All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
No abdolutely not. Owens whistled try and then almost instantly had Veldsman in his Comms saying he wanted to look at the obstruction.
And he then advised the players.
I saw the obstruction in real time and expected Owens to see it as it was quite blatant and Savea also let everyone know, so I was disappointed them almost instantly soothed ..... by Owens sing sing voice telling players they were killing at something.
Actually just watching this on the sky replay. And my version is not right.
It wasn't instant, it was after about 2 replays on the big screen (and crowd have a cheer when Owens gave the double whistle) .
But it was Veldsman's interjection. Owens words were (to Foley) "hold the conversion, I have a Tmo call, a check. Tell me what I'm looking at ...."
-
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The replay - regardless of the big screen at the ground - would be right in front of Veldsman
As you say, there were two replays between Owens whistling the try, and the stoppage to check more replays.
Now that is what people should be up in arms about. Not the decision itself.
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The replay - regardless of the big screen at the ground - would be right in front of Veldsman
As you say, there were two replays between Owens whistling the try, and the stoppage to check more replays.
Yes. Didn't mean to imply Veldsman was watching the bigscreen. But think he missed it live and picked it up on the replays (in his booth).
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Now that is what people should be up in arms about. Not the decision itself.
Yeah. Like that guy wrote in the blog post over on GAGR about TMO Protocols, the influence of the home broadcaster, and whether it could all use a little tweaking to ensure situations like this and the RWC2015 England / Fiji thing are properly scrutinised.
@canefan said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rapido right, so at least it was instigated by the TMO and not Owens
Yes. Though its worth noting that if Owens - or either of the Touch Judges - saw it on the big screen before the conversion, he could have asked for a review.
-
@Tregaskis said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Cheika's ranting is serving a purpose. It's preparing us for an avalanche of whinging next year from the Lions and, in particular, their media.
He will also be planting the seeds for the series next year with his players, I would be surprised if it is not used in the build up next year.
-
He did 3 box kicks in positions you would expect him to. Nothing more.
I just think in that first half, we had so little ball, probably the least we have had all year in a half.
We weren't doing multiple phase after phase plays. Even the fries were off a charge down, a line out and the first was off a few phases.
It's hard for a 10 to get himself into a game like that for sure but he was largely anonymous apart from the missed kicks.
He kicked well from hand and made some tackles (although missed one in the lead up to the aus try)
It was comfortably his worst performance of the year largely due to him. Or really doing anything positive apart from shuffle on what ball he had.
Probably just a one off as it was an unusual performance from the rest of the side
-
Rod Kafer column: Nigel Owens was very poor and changed the course of the Test match
Source: FOX SPORTS
IN the heat of battle on Saturday night I said that Nigel Owens should never referee a Test again.
Well, on reflection, I think that Nigel should get the opportunity to referee again, because I’m sure he’d like to do a better job.
I do regret saying that, because he has been a great servant to the game, but I thought that his performance was very poor that night.
Australia has got a particularly poor record with Nigel as a referee and I didn’t think that All Blacks 37, Wallabies 10 was reflective of how close the game was.
Key moments in games can have a massive impact on the result and the Henry Speight no-try decision was a key moment.
MY SIDELINE EYE
I was sitting on the Eden Park 22m line for that incident and in the lead-up to that break, Kieran Read changed his line to block Dane Haylett-Petty.
Both Read and Julian Savea grab Haylett-Petty but the Kiwi crowd was incensed as the host broadcaster kept showing replays of the Haylett-Petty/Savea contact on the big screen.
They don’t go back two seconds before to show that it should have been advantage to Australia because Haylett-Petty was pulled back.
EVEN THE KIWIS THOUGHT IT STUNK
I went back and listened to the New Zealand commentary and had a beer with Justin Marshall afterwards — he was adamant that it was a try.
Their whole commentary team thought it was a try — they couldn’t believe the try was overturned.
Jonathan Kaplan came out, everyone believed it was a try — there was no chance Savea was going to make that tackle.
Shoulder on shoulder, behind the ball, it’s not obstruction.
NOT THE ONLY HOWLER
Making matters worse was the fact that a Savea try was allowed to stand after Scott Sio had his heels clipped by Aaron Cruden.
I thought both the Speight and Savea tries should have been awarded but where is the consistency?
Sio was in a position to pick that ball up but there were no replays at the ground and all of a sudden Cruden has kicked the conversion before the referee and TMO Shaun Veldsman can review it.
Cruden’s trip was accidental but he obstructed a player by changing his line and to a player who was going for the ball.
You can’t apply the law on one instance, when it suits the All Blacks and the local crowd, and not apply it in the same game, 10 minutes later for the other team.
MY TAKE ON CLOWN-GATE
The All Blacks aren’t in control of what the media write, but they’ve got a close relationship with the New Zealand Herald.
There are stories in the Herald that are very closely linked to the All Blacks — but I’m not suggesting they had anything to do with that Michael Cheika clown cartoon.
It’s a bit of foolish fun but I was also disappointed with the ‘Richetty Grub’ dig at Richie McCaw in Australian papers last year.
I don’t think that’s respectful to one of the great players of the game.
I’ve been a great supporter of McCaw’s over the years, he’s one of the greatest footballers I’ve ever had the privilege to watch.
This is an amazing All Blacks team but rugby probably doesn’t need this sideshow.
REASONS FOR HOPE
All of the drama has overshadowed what was a much improved performance by the Wallabies.
We had seven players with less than nine caps in our starting XV which is remarkably inexperienced.
They played with no fear and were in the contest, right up until the Speight no-try.
I know people will say we got beaten by 27 points — but moments like that in Test matches can change momentum.
This Wallabies team were very close.
We tested the All Blacks like they haven’t been tested for some time and that’s a really good sign.
I’ve got a lot of hope for the tour of Europe.
-
As I said earlier. I really hope DHP took the opportunity to pop in pre-emptively to the refs to apologise for the unhinged bile bound to head their way for his own low percentage action.
That's slightly better from Kafe but still a pretty measly explanation / extraction of his Hastingsesque commentary and disrespect to officials for making a correct call. Actually is still pretty condescending to Owens.
-
Oh boo fucken hoo.
Perhaps if the Wallabies have got a very poor record under the best referee in the world, they should take a bit of a look at how they play the game, rather than moan about the ref? On the other hand, our poor record under Barnes is because he's obviously an asshat.
-
If Cruden did truly manage to trip up Sio in the split second he had to realise that that option was there and then to actually execute it he's pretty awesome imho, especially doing it without even looking down to see where Sios feet are.
Bravo you little bogan hobbit hybrid.
-
Late to the party. But the thing that stood out to me most watching the game was -
"How good / much"
I lost count of the number of times Smith & Justin asked each other "How good is Ben Smith?", "How much is ALB liking test rugby" "How good was that try", "How much did the ABs need that" "How good was that catch?" "How big was that tackle?" "How fat am I since I stopped playing cricket?", "How little did I prepare for this test" "How much much of this comentary is Nisbo saying stuff & me repeating the last thing he said, but louder?"
It got to the stage I was actually waiting to see what Smithy or Justin would ponder the how of next. Turned out it was "How good is the NZ bench"
-
Bit disingenuous from Kafer. When he had his on air meltdown he didn't mention or probably even know about the initial grab from Reid. He kept banging on about how you can do "anything you like" if you're behind the ball.
Interesting none of my mates here (who can be Wallaby boofheads at the best of times) had an issue with it. To them it was inconsequential when you get done by 27 points (including missed kicks and disallowed tries which would have blown the score out even more) and the likelihood of Aus defending that lead for 30 minutes was slim at best.
Personally I thought some of that forward play was pretty fookin impressive. Big munters eating up the yards and showing more heart than a million Coopers. The big question is whether they will have the gas to sustain it going forward. If they play like that up north I cant see anyone beating them.
-
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Jesus, the way you're banging on you'd think we were getting hammered and severely under the cosh. But the abs were farking leading at half time and if BB had had his kicking boots on the buffer would have been rather healthy. So you have a team that has scored 3 tries to 1 and is leading at the break and you reckon that's a poor reflection on the flyhalf, who has had little ball to work with?
I'm sure BB would have become much more involved as the game wore on, but it's absurd to criticise him for a first half performance when the abs scored 3 tries with 35% possession. But I'm sure if he put his head down and took the ball to the line those stats would look so much better and the forwards would start winning the collisions and making tackles.
No, I said I didn't think Barrett's general play was as influential as it has been previously and it might be an insight into his ability to take control of a game where his forwards are getting beaten. Then I pointed out that other first fives in history have been able to do that in similar situations and that probably comes with experience.
For the 1,000th time, what was he supposed to have done any differently in the time he was on the park and given the lack of possession? When have other first fives in the history of the game altered the tactics and game plan in the first half to "take control" of a game?
Your one and only suggestion was that he take on the line. With all due respect, that's pretty weak.
Had he stayed on the park he may well have ended up scoring a hat trick. But we'll never know because he was replaced so early.
