All Blacks vs Wallabies, August 7th 2010, Fifth Tri Nations Test

[TRF_Cymro]

[BLINK]The Official Thread For the 5th Test Of The 2010 Tri Nations![/BLINK]

New Zealand: TBA

Australia: TBA​

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Mitchell and Cooper both missing, and in the All Blacks back yard doesn't bode well for the Wallabies

 

[Feicarsinn]

France by 20.

 

[Darwin]

Mitchell and Cooper both missing, and in the All Blacks back yard doesn't bode well for the Wallabies

Mitchell is available (unless he's been ruled out recently and I've missed it) - Rob Horne has been ruled out however. Its likely that AAC will move into centre, with either Shepherd or Beale coming into the outside backs (Beale would play at fullback, while I think Shepherd would play on the wing with O'Conner at fullback if selected).

Cowan is likely to be ruled out for the AB's - Weepu will be promoted to starting with Mathewson on the bench. The AB side is to be named today at 1pm NZT (about 2 hours away).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Mitchell is available (unless he's been ruled out recently and I've missed it).

Ah right, i just presumed he'd miss the next match because of his red

 

[Hurricane Nate]

Another 5 point bonus win to the AB's bar a miracle for the wallabies, i.e copious amounts of fog.

 

[Darwin]

ABs named: (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/3985723/Weepu-returns-to-All-Blacks-starting-lineup-against-Wallabies)
15 Mils Muliaina, 14 Cory Jane, 13 Conrad Smith, 12 Ma'a Nonu, 11 Joe Rokocoko, 10 Dan Carter, 9 Piri Weepu; 8 Kieran Read, 7 Richie McCaw, 6 Jerome Kaino, 5 Tom Donnelly, 4 Brad Thorn, 3 Owen Franks, 2 Keven Mealamu, 1 Tony Woodcock. Reserves: 16 Corey Flynn, 17 Ben Franks, 18 Sam Whitelock, 19 Victor Vito, 20 Alby Mathewson, 21 Aaron Cruden, 22 Benson Stanley.

Only surprise is to see Stanley on the bench ahead of Dagg (or Ranger) - perhaps Dagg will be released, allowing him to get some gametime for Hawkes Bay.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

i'm going out on a limb and will say that the wallabies will bounce back, although i rate weepu higher than cowan which might be a blessing in disguise for the all blacks. wallabies need to rearrange the backline with horne out but i don't think that will be an issue, as we've always had plenty of stock to choose from in the backs.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Ah right, i just presumed he'd miss the next match because of his red

fair presumption, but the review commitee have not suspended him, maybe it's the fact that he didn't actually do anything and craig joubert is a ******* attention seeking cocksucker.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, on the basis of that team, I'll make some predictions

1. All Blacks to win by 20+

2. Benson Stanley to sub on for Nonu, and Alby Mathewson to sub on for Weepu around the 60th minute. (subject to injuries of course).​

3. No yellow or red cards will be issued. I think the referees have set their stall out now. They are simply not gong to take any of the ****ly **** that has gone on in the first four matches.

If Deans and Henry have any sense whatsoever, they will have made it clear to their players not to put their fate in the hands of the officials. Its the same TO3 as the Melbourne match, so expect the match to be refereed that same way, very strict on no-arms, tip tackles and slowing the game down.

Ah right, i just presumed he'd miss the next match because of his red

Olyy, I doubt that a player would be suspended for getting a red card that was as a result of a second yellow on a "technical" infringement. Suspensions are almost always for dangerous play such as eye-poking, punching, stamping, head-butting etc... the really serious ****.

 

[Haysie]

OK, on the basis of that team, I'll make some predictions

1. All Blacks to win by 20+

2. Benson Stanley to sub on for Nonu, and Alby Mathewson to sub on for Weepu around the 60th minute. (subject to injuries of course).​

3. No yellow or red cards will be issued. I think the referees have set their stall out now. They are simply not gong to take any of the ****ly **** that has gone on in the first four matches.

If Deans and Henry have any sense whatsoever, they will have made it clear to their players not to put their fate in the hands of the officials. Its the same TO3 as the Melbourne match, so expect the match to be refereed that same way, very strict on no-arms, tip tackles and slowing the game down.




Olyy, I doubt that a player would be suspended for getting a red card that was as a result of a second yellow on a "technical" infringement. Suspensions are almost always for dangerous play such as eye-poking, punching, stamping, head-butting etc... the really serious ****.

U/19s (Which I believe is now U/20's?) Law is that if you are red carded then you are suspended for the next game indefinitely. This may be where the mix up is occuring.

 

[redeye]

fair presumption, but the review commitee have not suspended him, maybe it's the fact that he didn't actually do anything and craig joubert is a ******* attention seeking cocksucker.

I couldn't agree more. Imagine if he had of been outed for a week or more over that. Tiddlywinks indeed.

 

[redeye]

Shepherd coming into that backline will give it much needed bulk?

 

[smartcooky]

fair presumption, but the review commitee have not suspended him, maybe it's the fact that he didn't actually do anything and craig joubert is a ******* attention seeking cocksucker.

Jeez mate, what have you been smoking?


Firstly, there is no "review committee", and in any case he wasn't cited so there was no DP

Secondly, as if knocking over a player late (and without the ball) isn't enough, he then does exactly what he was warned not to do, right in full view of the referee. He's a dumb-fvck if you ask me.

Also, this, from Mitchell himself, talking about his early try and what happened afterwards

"It's hard for me to take any joy from that at the moment, watching the game unfold the way it did is not a pleasant feeling,"

"It was gut-wrenching. I let everyone down out there and it's not a nice feeling."

Strange words for a person who "didn't actually do anything"!!!

Thirdly, Joubert is one of the best referees in world rugby, If he keeps with his current form, you can expect him to referee the RWC final if South Africa is not involved

 

[redeye]

Who's smoking what?

"Mitchell was cleared on Sunday of further penalty by SANZAR judicial officer Peter Ingwersen who deemed his 48 minutes off Etihad Stadium was sufficient punishment for his two yellow cards in the 49-28 loss to New Zealand."

And if you think the first Mitchell offence was truly a yellow card then you have the wrong avatar.

 

[Sam Owen]

fair presumption, but the review commitee have not suspended him, maybe it's the fact that he didn't actually do anything and craig joubert is a ******* attention seeking cocksucker.

I dont know why but your description of Joubert cracks me up lol...its great Mitchell isnt suspended the judicary saw it right IMO. I picked correctly last week so Im gonna go with the All Blacks again this week and Im thinking it might be a close game.

 

[smartcooky]

Who's smoking what?

"Mitchell was cleared on Sunday of further penalty by SANZAR judicial officer Peter Ingwersen who deemed his 48 minutes off Etihad Stadium was sufficient punishment for his two yellow cards in the 49-28 loss to New Zealand."

So I was right!

1. there is no review committee,( because there is NO SUCH THING as a "review committee" in this context). There is only a Citing Commissioner, an entirely different process.

2. he was not cited because he got a red card, but it is rare that a player who receives a red for a technical second yellow gets suspended. I have never seen it happen in years of playing, refereeing and watching rugby union.

And if you think the first Mitchell offence was truly a yellow card then you have the wrong avatar.

The Yellow Card for Franks set the standard. Joubert gave him a yellow card for "no arms" and could hardly not bin Mitchell (on Kaplan's " no arms" tackle recommendation) after he had just binned Franks for exactly that. If he didn't, people like you would be asking where the consistency is?

So Mitchell's offence WAS a yellow card within the context of that match; however, IMO, if Joubert had seen it himself, he probably would have only awarded a penalty. You are not suggesting that it wasn't at least a penalty, are you?

 

[redeye]

So I was right!

1. there is no review committee,( because there is NO SUCH THING as a "review committee" in this context). There is only a Citing Commissioner, an entirely different process.

2. he was not cited because he got a red card, but it is rare that a player who receives a red for a technical second yellow gets suspended. I have never seen it happen in years of playing, refereeing and watching rugby union.

That's being a bit of a pendant don't you think? Same or very similar process. But you can be right if you like.

The Yellow Card for Franks set the standard. Joubert gave him a yellow card for "no arms" and could hardly not bin Mitchell (on Kaplan's " no arms" tackle recommendation) after he had just binned Franks for exactly that. If he didn't, people like you would be asking where the consistency is?

So Mitchell's offence WAS a yellow card within the context of that match; however, IMO, if Joubert had seen it himself, he probably would have only awarded a penalty. You are not suggesting that it wasn't at least a penalty, are you?

So you're saying on one hand he had to give it to be consistent, and on the other he wouldn't have if he had seen it. Can't have it both ways.

On the penalty question. If it was against my team I wouldn't have been that happy. If Richie had of hit Mitchell like that and a penalty was called I probably would have screamed abuse at the screen and then sat down thinking it may have been a tad late. I'd call it a groan penalty.

But it was a crap yellow, and it directly led to spoiling a game.

 

[admartian]

That's being a bit of a pendant don't you think? Same or very similar process. But you can be right if you like.



So you're saying on one hand he had to give it to be consistent, and on the other he wouldn't have if he had seen it. Can't have it both ways.

On the penalty question. If it was against my team I wouldn't have been that happy. If Richie had of hit Mitchell like that and a penalty was called I probably would have screamed abuse at the screen and then sat down thinking it may have been a tad late. I'd call it a groan penalty.

But it was a crap yellow, and it directly led to spoiling a game.

But I doubt you'd call Owen Franks' yellow 'crap' would you, though?

Both were soft, but he had to enforce what he had said. I would prefer that, over inconsistent referees, where you don't know what you're gonna get each call. You just have to have a SMART team/captain, to know how to adjust to how the game is being called for that particular match.

Rocky/Dingo Deans/Wallabies couldn't, and they paid for it.

Joubert was forced his hand.

End of. :roll:

 

[InsaneAsylum]

sorry to start a war, review commitee or not I always have and will always think the same of joubert and would tell him to his face, i haven't formed the opinion after saturday's match. i might further agravate people by saying this, but the northern hemisphere referee's that were appointed to the pre trinations test and those that did the first three tri nations tests were awesome. they let the game of rugby play out as it should be, i'd like to see joubert do the same, but then again the camera wouldn't be on him and he might get jealous.