...you most likely won because of the card BUT you didn't win playing your best rugby, the 20 minutes after the first half were downright awful. This means there are still higher levels to achieve.
You also still scored two great tries (the better one of which was 14 v 14 so not due to having numbers).
I disagree on that.
Both tries were very soft, and I am 100% sure they would never have been allowed in by the AB's if they had a full complement of players. The 14 v 14 issue is irrelevant; the ABs had been playing with only 14 players in a high intensity game for 30 minutes in by the time that try was scored. The additional workload of defending with a player short was well and truly taking its toll by that time.
IMO, the red card
was the difference between the two sides. At the time the card was given, the AB's forwards were starting to dominate the Lions at scrum time and at the breakdown, but the card changed that when they decided to sacrifice a forward and give up their forward dominance. IMO, that was the correct decision by Hansen, because they backed themselves to be able to hold the Lions scrum with only seven forwards, and they did. The only mistake I think Hansen made was not bringing Kaino back on at 18-9 (he was entitled to because Kaino was subbed, not replaced, and they still had one sub left)
Unpopular opinion here but I actually think the ref was alright, the SBW card, while harsh is also consistent with those kind of tackles this year, it's been happening in SR all year and I'm fairly certain he will be cited as well.
Citing is automatic when you get a red card. The hearing is this afternoon. He'lget at least two weeks IMO
I had no real problems with Garces. The only things I think he got obviously wrong were
1. Vunipola should have got a red card (not a yellow card) for his shoulder to the head, with force, on Beauden Barrett (I've heard that Barrett will undergo concussion testing this morning, and might possibly be stood down next week. If this is true, then all the moronic asshats here who accused him of faking can get stuffed!)
2. There should have a been a penalty + yellow card for whoever delivered that cowardly swinging arm to Naholo's head.
The final tackle was harsh but to the letter of the law. You can argue that the law is wrong but you can't argue it was the wrong call. One or two bad calls but for the most part I thought he wasn't too bad. The AB's got away with one or two as well.
Yep, no problem with the ref giving that; I'm just arguing that the Law is wrong, and its a position I took when I first saw the
"protect the player in the air" edict when it was first introduced in 2015 shortly before Finn Russell got sent off in the Six Nations match between Scotland and Wales. This edict should not be applied when ball carriers jump, or players jump to catch a pass. The player who leaps high off the ground to catch a kick needs protection being from being taken out and flipped over, but a player who pops 30 cm off the ground to catch a pass does not..
If tackling a ball carrier who his of his feet is a penalty, then I look forward to the next time a player dives for the corner and gets tackled in the air into touch. To be consistent, that should result in the awarding of a penalty try and a yellow card.