[2018 Rugby Championship] Round 3: New Zealand v Argentina (08/09/2018)

[Nubiwan]

I think NMS has had his day, he is skilled but too slow plus that glaring defensive error for the first try.
I had picked Solomon Alaimalo in my squad, he'll be there one day. Maybe Hanson sticking with experience for WC.

First try was a thing of beauty by the Pumas winger. Kick fade then in an out of 3 players untouched. No mean feat against some well fancied defenders. I swear he handed back a few AB jock straps on his way back to the half way line.

 

[Nubiwan]

Vaea Fifita hurdled Piers Francis a couple of years ago for Counties Manakau with no repercussions. It was a clean jump straight over as Francis was crouched to make the tackle. If he'd stood up he would've taken a boot to the face, but it's not like there's any comfortable ways to tackle Fifita at full noise.

Is there not a law stating you cannot jump a tackler? Been a while since I laced up a pair of boots (in anger) so laws might have changed.

 

[Iron Lion Zion]

Reality says we'll never know and now have to wait at least another 11 years for the next series. Different set of players on both sides. Maybe Maro for the Lions could survive- but he'd be at what 34.

That's right, I agree with you. My response was tongue and cheek. What I was pointing out while stirring the pot is the only thing that matters is what actually happened on the field. Psychology wins first, skills and talent 2nd. Two teams who did not play to their absolute best because each team went to war and the approach psychology changed. New Zealanders loved it, it wasn't the result both sides wanted but it was a fair reflection and dare i say the benefit to the AB's from that series is showing now!. All Blacks for all their superstars etc couldn't finish the Lions off and Lions for all their superstars couldn't overcome the ABs. Could of been, should of been, would of been is still not true reality.

It will go down as one of the most intense test series in years and one I respect even more each day that goes on with all these easy AB wins. It was special and exploited the AB's weaknesses they needed to fix.

 

[mania]

It will go down as one of the most intense test series in years and one I respect even more each day that goes on with all these easy AB wins. It was special and exploited the AB's weaknesses they needed to fix.

toats
especially now that we know the ABs were their usual and the Lions really stuck to them.
gatland achieved what no one thought he could. yet still he gets shouted down that he shouldve won. as if beating the ABs in NZ was ever going to be easy,

 

[Kiwiwomble]

we cant say jumping over a player is illegal at the same time we're protecting players jumping for a kicked ball, surely its either the player in the air needs to be protected or players should be penalised for putting themselves or other players in a dangerous position

 

[Derpus]

we cant say jumping over a player is illegal at the same time we're protecting players jumping for a kicked ball, surely its either the player in the air needs to be protected or players should be penalised for putting themselves or other players in a dangerous position

Er what, it's both. You can legally jump for a ball that was kicked or passed to you in an attempt to catch it but you obviously cannot intentionally jump a tackler as that would be dangerous play.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

There arent and that is why international rugby is on its arse and sinking further into the mud by the day.

Let's wait and see how the Autumn goes. New Zealand haven't played the world number 2 since their record winning streak, I don't think they've played the world number 3 since 2017 either unless Australia had a week or two their at some point. They'll face 4 and 2 in consecutive weeks away in November having travelled from Japan the week before. If they win these games at a canter then it's time to get worried, if not then the problem only lies down South and there'll still be two or three sides in the world capable of beating NZ, they're just in a different hemisphere than normal.

 

[FrenchFan]

Let's wait and see how the Autumn goes. New Zealand haven't played the world number 2 since their record winning streak, I don't think they've played the world number 3 since 2017 either unless Australia had a week or two their at some point. They'll face 4 and 2 in consecutive weeks away in November having travelled from Japan the week before. If they win these games at a canter then it's time to get worried, if not then the problem only lies down South and there'll still be two or three sides in the world capable of beating NZ, they're just in a different hemisphere than normal.

Another run of meaningless test games in the autumn will not save international rugby. And NZ are heading the Harlem GlobeTrotters way - exhibition rugby.

 

[Derpus]

Let's wait and see how the Autumn goes. New Zealand haven't played the world number 2 since their record winning streak, I don't think they've played the world number 3 since 2017 either unless Australia had a week or two their at some point. They'll face 4 and 2 in consecutive weeks away in November having travelled from Japan the week before. If they win these games at a canter then it's time to get worried, if not then the problem only lies down South and there'll still be two or three sides in the world capable of beating NZ, they're just in a different hemisphere than normal.

Certainly not this year.

 

[Iron Lion Zion]

Let's wait and see how the Autumn goes. New Zealand haven't played the world number 2 since their record winning streak, I don't think they've played the world number 3 since 2017 either unless Australia had a week or two their at some point. They'll face 4 and 2 in consecutive weeks away in November having travelled from Japan the week before. If they win these games at a canter then it's time to get worried, if not then the problem only lies down South and there'll still be two or three sides in the world capable of beating NZ, they're just in a different hemisphere than normal.

The world number 2 has only beat the All Blacks once in the entire history of rugby. And it wasn't the number 1 All Blacks line up. Reality hit when they played the next week in Ireland in what was a shutout. world number 3 Wales was beaten 3 - 0 in their last test series with the All Blacks and the world number 4 England lost their last test series 2-1 to World number 7 South Africa who themselves have not beaten the All Blacks since 2014!

At the end of the day the truth is a scary motherf@cker to look at. All Blacks are simply the black plague of death.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The world number 2 has only beat the All Blacks once in the entire history of rugby. And it wasn't the number 1 All Blacks line up. Reality hit when they played the next week in Ireland in what was a shutout. world number 3 Wales was beaten 3 - 0 in their last test series with the All Blacks and the world number 4 England lost their last test series 2-1 to World number 7 South Africa who themselves have not beaten the All Blacks since 2014!

At the end of the day the truth is a scary motherf@cker to look at. All Blacks are simply the black plague of death.

Conveniently ignoring Ireland's injuries in the return game there... Anyway, Ireland were ranked about 6th in 2016 when they hammered ye, Wales weren't number 3 in 2016. NZ haven't played a side that, at the time of the match, were ranked 2nd since the RWC because Ireland or England have held that spot since England's series win in Australia, they played 3rd and 4th the odd time while SA and Aus were swapping between those spots but the highest ranked team they've beaten since the last RC was 5th at the time of the match and yet people are claiming total domination, they're the best side but that claim makes no sense to me at this time... Their test this year isn't the RC, it'll be November and all the factors that went against England in SA and Ireland in Australia (playing away from home three weeks in a row, fatigue at the end of the season against fresh sides etc...) will be against NZ this time.

So in conclusion while you are quick to say you have to beat the best to be the best, which is correct, you are pretty happy to ignore the fact that NZ haven't beaten the best sides after them when claiming total domination of rugby. If NZ sweep their Autumn internationals I'll admit their domination, it'll be undeniable, but I don't think they will.

 

[Iron Lion Zion]

Conveniently ignoring Ireland's injuries in the return game there... Anyway, Ireland were ranked about 6th in 2016 when they hammered ye, Wales weren't number 3 in 2016. NZ haven't played a side that, at the time of the match, were ranked 2nd since the RWC because Ireland or England have held that spot since England's series win in Australia, they played 3rd and 4th the odd time while SA and Aus were swapping between those spots but the highest ranked team they've beaten since the last RC was 5th at the time of the match and yet people are claiming total domination, they're the best side but that claim makes no sense to me at this time... Their test this year isn't the RC, it'll be November and all the factors that went against England in SA and Ireland in Australia (playing away from home three weeks in a row, fatigue at the end of the season against fresh sides etc...) will be against NZ this time.

So in conclusion while you are quick to say you have to beat the best to be the best, which is correct, you are pretty happy to ignore the fact that NZ haven't beaten the best sides after them when claiming total domination of rugby. If NZ sweep their Autumn internationals I'll admit their domination, it'll be undeniable, but I don't think they will.

You got me there, if only I had two consecutive world cup wins, favouritism for a third in a row world cup, and an undisputed best team of all time for well over 100+ years then maybe I have a case but alas, it seems the power of the mighty northern hemisphere teams will put the All Blacks record to the test and perhaps rest. Beyond the great wall the Irish, English and Welsh watchmen will protect world rugby from the invading black army to come. The welsh dragons will be released, the irish will send their leprechauns and the English will protect their king's landing. This may very well be the great defeat of the All Blacks and proper worthy of a true George Martin ending. After all the All Blacks have already killed off to many coaching characters for the story to go on!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Er what, it's both. You can legally jump for a ball that was kicked or passed to you in an attempt to catch it but you obviously cannot intentionally jump a tackler as that would be dangerous play.

this discussion is the first time i've ever heard someone suggest jumping over a player is illegal.....how does this work, if they're laying on the ground you have to run around them? wingers stride over diving tacklers all the time!

so, NOT dangerous to jump for a kick and bring your knees and boots close to head level of the players around you....IS dangerous to stride cleanly over someone prone on the ground...this game really is becoming F&$ked

 

[eidde]

this discussion is the first time i've ever heard someone suggest jumping over a player is illegal.....how does this work, if they're laying on the ground you have to run around them? wingers stride over diving tacklers all the time!

so, NOT dangerous to jump for a kick and bring your knees and boots close to head level of the players around you....IS dangerous to stride cleanly over someone prone on the ground...this game really is becoming F&$ked

Everything else I've found on it suggest that there is no specific rule around jumping into tackles. Referees seem to interpret it as they see it, and bring it under the general dangerous play rules.

Which opens a whole new can of worms, because if the player does something that's only dangerous to themselves (e.g. Jumping vertically with no attempt to evade or fend the tackler) who is at fault?

 

[Derpus]

this discussion is the first time i've ever heard someone suggest jumping over a player is illegal.....how does this work, if they're laying on the ground you have to run around them? wingers stride over diving tacklers all the time!

so, NOT dangerous to jump for a kick and bring your knees and boots close to head level of the players around you....IS dangerous to stride cleanly over someone prone on the ground...this game really is becoming F&$ked

It's dangerous to attempt to jump over a player trying to tackle you and is enforced that way. Here:



Not confusing at all. Seriously. If you are doing something that puts yourself in danger it can still be dangerous play.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

It's dangerous to attempt to jump over a player trying to tackle you and is enforced that way. Here:



Not confusing at all. Seriously. If you are doing something that puts yourself in danger it can still be dangerous play.

that's just not true though, players jump high and over groups of players to collect a high ball, they've but themselves in a dangerous position but they are protected under the rules

and for everyone punished id guess there was one applauded

Everything else I've found on it suggest that there is no specific rule around jumping into tackles. Referees seem to interpret it as they see it, and bring it under the general dangerous play rules.

Which opens a whole new can of worms, because if the player does something that's only dangerous to themselves (e.g. Jumping vertically with no attempt to evade or fend the tackler) who is at fault?

this is what im saying, its like the law makers dont follow a chain of thought to its possible conclusions before enacting it,

as ive said before i dont get why this would be punished as dangerous but jumping high above a group of players isn't and in fact that player is protected! i know which of those situations happens more often and which leads to more injuries

 

[Derpus]

that's just not true though, players jump high and over groups of players to collect a high ball, they've but themselves in a dangerous position but they are protected under the rules

and for everyone punished id guess there was one applauded




this is what im saying, its like the law makers dont follow a chain of thought to its possible conclusions before enacting it,

as ive said before i dont get why this would be punished as dangerous but jumping high above a group of players isn't and in fact that player is protected! i know which of those situations happens more often and which leads to more injuries

Maybe, i doubt at test level it would be let go.

I can't tell you what the thought processes behind the rules are but i can hazard a guess. I think both situations are dangerous but only one is easily resolved through a rule.

By saying you cant jump into a tackle you remove the dangerous situation without really changing the nature of the game. By saying you cant jump to compete for a kick or pass you would necessarily dramatically alter the nature of rugby. So rule one out and protect the other.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i wouldn't stop people jumping for the ball....just dont blame anyone that might happen to touch them if they get injured, id say in general less rules rather than more, if you jump then you need ot accept you're deciding to put yourself in a dangerous position.

i would still punish blatant tackles on people that jump but as soon as there is debate about "realistic chance of getting the ball" or analysing if the "tackler" should have anticipated what was going to happen then pay on

 

[Derpus]

i wouldn't stop people jumping for the ball....just dont blame anyone that might happen to touch them if they get injured, id say in general less rules rather than more, if you jump then you need ot accept you're deciding to put yourself in a dangerous position.

i would still punish blatant tackles on people that jump but as soon as there is debate about "realistic chance of getting the ball" or analysing if the "tackler" should have anticipated what was going to happen then pay on

Personal responsibility aint a thing in 2018 my man. Always someone else to blame.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

sad but true