• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Test Match 2: All Blacks v British & Irish Lions (Wellington)

You're an idiot I was explaining why you can't retroactively give someone a citing for a YC offence...read the thread of the posts your are quoting...
Hey no need to resort to insults. Im not sure if you're allowed to insult other posters on this forum but you need to chill out because thats a response of defeat.

Read the posts Ive written in our discussion, 99% of them is about 'O'Brien being cited' NOT 'retroactive ban'. Read my posts, it says 'O'Brien being cited' over and over again and you failed to understand that. Shall we bring up our traded posts to PROVE my claims of what I was talking about? Shall we PROVE it?

You only mentioned 'retroactive ban' once and now you're making it out to be the topic of our traded posts? really? first you didn't sound like you knew O'Brien was being cited and now we're talking about 'retroactive ban'? lol.
 
Last edited:
Just caught the game not knowing the result - kept wanting to jump on here and have a rant but didn't want to know the final result!

So many conflicting feelings; delighted with the win, disappointed that Howland didn't get the knock-out punch it desperately has coming to it. Pleased with the intensity shown by our guys but furious about the lack of discipline. Worried about next week but also excited.
Lions made desperately hard work of winning that game but in the last 20 minutes it felt like we moved something forward and I hope we can continue with that momentum.

Anyone who watches rugby knows its not always so easy to break down a team of 14 men. England showed it against Argentina in the autumn and it's particularly the case in the conditions we had yesterday. That's not to say we shouldn't have done better against the 14men, but rather the reasons we didn't break New Zealand down were that we didn't do the things you'd need to do against any number of opposition players - such as hold onto the ball, stay onside, not tackle late, and not kick the ball dead.

For this reason I don't think the lions need to be drawn into thinking "we only just beat 15 men". It happened that we scored quite a few of our points when it was 14 on 14. The fact that we didn't take advantage of the situation is worrying but definitely rectifiable. If anything I think the lions panicked at the prospect of suddenly being the favourites, and couldn't play naturally until it came to a critical point. When we did, we reaped the rewards. (note: we played better when forced to deviate from the core gameplan)

Whilst the all-blacks may cut themselves some slack for not winning the final score, you can be sure they won't cut themselves any slack for losing the contact with the lions. The people saying the lions were terrible are missing the huge increase in intensity in the tackle area from the first to the second test. We were dominant in the contact area even early on, and that's nothing to do with having a man advantage. Obviously the all-blacks fatigued earlier but as I say, the lions set out their stall early on and this will have pleased Gatland. This is possibly what he meant when he said we were the better team even with 15 men against 14.

What worries me is that the Howland gameplan gets another roll of the dice now, when what it honestly deserved yesterday was a knock-out punch. I don't believe the gameplan itself has really got us anywhere this series, in fact we've done the best things when we've allowed ourselves to play what is in front of us. Those tries yesterday came from players taking the initiative, and the freedom to do so only came because we were within 20 minutes of losing the test series a week early. The all-blacks have shown they are more than capable of handling our kicking game, our set-piece and our general pressure game(is alone surprised?). Where we've made gains is in introducing more variation to our play including willingness to spread the ball earlier.

Personally I'm somewhat also worried by several players. Itoje needs to reduce his penalty count. He had just about a good enough game yesterday to make up for the fact that he was living offside yesterday. Mako Vunipola had a bit of a mare. Actually I think what happened is he got pinged for going off his feet, seemingly unfairly, and never seemed to reset his attitude. In those games you've got to be able to wipe your mental slate clean but I think he felt alienated by the referee, and I was really glad to see him permanently replaced my McGrath - who by the way I would like to see start next week. It would be missing th point to say that Sam Warburton warranted his selection but I think he had a decent game and led the contact area and breakdown compeititon very well - we were hugely improved in those areas and if it weren't for French refereeings general apathy towards breakdown competition in general, we might have earned some more meat there (both teams might have). On this point, I'm extremely surprised to hear BODs comments (as quoted by muffin). They seem out of character and not entirely constructive.

Alun-Wyn again seemed quiet and was outperformed by Lawes who by now really deserves a test start but won't be getting it. SOB was monstrous again and will be sorely missed next week if banned. I liked our use of him in the backline. Faletau continues to be quiet but again he's routinely making the most tackles and when given the opportunity he shows he's just about the most skilful forward we have with ball in hand. Apart from Mako I'm happy with how the front-row is doing. George was huge on defence.

Murray didn't have a great game but made up for it to an extent with that try. I was pleased with the 10 - 12 axis and Jonathan Davies did some decent things. This said, he can be really slow at times to recognise space opening up before him and although he generally makes the right decisions, he doesn't make use of space in the way that Joseph does. The back 3 are there to provide as much solidity as possible in both kicking, high ball and defence; it just happens to coincide with the fact that they are also 3 of the most exciting attacking players we have. Currently we're seeing very little of that. Watson has been the best winger on tour by a distance, continuing to deal with anything thrown at him. Daly was ok, but Williams' high ball work has left a lot to be desired. I'm close to 100% that despite our backline flaws, the unit will remain the same going into new week.

I wouldn't rate our chances going into next week very high but it would be silly to suggest we can't win. The problem is nothing has happened quickly enough on this tour. We've consistently been a little behind where we should have been development wise and discipline has taken too long to come together. The gameplan hasn't been good or flexible enough and there has not been enough emphasis on rolling the dice with ball in hand. Keeping the opponent guessing is important because the All-Blacks will generally be able to deal with our set-piece strengths and kicking pressure game. To stand a decent chance next week the coaches have to identify NOW what has worked and what wasn't, our discipline has to improve significantly, and our handling needs to keep improving. Knowing when to offload and when not to is something we haven't cracked yet but will have to in the next week.

The final judgement of Gatlands 2017 tour can still vary hugely. if we are comfortably beaten next week, the second test win will be roundly written off as a blip resulting from the SBW sending off. Whereas if we can somehow win the next game, no-one except Skilinerd will be able to write off the accomplishment.
 
Last edited:
Let's have a look at was written the conversation is about the citing itself. I say this in my opening post.
Anyone know roughly when the SOB verdict will come in? Apparently the citation commision started about an hour ago.

I'll be honest I'm surprised he's been cited while Vunipola was let off. I can only assume that it's due to Nahalo needing a HIA (conflicting reports on if he passed or failed). To me it's a yellow as his arm has a reason to be there but I'll wait and see.
The conversation meanders a bit and I state why I think it should be a YC offence.
Its a matter of the play it's a contact sport you won't mitigate every hit to the head. Otherwise we'll have red cards every match. SBW has no legitimate reason to why he didn't use his arms (which is the main factor to it being a Red card). SOB was using his arms and what he was trying to do was in the realms of the laws on the game. He should of been given a yellow card for it but it's level of difference why the incident occurs that warrants a different approach.
You appear to agree with me it's a YC offence but think because of the injury on the play it should result in a ban.
The thing is for me is now that we know Naholo became concussed as a result of SOBs contact to the head, and wasn't binned for that, he should be suspended for this weeks game. That way no one gets away with it.
I explain that a citing is for red card offence and basically if you believe it to be a YC you can't get banned for it.
Your problem there is a citing is for a Red card offence and possible warranting of a ban. You don't get retroactive bans for a YC offence. All you get is a caution.

So I'll yeah great taking posts out of context.
 
My point all along was that - 'O'Brien was reported by the media as being cited', thats it.

This is what really led us up to the point we are now in disagreement. All points discussed before was civil. We were cool with the 'retroactive ban' thing and thats why it wasn't discussed any further. Our discussion as of this point, got to where it is now because of YOUR failure to understand my point. Here is the proof which are the LATEST posts traded just before you started the insult....
Yup so the citing commissioner says it should of been a Red card. SOB is contesting that right now....I fail to see your point?
My point is simple, the media suggests SOB has been cited lol. Its plain reading.
The point in bold is all I was saying. but you still don't get me as we see here...
I have literally no idea what you on about....
Im just saying the media reports has said that O'Brien has been cited.
My point above in bold re-iterated again.
I did know he'd been cited....I have zero idea what your point is...
My point is simple, the media reported he was being cited. Thats it! Easy as.
You're an idiot...
Oh so now Im the idiot lol.

Your post underneath doesn't sound like you knew he was being cited...
For.it to be a citing the citing comissioner has to belive it was a red card offence.
But you later said in a later post that you did know. I'm just saying that post does sound like you didn't. I hope you can see that.
 
Last edited:
UGH but your not making a point with it you keep banging on about how hes been cited and it it's not up for dispute he has been. You then say it was because you thought I didn't know he was cited....I did and it's in very FIRST post on the matter.
 
UGH but your not making a point with it you keep banging on about how hes been cited and it it's not up for dispute he has been. You then say it was because you thought I didn't know he was cited....I did and it's in very FIRST post on the matter.
Your very first post doesn't sound like you did know but you say you did and I can't argue there. Your syntax was poor in your first post that Ive bolded throughout as it can be easily misinterpreted. I hate to play the grammar cop as I often make errors.
For.it to be a citing the citing comissioner has to belive it was a red card offence.
All I was saying in relation to the post above, is that the media reported O'Brien as being cited. Thats all.

Im not happy he got off but Im not gutted either. Bring on All Blacks Lions at Eden Park!
 
That's not my first post this was (and you quoted it).

Anyone know roughly when the SOB verdict will come in? Apparently the citation commision started about an hour ago.

I'll be honest I'm surprised he's been cited while Vunipola was let off. I can only assume that it's due to Nahalo needing a HIA (conflicting reports on if he passed or failed). To me it's a yellow as his arm has a reason to be there but I'll wait and see.
 
Sorry you are right your quoted the post before it....must of read it though.
 
Interesting no caution either just dismissed so no cards were supposed to of been shown....alot of NZ fans aren't going to be happy with the result...
Yeah its not good but we can only hope that Naholo can play. If Naholo can't play due to a brain injury suffered by SOB then thats just annoying but come kick off, all this will be forgotten. For me anyway.
 
My God there is a lot of ignorance on this forum regarding citings, red cards etc. I suggest some of you need to read Regulation 17 from the WR website...

Link here : http://www.worldrugby.org/handbook/regulations/reg-17/reg-17

....so that, instead of spouting off stuff you know crap all about, you will be able to proceed from a position of actually knowing what you are talking about

I've explained it all several times before, I can't be bothered doing it again
 
Top