise any English players. Not a word about the intercept from Farrell which was utterly bizarre. A game changer.

Maybe they're auditioning for BT?

Tigerandahalf

Looking at that replay is it possible there was no offside line as Liam Williams didn't touch the ball with his hand. It seemed to hit off of his shoulder?

Edit - it did hit off of his arm. But I think accidental offside was the right call. Lucky man he dropped it.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

And NZ got away with some too. Numerous neck rolls, being in front of kickers etc. This "no we were more hard done by by the ref" thing some people are partaking in is petty and daft.

Of course if you want to go into every possible situation in a match, you'd have a field day with both sides. I'm referring to the two big penalty decisions that resulted in a 6 point swing on the score at the end.

Lawes got Crockett in a leg lock around his neck and he couldn't free himself from the back of the ruck. When it comes out, the penalty is milked. Nothing Crockett could realistically do about it, but hey....that's rugby.

That, coupled with the final decision where a penalty was actually given, and then downgraded, you'd have to feel very harshly done by as an AB's supporter.

Still an enjoyable match, even if the first half was very frustrating with the lack of a cutting edge for the All Blacks.

Hastentoadd

molloyjh wrote: »

And NZ got away with some too. Numerous neck rolls, being in front of kickers etc. This "no we were more hard done by by the ref" thing some people are partaking in is petty and daft.

I assume you are including me in this mollyjh. I have said what I will say on this. That aside it felt a bit of a letdown to have the series squared. Extra-time, whatever, but after watching the series, for nobody to actually win it just left me feeling blaaahhh

CMOTDibbler

The Jman wrote: »

To go for the three points with a couple of minutes to go instead of kicking to the corner is what makes me think they were happy to draw it. Id be much happier to see them go down swinging trying to win the game rather than the series ending in a meh draw

I'm a strong believer in taking your points, so I wouldn't criticise them for that. Especially when they'd had trouble in the lineout.

Chris Robshaw was rightly criticised for doing what you're suggesting on two separate occasions.

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Buer wrote: »

First time I watched a test in this series on Sky. They're genuinely pathetic. There has to be an agreement not to criticise any English players. Not a word about the intercept from Farrell which was utterly bizarre. A game changer.

Yeah, but they hardly criticise any player. Far too sycophantic imo.

Ah they usually would offer up a bit more. I'd have expected Barnes to say something like "Farrell hasn't been at his best" which he hasn't been afraid to say in the past.